Foreign Policy or Road Kill?

It is apparent that although then candidate Obama evinced an obvious dislike for war in the name of nation building, somewhere along the line after being awarded the Nobel Peace prize, his views vehemently altered - in particular pertaining to areas of Africa and Middle Asia. The query for me is does the present administration have any concern for Americans or even comprehend the concept of national security with regards to foreign policy, now given our interest of military conflict with Syria? I know the Obama administration considered action before since it is on the record that in July of 2012, Syrian rebel lobbyists reported that the Obama Administration had told them they would not be able to intervene in a seriously way until after the November election. Even so what is the policy, outside of Assad must go?

With respect to Syria, the only benefit I imagine is that such would show support for Israel and that our intervention would give the US government a chance to topple Iran’s only ally in the region. With Obama’s strong words and recent reconsideration of the “staged” red line, the only thing America has been doing has been using the CIA to smuggle other nations’ military assets into Syria.

Not to mention that what President Obama calls the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is mainly comprised of Syrian military deserters and criminals, al-Qaeda insurgents, Salafis and jihadists. It has been estimated by US intelligence sources that about 80% of the units recognize their spiritual leader Sheikh Adnan Al-Arouri dwelling in Saudi Arabia. To date thousands of these FSA have been killed and documented to have come from more than 20 nations including the United States and in Europe.

Data indicates that hose fighters who are from Syria, come from mainly the southeastern region near Dayr Al-Zawr on the Iraqi-Syrian border, the northwestern region of Idlib near the Turkish-Syrian border, and Dar'a in the south near the Jordanian-Syrian border. Areas that a 2007 West Point study described as “regions” that “ now serve as the epicenter for a similar Libyan-style uprising, with fighters” defined as "pro-democracy" "freedom fighters." More importantly, is that it is these very regions that serve as the points of entry for the majority of foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia via Jordan, and from Libya via Turkey, or through Egypt and/or Jordan.

The Obama Administration has to know all of this. We have seen car bombs that have killed at least 20 people in a Damascus suburb that was an act of terrorism aimed at Syria's civilian population , the vast majority of which are Christians to Druze, from Shia'a Muslims to moderate Sunnis, whom are being specifically targeted by Israel, US and Saudi backed Wahhabi indoctrinated terrorists.

We have seen beheadings, mass hangings and executions of Christians, Alawites, and Shia’a that only support secular insurrection more than fighting for Democracy. The Obama Administration has even given Syrian Al Qaeda operatives a political front in Doha, Qatar. Its US-Qatari appointed leader, Moaz al-Khatib, has been revealed as not only involved with Western oil corporations, but also has declared on Al Jazeera his intentions of establishing an "Islamic state."

The Obama administration has spent the past year in secret talks and have helped piece together this group of folk aimed at building a new Syrian opposition leadership structure that it wishes can win the support of minority groups still backing President Bashar al-Assad. In the meantime, the tiny gas-rich state of Qatar (Sunni) has spent as much as $3bn supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government for the past 2 years. This is the methodology that was used in Libya. Just as in Libya, in Syria, the West, despite acknowledging the existence of Al Qaeda in Benghazi, Libya, is using these militant Islamic networks to send fighters to Iraq, in route to Syria. This, after these same Libyan Islamist were implicated in an attack that left a US ambassador dead on September 11, 2012.

Again, the Libyan example applies directly to Syria. Libya is suffering the aftereffects of a western manufactured conflict, which killed tens of thousands of people. Two years after the Arab Spring uprising ousted Gadhafi, Libya’s central government the bloodshed has not stopped; recently a senior judge was killed in the town of Derna, and at least 27 people in the southwestern town of Sebha during a confrontation between protesters and the members of a pro-government militia called Libyan Shield. Then there is the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

The LIFG is a known terrorist organization which is sending fighter and weapons on a massive scale into Syria. In November of last year the Telegraph reported that “Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, "met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey, and admitted that he was sent there by "Mustafa Abdul Jalil, then interim Libyan president.

In all reality and simplest terms, the foreign policy of the Obama Administration is more road kill than policy. As it stands, all across middle Asia, Obama policy has turned a major portion of the region into a vast hub for terrorist and Al Qaeda in particular. Regardless if it is Libya, Eastern Lebanon, Southern Turkey, Iraq, Egypt and now Syria. For unlike the narrative promulgated in Western mainstream outlets, objectively speaking those who support Al Qaeda - the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia seem to be the biggest fans of state-sponsored terrorism.

All that has been done is to shield the hypocrisy of the US policy in Middle Asia. We charge the leadership of Libya and Syria as being despotic and autocratic regimes but hold the hands of the autocratic leadership, guilty of equal atrocities in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Bahrain. The only difference is that the hands we hold are Sunni, and the ones we vilify are Shia’a. Washington has stated that weapons will not go into the hands of Salafist jihadis although it is impossible to stop this from happening. Our policy is really just fueling a sectarian war between Sunni and Shai’a. The governments of the West have decided to partner with with Sunni Muslims against both the Shiite and Christian minorities the most volatile of region of the world today. Last September Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan stated, “What happened in Karbala 1,332 years ago is what is happening in Syria today.”

What US foreign policy fails to realize is that the main differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims is that Shiite’s are secular and accept the existence of other religions, their women may participate in society by being employed, driving, voting, and hold political office, their acceptance of alcohol consumption, and their openness to democratic-type elections.

I do not understand this, it is as if the US government and present administration view outcomes and practice as monolithic. This includes the complete ignoring of the flame fanning by Israel, who may be behind the recent car bomb that exploded in the heart of Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah’s southern Beirut. A perfect cloak knowing that many will think that it is a response to Hezbollah fighting alongside with Assad in Syria and that many will see it as extremist spreading the war in Syria throughout the region. What many in mainstream media and politics forget is that most Sunni and Shiite are moderates and nowhere as violent as portrayed – another factoid often abrogated from conversation.

The same can be said about the claim about Syria using chemical weapons. A good start for a false flag if you want sympathy and desire to start a war, but you cannot ignore all the evidence of Al Qaeda using and making chemical weapons from Iraq, even on video in Syria. And don’t give me that false flag is conspiracy shit. History has shown that the Gulf of Tonkin incident (or the USS Maddox incident) never occurred and that Hitler burned his own Parliament for example. But because of Israel, America is at incessant war with Shiite run nations like Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and support Sunni backed nations like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Egypt which continue to outlaw freedom for women, openly persecute Christians and Jews, do not allow their citizens to vote in free elections, and are now calling for a “Global Jihad” against all Jews, Christians and Shiites. Even Alawites, who associate themselves with Shiite Muslims, are ordered to be “killed on sight” by the US supported FSA and all leading Sunni religious and political leaders.

The US has no stable policy objective in Syria and surrounding areas openly discussed outside of Assad must go, all again to benefit Israel over US national security. Maybe this is why Seymour Hersh wrote in 2007 that "To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda." -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007).

No common sense policy would have US at war against Al Qaeda while at the same time they are our allies.

This wont make US Media: Tel Aviv Jews hold Anti-African Rally and attack blacks

Is Obama King Leopold II Revisited

In Areopagitica, John Milton wrote: “Let truth and falsehood grapple: whoever knew truth, put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”

He wrote this in either 1644 as an appeal to the English Parliament to end a political order that attempted and bring all publishing under control by official government censors (authors would submit their work for approval prior to having it published). It is a terse yet polemical parallel to the Areopagiticus of Isocrates and the story of the apostle Paul in Athens from Acts 17: 18-34. The first pertaining to the “degradation of the judges of the Court of the Areopagus, the highest court in Greece.” However, one can also apply this to political tyranny axiologically as well, in particular when it concerns facts as a function of political action and mandate.

Over the past few years, the Obama administration has increased rather aggressively its foot print, militarily in Africa. Under the guise of fighting for the righteous neoliberalim to defeat tyranny and kleptocratic rule in the name of democracy, the Obama administration has boldly implemented a path in Africa similar to those seen in past history. Especially that of King Leopold II (1835-1909).

In 1876, Belgium’s King Leopold II held a conference in Brussels in which he asserted that Western nations should establish an international benevolent committee for the propagation of civilization among the peoples of Central Africa (the Congo region). Between the years of 1878 to 1884, it resulted in an eventual Belgian sovereignty, in the Congo Basin. His primary objective was to exploit the lucrative ivory and rubber market in Central Africa. After proclaiming sovereign Belgium state rights, and via three successive decrees, Leopold asserted rights of proprietorship over all vacant lands throughout the Congo territory and reduced the rights of the Congolese in their land to native villages and farms. His goals were so colonialist and imperialistic that those who refused or failed to supply enough rubber often had their villages burned down, children murdered, and their hands cut off.

It is now 2012, and President Obama is seemingly on the same path. It started in Libya with a fake and non-extant humanitarian mission to protect the citizens of the oil-rich African nation. However it resulted in the merciless and brutal overthrow of a government and the death of a leader, Muammar Gaddafi who was making progress and vowed to create a 'United States of Africa' after his election as head of the African Union. Since last November, we have observed President Barack Obama send U.S. troops to Africa to help hunt down the leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army in and around Uganda. In his own words, Obama stated, “I believe that deploying these U.S. armed forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.” Ironic is just as Libya, Uganda is sitting on tons of oil. Oil exploration began in Uganda’s northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago and according to estimates by the Energy Ministry, the African nation has over two billion barrels of oil. And as I wrote last October, “billionaire George Soros is a member of its executive board and personally, just recently recommended the U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda.”

In addition, in fall 2009, the Obama administration announced a security assistance package for Mali – valued at 4.5 to 5.0 million dollars – that included 37 Land Cruiser pickup trucks, communication equipment, replacement parts, clothing and other individual equipment and was intended to enhance Mali’s ability to transport and communicate with internal security forces throughout the country and control its borders. Plus, his recently passed NDAA contained $75 million in U.S. aid aimed at fighting in Somalia and arming forces, particularly from Uganda and Burundi, as well as the armies of Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia.

Over the past few weeks, after the coup in the West African country of Mali, it has been uncovered that the leader Capt. Amadou Haya Sanogo, who led a renegade military faction that deposed Mali’s democratically elected president, has been in the United States several times to receive professional military education and training. Although official Obama administration doesn’t support the overthrow of the formerly elected leader and that the U.S. Africa Command has suspended military cooperation with Mali, U.S. military personnel continue to deploy to Mali in part of a so-called Joint Planning Assistance Team.

I can go on with more, but such is not the case. The goal is to point out, as Milton asserted that when “truth and falsehood” do battle, truth always wins “in a free and open encounter.”This part of a total plan hatched by the Obama administration. We know that he has sent military advisors which are still on the ground in Nigeria and have had them there since 2009. And I find it ironic that our first African American President would be the one, as Leopold did, to establish a permanent US military beach head in Africa, for the advancement of a long-range Anglo-American geopolitical agenda for Africa.

The query is does it serve our best interest? Is it for the benefit of Africa or is it to challenge China’s economic interests in Africa? Or is it to reinvigorate the west past preoccupation with raping Africa for its resources for other plutocratic interest? In the past there were for human resources mainly for the utility of mining and slavery, today they are natural resources in the name of Oil, gold, diamonds, nickel, palladium, copper, zinc, silver or others? I am just asking, we already have US special forces and other military personnel on the ground in five African nations and that’s just on the record.

If my postulate is true and the aforementioned is even remotely plausible, then we should get ready for more famine, death, disease and all as the result of contrived wars in the name on benevolence as suggested by Leopold or national security as detailed by President Obama. Simple fact is that one cannot have either benevolence or security when the outcome is poverty, genocide and morbidity.

Obama Administration Policy on Middle East and Africa all over the place

If one has followed President Obama’s statements and position on the middle east and North Africa prior to his policy speech on the region last week, you like me probably have no clue to the reasoning behind his words. After reading his remarks last Wednesday, I am even in more of a stupor of consternation.

What I can say is that his approach and policy alike are whimsical or fickle at best and unprincipled and inconsistent at worse – thus the rarefied stupor I alluded to previously. For example, I recall how initially in Egypt, he proclaimed his support for Hosni Mubarak in word, but fleetly altered this position upon the observation that President Mubarak did not have the support of the military. Similarly in Bahrain, he offered effeminate words of support for the long ruling leadership yet at the same time; he attempted to protect the leadership and longtime alley for the sake of the fleet anchored in its harbor. Even as the Monarch, with the aid of Saudi Tanks and military, killed unarmed protesters, the administration and its figure head turned a blind eye to the citizenry desire for democratic rule and liberty. This same behavior and action drew harsh military reprisals and words from Obama via NATO requesting Muammar el-Qaddafi leave office.

In Libya, our military are protecting the innocent, but we do no such protection for those in Yemen, Syria or Bahrain. In his speech, Obama commented, the “humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world – the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. “ He added “we can – and will – speak out for a set of core principles – principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months: “In fact the President eludes to hearing the calls for help, but strangely it is only in the middle east and Libya but no other parts of Africa.

The problem for me is that there is not one standard stated; for there isn't any unifying principle that guides this new policy. Meaning, that any effective policy for unstabilized governments on our behalf will require coherence, which thus far is lacking. Will he treat all attacks on the general populations the same? Will King Abdullah of Saudi be held to the same standard of Qaddafi? What makes a distinction to have different positions between Qaddafi and Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad? He did not even mention Bahrain or Saudi Arabia in his speech.

The Obama administration is all over the place, for to say we hear the calls for democracy yet cover our ears from similar cries from the Congo, Uganda, Sudan and other nations is disingenuous and fails the litmus test of reality and consistency.

Obama's State Department Turns Away From and ignores Sub Saharan Africa

President Obama is quick to join the protest against Republicans both inside and outside the Beltway. Likewise, his “on the job training” in dealing with social unrest in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula is also prominent, especially when it makes him looks grand standing on the side of Democracy In Tunisia and Egypt. This is in stark contrast to the manner in which he deals with similar issues in Sub Saharan Africa.

There are several troubled spots in Sub Saharan Africa currently that neither the media, President Obama or his State department have addressed publically. Most prominently are what is occurring in Uganda, The Ivory Coast, the Sudan or even what is occuring in Zimbabwe. If Fact until today, Obama has been basicaly quiet on what is occuring in the Ivory Coast.

In Uganda, President Museveni, the formal rebel leader has been in power ever since he took control of the nation twenty five years ago. He is a very close ally of the United States and receives 100s of millions of dollars in Aid annually – while the populating is gripped in extreme poverty and joblessness. Obama has never addressed or spoken about the dozens of deaths over since 2009 occurring during youth protest against the government. Even this week, thousands took to the streets of Kampala but they are ignored and portrayed as invisible by the present US administration.

In the Ivory Coast, after free and fair elections, Laurent Gbagbo still refuses to step down after losing the presidential elections this past November. Although this past December, President Barack Obama urged Ivory Coast’s incumbent leader to cede power to the “legitimate winner” of the polls, he was not as forceful as he has been with his counterparts in North Africa or even in Iran. The United States has agreed with Ecowas that sanctions should be put in place but outside of that has shown no leadership on the issue. Mean while, Ivory Coast's incumbent leader has seized four major international banks that had shut down operations because the banks did not respect the law and closed without proper notice. The banks included offices for Britain's Standard Chartered, France's BNP–Paribas and Societe Generale along with U.S. bank Citibank.

