Obama Surge

805 views
751 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
805
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Obama Surge

  1. 1. Haven’t We Heard this All Before? Barack Hussein Obama Bush and the Quest to Continue the “War on Terror Islam” Younus Abdullah Muhammad – REVOLUTIONMUSLIM.COM Barack Obama is no different than George Bush. Perhaps he is a bit more articulate and the policy makers behind him may be neo-liberal rather than neo-conservative, but their messages and policies are essentially the same. Bush gives a few trillions in taxpayer money to the banks, Obama does the same. Bush enters into senseless war that buoys the U.S. Empire through brutal military overreach far from home and Obama continues along that course. The increasing evaporation continues under Obama and for many there is no hope as the first days of Obama have certainly not fueled the fundamental change many voters expected. Like Bush after 9-11, President Obama has overriding support early in his presidency, and can therefore utilize sophistic rhetoric to guarantee mass support for whatever policy his advisors choose to embark upon. Obama’s skill in serving the corporate, Wall Street class that put him into power is proven in that he may advocate for domestic change conducive to pacify an increasingly angry citizenry, while simultaneously preserving and even advancing the multinational corporate, imperialist power structure by altering absolutely nothing in the realm of U.S. military and economic interventionism across the globe. Make no mistake about it he is no different than Bush. This is no more evident than in Emperor Obama’s recent announcement of a troop surge in Afghanistan. It is remarkably reminiscent of Emperor Bush’s speech on the Iraqi troop surge from January 10, 2007 and is a continuation of the imperialist policies that tend to bankrupt domestic imperial societies while shedding the blood of countless millions on the periphery. It is warmongering at its finest but is all the more dangerous as Obama’s cult-like following has ushered in an era of fascist-like hero-worship, a neo-nationalism that may send the entire globe into utter despair. In early 2007, the United States, stuck in a senseless War in Iraq it was facing massive resistance to all over the world, conducted a bi-partisan, comprehensive review of the Iraq War and "strongly urged" a large pull back of American troops. However, then President George Bush disregarded the conclusion and chose rather to call for a troop surge that would place 21,000 more soldiers on the ground. In late 2008 a leaked French diplomat’s cable leaked to a French magazine declared that the security situation was worsening in Afghanistan, that NATO forces were making it worse, that the new American Administration should be dissuaded from getting further involved, and that they would be best to cultivate an “acceptable dictator.” Departing commander of British Forces in Afghanistan also declared that defeating the Taliban was “neither feasible nor supportable,” as many recommended the War in Afghanistan be discontinued. However, Barack Obama, who promised throughout his campaign trail to refocus on Afghanistan, like Bush, officially announced his own surge of 21,000 troops on Friday March 27, 2009. Comparing the content highlights the need that Obama’s warmongering be countered and places the world at even greater risk for an onrushing dark age. BUSH SAID: “my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts.” OBAMA SAID: “My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats. We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations.” At the time Bush added troops into Iraq, the majority of the world, not to mention Iraqis, decried U.S. occupation. Apparently George Bush did not include the hopes and desires of the Iraqi people when he took his 1
  2. 2. so-called democratic stance in advocating for the surge in Iraq. Obama seems to have taken the same approach. His list of consultants, while including a more international outlook, failed to mention the desires of Afghans who overwhelming see the U.S. occupation as the leading source of their troubles. The pundits associated with the international NGO’s, dependent upon situations like Afghanistan and Iraq for their own existence, certainly come from a perspective that coincides with the imperialist’s outlook. The military commanders who fear the reputation of defeat and who have been indoctrinated by their service to the American war machine certainly come with a predisposed bias as well and the diplomats who must answer to the constituents associated with the private power that controls almost all electoral seats of so-called Western democracies cannot but be unbiased in their assessments for fear of losing either reelection or the prominent position they presently hold inside the existent power structure. The fact that Bush failed to mention or consider the desires of the general population in Iraq that has continuously called for the end of occupation since its beginning was not surprising. The inability of Obama to even mention the reality that most Afghans hate American occupation generally and his failure to include a solution to this phenomenon of anti-American sentiment alongside the very real prospect that the Afghans may fare better if the U.S.-NATO coalition packed up and left completely shows clearly that there is no intention whatsoever to ever turn control of either of these countries over to the general citizenry. The fact that Obama referenced his consultation with Pakistani and Afghan governments shows that he really believes these governments represent their people. Nothing could be further from the truth. BUSH SAID: “The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security” OBAMA SAID: “The United States has great respect for the Pakistani people. They have a rich history and have struggled against long odds to sustain their democracy.” Bush certainly has no true design for a democracy in Iraq, other than a puppet regime typical of U.S. interventionist history, that will set up an oligarchic elite loyal to the interests of multinational corporations and the U.S. military-industrial complex that protects those corporate interests across the globe. This is always the case as a quick critical look through the history of U.S. intervention after World War II by means of covert support for dictators, monarchs, and oligarchs will show that there is no basis to trust the United States in this regard. Were Obama a true voice of change, he would accept this and address openly the need to erase this history and tradition of U.S. foreign policy. A similar example of his engagement in the same type of rhetorical disinformation in defense of American imperialism is in the address he released to the Iranian people calling for open dialogue recently. The response he received was appropriate as the Ayatollah Khomeini replied that when the U.S. was really ready to change their policy rather than simply speak in terms of democratic traditions, for instance address the grievances associated with the U.S.’s coup of democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953, then all efforts to change relations between the countries could never be sincere. This is the case here as well. The U.S. only supports democracy where it serves U.S. interests. There may have been a time when the U.S. could shrug off its critics as a fringe element and point to their record of support by other means. That time has gone. In regions like South East Asia and the Middle East the majority of populations are well-aware of their own history and the consequences of U.S. intervention. Their only loyalty rests with the capitalist class these interventions have supported, which is typically one or two percent of the population. Like the rest of the world the everyday citizens live affected by the consequences of western imperialism every day. The only support you will find for the “democratic” regimes the U.S. wants to impose or supports in the region are by the elite individuals that stand to benefit from them. This is something Obama is far from ignorant of yet he agreed to go along with the typical rhetoric thereby showing that he really believes the people of the world can be hood-winked by a smooth talking, teleprompter reading political salesman. The reality seems quite the contrary. BUSH SAID: "But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties and answers to its people.” 2
  3. 3. OBAMA SAID: “The people of Pakistan want the same things that we want: an end to terror, access to basic services, the opportunity to live their dreams, and the security that can only come with the rule of law.” The people of Pakistan certainly do not want the same things that the U.S. wants; the same is true of the Iraqi’s. Countless polls show that the majority of Afghans, Pakistanis and Iraqis have, since the beginning of the War on Terror, wanted one primary thing, namely foreign troops off their soil. The rest of the issues brought up by Bush and Obama are a nice justification for troop presence and intervention but the reality is that since the days of colonialism there is no example of functioning democracies inserted by brute force and there never will be for the simple fact that the very notion is absurd and oxymoronic. The Pakistani people made a decision in mid-February to accept a peace in the Swat Valley of the infamous North West Frontier Province (NWFP), to allow that governance there be the Islamic shariah. However, the Americans continue to demand that Pakistan fight onward despite the fact that since the beginning of Pakistani history the NWGP had functioned autonomously and despite polling like the World Public Opinion poll documenting that 60 percent of Pakistanis feel that shariah should play a larger role in Pakistan law and a poll by Terror Free Tomorrow from 2007 that showed not only that 66 percent in Pakistan think the United States is waging a war on Islam, but that a higher percentage of the population supported Osama bin Laden than did then U.S. puppet Musharaff. The United States has no desire whatsoever to allow the right of self-determination to either Paki or Afghan people. The majority of Pakistanis, Afghans, Iraqi or other peoples who have witnessed their countries decimated by the U.S. military may indeed desire basic services, opportunity, and the rule of law, but an even higher percentage views the United States as an imperialist power and therefore the major cause of the lack of proper institutions and security in their countries is not the insurgency but the occupiers. It was no different during the days of colonialism. Simply tell the people that you are there for their own good, loot the natural resources divide and conquer the populace, and destroy all forms of indigenous development and then blame the failures on the natives. It worked the same way in Iraq as suddenly the United States was in the country to prevent a civil war that it was responsible for starting. Of course Obama failed to mention any public opinion polls that document the majority’s resentment of the United States and therefore is no more “for the people” than his predecessor. BUSH SAID: “The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra — in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today. OBAMA SAID: “Al Qaeda and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They've killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They've blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state. So make no mistake: al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within.” The true cause of each and every single one of these events is the U.S. occupation. There have been no other justifications for violence in the region other than that the sites and individuals attacked have been loyal to the American occupier. To imagine that the cause of this violence is anything other than U.S. intervention and to think that it will be resolved is a further documentation of the hubris, and in actuality the ignorance, of U.S. policy-makers. Take for instance Iraq, where Sunni and Shiite populations mobilized against British rule in 1920 only to witness massive air bombardments against civilian populations with some of the earliest known utilization of white phosphorous. In 1958, the Iraqis, we are now to believe have been at civil war for centuries, again combined forces to overthrow King Faisal, the British stooge. It is well known that many Shiites fought on behalf of Sadaam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War. In fact, civil war between Sunni and Shiites in Iraq was unheard of before America arrived and any Iraqi interviewed will inform that Sunnis and Shiites had 3
