NATO will never win Afghan war

Interview with political analyst and journalist Pepe Escobar.

In your last story on the Chicago Summit you expressed a very interesting idea, you said that during the NATO Summit in Chicago, it will be crucial to identify the actors backstage. Who are the players behind the scenes you were referring to?

The players behind the scenes to what NATO calls its Strategic Concept, which was approved at the NATO Summit in Lisbon in late 2010, it is a collection of elites from different points of 1% in Europe, in fact, and also with the Americans themselves. They went into a council chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and representatives of lawyers, insurance giant, people particularly oil major, working for Royal Dutch Shell, including the last president of Royal Dutch Shell. There are people who came from the former Blackwater, then remained the tenth, the missionaries held to put it that way. Thus, it was the collection of elites in Europe and America, and they were to identify the risk in their own words - risk management.

And the craziest is that it applies not only to Europe, or the Atlantic Alliance, but for the whole world. And this is why, because after they came up with these recommendations, which were then crystallized in the concept approved by NATO, NATO was a war in Libya, which was proof of the bet. NATO is in fact the application is a very strategic, in this case in North Africa, the Mediterranean, of course, but also in North Africa. Thus, the craziest thing that NATO was seen as the Atlantic alliance against the former Soviet Union. Thus, during the two decades after the end of the Cold War, it became militarized arm of the West, of the so-called G8, Russia is a G8, but not part of the NATO.

But basically, the G7, which basically translates as Western hegemony, they interfere not only in the European theater was the case with the Balkans, they interfered in Afghanistan, a war of occupation as felt by most Afghans. They interfered in North Africa, Libya. They would intervene in Syria, but they have no UN mandate for him. They can interfere in Mali, Africa. And it's crazy because all this is basically a strategy of the Pentagon.

We should always remember that NATO is essentially the Pentagon and in Europe it is also linked to Africom is the Pentagon's command for Africa. The war in Libya was essentially a NATO war Africa. This means that the Pentagon was using its two arms - arms and the European arm of AFRICOM for the first Arficom War in Africa itself.

And what we have now in Afghanistan - after 11 years of NATO presence in Afghanistan, we have a total mess. They will never win this war. In fact, the war is already lost years ago. They are just trying to organize the exit doors by 2014. Nobody knows what will happen next, from the fact that the Pentagon wants to keep military bases in Afghanistan, he wants to keep three bases at Bagram, Kandahar and Shindand. This means that the Pentagon does not want to leave Afghanistan, they would never leave. They may have a reduced presence, but they would never leave.

And Europeans, they know they have to leave, first because there is no money. And no European country in the midst of the economic crisis will keep pouring money into what they know they will lose, which is already lost. So, you know, you see all these contradictions in terms of NATO being a sort of Robocop or a comprehensive global cop defend the West worldwide. It is impossible. It is essentially a project of the Pentagon and the Europeans have a much better fish to fry - which is taking care of their economies decaying yet.

It is interesting that you mention the economic elites that play a role. We all know that this is not the first time that the U.S. was the request of its NATO partners to increase their share of the financial commitment. The AP even reminded the former defense secretary, Robert Gates, saying that NATO might fall apart if she continues to let the hardest fighting and most major legislation in the U.S. . Thus, with the financial crisis in much of the Western world, the issue of cost sharing has become particularly acute. Do you think that large companies could perhaps make a contribution?

In fact, a war waged by the arm as a weapon that the Pentagon is NATO, depending on where you go to this war, it can rip a lot of benefits for key industries such as oil majors . Take the example of Afghanistan. In the system of Afghanistan in mid 1990'es, the Clinton administration, which is ancient history for many people, the key question was - we need a pipeline in Afghanistan. Thus, the pipeline is a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan and crossing into Pakistan, and ending at the Arabian Sea in southern Pakistan. This thing has been discussed for nearly twenty years now, actually. And there was obviously the Taliban in power, while the Taliban was removed, the Americans wanted their own companies to do this thing, the Europeans were also involved. The first company that was involved was exactly Argentine, then he was pushed out of him by the Americans.

And all this was to build a pipeline outside Russian influence, of course, and probably help India later, because the pipeline was also supposed to go to India. We are still in the middle of this whole affair. The country was not pacified, rather, it is still at war. And even if NATO leaves no guarantee that a pipeline will never be built because the Taliban want their cut. And do not forget that before 9 \ 11 the Taliban was discussed with the Americans exactly what particular point - we want our cut if you want to build a pipeline on our land.

So who benefits - of course, the big European and American oil companies. And now, which is incredible as it sounds, even Russia's Gazprom is interested in being part of the pipe, if it is ever built, because they identify their source of profit as well. One reason for the war in Libya, there were so many, what are the best opportunities for British companies for transfers of water and oil interests of the House of South Qatari financial interests. So if it benefits the coalition, and of course this is the case, because the wars in countries that are not completely subjugated the Western financial system, means an actual opening of a new frontier.

In Afghanistan, it is very complicated because it is very difficult to open a new frontier in a country that is at war within the war for centuries, if not the millennium. And part of it is mountainous, part of it is desert and there is a simmering ethnic conflict there between Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and so on. But there is a possibility of a lot of money in minerals, because Afghanistan is rich in minerals and oil and gas flowing through Afghanistan, but also prospecting inside Afghanistan, Libya and of course because of the oil gas and water.

And these countries are fully integrated into the economy of the West and Singapore in Southeast Asia, or the Emirates in the Middle East. These are new frontiers for large corporations and, as I mentioned, of course, this is absolutely perfect. And all this explains why so many business interests are interested in regime change in Iran, with or without war, they want Iran to open in West financial interests of the company. And it's very dangerous these interests will never give up the possibility of a military option applied to Iran.

So this would mean that NATO, which, as we all know has been launched as a bloc to oppose the communist bloc in the world, now seems to evolve as a mere tool of transnational corporations.

Yes, this is a pretty good summary of the situation. This is a tool for the agenda of the Pentagon, the official doctrine of the Pentagon actually approved a decade ago in 2002, which is called full spectrum dominance, which means that the Pentagon has to dominate over - air, land, sea, cyberspace, outer space. And at the same time, it is a tool of Western corporate interests and financial well, what we were talking a few minutes ago, in terms of opening new frontiers for capitalist exploitation and profit substantially.

So yes, it is a sort of idealized world policeman that bypasses some of the United Nations, as the war in Yugoslavia for example. Sometimes it goes through the United Nations, as in the war against Libya. But it is always trying to find wars and intervention opportunities and expansion of its wealth, which is the case of the NATO missile defense that is selling like - we establish the missile defense system in Europe to protect against Iran or North Korea intercontinental ballistic missiles. This is completely absurd. First North Korea has no interest in striking Europe. Number two - Iran has no interest in striking Europe because 70% of what they sell is the European Union, at least before the sanctions. And Iran wants the EU investment in the Iranian industry. They will never attack Europe, it is a complete absurdity.

Thus, missile defense as Russian intelligence has already identified many years ago is directed against Russia. The mentality of the Cold War, it is still located in the genes of NATO actually. And that is why it is so disturbing to, I would say that any country in the world. You can expect NATO in the not far-fetched to begin to have desires of South America as well. And people in South America and I think his intelligence is already beginning to think that the Pentagon can even use the NATO one day if they want to come here and take over our oil, gas and our honor.

Well, but now, as far as I understand they are focusing on China?

Yes, but NATO does not seem to enter the image directly. This is the Pentagon against China. The Pentagon needs of Africa in the fight against the Chinese offensive trade and business that took years to understand how it worked during the Bush administration, in fact. And now, with what Obama said pivoting of the Middle East to Asia, which is a public relations exercise, actually, because the U.S. will never leave the Middle East to recover in Asia, the contrary. Their end is the next arc of the Middle East to encompass all of Asia as well. There is no pivot, it is actually a huge expansion, and fantasy in the middle of the financial crisis with the money the U.S. does not have.

So we can assume that this expansion will be funded by the Chinese, by the U.S. Treasury once again. So what the Pentagon wants - is to have bases all over North East Asia, Southeast Asia, the South China Sea, the Western Pacific in general to fight against what the Pentagon says is a Chinese threat. And the Chinese have already identified this and they have their cons-movement as well. So, in terms of Asia, China in terms, this is an operation of the Pentagon. And first of all NATO does not have the capacity. Can you imagine, most of these European countries are in a terrible crisis, they simply did not make supplementary budgets for NATO. Thus, NATO would not try the adventure of casting in Asia outside of Afghanistan, in fact.

Thus, and to cover the costs?

Of the 27 NATO members at least 26 are in crisis enormous. So where's the money? And most of them, they spend less than 2% of their GDP on defense, and NATO is very strict, they always say - each member must devote at least 2% of their GDP on defense, which is absurd. Not in the middle of the economic crisis, it will not happen. So, that means money for NATO from now, or has already started, most of it comes from the United States who, by the way already paying 75% of budget NATO. So we have no doubt that without NATO U.S. does not exist. And it proves once again that NATO is a mere appendage of the Pentagon. This is the arm of the Pentagon in Europe with the countries little say - oh, it's an Atlantic Alliance.

But, with this huge budget deficit the U.S. is in a position to sustain this burden for much longer?

In terms of public opinion in every European country independent, people will be aware that this is a waste of money and on top of it to favor a war mongering, the militarization of agenda, in fact. So, expect more and more evidence that it is against NATO everywhere. In Italy, where there are NATO bases in Germany, where there are NATO bases as well. Thus, in the West as we saw in Chicago the past two days. So, throughout the Western alliance, there will be more and more problems. And the problem is - the politicians will do nothing about NATO because these politicians are more or less elected by corporate interests who want a world policeman around the world to defend or sometimes defend their interests. So I see no change in the medium term to long term unless there is political change at a high in many key European countries