Friday, August 25, 2017
Thursday, August 24, 2017
If War Comes, Don’t Blame the ‘Military-Industrial Complex’ – Things Are Even Worse Than You Think
As the drumbeat intensifies for what might turn out to be anything but a «splendid little war» against North Korea, it is appropriate to take stock of the ongoing, seemingly successful effort to strip President Donald Trump of his authority to make any foreign and national security policies that fly against the wishes of the so-called Military-Industrial Complex, or MIC. A Google search for «Military-Industrial Complex» (in quotation marks) with «Trump» yields almost 450,000 hits from all sources and almost 26,000 from just news sources.
During the 2016 campaign and into the initial weeks of his administration, Trump was sometimes described as a threat to the MIC. But over time, with the appointment to his administration of more generals and establishment figures (including some allegedly tied to George Soros) while purging Trump loyalists, it’s no surprise that his policies increasingly seem less a departure from those of previous administrations than a continuation of them (for example, welcoming Montenegro into NATO). Some now say that Trump is the MIC’s best friend and maybe always was.
There are those who deny that the MIC exists at all. One self-described conservative blogger writing in the pro-war, pro-intervention, and mostly neoconservative National Review refers to the very existence of the MIC as a «myth» peddled by the «conspiracy-minded». Sure, it is conceded, it was appropriate to refer to such a concept back when President Dwight Eisenhower warned against it in 1961 upon his impending departure from the White House, because back then the military consumed some 10 percent of the American GDP. But now, when the percentage is nominally just 3.2 percent, less than $600 billion per year, the term supposedly is inapplicable. (There are those who argue that the real cost annually is over $1 trillion, but why quibble.)
There is a germ of truth contained in the reference to money. Compared to the «wars of choice» that have characterized US global behavior since the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the MIC of the 1950s and 1960s was relatively less likely to embark upon foreign military escapades. The existence of a world-class nuclear-armed foe in the form of the USSR moderated tendencies toward adventurism. The most serious «combat» the classic MIC preferred to engage in was inter-service battles for budgetary bounty. Reportedly, once General Curtis LeMay, head of the Air Force’s Strategic Air Command, was briefed by a junior officer who repeatedly referred to the USSR as «the enemy». LeMay supposedly interrupted to correct him: «Young man, the Soviet Union is our adversary. Our enemy is the Navy».
But today the «Military-Industrial Complex» is an archaic term that doesn’t begin to describe the complexity and influence of current structures. Indeed, even in Eisenhower’s day the MIC was more than a simple duplex consisting of the Pentagon and military contractors but also included an essential third leg: the Congressional committees that provide the money constituting the MIC’s lifeblood. (Reportedly, an earlier draft of the speech used the term «military-industrial-Congressional» complex, a fuller description of what has come to be called the «Iron Triangle». Asked about the omission from the final text, Eisenhower is said to have answered: «It was more than enough to take on the military and private industry. I couldn't take on the Congress as well».)
Not only did the Iron Triangle continue to expand during the Cold War, when production of military hardware established itself as the money-making nucleus of the MIC, it swelled to even greater proportions after the designated enemy, the USSR, went out of business in 1991. While for one brief shining moment there was naïve discussion of a «Peace Dividend» that would provide relief for American taxpayers from whose shoulders the burden of a «long twilight struggle» against communism (in John Kennedy’s phrase) had been lifted, that notion faded quickly. Instead, not only did the «hard» side of the MIC maintain itself – first in Iraq to fight «naked aggression» by Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, then in the Balkans in the 1990s as part of NATO’s determination to go «out of area or out of business» – it then branched out into «soft» areas of control.
In the past quarter century what began as Eisenhower’s MIC has become a multifaceted, hybrid entity encompassing an astonishing range and depth in both the public and private sectors. To a large extent, the contours of what former Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren has called the «Deep State» (which largely through Lofgren’s efforts has since become a household word) are those of the incestuous «expert» community that dominates mainstream media thinking but extend beyond it to include elements of all three branches of the US government, private business (especially the financial industry, government contractors, information technology), think tanks, NGOs (many of which are anything but «nongovernmental» but are funded by US official agencies and those of our «allies», satellites, and clients), higher education (especially the recipients of massive research grants from the Department of Defense), and the two political parties and their campaign operatives, plus the multitude of lobbyists, campaign consultants, pollsters, spin doctors, media wizards, lawyers, and other functionaries.
Comparing the MIC of 1961 to its descendant, the Deep State of today, is like comparing a horse and buggy to a Formula One racecar. The Deep State’s principals enjoy power and privileges that would have brought a blush to the cheeks of members of the old Soviet nomenklatura, of which it is reminiscent.
