U.S. Policy in Afghanistan: Changing Strategies, Preserving Gains – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

NATO Training Mission Afghanistan

NATO Training Mission Afghanistan (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As the world focuses on President Trump’s NATO meeting, global think-tank Carnegie takes a hard look at US policy in Afghanistan. It concludes that to protect the integrity of the Afghan state, U.S. policy should aim to end the conflict in ways that mitigate the threats of terrorism, instability, and regional conflict.

Source: U.S. Policy in Afghanistan: Changing Strategies, Preserving Gains – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

US policy in Afghanistan was radically changed following the 911 terrorist attacks on the US mainland. But President Obama was committed to US troop reductions, rather than securing strategic goals. On his first overseas visit, President Trump will be watched carefully for changes in US defense and foreign policy. The tragic terrorist attack in Manchester, UK, reminds us that we still need the US as a global superpower and peace-keeper. In particular, it would be risky if the Far-Right elements supporting President Trump prevail and the US becomes more isolationist. There are signs that the Trump Administration will continue with its global reach. As the Carnegie article highlights, further retreat from Afghanistan could risk a new terrorist threat.


Opinion – The climate: biggest loser of the new Commission? | EurActiv – John Gelmini

The legislative triangle of the European Union

The legislative triangle of the European Union (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dr Alf is over optimistic if he expects to get a strategy on energy that is clear from the EU.

This is the same EU that has member states who want to get more tourists to visit the place and wants more free movement of goods services and people.

We have not yet managed the technology of the Starship Enterprise’s “Transporter room” and Singlepoint Energy (extracting free energy from the earth’s magnetic field) which was originally suppressed by Robber Baron JP Morgan before Nikola Tesla’s death, still remains under lock and key.

Therefore, we are left with fossil fuels to power vehicles, transport food and generate power unless we build more nuclear power stations.

Moving to electric cars means mining lithium in places like Aynak in Afghanistan, where 350,000 Chinese mine-workers are hard at it. They first had to get there from China, then they had to be housed, fed, guarded by the Americans and that is before engaging in any mining. The mining requires heavy machinery and uses vast amounts of energy and then the lithium, all 3 trillion tons of it, has to be transported back to China turned into batteries and then transported again by ships (diesel powered) to car manufacturers in Asia, Brazil, China, India, Japan and Europe.

The IPCC Report, in its latest version, acknowledges that there has been no nett warming of the planet since 1998 but explains this away by saying that this gross temperature rise is being absorbed by the oceans by a process they have yet to fully understand and will then re-emerge in 25 years time with a vengeance.

People within the EU Commission actually believe this explanation despite the fact that shipping movements and emissions from ships were never in the IPCC reports and the fact that satellite photographs from NASA show that both the Arctic and Antarctic icecaps are 25% thicker and 25% larger in square kilometers than they used to be in recent times.

We are now up to 7 billion people, are flying more than ever, have growing rates of car ownership and yet the earth has seen no more than 1 degree of warming on a nett basis in 120 years.

The IPCC reports, straight out of the Club of Rome website and think tank are all based on the idea of catastrophe happening if the globe gets 4 to 6 degrees warmer.

I am no mathematician but 1 degree in 120 years does not equal 4 degrees so the entire strategy of reducing carbon emissions to “save the planet” is based on false numbers.

Yet despite this the EU seems hellbent on destroying perfectly good economies to the point where they cannot recover for bogus reasons.

The new man Miguel Arias Canete will I am sure do his best but I would have to say at what?

Strategies to solve non existent problems are a waste of time, employing vast armies of people to talk whilst creating no nett new jobs in 30 years is criminal yet this goes on year after year after year.

Dr Alf’s 3rd wish is to see the EU outsourcing non core things.

This will not happen either.

What we have is the meddlers and the misleaders in ever larger numbers, meddling with people’s lives, telling us things which it knows are untrue and wasting money on solving nonexistent problems whilst doing nothing about the real one which is adapting to global cooling,creating jobs and prosperity, improving energy security and being able to attract inward investment.

John Gelmini