  4. 4. intermarried and were found to be one and the same. In fact it was The Rand Corporation that suggested in its 2004 study titled US Strategy in the Muslim World that “Sunni, Shiite and Arab, non-Arab divides should be exploited to exploit the US policy objectives in the Muslim world.” The effects of the siege in Iraq essentially bi-polarized the entire society and spilt entire regions off into Sunni and Shiite divides. The Sunni Awakening Councils that were so touted by Bush may have joined forces with Americans to fight Al-Qaeda but it was not because they believed in a national government or even that Al-Qaeda’s cause was unjust; it was simply because they sat in danger of being dominated by a repressive, majority Shiite government installed and heavily armed by the United States. The same is true of Afghanistan where the U.S. and their Saudi ally spent $40 billion in arming and training the mujahedeen and happened to support several different factions who upon Russian withdrawal and U.S. abandonment fell into civil war amongst each other. These divides continue to be exploited today. The Northern Alliance, which the U.S. placed in power of Kabul after ousting the Taliban, is more corrupt, closer connected to the opium trade, more ferocious and even worse towards women that the Taliban were. The violence against domestic populations is a direct result of U.S. presence. There would be violence if the U.S. left, but it would be no worse than it will continue to be with the U.S. there and, as is being witnessed in Iraq presently, once the U.S. does leave the sectarian strife it has created will lead to even more bloodshed and a resurrection of the same animosities. Obama should look at the history of colonialist rule in Africa to recognize the actual consequence of creating divisions like these. BUSH SAID: “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.” OBAMA SAID: “We stand for something different. So today, I am calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years -- resources that will build schools and roads and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan's democracy.” Bush gave Pakistan’s puppet Musharaff more than $10 billion in aid after 9-11. Obama’s policy suggests he’ll do the same for new ally Asif Zardari. In the end, the puppet Bush supported, Musharaff, was chased out of the country having abolished court judiciaries and declaring martial law. The present U.S. puppet Asif Zardari recently tried the same only to witness an angry mob in the thousands decry his threats to prevent street protests. Zardari is known as “Mr. 10 percent” for the kickbacks he received while his wife, Benazir Bhutto, was prime minister. Zardari was charged with extortion and attempted murder having allegedly strapped a remote control bomb to the leg of a businessman and forcing him to cash $800,000 in checks that were to be used to build a hospital. He and his wife siphoned $1.5 billion in public money during Bhutto’s second term and the $54 million they had in Swiss bank accounts, previously frozen pending charges of embezzlement, was soon released after he became the U.S.’s darling following the ouster of Musharaff. He, like Musharaff, is widely hated and it seems his days are numbered as well however. The aid pledged by Obama will produce results no different than the aid for rebuilding in Iraq. The proposal to build schools, roads, and hospitals in Iraq essentially created lucrative opportunities for multinational corporations. It was a plan to recycle Iraq’s oil money and create more opportunity for the U.S. Empire’s private mercenaries like Halliburton and Blackwater. In Afghanistan huge contracts have gone to foreign multinationals only to see the employment go to foreigners and none of the local populations. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, with no precious natural resources and a bankrupt government, it is hard to imagine that $1.5 billion a year will do anything more than buy off some of the opposition parties and militants that are vying for the head of the present political structure. The hope is only to keep some form of “stability,” read properly as regime loyal to the United States, in power long enough to conduct proper ethnic cleansing that will prevent resistance of the political variety. 4
  5. 5. BUSH SAID: “So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence - and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations.” OBAMA SAID: “I've already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by General McKiernan for many months. These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan security forces and to go after insurgents along the border.” Apparently this is cut-and-paste policy making, as the same tactic pronounced by Bush is being utilized by Obama. This should come as no surprise as well. It should be apparent by now that Obama is merely a mouthpiece spouting the rhetoric of bureaucratic speechwriters and policy makers who entered the realm of governing inside the empire long ago. Barack Obama, that master rhetorician, is a disaster unless utilizing a teleprompter as a recent article on politico.com explained, “Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.” Therefore one must be careful in even attributing the policy making decisions of Obama to the individual and must look at the staff behind him allows one to notice the carefully contrived usefulness of the African-American savior, a wolf in sheep’s clothing that may pacify the people long enough to reconstruct the present power structure that was fractured to the point of near chaotic proportion over 8 years of fascist Bush. The pronouncement to release 17,000 troops by Obama was followed up by calls for 10,000 more. They are testing the public’s reaction bit by bit and the fact that this was released days before the G20 summit also means that the timing of this administration is exceptionally deceptive in that the press will be focused on the economic meeting and the troop surge will be eviscerated by other news. Obama has yet to distribute his promised speech to the Arab world during his first 100 days as president where he will adopt the line of the right wing think tanks that it is best to change the language of the War on Terror while proceeding with the same policies. Another RAND report from 2008, How Terrorist groups End: Lessons for Counter Insurgency recommends, "The terms we use to describe our strategy toward terrorists is important, because it affects what kinds of forces you use," Obama echoed this when in an Al-Arrabiyya interview soon after his election he stated, “the language we use matters” and will initiate a massive propaganda war in the Muslim world coincident to this troop surge in coming months. BUSH SAID: “Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on Al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000.” OBAMA SAID: “And later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan security forces. For the first time, this will truly resource our effort to train and support the Afghan army and police.” Again, the similarity here is uncanny, that many did not pick up on the identical approach in the West is unsurprising but disheartening in that these policies may lead to standard counterinsurgency policy that divides, conquers and destroys all as a justified and celebrated method of preserving Western dominance. This is Nazism with a friendly face and represents a threat larger than Hitler with little power to resist in the world. American military spending exceed the rest of the worlds combined. The Rand Corporation’s most recent report claims that the U.S. must “minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.” These 4,000 troops will supervise the increased violence and slaughter of fellow citizens in the name of progress and as is what occurred in Iraq. The weaponry will be provided with American tax dollars for arms built by the military- industrial complex and in the hands of men loyal only to their own desires. The mercenaries created in Afghanistan, like the Sunni Awakening councils will be loyal to the American pay master and the objective is obviously deception. The U.S. has finally realized that its military presence is actually the cause of resistance 5
  6. 6. and that the general masses could be persuaded to support and join local police in the event that a “light” U.S. presence was seen. The surge in Iraq optimizes this approach and may have produced results in the short term. However, long term prospects for stability in Iraq may suffer as a consequence and asymmetrical warfare surely concentrates on the long term. While Barack Obama stated during his election run that the surge in Iraq, “exceeded beyond our wildest dreams,” his definition of success is certainly not in that a safer and more stable Iraq had developed. In fact, the surge in Iraq represented a phenomenon that we may see re-witnessed in Afghanistan; essentially it is policy alteration out of frustration, and means the complete militarization and deliberate sectarian division in a country in order to guarantee generational civil war while a residual force may be established to regulate control over the vested interests of western imperialists. The success “beyond our wildest dreams” in Iraq began when the U.S. commanders in Iraq started to buy off the Sunni Arab militias. The Sunni insurgents agreed to stave off violence against the U.S soldiers in exchange for a monthly salary. The Sunnis who turned on Al-Qaeda in turn, would regroup, recruit, and arm themselves for an eventual civil war against the Shiites. Now, as their salaries have been turned over to the Shiite regime and as recent outbursts show, the civil war will soon begin in an effort much like the Iran-Iraq War which U.S. planners suggested was good for America and its Israeli allies because it represented the weakening of the entire region and the preservation of their control over the natural resource base. Many are reporting that the Sunnis are realigning with foreign militants and are setting up a showdown with the Shia. The fact is that the “surge” never worked at all, and that it was the funding and arming of the Sunni that have led to the decline in violence. But the oil fields have been secured, the populations have been completely bifurcated into Sunni and Shiite divides and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the largest in world history, is set to control and protect the flow of oil to the West with a residual force of 50,000 American soldiers set to remain in Iraq indefinitely. The outcome in Afghanistan may look just the same as the Pashtun south is armed to fight the Taliban and the Northern Alliance is protected within Kabul so that the entire country may be broken along ethnic lines and the destruction may pave the way for a divide and conquer genocide that America can call a large success. BUSH: “A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.” OBAMA: “And I want to be clear: We cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. Instead, we will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior, and sets clear benchmarks, clear metrics for international assistance so that it is used to provide for the needs of the Afghan people.” Each of the western imposed puppet governments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is as corrupt as any of the other “U.S. allies” in the region that protect western dominance. In actuality, the Taliban put an end to the corruption, looting, rape and murder that is typical of the warlords the U.S. reimposed on Afghans back in 2002 and the government in Iraq is undeniably as corrupt but there are few measures of just how much oil wealth they have been embezzling since the onslaught of the war there. The benchmarks both Bush and Obama refer to here are perfectly measured quantitative objectives that allow a western specialist to assess the need for Western Corporation’s expertise in order to meet demands. Therefore, the projects and improvements both emperors reference here entail lucrative private contracts for multinationals that specialize in “reconstruction.” Whether Halliburton in Iraq or DynCorp in Afghanistan, billions is redistributed from public to private hands when these “benchmarks” are realized. Corruption is rampant because the imposed leaders are corrupt. The people that must realize improvements are only those loyal to the regime, the educated classes, the soon to be established elite property class that may ultimately enrich themselves when they sell land to other Western corporations that may want to run pipelines through the country or explore for indigenous natural resources. In Iraq, the governments cannot operate outside of the fortified green zone built by these major multinationals. In Afghanistan Kabul is protected by security from DynCorp. One example in Afghanistan include the $17.5 million U.S. taxpayer built American University that houses some of the corrupt youth from Kabul who now having been exposed to the lucrative shopping malls, bars, and brothel houses built to 6
  7. 7. accommodate foreigners and the newly imposed elite can get a good liberal, American education that teaches them they can enjoy these pleasures forever as long as they stay loyal to their U.S. master. Other aid is spent on specialists that assess the severity of the problem and then private employees and mercenaries come in from abroad to fix the schools, hospitals and roads that have been demolished by U.S. bombing campaigns. It is another example of massive redistribution of wealth as programs shift money from taxpayers and into the corporate-military-industrial complex. Corporations and Wall Street love war and with the economy in such a shambles Obama would not want to miss an opportunity to create jobs overseas for good Americans that can then buy into the belief that empire-building is prosperous . BUSH SAID: “Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing Al Qaeda leaders — and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on Al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops.” OBAMA SAID: “There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who've taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course.” The uncompromising part of the Taliban refers to Mullah Omar and his devout followers. But the history of the Taliban must be understood to notice the hypocrisy; the Taliban was started as a movement to stop the brutal and rapacious violence of Afghans during the civil war that followed the withdrawal of Soviet troops and Western aid. The Taliban put an end to the rapes, the killing, and the lawlessness and established a sense of justice that was never allowed to mature and develop into political stability. As soon as they established control the western press was full of reports on their atrocities against women. Little was said about their ability to completely stop the production of heroin in the south and to establish functioning institutions and social services in little time. Still, when the west came in they installed the very criminals the Taliban rescued the people from. Now the rapists and killers that represent the Northern Alliance run the country and are free to commit their brutalities in the name of freedom and democracy. The warlords they would like to compromise with and arm against the Taliban, like the Awakening Councils in Iraq are people like Gillabuddin Hekmatayr, former prime minister and civil warlord that was offered asylum in Saud Arabia with a return to Afghanistan thereafter, and a role in government if he goes against the Taliban. In reality, he was never part of the Taliban, and in fact his group Hizb-e-Islami was evicted from Kabul when the Taliban gained control. Still, he may soon be touted as the U.S.’s new Afghan darling. Hekmatayr is known for his brutal treatment towards civilians and while they may call him and others like him “moderate Taliban,” the reality is they are seeking only to divide factions of the resistance so that they can fight each other much like in Iraq. On March 27, 2009, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan announced that they were uniting forces to battle the incoming American troop surge. The Khyber Pass, responsible for getting 70 percent of U.S., NATO supplies into Afghanistan has been virtually cut off by Taliban soldiers. Even Hekmatayr is setting forth preconditions of complete foreign troop withdrawal before he will accept proposals. The reality is that the U.S. is looking for short term success in a region very much undivided in its quest to rid Afghanistan and Pakistan from imperialist occupation. The West seeks division that will lead to long-term civil war and thereby a colonialist method of divide and conquer that represents some of the most pugnacious of imperialist practices and will lead to nothing but destruction. In the event, the entirety of the population proves to be “uncompromising” and that this policy does not work as in Iraq, American troops will face a united insurgency and casualties will rise, as the prospects of retreat or defeat will amplify. BUSH SAID: “We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance.” 7
  8. 8. OBAMA SAID: “So to advance security, opportunity and justice -- not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces -- we need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers. That's how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs. And that's why I'm ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground.” Obama would like to have you believe that the intention is to build an effective society in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Like Iraq, where the war was largely about oil, the development of roads and bridges and the efforts to inculcate the population toward supporting Western values and traditions is only to preserve American hegemony. The Central Asian region is of utmost strategic importance if America is to maintain dominance over the world. China is set to become a major competitor for natural resources like oil and gas. The separation line between China and the Middle East is this region. When the Soviet Union fell and states like Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan were created by Western corporate money and government support and subsequently located some of the biggest recent natural resource discoveries, the region of Pakistan and Afghanistan became incredibly valuable for its potential to run as a pipeline conduit to transport oil and gas from these countries to the Indian Ocean for shipment to the West. One of the main corporations that wants to see this pipeline built is Unocal, the very company that employed Hamid Karzai before his being imposed as puppet president. It was Osama bin Laden that originally convinced the Taliban to defer from negotiations with Unocal and to instead work with an Argentine company to build the pipeline, and it is still the ambition of the multinationals that see far into the long-term with their power and monopoly of resource to one day realize their dream of attaining control over the expropriation of Afghanistan and Pakistan’s natural resource base and strategic location. The game is as old as empire itself. While they wait to destroy the entire region however, they can also be consoled by the fact that sending more engineers and advocating more reconstruction means lucrative contracts for their subsidiary multinationals. Of course, the public must be led to believe that the war is for the liberation of the people, the protection of Americans, and to rid the world of terrorism. BUSH SAID: “On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.” OBAMA SAID: “I remind everybody, the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001” In reality the U.S. had many options after 9-11. George Bush utilized the event to justify not only an attack on Afghanistan but also a subsequent attack, based on deliberate deceit, to invade Iraq. They are not so much worried about attacks on the American homeland as they are losing circles of control on the periphery of the U.S. Empire. The dictators and family oligarchies the U.S. props up in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Arab Sheikhdoms, Egypt, Palestine, Turkey, and other U.S. client states would not last more than a few months without U.S. support; their populations would simply replace them with regimes that contained popular personalities more than likely antagonistic to the western belief that foreign, natural resources should belong to Western corporations. The U.S. attacked Afghanistan after the Taliban requested “evidence” that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9-11. Unfortunately for the U.S. they had none so they disregarded international law and simply attacked. In a matter of hours, they far surpassed the death toll of innocent civilians killed on 9-11 as the majority of those bombed had little to do with Al-Qaeda and were simply the victims of the U.S.’s need for instant retaliation and a display of their powerful might. It was hoped by many in the U.S. that Obama would change his campaign rhetoric of troop escalation in Afghanistan when he realized the senselessness of continuing the struggle. Unfortunately, he too believes that military might can destroy the Taliban and Al- Qaeda like Bush believed he was to rid the world of Terror completely. His justification by referencing 9-11 is something that is all too Bush. In reality, the assault on Afghanistan tore the Taliban apart for about 48 hours. Since that time they have regrouped and are even more popular with the public than before America’s invasion. Some estimates suggest they control about 60 percent of the country. 8
  9. 9. It is clear that the U.S. decision to fight in Afghanistan could have been different and would have produced different results. Now the whole world resents America more than ever and the world stood by America in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. No one expected George Bush to do anything more than exploit the attacks and seek to garner more contracts for his daddy’s business connections and private oil firms, but the public expected Barack Obama to end senseless aggression. He sold the idea that he was leaving Iraq, but many exposed the reality that leaving meant all but 50,000 soldiers and the other permanent military bases the U.S. had imposed. Now he is trying to sell Afghanistan as a just war, much like Bush did with Iraq. Expect a carefully contrived media propaganda display to follow that places more pressure on the Pakistani regime, seeks to glorify the effects of the surge, the benefits for women, the economic developments, but that essentially represents nothing more than a temporary surge in killing and a patient resistance lying in wait looking for long- term victory while Obama’s short term views see only through reelection in 2012. BUSH SAID: "Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs," OBAMA SAID: “So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.” And so here we see the only departure from Bush doctrine and it is only a game of words. The policy has changed form one that provides for the protection of the natives, as colonialists are always there to protect and liberate the people, to one that is largely about routing out a particular group of “terrorists” that the neo- colonialists actually helped to create. As is well-known, the CIA provided $3 billion dollars to create the mujahedeen and now they will spend countless billions to attempt to destroy them. This policy alteration should be looked at in deeper context however as Obama adopts Bush’s underlining belief of the War on Terror, that he can “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda…” This is a repeat of similar blunders of Bush as he concluded by opening up the possibility of more fronts in the War on Terror and even more imperialist overreach with methods of aggressive, imperialist war crimes that will consequentially create more “terrorists” the U.S. and its proxies can war against into the unforeseeable future. BUSH SAID: “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.” OBAMA SAID: “Al Qaeda and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban -- or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” In actuality, both presidents utilize a typical scare tactic here that is to make one believe that fighting “terrorism” prevents attacks. In actuality, it is common sense that every attack that misses its target and every day under brutal occupation breeds more militant resistance. Already Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Taliban in Pakistan claimed, “"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world.” And Osama bin Laden informed the American people in an address from 2007 that it was U.S. intervention, its own killing of Muslim civilians and not freedom and democracy that drive attacks against American on its own soil. He said “we call you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our policies and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.” Noor Muhammad, a well-known radical cleric in Quetta stated recently, “America is trying to scare us but it won’t work. Rather it 9
  10. 10. will be a justification.” Obama’s speechwriters have it just as backwards as Bush and his policy-makers. Perhaps the people crafting these speeches for these U.S. emperors are the same? Obama explained that he is slowly advancing the War on Terror into Pakistan and has no regard or respect for sovereignty. OBAMA SAID, “Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders. And we will insist that action be taken -- one way or another -- when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets.” Here he is referring to the drone attacks which target militants but usually land on women, children and other civilians and that create even more support for resistance fighters every time they land on innocent targets. The New York Times helped each Administration in its propaganda wars leading up to the invasions. The day after Obama’s speech, they included an article on the proof of Pakistan’s ISI abetting Al-Qaeda. This will disrupt a peace deal signed in Swat a month ago, lead to the reestablishment of war by militants against Pakistani soldiers, along with documenting the reality that the U.S. is controlling the decisions of Zardari and will not accept a ceasefire in the NWFP. It will also certify the utter hatred of the Pakistani people against the United States and lead to, with near certainty, a higher threat of domestic attacks to the American homeland. While the insurgency in Iraq rekindles and may soon erupt, the Obama Administration’s new policy in Afghanistan will only propel the so-called threat of Islamic militancy into new depths and may ultimately radicalize the entire region. Like Bush, Obama doesn’t want to “cut” (attack by airstrike and kill everything that moves) and “run” (pack up and go home to leave the decimated country to itself). He would rather “stay” (extend the war into a never-ending occupation) and “DIE” (bleed to death through military and economic strangulation). The choice is clear, but Obama like Bush must now continue on as a general foreign policy has been set forth that continues Bush’s War on Terror. All fading empires suffer from a hubris that suggests they should retreat, but so overcome by the feeling of invincibility that arises by having a disproportionate level of force, Americans will never admit defeat. The Soviets once felt the same way. The U.S.S.R. collapsed in 1989 after its economy fell apart due to its own race to retain military dominance at the expense of the domestic population and the ten years it spent trying to occupy Afghanistan. In 1964 Lyndon B. Johnson, faced with the prospects of pulling out of Vietnam and confronted by a massive social movement within American society, explained, “we cannot pull out of there, the dominos would fall and that part of the world would go down to the Communists.” The arguments of imperialists Bush and Obama suggest the same. The last U.S. marines evacuated Saigon in 1975, having suffered defeat in Vietnam. A few years ago the American taxpayers finally finished paying the international bankers back for the loans they borrowed to fight the war. OBAMA SAID: “A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al Qaeda's offers the people of Pakistan nothing but destruction.” Here Obama is wrong and while he knows it, he cannot allow an alternative solution to develop or much more may be lost. In reality, the policies and ideology of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other Islamist groups resisting American dominance, is a complete Islamist ideology that opens up the potential for a realistic ideological counter-balance that could spread across the Muslim world and increase the threat that America’s tyrannical allies in the Middle East and South East Asia may be destabilized. In fact, recent statements from the leaders of Al-Qaeda and Taliban suggest that they are well aware of the need to develop their ideological counter, working in the near term to spread their call for the shariah across the Muslim world and to open up new fronts in Africa, the Levant, and against the loyal regimes of Arab countries. Many more adherents are forming daily as the internet has witnessed the development of a clear paradigmatic challenge to western “democratic” dominance. All over the Muslim world, women are putting on the hijab, not taking off their clothes and dancing naked in the streets, the mosques are filled onto the streets for Friday prayers, and brave religious scholars call against American dominance as social movements evolve into political parties like the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen in Egypt or Hamas in Palestine. Protests across the Muslim world during the Israeli attack on Gaza highlighted an underbelly of discontent in the Muslim world. The U.S. may be losing control and if Obama cannot succeed in establishing widespread support for his “democratic” platform, it won’t be long 10
  11. 11. before the regimes propped up by U.S. military and economic support goes the way of Islamists. Some of these countries, like Pakistan, have nuclear weapons. There is every reason for U.S. concern but waging more war may lead to quicker destruction. War does not and cannot create liberty and support for democratic institutions. War cannot even stabilize political structures to allow for advancement. In fact it is ludicrous to even wage war while simultaneously claiming nation-building. This explains why the United States and all its covert and overt foreign interventions can point to no country in the world that has been brought to the fold of democracy by military intervention. What one can realize, however, is a facade of democracy, forced on countries that serve as U.S. client states with a loyal oligarchy, subservient to Western corporate interests and as outposts for the U.S. military’s expanding empire. The majority of “insurgents” killed by this surge will be civilians and militants that under an unbiased international law would be justified in waging war against occupation. Like Iraq, Obama’s policy for Afghanistan will decimate the country, 1,000’s will die, and the political pundits of the main stream, corporate media will mark it a success; this at least being the case in the short term. Long term imperial occupation tends to bankrupt currencies, leading to the continued withering away of economic and political equality on the home shores of the Empire, and ultimately the replacement of one power by another. Obama stated plainly in a recently staged interview for the Arab world on Al-Arrabiyya, a western propaganda outlet in the Muslim world that, “I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.” The indigenous Afghan and Iraqi people should not respect terrorist organizations either. The American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are terrorists and the drone attacks and aerial bombardments that kill civilians are terrorism by the very definition offered by the U.S. State Department that terrorism is the "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." Obama’s surge is just that, an increase in violence, not against Al-Qaeda, but against the indigenous populations of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Under a truly egalitarian international legal framework, Bush and Obama, not Basheer in Sudan, would be tried for genocide. We can only hope that where a surge in Iraq essentially led to the complete submission of a population, that this time American troops of terror are “hunted down” themselves so that this empire can pack up, go home, and fix its own problems before meddling in the affairs of others. If Obama wants to end the threat to Americans around the world and on the home front, he should be honest and end the senseless wars. The more troops he sends, the more the safety of Americans is endangered. The minute America comes home and packs up its empire, the threat to America will subside. The reality is that they cannot stand to see popular movements arise in the Middle East that are contrary to American interests. It has nothing to do with the promotion of democracy, rule of law, or preventing attacks on Americans. It is the preservation of Empire and these are the same mistakes made by Empires in the past. A wolf in sheep’s clothing is much more dangerous than a wolf. The Obama movement, with unconditional support by a major faction of the populace, and a generally passive resistance from liberals that want to “give him a chance” has now entered a phase that may best be correlated to Germany before Hitler attacked Europe. The domestic population is abound with freedom of speech and expression, but the freedoms are largely relegated to existentialist pleasure-seeking associated with rampant sex and perversion, a freedom relegated to instant gratification and little to do with the culture of an educated, informed citizenry necessary for a functioning democracy. The swastikas may become American flags and Obama bumper stickers, as Obama has the general backing of the majority of Americans no matter what he does and most forgot the fascism of Bush as soon as the new liberal, Messiah rode into town. President Bush’s approval rating after 9-11 was nearly 90%. Obama, while coming in at one of the highest approval ratings in history, has recently dipped to 50% in a recent Zogby poll, but not because of his foreign policy and plan for continued war, but rather for his catering to Wall Street and the international bankers that profit most from war. There is no debate over the surge in Afghanistan and Pakistan in America but there is a new found complacency with regard to U.S. militarization. A recent Gallup poll shows that only 31% of Americans polled after Obama’s election feel we are spending too much on defense while last year 44% felt America was spending too much. This 13% is a drastic shift that highlights the deceptive ability of this administration. Bush released 21,000 troops to Anbar Province, an “Al-Qaeda stronghold” in Iraq in 2007 and 11
  12. 12. many in America stood in staunch protest. Obama wants to release 21,000 troops to Southern Afghanistan, an “Al-Qaeda strong hold,” and there is hardly a whimper from the public. Already there is talk of the need for 10,000 more troops. The Roman Empire consciously started to speak of its own decline in the 4th century when thinkers spoke of the Empire as a bygone era. As imperial overreach and decline set in, the value of its money fell to about 1/50 its original worth, and inflation caused its provinces to shrink in population, size, and prosperity. As taxes rose to cover increasing government expenditures, the people grew discontent; the army grew bigger in efforts to keep “barbarians” on the outside from invading on the domestic homelands. Several military fronts caused confusion for the Romans; to fend off the Persians one day created opportunities for the Goths or the Franks to attack and overthrow an Emperor. The Empire split into East and West and the Western region was soon overrun by the “barbarians” that formed the modern Western European States. So too, the U.S. exists today. The currency has been debased, today’s fiscal stimulus creates the potential for even more inflation tomorrow, state governments wither away essentially bankrupt, and budget cuts from local, state, and federal governments threaten to decrease the quality of life for the majority, as areas like Detroit and Western Pennsylvania are shadows of their former selves. Still, Obama treads down the path of Rome: withdrawing 100,000 troops from Iraq to send them to Afghanistan while knowing that the stability of the puppet regime in Iraq is endangered. The troops will instead relocate to Afghanistan where more billions will be spent in a military stalemate trying to prop up another puppet regime more brutal than the one it overthrew in 2002. Guerilla warfare is an effort to bleed a more powerful military force to death and the efforts of the “barbarians” of today are exceeding beyond expectation in this regard. Empires take time to fall and most usually go out with a bang. The Soviets killed hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan where their empire bled to death in the late 1980’s. In fact, most empires end with the relentless genocide of people trying to wrest themselves from imperialist or colonialist control. The history books all too often only record the declination as though it occurs instantly and they juxtapose it against the rise of the ensuing power, thus erasing the gradual sacrifices made by those that saw as unjust the domination of those with the power to set the rules and record the history. Now, Barrack Obama has asked the soldiers of the American Empire, the twenty-something’s that were reared inside the U.S. on notions of superiority and manifest destiny, by video games of total carnage, and on the typical Budweiser, marijuana and cocaine diet of the average under-classed juvenile that ends up in the military to “make an impact” in Afghanistan. Like Iraq they will soon be putting their skills to the test, more of them will be in Afghanistan fighting an enemy they cannot see, thinking every man with a turban or making prayer is Al-Qaeda, and in turn decimating more of the civilian population, calling in for air strikes whenever they get confused. Like Iraq, thousands will die and the terrorism may pacify the population; if they are lucky they will even begin to shoot at each other. Like Iraq, this outcome may be deemed a success by the mainstream Western press. Like Iraq, the troop surge in Afghanistan is genocide and like George Bush we welcome Barrack Obama to the list of American presidents that have committed the most heinous of war crimes all in the name of the Red, White, and Blue. Obama’s decision marks the beginning of a new reality for everyday Americans destined to suffer under imperialist decay. It is now in their best interests as well to support the legitimate resistance against Western imperialism across the globe, or to rise up and create social movements from below that can intervene and prevent this imperialist expansion. Otherwise they will suffer the most as there empire decays. Barack Obama is no different than George Bush, but who will tell the people? 12

×