Santa Cruz Indymedia : http://santacruz.indymedia.org
Home
Santa Cruz Indymedia

LOCAL Commentary :: Government & Elections : Peace & War

911 for Undergraduates: based on sources from The Monterey Institute of International Studies and the Naval Post-Graduate School in Monterey

The the long term polarization of the former British empire and its relationship to the rise of Taliban was much studied prior to 911. Unfortunately for the victims of 911, government experts had to find jobs in academia after the election of George W. Bush.

Karl F Inderfurth, formerly of the State department is an important example. The progress he achieved has been single-handedly dismantled by Bush himself.

“Having Ambassador Inderfurth on our faculty since August 2001 was extremely fortuitous,� said George Washington University President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg. “His first-hand knowledge of South Asia, particularly his experience with Afghanistan and the Taliban, and his dealings with Pakistan and India, has broadened our students’ grasp of the complexity of problems in that region of the world.�
Unfortunately, the problems that Ambassador Inderfurth was working to resolve are still pending and have been greatly exacerbated by the unsteady course of the present administration.

Their most importartant object, obsession, in fact was to find an excuse to invade Iraq while offering no exit strategy.

Holding a free election in Iraq was not one of their stated goals: holding a public tribunal for Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity was one of the primary stated goals of our incursion, and for personal reasons of the Bush cabal this has not happened.

The road that George W. Bush has followed has placed him increasingly at odds with expert analysts of all political stripes, and raises questions about his real objectives.

Role of Pakistan Central to Current Conflicts in the Former British Empire

The nuclear capability in Iran was aquired from Pakistan,and likewise were the leadership and intelligence resources of the Taliban. Half a decade ago, experts were seriously adressing this problem which then seemed to focus on the nuclear saber-rattling between India and Pakistan.

In the picture above, George W. Bush smiles while dismantling decades of work diffusing what had become Churchill's nightmare: an ungovernable empire of unmanageable wealth that could explode violently at any moment.

We have certainly come a long way since July 14, 1998, when this was published by
Rediff on the Net:
The Clinton administration has asked Congress for a blanket authority to waive nuclear-related economic sanctions, but promised not to utilise that authority unless India and Pakistan make ''substantial progress'' towards non-proliferation goals, including the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Testifying before the Senate foreign relations sub-committee on near east and South Asian affairs on Monday, Assistant Secretary of State Karl F Inderfurth said the waiver would give the US more leverage in negotiating a non-proliferation deal with the two South Asian rivals.

He, however, made it clear that ''our discussion of these matters should not leave India and Pakistan with the impression that a lifting of sanctions is imminent.''

But nuclear proliferation and terrorism by moslem extremists are not a major concerns for the present adminstration. As William C. Potter of The Monterey Institute of International Studies notes:
"Gone are the days when the United States routinely lined up on the side of those pursuing the goal of halting and reversing the spread of nuclear weapons. This change in Washington's nonproliferation game plan has been underway for some time, but was most clearly expressed in the July 18, 2005 India-U.S. Joint Statement. This extraordinary document, which reverses more than a quarter century of U.S. declaratory policy, suggests that the national security team of George W. Bush regards nuclear proliferation to be both inevitable and not necessarily a bad thing."

India and the New Look of U.S. Nonproliferation Policy:
bibliography

With this bold stroke, Bush managed to circumvent the thoughtful analysis of highly paid government experts for reasons that remain to be seen, quoting again from the source above:
Indeed, the policy shift bears all the signs of a top-down administrative directive specifically designed to circumvent the inter-agency review process and to minimize input from any remnants of the traditional "nonproliferation lobby.

op cit [2]

True to form in the style of The Merchants of Death, Bush, like his great-grandfather Samuel, understands the value of fostering arms related monopolies. Appointed by Woodrow Wilson in 1914, Samuel Bush held the title of "Chief of the Ordnance, Small Arms and Ammunition Section of the War Industries Board". In this capacity he helped foster monopolies in the arms industry. This was the start of Remmington Corporation, a goldmine for young Percy Rockerfeller, and also for Samuel himself, who supplied the steel from his own, increasingly profitable, corporation Buckeye Steel:
In his new official position Samuel Bush helped organise munitions for the US Government's war effort, and channeled Government assistance to needy weapon makers (though why they needed it was a profound mystery to outsiders). Although only a relative 'small fry' in business himself, he was now perfectly placed to give the nod to particularly profitable contracts for others and receive "kickbacks" in return, from transactions that were handily shrouded in wartime secrecy. And sure enough, fat war contracts now flowed to Buckeye Steel. It was Samuel Prescott Bush, then, who began the long tradition of the" patriotic" Bushes, the proud American family who just happen to be always making money from war.

A Government of Thieves

And what benefit do we derive from our adventure in "Odious Mesopotamia"? That was the term Winston Churchill coined for revolutionary Iraq 80 years ago. Here again, Bush butts heads with the best advice of his generals - and admirals. The Naval Postgraduate School provided an excellent analysis of the situation in October of 2002, when Bush and Blair were doing all they could to push a reluctant world into a war with Iraq:
An Iraqi public that opens its arms and its hearts to the "liberating" force augurs well for the future of the country. A hostile public that proves to be a breeding ground for Islamic extremism and terrorism leads the United States down into the morass that was feared by Churchill, in which U.S. soldiers and aid workers are subjected to the same fate as the British administrators and soldiers that were brutally killed during the Arab revolt of 1920.

The illusion of the liberating force welcomed with opened arms dissippates with each day the occupation is prolonged: and instead what we are faced with is a rerun of the revolt of 1920, in which Shia and Sunni clerics joined together to orchestrate opposition to the British occupation, and ultimately to the designs of the British Empire.

David Roknich

https://electromagnet.us/dogspot/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=371
MIRROR: The Merchants of Death
 
 


New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz

Calendar

No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event

Views

Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software