Matthew J. Nasuti

"CIA could control forces in 'Stan after 2014." (Army Times)

Scattered throughout Afghanistan are secret CIA militias that may be functioning as death squads. Reports of their activities have surfaced for years in eastern Afghanistan, especially in Khost Province, but they have also been reported in Spin Boldak, Kandahar and the latest in Maidan Wardak Province, where residents are rising up in protest. For the past month newspapers around the world have been filled with headlines about villagers and students disappearing and being killed in Maidan Wardak by CIA and Special Forces personnel and their allies. The reports have blackened America’s image. The stories are disturbingly similar. Villagers are seized in their homes at night and are never heard from again. Bodies are dumped in the countryside with signs of torture. The Taliban are ousted from areas only to have the vacuum filled by criminal gangs with ties to the CIA. The idea seems to replace one terror group with another, as long as the second group pledges loyalty to the United States. This is what U.S. security agencies call “counter-terrorism.” The flaws in the program are:

1. These local warlords are committing war crimes;
2. Support for such terrorists conflicts with fundamental American values; and
3. The fear and violence they generate are fueling anti-Americanism and aiding Taliban recruitment.

Over the long term, security has worsened in every area that these private militias have operated. There is nothing positive that can be said of these militias.

Matthew J. Nasuti

U.S. Service Members Killed in Afghan Suicide Bomb Attack:
US soliders, right, carry a body from the site of a suicide car
bomber in Kabul, Afghanistan. (Ahmad Jamshid/AP Photo)

Victory usually goes to the side with the highest dedication. Unfortunately for NATO, that side is the Taliban and al-Qaeda. If one dispenses with all the propaganda, the use of suicide attackers, whether they be bombers or insider turncoats, has objectively been a stunning success. The reality is that an opponent who is willing to die for his or her cause has a significant tactical advantage over a foreign army consisting of troops whose main priority is to survive their war zone tours.

NATO seems befuddled not only by its inability to counter the suicide attacker, but by its failure or refusal to even comprehend its foe. As a result NATO spokespersons revert back to a tired and discredited theme that suicide attackers are uneducated religious fanatics brainwashed in Madrassa schools in Pakistan by unscrupulous mullahs. The truth is that most suicide attackers are educated and apparently consider themselves dedicated patriots combating a foreign invader with the only weapon they have, which is themselves.

Two weeks ago it was announced that Tahir Ashrafi, the leader of the Pakistan Ulema (religious) Council, had formally endorsed the use of suicide bombers against American and NATO forces. He adopted the Taliban saying that, “suicide bombers are the atomic weapons of Muslims.” This ruling emphasizes that the suicide attackers represent mainstream Islam. It is the same with Christianity. In the Book of Judges 16:30, Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines” and he proceeded to pull down a Philistine temple on himself and on the Philistine rulers. Samson is a hero of the Bible.

One of the difficulties that these attackers present to the West is that the most dedicated and courageous fighters seem to be on the other side. Just as with the Vietnam War, the enemy is dedicated to victory at all cost, while Afghan security forces seem less so.

Matthew J. Nasuti

They are shunned by politicians who want happy news

Michelle and Barack Obama have time for Hollywood, but not for fallen soldiers. This week the Obamas had time to appear on the television show “The View.” This follows guest appearances by Mrs. Obama on the Jay Leno show, the David Letterman show and the Steve Harvey show, which follows a fund raising dinner for the Obamas in Los Angeles with actor George Clooney.

The last time President Obama went to Dover Air Force Base to pay his respects to the returning caskets of war heroes was on August 9, 2011. It is not clear if President Obama or Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have ever attended a funeral for any of the U.S. military, diplomatic or civilian casualties of the Afghan war. Perhaps if they attended some of these funerals there would be less of them as these officials would quickly tire of these tragic ordeals.

The caskets make a lonely journey from Bagram Air Base to Dover Air Force Base, where they are quietly routed to their final destinations. They arrive with no fanfare and no headlines. Obama Administration officials seem too important and too busy to pay any respects.

The names of the fallen and their stories and contributions remain largely unknown because the American news media has polled its audiences and determined that such stories are not popular. Those who gave their lives for the United States deserve better, as do their loved ones who remain behind.

Matthew J. Nasuti

When the dinner bell rings in Washington, D.C., a swarm of politically-connected consultants and nonprofit organizations (NGOs) rush in to feast on aid funds designated for Afghanistan. The culprits are members of an exclusive club of favored parties who feed off of USAID and State Department contracts, grants and awards. The group includes Checchi and Company, Louis Berger Group, Chemonics, Inc., the Asia Society, Democracy International, the Brookings Institution, Casals and Associates, Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI), National Democracy Institute, the International Republican Institute, etc.

A review of their boards of directors and leadership reveals that many are former USAID, State Department, Millennium Challenge, U.S. Institute of Peace, National Endowment for Democracy or United Nations officials who have decided to cash in on their relationships and experience. While the relationships between these groups and the U.S. Government are incestuous, an equally important problem is that most of this aid (tens of billions of dollars each year) is simply wasted.

Ordinary Afghans need good food, clean water, sewage treatment improvements, rural health care and education; instead these aid groups primarily generate reports, surveys and hold meetings with each other in Kabul. The following is a recent summary of how Afghan aid funds are being expended by the United States.

Matthew J. Nasuti

NATO’s war may end but its pollution of the Afghan countryside will take centuries to repair.

The primary decision that NATO officials reached in Chicago this week was to leave behind an Afghanistan contaminated by a decade of hazardous military waste. The plan is for NATO to wash its collective hands of their toxic handiwork. There are estimated to be more than a thousand NATO dumpsites located in Afghanistan, holding thousands of tons of buried hazardous waste.

If these NATO officials had done this in Germany or the United States they would have been serving long prison terms for their environmental crimes, but Western officials are conveniently ignoring both national and international law in Afghanistan. Buried liquids and other wastes are a slow-moving and expanding time bomb, and therefore NATO officials are seeking to scurry home before the full extent of the problem can be assessed and the costs of cleanup calculated. United Nations officials, to their discredit, have opted to remain silent, revealing once again the Western bias of the UN against developing countries.

This author previously served in the U.S. Air Force and was involved in the Pentagon’s base environmental cleanup program, now called DERP (the Defense Environmental Restoration Program). He also later worked for Bechtel Environmental as a contracts manager.

It is a certainty that thousands of hazardous chemicals and materials were shipped to Afghanistan in NATO vehicles, electronics, weapons, explosives, machines and other equipment, along with millions of gallons of fuel, oil, hydraulic fluids, solvents, degreasers, de-icing fluids, pesticides, poisons and herbicides, etc.

Carcinogenic used oil would have been dumped into the soil, as would most other waste. Solid wastes would have been placed into a landfill or set afire in burn pits. The reports are that anything that broke and could not be repaired was buried or burned, creating a stunning soup of highly toxic contaminants at each military location. That is NATO’s toxic legacy.

Matthew Nasuti

Hillary Clinton with Jon Corzine, the Chairman & CEO
of MF Global Holdings. Mr. Corzine is currently under
Congressional investigation for “losing” $1.2 billion in
investor funds.

Bland “condolence” press statement appears drafted by junior clerk

The December 6, 2011, press statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is an insult to the Afghan people and to the estimated 60 Hazara Shia who were massacred in dual bombing attacks in Kabul and Mazar-e Sharif. Posted on the Internet web-site of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, the statement “strongly condemns” the attacks, finds them “deplorable” and vaguely extends “condolences” but then goes on to praise “the progress of the last 10 years” and ends with standard talking points about America’s vision for Afghanistan. This bland announcement contains the same stock phrases that have been used in dozens of previous press releasese. In addition it is inappropriate to use the massacres as a vehicle to restate U.S. policy and tout “progress” (which appears sorely lacking at this point in time).

The press statement also borders on being racist. In reviewing prior Embassy announcements regarding other incidents in Afghanistan, the State Department takes a different tone when Westerners are killed or Western interests attacked.

Matthew Nasuti

Al-Qaeda does not have to make up stories about the West abusing Muslim women. Al-Qaeda merely has to report the truth.

The unofficial message from the West to victims of oppression is:

“We will liberate you as long as your women agree to service our officials and contractors.”

That is a sad reality of both NATO and United Nations peacekeeping missions.

The U.S. State Department’s “Trafficking in Persons Report 2010" highlights the continuing growth of brothels in Kabul following the U.S. invasion in 2001. Many of the victims are poor Afghan women. A press release issued on January 13, 2011, by the U.S. Embassy in Kabul blamed the scandal on lax enforcement against traffickers by the Afghan Government, with no recommendation that the “johns” or clients be prosecuted (because many of them appear to be NATO and U.N. officials and their contractors). The most that the U.S. Embassy would meekly say is that:

“Some international security contractors may be involved in the sex trafficking of these women.”

(It is interesting how ineffective U.S. intelligence agencies seem to be at determining brothel ownership in Kabul, despite the importance of the issue due to the use of these facilities by NATO officials)

This issue is not new. The British newspaper “The Sun” ran a story on April 7, 2008 entitled: “NATO Men Romp in Afghan Brothels.”

Sun Defense Editor Tom Newton Dunn detailed how NATO troops were observed drinking contraband alcohol and heading off to rooms with prostitutes. It quoted a NATO official as stating that one out of every five NATO civilians in Afghanistan frequent these brothels. The report quoted Afghan Member of Parliament Shukria Barakzai as stating that if this conduct continues: “They will undermine their reason for being here.”

