Yeswecanistan

The Anti-Empire Report

All the crying from the left about how Obama “the peace candidate” has now become “a war president” … Whatever are they talking about? Here’s what I wrote in this report in August 2008, during the election campaign:

We find Obama threatening, several times, to attack Iran if they don’t do what the United States wants them to do nuclear-wise; threatening more than once to attack Pakistan if their anti-terrorist policies are not tough enough or if there would be a regime change in the nuclear-armed country not to his liking; calling for a large increase in US troops and tougher policies for Afghanistan; wholly and unequivocally embracing Israel as if it were the 51st state.

Why should anyone be surprised at Obama’s foreign policy in the White House? He has not even banned torture, contrary to what his supporters would fervently have us believe. If further evidence were needed, we have the November 28 report in the Washington Post: “Two Afghan teenagers held in U.S. detention north of Kabul this year said they were beaten by American guards, photographed naked, deprived of sleep and held in solitary confinement in concrete cells for at least two weeks while undergoing daily interrogation about their alleged links to the Taliban.” This is but the latest example of the continuance of torture under the new administration.

But the shortcomings of Barack Obama and the naiveté of his fans is not the important issue. The important issue is the continuation and escalation of the American war in Afghanistan, based on the myth that the individuals we label “Taliban” are indistinguishable from those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, whom we usually label “al Qaeda”. “I am convinced,” the president said in his speech at the United States Military Academy (West Point) on December 1, “that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.”

Obama used one form or another of the word “extremist” eleven times in his half-hour talk. Young, impressionable minds must be carefully taught; a future generation of military leaders who will command America’s never-ending wars must have no doubts that the bad guys are “extremists”, that “extremists” are by definition bad guys, that “extremists” are beyond the pale and do not act from human, rational motivation like we do, that we — quintessential non-extremists, peace-loving moderates — are the good guys, forced into one war after another against our will. Sending robotic death machines flying over Afghanistan and Pakistan to drop powerful bombs on the top of wedding parties, funerals, and homes is of course not extremist behavior for human beings.

And the bad guys attacked the US “from here”, Afghanistan. That’s why the United States is “there”, Afghanistan. But in fact the 9-11 attack was planned in Germany, Spain and the United States as much as in Afghanistan. It could have been planned in a single small room in Panama City, Taiwan, or Bucharest. What is needed to plot to buy airline tickets and take flying lessons in the United States? And the attack was carried out entirely in the United States. But Barack Obama has to maintain the fiction that Afghanistan was, and is, vital and indispensable to any attack on the United States, past or future. That gives him the right to occupy the country and kill the citizens as he sees fit. Robert Baer, former CIA officer with long involvement in that part of the world has noted: “The people that want their country liberated from the West have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. They simply want us gone because we’re foreigners, and they’re rallying behind the Taliban because the Taliban are experienced, effective fighters.”1

The pretenses extend further. US leaders have fed the public a certain image of the insurgents (all labeled together under the name “Taliban”) and of the conflict to cover the true imperialistic motivation behind the war. The predominant image at the headlines/TV news level and beyond is that of the Taliban as an implacable and monolithic “enemy” which must be militarily defeated at all costs for America’s security, with a negotiated settlement or compromise not being an option. However, consider the following which have been reported at various times during the past two years about the actual behavior of the United States and its allies in Afghanistan vis-à-vis the Taliban, which can raise questions about Obama’s latest escalation:2

The US military in Afghanistan has long been considering paying Taliban fighters who renounce violence against the government in Kabul, as the United States has done with Iraqi insurgents.

President Obama has floated the idea of negotiating with moderate elements of the Taliban.3

US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, said last month that the United States would support any role Saudi Arabia chose to pursue in trying to engage Taliban officials.Kuwait News Agency, November 24, 2009.

Canadian troops are reaching out to the Taliban in various ways.

A top European Union official and a United Nations staff member were ordered by the Kabul government to leave the country after allegations that they had met Taliban insurgents without the administration’s knowledge. And two senior diplomats for the United Nations were expelled from the country, accused by the Afghan government of unauthorized dealings with insurgents. However, the Afghanistan government itself has had a series of secret talks with “moderate Taliban” since 2003 and President Hamid Karzai has called for peace talks with Taliban leader Mohammed Omar.

Organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross as well as the United Nations have become increasingly open about their contacts with the Taliban leadership and other insurgent groups.

Gestures of openness are common practice among some of Washington’s allies in Afghanistan, notably the Dutch, who make negotiating with the Taliban an explicit part of their military policy.

The German government is officially against negotiations, but some members of the governing coalition have suggested Berlin host talks with the Taliban.

MI-6, Britain’s external security service, has held secret talks with the Taliban up to half a dozen times. At the local level, the British cut a deal, appointing a former Taliban leader as a district chief in Helmand province in exchange for security guarantees.

Senior British officers involved with the Afghan mission have confirmed that direct contact with the Taliban has led to insurgents changing sides as well as rivals in the Taliban movement providing intelligence which has led to leaders being killed or captured.

British authorities hold that there are distinct differences between different “tiers” of the Taliban and that it is essential to try to separate the doctrinaire extremists from others who are fighting for money or because they resent the presence of foreign forces in their country.

British contacts with the Taliban have occurred despite British Prime Minister Gordon Brown publicly ruling out such talks; on one occasion he told the House of Commons: “We will not enter into any negotiations with these people.”

For months there have been repeated reports of “good Taliban” forces being airlifted by Western helicopters from one part of Afghanistan to another to protect them from Afghan or Pakistani military forces. At an October 11 news conference in Kabul, President Hamid Karzai himself claimed that “some unidentified helicopters dropped armed men in the northern provinces at night.”4

On November 2, IslamOnline.net (Qatar) reported: “The emboldened Taliban movement in Afghanistan turned down an American offer of power-sharing in exchange for accepting the presence of foreign troops, Afghan government sources confirmed. ‘US negotiators had offered the Taliban leadership through Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil (former Taliban foreign minister) that if they accept the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan, they would be given the governorship of six provinces in the south and northeast … America wants eight army and air force bases in different parts of Afghanistan in order to tackle the possible regrouping of [the] Al-Qaeda network,’ a senior Afghan Foreign Ministry official told IslamOnline.net.”5

There has been no confirmation of this from American officials, but the New York Times on October 28 listed six provinces that were being considered to receive priority protection from the US military, five which are amongst the eight mentioned in the IslamOnline report as being planned for US military bases, although no mention is made in the Times of the above-mentioned offer. The next day, Asia Times reported: “The United States has withdrawn its troops from its four key bases in Nuristan [or Nooristan], on the border with Pakistan, leaving the northeastern province as a safe haven for the Taliban-led insurgency to orchestrate its regional battles.” Nuristan, where earlier in the month eight US soldiers were killed and three Apache helicopters hit by hostile fire, is one of the six provinces offered to the Taliban as reported in the IslamOnline.net story.

The part about al-Qaeda is ambiguous and questionable, not only because the term has long been loosely used as a catch-all for any group or individual in opposition to US foreign policy in this part of the world, but also because the president’s own national security adviser, former Marine Gen. James Jones, stated in early October: “I don’t foresee the return of the Taliban. Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling. The al-Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”6

Shortly after Jones’s remarks, we could read in the Wall Street Journal: “Hunted by U.S. drones, beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the bleak mountains of Pakistan, al-Qaida is seeing its role shrink there and in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports and Pakistan and U.S. officials. … For Arab youths who are al-Qaida’s primary recruits, ‘it’s not romantic to be cold and hungry and hiding,’ said a senior U.S. official in South Asia.”7

From all of the above is it not reasonable to conclude that the United States is willing and able to live with the Taliban, as repulsive as their social philosophy is? Perhaps even a Taliban state which would go across the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which has been talked about in some quarters. What then is Washington fighting for? What moves the president of the United States to sacrifice so much American blood and treasure? In past years, US leaders have spoken of bringing democracy to Afghanistan, liberating Afghan women, or modernizing a backward country. President Obama made no mention of any of these previous supposed vital goals in his December 1 speech. He spoke only of the attacks of September 11, al Qaeda, the Taliban, terrorists, extremists, and such, symbols guaranteed to fire up an American audience. Yet, the president himself declared at one point: “Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border.” Ah yes, the terrorist danger … always, everywhere, forever, particularly when it seems the weakest.

How many of the West Point cadets, how many Americans, give thought to the fact that Afghanistan is surrounded by the immense oil reserves of the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions? Or that Afghanistan is ideally situated for oil and gas pipelines to serve much of Europe and south Asia, lines that can deliberately bypass non-allies of the empire, Iran and Russia? If only the Taliban will not attack the lines. “One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan, so it can become a conduit and a hub between South and Central Asia so that energy can flow to the south …”, said Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs in 2007.8

Afghanistan would also serve as the home of American military bases, the better to watch and pressure next-door Iran and the rest of Eurasia. And NATO … struggling to find a raison d’être since the end of the Cold War. If the alliance is forced to pull out of Afghanistan without clear accomplishments after eight years will its future be even more in doubt?

So, for the present at least, the American War on Terror in Afghanistan continues and regularly and routinely creates new anti-American terrorists, as it has done in Iraq. This is not in dispute even at the Pentagon or the CIA. God Bless America.
Although the “surge” failed as policy, it succeeded as propaganda.

They don’t always use the word “surge”, but that’s what they mean. Our admirable leaders and our mainstream media that love to interview them would like us to believe that escalation of the war in Afghanistan is in effect a “surge”, like the one in Iraq which, they believe, has proven so successful. But the reality of the surge in Iraq was nothing like its promotional campaign. To the extent that there has been a reduction in violence in Iraq (now down to a level that virtually any other society in the world would find horrible and intolerable, including Iraqi society before the US invasion and occupation), we must keep in mind the following summary of how and why it “succeeded”:

  • Thanks to America’s lovely little war, there are many millions Iraqis either dead, wounded, crippled, homebound or otherwise physically limited, internally displaced, in foreign exile, or in bursting American and Iraqi prisons. Many others have been so traumatized that they are concerned simply for their own survival. Thus, a huge number of potential victims and killers has been markedly reduced.
  • Extensive ethnic cleansing has taken place: Sunnis and Shiites are now living much more than before in their own special enclaves, with entire neighborhoods surrounded by high concrete walls and strict security checkpoints; violence of the sectarian type has accordingly gone down.
  • In the face of numerous “improvised explosive devices” on the roads, US soldiers venture out a lot less, so the violence against them has been sharply down. It should be kept in mind that insurgent attacks on American forces following the invasion of 2003 is how the Iraqi violence all began in the first place.
  • For a long period, the US military was paying insurgents (or “former insurgents”) to not attack occupation forces.
  • The powerful Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr declared a unilateral cease-fire for his militia, including attacks against US troops, that was in effect for an extended period; this was totally unconnected to the surge.

We should never forget that Iraqi society has been destroyed. The people of that unhappy land have lost everything — their homes, their schools, their neighborhoods, their mosques, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their health care, their legal system, their women’s rights, their religious tolerance, their security, their friends, their families, their past, their present, their future, their lives. But they do have their surge.

The War against Everything and Everyone, Endlessly

Nidal Malik Hasan, the US Army psychiatrist who killed 13 and wounded some 30 at Fort Hood, Texas in November reportedly regards the US War on Terror as a war aimed at Muslims. He told colleagues that “the US was battling not against security threats in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Islam itself.”9 Hasan had long been in close contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born cleric and al Qaeda sympathizer now living in Yemen, who also called the US War on Terror a “war against Muslims.” Many, probably most, Muslims all over the world hold a similar view about American foreign policy.

I believe they’re mistaken. For many years, going back to at least the Korean war, it’s been fairly common for accusations to be made by activists opposed to US policies, in the United States and abroad, as well as by Muslims, that the United States chooses as its bombing targets only people of color, those of the Third World, or Muslims. But it must be remembered that in 1999 one of the most sustained and ferocious American bombing campaigns ever — 78 days in a row — was carried out against the Serbs of the former Yugoslavia: white, European, Christians. Indeed, we were told that the bombing was to rescue the people of Kosovo, who are largely Muslim. Earlier, the United States had come to the aid of the Muslims of Bosnia in their struggle against the Serbs. The United States is in fact an equal-opportunity bomber. The only qualifications for a country to become an American bombing target appear to be: (a) It poses a sufficient obstacle — real, imagined, or, as with Serbia, ideological — to the desires of the empire; (b) It is virtually defenseless against aerial attack.

  1. Afghanistan Is A ‘War Of National Resistance’: Former CIA Agent” on Information Clearinghouse. []
  2. For the news items which follow if not otherwise sourced, see: Independent (London), December 14, 2007; Daily Telegraph (UK) December 26, 2007; Globe and Mail (Toronto) May 1, 2008; BBC News, October 28, 2009. []
  3. New York Times, March 11, 2009. []
  4. Pakistan Observer (Islamabad daily), October 19, 2009; The Jamestown Foundation (conservative Washington, DC think tank), “Karzai claims mystery helicopters ferrying Taliban to north Afghanistan,” November 6, 2009; Institute for War and Peace Reporting (London), “Helicopter rumour refuses to die,” October 26, 2009. []
  5. IslamOnline, “US Offers Taliban 6 Provinces for 8 Bases,” November 2, 2009. []
  6. Washington Times, October 5, 2009, from a CNN interview. []
  7. Wall Street Journal, October 13, 2009. []
  8. Talk at the Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies, Washington, DC, September 20, 2007. []
  9. Christian Science Monitor, November 17, 2009. []
William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir, Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire. He can be reached at: bblum6@aol.com. Read other articles by William, or visit William's website.

21 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. rosemarie jackowski said on December 10th, 2009 at 9:15am #

    This is another one by Blum, the world’s best historian of our time.

    Yes, the US is at war with everyone, everywhere – and will be forever – unless someday, in the distant future, the voters elect a Congress that refuses to finance war.

  2. Don Hawkins said on December 10th, 2009 at 9:37am #

    William like the Arctic more ice melt more warming more warming more warming. More War more warming more warming more war.

  3. Josie Michel-Brüning said on December 10th, 2009 at 10:44am #

    Thank you again, Mr. Blum for another of your excellent explanations!
    Hopefully, this one will find many readers.

  4. Dana said on December 10th, 2009 at 11:30am #

    War against Islam may not be the official purpose of the American government but be assured, it is still happening, and on many fronts, not just overseas. If nothing else it is a war of ideology, of words and of societal attitudes.

    My adopted hometown, for example, is home to the second-largest Somali population in the United States. Nearly everywhere you go you run into hijabis and their families. The population was large enough to merit a visit from the new President of Somalia. And that’s just the Somalis; I’ve also encountered Moroccans (was neighbors with a family for four years, in fact) and Kosovars, among others.

    Yet if you walk into Barnes & Noble you can’t find more than a two-foot section of books about Islam in the religion section, most of those are Qur’an translations, and you’ll find just as many books in the feminist and politics section and elsewhere about how much Islam sucks and how much it oppresses women. Walk over to the magazine section and you find nothing from Muslims even though they have several publications that would be of interest to local people. There used to be a magazine for Muslim girls, and now it’s gone. But there are magazines for Jews and Christians–and Buddhists, who unless I’m mistaken are a much smaller number in this town than Muslims.

    Look to the newspaper and you find listings for Christian churches and much discussion of Jewish holidays but almost no mention of Muslims unless it’s international news about terrorism. Or local–the paper seems more interested in portraying Muslims at their worst than portraying them as ordinary people, which most of them are. Just like most Jews and just like most Christians.

    I can’t even talk about Muslims with my extended family because they think they’re all terrorists. I had actually considered, for a time, reverting to the faith; I am still strongly interested in it. I wouldn’t dare admit to any of them if I did so. I’d be disowned at the very least.

    I can’t even talk with a lot of progressives about this. They’re convinced that Muslims must behave as anything BUT Muslim before they will accept them as being respecters of human rights. This despite a very clear historical record of Muslims upholding the human rights of Jews, Christians, AND women, more so than Christian-majority nations have done up until the 19th-21st centuries. These are people who are convinced Israel needs to continue to exist even though its present existence is based on a clear violation of human rights and even though, despite the propaganda, it IS NOT a haven for human rights of women and gays, at least not among the Orthodox Jews living there.

    This is the mentality of the voters who keep putting war hawks into office, Republican and Democrat alike. It doesn’t matter what the actual race of the Muslims in question is–Muslims are always considered people of color and white Muslims are more or less invisible. I mean, look at how Europe is behaving. They truly do believe Islam’s a foreign religion practiced only by foreigners. In less than sixty seconds I can log on to YouTube and find convert videos about people of European ethnicity in both the United States and Europe who have embraced Islam. (I’m of French ancestry myself, and remember, I considered it once.) In the blogosphere I can find blogs by *Native Americans* who have embraced Islam. I’m nobody special and will likely never hold elected office. What’s wrong with these people? Don’t they at least hire staffers with Internet savvy?

  5. russell olausen said on December 12th, 2009 at 12:02am #

    This is wonderful, being able to think of Official America as being under the thrall of Obama. It makes not being allowed in the U.S. of A a rather more positive outcome, no doubt due to innate riotousness. Oops, make that righteousness. It’s 30 below and I don’t give a fock cause I’m off to the rodeo.True.

  6. dino said on December 12th, 2009 at 12:14am #

    I don’t like Blum last article because he denied the reality:US and Israel and the “free world”are in war with Muslims,in a real war and in a mean propaganda war ,so mean that Julius Streicher would blush.But i like what Dana wrote.Blum said that the fact that Americans bomb Belgrad is a proof that they don’t target Muslims.But is a very well known Hitler saying that he decided who is Jew or not.Even Israel was ready to receive some refugees from Bosnia in Israel,a hand of people who would have to live,however, between Israeli Muslims.They,i much i remember, didn’t come.But now because the “wave ” of infiltration of people from Sudan through Egypt borders,Yuval Steinitz,a minister-philosopher or better say philosopher-minister,wants to build a new wall because these people are Muslims.And all the negative imagines which are launch about Islam are concentrated on the ” vile” Iranian Republic of Islam and Ahmadinejad .

  7. dino said on December 12th, 2009 at 12:36am #

    Chomsky leads us in a wrong way we are forced to take the opposite direction (i say it as o joke):”Renowned American sociopolitical analyst Noam Chomsky says Israel functions as Washington’s main weapons storage base in the Middle East.

    “Israel is essentially a US military base, the US positions weapons there, that’s a very close military and intelligence tie,” the Jewish academic told Press TV on Wednesday while explaining the complexity of relations between Washington and Tel Aviv.

    Commenting on the weapons that Israel received from the US before launching its 2007-2008 offensive in the Gaza Strip, Chomsky said that the exchange of weapons between the two sides was not surprising.

    “[Israel] is receiving weapons constantly. In fact, weapons were sent during the invasion of Gaza. They tried to send them, they were supposed to send them from Greece, and Greece refused to ship them,” he said.

    “When pentagon was asked about this, they responded (I think correctly) that the weapons were not being sent for the Gaza invasion which was underway with the US weapons of course; rather, the US was positioning weapons in Israel,” he added.

    The professor, who was taking part in an interview with Press TV after delivering a speech at Boston University, said that although Israel had influence over the US foreign policy, it still had to act within the boundaries of what Washington allowed.

    “Take for example Israeli threats against Iran or US threats for that matter, in which if anybody cares it is a violation of the UN charter,” said Chomsky.

    “Last summer in 2008, right in the middle of the presidential election… Israeli lobbyists tried very hard to push through a resolution in congress calling for a blockade on Iran which essentially would have been an act of war.

    “They were rounding up quite lot of senators… and all of a sudden the effort terminated, presumably what happened is the White House… wanted to have a word with them, so they pulled back, that happens over and over, Israel can not go beyond what the US permits,” he added.

    During his address at Boston University, the recognized professor also warned of the threat that the US and Israel posed to the world and said people may have more to fear from the two than those that Washington tries to associate with terrorism.

    “[The US and Israel] consistently and regularly… resort to force and the threat of force… carry out aggression regularly and repeatedly… invade other countries, occupy other countries, [and] invoke terror and violence,” he said.

    Chomsky also pointed out that the US government and its media had spread exaggerated reports about Iran’s nuclear program.

    “There has been a massive propaganda campaign that demonizes Iran, that portrays it as a major threat to world peace that has been going on for the past three years,” he said. DB,could this material help whatsoever the Leftist or is a Zionist manipulation?

  8. Shabnam said on December 12th, 2009 at 8:06am #

    dino:

    Excellent. You are right. He has misled the international community for the past 60 years to hide zionist’s crimes against humanity by keeping the ball on American soil at all times. We know without the wealth of Rothschild family and their control over the British Empire and full cooperation of Jews in the ‘socialist organization’ of Europe, the Palestinians genocide would have not been possible.

    The reason behind Israel ‘s frustration for not being able to launch a military attack against Iran is not due to lack of ‘American permission’ for such a operation, as Chomsky cleverly wants you to believe, rather is related to Israel INCAPIBLITY to carry out such an attack ALONE.

    Israel knows that without support of the United State is not ABLE to launch such an attack against Iran, otherwise Israelis would have not hesitate to do it because the ‘jewish state’ has expanded her influence through NOTHING but terror and genocide since its erection on Palestinian land.

  9. bozh said on December 12th, 2009 at 9:37am #

    Chomsky is against the ROR. That means, to me, that he, too, is a criminal.
    However, i agree with his view that israel cannot do anything that US does not approve of.
    To me, israel is much of a, or even a total, dependency of US. It is de facto a 51st US state.
    Regarding the view that israel is a military depository, i don`t know anything ab that. tnx

  10. Shabnam said on December 12th, 2009 at 10:44am #

    If Israel cannot do anything without the US permission then Why Zbigniew Brzezinski had to tell shot down Israeli Planes if they attack Iran? Do you still believe “Israel cannot do anything that US does not approve of”? The United States had to USE THE LANGUAGE OF THREAT to stop Israel taking US into another Zionist war.
    Israel knows that the united States do not want to be dragged into another war for Israel. Iraq war was for the interest of Israel as Bush’s advisor, Philip Zelikow, told us.
    Philip Zelikow, Bush advisor from 2001 to 2003 said that:
    Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel:
    [The prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.]

    George Bush was AGAINST the bombing of the imaginary Syrian ‘Nuclear Site” but Israel did it anyway and gave. Stop the nonsense that Israel needs US permission to expand her influence. They obey in certain cases because they cannot carry them out alone.
    This nonsense spread around to let people into this belief that the United States have full control over their ‘client state’ and all the decisions regarding Israeli expansionist policy are made with full cooperation of fools in the WH since it serves American interest as well.
    If this is the case, then why Obama WAS NOT ABLE TO STOP BUILDING MORE ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS which is not in the interest of US?

    http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/FC30EF5F-5991-4454-BEA6-E0E0ABCB8E74/

  11. Shabnam said on December 12th, 2009 at 10:52am #

    If Israel cannot do anything without the US permission then Why Zbigniew Brzezinski had to tell shot down Israeli Planes if they attack Iran? Do you still believe “Israel cannot do anything that US does not approve of”? The United States had to USE THE LANGUAGE OF THREAT to stop Israel taking US into another Zionist war.
    Israel knows that the united States do not want to be dragged into another war for Israel. Iraq war was for the interest of Israel as Bush’s advisor, Philip Zelikow, told us.
    Philip Zelikow, Bush advisor from 2001 to 2003 said that:
    Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel:
    [The prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.]

    George Bush was AGAINST the bombing of the imaginary Syrian ‘Nuclear Site” but Israel did it anyway and gave. Stop the nonsense that Israel needs US permission to expand her influence. They obey in certain cases because they cannot carry them out alone.
    This nonsense spread around to let people into this belief that the United States have full control over their ‘client state’ and all the decisions regarding Israeli expansionist policy are made with full cooperation of fools in the WH since it serves American interest as well.
    If this is the case, then why Obama WAS NOT ABLE TO STOP BUILDING MORE ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS which is not in the interest of US?

  12. Deadbeat said on December 12th, 2009 at 3:21pm #

    dino writes …

    DB,could this material help whatsoever the Leftist or is a Zionist manipulation?

    After reading your post it sounds like typical Chomsky rhetoric as Shabnam elaborated. The main thing is that Chomsky is a Zionist so he has an affinity to maintaining the racist construction know as the “Jewish” state by shifting blame to the United States.

    What I describe as “Chomskyism” which is the ideology that has dominated the Left for these past three to four decades has been to maintain a pretense of radicalism while concealing a vile hidden agenda.

    In Chomsky’s case his critique of “U.S. Imperialism” is designed to deflect the influence Zionism has on U.S. Foreign Policy and Jewish Power overall on the U.S. political economy — which would naturally implicate Chomsky himself. Chomsky outright denial of AIPAC’s power and influence in legendary. Chomsky never speaks out for the flow of taxpayer dollars and subsides to stop being sent to a racist/apartheid entity. This makes Chomsky a willful ACCOMPLICE of the status quo.

    The fact that he is attacked by rabid neo-cons like Alan Dershowitz only strengthens the Chomsky facade. The “U.S. Imperialism” canard which is the basis of Chomskyism has become a cottage industry for him.

    “Chomskyites” are masters at manipulating the truth and wearing the facade of political critiques in order to gain their “credibility” among a population that is condition on the mainstream media lies and distortions. Does anyone ever ask how these “left-wing” luminaries are able to jet-set all around the world to “report” on these issues? I can tell you that community and social justice folks I know don’t even have money to fly to Chicago where they have a major Socialist conference every year. Clearly something is amiss.

    The defeat of the Left by the late 1960’s created a vacuum that was filled in by Noam Chomsky and his brand of double-talk. The best critique and analysis of Chomsky comes from Jeffery Blankfort. I’d recommend reading any of his critiques. This is very important for anyone wishing to break free of “Chomskyism”. This is vital if there is any hope of restoring the Left.

  13. Deadbeat said on December 12th, 2009 at 3:33pm #

    bozh writes …

    To me, israel is much of a, or even a total, dependency of US. It is de facto a 51st US state.

    I think Shabnam address his notion of “dependency”. If it wasn’t for the U.S., Israel would be a totally isolated country because the nation at this epoch in history of the world would not tolerate Israel racist and militaristic regime.

    Israel certain could function without the United Stated and find other trading partners if she operated within the guidelines of international law and decency. But since Israel was founded and exist under the ideology of Zionism and injustice well she has to extend her influence within the diaspora in order to parasitically obtain resources and power which she achieves via the Jewish lobby and other Jewish organization in the United States of America.

    It is this truth that Chomsky is well “compensated” to diffuse. Israel is NOT the “51st” state. In fact during this economic crisis states cannot get the money the need. Money to Israel is not on the chopping block and you won’t here Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Antonia Juhesz, Naomi Klein, Greg Palast, and the plethora of “Chomskyites” advocating a boycott of the annual taxpayer aid to Israel.

  14. dino said on December 14th, 2009 at 12:08am #

    DB,Shabnam,Bozh,in my opinion never could be an one criterion to establish the affiliation of people to Left or to the Right.But until now didn’t exist a problem to identify the belongings of someone.True ,when the Left was very strong, then, people of radical left wanted to purify the Left taking out bourgeois elements.So did Marx,Lenin and especially Stalin who made large purges.It is wrong then and is wrong today when Blankfort found that Chomsky is not enough devoted to Palestinian cause because he didn’t speak about Israeli’s lobby and its role.Immediately Blankfort became the man,the leader.I read only Blankfort’s critique on Chomsky and nothing more written by him.The critique doesn’t convince me at all.”The Israeli lobby and US foreign policy”is a book which has ,in my view certainly,
    the merit to bring a description unknown in politology until the book was published.Seems incredible for the common sense that the tail moves the dog and not inversely.This is the reason that the book is considered “controversial”.Probably if Iran will be attacked whole the history will be written under a new angle.But this book didn’t make the authors Leftists.And an other who recognized the importance of the lobby for Israel,Ariel Sharon,was not a Leftist.I’m sure that that people can’t be totally objective.I think that i observed this in articles of Zunes,but i consider him a leftist and the same for Dreyfuss and others.No one of these don’t disdain Merscheimmer and Walt work,only they believe that is not enough to explain such a crime like Iraq invasion.But i believe that the more exactly description of the crimes made by US and Israel or if you want by Israel and US with the support of the “free world” was Chomsky.And if Chavez recommended in UN session to participants to read Hegemony or survival is not an accident.Again,the essential in Chomsky writing could be found in this quote and about it have you to do your critiques,on what he wrote no in what he didn’t.
    “During his address at Boston University, the recognized professor also warned of the threat that the US and Israel posed to the world and said people may have more to fear from the two than those that Washington tries to associate with terrorism.

    “[The US and Israel] consistently and regularly… resort to force and the threat of force… carry out aggression regularly and repeatedly… invade other countries, occupy other countries, [and] invoke terror and violence,” he said.

    Chomsky also pointed out that the US government and its media had spread exaggerated reports about Iran’s nuclear program.

    “There has been a massive propaganda campaign that demonizes Iran, that portrays it as a major threat to world peace that has been going on for the past three years,” he said. “

  15. Deadbeat said on December 14th, 2009 at 12:49am #

    dino, I won’t debate your beliefs. If that is what you choose to believe none of our arguments will persuade you. I read a lot of Chomsky’s writings especially in Z-Magazine during the 1990’s. However it was my involvement in the anti-war movement in 2003 and the Nader campaign in 2004 opened my eyes whereby I had to alter my analysis to coincide with the very relevant facts that could not be ignored.

    The guides to what it means to be a Leftist are justice, honesty, trust, equality. Noam Chomsky has been dishonest on the issues of justice and equality.

  16. bozh said on December 14th, 2009 at 6:07am #

    Shabnam,
    If one was a tabula rasa and heard ‘butiful’ speeches by obama, or US rather, one wld be overjoyed.
    So, what zbig may have said might be comforting and good for world peace if also US wld say that and mean it.

    I do not personalize events. In US there are many war criminals and at least ten k warlords. I am sure, that zo big a liar as big Z will come up with a ‘perfect’ elucidation of what he meant by shooting israeli planes on way to attack iran.

    Until very recently, anglo-saxons have ruled much of the world. Via constant military threats and missiles positioned for fourty yrs at USSR borders they were a big factor in felling USSR.
    Thus, i do not think that the mighty anglo-saxons of today are beeing directed by ‘jews’.
    Anglo-saxons seem to make the best fascists. They never let the right hand know what the left is doing. However, they have never ever fooled any icecold observer.
    Even hitler had been impressed by their ‘solution’ of indian question!
    Also there are other fascists. There never had been more than now. They have never been as strong as now,either.
    Possibly as mean as ever; especially, when it comes who wld prevail as da boss of the four corners of the known world.
    US as also all the other fascist lands are ruled by gangs and gangsters. Their governance does not differ in kind from any biker, street, or mafioso system of rule- only in degree.
    Even if we wld grant that the capo of US gang is a ‘jew’ with other ‘jewish’ members as well, i still say da boss is uncle sam.
    In any case, what’s the difference? Does nationality or cultishness really matter any longer in how a gang functions? tnx
    tnx

  17. down with zionism said on December 14th, 2009 at 8:35am #

    [Until very recently, anglo-saxons have ruled much of the world.]

