|
|
May 18, 2013
|
|
Arrogant U.S. Misses the Message From Pakistan’s PeoplePosted on Oct 27, 2009There has always been in American foreign policy circles a virus called arrogance, caused by the hereditary assumption that Americans know better than others. Surprisingly, this does not always prove the case, but the condition seems highly resistant to treatment, even by experience. There seems a high probability that the disease has struck Obama administration policy circles dealing with Pakistan. (We will leave aside the case of American relations with Afghanistan.) This administration came to office with a conviction that the Afghanistan problem is a problem because it actually is a Pakistan problem, Pakistan being a large country possessing nuclear weapons and a great many Pashtuns, who are the people from whom Taliban are recruited. Afghanistan is a country with one-sixth Pakistan’s population, with a great many Pashtuns too, harboring only a 100 or so members of al-Qaida (if we are to believe the American national security adviser, Gen. James Jones) whereas popular opinion in Washington is that Pakistan is rife with them, and the country on its way to becoming a “breeding ground” for terrorists who wish to invade the West, blow it up with nuclear weapons obtained from Pakistani stocks, and establish a new global terrorist caliphate amid the ruins. It is unknown whether Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, visiting Pakistan this week, shares so alarmed a view, but she will hear a lot about the damage American pressures are doing to Pakistan, and how fearful the Pakistan populace is, not of the Taliban and al-Qaida, but of the United States. According to a New York Times article this week, from Jane Perlez in Islamabad, the new fighting there against Islamists “has pleased the Americans, but it left large parts of Pakistan under siege, as militants once sequestered in the country’s tribal areas take their war to Pakistan’s cities. Many Pakistanis blame the United States for the country’s rising instability.” Advertisement A vocal part of the Pakistan population clearly doesn’t want the United States in the country, and it doesn’t even want the aid the United States is sending. A notorious fact in the past has been that civilian and popular opposition to the U.S. was based on the assumption that American aid was meant to keep military governments in place and buy military cooperation with American policy. This time, it’s the Pakistani army that doesn’t want the $7.5-billion aid package that the Obama administration has put together; the aid is denounced as meant to interfere in the country’s internal affairs—as indeed it is. The civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari, generally thought to be put in place by Washington, “is seen as slavishly pro-American (as well) as unable to cope” with the current situation. (I am again quoting Jane Perlez.) The country’s interior minister was hit with stones by students when he visited the International Islamic University last week, and in retaliation the government closed all the schools and universities in Punjab, the most populous province (supposed to reopen Monday, Oct. 26), “a move that affected Pakistani families like never before.” To judge from the public statements of Obama counselors, Pakistan is seen as the great danger in the region, with erratic politics and nuclear weapons—and an active Islamist revolt thereby having the potential to create (according to Obama’s adviser Bruce Riedel), “the most serious threat to the United States since the end of the cold war.” This would seem why the U.S. wants a government under its thumb to compel the army to fight the Islamists on their home territory even if this alienates the army and sows hatred of America. Is it not possible to allow Pakistan, which has a solid civil service and an excellent army, to act in defense of its own security rather than let the U.S. impose its own ideas? Is it not imaginable that they know better than the Americans? Would Americans appreciate a Pakistan army installed in Washington, instructing the United States in how to conduct its own foreign policy in ways that suit Pakistan’s national interests? Visit William Pfaff’s Web site at www.williampfaff.com. © 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc. New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By TAO Walker, November 2, 2009 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment
Again Mike illustrates for us the impenetrability of the self-referential rationale (the slavish dependence on which, a Nam Vet nephew tells me, is a common symptom of PTSD). Mike’s suggestions about what others should do to further allamerican ambitions in South Asia, however helpfully intended, betray also a woeful lack of understanding of the region and its peoples.
It’s probably true things would be a lot easier for the imperial “project” if target peoples would just do what their americanadvisors tell them to (sometimes through the medium of a puppet government). That sure hasn’t been the trend, though, anywhere in Asia so far, or even here on Turtle Island after all these years.
Anyway, here is a FACT. The entire allamerican criminal enterprise is one monumental fuck-up from its genocidal beginnings to the cascading failures of its present day “global” delusions. Is it any wonder Peoples all around the world are resisting its armed imposition upon their own homelands?
That seems to be the fact Mike and his like-minded cohorts in both ‘general population’ and prison administration just can’t come to terms with.
HokaHey!
Report thisBy Mike, November 2, 2009 at 5:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Selfish hypocrisy is just as bad as unselfish hypocrisy. Those that whine about hypocritical American intervention offering hypocritical American neglect offer no solutions.
Report thisBy Folktruther, November 1, 2009 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment
Quite true, TAO, the delusions and entitlement of the powerful indoctinate the powerless as well.
Report thisBy Mike, October 31, 2009 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Again TAO Walker is degenerating to ad hominum attacks because he HAS NO FACTS. He is just whiny that Americans are involved in Pakistan.
The RIGHT THING TO DO since we helped make the AFPAK mess, is to FIX IT—and then leave in an orderly fashion—which I have articulated a detailed and workable plan.
Whining about American hypocrisy isn’t going to FIX anything.
Report thisBy TAO Walker, October 31, 2009 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment
Mike’s vituperative retorts, to those of us here not buying his argument, themselves illustrate perfectly the inescapable vortex into which a PTSD-stricken Pentagon has plunged not only theirownselves but theamericanpeople….and which may yet suck-in the rest of the “civilized” world as well. It’d sure be nice if pointing-out the supposed defects in “others,” and acting to compel their compliance with whatever is supposed by the pointers to be the remedy, could have the beneficial “side-effect” of curing what ails the critics….but anyone with any sense knows that NEVER happens.
No people failing so miserably to clean-up their own mess, as the allamerican herd of homo domesticus is right now, has any chance at all of helping the members of some other captive population correct such attitudes and behaviors as may be causing theirs. It’s a dead-certainty, though, that abroad as in “the homeland” everything the self-righteous meddlers touch will turn to shit….and blood and guts. Oh, but let’s not forget the “glory.”
The theme of William Pfaff’s piece here is the always degenerative pathology of arrogance. William Fulbright touched famously on that regarding the U.S. insanity in (and over) Viet Nam. Eisenhower warned of the dire consequences of its institutionalization in a cabal of commercial and governmental “power” mongers. Mike’s remarks reveal the debilitating and ultimately terminal delusion to be still virulently active amongst his kind….a matter, maybe, for grave concern to “....Mr. and Mrs. America and all the ships at-sea.”
It also reinforces this old Savage’s original ‘take’ here. This CONtraption is going to run its self- and “other”-destructive course. Nothing and no one inside it can do a damned thing to prevent that.
HokaHey!
Report thisBy Mike, October 31, 2009 at 11:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Again, I am NOT saying flood any place with U.S. troops. A sensor-fence is an INANIMATE OBJECT.
An AFPAK solution requires a sensor-security fence:
http://www.defensereview.com/the-afghanistan-long-term-security-solution-afpak-border-security-fence-not-more-us-troops/
After we build it, we turn it over to the Afghans and reduce our military presence to just advisors. The COINsters that want to flood the place with American troops are incompetent egomaniacs who are clueless about terrain control as well as not infuriating the locals which feeds the rebellion.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30493567/the_generals_revolt?action=rate#rate
Report thisBy Mike, October 31, 2009 at 10:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The President said that the United States would:
“not dictate to any nation how to organize its economic life. Every nation is free to shape its own economic institutions in accordance with its own natiuonal needs and will…Once ___ restores its own sovereignty, the president said, AND HALTS EFFORTS AT SUBVERSION OUTSIDE OF ITS BORDERS, “everything is possible” and “we will extend the hand of friendship and assistance”
—That President was John F. Kennedy in 1963…page 106 “Plausible Denial” by Mark Lane and the _____ was Cuba, but it applies today to Pakistan, as well.
So here’s a LIBERAL POTUS showing that the responsible thing is to NOT look the other way to nations that do not have self-control just because we are not perfect or non-hypocritical.
Report thisBy thebeerdoctor, October 31, 2009 at 9:52 am Link to this comment
Mike says: “When Pakistan gains control of her borders and its individual citizens” ... I wonder what kind of frolic he is pontificating about?
Report thisTwo questions present themselves here: Is Pakistan a sovereign country? Where does the United States assume the right to carry out combat missions within a country that it has not declared war with?
But of course these questions will be moot to those of the mindset that United States boots have the right to stomp around anywhere they want. Strangely adherents of this policy, are surprisingly in agreement with the terrorist enemies they are fighting against. Both sides believe that violence should be used to attain their political objectives.
By Mike, October 31, 2009 at 7:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
TAO walker and beerdoctor are just looking for excuses to cut & run from Pakistan and let the situation deteriorate so Islamic etremists can frolic across their open borders. When Pakistan gains control of her borders and its individual citizens then we can pontificate on letting them run their affairs without our assistance.
Report thisBy thebeerdoctor, October 30, 2009 at 4:13 pm Link to this comment
As Tao Walker’s comments about another poster reveal, there is an assumption that the West knows best, whatever the subject. We (the west) are the civilized ones, despite our barbaric historical record to the contrary. This is what prompted Andre Malraux to say to Mao: “but of course you have read Shakespeare?” This is why the adherents of the big 3 desert God religions always claim that their faith in the invisible is the genuine one, whether it Jewish, Christian or Muslim.
Report thisBut what is truly frightening to these believers in their own civilized universe, is that so much of global history has nothing to do with “the west”. So if some society exists that is indeed more compassionate, more humane and urbane in its general structure, it must by necessity be ridiculed and discredited as savage and primitive. This pronouncement from a society that relies on massive destructive weapons and the manipulation of artificial currency,to portray itself as superior.
Who exactly are they attempting to fool?
By Mike, October 30, 2009 at 2:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
TAO Walker is just giving the typical beat-ourselves-with-noodles, open-ended, self-hypocrisy crap. Its very convenient for a lazy American to excuse away having to tangibly DO anything by some never-ending self-hypocrisy that always has to be fixed.
We are talking here about PAKISTAN and fixing its mess—not about America. If you want to start another area to discuss all the American hypocrisy you dislike TAO Walker, feel free to do so. The topic here is what should the U.S. do or not do in regards to Pakistan; the selfish, irresponsible American will “cut his losses” like we left the Afghans at the end of the Soviet expulsion and really set ourselves up for some “bigger losses”.
Report thisPakistan without any U.S. restraint is more likely to use its nuclear weapons; the last I checked the U.S. doesn’t have under the Obama administration uncontrolled borders where American citizens are free to wage private wars on Canada and Mexico.
By TAO Walker, October 30, 2009 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment
Mike’s program for inducing the Pakis to “act like a civilized nation” presumes there are actual examples of that by which to judge their performance. Probably he would hold up the U.S., U.K., and other European corporate security states as the standard to which the indigenous peoples of South Asia must aspire.
That isn’t merely absurd. It is on its face absolutely idiotic. By those “values” the Pakistanis would’ve already nuked two cities in India, CONquered some portion of Africa, and enslaved the surviving Natives of maybe Bolivia and the Yukon. The terrible irony here is that such abhorrent CONduct is the very hallmark and epitome of “civilized” behavior. Read the goddamned record!
Mike’s musings here are unfortunately symptomatic of the very CONdition he proposes to remedy in the objects of his self-referential, and self-serving, “analysis.” Just ain’t gonna cut it.
Maybe theamericanpeople could do a lot better working on their own glaring defects of character and understanding. Just sayin’....
HokaHey!
Report thisBy Mike, October 30, 2009 at 8:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m not endorsing ANY U.S. policy; just taking what the author says at face value.
What do Pakistan’s People Want?
1. Pakistan wants to increase its nuclear weapons to insure national survival against India.
2. Pakistan will tolerate Islamist trouble-makers crossing over into Afghanistan and back to help the Taliban and Pashtuns to eradicate the American puppet government there.
3. Pakistan will tolerate Islamist terrorists to cross over into India to do attacks there.
4. They now seem to realize that the only leverage the U.S. has with them is the strings attached to the foreign aid we give them. So now, the author wants no U.S. aid so the Pakistanis can do whatever they want to do (items 1, 2 and 3.).
Conclusions
1. Pakistan—the populace—is not an U.S. ally; they are mild Islamists who will not keep their house in order and secure their borders, while looking the other way as their extremist brethren cause trouble in Afghanistan or India at will.
2. Pakistan’s U.S. puppet government is the only thing keeping the populace from kicking out U.S. foreign help, plunging into even worse economic woes and becoming like India—a dirty country with internal divisions just short of civil war—that has no control of what its own people are doing—to include using Pakistan as a base to wage private wars in nearby neighborhoods.
What I Recommend
1. Demand Karzai expels his younger druglord brother from Afghanistan to restore some legitimacy with the Afghan people
2. Build a comprehensive sensor-security fence to KEEP THE PAKISTANIS OUT of Afghan affairs; have the Afghan National Army (ANA) operate/patrol the border line with quick reaction forces from nearby forts
3. Reduce U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and have the ANA deal with Taliban/Pashtun rebels who refuse to lay down arms even if offered their own semi-autonomous province (ie; they just want to take-over the whole country).
4. Reduce U.S. foreign aid to Pakistan but warn them they have to behave and act like a civilized nation and stop allowing itself to be used as a safe haven for its “citizens” to launch wars into neighboring countries that have more or less legitimate governments elected by the people. The sensor-security fence will help solve the AFPAK side, the same thing is needed on the INDOPAK side but its on the Indians and Pakistanis to build it. If Pakistanis wage war sub-rosa, then the entire nation-state will suffer the consequences of retaliatory raids that while trying to target just the guilty sub-national group might harm nearby civilians inter-mingled.
Don’t whine about poverty after U.S. foreign aid is reduced.
Report thisMike
By jackpine savage, October 29, 2009 at 9:51 pm Link to this comment
Yeah, sorry, i read the 05 in your original comment, FT, just typed it real wrong.
I still think that TAO should have his own blog, i’d got all the time.
So many things we don’t want to face up to, so many things.
Report thisBy Folktruther, October 29, 2009 at 8:24 pm Link to this comment
Very preceptive thesis, TAO.
Jackpine, It is extremely unlikely that the US power system will survive the century, or even most of it. For reasons that TAO gives, the US power structure is sick. What is to its short term advantage is fatal in the long term. the American power inheritance in increasingly toxic, and the American people must screw up their courage and face it.
The the trilateral alliance between China, Russia and India was formed in June, 2005 at Vladavostok.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, October 29, 2009 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment
Indeed, Folktruther. Thanks for the update; i hadn’t realized that it went back to 08.
And quite right, the last decade has seen the US completely out maneuvered on the grand chess board. China’s been the big winner, but the oil boom caused by Bush’s policies was moderately well used by Putin. Without it, Russia would owe quite a bit to foreign concerns. As it stands, Russia cannot be quietly strong-armed. (he did, however, fail to develop and diversify Russia’s economy)
It’s shaping up to be an interesting—and dangerous—century. The US will need a higher degree of statesmen than we currently put forward.
Report thisBy TAO Walker, October 29, 2009 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment
William Pfaff seems beset here by two conflicting impulses….both featured in The Book of Changes. On the one hand, there’s no use offering advice to people dead certain they already know better than anyone else. On the other, “It is a sacred duty to encourage what is right in a fool.”
U.S. officialdom is locked-into a process too far advanced now to alter its direction or outcome in any significant way. This is due in-part to the probably fully-justified fear that what was done twice to the Japanese in 1945 must, sooner or later, be visited upon “the homeland” by somebody or other.
Another factor is the absolute failure of those criminal military assaults on Grenada and Panama to cure the institutional PTSD caused by the humiliating defeat in Viet Nam….which of course followed a similar debacle in Korea. AfPak has come to resemble both those militaristic adventures because the Pentagon remains obsessed with them, and is compelled to “refight” them in vain pursuit of a result more in-keeping with the myth of “American invincibility.”
Such behavior is the very hallmark of acute psychosis, and corporate security states are every bit as prone to it as self-obsessed individuals are….with consequences orders-of-magnitude more destructive, of course.
Some people here still believe there is some way to bring “reason” into this picture….ignoring the plain fact it is already a perfect study in impenetrable self-referential rationales. The CONdition is a sickness, tame Sisters and Brothers….one not susceptible to ever-increasing doses of the drugs-of-choice causing it.
What is needed is real Medicine, and that is simply unavailable inside the CONtraption itself.
HokaHey!
Report thisBy Folktruther, October 29, 2009 at 2:21 pm Link to this comment
Jackpine, I was so surprised by the Russia, China, india announcement that you reproted I looked it up and, by God, there is a trilateral allainace formed in 2005, associated with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Apparantly China is developing strong relations with India even as it has strong military and economic ties with Pakistan. I suppose that India and Pakistan figure that they have no choice, they have to take the hide with the fur.
nothing makes them happier than seeing the US bogged down in Afghanistan, and they are urging the entire West to get in there and fight Terrorism. When the Talliban come to power they can change their approach, since China wants a pipeline through Afghanistan to Iran.
China must love Bush, increasing their power predominance by at least a decade, and is strongly in favor of Obama continuing his ‘policy,’ if that is what one would it, in the Afpak war. When Obama vists China next month, I’m sure they we congratulate him on his Nobel Peace Prize after he escalates the Afpak war.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, October 29, 2009 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment
I’m not a fan of pasting the same message under multiple stories, but this…this is worth doing it for.
I’ve been saying it for a while, but i’m just some schmuck posting in comments under a screen name.
Wanna know what the problem is in Afghanistan? Gareth Porter will lay out the information you need to know. (And, btw, if you don’t follow Gareth’s writing you’re doing yourself a great disservice.)
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49056
We cannot stabilize with one hand and destabilize with the other. Ahmed Karzai isn’t the only one on the pay roll, and your government-media complex is not giving you the whole story.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, October 29, 2009 at 9:57 am Link to this comment
An article in the NYTImes today indicates that Obama is going to escalate the Afpak war,using a no win-no lose strategy. the idea is to hold the cities and the Helmand opium land and just harrass the rest of the insurrgent held terroity by killing their people more or less randomly with drones. ~FT
That would be the Kilcullin “enclave strategy” that i discussed on another thread. It amounts to calling defeat “victory” and hoping no one notices. It is the exact same as the insurgents’ strategy told from a different perspective.
And while it’s politically acceptable on the domestic front, it means that the United States will be just one more militia in an Afghan Civil War. And it may well result in higher US causalities (proportionally) than we’re seeing now.
Hulk2008 is right. Attempting to defeat a native insurgency, especially with a conventional force is equivalent to casting ourselves as Sisyphus. Any hope of success by the US was destroyed years ago, and you can’t change history.
More importantly, you can’t make it go away by chanting, “Bush’s fault, Bush’s fault.”
Keep calling out the war-mongering “left” Folktruther, somebody has to do it.
Report thisBy Thomas, October 28, 2009 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
It’s kind of-a no brainer, isn’t it….. Joe is making sure we doan WASTE no MONEY curing AMERICANs… When there is the more important work to be done on Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan… Actually the neocons wana get a war with China too, or at least scare them into a corner and show them who is d’boss. Making the world safe for Israeli hegemony and expansionism is priority NUMBER ONE for the Senator from Connecticut…. an he don’t give a f*xk about no whinin sick people in G-ddamn America…
Report thisBy Hulk2008, October 28, 2009 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment
FYI…. NObody has ever succeeded in putting down an insurrection using foreign troops - NOT in ANY country .... NOT EVER ... literally never in history. Daniel Ellsburg confirms this in his recent book in which he calls the current Afghan situation as Vietnam-esque. His meaning is that foreign troops will never be seen as liberators in ANY country .... the US backed a corrupt South Vietnamese regime and paid dearly for it. Now the US is backing corrupt regimes in Pakistan and Afghanistan .... it’s a NO-win situation.
We can do ourselves (and the world) a big favor and just get the heck outta Dodge.
Oh, and by the way, we can declare “VICTORY” or “Mission Accomplished” or whatever stupid eupemism it takes when we leave .... NObody has been able to define what those mean anyway.
Report thisBy sophrosyne, October 28, 2009 at 3:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Israel will not allow America to do what is in its own interests. They had Bush as an obvious stooge but Obama will follow orders as well.
Report thisBy Folktruther, October 28, 2009 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment
i find it necessary to insult Obama, Virgina, to try to get people like you to realize the enormous harm he is doing to the US and the world while spouting Inspiring rhetoric. Insults you can understand, but you can’t seem to understand that real people are shedding real blood at the cost of a great deal of money that could be used for enhancing people’s lives. AND OBAMA IS LEADING THIS POLICY.
It is quite true that Obama is intelligent and congenial and possibly personally moral. But he is promoting AN IMMORAL POLITICAL POLICY. And don’t tell me the Gops would do it worse, these policies are bi-partisan, they would do it the same. I; am not attacking him because I don’t like him pwersoally. I am attacking him because he is pursing policies agaisnt the interests of the Ameriaqn people, the Afpak people, and the people of the world.
Why ae you supporting him, Virgina. Because he is nice? Becuase you identify with Prog power? Because you feel there is no alternative? there is always an alternative. You can make a new start with your last breath. The American people must repudiate Obama and oppose his policies. they are leading us down the road to barbarism.
Report thisBy Virginia777, October 28, 2009 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment
and since FT, you are hurling insults at Obama on TD, as usual,
it makes me wonder why you find it so necessary to do so?
I, personally, find this a sort of sabotage, coming from the “left”.
Report thisBy Virginia777, October 28, 2009 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment
Folktruther, I would call you an “incompetent, betraying non-entity [and] complete disaster”
but I don’t want to get in trouble with the moderator.
Report thisBy Frank Martino, October 28, 2009 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary says, “those attacks on innocent people are COWARDLY, COWARDLY” and “WE will stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Pakistan”. Their drone attacks of course are a brave example of the American spirit. Is there any way out of this madhouse? Apparently not. The only industries we have left are those that maim and kill darker people (what else is new) and therefore must be used. But we are a good people, “the most generous people in the world” And that’what Johnny and Jane learned in school today and so did we on the corporate news.
Report thisBy gerard, October 28, 2009 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment
Lots of rage and frustration. Who’s going to run in 2010 and 2012? What are they going to run for, what’s their educational and experience background, what’s their platform going to be? Who’s working out a platform?
Report thisOnly against, against, against? Not enough. Most commenters on TD know something about the problems. Any suggestions about answers other than “kick the bums out”? There’s so much to do that anyplace is a good place to start. Or should we just give up and wait like the religious nuts for the end to overtake us?
And by the way, “American exceptionalism” is an ancient myth foisted on this continent since the Pharoahs, to serve the special interests of an elite. It’s been adjusted now and then to suit the times, but essentially it still holds us captive because so many of us want to believe it. It’s one of the big reasons why we can’t back off even when we know we’ve made a mistake. It’s at work in the current ambivalence over Afghanistan, and in a future sense: No matter what, America is “better than” blah, blah, blah. It’s up to us to blah, blah, blah.
In reality right now America is all about the past. That’s why we have to think more about the future, get educated, and do what we can every single day to promote change and escape this ancient trap. I thought Obama was immune to the myth and would appoint people who are immune to it, but apparently not. Sad.
By Folktruther, October 28, 2009 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment
An article in the NYTImes today indicates that Obama is going to escalate the Afpak war,using a no win-no lose strategy. the idea is to hold the cities and the Helmand opium land and just harrass the rest of the insurrgent held terroity by killing their people more or less randomly with drones. The idea is to keep the war going until the next presidential election without losing it.
a strategy nearly as insane as invading Iraq. the American people don’t understand that we are being ruled by homicidal maniacs who play the power hands they are dealt in ways to serve their own power interests. Even the prowar neoziionist NYTimes demurs, first in an article yesterday, detailing the CIA drug connection, and in the dispicable Friedman’s column today, essentially calling for withdrawal. Even the some of the neozionists want to fold the deck. Or at least say they do.
Obama is changing from an incompetent, betraying non-entity into a complete disaster. Nothing is more indicative of the decay of the Western tradition than giving him the NObel Peace Prize.
Report thisBy MeHere, October 28, 2009 at 7:45 am Link to this comment
The view expressed in this article is exactly the one I got a while ago from a sensible and mature Pakistani man. The vast majority of people want the US out of their lives. He said there are particular issues with the military because what they want is power, but that is more of an internal problem. The good news is that we have the Clinton RoboWoman there who will shed light on the situation and bring the Pakistanis hope.
Report thisBy thebeerdoctor, October 28, 2009 at 4:25 am Link to this comment
Patrick Henry bravely questions authority on this thread concerning the NINE ONE ONE narrative. Also the United States of Amnesia appears to be in full operation here. Doesn’t anybody remember when President Clinton launched missile attacks on Afghanistan to respond to Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist training camps? As I recall, the military operation was ridiculed by much of the mainstream news media pundits as: “Operation Monica”.
Report thisAnd where do we get off meting out punishment to an impoverished people, just because some corrupt and brutal government decides selling some real estate to an international trouble maker? If vengeance is your bloody rational for dropping bombs on Afghanistan, then shouldn’t the target have been Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 supposed hijackers originated from? That same Saudi Arabia who was one of only 3 countries in the world who recognized the brutal madness known as the Taliban as the legitimate government?
It is way overdue to come clean and admit that the popular military revenge campaign against Afghanistan was phony and wrong. People who buy into this myth, such as President Obama. will continue down the path of senselessly destroying human lives.
By montanawildhack, October 28, 2009 at 4:05 am Link to this comment
Ps.. PatrickHenry…. I forgot to mention that I’m going to report your post for stating an axiom…. You should know that Truthdig is no place for truth…. Good day sir….
Report thisBy montanawildhack, October 28, 2009 at 3:58 am Link to this comment
We’re at war with al Quaeda… We’ve always been at war with al Quaeda…
We’re at war with the Taliban.. We’ve always been at war with the Taliban…
Gee, Mr. Orwell we’re awfully sorry we didn’t pay attention to the warnings in your book… It’s just that we’re so f**king stupid and there’s so many good shows on TV….
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, October 28, 2009 at 3:40 am Link to this comment
By C.Curtis.Dillon, October 28 at 9:40 am #
I must take issue on blaming OBL for the attack on 9/11. While just another religious nut, he was not known to be a liar.
http://www.mujca.com/osama.htm
Even America’s supposed “evidence” against him is weak.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Was-America-Attacked-by-Mu-by-David-Ray-Griffin-080909-536.html
Report thisBy the tshirt doctor, October 28, 2009 at 3:28 am Link to this comment
our leaders don’t care about their lack of knowledge of the Pashtuns. they don’t care that the Pashtuns have never been conquered. we’re better than the soviets. that’s called arrogance.
and the civilians back home are ignorant too. they don’t care why the terrorists attacked us. it’s not our fault. nuke mecca!!! they can’t even look 5 minutes ahead to see what that might entail.
of course, the US government likes civilians/voters like that.
Report thisBy C.Curtis.Dillon, October 28, 2009 at 2:40 am Link to this comment
P.S.
I’m sure some will point out the contradiction in my statements about intervention. But America was morally justified to attack Afghanistan because the Taliban sheltered Ben Laden and allowed him to plan attacks on foreign targets. That is a justified intervention to protect our citizens. But we no longer have that justification in Afghanistan and Pakistan is none of our business unless threats are made to use those nuclear weapons against us or anyone else. The internal affairs of a country are no one’s business but their own. Only when they enable attacks against other nations or threaten (or allow others to threaten) their neighbors with nuclear weapons does external intervention become a justified option.
Report thisBy C.Curtis.Dillon, October 28, 2009 at 2:31 am Link to this comment
History shows, over and over, that intervention in another country’s affairs doesn’t work. Our leaders have this insanely stupid belief that we can shove our agenda down someone’s throat and they won’t choke on it. We were welcomed as liberators in Afghanistan but then became the enemy because we did just about every stupid move one could think of. It is obvious our leadership has no idea about the culture or history of that part of the world. Democracy means very little to Afghans ... they are more concerned about their lives and families. Corruption is a way of life for them but this virulent brand of freedom is more than they can stomach. As always happens, all the US money and military cover emboldens the local crooks and makes the situation much worse than it would be otherwise. Karzai is a crook? Of course or we wouldn’t have chosen him. We wanted someone who we could control and keeping corruption from growing was very low on our priority list. We even let the opium trade restart with the help of Karzai and his brother.
It is time for Obama and everyone else to admit that we screwed this one big time and there is no solution other than to leave. But, we should sit down with some top Taliban leaders and make it very clear that they can do whatever they want in Afghanistan but if they shelter international terrorists or take over the Pakistan government and attempt to use those nuclear weapons, the US will retain the right to intervene to stop them.
Report thisBy Sepharad, October 27, 2009 at 11:46 pm Link to this comment
Though not part of the ruling class on the one hand and a secular zionist on the other, I’m against escalating the Afghanistan war partly if not entirely because of the effect the spillover is having on Pakistan. (Well, OK, I don’t like having my grandchildren’s father again in harms way just because he speaks the languages, respects our so-called enemies and hence is effective.) I do understand the administration’s anxiety that if Pakistan becomes a safe haven for terrorists they will be offering the terrorists more than mints on the pillow for the privilege of being left alone—perhaps some of Dr. Khan’s nuclear technology. On the other hand, our involvement in the regon has certainly not slowed down the spread of nuclear technology, and has stepped up recruitment for the Al Quaeda wannabees as well as people who simply don’t like invaders in their countries for whatever reasons. I do think a large number of Afghanis and Pakistanis even in Waziristan who want better education and opportunities for their children are not overjoyed by the restictions of the extreme version of Islam offered by the Taliban and Al Quaeda, but like it or not it’s certainly not ideal to be caught in the crossfire between the fundamentalists and the Western armies. I used to think that it was possible to advance the rights of Moslem women and education for their young people by supporting the non-fundamentalists, but I think that I was wrong. If Moslems want these things badly enough, they will have to find a way to fight their own bloody civil war against tyrannical theocrats. NATO countries could help if asked to, but the big changes aren’t going to come in any lasting way until enough people want change and education and futures for their children badly enough.
