Thursday, September 2, 2021

Australian police gets unrestricted powers to spy on citizens

The new conditions for easing lockdown were revealed a week after Australia passed a controversial bill giving police the ability to secretly seize and alter internet accounts.

Known as the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) bill, the legislation allows the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to take over, and modify or delete, the accounts of cybercriminal suspects.

Although authorities claim that the law will help crack down on pedophiles, terrorists and drug traffickers, many on social media expressed concern that the extensive powers were further evidence of Australia sliding into authoritarianism.

SURVEILLANCE STATE: “Identify and Disrupt” Bill will Give Australian Authorities Access to Any Citizen’s Social Media, Email Account Without Consent; Allow Them to Add, Delete Information and Send Messages
By Julian Conradson
August 29, 2021

If you were wondering what a tyrant like Stalin or Mao would do in the age of technology, take a look down under.

The Australian parliament passed unprecedented legislation that gives federal police near-unrestricted powers to spy on any Australian citizen – by gaining access to their social media and email accounts without their knowledge – if they have been ‘suspected of criminal activity.’

The totalitarian “Identify and Disrupt” bill creates 3 new types of “data disruption” warrants that the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission can use to copy, delete and modify content on individuals online accounts.

Federal authorities will be able to impersonate the account holder and send emails or messages to their online correspondents.

The measure easily passed the senate with sweeping support despite legislators failing to set up proper safeguards that were recommended by a bipartisan joint committee.

Warrants that are issued will not even need to be signed off by a judge or magistrate, they will only need to be issued by the government’s Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020is now awaiting Royal Assent. – Gizmodo reported.

According to the Guardian:

    On Tuesday, the home affairs minister, Karen Andrews, introduced amendments to implement some of the proposed safeguards, including a sunset clause so the new powers would expire after five years and stronger criteria to issue warrants.

    Andrews said the amendments would mean data disruption warrants would need to be “reasonably necessary and proportionate” and data disruption and account takeover warrants would need to specify the types of activities proposed to be carried out.

    The amendments were defeated, and the bill passed easily due to Labor’s support.

When the bill was first being introduced in August 2020, officials claimed the new overly-intrusive powers would “only” be used to target “serious offenses,” such as terrorism, drug trafficking, or child pornography.

Considering the state of things in Australia a year later  – with people being dragged out of their homes by Covid gestapo, Vax-entration camps being built to house dissenters, and anti-vax or anti-lockdown speech considered to be a crime of the highest order – their bar for “serious offenses” might be a little to easy to clear.

Kieran Pender, the top lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, spoke with The Guardian about the government’s “rushed” power grab”

    “[the bill’s powers] are unprecedented and extraordinarily intrusive, they should have been narrowed to what is strictly necessary and subject to robust safeguards”

    “It is alarming that, instead of accepting the committee’s recommendations and allowing time for scrutiny of subsequent amendments, the Morrison government rushed these laws through parliament in less than 24 hours”

Day by day, Australians are quickly turning into prisoners of the state and now their overlords have only tightened their grip by securing unbridled access to their private online activity.

Sadly, Australia has fallen.

Quantum computers will soon fit in your phone!

Quantum Brilliance has developed a diamond-based quantum computer that can run at room temperature and be miniaturised.

Breakthrough: Quantum computers will soon fit in your phone
By Maija Palmer
sifted, 25 August 2021

A quantum computer small enough to sit on your desk — or be embedded in a satellite, car or even a mobile phone — is no longer a pipe dream. The first such machines are actually starting to be delivered to early customers, thanks to advances in qubits created using synthetic diamonds.

“Most quantum computers are giant mainframes; these will eventually be small enough to be embedded in mobile devices.”

The technology received a vote of confidence from investors today, as 2 -year-old stealth startup Quantum Brilliance raised a nearly $10m seed funding round from a consortium of investors led by Main Sequence Ventures and the founders of QxBranch, the Australian quantum services company acquired by Rigetti.

The funding will speed the commercialisation of the technology, which Andrew Horsley, CEO of the Australian-German startup, says could dramatically change the way quantum computing can be used.

“It is simplifying the quantum computer and turning it into something that can sit in an ordinary server rack next to classical computers. Most quantum computers are giant mainframes; these will eventually be small enough to be embedded in mobile devices,” Horsley told Sifted. “The miniaturisation potential is huge.”

So is the volume of quantum computers that could be created using this technique.

    “We are thinking about volumes in millions.”

“We are thinking about volumes in millions, not the thousands that people talk about with quantum computers based on superconducting,” said Marcus Doherty, chief science officer.

Quantum Brilliance delivered its first system to the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre in Australia earlier this year and is beginning to ship to other commercial customers.
Room-temperature quantum computers

Quantum Brilliance is developing quantum computers based on synthetic diamonds, which don’t need temperatures close to absolute zero or complex laser systems to operate. It is in stark contrast to the superconducting quantum systems developed by big companies like Google, IBM and Rigetti which need large and energy-hungry cooling systems to keep them at a temperature colder than interstellar space.

Trapped ion computing systems, such as those created by Honeywell and IonQ, have the potential to be smaller, but even the smallest such computer, unveiled by a research team from the University of Innsbruck this summer, was the size of two server racks.

In contrast, Quantum Brilliance’s system is the size of a lunchbox.

The quality of diamond-based qubits is somewhere between that of superconducting qubits and trapped-ion qubits.

“It is middle of the pack for performance,” Doherty told Sifted. The gate speeds are slower than for superconducting qubits, but faster than trapped ions. The coherence of the diamond qubits is lower than those of trapped ions. The big advantage, however, is being able to run at room temperature.

The Quantum Brilliance quantum accelerators have only two qubits at the moment, paltry compared to the 72-qubit systems that Google has developed. Horsley said, however, that the company can reach 50 qubits by 2025.
How it works

Diamond-based qubits are created using diamonds with a specific defect — one carbon atom of the diamond lattice is replaced by a nitrogen atom, with a gap left next to it. The gap, or vacancy, becomes negatively charged and behaves like a trapped ion. This can be manipulated into a qubit when lit with a green laser. (Synthetic diamonds are being developed for various high-tech purposes like this.)

Diamond-based qubits were a leading idea in quantum computing until around 2014, says Doherty, but progress halted because it proved hard to create synthetic diamonds with enough precision to make the system workable. The Quantum Brilliance cofounders’ breakthrough was developing a novel fabrication technique that allows greater precision. The startup buys synthetic diamonds from Element Six, the synthetic diamond manufacturer, part of the De Beers Group, and then carries out the final part of the fabrication process in house.

In contrast, Quantum Brilliance’s system is the size of a lunchbox.

