Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Obama Surge

Obama Surge

Ratings: (0)|Views: 45|Likes:
Published by revolutionmuslims
This article examines the similarities between Bush's troop surge in Iraq and Obama's surge in Afghanistan. Please support the dawa at revolutionmuslim.com
This article examines the similarities between Bush's troop surge in Iraq and Obama's surge in Afghanistan. Please support the dawa at revolutionmuslim.com

More info:

Published by: revolutionmuslims on Apr 05, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/31/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
Haven’t We Heard this All Before?Barack Hussein Obama Bush and the Quest to Continue the “War on Terror Islam”
 
 
Younus Abdullah MuhammadYounus Abdullah MuhammadYounus Abdullah MuhammadYounus Abdullah Muhammad –– REVOLUTIONMUSLIM.COMREVOLUTIONMUSLIM.COMREVOLUTIONMUSLIM.COMREVOLUTIONMUSLIM.COM
Barack Obama is no different than George Bush. Perhaps he is a bit more articulate and the policymakers behind him may be neo-liberal rather than neo-conservative, but their messages and policies areessentially the same. Bush gives a few trillions in taxpayer money to the banks, Obama does the same. Bushenters into senseless war that buoys the U.S. Empire through brutal military overreach far from home andObama continues along that course. The increasing evaporation continues under Obama and for many there isno hope as the first days of Obama have certainly not fueled the fundamental change many voters expected.Like Bush after 9-11, President Obama has overriding support early in his presidency, and can thereforeutilize sophistic rhetoric to guarantee mass support for whatever policy his advisors choose to embark upon.Obama’s skill in serving the corporate, Wall Street class that put him into power is proven in that he mayadvocate for domestic change conducive to pacify an increasingly angry citizenry, while simultaneously preserving and even advancing the multinational corporate, imperialist power structure by altering absolutelynothing in the realm of U.S. military and economic interventionism across the globe. Make no mistake about ithe is no different than Bush.This is no more evident than in Emperor Obama’s recent announcement of a troop surge in Afghanistan.It is remarkably reminiscent of Emperor Bush’s speech on the Iraqi troop surge from January 10, 2007 and is acontinuation of the imperialist policies that tend to bankrupt domestic imperial societies while shedding the blood of countless millions on the periphery. It is warmongering at its finest but is all the more dangerous asObama’s cult-like following has ushered in an era of fascist-like hero-worship, a neo-nationalism that may sendthe entire globe into utter despair.In early 2007, the United States, stuck in a senseless War in Iraq it was facing massive resistance to allover the world, conducted a bi-partisan, comprehensive review of the Iraq War and "strongly urged" a large pull back of American troops. However, then President George Bush disregarded the conclusion and chose rather tocall for a troop surge that would place 21,000 more soldiers on the ground. In late 2008 a leaked Frenchdiplomat’s cable leaked to a French magazine declared that the security situation was worsening in Afghanistan,that NATO forces were making it worse, that the new American Administration should be dissuaded fromgetting further involved, and that they would be best to cultivate an “acceptable dictator.” Departingcommander of British Forces in Afghanistan also declared that defeating the Taliban was “neither feasible nor supportable,” as many recommended the War in Afghanistan be discontinued. However, Barack Obama, who promised throughout his campaign trail to refocus on Afghanistan, like Bush, officially announced his ownsurge of 21,000 troops on Friday March 27, 2009. Comparing the content highlights the need that Obama’swarmongering be countered and places the world at even greater risk for an onrushing dark age.BUSH SAID: “my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensivereview. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts.”OBAMA SAID: “My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats. We'veconsulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations.”At the time Bush added troops into Iraq, the majority of the world, not to mention Iraqis, decried U.S.occupation. Apparently George Bush did not include the hopes and desires of the Iraqi people when he took his
 
2so-called democratic stance in advocating for the surge in Iraq. Obama seems to have taken the same approach.His list of consultants, while including a more international outlook, failed to mention the desires of Afghanswho overwhelming see the U.S. occupation as the leading source of their troubles. The pundits associated withthe international NGO’s, dependent upon situations like Afghanistan and Iraq for their own existence, certainlycome from a perspective that coincides with the imperialist’s outlook. The military commanders who fear thereputation of defeat and who have been indoctrinated by their service to the American war machine certainlycome with a predisposed bias as well and the diplomats who must answer to the constituents associated with the private power that controls almost all electoral seats of so-called Western democracies cannot but be unbiasedin their assessments for fear of losing either reelection or the prominent position they presently hold inside theexistent power structure.The fact that Bush failed to mention or consider the desires of the general population in Iraq that hascontinuously called for the end of occupation since its beginning was not surprising. The inability of Obama toeven mention the reality that most Afghans hate American occupation generally and his failure to include asolution to this phenomenon of anti-American sentiment alongside the very real prospect that the Afghans mayfare better if the U.S.-NATO coalition packed up and left completely shows clearly that there is no intentionwhatsoever to ever turn control of either of these countries over to the general citizenry. The fact that Obamareferenced his consultation with Pakistani and Afghan governments shows that he really believes thesegovernments represent their people. Nothing could be further from the truth.BUSH SAID: “The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracythat is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security”OBAMA SAID: “The United States has great respect for the Pakistani people. They have a rich history andhave struggled against long odds to sustain their democracy.”Bush certainly has no true design for a democracy in Iraq, other than a puppet regime typical of U.S.interventionist history, that will set up an oligarchic elite loyal to the interests of multinational corporations andthe U.S. military-industrial complex that protects those corporate interests across the globe. This is always thecase as a quick critical look through the history of U.S. intervention after World War II by means of covertsupport for dictators, monarchs, and oligarchs will show that there is no basis to trust the United States in thisregard. Were Obama a true voice of change, he would accept this and address openly the need to erase thishistory and tradition of U.S. foreign policy. A similar example of his engagement in the same type of rhetoricaldisinformation in defense of American imperialism is in the address he released to the Iranian people calling for open dialogue recently. The response he received was appropriate as the Ayatollah Khomeini replied that whenthe U.S. was really ready to change their policy rather than simply speak in terms of democratic traditions, for instance address the grievances associated with the U.S.’s coup of democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953, then all efforts to change relations between the countries could never be sincere.This is the case here as well. The U.S. only supports democracy where it serves U.S. interests.There may have been a time when the U.S. could shrug off its critics as a fringe element and point totheir record of support by other means. That time has gone. In regions like South East Asia and the Middle Eastthe majority of populations are well-aware of their own history and the consequences of U.S. intervention. Their only loyalty rests with the capitalist class these interventions have supported, which is typically one or two percent of the population. Like the rest of the world the everyday citizens live affected by the consequences of western imperialism every day. The only support you will find for the “democratic” regimes the U.S. wants toimpose or supports in the region are by the elite individuals that stand to benefit from them. This is somethingObama is far from ignorant of yet he agreed to go along with the typical rhetoric thereby showing that he really believes the people of the world can be hood-winked by a smooth talking, teleprompter reading politicalsalesman. The reality seems quite the contrary.BUSH SAID: "But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties and answers to its people.”
 
3OBAMA SAID: “The people of Pakistan want the same things that we want: an end to terror, access to basicservices, the opportunity to live their dreams, and the security that can only come with the rule of law.”The people of Pakistan certainly do not want the same things that the U.S. wants; the same is true of theIraqi’s. Countless polls show that the majority of Afghans, Pakistanis and Iraqis have, since the beginning of theWar on Terror, wanted one primary thing, namely foreign troops off their soil. The rest of the issues brought up by Bush and Obama are a nice justification for troop presence and intervention but the reality is that since thedays of colonialism there is no example of functioning democracies inserted by brute force and there never will be for the simple fact that the very notion is absurd and oxymoronic.The Pakistani people made a decision in mid-February to accept a peace in the Swat Valley of theinfamous North West Frontier Province (NWFP), to allow that governance there be the Islamic shariah.However, the Americans continue to demand that Pakistan fight onward despite the fact that since the beginningof Pakistani history the NWGP had functioned autonomously and despite polling like the World Public Opinion poll documenting that 60 percent of Pakistanis feel that shariah should play a larger role in Pakistan law and a poll by Terror Free Tomorrow from 2007 that showed not only that 66 percent in Pakistan think the UnitedStates is waging a war on Islam, but that a higher percentage of the population supported Osama bin Laden thandid then U.S. puppet Musharaff.The United States has no desire whatsoever to allow the right of self-determination to either Paki or Afghan people. The majority of Pakistanis, Afghans, Iraqi or other peoples who have witnessed their countriesdecimated by the U.S. military may indeed desire basic services, opportunity, and the rule of law, but an evenhigher percentage views the United States as an imperialist power and therefore the major cause of the lack of  proper institutions and security in their countries is not the insurgency but the occupiers. It was no differentduring the days of colonialism. Simply tell the people that you are there for their own good, loot the naturalresources divide and conquer the populace, and destroy all forms of indigenous development and then blame thefailures on the natives. It worked the same way in Iraq as suddenly the United States was in the country to prevent a civil war that it was responsible for starting. Of course Obama failed to mention any public opinion polls that document the majority’s resentment of the United States and therefore is no more “for the people”than his predecessor.BUSH SAID: “The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis hadmade. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of theholiest shrines in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra — in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements some supported by Iran, formed deathsquads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.OBAMA SAID: “Al Qaeda and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11.They've killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They've blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state. So make no mistake: al Qaedaand its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within.”The true cause of each and every single one of these events is the U.S. occupation. There have been noother justifications for violence in the region other than that the sites and individuals attacked have been loyal tothe American occupier. To imagine that the cause of this violence is anything other than U.S. intervention andto think that it will be resolved is a further documentation of the hubris, and in actuality the ignorance, of U.S. policy-makers. Take for instance Iraq, where Sunni and Shiite populations mobilized against British rule in1920 only to witness massive air bombardments against civilian populations with some of the earliest knownutilization of white phosphorous. In 1958, the Iraqis, we are now to believe have been at civil war for centuries,again combined forces to overthrow King Faisal, the British stooge. It is well known that many Shiites foughton behalf of Sadaam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War. In fact, civil war between Sunni and Shiites in Iraq wasunheard of before America arrived and any Iraqi interviewed will inform that Sunnis and Shiites had

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->