The continuity between the policies of Barrack Obama and George Bush is reflected in the familiar faces flanking the current president. Robert Gates was chosen by Obama to stay on as defense secretary after having served as Bush's Pentagon chief. He oversaw the military surge in Iraq. Then there is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who competed against Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries. While campaigning, Obama appealed to popular anti-war sentiments and criticized Clinton for her 2002 Senate vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq.
There is indeed a change here, a U-Turn by Obama.
Other prominent Bushies include General David Petraeus, commander in Iraq in 2007-2008, who, since autumn 2008, has directed the US Central Command. General Karl Eikenberry, a former corps commander in Afghanistan, has been named by Obama as the US ambassador to Kabul. Finally, there is General Stanley McChrystal who gained a dubious distinction for overseeing third-degree interrogation methods in Iraq. He is replacing General David D. McKiernan as Commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A), subject to senate confirmation.
The reasons given by Obama for the current Af-Pak escalation fly against an unpleasant reality. Its ally, Pakistan, is the chief purveyor of global Islamic terrorism and is an undisputed champion of nuclear proliferation.
Unless the Taliban, ISI and the Pakistani nuclear complexes are dismantled, this war will be seen as a cynical campaign for the domination of oil-rich Central Asia and pipeline routes, control of international commerce and an expansion of military hegemony.
US military engagements for the past 30 years show up a disturbing dissymmetry: A Nicaraguan leader who steps out of line is summarily punished with an invasion, while a Saudi Arabia which produced 15 out of the 19 Sept 11 hijackers gets off with a slap on the hand, and a license to reprint the jihad franchise.
Unless this credibility gap is addressed, Obama's call for "change" will be nothing but a political fraud and a tactical maneuver for imperial expansion. This administration is just a few steps away from triggering a wider conflagration throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. It is going to be costly in terms of human lives even if the dollar is printed at will to fund these wars.
The US House of Representatives just passed a $96.7 billion request for Obama's wars and foreign aid efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congressional largess for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has topped $900 billion since 9/11.
Achievements? Who gets credit for a nuclear bazaar run by turbaned puritans?
The Final Game
The current Taliban surge will inevitably lead to a break-up of Pakistan and a break up of its nuclear arsenal. Who ultimately gets to own them, and where they will be used is the apocalyptic question.
It is an old Pakistan wisdom to redirect internal turmoil to an external party, under the guise of jihad. Mujaheddin brigades in the immediate post-Soviet era spilled into Afghanistan to become the Taliban while others fought in Indian Kashmir. The itch for jihad soon went global.
The Pakistani nation is speedily trifurcating into an independent Balochistan, a tribal "Pashtun-stan" and a rump state dominated by the provinces of Punjab and Sindh. At the point of precipice, Islamabad might salvage some pride through a military provocation with India.
The Indians will not stand this if a nuclear attack is involved. Since achieving independence in1947, it has endured three wars with Pakistan and countless terror attacks and insurgencies orchestrated by a prime recipient of US military aid.
There are tons of declassified documents, which reveal US bias and active support for Pakistan during its confrontations with India.
If an attack occurs, India will not sit back for US mediation. There will be no Indian collateral damage from any Af-Pak fallout. If some brass head in the Pentagon is banking on this -- and closer Indo-US cooperation in the aftermath -- they can forget it. You cannot create allies by allowing them to burn. It may work well in the Muslim World, where, fitna (treachery) is vehemently condemned ironically for its sleazy and universal adoption.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