The quality of diamond-based qubits is somewhere between that of superconducting qubits and trapped-ion qubits.

“It is middle of the pack for performance,” Doherty told Sifted. The gate speeds are slower than for superconducting qubits, but faster than trapped ions. The coherence of the diamond qubits is lower than those of trapped ions. The big advantage, however, is being able to run at room temperature.

The Quantum Brilliance quantum accelerators have only two qubits at the moment, paltry compared to the 72-qubit systems that Google has developed. Horsley said, however, that the company can reach 50 qubits by 2025.
How it works

Diamond-based qubits are created using diamonds with a specific defect — one carbon atom of the diamond lattice is replaced by a nitrogen atom, with a gap left next to it. The gap, or vacancy, becomes negatively charged and behaves like a trapped ion. This can be manipulated into a qubit when lit with a green laser. (Synthetic diamonds are being developed for various high-tech purposes like this.)

Diamond-based qubits were a leading idea in quantum computing until around 2014, says Doherty, but progress halted because it proved hard to create synthetic diamonds with enough precision to make the system workable. The Quantum Brilliance cofounders’ breakthrough was developing a novel fabrication technique that allows greater precision. The startup buys synthetic diamonds from Element Six, the synthetic diamond manufacturer, part of the De Beers Group, and then carries out the final part of the fabrication process in house.

Quantum Brilliance was spun out from the Australian National University in 2019 and only recently emerged from stealth mode. It now has 25 staff and is actively hiring for 20 more roles. The startup is aiming to grow to more than 100 staff in the next year, half of which will be based in Germany.

The company is in the process of establishing an office in Germany, in part to capitalise on the €2bn in funding that the German government has pledged for the quantum computing sector, and also to take advantage of a skilled workforce

“Germany has one of the highest densities of diamond quantum research groups, and also expertise in precision manufacturing,” said Horsley. Big car manufacturers, which are expected to be some of the first quantum computing customers, are also clustered in the region.

Is this the end of other types of quantum computer?

Will room-temperature quantum computing completely eclipse the other, bulkier approaches like superconducting? Not immediately, says Doherty.

“Over time some technologies will fade out. The ultimate endpoint for us is to be the quantum computer for everything.”

“The future is heterogeneous — the idea of a single computer that can do everything is gone,” he said. Quantum computers, especially when they still have just a few qubits, are likely to be heavily tailored to solving one particular problem. Speedier quantum computers — for example, superconducting systems — may be used for one type of problem, while diamond-based ones are used for another.

Calculations involving a single, complex molecule, for example, may be more appropriate to crunch on a mainframe in a lab. But a network of smaller diamond-based machines, processing in parallel, could be better at calculating how systems of small molecules all interact with each other.

Over time as qubit counts go up, however, Doherty is expecting the quantum computing mix to shift in favour of diamonds. “Over time some technologies will fade out. The ultimate endpoint for us is to be the quantum computer for everything.”

Lithography machines keeping Moore’s Law alive!

ASML’s next-generation extreme ultraviolet lithography machines achieve previously unattainable levels of precision, which means chips can keep shrinking for years to come.

The $150 Million Machine Keeping Moore’s Law Alive
Will Knight
WIRED, Aug 30, 2021

Inside a large clean room in rural Connecticut, engineers have begun constructing a critical component for a machine that promises to keep the tech industry as we know it on track for at least another decade.

The machine is being built by ASML, a Dutch company that has cornered the market for etching the tiniest nanoscopic features into microchips with light.

ASML introduced the first extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines for mass production in 2017, after decades spent mastering the technique. The machines perform a crucial role in the chipmaking ecosystem, and they have been used in the manufacture of the latest, most advanced chips, including those in new iPhones as well as computers used for artificial intelligence. The company’s next EUV system, a part of which is being built in Wilton, Connecticut, will use a new trick to minimize the wavelength of light it uses—shrinking the size of features on the resulting chips and boosting their performance—more than ever before.

The current generation of EUV machines are already, to put it bluntly, kind of bonkers. Each one is roughly the size of a bus and costs $150 million. It contains 100,000 parts and 2 kilometers of cabling. Shipping the components requires 40 freight containers, three cargo planes, and 20 trucks. Only a few companies can afford the machines, and most of them go to the world’s big three leading-edge chipmakers: the world’s leading foundry, Taiwan-based TSMC, as well as Samsung, in South Korea, and Intel.

“It is really an incredible machine,” says Jesús del Alamo, a professor at MIT who works on novel transistor architectures. “It’s an absolutely revolutionary product, a breakthrough that is going to give a new lease of life to the industry for years.”

In Connecticut, a giant hunk of aluminum has been carved into a frame that will eventually hold a mask, or “reticle,” that moves with nanometer precision while reflecting a beam of extreme ultraviolet light. The light pinballs off several mirrors shaped and polished with astonishing precision to etch features just a few dozen atoms in size onto future computer chips.

The finished component will be shipped to Veldhoven in the Netherlands by the end of 2021, and then added to the first prototype next-generation EUV machine by early 2022. The first chips made using the new systems may be minted by Intel, which has said it will get the first of them, expected by 2023. With smaller features than ever, and tens of billions of components each, the chips that the machine produces in coming years should be the fastest and most efficient in history.

ASML’s latest EUV machine promises to keep alive an idea that has come to symbolize the march of progress—not just in chipmaking, but in the tech industry and the economy at large.

In 1965, Gordon Moore, an electronics engineer and one of the founders of Intel, wrote an article for the 35th anniversary issue of Electronics, a trade magazine, that included an observation that has since taken on a life of its own. In the article, Moore noted that the number of components on a silicon chip had roughly doubled each year until then, and he predicted the trend would continue.

A decade later, Moore revised his estimate to two years rather than one. The march of Moore’s law has come into question in recent years, although new manufacturing breakthroughs and chip design innovations have kept it roughly on track.

EUV uses some extraordinary engineering to shrink the wavelength of light used to make chips, and it should help continue that streak. The technology will be crucial for making more advanced smartphones and cloud computers, and also for key areas of emerging technology such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and robotics. “The death of Moore’s law has been greatly exaggerated,” del Alamos says. “I think it’s going to go on for quite some time.”

Amid the recent chip shortage, triggered by the pandemic’s economic shock waves, ASML’s products have become central to a geopolitical struggle between the US and China, with Washington making it a high priority to block China's access to the machines. The US government has successfully pressured the Dutch not to grant the export licenses needed to send the machines to China, and ASML says it has shipped none to the country.

“You can’t make leading-edge chips without ASML’s machines,” says Will Hunt, a research analyst at Georgetown University studying the geopolitics of chipmaking. “A lot of it comes down to years and years of tinkering with things and experimenting, and it’s very difficult to get access to that.”

Each component that goes into an EUV machine is “astonishingly sophisticated and extraordinarily complex,” he says.

Making microchips already requires some of the most advanced engineering the world has ever seen. A chip starts out life as a cylindrical chunk of crystalline silicon that is sliced into thin wafers, which are then coated with layers of light-sensitive material and repeatedly exposed to patterned light. The parts of silicon not touched by the light are then chemically etched away to reveal the intricate details of a chip. Each wafer is then chopped up to make lots of individual chips.

Shrinking the components on a chip remains the surest way to squeeze more computational power out of a piece of silicon because electrons pass more efficiently through smaller electronic components, and packing more components into a chip increases its capacity to compute.

Lots of innovations have kept Moore’s law going, including novel chip and component designs. This May, for instance, IBM showed off a new kind of transistor, sandwiched like a ribbon inside silicon, that should allow more components to be packed into a chip without shrinking the resolution of the lithography.

But reducing the wavelength of light used in chip manufacturing has helped drive miniaturization and progress from the 1960s onwards, and it is crucial to the next advance. Machines that use visible light were replaced by those that use near-ultraviolet, which in turn gave way to systems that employ deep-ultraviolet in order to etch ever smaller features into chips.

A consortium of companies including Intel, Motorola, and AMD began studying EUV as the next step in lithography in the 1990s. ASML joined in 1999, and as a leading maker of lithography technology, sought to develop the first EUV machines. Extreme ultraviolet lithography, or EUV for short, allows a much shorter wavelength of light (13.5 nanometers) to be used, compared with deep ultraviolet, the previous lithographic method (193 nanometers).

But it has taken decades to iron out the engineering challenges. Generating EUV light is itself a big problem. ASML’s method involves directing high-power lasers at droplets of tin 50,000 times per second to generate high-intensity light. Lenses absorb EUV frequencies, so the system uses incredibly precise mirrors coated with special materials instead. Inside ASML’s machine, EUV light bounces off several mirrors before passing through the reticle, which moves with nanoscale precision to align the layers on the silicon.

“To tell you the truth, nobody actually wants to use EUV,” says David Kanter, a chip analyst with Real World Technologies. “It's a mere 20 years late and 10X over budget. But if you want to build very dense structures, it’s the only tool you’ve got.”

ASML’s new machine introduces an additional trick to produce smaller features on a chip: a larger numerical aperture, which increases the resolution of imaging by allowing light to travel through the optics at different angles. This requires significantly larger mirrors and new software and hardware to precisely control the components. ASML’s current generation of EUV machines can create chips with a resolution of 13 nanometers. The next generation will use High-NA to craft features 8 nanometers in size.

The most prominent company using EUV today is TSMC, whose customers include Apple, Nvidia, and Intel. Intel was slow to adopt EUV and fell behind rivals as a result, hence its recent decision to outsource some of its production to TSMC.

ASML doesn’t seem to think the progress built on top of its machines will slow.

“I don’t like to talk about the end of Moore’s law, I like to talk about the illusion of Moore's law,” says Martin van den Brink, ASML’s chief technology officer, via a video link from the Netherlands.

Moore’s 1965 article was actually more focused on the march of innovation than just shrinkage, Van den Brink notes. While he expects High-NA EUV to keep spurring progress in the chip industry for at least the next 10 years, he believes that shrinking chip features using lithography will become less important.

Van den Brink says ASML has researched proposed successors to EUV, including e-beam and nanoimprint lithography, but has not found any of them to be reliable enough to justify substantial investment. He predicts that new methods of speeding up the throughput of lithographic machines while accounting for thermal stability and physical disturbances will help increase yield. Even if chips did not become faster, this would result in the most advanced chips becoming cheaper and more widely used.

Van den Brink adds that other manufacturing tricks, including efforts to build components vertically on a chip—something that Intel and others have already begun doing—should keep improving performance. He notes that the executive chairman of TSMC, Mark Liu, has said he expects a threefold improvement in combined performance and efficiency each year for the next 20 years.

Demand for faster chips is hardly likely to go down. Mark Lundstrom, a professor at Purdue who began working in the chip industry in the 1970s, wrote an article for Science magazine in 2003 that predicted Moore’s law would run into physical limits within a decade. “In my career, multiple times we thought ‘OK, this is the end,’” he says. “But there's no danger at all that things will slow down in 10 years. We'll just have to do it differently.”

Lundstrom remembers visiting his first microchip conference in 1975. “There was this fellow named Gordon Moore giving a talk,” he recalls. “He was well known within the technical community, but nobody else knew him.”

“And I remember the talk that he gave,” Lundstrom adds. “He said, ‘We will soon be able to place 10,000 transistors on a chip.’ And he added, 'What could anyone possibly do with 10,000 transistors on a chip?’”

Warmongers fume over ending the forever wars...

Warmongers Keep Raging About The Phrase ‘Ending The Forever Wars’ And We Should Laugh At Them
by Caitlin Johnstone
Aug 29, 2021


In the wake of the Afghanistan withdrawal influential promoters of western militarism have been absolutely fuming about the popular idea of ending the forever wars, and their tantrums are not even trying to disguise it as something else. They're literally using that phrase, "ending the forever wars", and then saying it's a bad thing.

I mean, what a bizarre hill to die on. War is the very worst thing in the world, and forever is the very worst amount of time they could go on for, yet they're openly condemning the "doctrine of ending the forever wars". How warped does your sense of reality have to be to even think this is a view anyone who isn't paid by defense contractors could possibly be sympathetic to?

Yet they are indeed trying. Citing the chaos of the Afghanistan withdrawal as though every single day of the twenty-year occupation has not been far worse, career-long warmongers are trying to spin "ending the forever wars" as a disdainful slogan that everyone should reject.

Tony Blair, the former prime minister of Britain who led the UK into Afghanistan, criticized Biden's withdrawal, calling it a hasty move made “in obedience to an imbecilic political slogan about ending ‘the forever wars.’”

As we discussed previously, The Hague fugitive Tony Blair recently made headlines with a lengthy statement bloviating about the concept of ending forever wars with the revulsion you'd normally reserve for people advocating the elimination of age of consent laws or legalizing recreational panda punching.

"We didn't need to do it. We chose to do it," Blair wrote of the withdrawal. "We did it in obedience to an imbecilic political slogan about ending 'the forever wars', as if our engagement in 2021 was remotely comparable to our commitment 20 or even ten years ago, and in circumstances in which troop numbers had declined to a minimum and no allied soldier had lost their life in combat for 18 months."

As Blair well knows, the only reason no allied soldier had lost their life in combat for 18 months was because the Trump administration had cut a deal with the Taliban in February 2020 on condition of withdrawal from Afghanistan. Pretending the lack of deaths among occupying forces was due to the occupation being easy and that it was in any way sustainable minus a credible promise of withdrawal is disgusting. And not that Blair cares but it's not like the occupation hasn't been slaughtering mountains of civilians during those eighteen months.

Paul Wolfowitz, chief advocate of the Iraq War, being given major op-ed space to argue the US should've never withdrawn from Afghanistan -- while also lecturing Biden on "credibility" -- proves that in US media, there's no official wrongdoing that you can't be rehabilitated from. 

Then there's Iraq war architect Paul Wolfowitz, who's been on a media tour throughout the withdrawal because obviously everyone wants to hear the opinions of Bush administration war criminals about whether it's okay to end the Bush administration's criminal wars. His latest contribution is a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "The ‘Forever War’ Hasn’t Ended" in which he argues the concept of ending forever wars is both stupid and fallacious.

"President Biden, like his two immediate predecessors, seems to think you can end 'forever wars' simply by leaving them," Wolfowitz writes. "But Thursday’s unprovoked attack, on people who were fleeing and those who were helping them, demonstrates the truth of the soldier’s adage that 'the enemy always gets a vote.'”

"Choosing to avoid 'forever war' by abandoning our Afghan allies was both costly and dishonorable," says Wolfowitz. "Exactly as Churchill said to Neville Chamberlain after the betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich: 'You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.'"

God what a wanker.

In many respects, #Afghanistan represents the 1st real implementation of the "ending forever wars" doctrine.

    The results so far?

    - Crumbling of a democratic government;
    - #Taliban rule;
    - #AlQaeda ecstatic;
    - Emergency mass evacuation;
    - Unprecedented transatlantic divisions. pic.twitter.com/NdAJPgafhP

    — Charles Lister (@Charles_Lister) August 26, 2021

Then there's UAE-funded war propagandist Charles Lister hilariously arguing that the withdrawal shows a failure of the "ending forever wars doctrine" on the basis that it caused the "crumbling of a democratic government" and made "Al Qaeda ecstatic". Hilarious because only by the most determined mental gymnastics was the corrupt US puppet regime in Afghanistan "democratic", and because Lister has been an outspoken advocate of Al Qaeda in Syria.

There's also the insufferably hawkish Congressman Adam Kinzinger, who has received campaign donations from Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, appearing on MSNBC and writing a Foreign Policy op-ed explicitly in opposition to the notion of ending endless wars.

"On both sides of the political spectrum, we’ve heard the 'endless wars' rallying cry used to argue against America’s presence in the Middle East," Kinzinger writes for Foreign Policy. "We’ve heard the many fatigued Americans who complain about 'forever wars.' Some are upset by the money spent, and others want our troops home, or both. Those who have lamented for years that our mission in Afghanistan was a disaster from the start are stepping up in droves to say they were right and that we should have left years ago—or never engaged at all. I respectfully and vehemently disagree with all of it."

Kinzinger told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell that "the kind of Rand Paul 'endless war' crowd that have been stoking this fire of endless war and man we're all tired" is like "when your grandma tells you how tired you are and you eventually feel tired." He then advocated for re-invading Afghanistan to take back the abandoned Bagram airfield.

In a recent National Review article titled "The ‘Forever War’ Fallacy", MSNBC contributor Noah Rothman rages against the notion of ending perpetual military slaughter.

"In Afghanistan, the demagogues who wanted to see an end to America’s 'forever wars,' regardless of the consequences, got their wish. It has been a disaster arguably without parallel," writes Rothman, who has apparently never heard of the disaster that was the entire Afghanistan occupation.

"The U.S. maintains deployments in and around the Middle East that fluctuate between 45,000 and 65,000 troops. Would advocates of retrenchment sacrifice that mission — and the Middle Eastern governments that rely on it to prevent non-state actors and Iranian proxies from destabilizing those regimes?" Rothman asks. "What about Africa, where between 6,000 and 7,000 American troops are advising local forces fighting Islamist militant groups?"

Uh, yeah actually, getting rid of those would also be great. The less expansive you can make the most destructive institution on earth, the better.

The alternative to withdrawal from Afghanistan was not “endless occupation” but open-ended presence. Occupation is imposed, presence invited. Unless you think we are occupying Japan, Germany, & South Korea. And yes, withdrawal was the problem.

Perhaps the funniest case was Richard Haass, president of the wildly influential war propaganda firm Council on Foreign Relations, arguing on Twitter for a rebranding of "endless occupation" to "open-ended presence".

"The alternative to withdrawal from Afghanistan was not 'endless occupation' but open-ended presence," Haass said. "Occupation is imposed, presence invited. Unless you think we are occupying Japan, Germany, and South Korea. And yes, withdrawal was the problem."

I mean, where to even start with that one? The hilarious notion that simply rebranding an endless occupation which has killed hundreds of thousands of people with a different label makes it better? The idea that the consent of a puppet government installed by regime change invasion means the military presence was "invited"? The claim that an occupation of nonstop bombing and killing is comparable to US military presence in Japan, Germany and South Korea? The claim that there's any legitimate reason for the US military to be in Japan, Germany and South Korea either? The suggestion that everyone in Japan, Germany and South Korea wants the US military there?

Moron.

The fact that these people are thought leaders of policy-shaping influence and not fringe pariahs of society shows that our world is being steered by idiots and sociopaths. They're standing there right in front of us and wagging their fingers at us for opposing something as straightforwardly and self-evidently bad as endless war. ENDLESS WAR.

They should be mocked and laughed at for this. We will know our world is becoming sane when such creatures are regarded with scorn and ridicule instead of being taken seriously by the largest platforms in our society. Never stop making fun of these freaks.

India is little more than a pawn to be deployed against China

"In essence, the foreign policy of the US regime – and indeed, that of most western regimes from Britain to Nazi Germany – is merely a reflection of western values: institutionalized racism, a willingness to commit military aggression and even genocide to achieve goals, an unbridled nihilism disguised as vacuous optimism, a constant mistrust of others, an inability to appreciate differences, and a civilizational affinity for hypocrisy and deception." -Maitreya Bhakal

The main lesson to take from here is that US treats India the way it treats every other country aside from Israel.

India is a US and zio puppet. It deserves no respect. It destroyed a very beneficial project with Iran, it picked a fight with China, bought unnecessary weapons from west,…. to please its masters

This is a beggar BS nation, this scum would sell it's own mother for 1 dollar. Just remember how this BS of a nation allowed better say sold an inspection of a Top Russian submarine by American experts. S... of a nation.

For the US, India is little more than a pawn to be deployed against China – not a nation to be respected on its own terms
Maitreya Bhakal
RT, 31 Aug, 2021

The US is desperate to recruit allies in its hybrid war against China, and highly covets New Delhi - which has its own issues with Beijing - as a useful partner. So why is Washington so unhelpful and discourteous to its ally?

Friends with benefits

It is often said that the US has no permanent allies – only permanent interests. Allies come and allies go, but US national interest (i.e. global hegemony) remains paramount. All relationships are transactional – an ally is only as good as the geopolitical benefits they bring. The US regime makes friends and enemies based on strategic concerns alone, and with little concern for morality.

US diplomats are trained to rely on a combination of cold, hard, strategic calculations and ruthless deal-making. While all nations have elements of realism in their geopolitical calculus, few can bring themselves to abandon morality and ethics on the scale that the US does. While other nations may be guided at least partially by human values – say, whether their decisions will lead to civilian deaths – US leaders are unconcerned by such trivialities. US bureaucrats are determined to get the job done and serve US hegemony – no matter the number of murdered children or destroyed cities they leave in their wake.

In essence, the foreign policy of the US regime – and indeed, that of most western regimes from Britain to Nazi Germany – is merely a reflection of western values: institutionalized racism, a willingness to commit military aggression and even genocide to achieve goals, an unbridled nihilism disguised as vacuous optimism, a constant mistrust of others, an inability to appreciate differences, and a civilizational affinity for hypocrisy and deception.

Thus, it is not surprising that few nations violate international law more than the US. Even less surprising is that few nations lecture other nations on violating international law more than the US – the nation that violates them the most, often even violating its own laws. The regime has little respect for the rules-based international order – it has been breaking its promises and treaties for centuries. As Henry Kissinger, one of America’s most murderous Secretaries of State, whose wit was outmatched only by his sadism, once put it: “The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer.”

For the US regime, allies are dispensable – it can always buy new friends. Thus, Saddam Hussein was once a close ally, until one day he wasn’t, and the US decided to kill him. And then there is the case of the Taliban, a murderous group once heavily financed and supported by the US itself, that ironically defeated the US in its invasion of Afghanistan. In the 80s, the US funded the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviets, propping up leaders like Osama Bin Laden, providing them with generous amounts of weapons, money and training. Then, in one of the most amusing U-turns and blowbacks in modern history, these same “terrorist” groups turned around to bite the hand that fed them, killing around 3,000 Americans in an attack on US soil on September 11, 2001, as revenge for decades of US wars and bombings and genocidal sanctions in their countries that killed millions.

And now, India

For a nation that literally exists because Europeans were desperate to find a sea route to the richest country in the world at the time, the average American knows little about India - apart from the occasional yoga reference or jokes about the Kama Sutra. One similarity between the average white American and Christopher Columbus – apart from the fact that both benefited from genocide and slavery – is the inability to find India on a map.

Even US policymakers harbor little respect for India. In Washington’s policy-making circles, Indophobic hate and caricatures are common. Nixon proclaimed that India needed a “mass famine,” while Kissinger declared that Indians were “bastards.” Yet, that was the 1970s, at the height of the Cold War. Today, the US sees India as a nation with three main uses:

1) An important hedge against China

2) An important market for US weapons

3) An important market for US consumer goods, a source of profits, and an outsourcing hub

The relationship between India and the US today is far warmer than during the Nixon era. China has brought the two countries closer than ever before – regardless of the hateful attitudes US bureaucrats no doubt harbor even today, like their predecessors. Racist hatred often takes a backseat to geopolitical realities.

The enemy of my enemy

In 2020, a bitter dispute broke out between India and China over their undemarcated border. A brawl ensued between the two militaries – which led to casualties on both sides.

America pounced. It wasted no time trying to exploit the fresh differences between India and China for its own anti-Beijing agenda. US officials publicly linked China’s actions on the Indian border with its “aggression” in the South China Sea, seeking to portray a pattern of Chinese belligerence (while itself hosting 800 military bases around the globe). US leader Donald Trump even offered to mediate between the two – a highly resistible offer that both nations sensibly refused.

Yet, India enjoyed the attention America showered on it. The “Quad” – an anti-China grouping consisting of the US, Japan, Australia, and India – was revived. India had been its most reluctant member until then, but now agreed to take it further. India had become America’s new trophy wife.

Pawns and power

Yet, old habits die hard. The desire to prop up India as a hedge against China pushed back against supremacist American attitudes. Hegemons do not usually learn to respect other nations this quickly.

Take the recent Covid-19 pandemic, for example. When India was desperately in need of vaccines and medical equipment during its devastating second wave, the US regime – despite hoarding a surplus of vaccines, and despite having accepted assistance from India in its own time of need – refused to help. It would rather let vaccines expire than send them abroad – even to an ally whose friendship it so highly flaunts.

Eventually, after receiving much criticism from its own politicians and pundits, it finally acquiesced. That the regime helped a highly coveted partner only after a massive outcry shows how much importance it really gives to India. The delayed about-turn was merely a belated attempt to salvage its reputation, not some genuine desire to help an ally.

Another recent incident exposed America’s true colors further still. The US regime frequently orders its navy to conduct “Freedom of Navigation” (FONOPs) operations in the South China Sea, the geopolitical equivalent of gorilla-style chest thumping to prove its superiority over China. America says the operations are consistent with “international law.” Surprisingly, the US navy recently did the same to India, intruding into its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) without permission. The US regime’s 7th Fleet openly snubbed India, boasting that it “asserted navigational rights and freedoms … inside India’s exclusive economic zone, without requesting India’s prior consent…” The statement even called India’s maritime claims “excessive.”

This language was similar to what the US regime uses towards China. This implicit equivalence between India and China shocked many, as it came on the heels of the regime seeking a closer relationship with New Delhi to counter the rising power.

The ultimate irony is that the US is yet to ratify UNCLOS – the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea – the “international law” it is referring to. Few things are more typically American than violating other nations' laws by touting “international law” while itself refusing to ratify the same international law that it enforces.

If the US is so callous towards India, other western nations are not far behind. The EU recently refused to recognize the Indian manufactured version of the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine (known as “Covishield”) in its ‘Green pass’ vaccine certification scheme, which allows travel into the region without mandatory quarantine. This is despite the Indian version being biochemically identical to the European one – it’s technically the same vaccine, just manufactured in India. When India pushed back and threatened mandatory quarantine for EU arrivals too, 15 EU nations relented. Bullies often understand only the language of bullying.

