HE'S NOT NAIVE. (Non è ingenuo)

The two largest nuclear powers say they are close to agreeing on a successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), although U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have yet to clinch a deal.

Asked by a reporter what the biggest problem was in the talks, Putin said: "What is the problem? The problem is that our American partners are building an anti-missile shield and we are not building one."

Speaking to reporters in the Far Eastern Russian city of Vladivostok, Putin said the U.S. plans would fundamentally disrupt the Cold War balance of power and Russia would thus be forced to develop new offensive weapons.

The comments, from Russia's most powerful politician, showed the seriousness of the problems hampering talks on a replacement for START I and illustrated the deep unease still felt in Moscow over Washington's missile defense plans.

In September, Obama said the United States would scrap parts of George W. Bush's missile defense plans, a step seen as an attempt to allay Kremlin fears that the system was a direct threat to Russia.

Cutting the thousands of nuclear weapons accumulated during the Cold War is the centerpiece of Obama's efforts to "reset" relations with Russia, which the United States is pressing to offer more help on Afghanistan and Iran.
Russia's leaders have remained wary about Obama's revised missile defense plans, which are based on sea- and land-based missile interceptors in Europe.

"If we are not developing an anti-missile shield, then there is a danger that our partners, by creating such 'an umbrella', will feel completely secure and thus can allow themselves to do what they want, disrupting the balance, and aggressiveness will rise immediately," Putin said.

"In order to preserve balance ... we need to develop offensive weapons systems," Putin said, echoing a pledge by Medvedev last week to develop a new generation of strategic nuclear weapons.

Putin said Moscow wanted more information about the U.S. plans in exchange for details about Russia's deployed nuclear offensive missiles.

"The problems of anti-missile defense and offensive weapons are very tightly linked to each other," he said, adding that talks on a new treaty were moving in a generally positive direction.

Russia and the United States failed to agree on a successor to START I by December 5, when the treaty was due to expire, and have extended it as they try to work out a new agreement.

Obama and Medvedev failed to clinch a deal when they met on the sidelines of the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen earlier this month. No reason was given, although they said they were close to an agreement.
(Reuters)

STILLE BOMBARDIERUNG AND SIDE-EFFECTS

Last week U.S. president Barack Obama authorized the bombing of northwest Yemen, resulting in the killing of at least 120 people including children.

The U.S. military support included warplanes and intelligence. However the White House stated that its mission was to fight al-Qaeda's presence in Yemen.
The attacks occurred last Thursday November 17, 2009 and it follows four months of continuing combats in the region, between Yemen and Saudi Arabia -U.S. strong ally- against the Houthi rebels, a religious-based group of mostly Shiite [Shia] Muslims.
The internal conflict in Yemen started in 2004 but the military conflict has restarted in August 2009, after peace talks failed. This has caused the displacement of over 175,000 civilians in the border region between both countries. A humanitarian crisis is increasing in the region, with children being the most affected.
Videos released by the rebels show the violent attacks.
The Obama administration has said the U.S. responded to requests from the government of Yemen. The U.S. says they are fighting against al-Qaeda, as the pro Israel newspaper The New York Times reports:

[U.S.] support was approved by president Obama and came at the request of the Yemeni government. The American contributions were intended to help Yemen to prevent Al Qaeda from mounting attacks against American and other foreign targets inside its borders.

While most U.S. media ignored the attack for two days, the Iran government's international news website Press TV posted this last Saturday November 19:

Upon the orders of Obama, the military warplanes on Thursday blanketed two camps in the North of the Yemeni capital, Sana'a, claiming there were "an imminent attack against a US asset was being planned," ABC News quoted anonymous administration officials as saying on Friday.
The US air raids were then followed by a Yemeni ground forces attack. The operation led to the death of around 120 people of whom many were civilians, including children, the report quoted Yemeni opposition as saying.
Obama also contacted Yemen's President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, after the blitz in order to "congratulate" him on his efforts against 'al-Qaeda,' the US news outlet quoted White House officials as telling reporters earlier.
The latest development comes in the wake of recently intensified attacks on the country's Shia Houthi fighters which has brought about a dire humanitarian situation in northern Yemen.
So far, the US officials have categorically denied any direct involvement in the air strikes on Houthi fighters, alleging they have only targeted growing al-Qaeda training camps, mostly located in southern parts of the Persian Gulf state. Yemen's Houthi fighters however insist US fighter jets have been bombing their region, claiming the lives of civilians in their air raids.


To understand the Yemen conflict, we also must understand of the centuries old Sunni-Shiite rivalry which is wisely used by the U.S., Europe, and especially Israel to maintain and increase its influence in the Middle East region.
Yemen population of 23 million people with an average age of 16 years old, is mostly of Arab origin, about 50-55% are Shaf'i Sunni Muslim religion and 40-45% are Zaydi Shiite [Shia] Muslims, but the country is ruled by the Shiite mostly with close ties to Iran, a Shiite majority country. Yemen is located in the southern tip of the Arabian peninsula and it borders with mostly-Sunni Oman and Saudi Arabia.
Yemen, says it's fighting the al-Qaeda influence in its territory. Al-Qaeda is a Sunni pan-Islamic movement that rejects Jewish-Christian influence in the Muslim countries, and it took credit for the 9/11 attacks in the United States. About 40% of the Guantanamo detainees are from Yemen, and the U.S. embassy in Sanaa has been a target of violent attacks.
Yemen is ruled by president Ali Abdullah Saleh, is a Shia leader who has helped with the unification of the country in the 1960s' after the British colonial rule led to a division of the country. Salh is in power for the last 30 years, and he has accused Shia-ruled Iran of supporting the Houthi rebels.
North Yemen -historically pro western- is dominated by the Shiites, and the southern Yemen is mostly Sunni with a strong Marxist influence remaining from the previous government, which united with the north in 1990.
Yemen military offensive is also being supported by the Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia, whose military latest attack in northern Yemen killed about 54 people, according to Al Jazeera. In that attack, the leader of the Houthis was reportedly killed reports the BBC:

The Houthis, named after their leader's family, say the Saudis are helping the Yemeni government suppress their demand for greater local autonomy. The Houthis say they are trying to reverse the political, economic and religious marginalisation of the Zaydi [Shiite] community in Yemen.
The Zaydi community are a minority in Yemen, but make up the majority in the north of the country. The insurgents have been fighting the government since 2004. The government launched a fresh offensive in August 2009, which precipitated a new wave of intense fighting. It accuses the Houthis of wanting to re-establish Zaydi clerical rule, which ended in 1962.

The United States military is using al-Qaeda as a excuse to support Yemen in this war, but mostly is obvious that it wants to increase its military presence in the Middle East. Pentagon officials declared to the UK's The Daily Telegraph newspaper:

American officials told The Daily Telegraph the country is becoming a "reserve" base for the terrorist network, which considers it a safe haven. "Yemen is becoming a reserve base for al-Qaeda's activities in Pakistan and Afghanistan," said a US military official. [...]
Yemen is the ancestral home of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the local arm of the network, has provided many of the group's leaders. One of al-Qaeda's worst attacks on [the U.S.], the bombing of the USS Cole, took place in Aden in 2000, killing 17 [U.S.] sailors.

In the other extreme, The Jawa Report, a U.S. based anti-Muslim and conservative news blog -that calls Arabs as "Jawas" I suppose in reference to Indonesia the most populated Muslim nation in the world- is even criticizing the attacks, perhaps in order to attack Obama:

When a counter-terror air strike kills more civilians than an average suicide bombing, can it be called a success? Discounting the dead kids for just a minute and using even the coldest pragmatic standards, the US air strikes in Yemen did much more harm than good to the US on multiple levels and will negatively impact security for a decade.

