President Barack Obama was and is a strong ally of Israel. It was and is Israeli intelligence that paved the way for the Bush Neo-Cons to attack Iraq. Yet, Iraq was never the end-game of Neo-Con strategists. Essentially, all of the Levant was to be forced into an artificially constructed "democracies" which would be led by friendlies eager to open their borders to outside exploitation. Needless to say, Halliburton, et al, were in the vanguard. There was probably an assumption that we would control nuclear development among the new democracies.
Americans, after watching many billions of dollars seemingly vanish in the reconstruction of Iraq by such giants as Halliburton, learned that they are corrupt. After America has listened to the Bush Neo-Cons lie about WMDs, distort the influence of al-Qaeda (whose titular leader, Osama bin Laden, has probably been dead for years), and scratch their heads at the persistent resistance, now learn that Iraqi, Afghani, and Irani leaders have not been honest.
If the latter have been Machiavellian in their strategies, have Westerners - especially American leaders - been forthright?
President Obama came into the presidency calling for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq and a gradual build-up in Afghanistan. He saw this host of mountains desperately seeking a meadow as a likely place for American intrusion. Although far from America, he saw importance in this land of poor and poorly educated people. Maybe, thought President Obama, we could export some IT companies there to take advantage of its cheap labor force.
Recently, media reported that there were many billions of dollars worth of valuable minerals in Afghanistan. Does anyone in America believe that this knowledge was "just revealed?" Surely, American, British and European geologists, employed by vast natural resources companies, had long ago stumbled upon these valuable veins of minerals. Oil, natural gas, abundant fields of desirable minerals sprawled across the Levant might well "get the wheels turning" in the heads of ruling circles throughout the West.
President Obama might have conceived of himself as a modern Alexander the Great. As with the Macedon hero, he would be willing to respect his vanquished foes, if they paid tribute and provided "peace-keeping" troops to strengthen his warlike path.
I believe that the ambitious Barack Obama had lost patience with the pace of victory. If he were "Great," then the failures in Afghanistan could not be his. They must be the failure of generals who had proven to be "not the right stuff." As with another of President Obama's historical mentors, Abe Lincoln, Barack was having trouble finding the winning general.
Not so long ago, General David McKiernan was removed from his command in Afghanistan halfway through his two-year assignment. This general had called for "new thinking" and a "new approach" in the war in Afghanistan. Naturally, to a president with an "Alexander the Great" complex, this must have seemed presumptuous indeed.
General McKiernan was dumped.
Parenthetically, Afghanistan has historically been a nearly impossible country to conquer. I use the word "country" more in a geographical sense than a national sense. The British at their apex of power couldn't. Genghis Khan could, but he was a conqueror - not a cadre of British administrators backed by a regiment of Redcoats. Even opium madness could not gain for the British their desired Afghanistan Mandate.
The ambitious Barack Obama, surrounded by voices little different from "W.'s" Neo-Cons, does not plan for future history books to give him bad marks in this adventure. Yet, he needed the right sort of general. The president needed victory, craved for it, and would not stand for less than victory.
General Stanley McChrystal had failed. The president and his chief advisers had decided that Afghanistan could not be secured under his leadership. McChrystal had to go.
By using diplomatic rumor-mongers and the media, the president's advisers hoped to trap the general into a resignation. If a pretext could only be found that legitimized in the public eye the demand for McChrystal's resignation, then President Obama could look him in the eye and say, "you have forced my hand, general." The president's advisers must have looked carefully at General McChrystal's civilian advisers. If one or two could be "turned" to help the president, then a trap could surely be sprung.
Since there is a likelihood that privately many officers with service knowledge of Afghanistan, as well as historical knowledge, have drawn the conclusion that it is a theater too costly to pursue, given its remote threat to the United States. Some may have thought that talking to the press might be a way of informing their fellow citizens - the voters. There must also be concern that, if the several billion dollars per month that the war in Afghanistan costs should continue, then it will create an overwhelming justification for looting Afghanistan's "newly found" mineral wealth to pay back part of the "Cost of Freedom."
I believe that President Obama had gotten plenty of unwanted feedback about the private views of several officers, forcing him to the conclusion that he would need to clean out the barracks of all who doubted the vision of Barack the Great. The itty-bitty congressman on the Hill certainly would support their conquering hero, President Obama. That would probably also mean that McChrystal will not be the last general to be forced out.
June 23, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment