Planetary Rescue Operations [Filtered & blocked by Google!]

Obama condemns 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Posted by msrb on December 2, 2009

Submitted by a reader

Once Again Americans Are Shafted Major

Presidential Trojan Horse Commits 30,000 Troops to Afghan Insanity

America’s Serial Wars Have Nothing to Do With National Security: Spot The Difference [sic]

Korean War (1950-1953) – More than 300,000 US forces were deployed in Korea. During the last year of the conflict, about 37,000 US troops were killed in action.
Vietnam War (1961-1975) – The United States escalated the war in Vietnam.  By April 1969 543,000 military personnel were fighting in Vietnam. [Of the American troops 58,159 were killed; 2,000 are missing; 303,635 were wounded.]

Many other wars, conflicts and military operations followed throughout the world… Then came Operation Urgent Fury, Grenada (1983); Operation Just Cause, Panama (1989); Operation Desert Storm, Iraq (January and February 1991); Operation Restore Hope, Somalia (1993); Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan (2001-2002); Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraq (2003-present); Operation Obama’s Vietnam, Afghanistan (2009 to way beyond)

U.S. President Barack Obama poses for photos with cadets at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York, December 1, 2009. Obama plans to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan over six months in a bid to beat back the Taliban and bring a quicker end to a costly and unpopular eight-year war [sic.] REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES POLITICS MILITARY CONFLICT). Image may be subject to copyright.

Who Benefits From the War in Afghanistan?

In NO way do the American public (We the People), the US troops, the Afghan people, or even the Taliban benefit from the war in Afghanistan financially, materially, ecologically, socially, ideologically,  morally, emotionally, intellectually or otherwise.

The war in Afghanistan, like the war of occupation in Iraq, is NOT about the US national security, or national interests; it’s the latest chapter in America’s dark book of serial wars that are fought for and on behalf of the empire’s elite—the Security-Industrial-Congressional Complex.

The Money

At a time when at least 49.1 million Americans (1 in 6 people) go to sleep at night on an empty stomach, the $100 billion which the Security-Industrial-Congressional Complex will have appropriated in 2010 from the US taxpayer for the cost of War in Afghanistan could have gone a long way to provide food, health and education for our fellow Americans.

Taliban Threat to the US National Security

Like the “Iraqi insurgents,” the Taliban are as much of a security risk to the US as are President Obama’s Muslim relatives in Kenya. A plethora of scientific evidence has proven beyond any doubt whatever that the tragic events of 9/11 were perpetrated by insider terrorists.

The Security-Industrial-Congressional Complex (SICC) and the War Racket

Within just a few weeks of attacking Afghanistan, and with far fewer soldiers,  the US-UK militaries ousted the Taliban government in 2001. The new phase of war, however, has taken eight years and at least $300 billion to UNWIN the war.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that the Security-Industrial-Congressional Complex, the only party that profits from war, can only continue to enrich itself from the War Racket if the wars are actually being fought. They don’t profit from wars that have been won. That’s why the post-Taliban Government fight has taken 8 years with no end in sight.

Who Are the Taliban Masterminds

So, How does the Security-Industrial-Congressional Complex (SICC)  keep the War Racket ongoing? It’s elementary: By making sure they control both sides of the war.  The spoils of war and trappings of Office are usually sufficient to induce most politicians to become war pimps.

In fact, during the last presidential election, it wasn’t so much the case of voting for Mr Obama, an aspiring war criminal, but that of voting out a known war criminal and Sarah Palin.  It was all about the art of nominating.

[Any future political activity by Sarah Palin on behalf her party could correctly be interpreted as a political plot by those who do the nominating to help Obama win a second term.]

Unsurprisingly, only 49 percent of Americans approved of Obama’s job performance, a major Gallup Poll revealed. His approval rating after taking office in January was just short of 70 percent.

It’s neither necessary nor possible to brainwash every single member of Taliban to conspire with the War Racket. The SICC needs to train only a handful of the Taliban masterminds to succeed.And the war-torn, disease-ridden, poverty-stricken, yet opium-rich Afghanistan is a fertile breeding ground for ambitious young men who would happily train as and play the role of Taliban leaders.

Does the life of so many American troops killed in far-away places mean anything to SICC?

Ask any of the 37,000 US troops were killed in action in Korea, or the 58,159 soldiers who were killed ingloriously in Vietnam (additional 2,000 are missing), or …

What About the Military Top Brass? Aren’t they supposed to protect the troops against fighting “bad wars?”

A soldier with no brain, mindless and unable to think, a soldier without a conscience and honor, void of reason to fight and without moral instructions is as good as a dead soldier. The military claims that West Point is the best military academy in the world, and that’s precisely why our voted-for-by-default President chose the venue to deliver his unintelligent justification speech on the troop surge in Afghanistan.

Yet, as if a bunch of zombies and automatons, not a single officer made a protest about the “bad war.”

As for the top brass, they are no warriors; they are, like their Commander in Chief, war pimps.

Is the Afghan War Winnable?

Isn’t that a loaded question? The fact is the SICC has no intention of winning the war. SICC intends to destabilize the region and profit from the ensuing chaos, and there is ample historic precedence, as well as mountains of evidence to establish its  intentions.

Related Links:

One Response to “Obama condemns 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan”

  1. feww said

    The Afghan Quagmire

    Misusing professional cadets at West Point as a political prop, President Barack Obama delivered his speech on the Afghanistan war forcefully but with fearful undertones. He chose to escalate this undeclared war with at least 30,000 more soldiers plus an even larger number of corporate contractors.

    He chose the path the military-industrial complex wanted. The “military” planners, whatever their earlier doubts about the quagmire, once in, want to prevail. The “industrial” barons because their sales and profits rise with larger military budgets.

    A majority of Americans are opposed or skeptical about getting deeper into a bloody, costly fight in the mountains of central Asia while facing recession, unemployment, foreclosures, debt and deficits at home. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), after hearing Mr. Obama’s speech said, “Why is it that war is a priority but the basic needs of people in this country are not?”

    Let’s say needs like waking up to do something about 60,000 fatalities a year in our country related to workplace diseases and trauma. Or 250 fatalities a day due to hospital induced infections, or 100,000 fatalities a year due to hospital malpractice, or 45,000 fatalities a year due to the absence of health insurance to pay for treatment, or, or, or, even before we get into the economic poverty and deprivation. Any Obama national speeches on these casualties?

    Back to the West Point teleprompter speech. If this is the product of a robust internal Administration debate, the result was the same cookie-cutter, Vietnam approach of throwing more soldiers at a poorly analyzed situation. In September, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen told an American Legion Convention, “I’ve seen the public opinion polls saying that a majority of Americans don’t support the effort at all. I say, good. Let’s have the debate, let’s have that discussion.”

    Where? Not in Congress. There were only rubberstamps and grumbles; certainly nothing like the Fulbright Senate hearings on the Vietnam War.

    Where else? Not in the influential commercial media. Forget jingoistic television and radio other than the satire of Jon Stewart plus an occasional non-commercial Bill Moyers show or rare public radio commentary. Not in the op-ed pages of The New York Times and the Washington Post.

    A FAIR study published in the organization’s monthly newsletter EXTRA reports that of all opinion columns in The New York Times and the Washington Post over the first 10 months of 2009, thirty-six out of forty-three columns on the Afghanistan War in the Times supported the war while sixty-one of the sixty-seven Post columns supported a continued war.

    So what would a rigorous public and internal administration debate have highlighted? First, the more occupation forces there are, the more they fuel the insurgency against the occupation, especially since so many more civilians than fighters lose their lives. Witness the wedding parties, villagers, and innocent bystanders blown up by the U.S. military’s superior weaponry.

    Second, there was a remarkable absence in Obama’s speech about the tribal conflicts and the diversity of motivations of those he lumped under the name of “Taliban.” Some are protecting their valleys, others are in the drug trade, others want to drive out the occupiers, others are struggling for supremacy between the Pashtuns on one side and the Tajiks and Uzbeks on the other (roughly the south against the north). The latter has been the substance of a continuing civil war for many years.

    Third, how can Obama’s plan begin to work, requiring a stable, functioning Afghan government—which now is largely a collection of illicit businesses milking the graft, which grows larger in proportion to what the American taxpayers have to spend there—and the disorganized, untrained Afghan army—mainly composed of Tajiks and Uzbeks loathed by the Pashtuns.

    Fourth, destroying or capturing al Qaeda attackers in Afghanistan ignores Obama’s own intelligence estimates. Many observers believe al Qaeda has gone to Pakistan or elsewhere. The New York Times reports that “quietly, Mr. Obama has authorized an expansion of the war in Pakistan as well—if only he can get a weak, divided, suspicious Pakistani government to agree to the terms.”

    Hello! Congress did not authorize a war in Pakistan, so does Obama, like Bush, just decree what the Constitution requires to be authorized by the legislative branch? Can we expect another speech at the Air Force Academy on the Pakistan war?

    Fifth, as is known, al Qaeda is a transnational movement. Highly mobile, when it is squeezed. As Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, the former CIA officer operating in Pakistan, said: “There is no direct impact on stopping terrorists around the world because we are or are not in Afghanistan.” He argues that safe havens can be moved to different countries, as has indeed happened since 9/11.

    Sixth, the audacity of hope in Obama’s speech was illustrated by his unconvincing date of mid-2011 for beginning the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Afghanistan. The tendered exit strategy, tied to unspecified conditions, was a bone he tossed to his shaky liberal base.

    The White House recently said it costs $1 million a year to keep each single soldier in Afghanistan. Take one fifth of that sum and connect with the tribal chiefs to build public facilities in transportation, agriculture, schools, clinics, public health, and safe drinking water.

    Thus strengthened, these tribal leaders know how to establish order. This is partly what Ashraf Ghani, the former respected Afghan finance minister and former American anthropology professor, called concrete “justice” as the way to undermine insurgency.

    Withdraw the occupation, which now is pouring gasoline on the fire. Bring back the saved four-fifths of that million dollars per soldier to America and provide these and other soldiers with tuition for their education and training.

    The principal authority in Afghanistan is tribal. Provide the assistance, based on stage-by-stage performance, and the tribal leaders obtain a stake in stability. Blown apart by so many foreign invaders—British, Soviet, American—and internally riven, the people in the countryside look to tribal security as the best hope for a nation that has not known unity for decades.

    Lifting the fog of war allows other wiser policies urged by experienced people to be considered for peace and security.

    Rather than expanding a boomeranging war, this alternative has some probability of modest success unlike the sure, mounting loss of American and Afghani lives and resources.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: