Jan 212015
 

As Those Who Will Not See

My wife and I had a number of visitors over the holidays, including several foreign friends from our time spent in Europe and the Middle East. Both the Americans and the visitors from overseas eventually came around to wanting to discuss how deformed United States foreign policy has become, noting generally that the elite that runs Washington seems to have no clue about what is going on outside the continental U.S. Worse, there appears to be no appreciation for how negatively the rest of the world views the United States. Several marveled at the mind boggling formulaic speech made by President Barack Obama at Christmas in which he announced that the United States had officially “ended its fighting role” in Afghanistan, a blatant bit of misdirection in that Washington is retaining more than 10,800 troops in the country with full authorization to engage the Taliban as necessary.

Continue reading »

Share Button
Nov 262014
 

The US led war against the Islamic State is a big lie.

Going after ”Islamic terrorists”, carrying out a worldwide pre-emptive war to “Protect the American Homeland” are used to justify a military agenda.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a creation of US intelligence. Washington’s “Counter-terrorism Agenda” in Iraq and Syria consists in Supporting the Terrorists.

The incursion of the Islamic State (IS) brigades into Iraq starting in June 2014 was part of a carefully planned military-intelligence operation supported covertly by the US, NATO and Israel.

The counter-terrorism mandate is a fiction. America is the Number One “State Sponsor of Terrorism”

The Islamic State is protected by the US and its allies. If they had wanted to eliminate the Islamic State brigades, they could have “carpet” bombed their convoys of Toyota pickup trucks when they crossed the desert from Syria into Iraq in June.

Continue reading »

Share Button
Nov 242014
 

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) Global Terrorism Database – part of a joint government-university program on terrorism – is hosted at the University of Maryland.

START is the most comprehensive open source terrorism database, which can be viewed by journalists and civilians lacking national security clearance.

A quick review of charts from the START database show that terrorism has increased in the last 9 years since the U.S. started its “war on terror”.

This chart shows the number of terror attacks conducted in Iraq:

Continue reading »

Share Button
Nov 192014
 

How do you like the Journal’s war?”

So boasted the headline of William Randolph Hearst’s New York flagship that week in 1898 that the United States declared war on Spain.

While Hearst’s Journal, in a circulation battle with Joe Pulitzer’s World, was a warmongering sheet, it did not start the war.

Yet the headline comes to mind reading the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages seem to have concluded that on Nov. 4 America voted for new wars in the Middle East, and beyond.

On Nov. 13, the Journal’s op-ed page was given over to Mark Dubowitz and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Assuming nuclear talks with Iran conclude unsuccessfully by the Nov. 24 deadline, they write, we have four options.

Continue reading »

Share Button
Oct 102014
 

Common wisdom would purport that those on the so-called “right” are and have always been hawkish and pro-war, while those on the proverbial “left” have always been the tree-hugging, peacenik, anti-war folks. For many conservatives, unfortunately, this is more or less correct. However, progressives have once again airbrushed their own past, which is about as anti-war as, well, war.

Much of this perception is relatively recent and primarily boils down to the Iraq War. The neoconservative warmongering was in full swing and for his part, Barack Obama gave a rather pleasant speech about his opposition to the war before it began. In his book, Obama elaborated,

What I sensed, though, was that the threat Saddam posed was not imminent, the Administration’s rationales for war were flimsy and ideologically driven, and the war in Afghanistan was far from complete.[1]

Not terribly bad, at least for a politician.

Continue reading »

Share Button
Aug 272014
 

Washington sabotaged its own “war on terror” by destabilizing the Middle East even as it coddled the U.S. allies who were actually sponsoring terrorism.

The rise of ISIS and the fall of Mosul have laid bare the central contradiction’s in Washington’s failed “war on terror.” (Photo: U.S. Army / Flickr)

There are extraordinary elements in the present U.S. policy in Iraq and Syria that are attracting surprisingly little attention.

In Iraq, the U.S. is carrying out air strikes and sending in advisers and trainers to help beat back the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (better known as ISIS) on the Kurdish capital, Erbil. The U.S. would presumably do the same if ISIS surrounds or attacks Baghdad. But in Syria, Washington’s policy is the exact opposite: there the main opponent of ISIS is the Syrian government and the Syrian Kurds in their northern enclaves. Both are under attack from ISIS, which has taken about a third of the country, including most of its oil and gas production facilities.

Continue reading »

Share Button
Aug 012014
 

Writing in Ha’aretz today, Gideon Levy predicts that ultimately the Netanyahu government will pay a heavy price for the atrocities being inflicted on the people of Gaza. He writes:

I’m no fan of Hamas, quite the contrary. But Israel’s attempt to put all the blame on Hamas is outrageous. The international community will soon judge this war’s atrocities. Hamas may be reprimanded, deservedly, but Israel will be condemned and ostracized far more. And then Israelis will say, ‘It’s Hamas’ fault. And the world will laugh.

I don’t agree. I don’t see that happening for one obvious reason: the power of the Israel lobby.

Think about it. When it comes to Israel, the United States is the ball game. It provides Israel with the money, the weapons, and the United Nations’ vetoes that enable both the occupation and its multiple wars (like this one) to preserve it. And that shows no sign of changing.

Continue reading »

Share Button
Jul 232014
 

The US Empire’s Three Regional Axes of Power in the Middle East

Empires are not easy to sustain given the multiple enemies that they provoke: at the international level (imperial rivals and emerging new powers), at the national level (national resistance movements, unreliable clients and untrustworthy ‘Sepoy’ armies) and at the local level (boycotts, sabotage and strikes).

Imperial difficulties are multiplied when an empire is in economic decline, (loss of market shares with growing debt), facing domestic unrest as the economic costs to the taxpayers exceed the returns by a substantial margin; and when the political elite is internally divided between ‘militarists’ and ‘free market’ advocates.

The US Empire today is in the midst of a long-term decline, during which it has suffered a series of costly defeats. In addition, Washington has assumed long-term burdensome commitments to allies who have imposed their own ambitions of seeking ‘mini empires’ (Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia).

The US White House has increasingly adopted a military definition of ‘imperial leadership’ at the expense of reconfiguring imperial relations to accommodate potential new political and economic partners.

Continue reading »

Share Button
Jul 212014
 

In the 1984, millions of people in movie audiences in the US were subjected to a right-wing action movie entitled “Red Dawn.” The film depicted a Soviet-Cuban-Nicaraguan invasion of the United States. It starred Patrick Swayze as a leader of a band of high school aged guerrillas called “Wolverines” who fought against the invaders in the mountains of Colorado.

The film was a vulgar piece of Anti-Communist propaganda, and was widely criticized for its lack of plot structure, and its highly graphic depictions of violence. The film has been listed by many mass murders, such as Timothy Mcveigh and Dylan Klebold, as a favorite.

The film’s plot was beyond unrealistic. The idea of a Soviet, Cuban, and Nicaraguan invasion of the United States was absurd. However, the Hollywood film, still routinely shown on US cable television, fit right into the foreign policy rhetoric of then president Ronald Reagan. Much like many earlier Hollywood films from the 1950s, it screamed “The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!”, hoping to build a justification for US militarism around the world. Such rhetoric had been used during the Vietnam and Korean wars as well.

Continue reading »

Share Button
Jun 202014
 

Prior to the U.S. government’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, longtime supporters of The Future of Freedom Foundation will recall that we stood squarely against the operation.

We emphasized that the excuse given for the operation — that Saddam Hussein was supposedly about to unleash nuclear weapons and other WMDs against the United States — was entirely bogus and was simply a clever device to garner support from the American people.

We pointed out that the U.S. government had no constitutional authority to invade Iraq because there was no congressional declaration of war, as the Constitution requires. If President Bush had tried to secure a congressional declaration of war, the likelihood is that some members of Congress would have exposed the WMD scare as bogus.

Continue reading »

Share Button