    Who did run the British Empire? The Jewish aristocracy did.
    Review the following link before jumping to conclusion. The history of British empire and American ‘empire’ tell us that a small group of people who take over, due to their control of money supply and economy, the government and direct its policy. This happens with British Empire and now with American.

    http://www.rense.com/general75/wrus.htm

  18. bozh said on December 14th, 2009 at 11:51am #

    Down w. zionism
    If indeed 001% of UK pop can be the masters of it, it had happened in a fascsit monarchy or an higly undemocratic-inegalitarian society.
    And indeed UK and countless other lands were and are now fascist in different degrees.
    Rich people rule US and UK. ‘Jews’ are proportionally the richest; thus they rule more than any other ethnic group. Still, other ruling groups outnumber ‘jewish’ groups and can easily prevent them from solely or largely ruling a country.
    But they don’t! Why? Because they think exactly the same! So, ‘jewish’ preponderance in ruling a country is a mere symptom and not underlying cause.
    Situation can be corrected with a pen in minutes! Ask the rich people why it isn’t!
    Zionism is land theft. As biden has told u: I am a zionist! He’s not gonna tell u: I am a land robber and murderer, will he?
    A zionist also is not gonna tellya: I came to steal land with intent to murder and expel. That’s what euros have done to indigenes. Hope this clarifies my position! tnx

  19. mr. marian zeneli said on December 14th, 2009 at 12:31pm #

    somehting very importent even is simple .there are survivers of second world war that entered albania in 1944 before i was borne tartars and hungarians .albanians have savedthem is a story about this before i was borne,i am in america now i will send you an article from my hot mail. the way theyfollow me with satellite is illigal they transmit as ear plug radio direct to my head and to publics head is iligal no matter what they say is true.has been since 1984 they ditected themself followin me when i drove from la ca. to nyc i ditected my enemies who made me loose 3 jobs and 3 business even i made news in intervista albania and is known in english in el nuevo coqui in newark nj is known in queens america. f ll

  20. john wilkinson said on December 29th, 2009 at 10:59am #

    “How many of the West Point cadets, how many Americans, give thought to the fact that Afghanistan is surrounded by the immense oil reserves of the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions? Or that Afghanistan is ideally situated for oil and gas pipelines to serve much of Europe and south Asia, lines that can deliberately bypass non-allies of the empire, Iran and Russia?”

    I looked at the map of the Persian gulf and it eludes me how a pipeline through AFGHANISTAN of all places, would facilitate transport of oil/gas therefrom. On one side of the Persian Gulf is Iran. We are going to transport Iranian oil/gas through Afghanistan, in order to avoid dealing with Iran? Or we could transport Iraqi oil over thousands of miles of inhospitable terrain (again, to nowhere), instead of pipelining it through Turkey next door or Jordan (a short hop to the Mediterranean sea), as is done today. On the other side of the Persian Gulf is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has trouble transporting its oil to the West and into Asia? Yes, let’s see. First we’ll ship the oil from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan. Then we’ll pipeline it through Pakistan and Afghanistan — to where exactly? Maybe do a double loop back to Pakistan where we can put it on the tankers again…

    As for the Caspian Sea oil, again I looked at the map (something you didn’t do) and the big reserves are in Kazakhstan. It would be a fool’s errand to pipe that oil EAST (when it’s needed WEST), pipe it through thousands of miles of inhospitable, mountainous, unstable, constantly warring, desperately hopeless regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with millions of tribal jurisdictions, totally lawless lands, still living in the stone ages, which will not join civilization for the next 1,000 years at the very least. Just the energy cost of piping that oil over those mountains, even in the best of circumstances, would be prohibitive. Vs. a short hop across the Caspian Sea (quite a few pipelines have been built on sea floors) and on to Turkey. I do not think for a second than anybody in their right minds is harboring any pipe dreams about this Afghanistan route. Now you can choose to believe some Bush administration official giving some pep talk to their right-wing troops, and take what they say at face value. Funny how you believe them on this, but not on other things.

    What are you talking about, Blum? Parroting the cockamamie ideas of the “progressives”, without even bothering to check some basic facts?

  21. Maryb said on December 29th, 2009 at 11:46am #

    FYI

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

    and from Craig Murray
    (www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/12/obama_is_wrong.html)

    Karzai comes directly from the Bush camp and was put in place because of his role with Unocal in developing the Trans Afghanistan Gas Pipeline project. That remains a chief strategic goal. The Asian Development Bank has agreed finance to start construction in Spring 2011. It is of course a total coincidence that 30,000 extra US troops will arrive six months before, and that the US (as opposed to other NATO forces) deployment area corresponds with the pipeline route.