During the October visits to Peru and Uruguay, Panetta took steps to implement the Concept. He agreed to begin work with each country to update their 60-year-old defense cooperation accords to move them beyond Cold War agenda and accommodate changes in the laws. The Secretary also chaired the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas in Punta Del Este (Uruguay) on October 8, an event that takes place every two years. The issues of the conference include defense and security, peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. The secretary called these issues a central part of efforts to enhance regional security and increase cooperation between military forces in the hemisphere. He stressed the region is going through significant changes. The countries apply great efforts to enhance their security and the USA sees it as a historic opportunity to boost defense partnership.

According to the new policy, the United States will reinvigorate its defense partnerships and pursue new ones, consistent with President Barack Obama’s approach to the region.

The statement defines three core objectives the USA is to promote accordingly:

– Strong national government institutions that allow all nations in the region to address legitimate threats to the state and their citizens.

– Shared action against shared threats through more effectively and efficiently coordinating defense forces.

– Multilateral mechanisms and institutions, like the current conference and the Inter-American Defense Board, to achieve consensus on the direction of hemispheric defense collaboration.

On humanitarian assistance and disaster relief the United States supports the Chilean initiative to accelerate and coordinate support for civilian-led relief efforts. On peacekeeping, countries in the Western Hemisphere have assumed an impressive leadership role by engaging, addressing and improving United Nations efforts. In a new era of defense cooperation in the hemisphere, Panetta said, “Our goal is to work with those nations that want us to help them to develop their capabilities so that they can defend and secure themselves. Our interest is to work with you, not against you.”

Since the new century started Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chili, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay have taken part in UN peacekeeping missions throughout the world. To unite the joint military and defense efforts president Obama launched a new counterdrugs and security initiative in April 2009: the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI), a multiyear, multifaceted effort by the U.S. government and Caribbean partners to develop a joint regional citizen safety strategy to tackle the full range of security and criminal threats to the Caribbean Basin. There is also the Central American Integration System that integrates seven Central American states, all of them get significant support from Washington, that acts in accordance with the U.S. Central American Regional Security Initiative – CARSI.

The new period of intensifying US-led cooperation is taking place along with the emergence of new growing threats. The statement says law is not always prevalent in the countries of the continent and lack of transparency is still a specific feature of many elections. Corruption is still strong and the top officials decisions not always meet the interests of grassroots but rather ruling elites. Over 30% of the continent’s population live in misery, the distribution of wealth is the most unfair in the world. Racial and national divisions stand in the way of equal rights and fair participation in politics. Leon Panetta thinks all these things weaken the military potentials because the issues are intertwined. The military materiel storage is not protected well enough to prevent conventional proliferation. The arms destines to protect the governments may jolly well get into the hands of those who aspire to overthrow them. 

According to US vision the threats used to come from intergovernment conflicts, destabilizing activities of right wing militants and the left wing extremist organizations. At present something new comes to the fore. It’s smugglers, illegal drug traffickers who steal the show. Their activities exacerbated by nature emergencies and cyber threats. The Pentagon finds it expedient to unite so that the traditional and newly emerged threats could be countered. 

The statement stresses an ability to react immediately whatever the threat is and keep up the balance between the military and civilian agencies in case of emergencies. 

The USA plans to launch professional military and civilian personnel education programs. The military training will focus on interoperability issues based on US-made weapons, equipment and logistics. The statement envisages joint efforts devoted to countering drug trafficking, fighting terrorist and extremist organizations and WMD non- proliferation. The US Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace also mentions joint operations aimed at countering cyberattacks. 

The statement and other documents actually presuppose significant increase of financial expenditure on the part of the USA against the backdrop of financial woes and fiscal restraint. Despite budget cuts that are taking place in the United States, including in the military, Panetta said the Department of Defense has an array of programs to be paid for that can help develop capabilities in Latin America.

There is a certain background the Concept came out against. 

While the murder of American diplomats and violent anti-American riots across the Islamic world dominate the news cycle, the slow burn of anti-Americanism takes place in the Western Hemisphere. In the post–Cold War era anti-Americanism has staged a substantial comeback owing to US persistent efforts to interfere into the countries internal affairs and impose its will. 

With a long, complicated history of interventions and meddling in Latin America, the United States will have to overcome deep suspicions as it works to build broader military ties in a region where stable democracies have taken root in recent decades. American President James Monroe launched the "Monroe Doctrine” as far back as 1823 establishing American protection for the nations of the Western Hemisphere and insisting the Europeans limit their commercial interests, their conflicts and their wars to their own continent. Captain A. T. Mahan of the U.S. navy, a popular propagandist for expansion, greatly influenced Theodore Roosevelt and other American leaders. In his famous work The Influence of Sea Power Upon History published in 1890 he stressed the fact that the countries with the biggest navies capable of intervention in different parts of the world would inherit the earth. Since 1890 to 2009 the USA has intervened militarily 56 times, ending up with supporting the coup that toppled the president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya in 2009. 

The US intelligence is making systematic efforts to energize the political opposition in Latin American countries deemed unfriendly in Washington. The US influenced media in Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela are full of acrimonious anti-government propaganda. The USAID, the agency told to leave Russia this month for meddling into the country’s internal affairs, is notorious for serving as a cover for intelligence efforts many a time aimed at undermining legitimate governments in a number of Latin American countries… 

The suspicions and apprehensions concerning the USA are going strong on the continent today. In 2005 in Argentina, at a continent-wide summit meeting, the US friendly Free Trade Area of the Americas project was buried to be substituted with the Union of South American Nations formed in 2008. It is joined by 12 states now to undertake joint defense, economic development, and infrastructure projects. The 21 years old MERCOSUR is a six-nation organization expanding South American customs union and common market. Cuba and Venezuela initiated the now nine-nation Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our America, known as ALBA in 2004. That organization organizes cooperative ventures ranging from health care, education, communications, and banking to regional commercial and economic development initiatives, all organized on the basis of solidarity exchanges. 

In December 2011 thirty-three Latin American leaders have come together and formed a new regional bloc, pledging closer economic and political ties. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) pointedly excludes the US and Canada. The foundation of the bloc has been praised as the realization of the two-centuries-old idea of Latin American independence envisioned by Simon Bolivar. Analysts view CELAC as an alternative to the Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS) and as an attempt by Latin American countries to reduce US influence in the region. As the president of Venezuela said back then, “No more interference. Enough is enough! We have to take shape as a center of the world power and demand respect for all of us as community and for each one of our countries.” The countries of CELAC have a combined population of nearly 600 million people, and a combined GDP of about US$6 trillion, a force to reckon with on the international arena. 

The last Summit of the Americas in April 2012 brought to light serious discords on many core issues and failed to adopt a joint declaration. Many nations expressed their discontent with the US policies in the region.

The newly adopted Concept shows the US intent to preserve the world supremacy at any cost. It’s almost a tall order to make it a success against the background of strong and growing anti-US sentiments spread on the continent and strive for taking the fate of the America’s nations into their own hands. 

Apart from the routine anti-Iranian rhetoric, the Pentagon's chief Leon Panetta generously dispensed expressions of friendship and peace-loving during his recent Latin America tour, in which he visited Colombia, Brazil, and Chile. Predictably, Panetta talked about fighting against drug cartels and slammed Venezuela at media briefings, citing, in particular, the U.S. concerns over its rearmament assisted by Russia and China. Panetta's point – a fairly ridiculous one – was that the policy looked suspicious when pursued by a country facing no external threat. It is completely natural, though, that the U.S. wars for oil prompt the military buildup in Venezuela where the administration realizes that sooner or later the U.S. attack will follow.

The range of themes touched upon by Panetta in the course of his first show in Latin America in the capacity of the U.S. Defense Secretary gives a reasonably good idea of the U.S. agenda in the region. For example, Panetta praised the anti-drug campaign launched by the U.S. jointly with the local government in the Columbia, where the interactions also included the struggle against leftist guerrilla groups. The former used to count up to 20,000 members at the peak of their activity, but at the moment the number hardly reaches 8,000. Panetta is convinced that the Plan Colombia, which cost Washington at least $8b, has proved remarkably efficient and pledged that the U.S.-Columbian cooperation would continue into the future even as the Pentagon's financial resources are shrinking. He confirmed that Columbia had bought 10 U.S. copters, five of them –  Black Hawks. The U.S. will go on supplying arms to its top regional partner since Washington appreciates the role played by Columbia in the containment of populist regimes.  In fact, Panetta touted the U.S.-Colombian military ties as exemplary and dropped a hint that building the same relationships with other Latin American countries is the Pentagon's short-term and long-term priority.

In Brazil, Panetta fully employed his Italian eloquence to lure the country's administration and top brass into a tightly knit alliance. Speaking to his colleagues at  Brazil’s Superior War College in Rio de Janeiro, the U.S. Defense Secretary painted a picture of an ideal future, stressing the global importance of the country, saying things like "We support Brazil as a global leader, and seek closer defense cooperation, because we believe that a stronger and more globally engaged Brazil will help enhance international security", and expressing the view that stronger Brazil would mean stronger U.S..  In the past, the U.S. Administration refrained from showering the country with acclaim least the heightened self-esteem of its government grows into a problem for Washington, and the recognition of the Brazilian global status marked a definitive departure from the policy. This part of Panetta's address must have been heavily scrutinized and approved by the U.S. Department of State, and the recommendations issued by U.S. ambassador to Brazil Thomas Shannon were evidently taken into account.  At home, Shannon enjoys the reputation of a top expert on whatever concerns Brazil, where his mission is to prevent the country from drifting towards the ALBA group and, above all, towards Venezuela. The rise of the interactions between Brazil and Venezuela in the military sphere is Washington's permanent headache. The Venezuelan policy before the advent of Chavez, which was largely dictated by the U.S., used to  regard Brazil as the main enemy. Chavez did a huge job to befriend Brazil and to make it an ally in guarding Amazonia, fully aware that seizing it with a legend about internationalized control as disguise was an entrenched dream in Washington.

Panetta urged Brazilian government officials to prove their openness to dialog by penning the contract to buy 36 U.S.-made Super Hornet aircrafts, the deal total being $4-5b.  He made it clear that the aircrafts are loaded with top-secret technologies which can be supplied exclusively to top-trusted partners, and that the park of Hornets would open to Brazil the entry into the club of the U.S. closest allies, but also sent the message that the opportunity must be seized fast while Washington is ready to go that far.  In other words, Panetta maintained as a part of his marketing strategy that at the moment the deal is looked upon favorably in the White House and the Congress but the tide may eventually change.

Brazil, however, stays undecided as there are alternative options on the table. Other bidders are France with Rafale fighters from Dassault Aviation and Sweden with Grippen air crafts from Saab. There is discontent in Brazil that its contract to sell the Embraer light air crafts to Afghanistan worth $380m was scrapped under U.S. pressure, and the list of similar grievances is fairly long. For instance, Embraer's big contract with Venezuela went under as some of the components for the Super Tornado air crafts to be supplied hailed from the U.S. which, under the pretext, was able to block the sale.

As required by the tour blueprint, Panetta delivered an accolade to Chile's experience in providing assistance under the conditions of natural disaster, stressing that "Chile’s critical lessons learned must be shared with the rest of the hemisphere". The U.S. Defense Secretary further stated in Latin America that the U.S. would no longer resist the efforts of the region's countries to cultivate their military potentials and that Washington has far-reaching plans for “innovative alliances” with its partners. “We are both Pacific nations”, said Panetta in Chile, adding that the security and prosperity of both nations depends on the Asia Pacific region. The signal was easily readable – for the US, the country is becoming instrumental in maintaining control over Asia Pacific where the Chinese presence is becoming increasingly visible. Currently, China is ahead of the US in trade with Brazil, Chile, and Peru, and the trend is about to span Argentina and Columbia.

The U.S. is strengthening its network of military bases in Asia Pacific in anticipation of China's making deeper inroads into the region. A new base on which the U.S. Southern Command spent around $500m recently opened in Chile's Concon. The real purpose of the facility is hitherto undeclared while the official myth that it is going to be used to train Latin American peacekeepers under the UN auspices cannot be taken seriously – so far, Chilean parliamentary commission which subjected the compound to an inspection mostly found it populated by U.S. servicemen.

In every Latin American country he visited, Panetta called for “stronger mechanisms of regional security cooperation”. Considering that UNASUR and its defense council are trying to build those independently, one was left with an impression that the whole tour was a subversive operation meant to incite divisions within the alliance. Chavez bluntly said that the UNASUR jump to unity over the common defensive doctrine was inspired by the Libyan and other dramas provoked by U.S. interventions. Indeed, there are absolutely no reasons to believe that the Libyan scenario will not some day materialize in Latin America. At a joint media event Chile's defense minister Andrés Allamand did voice hope that the epoch of interventions in the Western Hemisphere was over, but failed to even mention whose interventions he had in mind. That being an open secret, Mr. Panetta kept smiling enigmatically while listening to his Chilean counterpart.

Panetta plans to throw in specific regional security proposals at the conference of defense ministers due to open in the Uruguayan capital of Montevideo in October. Uruguay's deputy defense chief Jorge Menendez told in an interview that the UNASUR countries would stick to a coordinated position at the forum. The rifts between them and the Central and North American countries — over the viability of the Inter-American defense council and the adequacy of the 1947 mutual assistance pact – are already in sight. Menendez sees both as Cold War legacy that did not help even when it should have, as in the days of the Falklands War.
 
Obviously, UNASUR is going to be highly critical of whatever Panetta offers in  Montevideo — the ranks of those who are naive enough to embrace «continental solidarity» with the Empire are rapidly melting.

For some unknown reason the pick-up moved aside to the ditch and caught fire. The head of Pentagon was unharmed but prudently refused to visit other military installations. It was hardly soothing to know that the one who tried to kill him probably was not a militant terrorist but rather an Afghan, expressing his attitude towards American “liberators”. 

By and large, the goal of Panetta’s visit to Afghanistan was to placate public opinion in the country and sort out the relations with President Karzay who had demanded to pull out the coalition forces after Sergeant Robert Bales had massacred peaceful civilians in Kandagar province. He got angry because his friend’s leg had been torn off as a result of mine explosion and decided to settle the score with the Afghans taking revenge for the moral wound killing 19 civilians, twelve of them children. It was the last straw adding to the anger hitting the streets of Afghan cities earlier. The death toll of the two weeks of disturbances was no less than 30. The US President’s public apology changed nothing.

The Afghans have something to hate for those who intruded into their country and have been occupying it for the second dozen of years. The videos of US Marines urinating on a dead Afghan, mockery of Koran by a US pastor, Koran’s burning by US soldiers, regular night raids and living quarters searching, GIs shooting point blank at unarmed people, including children – all of it has led to external manifestation of strong hatred between the population and the occupants that dooms the West’s adventure in Afghanistan to miserable failure… 

Leaks from a number of NATO Afghanistan situation ”operational” reports appeared in the Western media. 

The most impressive of them is the conclusion that all coalitions “successes” and Western multibillion expenditure will be brought to nought after 2014. Assessing the situation the NATO experts point out the following:

– The Taliban leaders often have residences in immediate vicinity of the coalition’s key installations. It speaks of the occupants total inability to neutralize the resistance;

– The number of Afghans willing to join the Taliban ranks is growing. In faraway areas the government rules only on paper. The Taliban is a sole master there and the sympathy for it is on the rise among common people. The everyday life of Afghans starting with cell phone melodies to videos and songs is permeated by the Taliban influence; 

– Wide spread corruption in state agencies, impunity and mutual protection among state bureaucrats that makes possible to get away even with murder – the whole lot of it has pushed people towards the Taliban. Corruption is spread in courts and common Afghans have nothing to do but go to “shadow” Taliban courts for justice. Comparing Karzay’s state “justice” with the Taliban field courts, the Afghans say the Taliban death verdict for a thief is fast and merciless. The Karzay’s justice may drag on for a hundred years and there is no guarantee a thief or a criminal will be found guilty and punished; 

– No matter there is an occupational regime, the “shadow” Taliban administrations have established control in many provinces and rule with success. They solve the everyday life problems, gather taxes, judge the civil litigation matters. They are flexible and responsive. They quickly dismiss their representatives claimed to be corrupted or prone to position abuse. Nothing like this happens with government officials; 

– The sympathy for the Taliban among population is deep. A Taliban fighter will never be given away to NATO or the government by his native villagers. The Taliban Sharia FM radio broadcast to the compatriots starts with the words that the message is addressed to renegades in the Afghan government, but not to those who are Taliban’s friend in its ranks. 

– The Afghan government is sure the Taliban will return. That’s why many top officials want to collaborate. They are involved in getting suicide bombers to the places where terrorist acts are going to take place, as well as in arms trade and drug trafficking. It’s very important they provide the Taliban with secret information about military planning; 

– The Karzay government is not very keen on establishing order in the areas left by the occupational forces. The Afghan police hit by illiteracy, desertion, drugs and infiltration by the Taliban supporters is not capable of fulfilling its functions and is not trusted by people. Police and army sell arms to the Taliban; 

– The Pakistan special services play an active role in supporting the Taliban. According to Karzay till the attempts to make Pakistan agree to stop this support are futile, the Taliban will go on increasing its influence. 

Leon Panetta, who was lucky enough to avoid collision with the self-taught suicide – terrorist, had one more clandestine mission – to make the utmost to prevent the avalanche-like advance of crisis in Afghanistan till the US presidential elections this fall. Otherwise the chances for his boss Barack Obama re-election could become rather blur. 

But it’s already evident the avalanche-like crisis escalation cannot be prevented. The sudden Taliban refusal to open a bureau in Qatar as a springboard for talks with Americans confirms the fact. It appeared the talks were on the brink of start and some kind of agreement concerning the coalition forces evacuation or prevention of collaborators’ persecution would be achievable. The burning of Koran and sergeant Robert Bales frustrated the plans. The Taliban’s refusal could mean only one thing: the Americans were to expect new “surprises” after the failed attempt to kill Leon Panetta. The Taliban will not fail to support the anger against the occupants with deeds. All installations of the coalition are put on high alert to counter the terrorist threat. 

There were some achievements as a result of the visit. For instance, Hamid Karzay took back his demand to withdraw the NATO forces from provinces. Now these forces will stay. Contrary to what the Afghan President said his army could hardly cope with the situation without the occupants help in case the Taliban finally comes out of “the shadow” on the ground. 

This time Leon Panetta was lucky enough to successfully take off and go home. It’s a good thing by itself. But if asked what changed as a result of his visit the answer would be – nothing. It was something else they expected in Washington. 

Afghanistan has become an absolutely alien and hostile world for the NATO soldiers they dream of saying goodbye to as soon as they can. In its turn the Taliban is preparing to come to their help in case they hesitate. No doubt it’ll do its best to expedite the withdrawal. The previously unplanned Leon Panetta’s visit to Afghanistan confirmed once more that the US and NATO’s “mission of freedom”, that was announced worldwide with such fanfare in 2001, could have only one ignominious result.

"And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Pakistan"

It does appear that for some Pentagon brass, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta; the CIA under former U.S. Central Command and Afghanistan commander General David Petraeus; and top Republican and Democratic politicians that, indeed, Pakistanis next on the target list of nations that will soon be feeling the military muscle of the United States. Unlike other Muslim nations that have been subjected to U.S. military intervention, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya, Pakistan’s ultimate prize for the West is its nuclear weapons arsenal…

A number of observers, including former senior figures with the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, have made no secret of western contingency plans, which appear to be going active, to secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in order to eliminate the nation as a nuclear weapons power. The plans have been coordinated between the CIA, India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) intelligence service, and Israel’s Mossad.

President Obama appears to have decided to ratchet up tensions with Pakistan after Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari was apparently urged by Obama to attend the White House’s much-hyped Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in April 2010. Obama sent a personal letter to Zardari that was delivered to the Pakistani president’s office in Islamabad on February 16, 2010, along with a cover letter from U.S. ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson. The letter to Zardari was the subject of a leaked U.S. State Department “sensitive” cable dated February 17, 2010 from the U.S. embassy in Islamabad to the State Department. The cable references a previous February 10, 2010 cable from the White House to the embassy in Islamabad. The cable from Islamabad was copied to the CIA; the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon; the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in Tampa, Florida; U.S. consulates in Lahore, Peshawar, and Karachi – the sites of CIA stations in Pakistan – and the U.S. embassies in London and Kabul.

The cable from Islamabad to Washington stated:

(SBU) Post delivered the POTUS letter on the Nuclear Security Summit to the Office of President Asif Ali ZARDARI on February 16, with cover letter from Ambassador Anne
Patterson. The Pakistanis have not yet confirmed to us whether ZARDARI will attend.
PATTERSON

Zardari passed on attending the nuclear summit, opting to send Prime Minister Yusaf Raza Gilani is his place. Soon after, Washington began expressing alarm about links between Pakistan and Taliban elements in the nation’s North West Frontier Province, as well as in Afghanistan.

It is noteworthy that Israel, which officially denies it possesses nuclear weapons, although it is estimated to have some 400 warheads, sent Dan Meridor, the deputy prime minister with oversight over Mossad, and India sent its Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh. Saudi Arabia, which has been used by Washington as an interlocutor with the Taliban in Afghanistan, sent the head of its General Intelligence Service, Prince Muqran bin Abdul Aziz.

A week after Zaradari received his invitation to the Washington summit, a Secret NOFORN (not releasable to foreign nationals) cable, dated February 23, was sent from Islamabad to the State Department with copies to the CIA; the Joint Chiefs; CENTCOM; the U.S. embassies in London and New Delhi; the U.S. Consulates in Lahore, Peshawar, and Karachi; the Energy Department (an indicator that nuclear security issues were at stake), and the sanctions-wielding Departments of Treasury and Commerce. The cable discusses a February 17 meeting between the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the late Richard Holbrooke, and Zardari, the day after Zardari received Obama’s invitation to the nuclear summit.

In his meeting, Holbrooke thanked Zardari for Pakistan’s help in fighting Taliban militants, particularly help in capturing Afghan Taliban military leader Mullah Beradar. But Holbrooke was not satisfied. The U.S. envoy threw cold water on reconciliation efforts between Afghan President Karzai and the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative to Afghanistan Kai Eide's on one side and senior Taliban leaders on the other. According to the Secret cable, Holbrooke told Zardari “the United States and Pakistan had weakened the Taliban leadership but noted that this was only the first stage, as success depended on turning local populations against the Taliban.” Holbrooke stressed, “the popular perception of the U.S. reintegration and reconciliation efforts with the Taliban mistakenly overemphasized the possibility for reconciliation, explaining that reconciliation with Taliban leaders was less likely than reintegrating low-level Taliban who had given up the fight.” Zardari confided to Holbrooke that the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Muqrin, had discussed possible talks between Karzai and senior Taliban officials in Saudi Arabia but with no “guarantees” such a summit would take place. The remaining sections of the cable, sections two and three, are strangely missing from what was allegedly leaked to WikiLeaks.

In April, Muqrin, Meridor, Singh and his intelligence advisers, Obama, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper,essentially, those who would be counted on the support the seizure of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons to prevent them from falling into “radical Islamist” hands, were all gathered in Washington to discuss nuclear proliferation and security. Having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his nuclear counter-proliferation efforts, Obama was the perfect front man for a secret coalition of the willing to carry out the de-nuclearization of Pakistan. The only obstacle remaining was to create an environment acceptable to world public opinion that would justify a multinational intervention in Pakistan.

The Pakistani media and officials like retired Pakistani Army chief of staff General Mirza Aslam Beg and former ISI chief General Hamid Gul, began reporting on U.S. private military contractors conducting unofficial activities throughout Pakistan, especially in Peshawar, Lahore, Karachi, and Islamabad, including U.S. involvement with “false flag” terrorist attacks that were later blamed on local Islamist worthies. In February 2011, the reported acting head of the CIA in Pakistan, Raymond Davis, was arrested by Pakistani police after he shot to death two Pakistani men he claimed were trying to rob him. However, it soon turned out that Davis was not telling the whole truth. Davis was found with espionage equipment and weapons and his telephone records indicated he had been in contact with Pakistani Taliban, also known as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi militants in South Waziristan and other regions. Davis was released by Pakistan after heavy diplomatic pressure was exerted by Washington.

With tensions already frayed between the United States and Pakistan, on May 2, 2011, a U.S. Navy special operations team conducted a raid on the heavily-garrisoned Pakistani town of Abbotabad, in which Osama Bin Laden was allegedly killed. Operation Neptune Spear was clouded in mystery. Bin Laden’s body was quickly buried at sea without any independent authentication that Bin Laden had actually been killed while living under the very noses of a number of active fury and retired Pakistani military and ISI officers who lived in Abbotabad, near the Pakistani Military Academy. Indian and American military and intelligence officials suggested there were links between the Pakistani military and Bin Laden. Fifteen members of the Gold Squadron of the U.S. Navy’s Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU), formerly known as SEAL Team 6, all of whom participated in the alleged killing of Bin Laden in Abbotabad, were killed when their Chinook helicopter was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade in Afghanistan. The Pentagon denied any of the dead SEAL team members were involved in the Bin Laden raid, but other SEAL Team members disputed the Pentagon denials on deep background.

Holbrooke, who died after a sudden heart attack on December 13, 2010, was, as is his successor, Marc Grossman, noted for their involvement in U.S. covert diplomatic adventures, as well as their pro-Israeli stances. After Petraeus took over as CIA chief, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Michael Mullen and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Petraeus’s predecessor at the CIA, both charged Pakistan with aiding Afghan Islamist guerrilla groups. Mullen charged that Pakistan’s ISI provided support to the Afghan Haqqani network in carrying out attacks on the U.S. embassy in Kabul and U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan. The Pakistani Taliban was earlier blamed for a terrorist attack on a CIA operating base in Khost, Afghanistan. The ground was being set for a more aggressive U.S. policy toward Pakistan, although some Pentagon officials claimed that Mullen overstated the case against Pakistan. Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, floated the idea of U.S. military intervention in Pakistan. The covert U.S. activity in Pakistan, including operations by the notorious mercenaries of the ex-Blackwater, now Xe Services, was emerging into more overt operations. The prize now, as it has been for the last few years, is Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Next stop is Pakistan.

Petraeus, considered an “academic general” by combat troops who have served under him, comes to the CIA after launching bloody military “surges” against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. A product of the elitist Woodrow Wilson School of International and Public Affairs at Princeton University, Petraeus has been a long-time favorite of neo-conservative nationalistic American political leaders like Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Petraeus’s actual front line combat experience as a flag-rank officer is so thin and his leadership qualities so political in nature, many of his troops have called him General “Betray Us.”

Petraeus’s first actual experience commanding troops in combat was when he served as commander of the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division in its 2003 assault on Baghdad. In his subsequent role as commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq (MSTCI) under the U.S. “viceroy” for Iraq, Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul “Jerry” Bremer, a prized underling of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Petraeus was in charge of training Iraqi security forces in the ill-advised neo-conservative “de-Baathification” process. The Iraqi security training program was rife with contract fraud and placing Petraeus at the CIA runs the risk that the previous levels of contract fraud at the CIA, witnessed during the tenure of Porter Goss, will return to the halls of Langley, Virginia.

Three top generals in Iraq, including Petraeus, all supporters of the Iraq occupation and “surge” policies crafted by the neo-conservative nest of conspirators at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, were implicated in contract fraud in occupied Iraq. U.S. veterans of the Iraq occupation stated that there was no guidance from the US-run Civilian Police Assistance Training (CPAT) program on issuing police equipment to the Iraqi police. The Iraqi police training program involved three U.S. Army generals — Joseph Fil, the Commanding General of the CPAT team; Kevin Bergner, the deputy commander of coalition forces in northwestern Iraq in 2005; and Petraeus, the MSTCI commander. However, Petraeus faced no criminal probe over the training malfeasance, with ethics-tainted Senator McCain frequently lauding the record of the "great General Petraeus."

One warehouse run by Lee Dynamics International (LDI) was to procure, store, and distribute equipment for the Iraqi police. However, the contract, for which LDI received billions of dollars, was non-existent because it was Iraqi police officials, not LDI personnel, who were in charge of the LDI warehouse. Petraeus, who was in charge of CPAT and MSTCI, did not ensure any accountability for LDI and other contractors. LDI, formerly known as American Logistics Services, was suspended by the U.S. Army after it was caught paying bribes to US Army officers in Kuwait. In December 2006, Major Gloria Davis, a U.S. Army contracting officer in Kuwait, allegedly shot herself in a suicide after being accused of accepting $225,000 in bribes from LDI. The firm was also accused of paying bribes to Army officers in Iraq who were in charge of training the Iraqi police. The officers identified in the investigation of LDI worked closely with Petraeus.

Days before his supposed suicide by a "self-inflicted" gunshot wound in a Camp Dublin, Iraq trailer, West Point Honor Board member and Iraqi police and security forces trainer Col. Ted Westhusing reported in e-mail to the United States that "terrible things were going on in Iraq." He also said he hoped he would make it back to the United States alive. Westhusing had three weeks left in his tour of duty in Iraq when he allegedly shot himself in June 2005.

It is noteworthy that after Westhusing's death, two top Army generals, both responsible for training Iraqi forces, Petraeus and Fil, the then-Commander of the 1st Cavalry Division, were quickly transferred without much fanfare to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and Fort Hood, Texas, respectively.

It is with Petraeus’s legacy of fraud; waste; abuse; indiscriminant targeting of civilians; possible acquiescence in the murder of witnesses, including American citizens; and adoption of neo-conservative “New American Century” imperialistic dogma, that Obama has decided to place the CIA under his Afghanistan commander’s control.

The appointment of the author of military “surge” tactics and the associated disregard for civilian casualties through the use of drone attacks and Special Forces assassination operations, means that the CIA will be persuaded to sign on to the Petraeus doctrine of “kill first and ask no questions later.” A clear sign that the Obama administration will continue an aggressive military approach in Afghanistan is the appointment of Petraeus’s old “surge” partner in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, the former ambassador in Baghdad, as the new American ambassador in Kabul . Crocker replaces retired General Karl Eikenberry, known to be a critic of Obama’s and Petraeus’s policies in Afghanistan. With former Democratic Congressman Panetta replacing Gates at the Pentagon, the Obama administration is clearly seeking to stamp its own imprimatur on the Pentagon. Outgoing Defense Secretary Gates resisted White House desires to put “boots on the ground” in Obama’s new war zones, including Libya and elsewhere.

Petraeus, as commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility – which extends form Egypt to Pakistan – and Afghanistan, has been an advocate of Israeli-style “pre-emptive” military action, beyond traditional counter-insurgency tactics that take into consideration “winning of the hearts and minds” of both combatants and civilians in conflict zones.

Petraeus’s almost maniacal approach to the killing of civilians was evidenced when he offended Afghan President Hamid Karzai after Petraeus suggested that Afghan parents may have burned their own children in order to exaggerate deaths and casualties arising from a NATO strike on a village in Konar Province in northeastern Afghanistan this past February. Petraeus casually dismissed charges that his forces had targeted children and women, angering Karzai and other Afghan government officials. Petraeus also continued to wage a civilian casualty-intensive covert ground and drone war in neighboring Pakistan, angering that nation’s government.

Petraeus’s record as commander of CENTCOM and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan actually severely damaged U.S. relations with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Normally, such a poor military and diplomatic record would ensure a quick retirement for Petraeus. However, Obama, who has bent over backward to please America’s military-industrial-intelligence complex, has saw fit to name Petraeus to head the CIA.

As far as Panetta, a former White House chief of staff for President Clinton is concerned, military veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq agree: Panetta will be a political “hack” cheerleader for the White House and he will raise no objections to continued American military adventurism around the world, from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Libya, sub-Sahara Africa, Latin America, the Arabian peninsula, and Iran.