They preach Stability, but the intent is: Compliance!

Condensed by A. M. El Nahas,

from Mr. James Rothenberg’s article of May 26^th 2010

What are the United States doing in Afghanistan? According to U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, “the Administration together with the Congress are working to complete our mission”. Mission is a carefully chosen word. Used in this sense by propagandists, it connotes purpose, goodness, unity, and suggestively…etc, etc! Here one must stop, because once you accept the premise that the U.S. have a mission in Afghanistan, you are sufficiently indoctrinated, and your attention can be safely turned away from the mission itself onto its details, things like strategy, tactics, timing, resources, and flexibility.

the War in Afghanistan a “complex issue” what makes the issue complex is the way Washington must represent the situation and keep the public in line with the programme: to frighten, therefore the inevitable scare talk about protecting the country from terrorists (in lieu of a truly formidable enemy) and, in general, cultivating enemies (Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela), the one thing that is indispensable to the Pentagon.

If one accepts the State Department’s definition for “terrorists”, limiting it to non-state actors, the U.S. is conveniently exempt. This certainly answers the question of why no government officials will be considered terrorists, but it is hardly because of the popularly accepted notion of innocence. State terrorism is violence on a scale, like the “Shock and Awe” tactics in Iraq, that is not approachable by non-state actors.

The point is not that small scale terrorism has a place because large scale terrorism exists. That is simply a fact. The point is to oppose all forms of terrorism, wherever it emanates from.

the real mission, actually obliquely referred to here by Schumer: "We can achieve victory in Afghanistan when we have an environment that is conducive to economic development and most importantly when the Afghans have a security infrastructure that permits them to independently fight off and neutralize the Taliban insurgency in that country".

If the U.S. are not interested in helping Cuba’s economic development, 90 miles away from its shore, why would it care about Afghanistan, halfway around the world?

All the troops, all the missiles, all the Predator drones are there to bring Afghanistan under American dependence, consolidating U.S. presence in the oil and gas rich Caspian Basin with its geopolitical significance toward potential enemies Russia and China, and encircling Iran. America is fighting them “over there” not so it doesn’t have to fight them “over here”, but because that’s where the oil and gas are.

The vaunted “stability” that Washington yearns for in foreign countries has nothing to do with stability. What country has been more stable than Cuba for the past 50 years? Stability in the State Department sense means “compliance” with U.S. instructions, access for U.S. investment, access to the country’s raw materials, and the necessary military basing these entail. The cheapest asset of U.S. multinationals is the U.S. military, serving to protect foreign investment with costs of blood and limb, paid for in full by the commons.

In the U.S. military, the strong are used to get the weak. Careers are advanced by sealing off potential damage from above, for example, then Major Colin Powell in Vietnam, the subject being “possible U.S. atrocities”. If all the truth were known, the responsibility in Afghanistan rests with those who give orders, ultimately, Washington.

Pass On The Word.