In the Sudan, students, mobilized by online social networks, rioted in Khartoum, throwing stones at police cars and chanting. Unlike the recent uprising in Tunisia and the ongoing one in Egypt, but there is also the issue of southern Sudan's recent referendum vote, which approved secession from the north. As Khartoum is located in northern Sudan, it remains unclear what relation, if any, the uprising has to the recent referendum. One thing is clear, however: the winds of change are blowing across Africa and the Middle East, and whether they will bring stability and democracy or more civil war and dictatorship remains to be seen.

Prior to Tunisia's popular revolt, Sudan was the last Arab country to overthrow a leader with popular protests, ousting Jaafar Nimeiri in 1985. And just like the other recent revolts, the Sudan is in an economic crisis associated with government overspending and bloated import bills caused foreign currency shortages and forced an effective devaluation of the Sudanese pound last year.

actions speak louder than words

For the record, I love me some Africa. And I have been blessed to have lived in Nigeria for 13 months, 3 months in Ethiopia, four summers in a row in South Africa, and two six month stints in Senegal. I won’t even mention the Malawi’s, the Benin’s the Zimbabwe’s or score of other countries I have visited.

As we get closer to that historic day on which the President Elect is expected to take his oath of office, I have started to think about how or what his main foreign policy targets will be. Sure I’m certain that he will deal with the Asian countries located in what many call the Middle East, and that he will have to bump heads with Putin in Russia, but I’m not so sure where he will place the needs of the continent I love so dearly.

I would suspect or hope that the tope two will be Sudan and the Congo, followed closely by Rwanda. We know that genocide is the rule of thumb in the Sudan and has been so for a while. As a national government, all we have done is utter words, phrases and clauses and looked, on purpose the other way. I wonder what is Obama’s plan for dealing with the Sudanese Government and the Arab Janjaweed militias which are supported by Khartoum? Even after a July 30th UN Security Council resolution the Sudan still has yet to meet its commitment to rein in these militias.

I say this for almost 15 years after the atrocities we saw in Rwanda we must not let history repeat itself. I say this for I believe we have not learned our lesson since 1994 as a nation supposedly of moral statue. I was looking for any position papers that he may have written on the Sudan, Congo or Rwanda – but could not find any (just a statement from 2007). I just wonder if Obama really meant what he said that the United States should support the immediate deployment of an effective international force to not only protect civilians and proffer the delivery of humanitarian aid, but also to disarm militia, or support the African Union troops to do such.

Since this shit started in 2003, an estimated 450,000 plus have died as a function of and disease, and another 2 to 3 million displaced to neighboring countries. I know Obama was hard on Bush for his inaction, but my query is what is his plan, and what actions does he plan to take to support his prose? Yep, the economy needs to be dealt with, as well as issues of national security, but what will he do of substance outside of imposing tougher fiats that target Sudan’s oil revenue or implementing effective diplomacy? I know he has co-sponsoring six bills on the conundrum – but they still remain words on paper that have not yielded any results.

I’m not saying Obama can really do anything, but he can try. Especially now since we see what did happen in Rwanda, may be starting up again via the Congo. General Laurent Nkunda has actively recruited member of the Rwanda military to accomplish his stated goal to “eliminate” the militias who assisted in the genocide of nearly a million folks in the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Even using and forcing children to kill in his effort.

So Mr. President elect, you were right to hold Bush accountable for his strong words but non action, just hope you don’t mind if we don’t forget, and remind you, or hold you to the same standard.

I can’t fight so I talk shit

This will be a first. I will attempt to present subject matter without conjecture or invective. So here goes. Talk radio is a regular and if not, daily experience for me. Although being down here in Atlanta, my preference is limited to Sports Talk 790 the zone, Neal Boortz and NPR on WABE, I do read transcripts and occasionally listen to the broadcast I can receive without registering online.

I have noticed outside of NPR, and inclusive or Sports Talk, most of these folks just be talking shit (a mile a minute to quote George Clinton) out the sides of their necks. Take said example of Syndicated Talk Radio host Michael Savage. I have read that it is heard across approximately 350 or more stations and is preceded in listeners only By Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

After the I’m smarter than a fifth grader speech, I mean state of the union address by President George W. Bush, one of the topics covered was the Presidents proposal for 30 billion US $ in emergency AIDS relief for Africa. During the discussion, he engaged a caller.

