What the West Point Address tells us about the Obama Doctrine and Obama’s Man Crush on the MPIC

The record is clear that the impact of Bush foreign policy both politically and economically, resulted in nothing good for America. The only tangible outcomes were destroying the government of Iraq under false pretense, disrupting the standard of living for tens of millions, tens of thousands Americans dead or permanently maimed, hundreds of thousands dead Iraqis, the entry of al Qaeda into Iraq where prior they had never existed, and hundreds of billions in wasted tax dollars.

Unfortunately, President Barack Obama, although in the beginning he made a point to continuously reinforce that he had no interest for interfering in the affairs of other nations, his foreign policy actions seem to out Bush, George W. Bush. Just this week he confirmed this for the entire world. In his address at West Point, Obama provided a picture of how after five years, he sees his foreign policy efforts, and in all aspects, it is troubling, neocolonialist, and in tone reminiscent of the Rumsfeld Cheney bravado of the previous administration.

Now I cannot blame Obama singular for this, in fact most of the blame should be placed on those who voted for him, for they never read his policy positions prior to running for President, or read his speeches delivered to groups like AIPAC in 2007.  They never concerned themselves with his limited, if any foreign policy experiences with the exception of a brief stint on the foreign relations committee or him having no military experience at all.  

He embraced the joint special operations view of pre-emptive war and expansionist foreign policy as manager in chief of the U.S. imperial empire. Rather than exploring who he actually was, progressives, whether because he was a democrat, or if he were black, or that he made promises that any pragmatic person would not believe based on his past statements, turned a blind eye towards the reality of his prism of executive action.

Several statements stuck out which may be a looking glass into the remaining years from a foreign policy purview for the standing commander in chief. The first was: “The United States is the one indispensible nation.” I can only say the question would be, in what manner? By definition, the President is stating that either the United States or he is absolutely necessary. I personally disagree, unless necessary is correlated to causing trouble around the world, incessant practices that reflect the violation of international law, human rights and the basic respect for others to do as they please without U.S. interference. This position in word actually brings him closer in line to the prior administration for as it is stated in a basic Theorem of trigonometry: the same named trigometric ratios of conterminal angles are equal (conterminal angles in this case being a democratic or republican commander in chief).

The President also added, that “It is impossible to ignore sectarian conflicts, failing states and popular uprisings.” This also makes one cringe with his understanding and implementation of U.S. foreign policy, national security and U.S. interest in terms of priority. History under the present administration has lucidly indicated that the President has a problem with reading the pulse of both the American people and the world around him.  The way he went about dealing with Egypt is just one example. First he supported the democratic elections which brought Mohamed Morsi to power, albeit a member of the Islamic Brotherhood and hesitantly supported the popular uprising against an autocratic dictator named Mubarak. All because it was evident the present administration did not have a pulse of what was going on in Egypt in real time and had allowed their unconditional support of Mubarak, even amidst his long record of human rights violations to cloud their understanding of what the people of Egypt wanted and had experienced under the man the U.S. supported.

Strangely, after giving support to the democratic desires of the people of Egypt albeit late, an Islamic fundamentalist theocrat was elected whom Obama placed full support and validation behind. Next we saw protest again in Egypt, but this time there was a coup, in which the Obama administration said nothing, did nothing and even gave the new government (coup) billions in military aid justifiably, by not referring to the overthrow as a coup. So although he openly said this in his West Point address, the fact assert otherwise. Now the Egyptian people hate the U.S. more, and channels of cooperation have increased between Egypt and Russia. This is a strange statement seeing that near the end of his address President Obama revealed: “America’s support for democracy and human rights goes beyond idealism – it’s a matter of national security.”

The President also said [It]...is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead, not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also to extend peace and prosperity around the globe.” The how is evident. The Obama motto follows the Bush playbook like an AFC coach discovering the West coast Offense. Leadership via the Obama doctrine is dividing and conquering at home and unilaterally destroying and disrupting sovereign nations, even if against international law. This is no more visibly seen than what occurred in Libya in 2011.

There was no reason or compelling U.S. interest to go into Libya unless it was on the behalf of what I have called the military police industrial complex (MPIC). This is just all of the big banks, big corporations and big lobbyist that make sizable piles of loot on war, incarceration, insider trading and media manipulation. Not only would war make them loot but they would be able to use their neocolonial desires to destroy one of the world’s last state own central banks in Libya. Fact is we followed France and Germany and didn’t lead at all with respect to Obama’s intervening into Libya. But like a good politician, reasons we contrived and lies even told.  The biggest was human rights, protecting civilians, and people believed it although we can’t even help the innocent civilians we promised to aid in Haiti after their earthquake and even supported the U.N. to say that although Cholera never was in Haiti until U.N. troops arrived, they can’t even suit the U.N. to clean up the water and pay for the lives of 40,000 people who died as a result. Meaning, it is visible how we lead.