Indeed, the Deep State’s creepy resemblance to its late Soviet counterpart is manifest in its budding venture into the realm of seeking to brand domestic American dissent as treason, to the hearty approval of the loony Left. As described by Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity:
‘The government would never compile, analyze, and target private news outlets just because they deviate from the official neocon Washington line.
‘Perhaps not yet. But some US government funded «non-governmental» organizations are already doing just that.
‘The German Marshall Fund has less to do with Germany these days than it did when founded after WWII as a show of appreciation for the US Marshall Fund. These days it’s mostly funded by the US government, allied governments (especially in the Russia-hating Baltics), neocon grant-making foundations, and the military-industrial complex. Through its strangely Soviet-sounding »Alliance for Securing Democracy» project it has launched something called «Hamilton 68: A New Tool to Track Russian Disinformation on Twitter».
‘This project monitors 600 Twitter accounts that the German Marshall Fund claims are «accounts that are involved in promoting Russian influence and disinformation goals». Which accounts does this monitor? It won’t tell us. How does it choose which ones to monitor? It won’t tell us. To what end? Frighteningly, it won’t tell us.
‘How ironic that something called the German Marshall Fund is bringing Stasi-like tactics to silence alternative media and opinions in the United States!’
The Soviet nomenklatura gave up without a fight. It’s unlikely its American counterpart will. Whether Trump in the end decides to fight or to seek accommodation is still under debate. Some suggest that by signing the recent bill imposing sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea, he has already surrendered. But either way, war or not, things are going to get very rocky. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/08/12/if-war-comes-dont-blame-military-industrial-complex-things-even-worse-than-you-think.html
Trump’s new strategy for Afghanistan is neither new, nor a strategy, nor Trump’s
A product not of consensus but of struggle.
For some time it has been clear that the White House of President Donald Trump was convulsed with a struggle among various court factions vying for the Emperor’s ear. Crudely oversimplified, these are variously described as:
1. The military «Junta» (Generals McMaster, National Security Council; Mattis, Pentagon; and Kelly, White House Chief of Staff;
2. The Goldman-Sachs «Globalists» (preeminently First Daughter Ivanka and First Son-in-Law Jared Kushner);
3. The «Populist-Nationalists» («the two Steves» Bannon and Miller); and
4. The Regular Republicans who, to their credit, in 2016 chose to join the Trump populist movement over more conventionally «conservative» GOP candidates (Former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway).
It is understood that the first two factions were generally allied against the second two. Following Priebus’s ouster, the bellwether would be who got tossed out next: Bannon or McMaster. It was Bannon.
On August 18, with Bannon’s defenestration, it became clear that the Junta and the Globalists were firmly in charge. The only outliers left – besides somebody named Trump – are Conway and Miller. We’ll see how long they last. Any of them.
The immediate impact of the Junta/Globalist victory in the internal struggle was renewed sharp rhetoric against North Korea (Bannon’s suggestion the there was no acceptable military option may have been one proximate cause of his ejection) and, even more so, Trump’s speech on Afghanistan on August 21 in front of a military audience.
Before addressing the specifics, it’s important to note that his remarks not only signaled a humiliating defeat of Trumpism within Trump’s own administration but reflected the damage done by the vicious attacks he has suffered for speaking the truth about events in Charlottesville. His offense: to affirm that responsibility for violence lay not only with the «white nationalists» but also with the armed Antifa «protesters» bent on attacking them. In fact, to anyone with a fair mind watching the TV coverage, it was clear that the violence overwhelmingly came from the latter, abetted by the evidently deliberate decision of Virginia Governor and likely 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Terry McAuliffe to withdraw police separation of the two sides and herd the nationalists up against Antifa.
While not mentioning Charlottesville by name, the entire beginning section of Trump’s Afghanistan speech – his first prime time televised address to the nation as president – stuck to a politically correct script, ritually intoning that «there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry, and no tolerance for hate.» (In yet another zigzag, the very next night, at a rally with cheering supporters in Phoenix, Trump read back aloud his previous comments on Charlottesville and denounced Antifa. The media, notably CNN, dissolved in a deranged fit of rage.)
