Dean Henderson: Afghan History Suppressed:

Islamists, Heroin and the CIA: The Wall Street Journal reported a while back, that the Syrian government had reversed a ban on women teachers, wearing Islamic face coverings in the classroom. The concession to Western backed Islamic face coverings in the classroom. The concession to Western backed Islamist protestors was instructive, since the secular socialist Assad government is clearly in the cross hairs of City of London bankers, attempting to redraw the political map of the Middle East. As in Libya and Afghanistan, the bankers are counting on fundamentalists to carry out their counter revolutionary agenda. Though Western intelligence had earlier cavorted with Islamists in attacking nationalist movements in Iraq, Indonesia and Iran, it was in Afghanistan where they unleashed the full force of their young Franken-steins. Afghanistan was founded in 1747, and ruled by a bloodline monarchy, with rumored ties to the legendary Roshaniya, the all seeing ones. In 1933, King Mohammed Zaher Shah took the throne, ruling the country in feudalistic fashion, until deposed by his cousin, Mohammed Daoud, in 1973.  In April 1978, Daoud was killed in a popular revolution, led by socialist leader Nor Mohammed Taraki, who became President, and embarked on an ambitious land reform program to help poor Afghan sharecroppers, who were traditionally forced to work land owned by the king and his cronies. Taraki built schools for women, who were banned from education under the monarchy. He opened Afghan universities to the poor, and introduced free health care. When counter revolutionary bandits began to burn down universities and girl's schools, many Afghan's saw the hand of the CIA. As the campaign of sabotage intensified, Kabul revolutionaries called on Soviet leader Leonid Brezynev to send troops to repel the bandits. Brezynev refused. Taraki appointed Tabizullah Amin as Cabinet Minister in charge of land reform. Amin, who Soviet KGB Chief Yuri Andropov came to believe was a CIA deep cover agent provocateur, launched a brutal campaign of terror against political opponents. This turned world opinion against the Tariki government. In 1979, pro Taraki militants, convinced of a CIA destabilization plot, assassinated CIA Kabul Chief of Station Spike Dubbs. Indeed, in April 1979, a full seven months before the much ballyhooed Soviet "invasion" of Afghanistan occurred, US officials met with Afghan warlords bent on overthrowing Taraki.

Les Leopold: What is it Going to take the Middle Class from the 1%?

If you truly care about economic justice, then you've got to worry about the precipitous decline of labor unions in the United States. Just take a look at these two charts. The first shows the rise and decline of union membership in the private sector, from the depths of the Great Depression to today. You can clearly see that unions were a big deal from the mid 1930's to the early 1980's. By 1953, more than one out of three American workers were members of private sector unions. That means there was a union member in nearly every family. Through the late 1950's and 1960's, the percentage of union members declined, but the absolute number continued to increase, peaking at nearly 21million members in 1979, largely due to the influx of public sector workers, during the 1960's and the 70's. Then the decline accelerated, as the share of union members fell by half between the mid 1970's and the early 1990's. If we include public employee union members, the current rate is 11.3 percent. The second chart traces the share of our national income, grabbed by the top one percent of US households. It's basically the inverse of the unionization chart. When unions were at their strongest, inequality was the lowest. In 1928, the top one percent hauled off 23.94 percent of all US income. As unions grew, the income share for the richest dropped to less than 10%. As unions declined, the income share going to the wealthiest shot back up to 1928 levels. It's not a coincidence. When unions are strong, they bargain for higher wages and benefits. At the same time, non union employers increase wages and benefits to attract qualified workers, and prevent unions from coming in. Also, unions work for legislation that benefits middle and low income people, unemployment benefits, minimum wage, progressive taxation, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. Overall, those efforts shift income from the top to the middle and bottom of the income ladder. While working with the labor movement over the past 35 years, I have heard myriad explanations for the decline: Unions are not democratic enough, they don't know how to organize the community, they are victims of globalization, they are too bureaucratic, they don't work hard enough in politics, they don't embrace young people and minorities, and so on. While many of these problems are real, I don't believe they explain what's really going on, namely that unions and the rest of us, are on the losing side of a gigantic class war!     

Gordon Duff: Some of What You Won't Be Hearing At All

A couple of issues for military and veterans hit the top of the list this morning. Primary among them is the CREW DUKE system used by the US and NATO to protect troops from IEDs. It is killing more than it is saving. One company that returned from Iraq in 2009 has 52 members seriously ill. Their symptoms are life threatening, tumors, bleeding, weight loss. In fact, the symptoms of being exposed to what is claimed to be radio, which may or not include microwave, radar and or ionizing radiation. The military is unusually vague about this, rather resemble radiation sickness. The sources of this information are totally reliable, and the military is involved in a full scale cover up, assisted by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Some correctional measures were made on deployed systems, whose antennas were installed backwards. Imagine what it would be like putting a baby in a microwave for 20 minutes. The military thinks of such things as a joke. There is no active investigation. Those who speak up are punished or transferred. No medical care is being offered, and those who speak up are deteriorating are being blocked from treatment and diagnosis. As usual, the Department of Veterans Affairs, as part of its new drive against veterans with disabilities, is blocking paperwork and or turning any interaction, be it a counseling session or "comp and pension hearing" into a confrontational nightmare. "We are on to you." The system is said to block radio controlled IEDs by scanning ALL available frequencies, and blocking all "radio frequencies" within a proscribed distance of a vehicle. The units are typically mounted on vehicles, MRAP's Humvees, anything with tracks or wheels. The worst thing is that these units seem to actually work, saving the lives of a few while killing the many. I was part of our military effort, having served in Vietnam during the 60's and 70's. I received my first cancer diagnosis in 1995. By that time, tens of thousands of veterans had died from the effects of Agent Orange. The number is now in the hundreds of thousands, having exceeded the combat deaths from any other war. Most could have been saved, if it weren't for pure fraud, falsified studies, denial, obstructionism and total corruption.    

Stephen Lendman: Record Number of US Military and Veteran Suicides

Headlines like this should shock: Suicides Outpace War Deaths. Surge in Military Suicides. Nearly Two Dozen Veterans Commit Suicide Daily. These reports and similar ones reveal imperialism's dark side. War takes its toll. Civilians suffer most. So do many combatants and veterans after returning home. Most people don't know. Little gets reported. Why do active duty personnel and vets take their own lives? Unbearable emotional pain consumes them. Daily trauma builds. So does intolerable stress. Relief is desperately sought. Suicide is chosen. It's a last option. Others were exhausted. Preventable warning signs aren't heeded. They include depression, withdrawal, lethargy, loss of interest in usual activities, appetite, weight, sleep and other behavioral changes, recurring suicidal thoughts, and feelings of hopelessness and despair. Daily stress is bad enough. Combat exacerbates it. It's intolerable for many. The little known human cost of war raises disturbing questions. America consumes its own. Epidemic post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) levels affect hundreds of thousands of combat forces and vets. The VA estimates over 30% of Vietnam vets, around 10% of Gulf War forces, and up to 20% of America's Afghanistan and Iraq troops. VA and DOD officials consistently understate problems. Independent reports reveal more. Some say nearly half of Afghan and Iraq vets have emotional and/or physical combat injuries. In May 2012, AP said America's vets "are filing for disability benefits at a historic rate. They're the "most medically, mentally troubled generation in US history." War's toll is one of the most under-reported stories. Hundreds of thousands of combat vets won't ever be the same again. They come home sick. They stay that way. They're traumatized. They're unable to cope. Emotional damage done, goes largely unrecognized. It's an unseen wound. Many needing help don't get it. The emotional ordeal is overwhelming. It's terrifying. War vets are gravely affected. PTSD causes emotional numbness. Left untreated, it worsens. Horrifying flashbacks are commonplace.  

The Economist: Sonia Ghandi on the Campaign Trail!

Among the Nagas. India's remote north eastern states, collectively known as the Seven Sisters, are usually paid no attention by the rest of the country, until a natural disaster, bitter warfare or some other nastiness strikes. Yet this month, many of India's most powerful political figures will tour parts of the region, offering valiant, if mangled, versions of greetings in local tribal tongues, dressing in ethnic gear and otherwise bidding for votes. Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Congress party, began the show on February 7th, addressing two election rallies in Nagaland. The small, hilly territory, along with nearby Meghalaya and Tripura, holds state elections this month. Congress, after two terms in opposition, would relish bouncing back into office, even if the state is so tiny, that its total population, some 1.9m, is roughly half that of Mrs Gandhi's parliamentary constituency in Utar Pradesh. After some days pottering about Nagaland, your correspondent can report on few matters with confidence. The area is remarkably beautiful: Winding roads take you through steep, forested hills, on to small villages perched on impossibly overhanging ridges. Some of these, such as the striking Khonoma village, are complete with stone stairways, cobbled roads and beautifully crafted homes, that could have served as a film set for "The Hobbit". The region is also predominantly tribal and Christian. So many American missionaries grew keen on the area, that if you toss a bible into the air, it is most likely to fall on the roof of a Baptist church. Beyond that, older Nagas talk with feeling about their decades long insurgency against the Indian state. They say they are not seeking secession, but resisting the imposition of colonial rule by India. Naga insurgents, by and large, stopped shooting in 1997 with a ceasefire, but no proper political deal has followed. Worse, much of the region, along with neighboring Manipur, and Jammu and Kashmir, is subjected to a particularly hated law, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which allows security men to act with impunity against civilians. Without a complete peace deal, spelling out autonomy for the Nagas, and the lifting of that hated AFSPA, few in Nagaland are likely to be pleased with rule by any part of the center, such as Congress.   

