Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Military Solution to a War on Terrorism is Doomed
It's a sore temptation to hunt down Osama bin Laden - one of the most consistent campaign promises made by President Obama - and yet there are strong arguments against it. U.S. forces would have to penetrate deep into provincial Pakistan and perhaps even conduct house-to-house searches. Such incursions would destabilize Pakistan's already shaky regime and inflame the extremist element. More troops would have to be committed to the Afghanistan war zone, with no positive outcome in sight. And making a martyr of bin Laden would probably incite a crop of new terrorists as deadly as he and his cohorts.
But the most compelling reason is that any solely military solution to terrorism is doomed to fail. Right now, U.S. intelligence knows that the jihadist movement is endemic in the extremist sects of Islam. It exists from neighborhood to neighborhood, dinner table to dinner table, across a vast swath of the globe. Although terrorism is a tactic, what lies behind it is an idea, and once an idea seeps into people's brains, bombs and mortar attacks won't defeat it. That's why Israel's overwhelming military superiority to Hezbollah and Hamas hasn't defeated those movements and never will - this is an enemy for whom death is a victory of the spirit.
Our only hope against Islamic terrorism is to police it in the short run, and offer a more enticing idea in the long run. Peace and social reform are both enticing ideas. Changing our strategic relationship with corrupt regimes that receive significant foreign assistance from the United States is a second important step. The United States must shift its anti-terrorism policy in those directions. Because the United States kept pursuing a military solution, the 2004 presidential election was a poisoned chalice. Whoever won it would be plunged into the quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq. The 2008 election was better. Both candidates pledged to leave Iraq, Republican Sen. John McCain under the face-saving banner of "victory;" Democratic Sen. Obama under the more realistic banner of ending an unjust war that should never have been started.
There is a military difference between "deploying" more soldiers to Afghanistan and "employing" them within the country - in an effective way. If President Obama insists on troop buildups in Afghanistan and a promise to hunt down bin Laden, we must all recognize that a country should not pursue two contradictory ideas at the same time: one, that terrorism is stateless, and two, that military forays into foreign states are productive. The chief reason to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, once we entered and found chaos, is humanitarian, as it has been for at least five years. Both are failed states; both are rife with violent extremists. Age-old hatreds won't die easily in either region, and yet the United States can't stand by and let those hatreds turn into genocide and endless combat.
The United Nations and NATO must rally to carry out the humanitarian goals that need to be pursued. But that's not the same as deluding ourselves into believing that we are defeating terrorism. Bush's war on terror was a horrendous mistake, an ideological delusion and a failed tactic. It alienated most of the world and created as many extremists as it defeated. Obama knows all this. Now it's time for him to lead us out of a self-created quagmire. The United States can't have it both ways, talking peace but maintaining a hostile military presence in the region, neither Pakistan, nor Afghanistan has a government seen as legitimate by its population. Neither has the ability, or the national will to police its borders, or seriously confront extremism, or foreign fighters. History has already taught us how these endeavors end, and they do not end well. No matter how just our cause, we are seen as aggressors, and may just as likely suffer the death of a thousand cuts, just like Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, the British Empire and the Soviet Union. Without establishing a foundation of legitimacy, and hope, or any semblance of the rule of law, a purely military strategy will likely be defeated in the end.
- Posted in
54 Comments so far
Show AllThe way to "win" the war on terrorism is to face the false choices it presents and stop the war. It couldn't be easier.
If military adventurism and meddling in the Middle East was the trigger for Islamist terrorism, then the only sane fix to the problem is to cease military aggression.
As Will Rogers put it, "When you get into trouble five thousand miles from home you’ve got to have been looking for it."
For America, where every problem must be addressed with a "war", the lesson will never be learned. War is America's business model. Only a national revolution of consciousness and conscience will change this. The present corporate media/corporate government complex will resist any such revolution.
http://davedubya.com
As soon as a national revolution of consciousness and conscience occurs in the nations who believe they have the right to turn the world into an Islamic colony, war will always occur. No one likes to be oppressed by mean people who torture, starve and enslave people. The US's involvement in war has been a response to fighting that someone else started, and their victims can't stop. If ‘military adventurism and meddling in the Middle East was the trigger for Islamist terrorism’, you’d be correct – stop military aggression. But Islamic terrorism has been going on since the 600s AD, when Islam was invented. Since there was no US then, the US cannot be blamed because these people are carrying out a 1200 year old legacy. Al Qaida got into trouble 5000 miles from home in the US when they went looking for trouble on September 11, 2001. This quote works outside the US with other people, too.
