Published on Truthout (http://www.truth-out.org)
Why Did Petraeus Fire the Auditor Charged With Stopping Flow of Pentagon Funds to Taliban?
Wednesday 15 February 2012
by: Ralph Lopez, War Is A Crime  | News Analysis
The story which reared its head then dropped off the radar in summer of 2010 is still alive: that the major source of funding for the Taliban is likely the Department of Defense itself , estimated around $400 million per year, which is funneled to Afghan "security" companies as "protection payments," for allowing the massive and constant ground traffic of convoys of supplies for US bases to crisscross the country, unhindered by attacks. So says a report, "Warlord Inc.,"  by a House subcommittee chaired by Rep. John Tierney.
“Matiullah has the road from
Thus the truth: This is a manufactured war. Without American dollars to finance its explosives, ammunition, rockets, and pay and support for its fighters, the Taliban might be little more than a nuisance . DoD money likely dwarfs the profits that insurgents take in from the opium trade. For an upper estimate on this amount, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) maintains :
Taliban insurgents draw some $125m/yr from drugs, which is more money than ten years ago,...
Unlike the Viet Cong, the Taliban attracts little ideological loyalty, and was widely despised by Afghans of all ethnicities during its rule. Few in number, during its time in power the Taliban's formula for enforcing its will was simple: fear. There was only one penalty for nearly every alleged infraction: death.
If you have not seen the film "The Kiterunner" based on Khaled Hosseini's best-selling (and accurate) novel, it is worth watching. In one scene the hero, back in Taliban-ruled
For fighters the Taliban depends on being able to pay a $10 a day wage , plus help with food and medicine. None other than a former Commander of US Forces in
"Much of the enemy force is drawn from the ranks of unemployed men looking for wages to support their families"
Now it turns out, completely ignored by the American press, before being appointed to head the CIA by Obama, General David Petraeus quietly fired  the 2-star Admiral who was appointed to head the response to the revelation of Taliban funding by the
In April of 2011 Matthew J. Nasuti wrote for the Kabul Press :
Last year, General David Petraeus hired and then three months later secretly fired Rear Admiral Kathleen Dussault, who was the director in Afghanistan of Task Force 2010. The incident and its significance were ignored by the Western news media. Task Force 2010 was created in mid-June 2010, with much fanfare by General Petraeus. It was supposed to ensure that no NATO funds were being diverted directly or indirectly to the Taliban or al-Qaeda. Admiral Dussault was appointed at its director. She had the perfect credentials for the job as she is an expert auditor with an extensive background in logistics and contracting. On September 29, 2010, Admiral Dussault was quietly relieved of command and shipped out of
Petraeus, recall, was who former CENTCOM chief Admiral William Fallon  once derided as "an ass-kissing little chickenshit," adding, "I hate people like that."
The mothers of soldiers in
Nasuti, who pursued claims by the Pentagon in email correspondence and found a number of them false, concludes in his report:
Task Force 2010 was created as a sham to placate members of Congress and to present the appearance that NATO was trying to cut off the flow of Western funds to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In reality NATO has concluded that it needs to fund both sides in this war with
Why? This is well-known to the many who have been marginalized by the mainstream media and are not allowed onto the airwaves with their assessments, like
No words have continued to ring out from beyond the grave like double Medal of Honor winner General Smedley Butler's , the Marine general who renounced his profession and spent the remainder of his life giving his "War is a Racket"  speech across the country:
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives... A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
The "burn rate" for the occupation, the military's term for the rate of spending, is over $8 billion a month  or $10 million every hour, making it the most expensive war in
Were but a miniscule fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars now given over to war profiteering to be spent on trustworthy, Afghan-led  development programs like the National Solidarity Program , which is chronically short of funds , by amounts each year which are less than what is spent on the war in one week, the war would be over, and the US would have a solid ally in the Afghan people. Unemployment there would not be from 40-80 percent (depending on region) and perhaps children would not freeze to death  in the winter right in the middle of
The World Bank reports 60% stunting among children for lack of food and one-third of all Afghan children underweight. 
But as Cindy Sheehan once told me, there's no money in that.
Donations can be sent to the
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs