Wow, great catch, B. It strikes me Petraeus made a huge mistake 'announcing' agreements with foreign countries that didn't exist.

Has he maybe been promoted above his level of competence? After all, being head of Centcom involves a LOT of high-level diplomacy with other governments that (unlike, say, occupied Iraq, where he operated before) actually are fully sovereign entities. And gee, some of them even have permanent seats on the Security Council, nuclear arsenals, etc! So you don't just "assume" they're on board, or blow off any concerns they might have...

Posted by: Helena Cobban | Jan 26 2009 17:29 utc | 1

I don't get it, why would Russia assist the US in establishing yet another permanent military presence just outside its borders? What could the US offer that Russia wants or needs?

Is this the beginning of some kind of US/Russia pact against China? Also, does this mean the US can stop killing Pakistanis now?

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 26 2009 17:42 utc | 2

"If our joint business in this Council goes well and after its informal session we agree on the resumption of the Council's activities, I do not exclude that this transit will start working AT FULL CAPACITY," Interfax news agency quoted Rogozin as saying.

Could it be that an agreement was reached for limited supplies to transit Russia and it was supposed to be kept quiet?

Posted by: James | Jan 26 2009 17:46 utc | 3

@DOS - I don't get it, why would Russia assist the US in establishing yet another permanent military presence just outside its borders?

Think ahead. Obama wants to take on Pakistan. That supply route will likely close down or at least be endangered.

Now Russia gains 60,000 hostages in Afghanistan it can threaten to starve anytime the U.S. tries something nasty on it. And of course Russia is fine with anyone fighting the Taliban. It does not want those muhajedins on its own doorstep.

What could the US offer that Russia wants or needs?

Discarding of missile defense. Better general relations. A renewed START treaty, the Ukraine?!

Is this the beginning of some kind of US/Russia pact against China?

I don't think so. Russia has no problem with China. It's a good customer.

Also, does this mean the US can stop killing Pakistanis now?

No. If that supply line through Russia is up and running, the U.S. can start killing Pakistani in higher numbers. (And it will do so.)

@James - Could it be that an agreement was reached for limited supplies to transit Russia and it was supposed to be kept quiet?

I don't think so. The supply line through Russia is already running for Germany and France. The U.S. is the newcomer in this and will pay lots of money. That's how I interpret the "full capacity".

And why keep such a thing quiet? Why not build some pressure on the U.S. through PR?

But if that should have been a quiet agreement, than Petreaus really screwed up.

Posted by: b | Jan 26 2009 18:10 utc | 4

The shocking intelligence assessment shared by Moscow reveals that almost half of the US supplies passing through Pakistan is pilfered by motley groups of Taliban militants, petty traders and plain thieves. The US Army is getting burgled in broad daylight and can't do much about it. Almost 80% of all supplies for Afghanistan pass through Pakistan. The Peshawar bazaar is doing a roaring business hawking stolen US military ware, as in the 1980s during the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union. This volume of business will register a quantum jump following the doubling of the US troop level in Afghanistan to 60,000. Wars are essentially tragedies, but can be comical, too.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jan 26 2009 18:36 utc | 5

commercial goods and services - military supplies - can you read - where is the contradiction?

Posted by: outsider | Jan 26 2009 18:51 utc | 6

That's the ticket, scalp us, squeeze us, bleed us white, then give us the Anthony Eden Suez treatment when we go begging. Gotta be coordinated, though. Putin's got to Metternich us into acceptance of a diminished and less psychotic role. Then you wait and see: heads it's fascism, tails it's enlightened internationalism.

Posted by: ...---... | Jan 26 2009 18:54 utc | 7

you see b, that is the difference between us US americans and the russians. our favorite sports are basketball and football (not your football but the kind that is like rugby) where you have to move the ball down the court or down the field. It is fast and there is always a well defined goal.

the russkies on the other hand are famous chess players and the one who wins does not show his moves early in the game.

your theory is appealing though I wonder if Russia is confident enough to call our bluff and actually shut down a supply route. there are enough hotheads in the US for that to rapidly escalate and the next thing you know both sides are fueling up their ICBMs.

this is high stakes, probably not thought through.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 26 2009 19:05 utc | 8

A number of items that it would be nice to have some clarification on:

Where are the presumptive entry points into the Russian railway system - Black Sea ports? Baltic Ports? Overland from Germany/Poland? I'm skeptical that the US would want to put any sensitive or high-end military equipment in containers through Russia, as it would effectively lose control of it to a near-peer military competitor. I'd be surprised if the Russians are less enterprising pilferers than their Pakistani counterparts.

Would the switch away from Pakistan involve a switch in the sourcing of fuel, especially diesel and aviation fuel, from ME refiners to Russian refiners? This could be a very nice little earner for the Russian oil complex.

Afghanistan has no rail system. This means that there has to be a switch to trucks at the Afghan-Uzbek or Afghan-Turkmen border. Do the facilities actually exist to handle the anticipated traffic flow, and, if not, what level of investment would be required to upgrade all of this? For that matter, does the Central Asian leg of the rail network have the capacity to support the effort fully or only partially. Again, if only partially, what level of investment would be required to upgrade the lines?

Will Pakistan respond to this by curbing access to its airspace for air cargo, and, more critically, as an access route for the Gulf-based aviation assets that fly some combat support roles ( B1 bombers can't be based in Afghanistan as the conditions are too austere and there is no maintenance infrastructure for them )?

My guess is that the US/Nato will not be able to eliminate the Pakistan supply route, and it would take a good long time before the Russian/Central Asian alternative is up and running.

Posted by: dan | Jan 26 2009 19:41 utc | 9

your theory is appealing though I wonder if Russia is confident enough to call our bluff and actually shut down a supply route.

Not really shut down. Delays, technical problems, some pilfering by "mafias", unexpectedly needed track renewals ... the screws can be tightend in verious ways.

there are enough hotheads in the US for that to rapidly escalate and the next thing you know both sides are fueling up their ICBMs.

Do they still (liquid) fuel ICBMs? I don't think so ...

Posted by: b | Jan 26 2009 19:42 utc | 10

I disagree with this:

But that is still not enough. I doubt that Russia will agree to a supply route without at least some feel for the new administration and especially its stand on missile defense in eastern Europe and on NATO expansion, both directed against Russia.

Because I agree with this:

Russia will of course use this to its best interest. It now has the U.S. by the balls. Once the supply route is established but could get closed anytime Russia is miffed, the grip will only tighten.

Russia would love to have supply lines go through it's territory. A simple "I'm afraid that airfield is ungoing repairs right now, but we'll get your planes moving just as soon as we can" can starve out 50,000 US troops. Every small town bureaucrat uses this trick to control neighborhoods, now Russia can use it on the US.

Posted by: Bill | Jan 26 2009 19:44 utc | 11

Most likely Petraus who is a disgustingly shameless self-promoter made the announcement when he did for the amerikan domestic audience, so he could keep his name in lights during the transition. Lets not forget that despite his bullshit and hot air about the surge being believed in amerika, he is still seen as bush's bloke. Making the statement when he made it allowed him to segue into the Obama administration still smelling sweet.

The supply route issue has been a major talking point even with lazy media trying to support Obama's crank up of the war with Pakistan. As in if you do go to war with Pakistanis, how do you run a supply line through the war zone that you're bombing the beejesus outta.
So slimy Petraeus has made this statement hoping that by claiming everyone has agreed to it, any Russian intransigence can be turned back on them. That is the amerikan public along with the empire's supporters elsewhere will be persuaded that Russia is the bad guy breaking agreements. This, Petraeus imagines, will force the Russians into agreeing to something they do not want to do.

The technique is CheneyCorp SOP, the question is, whether ms clinton has the ability to eyeball the russians in this way, normal dipiquette would suggest that such stunts are only to be attempted after a slow buildup.
There is a seasoned and experienced team on the Russian side and new guys on the amerikan side, the Russians would have been looking for a suitable topic to test out the new mob's mettle and Petraeus has handed them one where they hold most of the cards.

So amerika is gonna have to try the old poorfella me ploy as in "see we tried to be fair to these people right from the start with our new kinder, nicer team yet straight away they do the typical Russkie thing of going back on their word, now do you see why we need to bury em in missiles?"

The first thing the russians will do is try to drive a wedge thru the coalition of the willing. They are letting some countries eg germany resupply their mainly non combat troops through Russia so they will let Germany know they hold them responsible for this and that they better talk some sense into the amerikans if they want to keep feeding their troops.

I doubt that the Russians believe they can get their side of the story across to amerikans but they know they can get europeans to listen. The truth about Georgia is pretty well known, as is the reality of the Ukranian/Russian gas blue. Interestingly the Ukranians didn't pass the gas problem onto major european partners this time, they passed it onto the 'little fellas' caught them in the squeeze, the same seems to be happening here.
The big problem for the amerikan empire here is the so-called israel conundrum. That is, however long the amerikan empire lasts, another decade or even if they get very lucky another ten, at the end of that time the amerikan empire will be no more but the big nations amerika wants these little fellas to make enemies of, will still be sitting there, right next door, even more pissed than they are now.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 26 2009 19:51 utc | 12

Most likely Petraus who is a disgustingly shameless self-promoter made the announcement when he did for the amerikan domestic audience, so he could keep his name in lights during the transition. Lets not forget that despite his bullshit and hot air about the surge being believed in amerika, he is still seen as bush's bloke. Making the statement when he made it allowed him to segue into the Obama administration still smelling sweet.

The supply route issue has been a major talking point even with lazy media trying to support Obama's crank up of the war with Pakistan. As in if you do go to war with Pakistanis, how do you run a supply line through the war zone that you're bombing the beejesus outta.
So slimy Petraeus has made this statement hoping that by claiming everyone has agreed to it, any Russian intransigence can be turned back on them. That is the amerikan public along with the empire's supporters elsewhere will be persuaded that Russia is the bad guy breaking agreements. This, Petraeus imagines, will force the Russians into agreeing to something they do not want to do.

The technique is CheneyCorp SOP, the question is, whether ms clinton has the ability to eyeball the russians in this way, normal dipiquette would suggest that such stunts are only to be attempted after a slow buildup.
There is a seasoned and experienced team on the Russian side and new guys on the amerikan side, the Russians would have been looking for a suitable topic to test out the new mob's mettle and Petraeus has handed them one where they hold most of the cards.

So amerika is gonna have to try the old poorfella me ploy as in "see we tried to be fair to these people right from the start with our new kinder, nicer team yet straight away they do the typical Russkie thing of going back on their word, now do you see why we need to bury em in missiles?"

The first thing the russians will do is try to drive a wedge thru the coalition of the willing. They are letting some countries eg germany resupply their mainly non combat troops through Russia so they will let Germany know they hold them responsible for this and that they better talk some sense into the amerikans if they want to keep feeding their troops.

I doubt that the Russians believe they can get their side of the story across to amerikans but they know they can get europeans to listen. The truth about Georgia is pretty well known, as is the reality of the Ukranian/Russian gas blue. Interestingly the Ukranians didn't pass the gas problem onto major european partners this time, they passed it onto the 'little fellas' caught them in the squeeze, the same seems to be happening here.
The big problem for the amerikan empire here is the so-called israel conundrum. That is, however long the amerikan empire lasts, another decade or even if they get very lucky another ten, at the end of that time the amerikan empire will be no more but the big nations amerika wants these little fellas to make enemies of, will still be sitting there, right next door, even more pissed than they are now.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 26 2009 20:00 utc | 13

Great stuff, b. One of your best. I was in Turkmenistan in October, and I didn't get the impression they were ready to bend the knee to the US. Even if they were, secretly, I've had experience of Central Asian railways. They have the appearance of modern electrified multiple track lines, but they are not. They are so slow. A whole night to do 400 km from Dzhambul (now Taraz) to Almati in Kazakhstan. Bump, bump, bump, at not more than 50 km an hour. You needed the samovar at the end of the carriage for refuels of tea. And that was an express. No way the US can have what it needs without extensive relaying of the lines.

Posted by: Alex | Jan 26 2009 20:47 utc | 14

Russia's Railway System is largely decrepit

from a recent report:
At the same time, sections that can be regarded as bottlenecks account for 30 per cent of the length of the main railway freight routes. What is more, 60 per cent of the Railways’ fixed assets and 80 per cent of cargo wagons and diesel locomotives are decrepit. According to the Russian Railway Company’s own estimates, 30,000 new wagons would be needed per year, against the current 5 to 8 thousand wagons bought by the company yearly. The capacity of Russian ports to handle containers (20 million TEU) does not exceed the current capacity of the world’s largest container port in Singapore. These figures are part of the reason why Russia accounts for only less than one per cent of the cargo turnover between Europe and Asia and, according to the latest estimates, only five to seven per cent of the transit potential of the country.
file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Don/LOCALS~1/Temp/UPI_Briefing_Paper_16_2008.pdf

Refurbishing the railroads nationwide requires large-scale investment. State-owned Russian Railways, a major railroad carrier and the owner virtually all of the nation's railroad infrastructure, intends to invest roughly R5.3tr ($204bn) in the sector's development through 2030. However, Russian Railways estimates that a sector turnaround would require much larger investment, on the order of R10tr ($380bn) over the same period. This amount is too large for Russian Railways to finance internally, so the company plans to seek public and private investment.

President Putin supports Russian Railways' plans. Russian Railways' CEO Vladimir Yakunin announced the company's plans at a meeting with President Putin in early April 2007. Putin spoke highly of these initiatives and asked the government to create a framework for raising finance for the industry. The exact amount of potential state funding is unclear, but we expect it could be very substantial, given the strategic importance of the railroads for the economy.
http://www.russiaprofile.org/resources/business/russiancompanies/rzd.wbp

Russia is a current economic slump so new financing would be welcome.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 26 2009 20:59 utc | 15

Russia's Railway System is largely decrepit

from a recent report:
At the same time, sections that can be regarded as bottlenecks account for 30 per cent of the length of the main railway freight routes. What is more, 60 per cent of the Railways’ fixed assets and 80 per cent of cargo wagons and diesel locomotives are decrepit. According to the Russian Railway Company’s own estimates, 30,000 new wagons would be needed per year, against the current 5 to 8 thousand wagons bought by the company yearly. The capacity of Russian ports to handle containers (20 million TEU) does not exceed the current capacity of the world’s largest container port in Singapore. These figures are part of the reason why Russia accounts for only less than one per cent of the cargo turnover between Europe and Asia and, according to the latest estimates, only five to seven per cent of the transit potential of the country.
file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Don/LOCALS~1/Temp/UPI_Briefing_Paper_16_2008.pdf

Refurbishing the railroads nationwide requires large-scale investment. State-owned Russian Railways, a major railroad carrier and the owner virtually all of the nation's railroad infrastructure, intends to invest roughly R5.3tr ($204bn) in the sector's development through 2030. However, Russian Railways estimates that a sector turnaround would require much larger investment, on the order of R10tr ($380bn) over the same period. This amount is too large for Russian Railways to finance internally, so the company plans to seek public and private investment.

