U.S. Funds Terrorism in Mob Ruled Afghanistan

Filmmaker Robert Greenwald explains and confirms a news report from The Nation that found Afghanistan is run by the Taliban mob and not it's government. This brings into question the legitimacy and morality of sending tens of thousands more U.S. troops to put their lives on the line for a government so corrupt that we have to pay the enemy off. We actually fund the Taliban.

Meanwhile the U.S. is not welcome in Afghanistan. As Greenwald puts it, imagine how you'd feel if you were occupied by a foreign force that came around breaking down your doors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paL4dzxyUrM&feature=player_embedded

The Nation's Anran Roston reports (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091130/roston):

Understanding how this situation came to pass requires untangling two threads. The first is the insider dealing that determines who wins and who loses in Afghan business, and the second is the troubling mechanism by which "private security" ensures that the US supply convoys traveling these ancient trade routes aren't ambushed by insurgents.

NCL Holdings is a licensed security company in Afghanistan with its chief principal, Hamed Wardak the young American son of Afghanistan's current defense minister, Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak, who was a leader of the Mujahedeen against the Soviets. They have a $2.2 billion contract (10% of Afghanistan;s GDP) for the U.S. military's six trucking contracts that supply EVERYTHING to our troops.

Roston reports:

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.

Trucking manager Mike Hanna explains, "You are paying the people in the local areas--some are warlords, some are politicians in the police force--to move your trucks through."

"We're basically being extorted. Where you don't pay, you're going to get attacked. We just have our field guys go down there, and they pay off who they need to." Sometimes, he says, the extortion fee is high, and sometimes it is low. "Moving ten trucks, it is probably $800 per truck to move through an area. It's based on the number of trucks and what you're carrying. If you have fuel trucks, they are going to charge you more. If you have dry trucks, they're not going to charge you as much. If you are carrying MRAPs or Humvees, they are going to charge you more."

The truckers are banned from carrying any heavy artillery to guard against killing innocent civilians (a big liability there for the U.S.), which means they are subject to hits by the Taliban. What this means is that the insurgents (the Taliban) are being paid off by the U.S. government to not attack the trucks.

Hanna says it is just a necessary evil. "If you tell me not to pay these insurgents in this area, the chances of my trucks getting attacked increase exponentially."

This is Afghanistan's version of Blackwater. One of the six U.S. trucking companies, Four Horsemen International, has opted to fight their way through instead of paying off the Taliban and they have "paid the price in lives, with horrendous casualties....," attacked on virtually every mission.
_________________________________________________________________
The Daily News reports:

The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, a former military commander there, has expressed deep concern to Washington about sending more U.S. troops, the Washington Post and The New York Times reported on Thursday.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/11/12/2009-11-12_reports_us_envoy_to_...

On Greenwald's ReThink Afghanistan website (http://rethinkafghanistan.com/) a video of U.S. combat veterans asking Obama not to send any more troops to Afghanistan is accompanied by a petition for people to support their message to him.