Another test will be how the US behaves over India’s recent procurement of Russia’s S-400 missile defense system. The regime has previously sanctioned Turkey and China for purchasing S-400s. Whether it will sanction India too when deliveries start at the end of the year remains an open question. If it does, it will be one more indication that India is just a pawn for the US in its geopolitical games with China. If it doesn’t, it will prove that US anti-Russian sanctions are simply wielded by the regime on a whim to nations it doesn’t like. America will call its own bluff – regardless of which path it chooses.

Hedging and hybrid wars

Incident by incident, evidence is mounting that the US regime has little intention of treating India as a nation on its own terms, but merely to use it as just another dispensable front in its hybrid war against China. Still, while India and other countries caught in the crossfire may be too smart to agree to every US demand (Vietnam also recently snubbed the US), they are all relishing the attention.

In its search for allies to counter China’s rise, the US often comes bearing gifts, many of them genuine. The best strategy for India would be to benefit from the new US-China Great Game and play the two against each other. After all, until you can become a superpower yourself (as you were for the better part of the last 2,000 years), the next best thing is to benefit from superpower rivalry.

Sunday, August 22, 2021

US control over Afghanistan & Eurasia

All about greed over mineral resources...

US Expansionism in Eurasia, Control over Afghanistan
By Shane Quinn
Global Research, August 19, 2021

The ex-Soviet states of the Caucasus and Central Asia have, following the early 1990s, been “all about America’s energy security” according to Bill Richardson, the Clinton era diplomat and former American ambassador to the United Nations.

For seven decades, the Soviet Union’s existence blocked the way to the vast fossil fuel sources of the Caucasus, Central Asia and also the Caspian Sea. This reality had been of ongoing frustration to Western strategic planners, but the Soviet collapse 30 years ago provoked jubilant scenes in Washington and London.

An oil rush ensued for mastery over Eurasia. Among those competing for its riches were America and its junior partner Britain, along with France, Germany and China. The US, as still comfortably the earth’s most powerful country, led the charge. Political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski, an influential former US National Security Advisor, wrote how “Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some 500 years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power”. (1)

Brzezinski, whose advice was sought by consecutive US presidents, defined Eurasia as the entirety of the landmass east of Germany and Poland, spanning the thousands of miles of Russian and Chinese terrain to the Pacific Ocean; including the coveted Middle East and south Asia (2). Brzezinski revealed that after the USSR’s disintegration the US looted around $300 billion in Russian assets, severely undermining the rouble, while ensuring the Kremlin would be reliant on the West economically and politically.

The Americans are often concerned with simply having control over oil and gas reserves, rather than extracting it; and so denying the raw materials to their principal rivals, Russia and China, while increasing their own power. On other occasions it is apt to build the necessary infrastructure, such as pipelines and refineries, which are used to dispatch the mineral resources westwards and that are guarded by US and NATO troops.

The Caspian Sea, which is larger in size than Germany, has long been desired by colonial planners and oil men (3). In the late 19th century for example Tsarist Russia, which claimed the Caspian Sea for its own, fought efforts to buy it up from the US Standard Oil Company, owned by John D. Rockefeller, America’s richest man.

Undeniably, the Caspian Sea is a magnificent body of water, stretching across the horizon for hundreds of miles. It is home to endangered animals such as the Caspian seal, and rare sturgeon species like the beluga; this is the largest freshwater fish in the world, reaching a maximum of over 23 feet in length, and the beluga sturgeon may just surpass the great white shark in size, though not in weight. Impressive mammals can occasionally be seen roaming along the Caspian Sea’s shorelines, like the Eurasian lynx, Caspian wolf, wild boar and Caspian red deer. (4)

The Caspian Sea contains the planet’s second largest oil and gas reserves, after the Persian Gulf (5). These raw materials would have a pivotal part in fulfilling humanity’s future energy demands including, most of all, that of the US. Per capita, America is currently the biggest consumer of fossil fuels on earth by far and also historically, an indication of its unrivalled industrial power. In 1960, there were 61 million vehicles in the US for a population of 181 million, equating to 1 car for every 3 Americans; whereas in Britain in 1960, there were under 5 million vehicles for a population of 52 million, amounting to less than 1 car for every 10 Britons (6) (7).

The Caspian Sea was important to America for other reasons. President George W. Bush, and his successor Barack Obama, made extensive efforts to shift the east European state of the Ukraine under NATO’s umbrella; in part, so the Ukraine would act as a spring board to assist America in penetrating much of Eurasia, enabling them to reach the Caspian Sea. Obama’s government had a central role in instituting a pro-Western regime in Kiev, during February 2014. Obama made further steps to expand US influence across eastern Europe, under the pretexts of the Ukraine crisis and humanitarian concerns.

Russia’s incorporation of the Crimean peninsula in March 2014, which was a response to the putsch in Kiev, was a blow to Western power. The Crimea acts as an oil and gas corridor, in which the Caspian Sea natural resources are sent through, thereafter criss-crossing Ukrainian land.

For the Americans, to safeguard their control over crucial areas while protecting the oil and gas pipelines, they started to militarise their transport routes – from the eastern Mediterranean to the edge of China’s western borders. Along these regions, about 100,000 US soldiers were stationed in order “to deter aggression and secure our own interests”. (8)

As planned, it would allow America to win the great game in the heart of Eurasia’s landmass, and consequently to secure their global hegemony. Washington stated that they wanted, “A stable and prosperous Caucasus and Central Asia” which would “facilitate rapid development and transport to international markets of large Caspian oil and gas resources, with substantial US commercial participations”.

Afghanistan in south-central Asia became highly significant to US ambitions. There have been three potential routes that the pipelines can be laid through: across Russian, Iranian or Afghan territory (9). Reliance on Russia is out of the question, while the White House has spent decades trying to isolate and overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Afghanistan, therefore, ranks as a core pipeline hub. The US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan sanctioned on 7 October 2001, and clearly planned months before the 9/11 attacks, was concerned supposedly with capturing Al Qaeda boss Osama bin Laden, defeating the Taliban, and defending human rights. These were smokescreens to obscure their real goals, like securing the pipeline routes. Two months after the invasion began, a small group of US special forces conducted a half-hearted search for Bin Laden in the Tora Bora caves and mountains of eastern Afghanistan. It was a spectacle put on for the cameras.

By early December 2001, Bin Laden was not in Afghanistan at all but was present in north-western Pakistan. American General Tommy Franks, commanding US military operations in Afghanistan, had already confirmed on 8 November 2001, “We have not said that Osama bin Laden is a target of this effort”. (10)

Regarding the now much lamented Taliban, in the mid-1990s they were welcomed and supported by the US government and sections of the media. One of the largest circulating American newspapers, the Wall Street Journal, announced in May 1997,

“The Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace. Moreover, they are crucial to secure the country as a prime trans-shipment route for the export of Central Asia’s vast oil, gas, and other natural resources”. (11)

No concern was voiced about the Taliban’s extremism and human rights violations, while they were courted too by the US oil industry. In December 1997, the Taliban leadership was flown over to America and the oil state of Texas, whose governor was the future president Bush (12). Senior Taliban members were invited to the city of Houston, and there they were entertained by top executives of the energy multinational UNOCAL (Union Oil Company of California).

UNOCAL offered to pay the Taliban 15 cents for every 1,000 cubic feet of gas they allowed to be pumped across Afghan land (13). In agreement with the Taliban, UNOCAL signed a “memorandum of understanding” to construct a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan. This was in conjunction with other Western fossil fuel corporations like ExxonMobil, Chevron, British Petroleum (BP), Enron and Amoco; the latter firm was formerly the Standard Oil Company of Indiana, established by Rockefeller.

The importance of Afghanistan to Washington and its NATO allies has related to further large-scale initiatives, as the American historian Noam Chomsky writes,

“the projected $7.6 billion TAPI pipeline that would deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India, running through Afghanistan’s Kandahar province, where Canadian troops are deployed”. (14)

Enron, mentioned above, was an American energy company founded by disgraced US businessman Kenneth Lay in 1985. Lay had been an old friend of the Bush family, and he was among the largest financial donors to Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign (15). As Enron’s boss, Lay was in the late 1990s one of America’s highest paid chief executives. Enron filed for bankruptcy in December 2001, and in July 2004 Lay was indicted by a Grand Jury in Texas on criminal charges. In May 2006 he was found guilty on 6 counts of conspiracy and fraud, facing up to 45 years in jail. He died of a heart attack in July 2006.

Meanwhile, UNOCAL’s vice-president John J. Maresca had said in February 1998 “we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognised government is in place, that has the confidence of governments, leaders and our company [UNOCAL]”. Maresca later became the first US Special Ambassador to Afghanistan. Central in pushing the pipeline deals were prominent US politicians like Dick Cheney, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft. They had all served in the cabinet of president George H. W. Bush (Bush Senior); Cheney and Baker have long-held ties to the oil business.

Bush Senior was a paid consultant to the wealthy Bin Laden family through the Carlyle Group, a Washington-based private equity multinational. It is involved in the fossil fuel and weapons industries. A number of Bin Laden family members invested millions in the Carlyle Group. (16)

Bush Senior was a key adviser to the Carlyle Group, and he met the Bin Laden family on two occasions (17). According to journalist Cindy Rodriguez in the Denver Post, on the very day of the 9/11 attacks “members of the Carlyle Group – including Bush Senior and his former Secretary of State, James Baker – were meeting at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, D.C., along with Shafiq bin Laden, another one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers” (18). This conference was hosted by the Carlyle Group.

Bush Senior quit his role with Carlyle in October 2003, after five and a half years advising them. The former president resigned from his position at Carlyle because he was “under pressure due to the company’s massive Iraqi war profits”, the American author Deanna Spingola writes, referring to the March 2003 US-led invasion of that country launched by Bush Junior.

The relationship between Carlyle and Bush Senior did not end there, however. Spingola wrote that after the elder Bush’s resignation, “He retained his Carlyle stock, and gave speeches in Carlyle’s behalf, for a $500,000 fee. Carlyle is notorious for buying defense companies and ‘doubling or tripling their value’ due to abundant, frequently no-bid, defense contracts”. (19)

Associated too with the Carlyle Group was Baker, the Secretary of State under Bush Senior from 1989 to 1992. Baker was an adviser to Carlyle for 12 years until 2005, and he had a staff member role in Bush Junior’s administration. John Major, the former Conservative Party leader and British prime minister for over 6 years, was also employed by Carlyle. Major was paid hefty sums by that US investment firm.

Major previously labelled bloated incomes as “distasteful”, and yet he accepted hundreds of thousands of pounds from Carlyle (20). It provides another insight into the world of political elites. Bush Junior had founded an oil company in Texas during the late 1970s, called Arbusto Energy. Bin Laden’s eldest brother, Salem bin Laden, was an investor in the company. (21)

*
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 John Pilger, The New Rulers Of The World (Verso Books, 20 February 2003) p. 116

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid., p. 110

4 Caspian Environment Programme, “Biodiversity, Animals of the Caspian Sea”, 9 September 2010

5 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes (Springer; 1st ed. 2019 edition, 4 Feb. 2019) p. 316

6 Mary Gormandy White, “Car Ownership Statistics”, Lovetoknow

7 Retrowow, “Cars in the 60s – UK”

8 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer 1st ed., 23 June 2017) p. 28

9 Pilger, The New Rulers of the World, p. 111

10 Tom Bowman, Marego Athans, “General says U.S. attacks on track”, The Baltimore Sun, 9 November 2001

11 Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire and the Future of America (University of California Press; 1st edition, 1 September 2007) p. 130

12 BBC News, “Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline”, 4 December 1997

13 George Monbiot, “America’s pipe dream”, The Guardian, 23 October 2001

14 Noam Chomsky, Making the Future: Occupations, Interventions, Empire and Resistance (Hamish Hamilton, 23 February 2012) All Options Are On The Table

15 Vinoth Ramachandra, Subverting Global Myths: Theology and the Public Issues Shaping Our World (Inter-Varsity Press, 1 June 2008) p. 23

16 Cindy Rodriguez, “Bush ties to Bin Laden haunt grim anniversary”, The Denver Post, 11 September 2006

17 Pilger, The New Rulers of the World, p. 113

18 Rodriguez, The Denver Post, 11 September 2006

19 Deanna Spingola, The Ruling Elite: The Zionist Seizure of World Power (Trafford Publishing, 12 June 2012) p. 567

20 Patrick Hosking, “Part-time Major earns £850,000”, thisismoney.co.uk, 14 March 2002

21 Ralph Lopez, “Bush family ties to terror suspects re-opened by 9/11 ’28 pages’”, Digital Journal, 21 February 2015

Six things about Afghanistan & the Taliban

When it comes to Afghanistan, the mainstream media hides the most inconvenient facts for the West. Once you take those into account, you get a completely different story.

Six Things You Need to Know About Afghanistan and the Taliban
By Marc Vandepitte
Global Research, August 18, 2021

1. Monstrous covenant with Jihadis

The story starts in 1979. Afghanistan had a left-wing government, which of course was not to the liking of the US. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s adviser, devised the plan to arm and train jihadists – then still called mujahideen – in Afghanistan. The aim was to provoke a Soviet invasion, in order to saddle Moscow with a Vietnam-like scenario.