As to what he now plans for Afghanistan:
It’s not new, it’s same-old same-old: Aside from a few Trumpish rhetorical flourishes, it was a speech that could have been given by President Hillary Clinton or President Jeb Bush. In substance, it was a rehash of the failures of Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Only a few details changed. He will loosen rules of engagement for U.S. forces, which among other things will mean more dead Afghans and more Taliban recruits. He will boost troop numbers but won’t tell the enemy – or the American people – by how many; the number 4,000 has been kicked around, but who knows. Finally, no timetables will «guide our strategy», just «conditions on the ground», but what those conditions need to be for us to finally get out are not described either. Nor is there any clue as to how boosting American numbers to about 13,000 will accomplish what 100,000 couldn’t.
«We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own», said the President. «We are confident they will.» Pure fantasy. On the other hand, Trump completely ignored Afghanistan’s record opium production. Evidently promising to stamp that out would be just too fantastical.
It’s not a strategy, it’s just a policy: One of the problems with being entirely guided by military men is their tendency to focus on their tactical tradecraft. Hopefully that’s something they’re good at. But their knowledge and skill, though vitally important, doesn’t of itself constitute a strategy. Or put another way, professional military men can tell a policymaker how to accomplish what he wants, but they can’t tell him what he wants. The result is a policy composed of various tactics that don’t add up to much of anything except more of what we’ve seen since 2001.
We will not engage in nation-building, said Trump, or tell Afghans how to live. This could mean no more nagging them over laws mandating the killing of apostates or about women’s rights. («Don’t throw acid in the face of little girls because they attend school. That’s not nice.») We weren’t doing much of that anyway, but now it’s official: Americans are fighting to make Afghanistan safe for Sharia. (Paradoxically, Trump was reportedly convinced that Afghanistan is not doomed to be a Hobbesian abode of savages by McMaster’s showing him a picture of mini-skirted Afghan female students from the 1970s. As Justin Raimondo points out, the good general surely neglected to mention the reason there are no more mini-skirts to be seen is because of our support, with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for Osama bin Laden and his ilk. Mission accomplished!)
On the other hand, is it telling Afghans how to live when Trump promised to root out corruption? (What Americans are calling corruption is what in Afghanistan is usually just called «life.») Indeed, very little was said about what the Afghan government thinks about the «new» plan. But then again, we barely care what Seoul thinks about deploying the THAAD system in South Korea, so why should we ask the opinions of an Afghan government that wouldn’t last a week without American support? One is reminded of the Soviet-era quip that Afghanistan was the most peace-loving country in the world. Why? Because it doesn’t even interfere in its own internal affairs.
Regionally, Trump vowed to force Pakistan to stop providing safe haven for the Taliban (sure, that will work) and to get India more involved. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said that in addition to «putting the pressure on Pakistan» Washington would «put the pressure on India that they have to be part of the political solution.» Just like we «pressure» North Korea, or «pressure» China on Korea and the South China Sea, and «pressure» Russia on Syria, Ukraine, what have you. Pressure, pressure, pressure! Doesn’t anyone in Washington know how to talk with anyone to seek common interests? Why no mention of the three regional powers – Russia, China, and Iran – that like India (but unlike Pakistan) don’t want an Afghanistan ruled by Salafists? Now that could be a strategy.
It’s not Trump’s policy, it’s the Swamp’s: Trump pretty much let the cat out of the bag when he conceded that his first impulse was to get out of Afghanistan. (Interestingly the reflexively pro-war Washington Post and National Review published calls for the U.S. to withdraw our forces, saying Trump’s earlier instinct was right! Be prepared for them to rip out his liver when things turn out badly.) But then Trump talked with the big boys with the short haircuts who explained the facts of life to him. He seems to have bought the Swamp’s line that because Obama «hastily and mistakenly withdrew from Iraq» the result was ISIS. Nonsense. ISIS came into being because (a) we invaded Iraq in the first place and (b) for years Obama armed terrorists seeking to overthrow the government of Syria, continuing a policy in place since the 1980s Afghanistan war against the USSR. Given such assumptions, the most optimistic hope is for a «surge» like that in Iraq in 2007, which at least superficially stabilized Anbar province and Baghdad. Again, very optimistically, that could provide cover for us to withdraw our forces. More likely, given the fear of «hastily and mistakenly» withdrawing Obama-style, we will stay for an indefinite period amounting to a permanent occupation. After all, look how long we’ve been successfully stabilizing Germany, Japan, and South Korea!
The sad fact is that Trump almost certainly knows all this, at least on a gut level. What exactly the exact political alchemy is that has led him to this juncture is open for speculation. But what is not speculative is the grim fact that whether or not this is Trump’s policy, Afghanistan is now Trump’s war. http://theduran.com/trumps-new-strategy-afghanistan-neither-new-strategy-trumps/
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
How the US Deep State Accidentally Forged a Multipolar World Order
FEDERICO PIERACCINI | 22.08.2017 | OPINION
In every nation there are power conglomerates that determine and influence the domestic and foreign policy choices their nations. In the United States, it is important to highlight the concept known as American exceptionalism that accompanies these power centers, often called the deep state. According to this principle, the United States alone has been chosen by God to lead mankind.
After the World War II, a notion very similar to that of Nazi Aryan racial supremacy was born - that of the chosen people. In this case, however, the chosen people were Americans, who emerged victorious at the end of the Second World War II, ready to face the «existential danger» of the USSR, a society and culture that was different from that of the US. With such mental imprinting, the trend over the following decades was predictable. What followed was war after war, the capitalist economic system sustained by the US war machine widening its sphere all over the globe, reaching Southeast Asia, but then being forced back by the failure of the Vietnam War, signaling the first sign of the end of American omnipotence.
As the Berlin Wall fell and eliminated the Soviet «threat», American expansion had almost reached its existential limit. What has been a constant element during all of these US presidencies, during various wars and economic growth thanks to a rising capitalism, has been the presence of the deep state, a set of neural centers that make up real US power. In order to understand the failure of the deep state to achieve its goals to exercise full-spectrum control over the globe, it is crucial to trace the connections between past and the present presidencies from the fall of the Berlin Wall.
When thinking of the deep state, it is easy to identify the major players - the mainstream media, think-tanks, central and private banks, foreign-state lobbyists, politicians, intelligence agencies, large industrial groups, and the military-industrial complex (MIC). These are the inner circles that hold the true levers of power in the United States. Often, by analyzing past events over a long period of time, it becomes easier to identify motivations and goals behind specific actions, and the manner in which the various members of the deep state have often accompanied, influenced and sometimes sabotaged various administrations - such as is currently the case with the current Trump administration - for the sole purpose of advancing their economic interests.
During the Clinton and Bush administrations, the deep state was able to maintain a united and compact front, counting on the economic and military power of what was still a rising global power. The mainstream media, the intelligence agencies, the military and the financial and political centers supported both presidents in their ambitious plans to expand American hegemony. From intervention in Yugoslavia to the bombing to Afghanistan through to the war in Iraq, the refrain has been conflict and devastation in exchange for financial impositions that were focused on maintaining the dollar as the reserve or exchange currency for such assets as oil. In Yugoslavia, the strategy also aimed at dismantling the last block linked to the former Soviet Union, the last act of the end of the Cold War. Even the control of opium trading routes from Afghanistan has been of great importance, becoming a key element in US expansion and control plans, other than maintaining a foothold in central Asia for further destabilization attempts.
The war in Iraq, engineered by three fundamental elements of the deep state (false intelligence services, journalists with a specific agenda, and the military straining at the leash to bomb a hostile nation), has produced a number of consequences, primarily the disintegration of the country, leaving the door open to Iranian influence. Over the course of 15 years, Tehran's influence has grown to such an extent that it engages Iraq in a Shiite arch that starts from Iran, passes through Iraq, and ends in Syria, reaching the Mediterranean. In terms of the effect intended and the result actually obtained, the Iraq war may be considered the largest strategic failure of the US deep state since Vietnam.
In addition to a loss of American influence with the petro-monarchies, Iraq has highlighted the American inability to conquer and hold a territory when the population is hostile. Facing local and Shiite militias, the United States paid a heavy human toll, shocking the American population during the ten-year war with planes returning home to deliver flag-draped coffins. This is not to mention the creation of the Afghan and Iraq wars of hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, all placed on the shoulders of the American taxpayer.
In a sense, Obama owes much of his victory in 2008 to the financial crisis and the American defeat in Iraq. Even today, the debate about the role of the deep state in Obama's election is open. The most plausible explanation is based on Obama's telegenic appeal over Senator McCain, likely a decisive factor for Americans. As many Americans did not admit, Obama's election, after eight years of Bush, was a break with the past, a clear message to the elite, especially after Obama's victory over Clinton during the Democratic primaries.
Obama's victory was immediately accompanied by a strategic recalculation by the deep state, which sensed the new opportunity linked to Obama's nature as well as ongoing changes. There were to be no more explicit wars of the type that involve tank divisions. After the disaster in Iraq, even the deep state understood how American military power was unable to prevail over a hostile local population. For this reason, the neoconservatives have been progressively displaced by the liberal, human-rights brigade. Their new approach has turned the Middle East upside down through the Arab Spring, creating a new balance in the region and causing the situation to degenerate in Egypt, destabilizing neighboring countries, ending up human-rights dystopias in places like Libya and Syria, both victims of direct or indirect military aggression on the grounds of protecting human rights.
