[THS] Obama's Af-Pak is as Whack as Bush`s Iraq

Fri Dec 4 19:33:59 CET 2009

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24105.htm

Obama's Af-Pak is as Whack as Bush's Iraq

By Glen Ford

“More occupation means less occupation.”

December 03, 2009 " BAR" Dec. 02, 2009 --  Barack Obama’s oratorical skills have
turned on him, revealing, as George Bush’s low-grade delivery never could, the
perfect incoherence of the current American imperial project in South Asia. Bush’s
verbal eccentricities served to muddy his entire message, leaving the observer
wondering what was more ridiculous, the speechmaker or the speech. There is no
such confusion when Obama is on the mic. His flawless delivery of superbly
structured sentences provides no distractions, requiring the brain to examine the
content – the policy in question – on its actual merits. The conclusion comes quickly:
the U.S. imperial enterprise in Afghanistan and Pakistan is doomed, as well as evil.
The president’s speech to West Point cadets was a stream of non sequiturs so devoid
of logic as to cast doubt on the sanity of the authors. “[T]hese additional American
and international troops,” said the president, “will allow us to accelerate handing over
responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of
Afghanistan in July of 2011.”

Obama claims that, the faster an additional 30,000 Americans pour into Afghanistan,
the quicker will come the time when they will leave. More occupation means less
occupation, you see? This breakneck intensification of the U.S. occupation is
necessary, Obama explains, because “We have no interest in occupying your
country.”

“The U.S. imperial enterprise in Afghanistan and Pakistan is doomed, as well as evil.”
If the Americans were truly interested in occupying Afghanistan, the logic goes, they
would slow down and stretch out the process over many years, rather than mount an
18-month surge of Taliban-hunting. The Afghans are advised to hold still – the
pulsating surge will be over before they know it.
At present, of course, the Americans have assumed all “responsibility” for Afghanistan
– so much so that President Hamid Karzai only learned about Obama’s plans earlier
on Tuesday during a one-hour tele-briefing. This is consistent with Obama’s detailed
plans for Afghan liberation, under U.S. tutelage. The president is as wedded to high
stakes testing of occupied peoples as he is for American public school children. “This
effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over,”
said the Occupier-in-Chief. He continued:

“And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive
our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that
combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or
corrupt to be held accountable.”

Such rigorous oversight of their country’s affairs should keep Afghan minds off the
fact that they have been fighting to remain independent of foreign rule for centuries,
if not millennia. If Obama is right, Afghans might also be distracted from dwelling on
the question of who their “Ministries, Governors, and local leaders” are answerable to
– the Afghan people or the Americans?
“Obama advises Afghans to be patient and trusting regarding their sovereignty.”

Although President Obama is anxious to bring U.S. troop levels above 100,000 as
quickly as possible, he advises Afghans to be patient and trusting regarding their
sovereignty. “It will be clear to the Afghan government, and, more importantly, to
the Afghan people, that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country."
That is, it will become clear in the fullness of time, but hopefully no later than 18
months after the planned surge begins. If all goes well, the Taliban will be dead or
nearly so, and the non-Taliban Afghans will be prepared to begin assuming
“responsibility for their own country.” If not, then the Americans will be forced to
continue as occupiers – reluctantly, of course, since, as the whole world and the
more intelligent class of Afghans know, the Americans “have no interest in occupying
your country” – unless they have to.

Should the Afghans become confused about American intentions, they might consult
with their Pakistani neighbors, for whom President Obama also has plans.

“[We] have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose
location is known, and whose intentions are clear,” the president declared. “America
is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and
development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis
displaced by the fighting.”
Obama did not mention that it was the Americans that coerced and bribed the
Pakistani military into launching the attacks that displaced over a million people in the
Swat region and hundreds of thousands more in border areas. How nice of them to
join in humanitarian assistance to the homeless.

The Pakistanis, like the Afghans, were assured the Americans will not abandon them
to their own, independent devices. Said Obama: “And going forward, the Pakistani
people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and
prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its
people can be unleashed.”

Some Pakistanis might consider that a threat. According to polling by the Pew Global
Attitudes Project, only 16 percent of Pakistanis held a favorable view of the United
States in 2009. Actually, that’s a point or two higher than U.S. popularity in Occupied
Palestine (15 percent) and Turkey (14 percent), the only other Muslim countries on
the Pew list.
Not to worry. Obama knows things that escape the rest of us. For example, the fact
that “we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World - one
that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises
a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for
peace and prosperity and human dignity.”
Which means, we can expect those polling numbers to start going up, soon.

“Only 16 percent of Pakistanis held a favorable view of the United States in 2009.”
When Obama isn’t launching bold initiatives and “new beginnings,” he’s busy taking
care of U.S. imperial business as usual. Obama is most proud that the U.S. spends
more on its military than all the rest of the nations of the planet, combined.

“[T]he United States of America has underwritten global security for over six
decades,” he told the cadets, “a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come
down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and
advancing frontiers of human liberty.” Others might not view the rise of U.S.
hegemony in such a positive light. But they are wrong, said the president. “For unlike
the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was
founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will
not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or
ethnicity is different from ours.”

In Obama’s worldview, it’s the thought that counts. Americans don’t seek world
domination; it just comes to them. “We do not seek to occupy other nations,” they
leave us no choice. If it were not for American concern for the welfare of all the
world’s people, the U.S. would not maintain 780 military bases in other people's
countries.

Obama has certainly matured as an American-style statesman in his nine and a half
months in office. As a TV Native American might say, “Black man in white house
speak like forked tongued white man.” Only better.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at
Glen.Ford at BlackAgendaReport.com.
President Obama's Secret:

Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan

With New Surge, One Thousand U.S. Soldiers and $300 Million for Every One al
Qaeda Fighter

By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS

December 03, 2009 "ABC News" - Dec. 2, 2009 — As he justified sending 30,000
more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year, President Barack Obama's
description Tuesday of the al Qaeda "cancer" in that country left out one key fact:
U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters
in the entire country.

A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100
al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence
agencies and the Defense Department. The relatively small number was part of the
intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his
deliberations.

President Obama made only a vague reference to the size of the al Qaeda presence
in his speech at West Point, when he said, "al Qaeda has not reemerged in
Afghanistan in the same number as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens
along the border."

A spokesperson at the White House's National Security Council, Chris Hensman, said
he could not comment on intelligence matters.

Obama's National Security Adviser, Gen. James Jones, put the number at "fewer than
a hundred" in an October interview with CNN.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., referred to the number at a Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in October, saying "intelligence says about a hundred al Qaeda in
Afghanistan."

As the President acknowledged, al Qaeda now operates from Pakistan where U.S.
troops are prohibited from operating. "We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from
once again spreading through that country," he said.

Intelligence officials estimate there are several hundred al Qaeda fighters just across
the border in Pakistan.

An Obama administration official said the additional troops were needed in
Afghanistan to "sandwich" al Qaeda between Pakistan and Afghanistan and prevent
them from re-establishing a safe haven in Afghanistan.

"Pakistan has been stepping up its efforts," the official said.

"So the real question is will Pakistan do enough," said former White House counter-
terrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

"What if they take all the money we given them but don't really follow through? What
the strategy then?" said Clarke.

With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30 billion, it means
that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit 1,000 troops and $300
million a year.
al Qaeda's Ideological Influence

Other counter-terror analysts say the actual number of al Qaeda in Afghanistan is less
important than their ability to train others in the Taliban and have ideological
influence.

"A hundred 'no foolin' al Qaeda operatives operating in a safe haven can do a hell of
a lot of damage," said one former intelligence official with significant past experience
in the region.

At a Senate hearing, the former CIA Pakistan station chief, Bob Grenier, testified al
Qaeda had already been defeated in Afghanistan.

"So in terms of 'in Afghanistan,'" asked Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "they have been
disrupted and dismantled and defeated. They're not in Afghanistan, correct?"

"That's true," replied Grenier.

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24105.htm

President Obama's Secret:

Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan

With New Surge, One Thousand U.S. Soldiers and $300 Million for Every One al
Qaeda Fighter

By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS

December 03, 2009 "ABC News" - Dec. 2, 2009 — As he justified sending 30,000
more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year, President Barack Obama's
description Tuesday of the al Qaeda "cancer" in that country left out one key fact:
U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters
in the entire country.

A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100
al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence
agencies and the Defense Department. The relatively small number was part of the
intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his
deliberations.

President Obama made only a vague reference to the size of the al Qaeda presence
in his speech at West Point, when he said, "al Qaeda has not reemerged in
Afghanistan in the same number as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens
along the border."