Carter followed his advice and provided the mujahideen the necessary help. The plan worked. The government in Kabul ran into difficulties and asked the Kremlin for help. The Afghan quagmire forced the Soviet Union to remain in the Central Asian country for ten years.

During that period, the CIA pumped $2 billion in aid, weapons, and logistical support to the mujahideen. They were even supplied with the infamous Stinger missiles with which they could shoot down Soviet planes and helicopters. Sylvester Stallone’s Rambo III is a Hollywood depiction of this collaboration. The movie was dedicated to “the brave Mujahideen fighters”.

As long as the Soviet troops remained in the country, the government in Kabul could hold out. However, in 1989 Gorbachev decided to end their military aid. Once the Soviet troops left the country, civil war broke out. The best organized and most brutal group, the Taliban, eventually prevailed and took power in 1996.

2. Creation of Al Qaeda

The most prominent figure to emerge during that period is Osama bin Laden. In 1988, he founded Al Qaeda, a fundamentalist and ruthless terrorist group. Through the intelligence service of Pakistan [in liaison with the CIA], he could count on a lot of support from the US. In exchange for that aid, Al Qaeda provided a number of services to the US and its Western allies.

During the “civil war” in Yugoslavia (1992-1995), the Pentagon flew thousands of Al Qaeda fighters into Bosnia to support the Muslims there. During the war against Yugoslavia in 1999, Al Qaeda fought side by side with the KLA terrorists (the Kosovo Liberation Army was fighting for the separation of Kosovo from Yugoslavia and for a Greater Albania), covered in the air by NATO. Al Qaeda fighters have also popped up in Chechnya, Xinjiang (where the Uighurs live), Macedonia, and in many other countries in the region and far beyond.[i]

The cooperation between the Bush administration and Osama bin Laden is brought to light in Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

3. It’s the oil stupid!

There are promising oil and gas reserves around the Caspian Sea. But to transport these resources to the West there are only three possibilities: through Russia, through Iran, or through Afghanistan.

The US obviously won’t give it to the Russians and since the fall of the Shah in 1979, Washington has lost its influence in Iran. So, there’s only one option left: Afghanistan. At the end of 1994, in full civil war, the US thought that  the Taliban had the best assets to ‘stabilize’ the country. That was a necessity for the construction of the pipeline. According to the CIA, the Taliban were seen as “a possible tool in yet another replay of the Great Game – the race for energy riches in Central Asia.”

The US became the main sponsor of this new rogue regime. It did not matter that the Taliban at that time were the most virulent violators of human rights in the world. According to an American diplomat, the Taliban would “probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco [consortium of oil companies controlling Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament, and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that.”

4. Taliban fail to deliver

Initially, the Taliban achieved one military success after another, but ultimately failed to conquer the entire country. The hoped-for stabilization – necessary for the pipeline – did not materialize. The US then changed strategy and sought a reconciliation of all warring parties.

Washington demanded that the Taliban enter into talks with the Northern Alliance to form a coalition government. The talks that lasted until the end of July 2001 failed. The US warned it wouldn’t stop there: “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs” was the message from US representatives to the Taliban at the end of July.

The Taliban did not give in. The bombing started in October. A little later, it leaked that the plans for this had already been on President Bush’s desk two days before September 11. In the Washington Post of December 19, 2000, Professor Starr wrote that the US “has quietly begun to align itself with those in the Russian government calling for military action against Afghanistan and has toyed with the idea of a new raid to wipe out Osama bin Laden.”

In late June 2001, more than two months before the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, Indiareacts.com magazine reported that “India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime.”

5. President Pipeline

The attacks on September 11 in any case were the perfect excuse for Washington to invade Afghanistan and oust the Taliban from power. Thus, the plans for the pipeline could be realized for the time being.

Gore Vidal, a leading US columnist, put it very bluntly:

“As it proved, the conquest of Afghanistan had nothing to do with Osama. He was simply a pretext for replacing the Taliban with a relatively stable government that would allow Union Oil of California to lay its pipeline for the profit of, among others, the Cheney-Bush junta.”

The facts on the ground showed us this was true. On December 22, 2021, Hamed Karzai became Afghan Prime Minister. He was a CIA confidant and had previously worked as a counselor at Unocal. Unocal was a very large American petroleum company that long has had plans for a pipeline through Afghanistan.

Nine days later, another of this company’s advisers, Zalmay Khalilzad, was appointed by Bush as special envoy to Afghanistan. Khalilzad had in the past participated in talks with Taliban officials about the possibility of building gas and oil pipelines. He had urged the Clinton administration to take a softer line on the Taliban.

Both men were fulfilling their duties properly. On 30 May 2002, the BBC reported that Karzai had reached an agreement with his Pakistani and Turkmen counterpart for a pipeline from Turkmenistan to a port in Pakistan, across Afghanistan.

A few weeks earlier, Business Week commented on the evolution in the region as follows:

“American soldiers, oilmen, and diplomats are rapidly getting to know this remote corner of the world, the old underbelly of the Soviet Union and a region that’s been almost untouched by Western armies since the time of Alexander the Great. The game the Americans are playing has some of the highest stakes going. What they are attempting is nothing less than the biggest carve-out of a new U.S. sphere of influence since the U.S. became engaged in the Mideast 50 years ago.”

It didn’t work out as planned. The Taliban were defeated, but not knocked out. They also had a much higher morale than the government army, which could only hold out thanks to NATO air cover and other logistical support. When Biden decided to withdraw that support a few weeks ago, it collapsed like a house of cards.

6. Cost and ‘results’ of the war

The longest war in US history has cost more than $2,000 billion, according to the New York Times. That is 100 billion dollars annually, almost 20 times as much as the entire government budget of the Afghan government.

Despite the huge amounts of aid, the results are staggering. Almost half of the population today lives in poverty. Infant mortality is among the highest in the world and life expectancy among the lowest.

In the period before the war, opium cultivation was almost completely eradicated. Today, Afghanistan supplies 80 percent of the world’s heroin. The war resulted in 5.5 million refugees. That number is now likely to rise sharply.

The cost of human life is high. 47,000 civilians, 66,000 Afghan soldiers and policemen, and 51,000 Taliban and other rebels have been killed in the past 20 years. On the Western side, nearly 4,000 US soldiers and 1,100 soldiers from other NATO countries died. [official figures, do not include the deaths of civilians].

After twenty years of occupation, we are back to square one. A Belgian TV journalist describes it as “a catastrophe, a failure of the Western model to try to change a country like Afghanistan.”