In this scenario, the most important components of the deep state are the media that, by disseminating false intelligence information through manipulation and disinformation for the purposes of justifying military aggression, conditions the populations of Europe and the US to attack sovereign countries like Libya. During the Obama administration, the deep state rarely faced a hostile presidency, demonstrated by the bank bailout during the 2008 crisis. A few months after the election, it became apparent how empty Obama’s election promises had been, representing the triumph of marketing over substance. By printing money at zero interest, Obama allowed the Fed to donate almost $800 billion to the banks, saving them from a collapse and postponing the consequences of the next financial crisis, which will likely be irreparable. Obama preferred to follow the dictates of the Fed, a key component of the deep state, instead of reforming the banking sector.
The underlying mistakes of the last months of the Obama administration continue to affect Trump's new presidency. Obama's attempt to placate the deep state by arming terrorists in the Middle East, putting neo-Nazis in Ukraine, bombing Libya, and bailing out the banks has only increased the appetite of the deep state, which has progressed to more explicit demands like an attack on Iran and direct intervention in Syria. From this moment on, after having granted virtually all the wishes of the deep state, Obama pulled the handbrake and activated a couple of countermeasures to rebalance the legacy of his presidency. He opposed a direct intervention in Syria following the false-flag chemical attacks, signing and implementing the nuclear agreement with Iran and he restoring relations with Cuba.
It was at this very moment that the deep state declared war on Obama, relying on the indispensable support of intelligence agencies, the mainstream media, and the most conservative wing of the American establishment. Attacks on Obama's presumed weaknesses as president, his inability to defend American interests, and his lack of courage characterized the last two years of his presidency.
It was this perennial state of siege during Obama's presidency that created the conditions for Trump's electoral ascent. The deep state has for years insisted on the need for a strong and determined leader representative of the spirit of American exceptionalism. Initially, the deep state focused on Hillary Clinton, but Trump had the intuition to emphasize the military and industrial aspects of the country, appealing to the yearning of the population for a rebuilding of domestic industry, and opening new opportunities for the deep state. This served to drive a split within the intelligence agencies, the mainstream media, and a good deal of the domestic political class, leaving them in open warfare. Russia's affairs and Trump’s alleged connections to Putin are false news, created to sabotage Trump's presidency.
In the 2016 Republican primaries, Americans voted for a leader who promised to improve their livelihoods by boosting the domestic economy and placing the interests of their country first. This promise almost immediately captured the working component of the population and large industrial conglomerates. Trump later gained the support of another fundamental component of the deep state, the military wing, thanks to the proclamation that the United States will be returned to the role they deserve in the world, salvaging the perverse idea of American exceptionalism.
Trump's decision to embrace the MIC is particularly controversial and represents the beginning of a deep-state faction built upon Trump's presidency. The daily din surrounding his presidency, with constant attacks from the opposing faction of the deep state, became intense with fake news alleging Trump’s links with Russia. With the appointment of generals who subscribe to the idea of American exceptionalism, it can be debated whether Trump intentionally wanted to give a leadership role to his own generals or whether he had no choice, having to associate with some of these deep-state members in order to defend himself against the assaults of opposing deep-state factions.
Recent Trump-related events are all based on these factors, namely a deep state driven by the neoliberal faction that has never stopped attacking Trump, and a neoconservative deep-state faction that has been tightening the noose around Trump.
The immediate results have been a level of chaos that has been unprecedented in a US administration, with continuous appointments and layoffs, the latest one Steve Bannon, not to mention the impossibility of abolishing Obamacare with all the forces arrayed against Trump’s legislative agenda. Trump has progressively had to concede more power and authority to his generals, acceding to bombing Syria and passing sanctions that worsen relations between Moscow and Washington. A self-destructive spiral began with the granting of a primary role to those nominated to key positions.
The final effect of this ongoing sabotage ever since the Obama presidency is a bankrupt US foreign policy and a continuing fratricidal struggle within the deep state. America’s European allies are in revolt over anti-Russia sanctions, which is their main source of energy. Countries like Russia, China and Iran are beginning to undergo an economic revolution as they progressively abandon the dollar; and as these countries take over a Middle East devastated by years of American wars, Moscow gains significant influence in the region. The crisis engulfing the Gulf Cooperation Council, increasingly beset with fickle fractures between Riyadh and Doha.
One of the consequences of two decades of the US deep state’s brazen foreign policy has been the birth of a multipolar world order, with US superpower status being challenged by competing powers like China and Russia. Indeed, Washington’s historic allies in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia, have borne the consequences of the disastrous policies of the US, with Iran rising to be one of the power centers of the region destined to dominate the Middle East militarily and even economically.
The incredible paradox of the failure of deep state is represented by the emergence of two alternative poles to the American one, increasingly allied with each other to counter the chaotic retreat of a unipolar world order. In this scenario, Washington and all its power centers are in an unprecedented situation, where their desire does not match their abilities. A sense of frustration is increasingly evident, from the incredible statements of many American political representatives on Russian influence in US elections, to the threats of aggression against North Korea, or the game of chicken with the nuclear powers of Russia and China.
If the deep state continues to hamstring the presidency, and the military wing succeeds in pressuring Trump, there are likely to be a number of indirectly linked effects. There will be an exponential increase in synergies between nations not aligned with American interests. In economic terms, there are alternative systems to that centered on the dollar; in terms of energy, there are a host of new agreements with European, Turkish or Russian partners; and in political terms, there is a more or less explicit alliance between Russia and China, with a strong contribution from Iran, as will soon become more evident with Tehran's entry into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
By the end of the 1980s, the United States was the only world power destined for a future of unchallenged global hegemony. The deep state’s greed, as well as the utopian desire to control every decision in every corner of the world, has ended up consuming the ability of the US to influence events, serving only to draw Russia and China closer together with the shared interest of halting America’s heedless advance. It is thanks to the firmly ensconced American deep state that Moscow and Beijing are now coordinating together in order to put to an end the United States’ unipolar moment as soon as possible.
It is not entirely wrong to say that the American unipolar moment is coming to an end, with the deep state’s attacks on the Trump presidency preventing any rapprochement with Moscow. The stronger the pressure of the deep state on the multipolar powers, the greater the speed with which the advance of the multipolar world will replace the unipolar one. Early effects will appear in the economic sphere, particularly in relation to movement towards de-dollarisation, which may mark the beginning of a long-awaited change.
Monday, August 21, 2017
Special About War in Afghanistan by ADAM GARRIE
Donald Trump will make a special address about the War in Afghanistan on 21 August
Will Trump withdraw troops or will he argue for a military push?
Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires and it is looking increasingly likely that as America declines, Afghanistan may be remembered as America’s quietest but most thorough defeat.
In 1979, Afghanistan descended into war as the previous year’s socialist Saur Revolution faced resistance from local reactionary tribes.
These tribes were augmented by foreign fighters who became the Afghan Mujahideen or the Seven Party Mujahideen Alliance. The Mujahideen was strongly backed by the United States based on a policy spearheaded by Jimmy Carter’s powerful National Security Advisor, the Polish born Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Early in the war Brzezinski was infamously filmed giving a motivational war speech to the Mujahideen who in the 1990s became al-Qaeda, the terrorist group led by Afghan war veteran Osama bin Laden.
Brzezinski’s policies were followed into the Reagan years and after a tense war of ten years, the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989.
In 1992, the socialist government fell and Afghanistan officially became an Islamic State(no relation to the group commonly known as ISIS which formed decades later in Iraq). In 1996, a more radical group known as the Taliban effectively took over the country. The Taliban claimed to represent the interests of Pashtund, the largest ethnic group in the country. As part of the Taliban’s extreme rule, the former socialist leader of the country, Mohammad Najibullah was gruesomely executed before he was dragged through the streets by a truck and hung lifeless from a post.
As the Taliban took power, the Islamic Republic factions formed the Northern Alliance, a government backed by Russia, Iran, India, Turkey, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. By contrast the Taliban received support from elements in Pakistan, at that time a strong US ally.
After 911, the US became actively opposed to the Taliban and united with the Northern Alliance to oust it from power in 2001. The proximate cause of the US war was the fact that the Taliban had aided and sheltered members of the terror group al-Qaeda.
Since 2001, the Taliban have both factionalised and perversely regained a substantial deal of influence in the country even as the leadership of two main Taliban factions remain at odds with each other. Al-Qaeda and other Salafist groups remain generally loyal to the Taliban. At the same time, terror cells loyal to the so-called Islamic State have also arisen in Afghanistan.
While President Obama formally handed over control of military operations in the country to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in 2014, the internationally recognised government in Kabul, American forces for all intents and purposes remained in position with little noticeable change on the ground.
Donald Trump inherited a quagmire where a divided central government is facing a factionalised Taliban and various terrorist groups including ISIS.
What has changed is that as America proves totally incompetent in respect of bringing peace and stability to the country, other countries including China, Russia and Iran are becoming increasingly seen as possible peace keepers and economic partners in spite of historical enmity between Kabul and Tehran and the fraught war the Soviet Union fought in the country during the 1980s.
The Taliban have asked the US to leave and Pakistan is growing increasingly irritated by the US presence. Pakistan’s increasingly good relations with Russia combined with its historically good relations with China mean that there are many in Islamabad who now see Russians as part of an Afghan solution rather than as part of a prolonged problem.
On the 21st of August, Donald Trump is to address the nation in a speech concerning Afghanistan. Many are wondering whether Trump will announce a pull-out or a final military push that may very well result in few tangible results.
Steve Bannon who has recently left the White House was known to be a proponent of total withdrawal. His absence may mean that those in favour of a US troop ‘surge’ may win the argument.
Donald Trump will make his address at 21.00 EST on the 21st of August. http://theduran.com/donald-trump-will-make-a-special-address-about-the-war-in-afghanistan-on-21-august/
Bundestagswahlen bringen noch keine Wende. Ein Ausblick für Deutschland Karl-Jürgen Müller
Eine Wende im Denken und in der inneren Haltung
Wenige Wochen vor den Bundestagswahlen zeichnet es sich ab, dass es in Deutschland auch dieses Mal noch keine politische Wende geben wird. Viele Menschen, die sich in den vergangenen Jahren – mit guten Argumenten – für eine solche Wende eingesetzt haben, könnten enttäuscht und entmutigt sein.
Aber dafür gibt es keinen Grund. Die Aufgabe, an einer Wende in Deutschland zur arbeiten, hat nichts von ihrer Bedeutung verloren. Welche Wege können begangen werden?
«Was ist Deutsch?» ist der Titel eines mehr als 1000 Seiten umfassenden Monumentalwerkes, das im Frühjahr 2017 erschienen ist. Der Autor, Dieter Borchmeyer, ist emeritierter Professor für Neuere deutsche Literatur und Theaterwissenschaft an der Universität Heidelberg. Sein Buch ist eine Fundgrube für die Suche nach deutschen Dichter- und Denkerstimmen aus mehr als zwei Jahrhunderten, die sich seit der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts mit der Frage beschäftigt haben, die im Titel des Buches zum Ausdruck kommt.
Aber dieses Buch folgt einem ganz bestimmten Standpunkt: Diejenigen deutschen Stimmen, die «Deutschsein» gleichgesetzt haben mit einer vor allem geistig-kulturellen Aufgabe, mit einer Abkehr vom Nationalstaatsgedanken wie überhaupt von staatspolitischen Zielen, mit einem Aufgehen des Landes in einer viel größeren politischen Einheit, werden durchweg positiv gewürdigt. Das geht so weit, dass zum Beispiel Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, ein Bewunderer des Imperialisten Napoleon, in dieser seiner Haltung gelobt wird. Diejenigen hingegen, die «Deutschsein» mit dem Eintreten für eine Staatsnation verbanden und dabei durchaus auch – geschichtlich bedingt – kämpferische Töne gegen andere, Deutschland bedrängende oder gar besetzt haltende Staaten, anschlugen, werden als Vorboten deutscher Hybris und Gewaltherrschaft, als geistige Wegbereiter von Chauvinismus, Nationalismus und schließlich Nationalsozialismus kritisiert.
Noch wollen die westlichen Siegermächte des Zweiten Weltkriegs bestimmen …
Man mag es drehen und wenden, wie man will, aber wenn man zum Beispiel das im Sommer 2017 erschienene Buch von Gert R. Polli, dem Gründer des Österreichischen Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz und Terrorismusbekämpfung, liest, dann gewinnt man den Eindruck, dass der Standpunkt des zuerst genannten Buchautors der bis heute gültige auch der deutschen Politik ist. Das Buch hat den Titel «Deutschland zwischen den Fronten. Wie Europa zum Spielball von Politik und Geheimdiensten wird» und schildert sehr genau, wie die deutsche Politik darauf reagiert hat, als öffentlich bekannt wurde (Edward Snowden usw.), dass das Land von engsten «Verbündeten» (USA, Großbritannien und Frankreich) schon jahrelang und wohl nach wie vor ausspioniert wird, um politische und wirtschaftliche Vorteile daraus zu ziehen – auf Kosten von Deutschland: Die deutsche Politik hat zwar mit öffentlichen Erklärungen Flagge zu zeigen versucht (Angela Merkel: «Abhören unter Freunden, das geht nicht.»), in Tat und Wahrheit ist aber nichts passiert. Zu eng waren und sind die Verbindungen der Geheimdienste, zu groß die Verstrickungen der eigenen Geheimdienste in Unrecht, zu groß die vermeintlichen Abhängigkeiten von den westlichen Siegermächten des Zeiten Weltkriegs – nach wie vor.
… aber Geschichte wird nicht mehr nur von den Siegern geschrieben
Interessant dabei ist, dass auch der Widerspruch der Bürger des Landes gegen diese Politik bislang noch relativ gering ausfällt und dass überzeugende politische Alternativen kaum zu erkennen sind. Das hat verschiedene Gründe. Einer ist sicherlich die Totschlagskeule, die solche Stimmen reflexartig in die rechte, nationalistische und noch schlimmere Ecke stellt – heute ergänzt um das Feindbild Russland. Das schreckt nach wie vor ab. «Rechts» sein will in Deutschland kaum einer, und diejenigen, die sich offen dazu bekennen, bieten für Deutschland in der Tat keinen Ausblick.
© AFP 2017/ DANIEL MIHAILESCU
Aufklärung ist ein Gebot der Stunde
Über all dies aufzuklären ist ein Gebot der Stunde. Wenn sich Europa von den USA emanzipieren will – und dies wird für den Kontinent ein Überlebensimperativ –, dann muss die ganze Geschichte auf den Tisch. Sie muss Platz bekommen im Denken und Fühlen der Deutschen, sie kann auch die Deutschen befreien. Nicht, um sich über andere Staaten und Völker zu erheben – diese Gefahr besteht bei den meisten Bürgern des Landes sowieso nicht –, sondern um besser und wirklich zu verstehen: die eigene, aber auch die Geschichte anderer Völker und Staaten. Ein gesundes Selbstbewusstsein kann niemals aus dem Glauben an eigene Perfektion resultieren, weil dies immer unrealistisch ist und in die Irre führt. Aber zu erkennen, dass andere Staaten und Völker genauso Täter und Opfer der Geschichte waren wie wir Deutsche selbst, ist sehr realistisch und kann weiterhelfen.
Dann kann man auch das Buch von Dieter Borchmeyer gegen den Strich lesen und sich darüber freuen, wie viele wertvolle Gedanken für eine eigenständige, freiheitliche, demokratische und völkerverbindende deutsche Identität das deutsche Denken aus mehr als zwei Jahrhunderten zu bieten hat. Ein wenig stolz darauf darf man dann auch sein.
Wo jeder Deutsche anknüpfen kann: von Herder bis Schachtschneider
Johann Gottfried Herder, der geistige Vater des modernen deutschen Nationalstaatsgedankens, schrieb 1794 in seinen «Briefen zur Beförderung der Humanität»: «[…] hat die Erde nicht für uns alle Raum? Liegt ein Land nicht ruhig neben dem anderen? Kabinette mögen einander betrügen; politische Maschinen mögen gegen einander gerückt werden, bis eine die andere zersprengt. Nicht so rücken Vaterländer gegen einander; sie liegen ruhig neben einander, und stehen sich als Familien bei.» Im selben Jahr schrieb er zudem: «Ein großer, ungejäteter Garten voll Kraut und Unkraut. Wer wollte sich dieses Sammelplatzes von Torheiten und Fehlern so wie von Vortrefflichkeiten und Tugenden ohne Unterscheidung annehmen und […] gegen andre Nationen den Speer brechen? […] Offenbar ist die Anlage der Natur, dass wie ein Mensch, so auch ein Geschlecht, also auch ein Volk von und mit dem anderen lerne […] bis alle endlich die schwere Lektion gefasst haben: kein Volk ist ein von Gott einzig auserwähltes Volk der Erde; die Wahrheit müsse von allen gesucht, der Garten des gemeinen Besten von allen gebauet werden.»
Die deutsche Geschichte der vergangenen mehr als 200 Jahre ist dem nicht immer gefolgt. Aber das hatte seine Ursachen nicht nur in Deutschland selbst. Wäre es nicht lohnenswert, an Ideen wie die von Johann Gottfried Herder anzuknüpfen und sich auf die Schultern derjenigen Riesen zu stellen, die ein souveränes, freiheitliches, rechtsstaatliches, demokratisches, soziales und friedliebendes Deutschland angedacht und vorbereitet haben.
https://de.sputniknews.com/kommentare/20170817317060923-bundestagswahlen-bringen-keine-wende-nach-deutschland-kj-mueller-kommentar/
* Die Meinung des Autors muss nicht mit dem Standpunkt der Redaktion übereinstimmen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)