President Putin supports Russian Railways' plans. Russian Railways' CEO Vladimir Yakunin announced the company's plans at a meeting with President Putin in early April 2007. Putin spoke highly of these initiatives and asked the government to create a framework for raising finance for the industry. The exact amount of potential state funding is unclear, but we expect it could be very substantial, given the strategic importance of the railroads for the economy.
http://www.russiaprofile.org/resources/business/russiancompanies/rzd.wbp

Russia is a current economic slump so new financing would be welcome.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 26 2009 21:07 utc | 16

It's in Russia's and even Iran's interest to cooperate with NATO to smash talibanism. http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/december-2008/kremlin-open-to-warmer-relations/>Here is one explanation, recirculating the comments of one Margelev, whose position in the Putin regime is unverifiable by me.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 26 2009 21:29 utc | 17

sloth

y'll defend the u s empire to the last drop of someone else's blood

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 26 2009 21:38 utc | 18

Just to study the routes that US resupply might take, and I presume German NATO resupply is already taking. Germany - Moscow - Tchimkent (southern Kazakhstan) - Tashkent (Uzbekistan) - Termez (Uzbekistan), then reshipment in trucks across the Amu Darya through the Salang tunnel to Kabul. If Russia is not open to the US, we are talking about Black Sea - Georgia - Baku (Azerbaijan) - Turkmenbashi (Turkmenistan) - Mary (Turkmenistan) then transshipment into trucks into northwest Afghanistan.

Two of the most Stalinist Central Asian republics control the road (Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan). Not that they can't be persuaded, but the case of Uzbekistan is not good news, given that they already expelled the US.

Turkmenistan, they are so cowed by the autocratic state, that they will resist nothing. I've seen it myself. Introduce American trucks, and personnel for the transshipment, and the population will start to have ideas (a good thing obviously from my point of view). The government will not permit it; it would lead to revolution.

Posted by: Alex | Jan 26 2009 22:19 utc | 19

I would think someone who professes knowledge of marx would not make the repeatedly dull error of assigning to the US alone the role of imperial master of global capital. It's either the error of an extravagant imagination or general boorishness. Or both.

The relations between the US/Europe/Russia are complex and contradictory. There is no question that all share an interest in stanching what they together believe as the threat of islamic terrorism. China too is in on the game.

And it doesn't really fucking matter whether this fact makes your tidy theory of empire the little illusion it is.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 26 2009 22:41 utc | 20

I got my globe of the world out. I had to see what this looks like geographically because my head doesn't visualize these things very well.

What a mess! Afghanistan is land locked and to fly there requires going over either Iran, Pakistan, China or one of the old Soviet puppet states. You want to talk about a logistics mess; supporting a large troop build-up is going to put the U.S. between a rock and a hard place.

Imagine the problems with fifty to sixty thousand U.S. troops on the ground in a place that really doesn't want them there. And they'll be on this hostile island surrounded by several nations america isn't on the best terms with at a time when the world seems to be coming apart financially. This would be a shitty place to be stuck if you were playing Risk; As for Iraq and Pakistan, it must make them awful uncomfortable having potentially hostile troops (from the country with the world's largest navy) stationed on what would normally be a protected border.

Iran or Pakistan has to figure that with american troops massing in afghanistan it will only be a matter of time before one of them are suddenly attacked on three sides; Pakistan from India, the Arabian Sea and Afghanistan or Iran from Iraq, the Arabian Sea and Afghanistan. As long as America has it's sights on keeping Afghanistan then it will eventually need to open a supply-line from the water.

I do see the merits in what Mr Bacon posted at 16 regarding Russia.

Russia could and would benefit from this deal, same too for its old satellite-states. Any infrastructure improvements would open the region-up for resource exploitation. But it will probably take both of the former cold-war rivals to "win" in Afghanistan (what ever that would mean?).

Regardless of what happens, this is going to screw americans because we'll spend even more of our tax dollars in a way and a place that will do nothing to help us. Even if america were to control Afghanistan, it would still be a toilet flushing away american tax dollars.

And without controlling the supply routes, we would eventually need a nation-sized tube of KY Jelly, because we'll get screwed paying bakeesh to the gatekeeper countries.

Posted by: David | Jan 26 2009 23:02 utc | 21

no, its pure boorishness. i find your marx' nowhere, especially in marx, perhaps the figure you think of teaches at some florida university or perhaps in delaware. perhaps there - they possess a specificity that constructs you subbgramscian grip on your gonads

your desscription of the world, is of course at odds with what is happening outside the window, yours or mine

i suggest one of your colleagues buys you a subscription to left book review or buys you an old copy of baran/sweezy or even an old herb gintis text might help you out your questionable 'theoretical' quicksand - id even re"ad old gus hall if i was you or you might end up like todd gitlin

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 26 2009 23:09 utc | 22

The proof your "theory" is wrong is simply: french pensioners are funding "empire." It is obviously not "amerikan." Capitalism is a system of accumulation always in movement, and as marx says is not a thing, a state as such.

Russia and the US share an interest to squash any threat to this system. This is as plain as day. Thus, cooperation on an afghan supply route. And cooperation in the murder of gazans.

Only someone like you, an ideologue of a world in which only you inhabit, would confuse acknowledgment of such facts as a defense of "empire."

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 26 2009 23:27 utc | 23

ô dear, dear me

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 26 2009 23:34 utc | 24

perhaps you sould just read arundhati roy

"Our strategy should be not only to confront empire, but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness : and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are different from the ones we're being brainwashed to believe.

The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling : their ideas, their version of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability.

Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them.

Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing."

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 26 2009 23:44 utc | 25

so stop your bickering, baba & het back to the class struggle

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 26 2009 23:53 utc | 26

Russia/China: Why not have the US finance the rebuilding of the railways and roads? They'll never win in Afghanistan anyway. Building up traffic in the area will just increase Russian and Chinese 'inroads' in the central Asian countries. US has nothing to offer these countries; the corrupt prefer European bling anyway. The longer the path, the greater the shrinkage.

I was also on that train route a few months ago, between Chimkent and Almaty. TGV it is not, but the tea service was good. And even there there were special conductors who could get you better service and accommodations for a special fee. (Worth it, by the way.)

Also, the economic meltdown is bad enough in KZ and KG, and it's the US and the West they blame, not the Russians. If things continue to collapse the people might pressure these governments to demand a lot more for these routes.

Posted by: biklett | Jan 27 2009 0:07 utc | 27

just">http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/shubel-morgans-adaptation-of-long-live-the-victory-of-peoples-war/">just for you, darling slothrop, if the roy is a bit hard going

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 27 2009 0:32 utc | 28

biklett@27

Russia/China: Why not have the US finance the rebuilding of the railways and roads? They'll never win in Afghanistan anyway. Building up traffic in the area will just increase Russian and Chinese 'inroads' in the central Asian countries. US has nothing to offer these countries; the corrupt prefer European bling anyway. The longer the path, the greater the shrinkage.

Politically this is what I think also – But these days I wonder how much is old fashioned politics and how much is just business? If american business interest were to become heavily involved in building infrastructure in the region, would they be partnering with local governments or other local businesses? Would the new infrastructure be privatized?

Privatization/globalization seems to be the way most resources are now stolen (as opposed to hot wars); business interest have almost completely circumvented, or integrated politics, so most thievery can be done without bombs and bloodshed.

The war in Afghanistan probably has more to do with opening the region to business and "civilizing" it (much like what was done in america's west) to start westernizing it and exploiting the resources, rather than fighting a bunch of "terrorist"

Posted by: David | Jan 27 2009 0:35 utc | 29

helena I don't get it, why would Russia assist the US in establishing yet another permanent military presence just outside its borders? What could the US offer that Russia wants or needs?

from #5 link

"I can responsibly say that in the event of NATO's defeat in Afghanistan, fundamentalists who are inspired by this victory will set their eyes on the north. First they will hit Tajikistan, then they will try to break into Uzbekistan ... If things turn out badly, in about 10 years, our boys will have to fight well-armed and well-organized Islamists somewhere in Kazakhstan," the popular Moscow-politician turned diplomat added.

...

Second, Medvedev made it clear Moscow would resist US attempts to expand its military and political presence in the Central Asian and Caspian regions. He asserted, "This is a key region, a region in which diverse processes are taking place and in which Russia has crucially important work to do to coordinate our positions with our colleagues and help to find common solutions to the most complex problems."

Plainly put, Moscow will not allow a replay of the US's tactic after September 11, 2002, when it sought a military presence in Central Asia as a temporary measure and then coolly proceeded to put it on a long-term footing.

read the article if you haven't yet.

Posted by: annie | Jan 27 2009 1:39 utc | 30

The US and the Taliban will resurrect their game of footsie.

Watch.

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jan 27 2009 1:59 utc | 31

I am unsettled to find myself sexually aroused by the groovy robot Maoist chick in that commie video.

Posted by: ...---... | Jan 27 2009 2:03 utc | 32

i thought it was a little ironic, it isn't

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 27 2009 2:22 utc | 33

@ 33

i advise you to read the theory of suprplus value, immediately - that should do the trick

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 27 2009 2:26 utc | 34

I sit for hours in indy bookstores paging through my dogeared 18th Brumaire and I never meet chicks like that. I would totally fall for the lamest, phoniest honey trap, so where are all the malevolent red blackmailers when you need em?

Posted by: ...---... | Jan 27 2009 2:53 utc | 35

Oh god they are all here today. Incidentally the most offensive yet most revealing of the slothrop troll's born out of frustration attempts to cast aspersions on other poster's character is this latest one of a lame insinuation that R'giap is pensioner and I'm a dole bludger.

Regardless of what our income status may be (incidentally I haven't had the need to turn to the rest of my community for income support since I learned as a teen that life in a western 'democracy' meant any half smart whitefella or other 'socially acceptable' type will be able to put food on his table even in times when those born without such cushioning but with far greater abilities, starve. I am fortunate and can not only support my little family unit without too much difficulty, I have sufficient 'spare time' to assist those in our community who have been 'jammed up' by the unjust economic structure)

slothrops use of 'welfarism' as a pejorative reveals that his politics are anything but humanist or leftist.

I don't know Giap personally. I know no other MoA-ites personally although I have come to love and respect a few, but I do know 2 things about Giap that I am equally certain the slothrop troll knows as well. The first is that Giap has worked tirelessly in his community to asist those less fortunate. Victims of the wars and other major social dislocations such as the partitioning of Palestine/Kosovo/ Yugoslavia that we discuss abstractly here have come to know Giap is a friend and comrade. I know this from other MoA members who have visited Giap.

I also know that Giap suffered a major heart attack last year and was hospitalised for a considerable period, so if in real life Giap is receiving some support back from his community that is no disparagement of Giap, rather it is a recommendation for the society he lives in.

as for slothrop I sometimes wonder what he/she does for an earner. Does the troll work in his/her community trying to make it a better place? Or has the failed academic managed to completely separate her/his 'career' from her/his politics in the way that so many bourgeois self professed lefties do?

ps apologies to other MoA-ites for the thread trample but upthread is the second time in less than a day the troll has made slimy cracks about french pensioners. May I suggest that any further name-calling and mud slinging be moved to one of the threads slothrop has already smashed over with his personal attacks. How about here.">http://www.moonofalabama.org/2009/01/the-first-days-in-office.html#comments">here.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 27 2009 2:54 utc | 36

From the "realist" way back machine, courtesy of the Le Nouvel Observateur; Jan. 1998. Robert Gates, Obama's SecDef, was there from 1982, almost the beginning. Brzezinski was one of Obama's pre election foreign policy advisors.

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

[snip]

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

>B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Lol!

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jan 27 2009 3:28 utc | 37

Group hug!!

Posted by: ...---... | Jan 27 2009 3:38 utc | 38

Here's the link.

http://tinyurl.com/4tg6t

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jan 27 2009 3:38 utc | 39

Oh debs, you and I are class warriors, you know. Comrades.

Your "empire USuk" thesis confuses the particular for the universal necessary for your burlesque cathection upon the view that "Amerika" is the dark star of capitalist evils. You're the same as the rightwing morons around here who discover mexicans as the source of the collapse of the heroic virtues of american dream; they have too many babies and pick too few beans. They're sucking the soul out of our virtue, just as "amerika" is sucking the soul out of the world's instinctive love for social solidarity, green detergents, and group sex. Your version of Capital is the one subtitled: "Destroy England, Save the World!"

Also, NZ and Chile are the little experiments in neolib gangbang. And for NZ it worked. Why the upside-down smile, debs?

And it's just a heartless fact the murder of pashtuns is a crime insinuating you, me, french pensioner there. It's not my fault the system subsumes my subjectivity. But you are no more free than I.

And you are right. I could care less about your biography. The particularity of experience as proof of a general problem is a bourgeois diversion.

As I said, your brand of leftist contempt

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 27 2009 4:49 utc | 40

And I'm not a troll. I just think you're often stupid, even though on vague principal, I agree w/ you.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 27 2009 4:52 utc | 41

Graeme Smith from Kandahar: Taliban turning to more 'complex' attacks

Taliban fighters are increasingly hitting their targets directly instead of relying on bombs, according to a year-end statistical review that contradicts a key NATO message about the war in Afghanistan.

Public statements from Canadian and other foreign troops have repeatedly emphasized the idea that the insurgents are losing momentum because they can only detonate explosives, failing to confront their opponents in combat.

But an analysis of almost 13,000 violent incidents in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008, prepared by security consultant Sami Kovanen and provided to The Globe and Mail, shows a clear trend toward open warfare.

By far the most common type of incident, in Mr. Kovanen's analysis, is the so-called “complex attack,” meaning ambushes or other kinds of battle using more than one type of weapon. The analyst counted 2,555 such attacks in 2008, up 117 per cent from the previous year.
...

Posted by: b | Jan 27 2009 8:29 utc | 42

Someone else has the same thought - re-Russia:

if somebody, namely Russia, tries to tinker with the new northern supply routes, we may find ourselves suddenly enjoying an old-fashioned confrontation with a country that has a long and cherished history of cutting off and starving those too eager to intrude (ahem, Stalingrad, erm..)--a matter that would be a far more immediate concern to U.S. national security than even an eroding nuclear-armed Pakistan-Taliban nexus.

In short, a failure to recognize--and highlight--the ugly fact that our strategic goals for Afghanistan are, in essence, being held hostage by our insecure lines of supply, is a recipe for a serious strategic disaster. Our strategic goals for Afghanistan cannot over-match the goals of the countries that control our supply lines. They've got to align someplace, yet with one of those "supply-chokers" being Pakistan...how? We're already half hamstrung. This is a very tight and very complex spot.

Posted by: b | Jan 27 2009 8:56 utc | 43

At the risk of getting burned, but since some regular posters whom I not only enjoy, but am enriched by seem to be getting into an, uhm, dog/cat fight. I have have to throw my 2 cents and hope I don't lose any fingers...

I've always found Slothrop more of a gadfly and freelance iconoclast than a troll. If he/she/it/they is/are a troll then they/he/she/it are/is a quality troll, whatever that is.

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Jan 27 2009 11:36 utc | 44

b@44, 43-

The only reason I can see for americans to place more troops in Afghanistan is to keep that region unstable, the article about the complex Taliban attacks is no surprise. From what I understand about Afghanistan, it is not so much a country as it is a frontier ruled by several different tribal factions. Throughout history it has been the Achilles Heel of conquerors, the local population will stop fighting their petty regional conflicts to unite against a common invader.

Any foreign force will face huge resistance in the countryside, regardless of who controls the cities. Cities are not Afghanistan and can only be held as long as supplies can reach them. Anytime the Taliban feels like it is worth the effort, they can lay siege to the cities and cut-off supplies. Imagine the cost to the army that has to fight to keep the cities open and supplied.

Then you add-in the politics of the surrounding countries, most who don't look kindly at the U.S. and would love to see us bogged down fighting an un-winnable war against local insurgents, many who have been fighting their whole lives. It's cheap and easy for either China, Pakistan, Russia or Iran to slip weapons to the insurgents, if for no other reason than to keep american troops busy.

I see an ugly, expensive lesson in international diplomacy developing for my country (as if there aren't already enough.)

Will the last marine to leave, please remember to turn-out the friggin' lights in the embassy. We're still paying the electric bill there in Hanoi...

Posted by: David | Jan 27 2009 13:49 utc | 45

i, for one - who once listened carefully to slothrop - pay much less attention. somewhere sloth has lost common sense & sometimes common decency.

& it is true - i do not find any marxism in the postes here - nor do i ask for it - it is sloth whp cpnstantly waves the red flag in the air - but often it seems to hide the particular policies & crimes of the u s empire. it is also true that his objective knowledge of other ccountries is poor & though it is a reality too common in our day - sloth is probably monolingual in an area where it cries out for other languages - not as proof of culture but as a necessary aide to understanding detail. detail which is so often, missing

i would welcome the times when slothrop brought his analytical & rhetorical skills to something other than insulting people, or recountingto us he is the greatest marxist of all time, or to hide war crimes, oor to glorify u s armed power, or to deïfy the diplomatic genius of the state dept, or the innate innovatory capacity of capital

what is self evidently the case - that us imperialism is collapsing & having to enter pacts, treaties & arrangement - that need to be studied with precision not the sackcloth slothrop uses

& i thank debs for his fraternel words

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 27 2009 13:50 utc | 46

Russian, U.S. leaders set for first talks in April

Russia's leader is likely to meet the new U.S. president in April to try to re-launch ties that were hobbled by differences under Washington's previous administration, the Russian foreign minister said on Tuesday.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he expected Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama to hold bilateral talks on the sidelines of a Group of 20 summit planned for April 2 in London.

Lavrov said a tentative agreement on the meeting was reached on Monday when the two leaders spoke by telephone for the first time since Obama took office on January 20. The White House has not confirmed any plans for a meeting.

Posted by: b | Jan 27 2009 14:13 utc | 47

Ahh - sorry, there were two calls:

Lavrov said he had a separate phone discussion with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during which they agreed to hold their own talks before the Obama-Medvedev meeting. Details of those talks were still being agreed, Lavrov said.

