[Peace-discuss] The wider war

[C. G. Estabrook]

There's certainly self-deception involved, in varying degrees, but in the case
of the war in the Middle East, US planners aren't willing to be candid about
their reasons for war -- control of Mideast resources -- because that would
cause even greater opposition at home and abroad.

We have to be "fighting terrorism" as we once "fought communism" -- not using
military force to ensure economic domination of the world by the American ruling
class.  That would be crude.  --CGE


John W. wrote:
> I always wonder whether our "leaders" really understand these simple concepts
> and are just blatantly lying to us about their agenda.  The alternative is
> that they really don't understand, which would make them quite stupid, or
> that they are, in some complex way, lying to themselves.
> 
> John Wason
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:46 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu 
> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
> 
>> From
> <http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/09/22/mcchrystals-conundrum/>:
> 
> ...The Afghan government – the government our troops are fighting and dying
> to protect – is described by McChrystal as riddled with corruption and
> "malign." This has led to a “crisis of confidence among Afghans. Further, a
> perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align
> with us against the insurgents."
> 
> But of course the Afghans are "reluctant" to welcome foreign invaders with
> open arms – yes, even if they are Americans. When have they ever done so?
> 
> ...McChrystal himself fails to grasp the essential fact about the country he
> is invading and occupying, which is that Afghans – like people everywhere –
> hate invaders and invariably resist occupation. Just ask the Russians or the
> British. The reason for the insurgency isn’t because the Afghan government is
> any more corrupt than governments in that region of the world generally tend
> to be: it’s because President Karzai is an American puppet who was installed 
> because we invaded the country and continue to occupy it. Without U.S.
> military support, the Karzai regime wouldn’t last but a month or two, at most
> – and the same is true of any regime we support, no matter who is at the head
> of it.
> 
> ...Which leads me to believe that this isn’t about Afghanistan at all, that
> the country is just a staging ground for a wider, much more ambitious
> military campaign, whose immediate target is Pakistan. The insurgency, the
> general avers, "is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the
> major Afghan insurgent groups are based in Pakistan, are linked with al-Qaeda
> and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements
> of Pakistan’s ISI,” which is its intelligence service. Al-Qaeda and other
> extremist movements “based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide
> bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological
> motivation, training, and financial support."
> 
> McChrystal is clearly itching to strike targets in Pakistan with more than
> just a few drones every now and then – and before you know it, we’ll be
> launching yet another invasion and occupation, while the good general exhorts
> his troops to decrease their "distance" from the Pakistanis and tells us we
> ought to build more schools and hospitals.
> 
> Yes, well, they’ll need more hospitals, no doubt about that...
> 
> ###