Uhhh...you need to restudy history and then revise your logic of cause and effect.
rof
lol
Is that your best comeback??
That was a comeback? I don't even know what the hell he said.
Sioux Rose
DAVE D: Very well said.
Once again I repeat: there is no war "on" terror; however, there is a War OF Terror, which is a morphing of the War on Communism. Note how much difference in meaning is made by just changing the preposition. Which is more correct, "on" or "of"?
I am quite impressed at how the formerly apolitical new-age health guru Deepak Chopra has become so outspoken on this issue. Good for him!
I'm sure he stands are not popular with many of his new-age followers who tend to be rather averse to strong political stands - it causes them anxiety when they have to think about the suffering of others besides themselves.
---USAn---
Deepak makes the same mistake lots of people make - they try to use the tools of their successful regular job to try to solve the problems of someone else's job. It does not work.
I'm sure Deepak would laugh if the Pentagon tried to tell Deepak what consciousness and philosophical approaches and nuances he should use in his conversations about health food and world peace.
What the heck does Deepak know about what the US intelligence knows? Last I heard, he was nowhere on their list of “advisors”.
Yes, the ‘jihadist movement’ is everywhere in Islam. The Koran is rather explicit, Deepak. ”jihad” means ‘struggle’. And the Koran orders its followers to kill anyone who is not a muslim. The ‘struggle’ is to purify the world for Islam. The Koran wants them to use all means available – and it assures its combatants that they will go to heaven ONLY if they die in a holy jihad. So, yes, jihadist movements are everywhere throughout the Islamic cultures, their religion orders it.
Ahh, Deepak, the lure of a quick buck with this article was too much, right?
Deepak, with all due respect: keep your day job.
Deepak is simply speaking out as a citizen in a Democracy as we all should. His name-recognition is just an extra perk.
The rest of your comment is just utter racist, islamophobic nonsense.
Please find out were you local islamic center and ask the Imam to explain the Q'ran to you - like it's commandment for hospitality and material support for the poor, and it's condemnation of usury and exploitation of the labor of others - i.e capitalism.
There are also battles and bloodshed in the Q'ran, but nothing like the utterly racist genocidal commandments to the Jews in their holy book. They prougly exterminated the Philistines (Palestinians), Cannanites, Amorites, Jerhicoans, Sodom and Gomorrah etc, etc. ad nauseum, as their "god" commanded.
(OK, in the case of S&G, their "god" did the job himself)
---USAn---
Slayer,
Though I commend you for correctly translating "jihad" to mean "struggle", as opposed to "holy war" like the majority of brainwashed Americans do, I must also remind you of the many other nuances of that word within the Islamic tradition and Muhammed's teachings. As I understand it, the most important part of this "struggle" refers to the inner struggle one must go through with their beliefs and their "surrender to" or "peace with" God - that is what the word "Islam" means. "Struggle" against non-believers or foreigners was only as a last resort, when their homes and family have been threatened. The Qu'ran is far from perfect, and there are certainly fanatics within this religion that twist their book's words (as also happens in Christianity and Judaism), but I find your post blowing some things a bit out of proportion. There are plenty of verses in the Qu'ran that speak out against and condemn violence against others.
P.S. No, I am not a Muslim.
P.P.S. As a metal head, I really like your name (if it was used in honor of the band).
"And the Koran orders its followers to kill anyone who is not a muslim."
And the Torah states: "Annihilate the Amalekites (Palestinians) from the beginning to the end. Kill them and wrest them from their possessions. Show them no mercy. Kill continuously, one after the other. Leave no child, plant, or tree. Kill their beasts, from camels to donkeys."
So we have 2 religious tomes advocating genocide. The Bible has it's own version: Deuteronomy 7:2 says, "And when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."
All three books may be interpreted to advocate mass genocide, terrorism, torture and other sins against god and humanity. Sounds like its time to deep-6 religion, which has done nothing but bring pain to mankind.
So whats your point? Clearly you (incorrectly) interpret Muslim teachings to meet your own agenda, but turn a blind eye to the heinous crimes of others.
