Enrique Román
• TWO allies of the United States in its principal areas of conflict, the Middle East and Central Asia, have raised their voices to the present administration within a short period.
The first was Israel, in an event that is still in full development, when the Israelis snubbed Vice President Joseph Biden during a visit to that small country, by making the surprise announcement of the construction of more settlements in East Jerusalem.
The other exploded in Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai, to date Washington’s man in that directionless war, reacted violently to criticisms of his government’s corruption made by Obama himself, during his recent visit.
In what was seen as an attempt to gradually distance himself from the invading forces, Karzai stated that if there was any fraud in the recent elections, which he won for a second time, it had come from the Westerners, and pointed the finger directly at observers from the UN and the European Union.
But graver still was his reference to the interventionist troops: "In this situation there is a slight distinction between invasion, and aid and cooperation," and he added that if the perception is that foreign soldiers are invaders and Afghan government soldiers their mercenaries, the Taliban insurgency "could turn into a national resistance movement."
The sense of the war in Afghanistan, a controversial issue in itself in Washington, has once again reached new levels of debate. With his statement, compounded by his invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and threats of alliance with the Taliban, Karzai has increased the number of people who see the Afghan president as a serious complication to the problem, as not as an agent of its solution.
But everyone knows that in politics, what comes to the surface is no more than the little tip of an iceberg that, in the case of Afghanistan, is absolutely unfathomable, where obscure and unmentionable interests are crossed. Examples abound.
Still pending is an investigation generated at the request of the U.S. Congress into the exposé made public some months back of a paradoxical fact: 10% of Pentagon spending on logistic contracts for that war falls into the hands of the Taliban.
The most damning evidence came from the well-known journalist and investigator Aram Roston in The Nation, subsequently followed by other journalists. Roston’s revelation was disconcerting: US military officials in Kabul told him that a minimum of 10% percent of the Pentagon’s logistics contracts consists of payments to the Taliban. And Afghan officials added, "That’s a large part of their income."
This exposé points in various directions. As in Iraq, the participation of private companies as a complement to U.S. military logistics is a huge business here. Roston details the involvement with these companies of important figures in Karzai’s family, certain individuals previously linked to the Taliban, and the support of these companies for the creation of institutions dedicated to political lobbying in Washington.
Thus, the executive of the recently created Campaign for a U.S.-Afghanistan Partnership, a new lobby organization, includes Hamed Wardak, son of the Afghan defense minister and, at the same time, president of NCL Holdings, one of the principal private security companies linked to the war.
Or Ahmad Rateb Popal, an interpreter for the Taliban foreign minister prior to the 2001 invasion, who appeared on international television with a black turban, a thick beard and traces of the war against the Soviets; a deformed hand and arm and a patch covering one eye. Today, Popal, a cousin of President Karzai, controls the important Watan Risk Group, a consortium specializing in telecommunications, logistics and security.
These flourishing companies are responsible for protecting convoy traffic for the Western troops from Pakistan to their destination in Afghan territory, via a corridor known as Highway 1, with mountain passes in a terrain dominated by armed tribal leaders, warlords and Taliban.
"The security firms don't really protect convoys of American military goods here, because they simply can't; they need the Taliban's cooperation," affirms journalist Bruce Wilson. And Roston notes: "The real secret to trucking in Afghanistan is ensuring security on the perilous roads, controlled by warlords, tribal militias, insurgents and Taliban commanders. The American executive I talked to was fairly specific about it: ‘The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money.’ That is something everyone seems to agree on."
Jean MacKenzie from the GlobalPost relates that an agent for these companies in Helmand province itself was negotiating with a local supplier a large cargo of piping that had to be brought from Pakistan. The supplier billed in an extra 30% for the Taliban in order to guarantee the safe transit of the load.
The administration’s counterinsurgency doctrine in terms of Afghanistan, which presupposes using money as a powerful weapon, had resulted in a spiraling of security companies’ businesses. Truck transport by NCL Holdings, journalists assure, totaled $2.2 billion; in other words, 10% of the Afghan gross domestic product.
When this scandalous information was published, Rep. John Tierney, president of the National Security and Foreign Relations Sub-Committee, stated that a preliminary enquiry had produced enough evidence to call for a complete investigation.
But the investigation did not happen and perhaps it never will. NCL Holdings has initiated legal action against Aram Roston, alleging that NCL and Mr. Wardak found out about the contract opportunities for trucking services in Afghanistan via a U.S. federal government business opportunities website.
Meanwhile, critics of the war are increasing among the ranks of Barack Obama’s own party and the invading troops continue tracing paths already covered by other armies and distributing vast sums of money even to their enemies, in a criminal, unpopular and unnecessary war.
(courtesy : Granma)
