Comment: "The Real Reason"

Why is NATO in Afghanistan? One answer was alluded to on this programme by a viewer. It was I believe the first one and therefore the one most quickly forgotten. Afghanistan is a geopolitical gateway to Central Asia.

Rick Rozoff sums this up here:

"I’ll give you my personal estimate and I think it’s the one that became apparent with the initial thrust into Afghanistan almost ten years ago, which occurred less than three months after the founding of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the summer of 2001. My supposition is – not withstanding the hunt for Osama bin Laden and whatever else was presented as the casus belli for the invasion of Afghanistan and its continuation for ten years – that, in essence, the US and its Western allies wanted to plant themselves firmly at the point of confluence where Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan and other nations might be able to cooperate in building a multipolar alternative to the US-dominated unipolar world by being in Afghanistan and its environs.

We have to keep in mind that the US and its NATO allies, their military facilities, are still based in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan, where the US recently has been told to leave a base from which it was waging drone missile attacks, which have killed 2,500 or so people in Pakistan; last year was the highest with almost a thousand people killed. In January of 2010 Dawn News, citing Pakistani Defense Ministry sources, stated there were something like 714 people killed in Pakistan by US drone missile attacks in the preceding year and out of those 714 only five were either al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters."

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25737

A second reason is connected with this and that is the integration of Afghanistan into the globalist central banking network. The global banking cartel's central bank is the lynchpin in looting the resources of the country and enslaving its people. These resources in Afghanistan include the production of 90% of the world supply of heroin which is guarded by NATO.

http://www.moneytrendsresearch.com/rothschild-wants-irans-ba...

http://www.whale.to/b/afghanistan_h1.html

These two reasons are at the centre of the continuing "mission" in Afghanistan. A third reason is the one that gives us the timetable of the occupation. This is the building of the TAPI pipeline to carry natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India. This natural gas is owned by a corporation in Turkmenistan controlled by Israel's Mossad. It is scheduled for completion at the end of 2014. Here is a short excerpt from the article by Christopher Bollyn:

"As I have reported since shortly after 9/11, the real reason for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is to build and secure a 1,080-mile long gas pipeline designed to carry trillions of dollars of Israeli-owned gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. In a 2009 article entitled "Why Afghanistan" I wrote about the role of Israeli intelligence in the TAPI gas pipeline project and its connection to 9/11"

http://www.bollyn.com/the-fraudulent-war-on-terror#article_1...

All of these reasons are connected and provide a compelling synergistic geo-strategic foundation for the present occupation of Afghanistan.

In light of these facts the question is why the elites are now building a case for at least running down the NATO presence in the country. I have commented on this recently in other posts and now that we witness CNN in full blown propaganda mode it is confirmed that the former "straws in the wind" were no mere illusion.

My own conclusion is that they wish to redeploy several NATO battalions for the purpose of invading Syria and/or Iran. They have already done this with the troop drawdown in Iraq. These Iraq battalions have not left the area they have simply been stationed elsewhere. They have also given the American army base in Iraq to the MEK Iranian terrorist group and are equipping them for the same purpose. The likelihood that the "mission" in Afghanistan will be abandoned is in my opinion absolute zero. It will continue under some other form just as has the Iraqi "mission".

Cafferty and Blitzer are performing their predetermined and scripted parts in guiding the American public towards the foregone conclusions prepared for them by their masters. If you view the interviews with this in mind you will see more clearly what is being done. There will always be a political dividend and no doubt this will also be framed as another reason for the "withdrawal" perhaps even the main one. It gives the audience the feeling of being involved in solving the problem and so anchors the illusion in their minds. The elites love synergy and like to kill many birds with one stone, including deceiving the people as to their true purposes. As I keep saying, IT IS ALL LIES.