“Never Again”
A key part of Benito Mussolini’s fascist philosophy was that he believed neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.
Perpetual peace has no utility for the Republican party, because they get elected on the illusion that they are the party that will protect us. Critics of Bush’s foreign policy argue that the best road to national security lies not in military conquests abroad, but in a foreign policy that stops making our country an object of hatred. Furthermore, it’s obvious that our military industrial complex would not find perpetual peace profitable and consequently of no utility.
Our forces have delivered death and destitution upon Iraq, while privatizing and expropriating the country's entire economy. People throughout the world are fearful of our military empire, with its unanswerable destructive capacity never before seen in human history.
It’s factually incorrect to suggest that terrorists hate America for our prosperity. In 1989, Jimmy Carter said: "You only have to go to Lebanon to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States, because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers, women and children and farmers and housewives in those villages around Beirut."
We are not envied, but resented for the repression and poverty our policies have imposed upon Muslim countries. In 1993, terrorist wrote a letter declaring the first attack on the World Trade Center was: "in response to our political, economic, and military support to Israel...and the rest of the repressive regimes in the region".
Michael Scheuer reveals: "Both those Muslims who support and those who reject bin Laden's violence appear to genuinely love their God, faith and fellow Muslims in a passionate way, which is foreign to Americans. Evangelical Christians have a fervor for God similar to the Islamists. Even they do not live and love their religion with the ferocity of bin Laden." After the 9/11 attack, bin Laden said: "This is a defensive Jihad. We want to defend our people and the territory we control. This is why I said that if we do not get security, the Americans will not be secure either".
For generations the Muslim world has suffered from European colonial misrule, which was preceded by the cruel medieval crusades. Both Muslims and Jews understandably say "never again" to fascist Christian butchers.
Perpetual peace has no utility for the Republican party, because they get elected on the illusion that they are the party that will protect us. Critics of Bush’s foreign policy argue that the best road to national security lies not in military conquests abroad, but in a foreign policy that stops making our country an object of hatred. Furthermore, it’s obvious that our military industrial complex would not find perpetual peace profitable and consequently of no utility.
Our forces have delivered death and destitution upon Iraq, while privatizing and expropriating the country's entire economy. People throughout the world are fearful of our military empire, with its unanswerable destructive capacity never before seen in human history.
It’s factually incorrect to suggest that terrorists hate America for our prosperity. In 1989, Jimmy Carter said: "You only have to go to Lebanon to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States, because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers, women and children and farmers and housewives in those villages around Beirut."
We are not envied, but resented for the repression and poverty our policies have imposed upon Muslim countries. In 1993, terrorist wrote a letter declaring the first attack on the World Trade Center was: "in response to our political, economic, and military support to Israel...and the rest of the repressive regimes in the region".
Michael Scheuer reveals: "Both those Muslims who support and those who reject bin Laden's violence appear to genuinely love their God, faith and fellow Muslims in a passionate way, which is foreign to Americans. Evangelical Christians have a fervor for God similar to the Islamists. Even they do not live and love their religion with the ferocity of bin Laden." After the 9/11 attack, bin Laden said: "This is a defensive Jihad. We want to defend our people and the territory we control. This is why I said that if we do not get security, the Americans will not be secure either".
For generations the Muslim world has suffered from European colonial misrule, which was preceded by the cruel medieval crusades. Both Muslims and Jews understandably say "never again" to fascist Christian butchers.
1 Comments:
Here's an analysis of US actions in recent years that students of history like yourself may appreciate:
THE SPOILING ATTACK
Via Stratfor Newsletter
By George Friedman
.....The United States has now spent four years fighting in Iraq. Those who planned the conflict never expected this outcome. Indeed, it could be argued that this outcome represents not only miscalculation but also a strategic defeat for the United States. The best that can be said about the war at the moment is that it is a strategic stalemate, which is an undesired outcome for the Americans. The worst that can be said is that the United States has failed to meet its strategic objectives and that failure represents defeat.
In considering the situation, our attention is drawn to a strange paradox that has been manifest in American foreign policy since World War II. On the one hand, the United States has consistently encountered strategic stalemate or defeat in particular politico-military operations. At those times, the outcomes have appeared to be disappointing if not catastrophic. Yet, over the same period of time, U.S. global power, on the whole, has surged. In spite of stalemate and defeat during the Cold War, the United States was more in 2000 than it had been in 1950.
Consider these examples from history:
Korea: Having defeated the North Korean army, U.S. forces were attacked by China. The result was a y stalemate, followed by a partition that essentially restored the status quo ante -- thus imposing an extended stalemate.
Cuba: After a pro-Soviet government was created well within the security cordon of the United States, Washington used overt and covert means to destroy the Castro regime. All attempts failed, and the Castro government remains in place nearly half a century later.
Vietnam: the United States fought an extended war in Vietnam, designed to contain the expansion of Communism in Indochina. The United States failed to achieve its objectives -- despite massive infusions of force -- and North Vietnam established hegemony over the region.
Iran: The U.S. containment policy required it to have a cordon of allies around the Soviet Union. Iran was a key link, blocking Soviet access to the Persian Gulf. The U.S. expulsion from Iran following the Islamic Revolution represented a major strategic reversal.
Iraq: In this context, Iraq appears to represent another strategic reversal -- with U.S. ambitions at least blocked, and possibly defeated, after a major investment of effort and prestige.
Well worth a read! What have we gained from Korea to Iraq? How do you explain our relative strength after defeat or stalemate?
Via Stratfor:
.....Look at it this way. On a pretty arbitrary scale -- between Korea (1950-53), Cuba (1960-63), Vietnam (1963-75), Iran (1979-1981) and Iraq (2003-present) -- the United States has spent about 27 of the last 55 years engaged in politico-military maneuvers that, at the very least, did not bring obvious success, and frequently brought disaster. Yet, in spite of these disasters, the long-term tendency of American power relative to the rest of the world has been favorable to the United States. This general paradox must be explained. And in the course of explanation, some understandings of the Iraq campaign, seen in a broader context, might emerge.....
......Put somewhat differently, there is the liberal view that the Soviet Union was not defeated by the United States in the Cold War, but that it collapsed itself, and the military conflicts of the Cold War were unnecessary. There is the conservative view that the United States won the Cold War in spite of a fundamental flaw in the American character -- an unwillingness to bear the burden of war -- and that this flaw ultimately will prove disastrous for the United States. Finally, there is the non-ideological, non-political view that the United States won the Cold War in spite of defeats and stalemates because these wars were never as important as either the liberals or conservatives made them out to be, however necessary they might have been seen to be at the time......
.....This appears to make no sense until we introduce a military concept into the analysis: the spoiling attack. The spoiling attack is an offensive operation; however, its goal is not to defeat the enemy but to disrupt enemy offensives -- to, in effect, prevent a defeat by the enemy. The success of the spoiling attack is not measured in term of enemy capitulation, but the degree to which it has forestalled successful enemy operations.....
.....If we consider the examples cited above and apply the twin concepts of the spoiling attack and economy of force, then the conversion of American defeats into increased U.S. global power no longer appears quite as paradoxical. In Korea, spoiling Communist goals created breathing space elsewhere for the United States, and increased tension levels between China and Russia. A stalemate achieved outcomes as satisfactory to Washington as taking North Korea would have been. In Cuba, containing Fidel Castro was, relative to cost, as useful as destroying him. What he did in Cuba itself was less important to Washington than that he should not be an effective player in Latin America. In Vietnam, frustrating the North's strategic goals for a decade allowed the Sino-Soviet dispute to ripen, thus opening the door for Sino-U.S. entente even before the war ended. The U.S. interest in Iran, of course, rested with its utility as a buffer to the Soviets. Being ousted from Iran mattered only if the Iranians capitulated to the Soviets. Absent that, Iran's internal politics were of little interest to the United States.
.....If we apply the twin concepts to Iraq, it is possible to understand the reasons behind the size of the force deployed (which, while significant, still is limited relative to the full range of options brought to bear in World War II) and the obvious willingness of the Bush administration to court military disaster. The invasion four years ago has led to the Sunnis and Shia turning against each other in direct conflict. Therefore, it could be argued that just as the United States won the Cold War by exploiting the Sino-Soviet split and allying with Mao Zedong, so too the path to defeating the jihadists is not a main attack, but a spoiling attack that turns Sunnis and Shia against each other. This was certainly not the intent of the Bush administration in planning the 2003 invasion; it has become, nevertheless, an unintended and significant outcome.....
Sign up to start receiving your own copy
......
Post a Comment
<< Home