The Atlantic Wire a well known pro Israel publication founded in 1857 in Boston and now based in Washington, DC, says that Yemen could become "the Next Afghanistan". In other words, another excuse for a U.S. military intervention overseas:

How worried should we be about Yemen? The small Arab state sits south of prosperous Saudia Arabia and just across the Gulf of Aden from Somalia, the world's most failed state. Long plagued by separatist insurgencies and terrorism, many analysts fear that Yemen is on the edge of becoming an international crisis point on the scale of Afghanistan.
Yemenis make up 40% of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Yemen, along with Somalia and of course Afghanistan, is frequently cited as a safe haven for terrorism. Because al-Qaeda is a predominantly Arab organization, and Yemen is an Arab state unlike Somalia or Afghanistan, some fear it could be more susceptible to al-Qaeda infiltration. Yemen's dilapidated economy, expected to decline over the next year and disintegrate as oil runs out by 2017, could plunge the nation into chaos.
The U.S. is already engaging Yemen's problems, if lightly. On Thursday, a series of bombings hit suspected terrorist sites in Yemen, with apparent American support. The extent of U.S. involvement remains unclear, however, with news reporting ranging from mere intelligence assistance to Yemeni officials to launching cruise missiles against the targets.

One day after the U.S. attacks in Yemen, the pro Israel newspaper The Washington Post announced that the Obama administration is planning to repatriate dozens of Yemeni prisoners from Guantanamo, but the current crisis in Yemen may delay the plans:

The Obama administration is planning to repatriate six Yemenis held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a transfer that could be a prelude to the release of dozens more detainees to Yemen, according to sources with independent knowledge of the matter.
The release is a significant first step toward dealing with the largest group of detainees at the prison -- there are currently 97 Yemenis there -- and toward meeting President Obama's goal of closing the facility.
But Yemen's security problems and lack of resources have spawned fears about its ability to monitor and rehabilitate returnees.

That same day, the U.S. Senate approved the scandalous 2010 Defense Budget of $636 billion dollars, including $128 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This represents an increase of $11 billion from the 2009 budget. The budget was passed in the Senate by a wow 88-10 majority vote, three days after the House approved it with a whooping 395-34 vote.
The U.S. 2010 Budget for Health Care is about $821.7 billion, but a big chuck of it goes to the same Insurance corporations that boycotted the U.S. Health Care reform bill, that now excludes Public Option. In times of recession, U.S. citizens health will continue under the control of private corporations.
With a poverty rate of 46% and growing, Yemen has an external debts of $6 billion dollars and the nation is now facing a worsening humanitarian crisis, with over 175 thousands people being displaced from their homes by the current civil war. The most affected are children, with half of them showing signs of chronic nutrition deprivation.
(Carlos in DC)

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

It now appears that air travelers from all across the world are going to be facing tougher security measures and delays. This news comes after a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist came within moments of blowing up a transatlantic jet that was carrying 254 people on board.

The President of the United States, Barack Obama, came back from Christmas holiday to order two anti terrorism reviews as aviation leaders attempt to close loopholes that failed to stop Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. This is a man that is a Nigerian extremist that smuggled explosive materials onto a Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day.

This attack came just four days after a video was posted on an extremist website that showed an al-Qaeda militant in Yemen saying that they are carrying a bomb to hit the enemies of God. Abdulmutallab, a former student of Britain, was restrained by passengers and crew as he attempted to detonate a bomb that was sewn into his underpants.

As the man emerged from the toilet, he put a blanket over his lap and complained about an upset stomach. It was during this time that he tried to operate the bomb. However, passengers and cabin crew restrained him as flames came from his clothing.

Flights are now being delayed as much as four hours as passengers have to face extra screenings and are limited to one item of hand luggage. Under this new measure, in the final hours before landing in the United States, passengers are now banned from standing up, using toilets and holding blankets.
(Comparecarrentals.co.uk)

HOW CHILE WILL OVERCOME GLOBAL CRISIS: FROM PINERA TO PINERA. (Come il Cile supererà la crisi globale: da Pinera a Pinera)

Chilean billionaire Sebastian Pinera may emerge as the leader in the first round of the country’s presidential election today without garnering enough votes to avoid a second-round run-off in January, polls show.

