Will the Real Prezdent Please Stand Up?

So, no matter how much we dream of the "peace" Prezdent for whom we voted (and how little attention most of us are now paying to Pakistan and Afghanistan (as if many ever did . . .)), Eric Margolis (author of War at the Top of the World and the new book, American Raj: Liberation or Domination: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World) confides that (emphasis marks inserted - Ed):

President Barack Obama has now taken full ownership of the Afghanistan War. Gone are Washington’s pretenses that a western "coalition" was waging this conflict. Gone, too, is the comic book term, "war on terrorism," replaced by the Orwellian sobriquet, "overseas contingency operations." Obama’s announcement last week of deeper US involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan – now officially known in Washington as "Afpak" – was accompanied by a preliminary media bombardment of Pakistan for failing to be sufficiently responsive in advancing US strategic plans. The New York Times in a front-page story last week that was clearly orchestrated by the Obama administration charged that Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), has been secretly aiding Taliban and its allies in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 2003, the NY Times severely damaged its once stellar reputation by serving as a primary conduit for fake war propaganda put out by the Bush administration over Iraq. The Times has been beating the war drums for more US military operations against Pakistan. Even so, these latest angry charges being hurled by Washington at Pakistan’s spy agency ring true. Having covered ISI for almost 25 years, and been briefed by many of its director generals, I would be very surprised if ISI was not quietly working with Taliban and other Afghan resistance movements. Protecting Pakistan’s interests, not those of the United States, is ISI’s main job. According to Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Washington threatened war against Pakistan after 9/11 if it did not fully cooperate in the US invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistan’s bases and ports were and remain essential for the US occupation of Afghanistan. Pakistan was forced at gunpoint to accept US demands though most of its people supported Taliban as nationalist, anti-Communist freedom fighters and opposed the US invasion. Taliban, mostly composed of Pashtun tribesmen, had been nurtured and armed by Pakistan. Many of Pakistan’s generals and senior ISI officers are Pashtun, who make up 15–18% of that nation’s population and form its second largest ethnic group after Punjabis. ISI routinely used Taliban and militant Kashmiri groups Lashkar-i-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. Pakistan was enraged to see its traditional Afghan foes, the Communist-dominated Northern Alliance of Tajiks and Uzbeks, put into power by the Americans. The Northern Alliance was strongly backed by India, Iran, Russia, and the Central Asian post-Communist states. Pakistan has always considered Afghanistan it "strategic hinterland" and natural sphere of influence. The 30-million strong Pashtun people straddle the artificial Pak-Afghan border, known as the Durand Line, drawn by Imperial Britain as part of its divide and rule strategy. Pakistan supports the Afghan Pashtun, who have been excluded from power in US-occupied Afghanistan. But Pakistan also fears secessionist tendencies among its own Pashtun. The specter of an independent Pashtun state – "Pashtunistan" – uniting the Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistanhas long been one of Islamabad’s worst nightmares. Pakistanis are outraged by US bombing attacks against their own rebellious Pashtun tribes in the frontier agencies. Most also strongly oppose Washington’s "renting" 130,000 Pakistani troops and aircraft to attack pro-Taliban Pashtun tribesmen. A majority believe the increasingly unpopular and isolated government of President Asif Zardari serves the interests of the US rather than Pakistan. Pakistan is bankrupt and now lives on American handouts. Its last two governments have been forced to do Washington’s bidding though most Pakistanis are opposed to such policies. The US has ignored intensifying efforts by India, Iran, and Russia to expand their influence in Afghanistan. India, in particular, is arming and supplying Afghan foes of Pakistan. Washington sees Pakistan only as a way of advancing its own interests in Afghanistan, not as a loyal old ally. Obedience, not cooperation, is being demanded of Islamabad. President Barack Obama announced that more US troops and civilian officials will go to Afghanistan, and more billions will be spent sustaining a war against the largely Pashtun national resistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of this will benefit Pakistan. In fact America’s deepening involvement in "Afpak" brings the threat of growing instability and violence, even the de facto breakup of Pakistan as the US tried to splinter fragile Pakistan just as it did Iraq. It is ISI’s job to deal with these dangers, to keep in close touch with Pashtun on both sides of the border, and to counteract the machinations of other foreign powers in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal belt. Many Pakistanis also know that one day the US and its allies will quit Afghanistan, leaving a bloody mess behind them. Pakistan’s ISI will have to pick up the pieces and deal with the ensuing chaos. Pakistan’s strategic and political interests are quite different from those of Washington. But few in Washington seem to care in the least. ISI is not playing a double game, as Washington charges, but simply assuring Pakistan’s strategic and political interests in the region. The Obama administration is making an historic mistake by treating Pakistan with imperial arrogance and ignoring the concerns and desires of its people. We seem to have learned nothing from the Iranian revolution.

A(fill in the blank)! Suzan ______________

Let AIG Go Bankrupt for Good of US?

Jim Rogers, a favorite bear of mine from my old Lou Rukeyser-watching days (head bows for a moment in remembrance of sweeter if not much better times - the 80's), brought up an issue on CNBC Tuesday that bothers many people when he stated that we should "Let AIG Go Bankrupt" to save the U.S. (Some editing was necessary for clarity - Ed.)

because keeping it and other sick financials alive on government support risks ruining the US economy. AIG, whose $61.66 billion fourth-quarter loss was the largest ever for a US company, received $30 billion more in government funds Monday. The insurer's financial health hasn't improved despite getting as much as $150 billion from the government last year. "Suppose AIG goes bankrupt, it is better that AIG goes bankrupt and we have a horrible two or three years than that the whole US goes bankrupt," Rogers said. "AIG has trillions of dollars of obligations, let them fail, let the courts sort it out and start over. Otherwise we'll never start over." On Monday, CEO Edward Liddy told CNBC that the insurer is far more stable and secure than it was last Fall but acknowledged that it was "difficult to say" if AIG will need even more money from the government in the future. Bailing out the banks is going to increase the debt spiral and finally cause the destruction of the world's biggest economy, Rogers said.

Rogers went on to say that "I think it's astonishing, they're ruining the US economy, they're ruining the US government, they're ruining the US central bank and they're ruining the US dollar."

You are watching something in front of (y)our eyes, very historically, which is basically the destruction of New York as a financial center and the destruction of America as the world's most powerful country.

Rogers calls our attention to what we are risking by ignoring Japan's financial history.

Japan's economic "lost decade" was caused by trying to bail out the banks, and the West risks running out of money if it doesn't let the bad banks fail now, Rogers warned. Systemic risk is going to be the same in 10 months, 5 years o(r) 10 years if the fundamental problem is not solved, he added. "The idea that you have too much debt, too much borrowing and too much consumption and you're going to solve that problem with more debt, more consumption and more borrowing? These people are nuts." Wall Street and the City of London are going to be "disastrous" for years, like in the 1950s and 1960s, and in 30 years, finance will "dry up and wither away" as we are entering a "long period of hard times," he said. "Power is shifting now from the money shifters, the guys who trade paper and money, to people who produce real goods. What you should do is become a farmer, or start a farming network," Rogers said.

Reminding me once again of the late 60's/early 70's when my "Back to the Land" hippie comrades argued for a simpler life filled with non-X-box pleasures as the gate to Heaven . . . And then, out of nowhere, Eric Margolis hints that U.S. troops (combat-ready, you betcha!) will never leave Iraq and that the public will soon forget that it's not Obama's and the Democrats' war, and that none of the real perpetrators will ever be held accountable. (As if it's like a real plan!)

President Obama says U.S. combat troops will leave Iraq by the end of 2011. However, the U.S. military occupation will not end. What we are seeing is a public relations shell game. The U.S. has 142,000 soldiers and nearly 100,000 mercenaries occupying Iraq. Obama's plan calls for withdrawing the larger portion of the U.S. garrison but leaving 50,000-60,000 troops in Iraq. To get around his promise to withdraw all "combat" troops, the president and his advisers are rebranding the stay-behind garrison as "training troops, protection for American interests, and counterterrorism forces." At a time when the U.S. is bankrupt and faces a $1.75 trillion deficit, the Pentagon's gargantuan $664 billion budget (50% of total global military spending) will grow in 2009 and 2010 by another $200 billion to pay for the occupation of Iraq and Obama's expanded war in Afghanistan. Throw in another $40 billion to $50 billion for the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Obama insists the U.S. will withdraw from Iraq. But his words are belied by the Pentagon, which continues to expand bases in Iraq, including Balad and Al-Asad, with 4,400-metre runways for heavy bombers and transports.

Say it ain't so, Joe! Suzan ________________________