Posted by: b | Jan 27 2009 14:14 utc | 48

b

so i hope the tie-eating sack will not attempt another splendid little war

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 27 2009 14:42 utc | 49

helena’s comment struck me - Petraeus may be out of his depth, and also somewhat apprehensive as he has a new Commander-in-Chief. We don’t know what is going on behind the scenes but the public statis or temporary (and maybe tactical) silence from the Most Powerful One in the World will not have made his position easy.

going a bit OT -

quotes from the Peshawar Frontier Post (it used to be an excellent newspaper, haven’t read if for years though..) :

The Afghan government's January 10 plan, a copy of which was obtained by McClatchy Newspapers, would give the Afghan government authority to approve an increase in International Security Assistance Force troops, which include about 19,500 Americans. It also would limit home searches or detention of Afghans to Afghan forces and require coordination of "all phases of" NATO ground and air operations "at the highest possible level." The deteriorating relationship between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his foreign allies....http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=an&nid=1088>link

US and allied combat troops will withhold efforts to destroy Afghanistan's narcotics industry, which finances the Taliban insurgency, unless Afghan government forces take the lead, a senior military officer said.http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=an&nid=1089>link

to rgiap: subrgramscian grip - inimitable...

Posted by: Tangerine | Jan 27 2009 16:24 utc | 50

Supply route through Russia? What have they been smoking?
They would just gift Russia a payback opportunity. I doubt that Russians have forgotten the 1979-80 trap or the boast of a trap by Brezenski(sp).

Posted by: Hoss | Jan 27 2009 16:49 utc | 51

McClatchy: The Taliban is the new Sultan of Swat. (sorry)

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 27 2009 17:03 utc | 52

Don-Quite a link, the post at the bottom are interesting reading too.

A really scary situation is developing as Pakistan's government is losing credibility, and the heat is being turned up every day from it's own internal strife, both from political infighting and from insurgents - not to mention their friendly neighbor India.

It probably makes more sense to be talking about a war with Pakistan than it does with Iran. It makes more sense, especially if Pakistan is seen by the international community as being torn by internal problems to a point of complete collapse. Pakistan already has nukes, and the ability to rain them down any place they'd like, so it would be much easier to develop a " coalition of the willing" to eventually address this issue, than it would an attack on a stable country like Iran, who doesn't have nukes.

This would solve as many problems on paper as it would likely create on the ground. But I wouldn't put it past the goons in D.C. to try pulling this off. Maybe the talks with Russia are just a ruse to make it look like america has explored other avenues of supply and have been forced to invade Pakistan to open up a supply route.

Springtime is almost here and along with flowers sprout military campaigns.

Posted by: David | Jan 27 2009 17:31 utc | 53

@David - I am not so sure about an unstable Pakistan. The army can again take over anytime it likes.

Also - Pakistan already has nukes, and the ability to rain them down any place they'd like

Nonsense - they have F16 as the most extended reach to drop a primitive nuke on target. In combat some 500 miles. Their unreliable (bought from North Korea) Gauri missile can reach 1,000 miles max. That's certainly not "any place".

Pakistan's problem with Afghanistan is India. Through out Karzai, educated in India, and the Indian intelligence services that are in Afghanistan and Pakistan's position to the happening there will be a lot less agressive.

The problem is that the U.S. sees India as a potential ally and Pakistan as a client of its "startegic competitor" China. Take those illusion away and many things would clear up pretty fast in Central Asia.

Posted by: b | Jan 27 2009 19:06 utc | 54

b-

you're right, of course. There is so many complicated games being played-out from the many competitors in this region it scares the hell out of me. As you point out, there are internal elements being exploited in each country as well. And the army taking over in Pakistan isn't going to cool the region down. But I'm speculating and I don't want to be held to any of this, mostly just feces coming out the wrong hole...

I just like looking at the map and imagining the what ifs? Regardless of my wacky fantasies, the region is a mess, and america is foolish to waste efforts in Afghanistan, efforts that could end tragically for our military and our national budget.

A military can only reach as far as its supply lines can follow and I see a no-win situation for america in this region. We weren't willing (or able) to fight the Vietnamese who were defending their homeland, just as the Soviets weren't able to fight against the Afghan fighters also defending their homeland. And the U.S. has some kind of imperialist illusion that we're gonna' be able to hold this ground when even the taliban had local pockets aligned against it, is even more foolish than my writing.

Some folks just won't capitulate to power, take the Apache Geronimo as a truly american example Geronimo.

I only see tax dollars and worse yet, lives, being thrown into a bottomless pit to feed the nightmare dreams of politicians. And no body wins, what ever that means...

Posted by: David | Jan 27 2009 19:52 utc | 55

From the Telegraph, so, you know, fwiw, but this supply route thing may have a quid pro quo it needed: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/4369027/Russia-drops-missile-plans-due-to-Obama-change-to-US-attitude.html>Russia 'drops missile plans due to Obama change to US attitude'

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 28 2009 17:00 utc | 56

Today also Russians have denied their previous plan to set up Iskander missile launchers in Kaliningrad Oblast. That could mean they know that there will be no ICBM shield in Poland and Czech Republic soon.

Posted by: Michal | Jan 28 2009 17:49 utc | 57

@56/57 - I regard this as a Russian "offer" if Obama pulls back missile defense.

My guess is Obama will do so, because the Pentagon tells him they really need the route through Russia.

If he doesn't do so, the Iskander missiles will be stationed in Kaliningrad.

Posted by: b | Jan 28 2009 18:14 utc | 58