From the transcript, the shows airdate was January 29, 2008. During his rant, Savage also stated, "See, we don't live in Africa where people settle arguments with machetes. We live in a country where we settle it with arguments. Something you apparently don't know anything about. What's the matter, cat got your tongue, my friend, Kojo?" After the call ended, Savage added:

"See, there you go. Couldn't use the machete so his mind went blank. There, that's what we got. There's multiculturalism for you. There's immigration for you. There's the new America for you. Bring them in by the millions. Bring in 10 million more from Africa. Bring them in with AIDS. Show how multicultural you are. They can't reason, but bring them in with a machete in their head. Go ahead. Bring them in with machetes in their mind.”

Michael Savage in my understanding is part of what is wrong with America. This is why other countries around the globe consider us arrogant and self-righteous. This is why we are perceived as being a bully as opposed to being humble. Mr. Savage doesn’t represent the Americans I know. His work isn’t hard, and for all I know, he may be a recovering drug addict as one of his talk radio colleagues.

I wish someone would give me a talk radio show, because I can talk shit as well as the next person, but I can also fight - meaning I would respect all callers as if they could fight as well. Too bad Kojo wasn't waitin for him a his car - but he probably has body guards.


NOTE: Wanted to thank COMMENTS FROM LEFTFIELD 4 the strong Shout out. CHK this blog when can.

10 + 32 = 42

Was looking at Moses, what they called the Ten Commandments. Personally I have somewhat of a conundrum with accepting just ten after my reading of Das Totenbuch des Nacht-Amun aus der Ramessidenzeit translated by E.A. Wallis Budge. Also know as the Papyrus of Ani and the Egyptian Book of the dead. None the less, I was watching that shit, not like Charleston Heston acting wise, but good still. Now before I go further, I would like to add that I do not support the context of image for the sake of historical inaccuracy. Because it was one of the main reasons I watched.

First there is the massive collection of strangely stringy and denatured protein hair having Europeans who obviously lack the pigmentation to exist in a healthy manner in the horn of Africa. But that didn’t take away from the movie, I just found it hard to call it the Ten Commandments like I stated previously because it seemed to be more about Moses than the theft involved in ganking ten selected commandments from the 42 negative confessions from the Papyrus of Ani – also known as The Book of Coming Forth by Day. Some of these can be read below:

Hail, Usekh-nemmt, who comest forth from Anu, I have not committed sin.
Hail, Hept-khet, who comest forth from Kher-aha, I have not committed robbery with violence.
Hail, Fenti, who comest forth from Khemenu, I have not stolen.
Hail, Am-khaibit, who comest forth from Qernet, I have not slain men and women.
Hail, Neha-her, who comest forth from Rasta, I have not stolen grain.
Hail, Ruruti, who comest forth from heaven, I have not purloined offerings.
Hail, Arfi-em-khet, who comest forth from Suat, I have not stolen the property of God.
Hail, Neba, who comest and goest, I have not uttered lies.
Hail, Set-qesu, who comest forth from Hensu, I have not carried away food.
Hail, Utu-nesert, who comest forth from Het-ka-Ptah, I have not uttered curses.
Hail, Qerrti, who comest forth from Amentet, I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.

How many of these made the top ten and why were the ones that id selected/stolen in the first place? Also, what does this mean, well the truth is that the Ten Commandments were more than ten and were really negative confessions developed and practiced by African civilizations centuries before Christianity and or the establishment of Christian Europe (B.C.E. – before Christian Europe). These were not laws that people had to attend to when living, but more so when they died and confronted the creator for acceptance into the next phase of bliss in the hereafter.

So it was nice to test my historical savvy in so many words as well as look at a television movie or show that did not have any guns, explosions and half-naked women shaking their asses. I still can’t consider the movie being about the Ten Commandments when mathematically speaking 10 + 32 = 42.