Report thisBy Xntrk, October 27, 2009 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment
It is amazing! After 45 years, the ‘Domino Theory’, that was our excuse for the Vietnam fiasco, is proving true. In a rather perverse way, but true none the less: If the United States invades a country to bring it ‘Peace and Democracy’, not only will that Country be destroyed, but its neighbor will be destabilized; justifying yet another invasion, and another Country destroyed. Then its nearest neighbor is destabilized, and yet another country falls to Global Capitalism and Terror.
Next will be Iran, then perhaps Syria, or Egypt. Muslim ‘terrorists in Kashmir and India may act out, taking down yet another government, and one that is not even Muslim. As the Dominoes fall, the US Public will continue to listen to, and believe, the hate-mongers in our Media and our Government.
Meanwhile, our “Homeland” becomes more tattered and worn. We are Bankrupt, and shell out our fortune on foreign entanglements. Our children are increasingly poorly housed, poorly fed, and ignorant. They are just smart enough to enlist so they too can ‘Defend America’ in some patriotic nightmare.
But, the Wars are great television, and in ten years, they will make greater movies. Nothing like Hollywood to entertain and initiate yet another generation in the American Way of Death. Eventually, the Empire will crumble of its own weight, and be replaced by the next in line. That is assuming Global Warming and Climate Change don’t put us out of our misery first…
Report thisBy faith, October 27, 2009 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment
Unbelievable ! Karzai has a brother working for the CIA?
Next, why does U.S. leadership ascribe to the idea that they have a right to tell
any other nation what political philosophy they will follow? I love my nation, but
not particularly my leaders. What absolute, wrongful arrogance for us to assume
that only our way is appropriate for governance. Only our way will be followed by
countries of less clout, status, and strength. Appalling arrogance.
Seriously, let’s pray for peace. Let’s work for peace. Let’s choose to help our
Report thisfellow man instead of orphan his children, destroy his homeland. Peace.
By thebeerdoctor, October 27, 2009 at 7:32 pm Link to this comment
“Most of the trouble in this world has been caused by folks who can’t mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a small pox virus has.”
Report thisWILLIAM BURROUGHS
By thebeerdoctor, October 27, 2009 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment
The idea that any people of any country would prefer their own chosen government over one that was imposed from outside? How could this be? Don’t those disobedient children know that the great Uncle Same knows what is best for them?
Report thisWhile U.S. military power seeks to correct their false assumptions, remember: this will hurt US as much as it hurts you. We will fight for your freedom, even if that means killing you. Giving thanks means being a grateful nation, and never shed tears for the innocent who get slaughtered. This is “freedom’s” finest hour. (Amen!)
By Folktruther, October 27, 2009 at 7:17 pm Link to this comment
I just assumed that the delay of Obama in escalating the Afpak war was simply political theater to buy time to convince the American people, 60% of whom oppose escalation.
But the neozionist and war mongering NYtimes just printed a long article discribing Karzai’s brother as not only a major drug lord of Afghanistan, but also a long time CIA asset. It is the timing of this article that is important. Why would they inform the American people now?
It appears that there is opposition in the US ruling class against escalating the afpak war. this complicates Obama’s problem seriously. It turns the problem into a political lose-lose situation. Obama and the White House-Pentagon obviously do not care what the American people think, as Bush didn’t, since he escalated the Iraq war after peace legislators won the 2006 elections.
But if a section of the ruling class is against it, that is a whole other ball game. They have the money, media and organs to make their voices heard. And so can form an effective counterweight to the war mongering neozionists. The present delay may not only be a public relations ploy, but indicate genuine paralysis.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, October 27, 2009 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment
The “message” sure isn’t going to be mentioned in the zionist-pro-Israel media broadcast in the United States.
Report this