The USA should not be in the nation building business. We should pull our military out of the ME and let'em continue killing each other like they have for thousands of years. their countries - their problems
On Mar 10, 9:48 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Obama’s Potemkin AfghanistanIt's as phony as he isbyJustin Raimondo, March > 10, 2010 > In a message to US troops in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert > Gatespraisedthe soldiers who fought in the recent Marjah offensive, averring: > "“You all have had a very tough time. You came into an area totally > controlled by the Taliban. You fought for a critical battle space, you bled > for it and now you own it.”Yes, we own it – but what is it, exactly, that we > own? > Marjah, by allaccountsappearing in the US media, is supposed to have been a > city, or at least a major town. Described as containing some 80,000 > inhabitants – and abustling centerof insurgent activity, a Taliban stronghold > that had to be taken – Marjah was depicted as a rather large target, and our > glorious "victory" was therefore portrayed as amajor triumph. The only > problem with this narrative is that it bears no relation to reality. > As Gareth Porter points out ina piecepublished on this site, Marjah, far from > being a major city or even a town, is aminor hamletconsisting of one mosque > and a few other buildings, mostly stores. There is no city of 80,000 souls, > as Western "reporters" have been telling us, there are no "neighborhoods" as > described in countless news dispatches from the "mainstream" media, and the > imagery of house-to-house fighting imparted by these reports is a total > fiction. > It wasn’t quite as elaborate a production as inWag the Dog, a movie in which > a President in trouble on the home front cooks up an overseas "crisis" – > complete with phony footage of US soldiers in action – to divert attention > away from his own foibles. > Sure,there was a battle, but the stakes weren’t nearly as high as we were led > to believe, and the scope of this largely imaginary "offensive" was > deliberately hyped. > Which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that this mighty offensive was > launched, not against the Taliban, or al-Qaeda, but against thenatural > skepticismof the American people. While not quite measuring up to the > production values ofWag the Dog, "Operation Marjah," or whatever they’re > calling it, comes awfully close. In effect, the "Marjah offensive" – hailed > as a great victory by US-NATO propagandists – was cooked up in the news rooms > of the "mainstream" media, and dished out to the American people. > See?We’re making progress, the War Party assures us. Marjah was a glorious > "victory," and we’re on the road to ultimate success. That is the "lesson" > this administration hopes we’re learning. Forget truth and falsehood: we’re > talking about war propaganda, which is concerned with neither. > As Porterpoints outin his piece, "A central task of ‘information operations’ > in counterinsurgency wars is ‘establishing the COIN [counterinsurgency] > narrative,’ according to the Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual as revised > under Gen. David Petraeus in 2006." But just who is this narrative aimed at? > The primary targets, I would argue, are not the Afghans, butus– we, the > American people, who after all have to give theirtacit consentto Obama’s war, > however passively and reluctantly. The insurgency the Pentagon is concerned > with preemptively countering isn’t in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, but right > here in the good ol’ US of A. With an economic recession fastturninginto a > full-blown depression, and US troopsstill in Iraq, an antiwar insurgency on > the home front is the Pentagon’s worst nightmare. Theirfield manual[.pdf] > aims atneutralizing it, and reflects the view of their top strategists that > it’s just a matter of creating – and disseminating – the right "narrative." > Like all government programs in a democratic society, the tendency toward > self-perpetuation isinevitable: it’snotoriously truethat once a subsidy is > granted, it becomes almost politically impossible to get rid of it. That’s > because the beneficiaries of these programs mobilize quickly to defend their > interests, while the majority barely notices, or, if they do notice, are > rarely stirred to action. > In the case of ordinarythievery, i.e. most domestic government spending, this > works well for the beneficiaries, because the consequences of their > profiteeringrarelyinclude thousands of deaths. When it comes to war, however, > there is usuallya bit morescrutiny – and, one would think, especially at this > point, when we’re fresh from theIraqi WMD fraud. > That’s what has the Pentagon’s strategists scratching their heads trying to > preemptively de-energize arising insurgencyof American taxpayers, who are > sick and tired of paying for this nonsense. > This war is just another "job-creating" government program to keep restless > youth off the streets – and, in these hard times, record numbers aresigning > up. Imperialism as a way to solve the unemployment problem: it’smilitary > Keynesianism, the latest in "progressive" chic. > So much of what this war is about has nothing to with Afghanistan, or > Pakistan, or the very real and deadly serious issue of terrorism – it’s all > aboutpolitics, andeconomics, i.e. money and power. This war is being driven > by the internal political dynamics of the West, and the "enemy" – in the > Pentagon’s view – isn’t so much the fanaticism of the Taliban, or the > devilish nihilism of al-Qaeda, but the natural skepticism and "isolationism" > of their own countrymen. > In short, it’s all aboutus. > When it comes to individuals, such extreme narcissism would be diagnosed as a > form of mental illness, or at least a disabling idiosyncrasy of the sort that > would generally keep one well out of polite company. However, when certain > powerful nations act out theirinternal obsessionsandunnatural driveson the > global stage,wreaking havocand causing untolddeath and destruction, they > become a danger not only to the whole world but to themselves. It therefore > falls on the citizens of that rogue nation to rein in their government. > This rising possibility is precisely the main concern of our top military > strategists, who want to overcome the infamous "Vietnam Syndrome" by > concentrating their efforts on the war skeptics at home, rather than the > armed enemy abroad. The last thing they want is a "tea party" movement > against the biggest, most tragically wasteful, and certainly the costliest > current government program in every sense: our "war on terrorism," which > commits us to fighting ageneration-long > conflictinmultipletheaterssimultaneously. And we’re not just talking about > special operations, limited forays to get particular bad guys: Obama’s wars > in Afghanistan and Pakistan aremassive undertakings, and getting bigger by > the day. > The human and material costs are so great that a reaction is bound to ensue. > The War Party realizes this: that’s why they spend so much of theirtime, > energy, and resourceson war propaganda, even tailoring their military > strategy to create the right "narrative" for the American public. > Yet this war is more than a story we’re telling ourselves: real people > aredying, and beingmaimed, daily, and for reasons that have nothing to do > with fighting terrorism. Our invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan hasn’t > deterred or even slowed down the efforts of terrorist organizations to reach > into a major military baseon American soiland take down more than a dozen of > our soldiers. Obama’s wars merely provide the terrorists with more human > cannon fodder to hurl against us. The wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan must > end, not because there is no terrorist threat, but precisely because there is > one – and this is no way to fight it. > One year into Barack H. Obama’s presidency, it’s fair to say that George W. > Bush’sgrand strategyof effecting a massive "transformation" of the Middle > East, by conquering and occupying much of it, is being continued – and > expanded – by his Democratic successor. Under Obama’s tutelage, the conflict > isspilling overinto neighboring countries as we pursue a highly mobile and > adaptable enemy throughout Central Asia. US military bases are already > ringing the periphery of the Af-Pak theater, in preparation for > aregionalconflict. > We are, in short, embarking on a major turn in US foreign and military > policy, largely without much public discussion – althoughDennis Kucinichand a > small band of antiwar members of Congress,including Ron Paul, will get a few > hours of formal debate on the House floor. Kucinich’s resolution calling for > a US withdrawal will come up for a vote, and so put our solons on record as > supporting this disastrous turn, which future historians will be perfectly > justified in comparing toNapoleon’s invasion of Russia. > The Kucinich resolution is a political masterstroke, and it’s great to see > the Democratic party leaders having to sit still for it. Let us see who is > for this massive expansion of our nascent Middle Eastern empire, and mark > their names well. Before history judges them, let us judge them at the polls > – and spare no effort in turning them out of office, no matter what party or > what other views they may uphold. If that means the veritable decimation of > incumbents – well, wouldn’tthatbe sending them a message they’re not likely > to forget? > Obama’s Potemkin village in Afghanistan may succeed in fooling some people > for a limited period of time, but the flaw in the COIN strategy embraced by > this administration is that it overlooks a key point. A self-serving and > demonstrably false "mainstream" narrative invariably provokes > acounter-narrative, one much closer to the truth. The War Party may be able > to rely on the "mainstream" media to go along with the fraud for a good long > time, but they would have to shut down the Internet to preemptively kill the > counter-narrative and silence its adherents. Although, I hear, they’reworking > on > that….http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/03/09/obamas-potemkin-afghanistan/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