Were you born with the letter "L" tatooed on your forehead, or is it new?
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
Sioux Rose
PJD: I'm disappointed with this article for two reasons: 1. Its narrow-minded presumption that Bin Laden IS the boogeyman American media made him out to be and 2. He makes some glaring prejudicial statements that reinforce this idea of Islamo fascist terrorists.
Although Deepak explains that you can't win a war of force by using force (shades of giving the bankers who stole, yet more money TO steal), he doesn't really go to the roots of what causes nations to implode from within. In short, he's only giving U.S. foreign policy the gentlest of slaps on the wrist, and I think this is to preserve his career as a mainstream big selling author. I think he's a highly intelligent individual and have attended some of his talks, but to me, this article goes too much along with "the party line." I find it disingenuous. There's a subliminal sense that the U.S. is supposed to be in these other lands, that it has some natural moral mandate to tell other people how to live. I guess I am sensing chauvinism here.
PJD and Sioux Rose,
I agree with both of you. I do appreciate the fact that Deepak Chopra is speaking up more when it comes to world peace, militarism and foreign policy. He has some important and lucid insights into things that are sorely lacking in public discourse, and it is voices like HIS we need MORE of, rather than the usual mouthpieces for the military-industrial complex.
That being said . . . I also, like Sioux Rose, found his explanation of things to be still locked in the box of the official story. I had the same problem with his recent book "Peace is the Way", though most of it was wonderful. Bin Laden is America's equivalent of Orwell's Emmanuel Goldstein, propped up to keep the people in fear and thus, under control. NO ONE has ever come up with any credible evidence that he was behind 9/11, and as it has been repeated by me and others a couple times on this site already, even the official FBI website does not mention that event as something for which he is wanted. Bin Laden was a very important CIA asset, and to think that relationship has totally dissolved is a bit n-a-double dot-i-v-e. IF he is even still alive at all - many sources have reported he died a few years ago in a safe US military hospital. For Mr. Chopra to garner more of my respect (for which he has much already), I think he needs to question the official explanation of things a bit more and work at dismantling the MIC.
"You must unlearn what you have learned" - Jedi Master Yoda
I also applaud Deepak's crossing over into another field of writing, but also mark a point of disconnect, mine being with this statement: "Our only hope against Islamic terrorism is to police it in the short run, and offer a more enticing idea in the long run. Peace and social reform are both enticing ideas." As others have said the use of Islamic terrorism falls into the collective mainstream voice that de-humanizes, setting up a scenario of endless fantastical jousting at enemy windmills, and the use of peace and social reform as merely "ideas" reveals the possible fact that Deepak, though highly in tune to consciousness, and as friendly a fellow as he is, leaves that connection in the realm of thought, and as of yet not brought to a earthly heart of action.
If the US was with peace a few years back when Pakistan was challenged by the severe earthquake, the US would have been able to respond on a human level with an organic moral response of humanitarian aid and infrastructure support. It is this type of "social reform" and "peace" in action that will expose current war behavior as archaic and cause if to fall away in a process as natural as breathing.
Regardless, kudos to Deepak for the courage to move outside his comfort zone and engage "the argument". It will help many swirling in fantasia to contemplate, and hopefully act on, a different earth reality.
"a scenario of endless fantastical jousting at enemy windmills"
A wonderful turn of phrase. Kudos! : )
No kudos from me. I don't see where he has stepped outside of his comfort zone of feel-good guru by stepping into the role of feel-good preacher/politician. This is just the kind of blather that allows, and even encourages Americans to feel comfortable as we continue to make life hell on earth for the unfortunate souls we claim we want to, um, spread democracy to.
Oh . . . and I also have yet to hear him speak out against Israel and its blatant genocide for the last 60 years. That most definitely ties in with your second point, Sioux, about his prejudicial statements.
- karlof1 -
And again I repeat: the government and the military are waging a war using the wording 'war on terrorism' and the American public are ignoring it as best they can, and this is not helpful.
Mr. Obama - 'Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terror'
The US military awards the 'Global War on Terrorism Service Medal'
Our enemies in this insane war are al-Qaeda and Taliban, as announced by former Prez Bush and following the instructions of Congress in Public Law 107-40.
'War on Terror' is the name given to this madness. Remember, in 1941 the US did NOT declare itself to be in 'World War II'. That was a name given to the historic period of worldwide conflict.
So let's use the same wording as the government and military in order to speak the same language and show the insanity and madness of such a military effort.
Afghanistan has been called Russia's Viet nam. The Russian military had an estimated 450,000 troops in Afghanistan and after 12 years were defeated. We have 30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Obama is talking about increasing it to 60,000. What is wrong with this picture?
What is right with this picture? Russia didn't have Predator drones and GPS, satellites and other sophisticated materiel that preclude the use of lots of boots on the ground. They used a plodding, WWII model for fighting, and that never works with guerilla warfare. Obama is cautious. He would not put the US into a Russia-Afghan no-win situation. He's the King of Tech, trust him to use it to the Afghan's best purposes, and this nightmare will be over very soon and honorably.
It was the same hubris that defeated the Russians. The Russians used a professional army (no weekend-warriors) and the best technology available at the time, to no avail. I don't care if we have cute little 'droids and Star Wars rayguns; you really need to read more on the history of warfare instead of watching the Discovery Channel (funded by the MIC) and playing PS2 games. Tackling insurgency can never be successful when sitting behind a computer screen, as you suggest.
Besides diplomacy, the best tool for tackling insurgents is good old-fashioned police work. Boots on the ground, talking to people, making friends and alliances, and simple, non-dramatic arrests.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
No one can argue with the honor of the police. Clinton refused to do anything when the World Trade Centers were bombed the first time by one of the men in Gitmo. Clinton thought the act was so insignificant he did not even go to New York to see for himself or talk to any of the victims, etc. He said, quote: "It's a police problem."
And what did we get for letting terrorists use our police to keep us from defending ourselves? 9/11/2001.
The police have their place, but these thugs who attacked the USS Cole, murdering 19 Americans, our two embassies in Africa, killing and maiming hundreds, brought down the two World Trade Center Towers and murdered 3000 of us on 9/11, acted far outside the purview of any police agency on the planet. Only a trained, well-armed, huge military - sometimes the combined militaries of many countries - could prevent anything else like this from happening again.
The bobbies in London didn't keep their metro train from being bombed by Islamic terrorists. Same for Spain. Same for the Bali nightclubs. The police in Mumbai couldn't contain the Pakistani terrorists hell-bent on jihad, and the US police, as great as they are, could not stop Atta et al from hijacking 3 planes and destroying part of New York City.
Sometimes, it takes a military to save a village.
The USS Cole was a military blunder. Cole was sailing at a threat level considerably lower than it should have been given the hostile Yemeni environment. Unarmed sailors allowed the dinghy to get closer than recommended in the Navy Ops Manual. Many suspect the sailors paid with their lives for a bungled political gesture orchestrated by the State Department aimed at turning Yemen into a more friendly participant in Middle East peace initiatives.
No smug answer for the Embassy bombings - I've not read about them.
We were warned by several intelligence agencies about 9/11, and failed to act. If Bush had been awake, this could have easily, and quietly prevented by the FBI.
The US military, a political pawn, have been the source of US woes, and a sink for it's treasure, for 60 years. Y'know, if we don't stick our head above the trenches, we won't be fired upon.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
USS Cole and false flag operations...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=649_1218283497
"Tackling insurgency can never be successful...behind a computer screen." If that's all that was happening, I could agree with you. But, of course, a computer screen and its contents and the software that makes things happen are actually what is going on, isn't it? War by tech is not like a computer game that you play til you're bored then turn off and walk away. It's handled by professionals, and they just do their job. What we see is not how they use these computers et al, what we see is their results. You can downplay this all you want, but even Obama knows that our War Colleges learned their lessons from Russia-Afghan, and they have not made the same mistakes. Otherwise, Obama would NEVER have agreed to put troops into Afghan, would he? "Hubris" did not end the war in Iraq - pure hard, filthy, unbelievably painful work did it. "Hubris" is talk and attitude. "Winning a war" takes action. That's what has happened in Iraq. And who can use "hubris" when none of the mainstream "media" will cover the truth?
You have time to watch Discovery Channel? Good for you.
As long as jihadists believe they can't get into heaven unless they are killing people who are not muslims, there cannot be any solution that does not involve force and fighting. The people to talk to are the people who believe this. That would be Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban and Al Qaida. Thanks to meeting them at their own force level, the former 12,000-member force of Al Qaida in Iraq is now down to 1200. Because they are contained and ready to quit, Iraq just had a successful, Iraqi-led election. Negotiations are useful when both sides want to end fighting. When only one side, like the US, and Obama, want to end fighting, the fighting will never end. Usually, meeting force with more force will get the combatants to sit down and talk. Obama knows that, even though he did not let on during his campaign. A military solution to war on terrorism is not doomed, so long as the terrorists refuse to give up fighting. It is the FIRST option leading to a solution, which will happen when they put their weapons down and sit down at the table or when they do not exist to fight anymore.
...the former 12,000-member force of Al Qaida in Iraq is now down to 1200
Reference, please.
I believe this is a propagation of the myth of AQ in Iraq. Independent estimates place the number of AQ members in Iraq at their peak to be around 1,000, which is consistent with the estimate that of all attacks in Iraq, only 15% were conducted by members of AQ.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html
Terrorism is best tackled by the police, not the military, a reason why there have been no terrorist attacks in the US since 2003. The military are as useless as tits on a bull when it comes to fighting terrorism. Look at how useless the 6-year occupations have been in Iraq and Afghanistan, to which there will be no end. But perhaps this is exactly what the MIC wants.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
From the London Sunday Times, Published in Business Investors Daily, 2008:
"London 's Sunday Times called it 'the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.' A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq , has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul."
We have just about mopped up the war on terrorism in Iraq, so much so that we can now pull troops out and bring them home, or send them to the next hot spot that threatens innocent victims, like Afghanistan. And Obama knows this and knew it during the campaign, he just didn’t mention it. War is the only solution for people who only want to kill.
Are you really that delusional? You have not won anything in Iraq...Only the the Green Zone and nowhere else. The same goes in Afghanistan: You have a mayor of kabul and warlords elsewhere....You can't be that stupid unless you are gearge Wanker Bush himself.
Pardon, sir..."I" have not won anything. This war is not about "me".
Obama himself said we could move troops out of Iraq and move them elsewhere or bring them home. "I" didn't say that, the President did. Do not call the President or anyone else 'stupid'.
My dear old granny used to tell me, "Child, sometimes what you believe and what is true are not always the same thing. Might make you want to cry or get mad, but it will rarely change your mind..."
Believe what you want, or believe what is so. Just remember, you may not actually know what is so, because the leftist media in this country has done a stellar job of not telling you.
Fortunately, there are other sources besides MSNBC.
I say that because at one time in this country the media knew its only job was to report the news, not make it up, not add its own bias, not throw in its own spin. Journalists and publications prided themselves on reporting the truth. Used to be when the news reported it, it was actually something you could rely on. Since the 60s, however, lying has become a way of life, and former trusting people became cynical.
The drop in revenues and readership and Nielsen ratings for the leftist outfits still doesn't tell them the problem - many people know they are liars, and they won't waste their time or pay for the opportunity to be insulted.
I don't watch any US media. If you think that the US media is leftist, then you must be way off to the right that you don't register on it.
It seem that you get your news source from the gasbag Limbaugh...
God, you are a class A moron.
Obama is doing what Bush should have done in the first place, finish of AQ where it is based and not invade Iraq to steal their oil.
the GREEN ZONE in Baghdad is the USA's Iraq Version of the "MAYOR OF KABUL" in Afghanistan and NOW also in Pakistan where Nato/US forces can't even get their replenishments except for the mercy of the "insurrectionists"....who of course want the foreign interlopers OUT of their region...it's that simple.
as the conservative columnist Patrich Buchanan CORRECTLY says about this matter of US empire and trying to dictate to the globe how to "behave" according to US designs (upon THEIR riches) --
"WE SHOULD GET OUT OF THIS BUSINESS OF EMPIRE ...AND GET OUT OF THOSE LANDS -- BEFORE THEY KICK US OUT".
but then -- the USA is nothing if NOT DUMB and DENSE and proven to be INCAPABLE of learning from History.
THAT is after all WHY the USA has built its own Mythology of "exceptionalism".
that is of course ALSO why its own HUBRIS - as the Ancient greeks who coined the definition said , would ALSO "MEET WITH NEMESIS".........
and it appears that its nemesis IS its own Hubris.
as Pogo in the comics said to his friend after long years of being afraid of threats and rivals "out there" that are not like us:
"I HAVE MET THE ENEMY --- and he is US".
OK, it took a while, but I found the source for the original article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276486.ece
I remain unconvinced. The author, US war journalist Marie Colvin, is an embedded journalist for the UK Sunday Times. As we have seen for 6 years, embedded journalists parrot what they are told, and she does not state the source of her information.
I would really like to see an official report.
As for "mopping up the war on terrorism", remember there were none in that country until the US invaded. How do we know the people killed there were AQ? Do they have AQ dog tags? Maybe "I heart AQ" tatooed on their forehead?
We just don't know.
Finally: War is the only solution for people who only want to kill.
You mean, "War is the only occupation for people who only want to kill."
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
Aaaah slayer - you left out 'for mom. and apple pie, and country'.
Every group you mention was created and trained by the CIA or it's allies(Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) with U.S. $$$$.
In case, you had not noticed most of the victims killed by all participants are MUSLIMS.
Your use of false syllogisms is really appalling.
BTW - there has been no evidence presented to date that Osama Bin Laden or any member of the named groups had anything to do with 9/11 - the ostensible cause for the GWOT. This puts it in the same category as the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
BTW - your utter lack of historical knowledge about the Middle East and the religion of Islam really shows.
But I could be wrong !
"Every group you mention was created and trained by the CIA or it's allies(Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) with U.S. $$$$."
You are lying here. The myth that US 'created' al-qaida and 'trained' bin laden have been proven to the false. Do some research. Al-Qaida did not even exist until 1990, in response to Iraqi aggression towards Saudi Arabia and US troops being stationed there. The modern group is a marriage between bin laden's original group and Egytian Islamic Jihad. Bin Laden did serve in Afghanistan, but with an Arab group with different objectives, oh yea, and ITS OWN MONEY. The US supported Afghan rebels, not Arabs. Look it up. And NO training came from the CIA. Why do you lie like that?
Are you telling me 'Wilson's War' was a lie.
Massud2, you are only telling part of the story. Pakistan - an ally provided funding with US $ to both Taliban and Al-Quaeda during the 90s. The US guv directly funded the Taliban. Bin Laden and many of his group were trained by CIA pre AlQuaeda days - this is splitting hairs. The source was penultimately US sources and we suffered blowback - as they say. We funded and trained any and all who fought the Russians in Afghanistan - even those who were pushing the Wahhabi version of Islam and killing the moderate and liberal Afghan leaders. My sources are Afghans in this case. What's yours?
Bin Laden did not receive training from the CIA. Even Peter Bergen agreed as much. The US's role is GROSSLY exaggerated and in some places outright fabricated to make the broader arguement that "US opposes left-wing governments, then bad things will happen". Again, the myth that the US created al-qaida has been debunked.
Bin Laden was the US blue-eyed boy during the Afghan war against Russia. You think its a coincident that the Bin Laden Family and the Bush Family are close friends? Your historical fact are from war propaganda where truth is always the first casualty.
Look up Wilson's war as mentioned earlier. Peter Bergen is covering up somebody's ass.
Please give another source in support of the "debunking" of the US/Al Queda relationship. Peter Bergen just doesn't do it for me.
Wow. Peter Bergen. Well, I guess that cinches it.
the words of SECRETARY OF STATE under Jimmy Carter , ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI sum it all up == when he told Carter gloatingly after the USSR was "baited" to protect its s0uthern borders from the taliban or alqueda through US "encouragement" ...
"WE HAVE JUST GIVEN THE SOVIET UNION THEIR OWN VIETNAM".
they of course tried it with GEORGIA recently , among other "orange revolution" projects instigated by the USA to "encircle" Russia....
isn't it GRAND -- how much LUST the United States of America carries for the riches of OTHER nations?
"IT IS SO UNFAIR!!!!!...THAT one country has ALL those riches and resources....SOMETHING should be done about it"!!!! Secretary of State Madame Madeleine Albright....
they NEVER stop LUSTING after others' wealth, don't they?....
but then -- what does one expect........the UNITED STATES after ALL WAS founded on LUST for an entire continent that was peopled by Native Indians - and in order to further its Robbery - ROBBED over 20 million africans of their lives and freedoms and TORE them away from their home....
ALL FOR CAPITALISM , PROFIT and POWER.
but done so in the NAME of God Country and "liberty and justice"..,....
what FRAUDULENCE..........it's breathtaking in its breadth , depth and utter Hypocritical ROTTENNESS.
Who is YOUR source? Or are you making up facts as you go?
Could be, aren't.
Can invaded countries sue US?
if there was an impartial or TRULY JUST arbiter from outerspace with POWER to apply justice;;;
enabling nations the USA has UNDERMINED in its quest for global dominance (while screaming about "threats by enemies to global peace and justice") -- with over 200 military expeditions using the "BIG MUSCLE" of the USA - its military power - "to make the world safe for OUR capitalism and exploitation by our Big Business, Big Money and Big Finance, all in service of Our BIG BOSS...our Supernationalistic Capitalism" (General Smedley Butler) --
to DO THAT would IMPOVERISH the united states RIGHT BACK to where it REALLY was WORTH before , as a nation, it embarked on expansion outside of the original 13 colonies...and perhaps even inclusive of THAT...
it would REQUIRE the United States - and EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN - justly or not to themselves as inheritors of the legacy of US IMPERIALISM -- to PAY BACK to the rest of the world what the United States of america REALLY OWES....
it woudl require PAYING BACK for the lives and futures of over 20 million africans...and their descendants...
it woudl require paying back for the DESTRUCTION of entire economies and cultures and for teh theft of their resources, riches, cheapened labor at the instigation and demands of American "big business and big money and finance".....
in other wordsm-- the UNITED STATES would be PAUPERIZED many thousands of times OVER .....
"OUR FOREIGN POLICY HAS ALWAYS BEEN GEARED towards gathering as much of the world's resources unto ourselves.....at the expense of other, weaker nations. The True purpose of our Military is to make the world safe for Capitalism and our economic and cultural assault.....the Military is the BIG MUSCLE of our BIG MONEY and BIG FINANCe and BIG BUSINESS to do the bidding of our Chamber of Commerce...I was its Chief Enforcer...War is nothing but a Racket of Big Money and Finance and Business..it has nothing to do with Freedom or Democracy or Justice". General Smedley Butler.
"The USA is the largest and most successful empire the world has known....we have built this empire based on Manipulation, Torture, Assassinations, fomenting instabilities against governments uncooperative to our demands, over and covert Military projects, blackmail, and plain Thievery of other countries' riches...I was an economic hitman...our job was to UNDERMINE the economies of weaker nations and through blackmail or threats and usurious loans , make them Subject to our exploitation...if that failed....we sent assassins or fomented instabilities to blame their governments for mismanagement...if that failed , we resorted to other methods such as sanctions..if that failed...that's when we send in the Big Guns..our Military......that's what you are seeing now in Iraq......I was part of that Project of American Empire"........
JOHN PERKINS .. former CIA operative in his book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"...
There is a reason it's called Afghanistan, Graveyard of Empires.
in Afganistan was the great critical blow that began the onrush of the decline and eventual collapse, bankruptcy and impotence of the British Empire:
the "Poet of Empire" rudyard kipling who GLORFIED EMPIRE in the heydeys of the Victorian Era , just before the beginning of the colllapse ...and who - to further "honor" the "glory of empire" browbeat his own son to go to war where the son died...
and upon witnessing Britain's beginning of collapse in AFGHANISTAN said eventually in a poem ON A GRAVE OF A SOLDIER that symbolizes "Empire" by the western nations:
"HERE LIES A MAN THAT TRIED TO HUSTLE THE EAST".
THE same will happen to the "exceptional nation"...which is NOW in the phase of "not THAT exceptional after all, except for THINKING so"...FROM what was once openly , boastfully declared as "the SOLE SUPERPOWEr, the HYPERPOWER, the INDISPENSABLE NATION".......
it is because it is ROTTEN from WITHIN and the HOLES keep breaking out the more it tries to "conserve" its own MYTHICAL FANTASY of being the "dominant power on earth, forever".
If the US and Europe would just BUTT OUT and quit doling out our tax dollars to giving them loads of WMDs, we wouldn't be fucked. And there's no such thing as "War on Terrorism" ! War creates terror so you can't or won't win a "war on terror" !