NATO Summit: America's Illegal War in Afghanistan-1

-DR.ABDUL RUFF

-----------------------

US President B Obama and his regime have for quite some time been mulling the Afghan "exit' gimmick, but are not quite determined to execute the plan as NATO terror forces are still engaged in murdering innocent Muslims, consuming the deadly corpses, drinking Muslim blood like wild vultures.  Obama is still waiting for a “satisfaction” note from the Pentagon about their completion of their “targets” in Islamic world, including energy security, energy route clearance and wealth loots, etc.  

If, however, one were to believe what Obama has sad recently, the US led NATO has, at long last, decided to end illegal occupation of Afghanistan in 2014. Unless these fellows change their version once again, extending deadline, Afghans would be free from foreign occupation once again. Recently, Obama engaged the fellow NATO rogue leaders for two days in talks focusing on plans to somehow end the illegal Afghan war and gradually hand over security control to US trained Afghan forces and pave the way for the withdrawal of 130,000 foreign combat troops by late 2014.

The recently concluded Chicago NATO Summit in May of the world’s most powerful and, by extension, the most feared military terror alliance ended without recommending or achieving any meaningful outcomes. As a matter of fact, this congregation of the mighty provided a glimpse of the long-term imperial design about this unfortunate region. 

A day after leaders of major industrialized nations tackled Europe's debt crisis, backing keeping Greece in the euro zone and vowing to take steps necessary to revitalize the world economy, the NATO leaders gathered for two days in Chicago for relaxation, sumptuous dinners and a usual summit that would chart a path out of Afghanistan with some dignity, as Western nations seek to fend off fissures in their alliance and ensure Afghanistan can hold a still-potent Taliban at bay when foreign troops withdraw.  Immediately after the G8 summit, President B. Obama hosted the NATO summit as well in his home town, Chicago. 

On May 21, 2012, the last day of the two-day NATO summit, the anti-NATO protesters rallied outside the Chicago campaign headquarters of US President Obama on. The peaceful nature of the demonstration came in stark contrast to violent clashes that left protesters and eight police officers injured a day before. Police completely overreacted to protesters approaching the security perimeter and unleashed a violent attack on them without an ability to disperse," attorney Sarah Gelsomino of the People's Law Office said in the guild statement. Protesters suffered serious injuries, including broken bones, busted lips and concussions. The guild has close to 60 accounts of police brutality. A video from CNN affiliate WLS   showed protesters, some with bloodied faces, struggling against the officers, some of whom struck the demonstrators with batons. The confrontation led to a two-hour standoff between police and protesters.

The NATO summits are meant to keep the GST flocks together and ensure financial and troop commitments from member nations. The Obama regime has been seeking promises from its allies in Afghanistan to give $1.3 billion a year for Afghan forces. While there are few doubts allies will eventually provide support, it appeared unlikely heading into the summit that it would meet that goal by the end of the meeting.

During the  past decade of illegal occupation plus terror attacks,  the USA has converted both Afghanistan ad Pakistan into safe heavens for NATO terror gangs to operate, killing Muslims. President Obama's national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said the core objective of USA when Americans in uniform went to this illegal war was to defeat “al-Qaeda” and deny them a "safe haven". But they just killed villagers and destroy or stole their crops. We've actually made tremendous progress towards that goal in the last two or three years. They say they need to make sure Afghanistan cannot re-emerge as a safe haven for al-Qaeda. "It is not going to be a perfect place; it's not going to be a Western-style democracy. 

After a year in power, Obama decided that remaking Afghanistan was a fantasy and that his generals shouldn't be allowed to push him to give them more time, so the decision to pull out was taken without them. It seemed obvious to Ben Rhodes that Obama has been pretty hard-headed, deciding to end a war when it was clear to him that it couldn't be "won" in a conventional sense. 

The man who stood against Obama in 2004, John McCain, thinks it was a basic mistake to set a deadline for the end of the war. He thinks that the 2013 handover would have been much more likely if the president hadn't drawn down earlier despite the objections of his military commanders. He is heartened by the strategic agreement with Afghanistan, which will last for 10 years, but feels the president's stress has been all wrong. All he is doing is talk about withdrawal, getting out without killing all Afghans and Pakistanis as terrorists.  He does not want Islamic rule under the Taliban again in Afghanistan. He criticized Obama for lack of presidential leadership. This hawkish and extremist American wants the illegal war to go on. 

Ben Rhodes says the experience of Iraq has been important. A timeline is necessary to discipline this process and make clear the schedule under which they are going to take responsibility for their own security and then allow us to plan the drawdown of our own forces. "We're not fighting a conventional army like World War II or Korea, now we're fighting an ideal, so… you can't really destroy the ideas that we're fighting against so even once we leave it's going to be a conflict that continues."

That is the usual US bull talk.

President Obama and the other leaders have decided this clarity is necessary so people at home understand the war really is almost over. The dangers of setting a deadline for ending a war, to bring the troops home by a specific date on the calendar are over-emphasized by US terror crooks. 

French President Francois Hollande has got it right, and Obama has it wrong. "He has already signed an agreement that will keep US terrorists there until 2024. It will need troops there for a long time. France's new President Francois Hollande has shaken up the carefully crafted transition plan, vowing to bring his 3,500 combat troops home this year, a year earlier than planned. Hollande told reporters after White House talks with Obama that the withdrawal is not negotiable. Hollande, however, said he would honor a treaty signed by his predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy to provide training support for Afghan police and military forces.  Despite the early French withdrawal, NATO wants to show a united front in the last two years of combat in an increasingly unpopular war in Europe and America. 

Just like USA’s unilateral  invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, France ha snow decided unilaterally to withdraw terror troops form Afghanistan. 

 --------