Matthew Nasuti

Pentagon pressure to increase the body count is to blame

On May 12, 2011, a U.S. Navy SEAL team killed a 12-year old Afghan girl named Nelofar Muhammed and then shot her uncle once in the chest, finishing him off with a shot to the head, execution-style. This is the same tactic [allegedly] used to kill Usama bin Laden. The SEALs then filed a false report with NATO/ISAF claiming that Nelofar was armed and fleeing and had to be shot! In reality the SEALs had attacked the wrong house, Nelofar was killed while she slept and her uncle was a 25-year old Afghan police officer named Shukrullah. At this time the SEALs are not under arrest and judging by the Pentagon’s history, there will be no prosecutions for these crimes.

The facts in this case are not coming from NATO or U.S. Special Operations Command but from the Afghan police in Nangarhar Province and from Nelofar’s father Neik Muhammed. The home that was attacked belonged to Neik. Officer Shukrullah was his brother-in-law. According to Neik, the Americans attacked without warning at midnight by throwing a hand grenade into the family’s yard where they were all sleeping because it was too hot to sleep inside. Nelofar was killed instantly by shrapnel to her head. Officer Shukrullah then pulled his police pistol to protect the family. He was shot and then finished off. The Americans later apologized to Neik for the killings. Officer Shukrullah leaves behind a wife and two daughters.

In the United States, television anchors such as CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and ABC News’ Kiran Chetry have embraced euphemisms in order to protect a sensitive American public. SEALs do not kill people - they “take them out.” Women and children do not die, they are merely “collateral damage." The idea is to make war sound surgical and fun with no pain or horror. Graphic photos of SEAL killings are never shown so as to spare the American public from the ugly realities of its wars. With that in mind Mr. Blitzer and Ms. Chetry would likely have no problem with the title of this article, or perhaps they would begin to realize that killing another human being should never be sanitized. War is horrible for a good reason - so people will avoid it at all costs.

The standard Pentagon and NATO refrain is that accidents always happen in wartime. The fact is that civilian killings many times can be avoided. Not every civilian death is inevitable. Some are true accidents, some are the result of military carelessness and sometimes a few are due to such reckless conduct that they warrant criminal prosecution. American law defines an “intentional act” to include a situation where the suspect acted with gross negligence or reckless disregard. Under U.S. law the killing of little Nelofar may well have been intentional.

Matthew Nasuti
Kabul Press

Specifics regarding this covert escalation are now “classified”

Last month, the Boston Globe’s Bryan Bender reported that the United States has 155,000 troops into Afghanistan. Mr. Bender appears to have obtained his information from the Office of U.S. Senator John Kerry. This reporter contacted Mr. Bender and Senator Kerry’s office. Neither would confirm nor deny the number.

On February 7, 2011, this author contacted General David Petraeus’ headquarters in Kabul and asked for the current number of American military personnel in Afghanistan. This would include those “assigned” to the country and those on TDY to Afghanistan. U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. John L. Dorrian responded that the information was classified.

The Pentagon has refused to disclose to Kabul Press the total number of American military personnel presently in Afghanistan. Surprisingly that figure is “classified." Kabul Press’ investigation has revealed that the total U.S. military, civilian and contractor force in the region exceeds 400,000 and is growing. In military parlance, these personnel are “in-theater.” This covert escalation may signal that conditions on the ground in Afghanistan are deteriorating faster than expected, thus necessitating a second unannounced surge.

Matthew Nasuti
Kabul Press

The West simply cannot afford to continue to fight the Taliban.

The military-industrial complex is a voracious beast that demands its daily fix at the trough of the American taxpayers.

It costs $50 thousand to kill each NATO soldier while it costs $50 million to kill each Taliban soldier. It is therefore 1,000 times cheaper to kill a NATO soldier; a fact that does not seem to bother the Pentagon, NATO’s leadership or European defense ministers.

Kabul Press, on September 30, 2010, published an article by this author detailing the best estimate of Taliban killed per year (2,000) divided by a portion of the direct costs that the Pentagon is spending each year in Afghanistan ($100 billion). The resulting statistic suggests that it costs $50 million to kill each Taliban soldier. This number is very conservative. If all NATO and American costs (direct and indirect) were included, the analysis would reveal that it actually costs about $150 million.

The present article examines spending from the Taliban side in order to comparatively determine what it costs to kill each NATO soldier. The Brookings Institution is the consulting firm with the best political access to the Obama Administration and the U.S. State Department. In September 2009, it published a report on Taliban annual revenue, based in part on data gathered by the Congressional Research Service. Brookings estimated Taliban annual income at between $140 and $200 million. The Taliban have already inflicted over 600 deaths on NATO soldiers and more than twice that number of fatalities on Afghan army and police personnel. By the end of the year, total Coalition deaths are expected to reach 3,000. The math is unfortunately easy. Assuming Taliban revenue of $150 million divided by 3,000 = $50,000 to kill a NATO, American or Afghan soldier.