Newsgroup: it.politica.pds
Titolo: Times: Berlusconi deve spiegare i soldi dati ai talebani

Sempre pi� terrorizzato dalla minacce di querele di La Russa, che
crede che all'estero quello che dicono lui e il suo signore e padrone
abbia una qualche rilevanza, oltre a quella di far spanciare dalle
risate, il Times anche oggi dedica un paio di articoli all'accordo
"governo italiano-talebani". Ecco il secondo, con un'altra doamnda a
Re S�la, dopo quelle di Repubblica: che spieghi il perch� e il percome
dei soldi ai talebani.
Ah, questi giornali comunisti.
- - - -
THE ITALIAN JOB
Silvio Berlusconi�s Government must explain payments made to
insurgents in Afghanistan. There is a case for local deals, but none
for unilateralism
[The Times, October 17, 2009] 
War, said Clausewitz, is the continuation of politics by other means.
The Times reported this week on a distinctive political strategy
adopted by Italy in the war in Afghanistan. Italian intelligence
officers have paid money, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars,
to the Taleban in protection money. Under the arrangement, neither
side would attack the other.
When the Italians were replaced by French troops in the Sarobi
district of Afghanistan last year, the newcomers believed the region
to carry only a low risk, as there had been only one Italian fatality
in the previous year. But the Italians neglected to mention the
payments. Within a month of their arrival, ten French soldiers were
killed and 21 were wounded in a Taleban attack.
The Italian Government has furiously denied our report, including our
statement that the US Ambassador submitted a formal complaint about
Italian payments to local insurgents in Herat province. Opposition
politicians in France are demanding explanations, and ought to receive
them. We unreservedly stand by our account. Since its publication, a
Taleban commander and two senior Afghan officials have confirmed that
this strategy has been practised by Italian forces in this and other
regions of Afghanistan.
The Italian strategy is a scandal. It is important to be clear how and
why. Clausewitz�s famous dictum is often misinterpreted. The politics
that the great military thinker referred to included not only the
chosen goals of the State but also the external conditions within
which they were pursued. And adjusting the goals to fit the
constraints is part of any military strategy that has a prospect of
success.
The fortunes of the US-led coalition in Iraq were transformed by the
appointment in late 2006 of a new military command that had thought
deeply about the requirements of successful counterinsurgency. The new
strategy recognised that political gains could not be made till
security was established in Baghdad and the surrounding areas. With a
surge in Allied troop levels, coalition commanders deliberately sought
those local elements of the insurgency that were biddable, and bid for
them. The strategy was to fracture a highly heterogeneous set of
forces, leaving the remnants of irreconcilable Islamist and Baathist
fanaticism.
It was a calculated risk. It worked. Al-Qaeda sustained serious damage
and lost important sanctuaries in Baghdad and Anbar provinces. Instead
of flooding into the country, foreign jihadists turned and fled. That
is the outcome that Afghanistan needs, for the welfare of its people
and for Western security. It is reasonable, and conceivably even
far-sighted, for coalition forces to use economic inducements to
scatter the Islamist enemy. That approach would be wholly consistent
in principle with the observation of General Stanley McChrystal, the
Nato commander, that the coalition must operate in ways that minimise
casualties and damage.
But it is unconscionable and dangerous for a nation within the
coalition to pursue a unilateral strategy without consulting their
allies. The campaign against the insurgents is a collective operation,
conducted through Nato, designed to provide collective security. There
is a role for local deals. However unprincipled they may appear to the
purist, they are far preferable to the tortuous drip of military
strikes that inadvertently kill and maim civilians, and cost the
counterinsurgency public support.
Deals that are negotiated locally cannot be deals that are negotiated
separately, however. That is the route to Allied discord, disarray and
unnecessary death. That is the charge against Italy�s strategy in
Afghanistan. Silvio Berlusconi�s Government must answer it.
- - - -

 Ah, questi giornali comunisti.
sinceramente non ci credo che i nostri servizi segreti abbiano pagato i 
talebani per lasciare in pace i nostri soldati.....anche perch�, se fosse 
vero,
cavolo, bisognerebbe farsi dare indietro i soldi, con tutti quelli che hanno 
ammazzato!
se poi non li pagavano, che succedeva? sterminavano tutti i soldati 
italiani??????
poi, mi sembra che la stampa estera si stia davvero accanendo contro 
l'italia, in tutti i modi....l'inghilterra, poi, con gli scandali e le grane 
che si
ritrova con i suoi ministri (primi e non...) secondo me dovrebbe solo 
guardarsi il fango che ha in casa, prima di buttarne gratuitamente a 
noi..... pi� si va avanti pi� si scopre che gli esponenti politici italiani 
da cui i giornali stranieri attingono false notizie, sono dei 
criminali....da cui il popolo sano fugge a galoppo... tra poco tempo 
rimarranno soli con la occulta loro polizia di assassini...brigate rosse...

 wrote:

Come non dirsi concordanti ?
Ciao
Luigino Ferrari
luf...@tin.it

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:qo8ld51kukqivnb9b...@4ax.com...

Gli inglesi sono un popolo che hanno sempre detto un sacco di stupidagini 
quando i loro sporchi politici stanno nei quai.
A me gli inglesi non sono mai piaciuti, quei coglioni devono imparare almeno 
a parlare invece di usare il naso quando borbottano.
Se si vede la loro recente storia si vede che molti agenti segreti inglesi 
hanno spesso tradito la loro patria per un pugno di sterline, e anche molti 
dei loro parlamentari.
Ci giudicano in base alle notizie che ricevono da elementi che il popolo 
italiano ha e sta emarginando... 

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:4ada7f95$0$1094$4faf...@reader3.news.tin.it...

Complimenti Lauretta, sai quali sono le fonti di Times e sai che si tratta 
di criminali. Un vetro scoop. O ti sei infiltrata nella redazione? Dacci 
altre notizie. :-) 

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:4adac15b$0$1112$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...

Altri elementi di giudizio? Proprio nessuno, oltre alla tua personale 
antipatia per la perfida Albione? 

 wrote:

Purtroppo!!!!! malgrado si considerino se non dei padreterni, almeno i
deus ex machina dell'Ue. 
Ciao
Luigino Ferrari
luf...@tin.it