The Economist. John Brennan. The Debate over Drones!

It was so much simpler when George W Bush was president. Outlining America's plans for Osama bin Laden, a few days after the September 11th attacks in 2001, Mr Bush declared: "there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, "Wanted: Dead or Alive." For all those at home and abroad made uncomfortable by sweeping assertions of American power, it was a moment of predictable provocation. Without surprise, they heard a swaggering Republican president vowing to make his country's attackers pay, and seeming to pay no more heed to legal niceties, than a cowboy bent on a lynching. Yet 12 and a half years later, the cautious, "lawyerly" Barack Obama, a Democratic president with nothing of the cowboy about him, finds himself still locked in combat with Islamic extremists, bent on attacking America, and wrestling with the same fundamental questions of international and domestic law as his predecessor. Confounding the political, journalistic and academic elites, who trusted Mr Obama to be the anti Bush, the current president has greatly expanded the use of unmanned drones to track and kill terror suspects and militants, and the occasional hapless bystander in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan. He has shelved his promise to close the detention camp at Guantanemo Bay, and, until this week, fought to keep secret legal memos asserting the right of administration officials, so long as they are high ranking and "informed" to kill American citizens overseas, who are deemedto be leaders of al Qaeda or an affiliate, and involved in active plots to attack American targets. Behind all these missions, lie two hard questions left unanswered by Mr Bush's battle cry of 2001: Whether America can lay claim to the legal powers of a nation waging war, and whether it is wiser, more just and more useful to kill or capture militants and terrorists bent on causing the country harm. Both those questions were on stark display on January 7th at the Senate Intelligence Committee's confirmation hearing for John Brennan, Mr Obama's pick to the next head of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr Brennan, being a 25 year CIA veteran who has wielded vast influence, while serving as the president's defense of current policies, with their blend of killing missiles from the sky, and painstaking attempts to detain and interrogate living suspects, while hewing to the rule of law.        

The Economist: All the president's men and women!

In the months since China implemented its once a decade leadership transition, American policy makers have been watching closely, to see whether changes in personnel might augur any change in Chinese policy toward the United States. As the year of the dragon draws to a close, and Barack Obama busies himself trying to replace many of his most senior officials for his second term, it is China's turn to wonder what his new team means, for what is arguably the world's most important bilateral relationship. Mr Obama's cabinet reshuffle affects three top positions, the secretary of state, secretary of defense, and secretary of the treasury, whose holders must devote a great deal of their time and attention to China. Compared with their American counterparts, analysts in China have much more work, as they try to sort the new scene. In contrast to the figures atop China's black box of a political system, the incoming American officials have left career long paper trails from their many public speeches, press interviews, congressional testimony and legislative votes. Zhu Chenghu, a general in the People's Liberation Army, told state run media that the incoming secretary of state, John Kerry, a former senator and presidential candidate, "will be more moderate" on the issue of China's dispute with Japan over a set of tiny, uninhabited islands in the East China sea. The islands are called the Senkakus by Japan, and the Diaoyus by China. On February 4th, when Mr Kerry replaced Hillary Clinton as America's top ranked diplomat, General Zhu was prompted to remark that the change "represents an opportunity to redirect Washington's course". Wang Dong, the director of the Center for North East Asian Strategic Studies at the Beijing University School of International Studies, agrees. "We know Kerry well. He has a reputation for being moderate and thoughtful, not overly forceful or muscular with his language," Mr Wang says, adding that this marks a contrast with the impression of Mrs Clinton, that tends to be held in China. "If Kerry can put more emphasis on co operation, it will make a big difference." But Mrs Clinton's lack of popularity in China may have as much to do with the content of the message she has borne, as with her style in delivering it.