The Afghan War Is Not What Washington Claims It To Be.
WHEN LYING ALLOWS MASS CRIMINALITY?
Key concepts: Some may find hilarious that Obama would follow the disastrous Iraq war plan in Afghanistan, complete with Bush’s "surge".
No "handler" told Obama that the Americans have lost the Iraq war: Americans are hated there, will achieve nothing good in Iraq looking forward, but, meanwhile, they have burrowed in their bases, and, just like groundhogs in their tunnels, they proclaim victory on the grand outside.
However, for Obama, that Americans don’t know they lost in Iraq is apparently a panacea: he will now apply this remedy to Afghanistan. Do these guys know how to spell d-u-m-b? Why are they so desperate? Not knowing enough is sometimes an advantage, as Germans thought until 1939. But it works only that long, as the Germans found out the hard way by 1945.
The reasons given, and the methodology followed, for fighting a never ending war in Afghanistan do not make any sense, in first analysis. In particular, the insistence that Afghanistan’s main income, poppy fields, cannot be legalized, makes no sense, since it is legal in plenty of major Western countries.
In second, higher order, analysis, it seems clear that the minds of the top advisers in the USA are clouded, not just by their groundhog “success” in Iraq, but, more deeply, by a misreading of the history of the twentieth century.
A ferocious war was fought in Europe between fascism and racism on one side of the Rhine, and democracy, republicanism and human rights on the other. This war profited the USA handsomely. However, now that democracy, republicanism and human rights, are increasingly winning, worldwide, the USA cannot use its old trick of hiding behind fascist screens, faking benevolence, while pulling very nasty strings.
Now the silly imperial strategy of the USA is in full sight. Those American strategists, misreading everything, from history to the mood of the planet, seem persuaded that, if they pile up hubris high enough, they will win.
And how do those geniuses define victory? Well, there is what they say, and what Obama repeats on their behalf. And then there is reality: those lamentable strategists of the USA want a massive military architecture throughout Southern Eurasia. They want a crucial pipeline through Afghanistan, to extend their influence in Central Asia, they want forever bases in the region, and the present war is just a pretext: a forever war, for these forlorn souls, will be a success. The military-industrial complex and Wall Street have to be fed, and that means to be feared, and have a reason to exist. And then, there is an even more horrendous computation (reminiscent of when Wall Street was supporting Hitler, and the American people was looking somewhere else).
OBAMA IN FULL OBFUSCATION, HUMBLY INSULTING EVERYBODY:
Obama claimed that he would outline his Afghanistan strategy, adding, “I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we’re doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive… After eight years — some of those years in which we did not have, I think, either the resources or the strategy to get the job done — it is my intention to finish the job.”
"Clear rationale"? It will have to be a clear fiction, because the rationale of the USA in Afghanistan is an entanglement second to none, thoroughly obscure, and the reasons of which were never exposed to the population of the West.
"Finish the job"? Which job is that? Happy to see Obama found a job somewhere outside of Goldman Sachs (where Geithner the handler sent 38 billion dollars, or maybe 65 billions, according to the latest… But why to count, when one is in love?)
Then Obama operated an apparent U turn on the Climate Summit in Copenhagen. Well, in truth, that U turn was a fake-out (see preceding post, November 30, or the annex below).
Which brings us to the question: why would the USA, which, with its factories in China, is making a joke of its CO2 smothering of the planet, expect help in Afghanistan?
REMINDER. AMERICAN ISLAMIST STRATEGY, NOT THE TALIBAN, CAUSED 9/11:
Ever since 1945, with FDR, the government of the USA has propped up Islamism, to divide and conquer the Middle East (this is not a lousy conspiracy theory of mine, but an historical fact; as an amusing aside, Israel did something similar lately; Israel propped up Hamas, for a decade, to weaken the PLO…. This has backfired too, but on a much smaller scale!).
This encouragement, and manipulation of Islam, went all the way to the active support, by the USA, of Muslim fundamentalists (starting clearly with support to the Saudi monarchy, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Iran’s Shiites in the early 1950s).
In Afghanistan, the USA used bin Laden and his Arabs as shock troops against the Soviets, and taught them to attack soft civilian targets. The idea was that socialism was bad for the Middle East, whereas Jihad was good.
Result: 9/11 was planned by former employees of the CIA (I insist: that is what bin Laden and friends were, for 20 years). No need to go to Afghanistan to find the culprits for 9/11. Going to Washington is enough to reveal the miscreants. What is therefore needed, should one be sincere in fighting the forces that brought 9/11, is war against the thought system that fed and nurtured Osama bin Laden, and it originated in the USA.
WHY HAS THE USA ORGANIZED WAR IN AFGHANISTAN SINCE 1977?
Why is the USA in Afghanistan? OK, the official line is that initially Muslim terrorists from Arabia, who had been encouraged, trained, financed and armed by the government of the USA, to make and win a war in Afghanistan, turned against their former master, the USA, and, using methods taught to them by the CIA, committed a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, killing 3,000.
So the USA, and its allies, using the methodology of guilt by association, invaded Afghanistan, and, ever since, have been busy killing Afghans in Afghanistan, while whining hypocritically about the threat of terrorism in the USA… from Afghanistan! (Reminder: the Nazis whined about "terrorism" a lot, ever since they set fire to the Reichstag in 1933. In the end, they had two dozens divisions fighting "terrorism" in France and Yugoslavia alone; that is why they got so muscular in Ukraine and Byelorussia, where they used extermination to impose themselves.)
But this is quite a bit a circular logic: the USA had been making war in Afghanistan for at least a quarter of a century before 9/11 (through its Muslim fundamentalists allies in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan… and Afghanistan, and various agents in its employ, including bin Laden). So after Washington caused mayhem in Afghanistan for a quarter of a century, people based in Germany, Saudi Arabia, and… the USA planned an attack which had been sketched by long time CIA employees who happened to be in Afghanistan at the time.
So now Mr. Obama sees a "job" in Afghanistan, and he is determined to "finish" it.
WHY DID THE USA FINANCE ISLAMIST NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
Please remember that the USA gave more than 100 million dollars in the last eight years, to the nuclear bomb program of Pakistan, a Muslim fundamentalist state. That is even better than training, arming, financing and exciting bin Laden for a quarter of a century. We are talking nukes here. And now we are told that shivering Afghans hiding in their own mountains, clutching an old rifle, refugees from their own villages, are a major terrorist threat against the West.
The mental manipulation is blatant. Why did the USA give money for Muslim fundamentalist nukes? Is accusing Afghans of terrorism, and going out to fight them, a way to assuage one’s anti-terrorist credentials, so as to cover-up the fact that the USA has been enabling nuclear war in South Eurasia?
Remember, the nukes-for-Pakistan idea came from the same strategic operatives who used to finance and arm bin Laden, and his consorts, and then instructed them to attack schools rather than military objectives. The end result is that a bad situation got much worse, and now the military industrial complex (Eisenhower’s semantics) is enjoying itself in Iraq and Afghanistan. Was helping Pakistan with nukes part of the same approach to ensure the forever war? To feed the military industrial complex?
Yes, Iraq, an ally of the USA a few years prior, was also attacked through guilt by association. It was alleged it had nukes. Now some of the very people who pushed and organized that war are making millions for oil contracts.
To make sure that, when the government of the USA makes war in Pakistan, there will really be nukes in Muslim fundamentalist hands, now, the USA is outright financing said nukes.
Of course, Iraq was attacked because of its oil. But why to make it so that Pakistan can start a nuclear world war? Was not bin Laden already bad enough? Did not the fact that the USA and its CIA encouraged, financed, excited and overthrew democracy in Iran, using Shiite fundamentalists of their own making, another example that came back to bite civilization? So why nukes for Pakistan? So that New York City can be nuked, next time? Why to make a bad situation that much worse? Why is the USA so much on the side of devolution and mayhem?
HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN COLONY: THE WORSE, THE BETTER
It’s the syndrome of the world wars, which seems to be affecting the unconscious of American strategists: the two world wars created the American empire, so more world wars ought to bring even better things. Thus they resonate, in their simplicity.
That reasoning is born out of hubris, and a misreading of history. How come? Well, previously, over three centuries, the nascent USA always profited from making bad situations worse. Be it with the Indians, the African slaves, the French, the English, the Mexicans, even the Confederates, and certainly in the war with Spain, war brought ever more profits to the USA. For the USA, war was never a two way street, as it has been for all European powers.
The world war between French republic and racist fascism boosted by Prussian imperial militarism was the ultimate God-sent for the USA. Then the American support of Muslim fundamentalism brought plenty of oil and influence, while allowing to chase away the Europeans from the scene, because the Europeans did not use religious fanaticism anymore to push a profitable agenda (the method had been introduced by Charlemagne; the practice was discontinued, sometimes after the Conquista, under Charles V, for cause of primitivism).
Unfortunately for the USA now, to believe that the USA will necessarily profit from the next world war is of course erroneous. The earlier entanglements were special cases, especially because the rest of the world was naïve relative to the USA, and tended to see the USA as savior rather than perpetrator (the U.S. army was the savior, Wall Street was the perpetrator).
During the two world wars of the twentieth century, one had, first of all, a confrontation between a republic and democracy, France, and a fascism and racism, which had mesmerized Germany.
The dimensions that the conflict of 1939-1945 took in Europe were astounding. In 5 weeks in May-June 1940, the Battle of France, the bloodiest battle of the Western front, saw 180,000 soldiers, dead (moreover, untold numbers of Dutch, Belgian and French civilians died). Together, Franco-Britannia and Germany engaged against each other more than 400 divisions. Later, Stalin got involved with its own 600 divisions. Thus more, much more, than 1,000 divisions of Europeans got involved in WWII (Nazi Germany alone had 18 million soldiers in the Wehrmacht, plus more than a million in the SS and the like…)
By comparison, the USA never had more than 67 divisions in Europe, during WWII, and most U.S. troops did not even see combat (the same guys tended to do all the fighting).
Same during WWI. The first massive engagement of American troops involved three divisions. That was at the Second Battle of the Marne, a last minute trap set by the French military command, which destroyed the might of the Imperial German army. The French had more than 44 divisions in the successful counterattack of that particular battle, at one particular point (more divisions were involved earlier and later).
Thus, other nations did most of the work, both in WWI and WWII. Other nations did most of the suffering, and the dying in both world wars. The USA came in spectacularly, and very effectively, using enormous industrial might, to the rescue of victory in both world wars. Nowadays the industrial comparative advantage of the USA is not what it used to be. However, whereas the USA pulled many of the strings behind the scene to make the situation worse, during both world wars, nowadays, it is front and center instigator of trouble. And everybody can see this.
WALL STREET, ITS OIL MEN, AND MILITARY TYCOONS, HAVE A JOB TO DO:
To this day, many do not know, and many do not want to know, that "Wall Street" (aka American plutocracy) financed Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin and Stalin. Fine. It would require to study history. But how to explain the recent American financial and technical support for the Muslim fundamentalist bomb of Pakistan? (The manipulators will tell you that it was to make such nuclear bombs safer. Similarly, By that token, Auschwitz and other extermination camps, whose existence was well known, were not interfered with, during WWII, so as to not disrupt the peace…)
So Obama wants to "finish the job". "Finish the job"? What job is he talking about? The job of insuring economic ruin at home while encouraging an ever-increasing supply of terrorists and American haters abroad? The job of propping up one of the most corrupt Muslim fundamentalist regimes in the world? The job of feeding the military-industrial complex, sponsoring and committing torture, in secret camps, and deliberately engaging in an aerial war with robots that has already killed thousands of innocent people in Pakistan. while lying about it and thus destroying the Bill of Rights of American citizens? Or the job of accomplishing all of them simultaneously?
The Constitution of Afghanistan is Muslim fundamentalist. Why is NATO, the USA, the West, fighting for a religious superstition, Muslim fundamentalism, whereas their own Constitutions forbid religious entanglements?
Why is Karzai’s Muslim fundamentalism superior to the Taliban’s Muslim fundamentalism? Obama, who posed as a Muslim scholar in Cairo, ought to explain to us how each single tribe’s own version of Muslim fundamentalism is so inferior to Karzai’s that it is worth using lethal force to destroy these traditions, which have often been in force for a millennium.
Obama, who himself used illegal drugs for well over a decade, is suddenly gung ho to destroy the opium trade in Afghanistan, the main source of foreign income of Afghanistan for centuries.
Why does Obama want to starve Afghanistan? Would not making Afghans poorer and hungrier make them angrier? So does Obama want the war to never end? Many countries, such as France, Australia, or Turkey, which have other sources of income, are officially allowed to flood the planet with medical variant of opiates. Why not allow Afghanistan to join the legal, medical drug trade? Does Obama favor some peculiar drug suppliers? If so, why is it worth dying and killing for that peculiar choice?
The real reasons for the Afghan war, as I said, is to feed the military industrial complex, occupy militarily Central Asia, built a pipe through Afghanistan to extract Central Asian oil directly.
The reason for supporting a Muslim fundamentalist country such as Pakistan and helping it to fabricate its nukes, is the secret hope that may be it will turn out as it did with the French and Indian Wars (= Seven Year War). Then the super powers, France and Britain, encouraged by the Americans, tore each other up, allowing the Americans to become not just independent, but in an excellent position to massacre the Indians and steal their land (which neither the English nor the French would have allowed, not that much, not that fast).
So gloomy strategists in the USA may hope that a nuclear mess involving Pakistan, India and China, may just be what the doctor ordered. But first one needs a war, and one needs enraged Islamists with their fingers on nukes. This is of course highly vicious, and twisted, but history has seen many such criminal lunacies blossom in the past.
Annex: Yes, Obama will be at Copenhagen, yes, the USA will propose to abate its CO2 production. So far, so good, and this no doubt impressed a lot of people, including me. But then I read after the headlines, and what I saw consisted into not so subtle insults to the international community.
Yes, Obama would attend, but he would not stay for the conference. So the decisions at Copenhagen would be taken with the USA doing an empty chair policy. 66 head of states would stay until the end of the conference, when the final decisions will be taken. But, with the USA not in attendance, this will be a repeat of Kyoto. The USA and its slave factories in China are, by far, the world’s number one CO2 malefactor.
If that was not bad enough, the USA announced a change of the measurement system. Obama announced grandly that the USA would reduce CO2 emissions by 17% from its 2005 level. 2005? Everybody has been measuring from 1990.
Now of course, the USA is a primitive country, the only country in the world to use the same units as in the Middle Ages (ounces, miles, feet, etc…), but by pushing ahead the date to 2005, the USA is blatantly self serving, not just mired in the past. The USA augmented its emissions of CO2 massively between 1990 and 2005. So, in truth, what Obama is proposing is to stand still.
By contrast Germany is holding on the target to reduce CO2 by 40% from its 1990 level, this is what the island states have asked for, and the European Union, 500 million people strong, is not far behind.