|
Writers Articles And Opinions |
|
|
|
12 June 2010 By Stephen Lendman
Periodically, US administrations
prepare NNS documents for Congress, outlining their
major national security concerns and plans for
addressing.
On May 27, the White House Office
of the Press Secretary announced Obama's saying it's
to "Advanc(e) Our Interests: Actions in Support of the
President's National Security Strategy." UN ambassador
Susan Rice called it a "dramatic departure" from the
Bush administration. The White House claims it's "to
keep the American people safe" and advance the
nation's "values and ideals."
In fact, it's old wine in new
bottles, rebranded to appear softer. Rhetoric is one
thing, policy another, revealing actions much louder
than words. Under all administrations, they're
menacing, given America's permanent war agenda,
discussed by this writer on March 1, accessible
through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/03/americas-permanent-war-agenda.html
It addressed permanent wars,
waging them in the name of peace, what historians
Charles Beard and Gore Vidal called "perpetual war for
perpetual peace," suppressing truths too disturbing to
reveal, like creating pretexts to pursue them, always
for imperial gain and benefits for war profiteers.
As a candidate, Obama campaigned
against militarism, promised limited escalation and
the removal of all combat troops from Iraq by August
31, 2010. In fact, permanent occupation of Iraq,
Afghanistan, and elsewhere is planned, increased
military spending annually, and more conflicts for
greater dominance that eventually will bankrupt the
country and leave it as damaged and isolated as Israel
is becoming from a policy Stratfor's George Friedman
calls r(unning) into its own fist."
Even the world's superpower is
vulnerable, maneuvering perhaps for goals too lofty,
running out of ways to pay for them, and perhaps
enough allies willing to go along.
In his writings and a recent
interview, Chalmers Johnson "worr(ies) about the
future of the United States; whether, in fact, we are
tending in the same path as the former Soviet Union
(as well as other former empires), with domestic,
ideological rigidity in our economic institutions,
imperial overstretch (that) we have to be everywhere
at all times. (We're richer than Russia), so it will
take longer. But we're overextended," and are headed
for the same fate. "I think we will stagger along
under a facade of constitutional government (until one
day) we're overcome by bankruptcy." Obama is pursuing
the same reckless path as his predecessors, more so,
in fact, with greater spending and new fronts.
What then to make of his NSS? On
May 27, New York Times writers David Sanger and Peter
Baker headlined, "New US Strategy Focuses on Managing
Threats," saying:
Obama's first plan describes a
time when America "will have to learn to live within
its limits - a world in which two wars cannot be
sustained for much longer and (other) rising powers
inevitably begin to erode some elements of (US)
influence around the globe."
Seeking help to advance global
hegemony, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton,
stressed "patience and partners (to achieve) results
more slowly," claiming "In a world like this, American
leadership isn't needed less. It is needed more. And
the simple fact is that no problem can be solved
without us," or perhaps less of them would exist
without US policies creating them - the fractious,
threatening world The Times writers mention,
reflecting more continuity than divergence from Bush.
On May 27 in Foreign Policy,
Peter Feaver wondered the same thing in his article
headlined, "Obama's National Security Strategy: real
change or just 'Bush Lite,' " saying:
Despite trying to frame it as a
new direction, in fact, he's continuing "a slightly
watered down but basically plausible remake" of his
predecessor's. Beyond the hyperbole and talking
points, "the conclusion is pretty obvious."
Instead of Bush's "strengthen(ed)
alliances to defeat global terrorism," Obama stresses
prevention of "attacks against us and our friends,
(and) agendas for cooperative action with the other
main centers of global power." Further, "comprehensive
engagement" with our traditional allies, as well as
"more effective partnerships with other key centers of
influence." In other words, greater efforts to co-opt
more nations to expand America's global dominance.
Bush also addressed reforming
international institutions. So does Obama, saying:
"we need to be clear-eyed about
the strengths and shortcomings of international
institutions that were developed to deal with the
challenges of an earlier time and the shortage of
political will that has at times stymied the
enforcement of international norms. Yet it would be
destructive to both American national security and
global security if the United States used the
emergence of new challenges and the shortcoming of the
international system as a reason to walk away from
it."
Instead, he stresses focusing on
strengthening it to "serve common interests," mostly
benefitting America.
Bush and Obama both identified
WMD proliferation as an major threat, "particularly
the danger posed by the pursuit of nuclear weapons by
violent extremists and their proliferation to
additional states." They both recognized the
importance of military and police power to combat it,
and according to Obama's NSS:
"The United States must reserve
the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend
our nation and our interests." In other words, like
Bush, preemptive war will be pursued to combat
perceived threats.
Also, both presidents stressed US
leadership, Bush's 2006 NSS saying:
"The challenges America faces are
great, yet we have enormous power and influence to
address those challenges." The "time has long since
passed" that Washington can lead by example alone.
"America cannot know peace, security, and prosperity
by retreating from the world. America must lead by
deed as well as example."
As true for Obama stressing
"global leadership (dependent on) strong and
responsible American leadership" directing it to
ensure other nations follow.
Overall, the language and tone
differ, but policy remains the same - permanent wars
in a threatening world, America in the lead waging
them along with willing partners offering support;
that is, until they cut their losses and opt out.
Also in Foreign Policy on May 27,
Will Inboden headlined, "Obama's National Security
Strategy leaves an empty feeling," saying:
Continuity with Bush is evident
in the context of a less than compelling grand
strategy "that connects an analysis of opportunities
and threats with resources, policies and goals."
It's "too heavy on process and
light on strategy," much of it devoted to "engagement,
cooperation and partnerships" as well as a "world we
seek (for) a just and sustainable international
order," not what's needed without Washington rampaging
to control it.
The proof, of course, is in the
implementation, and after nearly one and a half years
in office, Obama is clearly pursuing imperial wars and
homeland repression, like the Bush administration, by
a leader who promised change.
Another way came last September
when Central Command head General David Petraeus
issued a secret directive to send covert US Special
Operations forces to friendly and hostile states in
the Middle East, Central Asia, the Horn of Africa, and
by implication anywhere in the world by his
counterparts - to "penetrate, disrupt, defeat or
destroy" terror threats and "prepare the environment"
for future planned military attacks.
On June 4, Washington Post
writers Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe headlined, "US
'Secret War' Expands Globally as Special Operations
Forces Take a Larger Role," saying:
The Obama administration "has
significantly expanded a largely secret US war against
al-Qaeda and other radical groups" with Special Ops
forces "in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the
beginning of last year."
More is planned along with
intensified use of CIA drone attacks, and according to
one unnamed "senior military official," Obama has
allowed "things that the previous administration did
not," including the largest ever FY 2011 Special Ops
budget of $6.3 billion plus another $3.5 billion
contingency funding in 2010.
His NSS aside, Obama plans more
war on the world than George Bush, putting a lie to
his campaign promise to withdraw Iraq troops by August
2010 and begin exiting Afghanistan by July 2011.
Earlier as an Illinois State Senator, he delivered an
October 2002 anti-war speech, saying:
"....we ought not....travel down
that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those
who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice,
who would prove the full measure of devotion with
their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in
vain."
As president, he's waging war on
the world, including Americans globally, suspected of
terrorism. Explaining it, former National Intelligence
Director Dennis Blair told Congress last February that
Obama authorized "direct actions against terrorists,"
including assassinating uncharged Americans innocent
of any crime, in clear violation of the law.
Law Professor Jonathan Turley
cites the "Annex to the Hague Convention Number IV,
Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land" with a
provision stating:
"In addition to the prohibitions
provided by special Conventions, it is especially
forbidden....to kill or wound treacherous individuals
belonging to the hostile nation or army...."
Though vague, the Pentagon
interprets it as "prohibiting assassination,
proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a
price upon an enemy's head, as well as offering a
reward for an enemy 'dead or alive.' " In other words,
combatants can be targeted on the battlefield, not
civilians, precisely what other international law
states, Turley citing the rights of US citizens,
affirmed both in law and:
"in cases like Reid v. Covert,
354 US 1 (1957), American citizens have the same
protections regardless of whether they are within or
outside of the country."
The decision referred to two
American women who killed their husbands on US
military bases abroad, given the same Fifth Amendment
and other constitutional protections they'd get at
home. Turley asked: "If a president can kill US
citizens abroad, why not within the United States?"
What's to stop him, and what do policy statements mean
if he can do as he pleases by executive order, other
edicts, or verbal commands to subordinates.
Russia's RIA Novosti said Obama's
NSS "is not a radical departure" from his predecessor.
The document "is intended mainly for foreign
consumption," and to a lesser degree for Congress.
However, it's "just a piece of paper," and will anyone
"take him at his word." Why, when all politicians lie,
and Obama matches the best of them.
While the document denies America
targets Islam, policy clearly shows otherwise abroad
and at home, Muslims remaining the enemy of choice,
regularly vilified to hype fear to enlist support for
imperial wars and homeland repression, the same as
under Bush.
Added focus also stresses
homegrown threats, John Brennan, Obama's Deputy
National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and
Counterterrorism, saying:
"We've seen an increasing number
of individuals here in the United States become
captivated by extremist activities or causes....The
president's national security strategy explicitly
recognizes the threat (from)
radicalized....individuals, including US citizens,
armed with their US passport, travel(ing) to terrorist
safe havens....then return(ing) to America, their
deadly plans disrupted by coordinated intelligence and
law enforcement."
What's going on, in fact, is
America's war on Islam to incite fear, targeting
innocent Muslims as convenient scapegoats to gain
popular support for police state policies - Obama
doing Bush one better with indefinite detentions of
uncharged persons "who nonetheless pose a threat to
the security of the United States." Despots couldn't
say it better.
His NSS implies no letup in the
counterterrorism fight, Brennan referring to a
campaign "harness(ing) every tool of American power,
military and civilian, kinetic and diplomatic,"
including war. "We will take the fight to Al Qaeda
(read Muslims) and its extremist affiliates (read
Taliban, US citizens, or anyone challenging America)
wherever they plot and train - in Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond."
Nor will we "respond after the
fact. Instead the United States will disrupt,
dismantle and ensure a lasting defeat of Al Qaeda and
violent extremist affiliates" - a clear declaration of
war on the world with America's full military and
homeland security might.
What critic Andrew Bacevich calls
America's standard response to perceived threats, "a
normal condition, one to which no plausible
alternatives seem to exist. All of this Americans (and
other nations) have come to take for granted: it's who
we are and what we do," and why we're increasingly
hated. Governing as roguishly as Bush, Obama will end
up as much despised.
Stephen Lendman lives in
Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and
listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished
guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the
Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central
time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs
are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/
EsinIslam.Com
|
Save
Add Comments To This Story