The former investment banker leads the ruling coalition’s Eduardo Frei and 36-year-old lawmaker Marco Enriquez-Ominami by more than 10 percentage points. The top two finishers in today’s ballot will take part in a runoff election Jan. 17.

“All the polls are very clear: Pinera will come first and Frei will probably come second,” said Robert Funk, director of the public affairs institute at the University of Chile in Santiago. “On Monday we start again from zero. It will become a new campaign.”

Today’s poll results may make it easier to predict whether Pinera, 60, will win the runoff election and end 20 years of rule by the coalition that unseated dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1988. Should he win more than 45 percent of the vote, Pinera will be the likely winner in January, while anything less than 43 percent means he may struggle in the second round, Funk said.

Pinera will probably win 44 percent of votes cast, while Frei will get 31 percent and Enriquez-Ominami will get 18 percent, according to a December poll by the Santiago-based Center for the Study of Contemporary Reality. The survey of 1,200 people has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

As president, Pinera would seek to steer Latin America’s most stable economy toward more of the free-market policies favored by the regime that overthrew socialist Salvador Allende in 1973. The coalition of Socialists and Christian Democrats known as the Concertacion has run Chile since democracy was restored in 1990, longer than any democratic movement currently governing in Latin America.

“Concertacion supporters will obviously be disappointed but they can also rationalize it by saying it’s time for a change after 20 years,” said Susan Purcell, director of the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami.

Frei, 67, is campaigning on a pledge for “continuity and change,” he said in a July 24 speech in southern Chile. He’s promised to keep the country on the Concertacion’s well-worn path and extend social security programs to the middle class.

Enriquez-Ominami is the biological son of a leftist guerrilla leader who died in a gunfight with Pinochet’s security forces. He quit the Socialist Party to protest Frei’s nomination and has sapped supporters from both Frei and Pinera, calling for constitutional reform, legalizing abortion and gay marriage.

The coalition has held on to power by preserving Pinochet’s economic legacy of balanced budgets, privatized pensions [the reform introduced by then-Secretary of Labor and Social Security, José Piñera; entry of mine] and low tariffs, while slashing poverty to 14 percent from 39 percent between 1990 and 2006, according to government data.

“We’re choosing between economically prudent policies from the Concertacion and economically prudent, but slightly more liberal, pro-market policies from Pinera,” said Benito Berber, an economist at RBS Securities Inc. in Stamford, Connecticut.

Chileans will also be voting to fill 18 of 38 places in the Senate and all 120 seats in the lower house of Chile’s Congress.

Pinera, who Forbes magazine says has $1 billion, has promised to sell his stake in Santiago-based Lan Airlines SA and put other holdings in blind trusts if he is elected.

President Michelle Bachelet is the Concertacion’s most popular leader ever with an 83 percent approval rating in October, according a poll by the Center for Public Studies in Santiago, a business-sponsored research group. The poll of 1,505 people has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Bachelet sustained her popularity amid the world’s worst economic crisis since the Great Depression because she was able to tap about $20 billion of savings she had refused to spend during the preceding copper boom. She used the money to pay for tax cuts, cash handouts and investment in infrastructure during the 2009 recession.

Frei, president from 1994 to 2000, left office with an approval rating of 28 percent, the lowest of any Concertacion president, according to the Center for Public Studies.

“This election is about Chile trying to change from post- dictatorship politics to a Chile of normal politics,” Funk said. “It is the end of an era.”

(Bloomberg)

VIETNAM RELOADED

Gli Stati Uniti si trovano nel mezzo della più grave crisi dell'impiego dai tempi della Grande Depressione, e il Presidente Barack Obama sta seguendo le orme di George W. Bush dispensando trilioni di dollari a poche grandi banche. I contribuenti americani non hanno avuto nulla. E adesso si prendono la ciliegina sulla torta, con Obama che intensifica la sua guerra in Afghanistan. Un Vietnam in versione “lite” con una provvisoria data di scadenza, luglio 2011, per l'inizio di un ritiro.

Il tanto pubblicizzato discorso tenuto da Obama martedì sera a West Point – ritoccato fino all'ultimo dal presidente in persona – era una scaltra rimasticatura del fardello dell'uomo bianco, con la sicurezza nazionale americana avvolta nel glorioso manto della “nobile lotta per la libertà”.

A un livello più pedestre è vero che la storia si ripete, ma come farsa. Con il surge “lite” di Obama, le truppe di occupazione USA e NATO raggiungeranno nella prima metà del 2010 il livello dell'occupazione sovietica al suo punto più alto, nella prima metà degli anni Ottanta. E tutta questa formidabile potenza di fuoco per combattere non più di 25.000 taliban afgani, solo 3000 dei quali armati di tutto punto.

Ciascun soldato del nuovo surge di Obama (parola che non ha mai pronunciato nel suo discorso, tranne quando si è riferito a un “surge di civili”) costerà un milione di dollari – benché il Pentagono insista nel dire che è solo mezzo milione.

Obama continua a ripetere che l'Afghanistan è una “guerra di necessità”, per via dell'11 settembre. Sbagliato. L'amministrazione Bush aveva pianificato l'attacco all'Afghanistan già prima dell'11 settembre. (Si veda Get Osama! Now! Or else ..., Asia Times Online, 30 agosto 2001.)“Guerra di necessità” è un educato remix della vecchia “guerra al terrore” dei neocon: date la colpa ai tizi con l'asciugamano in testa e sfruttate l'ignoranza e la paura dell'opinione pubblica. Fu così che al-Qaeda fu equiparata ai taliban e che il leader iracheno Saddam Hussein venne coinvolto nell'11 settembre dalla cricca dei neoconservatori.

Al di là della sua nobile retorica Obama continua a comportarsi come Bush, non facendo distinzione tra al-Qaeda – un'organizzazione araba che pratica il jihad e il cui obiettivo è un califfato globale – e i taliban, afghani autoctoni che vogliono un emirato islamico in Afghanistan ma non avrebbero scrupoli a far affari con gli Stati Uniti, come fecero all'epoca dell'amministrazione Clinton quando gli Stati Uniti volevano a tutti i costi costruire un gasdotto trans-afghano. E inoltre Obama non può ammettere che i neo-taliban “Pak” adesso esistono a causa dell'occupazione statunitense dell'“Af”.

Mettendocela tutta per distanziare la sua nuova strategia dal trauma del Vietnam, Obama ha sottolineato che “Diversamente dal Vietnam, il popolo americano è stato malignamente attaccato dall'Afghanistan”. Sbagliato. Se la ricostruzione ufficiale dell'11 settembre regge, i dirottatori furono addestrati in Europa Occidentale e perfezionarono le loro tecniche negli Stati Uniti.

E quando sottolinea gli sforzi per “disgregare, smantellare e sconfiggere” al-Qaeda e per negarle un “rifugio sicuro”, Obama contraddice in tutto e per tutto il suo consigliere per la sicurezza nazionale, il General James Jones, il quale ha ammesso che in Afghanistan ci sono meno di 100 jihadisti di al-Qaeda.

Il mito di al-Qaeda va smascherato. Come ha potuto al-Qaeda mettere in atto l'11 settembre e tuttavia essere incapace di organizzare un solo significativo attentato in Arabia Saudita? Perché al-Qaeda è essenzialmente una brigata mal camuffata dei servizi segreti sauditi. Gli Stati Uniti vogliono vincere “la guerra al terrore”? Perché non mandare dei corpi speciali in Arabia Saudita anziché in Afghanistan e far fuori i wahhabiti, che stanno alla base di tutto?

Obama avrebbe perlomeno potuto far caso a quello che ha detto ad al-Jazeera Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, il famigerato guerrigliero afghano, ex protetto dell'Arabia Saudita, ex beniamino della CIA e attuale nemico degli Stati Uniti. “Il governo taliban in Afghanistan è caduto a causa della strategia sbagliata di al-Qaeda”, ha sottolineato Hekmatyar.

