The reality of the US’s return to “great-game” politics – John Gelmini

Logo of Global Times

Logo of Global Times (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


I thank Dr Alf for reblogging the article written by Clifford Kiracofe and published by China’s Global Times, entitled “US keen to revive great game politics through imperial return to Asia – OP-ED –”.


Clifford Kiracofe’s article is a good one which explains the US pivot to SE Asia and some of what is happening in Afghanistan but not by any means the entire picture.


America has always had designs on Eurasia which in reality means Russia and China as per what the PNAC website publicly states without equivocation.


America will be officially withdrawing its regular forces from Afghanistan in 2014 but in reality it will not have left at all.






Because they have already built 15 secret bases in that country, which will be staffed by XE special forces people working for Chuck Prinz and ex special forces officer who created Blackwater, now rebranded XE.


XE, along with smaller UK mercenary forces employing ex SAS and Parachute Regiment personnel, are effectively the “outsourced military forces” that can enter countries secretly or remain as an occupying force long after the regular troops have gone home.


Since XE forces and arms length mercenary forces are run by private companies which are often registered behind brass plates in places like Ugland House, Bermuda, they do not fall under Governmental or Congressional oversight and the “War Powers Act” which binds Presidents in America can be circumvented which makes all the “checks and balances ” depicted by Dr Alf in such accurate detail in his post, meaningless.


So when the Chinese military “study” the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, they will doubtless be studying the outsourcing process at the same time.


Russia knows about these bases as well because if there was an attempt to invade via the “soft underbelly” of Russia it would come via Afghanistan.


The “Pivot to Asia” is part of a containment strategy for Russia and China which will precede what the military planners call ASB (Air Sea Battle) using a missile shield and space based weapons to blunt the response to a first strike.


One hopes that wiser counsels prevail because once your opponent is aware of your plans he can counter them.


John Gelmini




Enhanced by Zemanta

One response

  1. Pingback: Should the OBR independently cost and risk assess UK political manifestos? John Gelmini « Dr Alf's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: