In 2009, I obtained a confidential report commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which provided a shocking explanation for this seemingly contradictory policy. The report, authored by respected defence consultant Prof Ola Tunander, who had previously contributed to a high-level Danish government inquiry into U.S. covert operations during the Cold War, concluded that U.S. strategy in AfPak (Afghanistan and Pakistan) is to “support both sides in the conflict” so as to “calibrate the level of violence,” ironically to prolong, not end, regional conflicts. This counterintuitive strategy, the report argued, appears to be motivated by a wider geopolitical objective of maintaining global support for U.S. interventionism to maintain regional security. By fanning the flames of war in AfPak, U.S. forces are able to “increase and decrease the military temperature and calibrate the level of violence” with a view to permanently “mobilize other governments in support of U.S. global policy.”
Phi Beta Iota: US foreign “policy” is criminally insane and in many instances, should be subject to World Court and International Tribunal remediation. The US Government, in our name and at our expense, continues to consort with all dictators on the planet less North Korea, and even there we find cozy relationships of convenience. What the US Government does in relation to secret trade treaties and subsidies as well as criminality waivers for banks and corporations is equally reprehensible — legalized crime.