È una vivida descrizione dell'attuale completa frattura tra al-Qaeda e i taliban, entrambi “Af” e “Pak”. I taliban afghani, a cominciare dal loro leader storico, il Mullah Omar, hanno imparato dal loro grave errore, e non permettono agli arabi di al-Qaeda di avvelenare l'Afghanistan. Analogamente, l'ascesa del neo-talibanismo di qua e di là del confine non si traduce necessariamente in un “rifugio sicuro” per al-Qaeda. I jihadisti di al-Qaeda si nascondono presso pochi selezionati e prezzolati elementi tribali che i servizi segreti pakistani potrebbero localizzare all'istante, se solo lo volessero.Obama ha anche accettato la premessa del Pentagono secondo cui l'America può ricolonizzare l'Afghanistan con la contro-insurrezione.

Secondo la dottrina del Generale David “Mi sto sempre posizionando in vista delle elezioni del 2012” Petraeus, la proporzione soldati/autoctoni dev'essere 20 o 25 su 1000 afghani. Adesso Petraeus e il Generale Stanley McChrystal ne hanno ottenuti altri 30.000. Inevitabilmente i generali – proprio come nel Vietnam, che a Obama piaccia o no – chiederanno molto di più, fino a ottenere quello che vogliono; almeno 660.000 soldati, più tutti gli extra. Al momento gli Stati Uniti hanno circa 70.000 soldati in Afghanistan.

Questo significherebbe ripristinare la coscrizione negli Stati Uniti. E sono altri trilioni che gli Stati Uniti non hanno e che dovranno prendere in prestito... dalla Cina.

E a cosa porterebbe? Negli anni Ottanta la potente armata rossa sovietica ha usato tutti gli espedienti della contro-insurrezione a sua disposizione. I sovietici hanno ucciso un milione di afghani. Hanno fatto cinque milioni di profughi. Hanno perso 15.000 soldati. Hanno praticamente mandato l'Unione Sovietica in bancarotta. Ci hanno rinunciato. E se ne sono andati.

Ma allora perché gli Stati Uniti sono ancora in Afghanistan? Con uno sguardo in macchina, come rivolgendosi al “popolo afghano”, il presidente ha detto: “non abbiamo interesse a occupare il vostro paese”. Ma non poteva dire le cose come stanno agli spettatori americani.

Per l'America delle corporazioni l'Afghanistan non significa nulla; è il quinto paese più povero del mondo, una società tribale e decisamente non consumistica. Ma per le grandi compagnie petrolifere statunitensi e per il Pentagono l'Afghanistan ha un gran fascino.

Per il Big Oil, il sacro graal è l'accesso al gas naturale del Turkmenistan proveniente dal Mar Caspio, cioè il Pipelineistan nel cuore del nuovo grande gioco in Eurasia, evitando sia la Russia che l'Iran. Ma non c'è modo di costruire un gasdotto enormemente strategico come il TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) – attraverso la provincia di Helman e il Balochistan pakistano – con un Afghanistan che si trova nel caos grazie alle misere imprese dell'occupazione USA/NATO.

C'è interesse a sorvegliare/controllare un traffico di droga da 4 miliardi di dollaro l'anno, direttamente e indirettamente. Fin dall'inizio dell'occupazione USA/NATO l'Afghanistan è diventato un narco-Stato de facto, producendo il 92% dell'eroina mondiale per una serie di cartelli narco-terroristici internazionali.

E c'è la dottrina del dominio ad ampio spettro del Pentagono per cui l'Afghanistan fa parte dell'impero mondiale delle basi statunitensi, che controllano da vicino competitori strategici come la Cina e la Russia.

Obama ha semplicemente ignorato che in Eurasia si sta svolgendo un nuovo grande gioco dalla posta vertiginosamente alta. E così, a causa di tutto quello che Obama non ha detto a West Point, gli americani si sorbiscono una “guerra di necessità” che sta prosciugando trilioni di dollari che potrebbero essere impiegati per ridurre la disoccupazione e aiutare davvero l'economia statunitense.

Inevitabilmente i taliban metteranno in atto a loro volta un ben coordinato contro-surge. Già adesso, senza surge e nonostante tutti i piani di contro-insurrezione di Petraeus, hanno catturato la provincia del Nuristan. E ve lo ricordate il surge estivo di Obama nella provincia di Helmand? Be', Helmand è ancora la capitale mondiale dell'oppio.

Nel suo discorso Obama ha cercato con tutti i mezzi di dare l'impressione che la guerra afghana possa essere controllata da Washington. È impossibile.

Con tutte le sue promesse di “cooperazione con il Pakistan” (menzionato 21 volte nel discorso) Obama non ha potuto in alcun modo ammettere che il suo surge versione “lite” destabilizzerà il Pakistan ancor di più. Invece potrebbe affidare la guerra al Pakistan. Invece di fissare, come ha fatto Obama, il luglio 2011 come data per il possibile inizio di un ritiro, comunque subordinato alle “condizioni sul terreno”, questa vera strategia d'uscita dovrebbe fissare una tempistica per un ritiro completo. Islamabad sarebbe così libera di fare quello che non è stato possibile né ai sovietici né agli americani: sedersi con i capi tribù e negoziare attraverso una serie di jirga (concilî tribali).

Obama scommette su quella che definisce “transizione delle responsabilità agli afghani”. È un miraggio. I servizi di sicurezza pakistani – che vedono ancora l'Afghanistan in termini di “profondità strategica” e di spazio di manovra nel contesto più ampio di un conflitto con l'India – non permetterà mai che ciò avvenga rigorosamente alle condizioni afghane. Non sarà corretto nei confronti degli afghani, ma così stanno le cose.

In Afghanistan praticamente tutti ritengono – giustamente – che Hamid Karzai sia il Presidente dell'occupazione. Karzai, che a malapena riesce a restare aggrappato al suo trono a Kabul, è stato imposto nel dicembre 2001 al re Zahir Shah dal proconsole di Bush Zalmay Khalilzad dopo una rovente discussione, ed è stato di recente confermato in un'elezione alla americana, palesemente truccata. Lo stile americano non è lo stile afghano. Il collaudato stile afghano si è basato per secoli sulla loya jirga – un grande concilio tribale in cui tutti partecipano, discutono e infine raggiungono un consenso.

Dunque il finale di partita in Afghanistan non può essere molto diverso da una spartizione del potere all'interno di una coalizione, con i taliban nel ruolo di partito più forte. Perché? Basta esaminare la storia della guerriglia dall'Ottocento in poi, o ripensare al Vietnam. I guerriglieri che combattono più strenuamente contro gli stranieri l'hanno sempre vita. E perfino con una fetta del potere ai taliban a Kabul, i potenti vicini dell'Afghanistan – il Pakistan, l'Iran, la Cina, la Russia, l'India – si assicureranno che il caos non superi i loro confini. È un affare asiatico, questo, che deve essere risolto dagli asiatici; è una buona ragione per trovare una soluzione nell'ambito della Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO, Organizzazione di Shanghai per la Cooperazione).

Nel frattempo, c'è la realtà. Il dominio ad ampio spettro del Pentagono ha ottenuto quello che cercava, per ora. Chiamatela vendetta dei generali. Chi vince, a parte loro? Il guerriero da salotto australiano David Kilcullen, consigliere e ghostwriter di Petraeus e McChrystal considerato un semidio dai guerrafondai di Washington. Alcuni neocon moderati; di certo non l'ex vice presidente Dick Cheney, che ha condannato la “debolezza” di Obama. E complessivamente tutti coloro che hanno sottoscritto il concetto di “guerra lunga” del Pentagono.

Due settimane prima di andare a Oslo per accettare il Premio Nobel per la Pace, Obama vende al mondo il suo nuovo Vietnam versione “lite” tenendo un discorso in un'accademia militare. Onore a George Orwell. È proprio vero che la guerra è pace.
(mirumir)

(English version)