Gordon Brown Tries to Rally Support for Afghan Mission
News Commentary – July 12, 2009
Gordon Brown and his cabinet ministers launched a PR drive over the weekend to convince Britons that a major offensive in southern Afghanistan’s Helmand province was succeeding, despite mounting casualties.
The government tried restore public support for the Afghan war after the death of eight British soldiers on Friday.
The sudden surge in casualties led to questions over Britain’s role in Afghanistan, particularly after reports surfaced that senior army commanders were complaining about a shortage of men and equipment.
Gordon Brown’s government has tried to play down the disclosure that Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, had asked for an additional 2,000 British troops for Helmand province, but that his request was rejected.
More British troops have now been killed in Afghanistan – 184 – than in the Iraq conflict.
Asked if he was worried that the Helmand operation could become Britain's Vietnam, Brown said: "The operation ... is showing signs of success."
However his claim sounded especially hollow after a U.S. military spokeswoman also announced an upsurge of American casualties in Helmand on Saturday.
In an interveiw with the British Forces Broadcasting Service, the prime minister said British troops were in Afghanistan to keep the streets of Britain safe from the threat of terrorist attack.
Persuing the campaign in Afghanistan was, he claimed, a “patriotic duty”.
Nonetheless, the prime minister has yet to explain why opium production soared to record levels in Afghanistan, after the invasion.
Especially as shortly before being ousted the Taliban had all but shut down the drugs trade. Leading some observers to wonder if this wasn’t the real reason for the invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban.
And for those who cannot accept the idea that governments would engage in illicit drugs trade: money from drugs is thought to make up a considerable part of the so-called U.S. Black budget. Despite official denials, money from the drugs trade is all the more attractive for covert operations because it cannot be accounted for.
Moreover, the British have a long history of involvement in the drugs trade, stretching back to the Opium Wars, when the East India Company shipped tons of opium into Canton to be traded for Chinese manufactured goods and for tea.
So although largely ignored by the mainstream media, the use of drugs and drug money by western powers is a matter of historical record. Although, of course, the mainstream media in unlikely to acknowledge the true extent of official involvement today.
Indeed, recent claims in the western media that the Taliban are behind the upsurge in drugs production are simply a ruse to divert attention from those who are really responsible.
The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan ostensibly followed a refusal by the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden, after the U.S. claimed they were harbouring the alleged 9/11 masterminded.
Subsequently, U.S. forces failed to find Bin Laden and the video in which he claimed responsibility for 9/11 is now thought to be a fake.
Since then, moreover it has become quite apparent bin Laden was not involved in 9/11.
Nonetheless a recent poll seems to indicate that Brown's drive to bolster public support for the war may be working. Meaning one of two things, either the British public is more gullible than they realize. Or alternatively the poll was deliberately misleading, which is quite possible as the BBC was involved.
Either way the real reason we are in Afghanistan is being concealed under the guise of “fighting terror”. While in reality, Brown and his American allies are engaged in a criminal enterprise that is being used to generate billions that will ultimately remain unaccounted for.
Last updated 16/07/2009