====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Rakesh Bhandari wrote: I think that the situation is very serious, much more serious than parochial and bombastic people appreciate. There's nothing more parochial and bombastic than US policy in Afghanistan. What could be more parochial and bombastic than supporting one set of corrupt, misogynistic warlords against another set, than letting the CIA (once again) fund black ops through heroin trafficking, than driving Taliban fighters into Pakistan, (into the hands of Al Qaeda there), and of ignoring the decentralized spread of Al Qaeda into Africa, Europe, and the USA. If the USA was serious about Al Qaeda, they would treat it as an international crime syndicate and put all of those military resources into an international, coordinated police effort. Which begs the question as to the real reason the US is interested in establishing a permanent military presence in the region. Could it be, rather, a bombastic policy set up to advance the parochial interests of a small group of elites? Who is benefiting from all the privatized military contracts, and who stands to gain from control of a pipeline running through the country? Greg ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