Libya is the perfect example of the Obama doctrine. If a nation is doing good for its region or country, then it must be destroyed because their success is a threat to U.S. national economy because Bush and Obama has fucked ours up miring our economy in debt for war. At no time was it mentioned by progressives that Gaddafi gave Libya the highest human development index in all of Africa, or that he stood in the forefront of the struggle for Africa against U.S. supported apartheid in Israel and South Africa.  This mean nothing to neo liberals and neoconservatives, because investment under neocolonialism only increases the gap between rich and poor nations, which in simple terms means foreign capital is used not for the people, but rather for the exploitation as opposed to the development of the undeveloped world.

So those who agree with this approach, or worse stay silent, are progressives who are in reality procolonialism. No matter what one says, Gaddafi was pan African and pan Arab and desired such to make all of Africa independent from the West.

Now the President also dropped that he wanted to continue his Libya model in other places. For in the Obama worldview, whether military force will be used anywhere, is for the president alone to decide. In the speech he noted “America’s failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocation not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future.”   First how can a Nobel peace prize winner that has used drones to kills thousands of women and children in Yemen, Afghanistan,Pakistan, and Somalia know anything about conscience, when by practices his foreign policy is to escalate aggression without invite whenever he feels, or needs to buttress his approval rating? As he said in the same speech, we know this is already the case given he said [The] “United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interest demand it.”

Obama’s foreignpolicy beliefs are clear. He said “The issue of transparency is directly relevant to a third aspect of American leadership: our efforts to strengthen and enforce international order.” This is how he perceives his role as commander in chief. Foreign policy is basically using counter-terrorism to stunt the economic growth of other nations and deepen their citizenry into poverty while making U.S. plutocrats even wealthier. He has established a large covert presence in North Africa in total secrecy (transparency), away from democratic debate, and without any Congressional approval or oversight. This is what he means by transparency.

Moreover, Obama has expanded drone attacks in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. In simple terms has continued the practice and policy of the Bush administration with respect to foreign policy. He has invaded more countries and violated just as many if not more human rights and issues of state sovereignty that George W. Bush ever did. Ironically while asserting and pointing the finger toward Iran, China and Russia which I assume is a replacement for Bush’s “Axis of Evil” he described and referenced so frequently.

In sum, Obama uses military force whenever he wants, wherever he wants, and without anyone's permission. He ignores as Lincoln wrote, "The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object.” Obama's ongoing use of military force in multiple countries ensures that the posture of the US for the foreseeable future will continue to be one of endless war. This my friend, is the Obama doctrine in a nutshell.

South Sudan: Foreign Policy via Hollywood

Over the past several years I have written about the foreign policy modus operandi of the Obama Administration. I have examined it in general and in specific relations with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, Iraq and China among others.  I have also proffered my examination on the United States policy as it pertains to the Sudan as well, both holistically and from the practices of past and the current executive administration.  However, given the recent developments of strife and in-fighting among the major ethnic and political leadership of the recently formed nation of South Sudan, I have been inspired to describe my perspective more clearly.

As we are aware, it was only three years ago this month when the South Sudanese people held a referendum and voted overwhelmingly to form an independent nation state free from the rest of Sudan. The United States helped negotiate this referendum, which ended more than 20 years of brutal conflict between north and south of Sudan. This in essence was the primary goal of the foreign policy objective of the Obama Administration pertaining to the Sudan – nothing more and nothing less.

Unfortunately, due to several factors including but not limited to the false and dichotomous narrative that the situation of South Sudan was singularly a function of people wanting freedom (good Christians) from the evils of Khartoum (bad Muslims) was all that was needed to be addressed. This limited and myopic perspective consequently was coupled with flawed political intelligence gathering and has resulted in the chaos and likelihood of an ethnic-political civil war developing in South Sudan. There was even little if any historical cloak of understanding as to how and why Africa's largest state and former British Colony, came to this dire predicament in the first place.  The question then is how this could happen with the resources and presupposed intellectual capital freely available to the United States State department and executive leadership?

First, the formulating of a good versus bad indices for evaluating political required action is problematic from the start.  It reduces the scope of vision to evaluate all parties equally. This is not uncommon when it pertains to the US and Africa because in most cases we place our own interest in front of all nations we assist in Africa that are of perceived geopolitical importance to our material needs. Most significantly the geopolitical advantages that a nation state will have supporting a nation that not only has the Nile River flowing through it, but also which is rich in Silver, Gold, Zinc, Copper, Chromium and last but not least, petroleum among others. South Sudan produced 85% of Sudanese oil output, with oil revenues comprising more than 98% of the government of the South Sudanese budget. These were our entry points on the one hand without applying equal consideration to other factors, namely that the economy of South Sudan is one of the weakest in the world, with one of the highest maternal mortality and female illiteracy rates around the globe where there is very limited infrastructure. In addition, there was understanding at all of the historical ethnic problems in the region between South Sudan's Dinka and Nuer tribes.

Second, and what may be more impactful, is that the charge for South Sudan’s Independence was not led by the leadership of Africa or Washington, DC, but rather by a limited coterie of famous and wealthy Obama campaign donating celebrities out of Hollywood. George Clooney and others have done more to create the nation of South Sudan than any figures in the United States Federal Government or the citizens of South Sudan.

The acting ability of the Hollywood elite was able to persuade politicians, in particular the current administration to look at the issue simply from the binders of more than twenty years of war that the inhabitants of the region had been engaged in against the predominantly Islamic North who was led by an “indicted war criminal” intent to do what it take including rape and genocide of the mainly Christian South to take back its lost oilfields. Thus, for America and the Obama administration, the issue of dealing with South Sudan was simply a matter of human rights as opposed to establishing and maintains security instruments or functioning non-sectarian instruments of executive political leadership required to sustain a democracy.

Since December, when the fighting began, over a 1,000 people have been as a consequence of the US limited understanding which facilitated a power struggle between the ethnic Dinka President SalvaKiir and his former deputy, Riek Machar, who is Nuer.

This is the typical US mantra when human rights are lifted above political and historical realities. Although Hollywood and the American Religious right yelled Christian versus Muslim and Arabs foe, the issue for the people on the frontlines of the battle field, mainly John Garang and the Sudan People'sLiberation Army (SPLA) desired and shed their blood for a unified, new and democratic Sudan – not two nations.  This like movies was created from thin air by Hollywood entities. Then, which may be more disturbing if the US State Department didn’t know, they were not even fighting against Sudanese military by rather other rival militia groups. In simple terms, it was not the people of the South who wanted an independent state, but rather Europe, the UN, the US and to some extent other regional players the likes of Ethiopia and Kenya.

Thus, either intentionally or unintentionally, the US as well as the Hollywood middle men that pushed for a separate South Sudan never acknowledged, admitted to, accepted or even worse, never knew or even lied when it concerned the existence of ethnic tensions and animosity in the South. The goal and objective was separation at any cost, in particularly given Susan Rice’s history with the Sudan while serving in the Clinton Administration.

And after the state was formed in 2011, we have ignored the reality on the ground. We have turned a blind out to political incompetence and government dysfunction and mismanagement and bribes and cronyism. The Obama administration and its Hollywood supports said nothing when the newly elected President Kiir openly claimed the governmental theft of billions in state money and foreign aid. Likewise when he began to serve the needs of the Dinka over the rival ethnic group the Nuer, again there was silence. All the while the likes of George Clooney were still raising money for “humanitarian” purposes.

Finally, President Kiir removed all of those he felt were a threat and wanted to take over the government ( vice-president, Riek Machar), that was the straw that broke the camel’s back and may result in what could prove to be worse than what we saw in the 1990s. Especially since the former vice President control the oil fields in the country.

America may need to step back a little and slow down when it comes to just implanting foreign policy for the sake of pleasing campaign donors, especially when the folk they aim to please are movie stars from Hollywood.

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.

US should think twice about Attacking Iran

Obama should think twice about Iran More and more each day appears that the US is inching its way closer to an armed conflict with Iran -- something I think will hurt the US more than Israel in the long term. All because the big bully on the block, Israel is purported to be “facing grave danger.” This is mainly being promoted by Zionist from everywhere this side of the Pecos River. My question is why do we have to defend Israel, a nation with the largest army and only nuclear arsenal in the region?
We all are well aware of the fact that Israel is no friend of Iran, or of any other Islamic and predominantly Arab state in the region. Thus, Israel is the one making trouble yet they want the present administration to decide to launch a pre-emptive war in what are probably the world’s most volatile environs.

If history is any guide, we should be very careful about deciding to attack Iran. Prior to WW 2 it was the Germans who convinced the "enlightened civilization" that it only wants to execute its rights. But one war led to another and country upon country was invaded including France, Belgium, Netherlands and other countries. Now it is Israel, and they will only be happy until all of the other Arab nations are not just a threat, but nonexistent for like Germany, their goal is not defensive but an aggressive offence to conquer the entirety of Middle East Asia.

True, it is hard to assess whether to “confront” or to “contain” Iran without examining more than 300 years of contemporary Iranian history, in concert with the history of conflict in the Middle East throughout modern times. Then we must decide and determine if possible what are we trying to prevent or contain them from doing? Otherwise we will formulate policy, which has become customary, based on anger, fear and hatred singularly. Even worse, one based on Israel must not be allowed to drive the world into chaos, just because it wants to. We need to protect AMERICA's interests, first, last, and always, and America's interests do not include shedding more blood for Israel or carrying their water for them. We lost too many American lives already to satisfy Israel's demands over Iraq. But, apparently, we have learned nothing from Iraq, and Israel doesn't care as long as they get their own way.

The only difference now is that the false flag of preventing a nation from self-determination in the form of developing nuclear capability is the issue. Albeit both the US and Israel have such capabilities and past history reveals that the US vowed that Pakistan or North Korea would never be allowed to possess Nuke. Why should it be different with Iran?

Factually, given our present quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan and our bombing of our present alley Pakistan daily, a confrontation with Iran would also last for years and possibly crush America's economy – especially for the average American. Thus any form of military intervention at all in Iran means that the American taxpayer should be ready to pay $5 plus for a gallon if a war breaks out in the Strait of Hormuz. We are already in a recession at best and depression at worse and hyperinflation is everywhere we look.

Next, we must try and anticipate what will happen as a function if either side wins. After WW II, half of Europe ended up being given to the Soviets. Then due to our wasteful war effort in Iraq, in essence we have succeeded nearly half of this state to Iran. For both of these operation we as a nation have nothing really to show for it, except ending up in bed with the most treacherous leaders in modern times the likes of Mubarak, Pavlavi, House of Saud, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Assad and yes, the Likud.

The current administration still has Kool-Aid pumping through its veins. Sure, they went into Libya and are now selling wolf tickets about Syria; but the US needs to think about these actions and the global political consequences. We need to stop demanding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down and cease the threats because it shows hypocrisy when we decide and shout to the world who we think should step down from the position of a head of a state, in particular when we aren’t prepared to remove that person. And talking about democracy when to suggest the aforementioned is in contradiction of our own values.

Also, who cares if Israel is our strongest ally in the region, forget a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: the US government should only have that strong of commitment to the US. If they don’t how we do our thing then stop giving them loot. We should stick to our guns that Netanyahu and Israel should use the 1967 borders should be a basis for negotiating of a Palestinian state. And for those who believe that Israel is our friend, they are not and only care about Israel first – even before the US unlike the US. In the past, they have attacked one of our naval ships, killed our sailors, spied on us, and treat us like a vassal state.

I say let’s us pack up the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, and send them to Israel and let them fight their on war. If they do, and if Israel attacks, the United States may get drawn into a war that could set the Middle East further aflame and no telling how bad global markets will get.
Iran is a country of 80 million people, compared with about 30 million in Afghanistan or Iraq. Its territory of 1.65 million square kilometers, including deserts and rugged mountains, gives it impressive strategic depth compared to Israel, which exists on 20,000 square kilometers. Even to attack Iran by air, .Israel would have to strike Iran's four major nuclear sites. The most direct path to do so is across Jordan and Iraq. Will Jordan allow Israel to fly over? Then, Israeli pilots have to fly more than 1,600 kilometers refueling in the air, fighting off Iran's air defense, while attacking multiple underground sites at the same time.

Moreover, Iran is a major oil producer located right by the most critical petroleum and gas supply lines in the world, from the Strait of Hormuz in the south to the Caspian Sea in the north. I’m lost that military intervention is even being considered, because if it happens, it will introduce a whole new destabilizing reality into the Middle East.

And although the US will try not to have a land war, we can’t tell what will happen, or know the outcome. Will it be a war of attrition or an all-out invasion? We do know it will be long, money wasting, US war in the Middle East? We cannot forget that in Europe in 1914, a small and unexpected event began the First World War. Obama really needs to think carefully about this. The sad reality is if America and our national security and safety were placed first – we would not attack Iran. However, he has learned from Bush, who has had US in Iraq for more than 10 years and resulted in a sustained US military presence for 11 years an in Afghanistan as we speak.

Introduction to O-bushian Nationalism 101

A decade later and we are still in Afghanistan. Those on the campaign trail for the GOP nomination are pontificating out the sides of their necks, John McCain is inveighing nonsense and the Obama administration is taking hits left and right – and rightly so. I have expressed my view on the US occupation of the central Asian nation eve prior to Obama, but clearly to no avail. I regrettably do not have the ears of the President or media pundits. And God knows I would love to hear urban radio adduce such a discussion with clarity. However, it seems that discussions on the photographs of Whitney Houston in her coffin, her nineteen year old daughter and wondering whether or not Chris Brown and Rihanna will get back together are more important conversations to have in our communities. Not to mention any topic that panders to the absolute support and defense of President Obama regardless of the cost or reality.

First I need to address the assassination recently carried out by a US solider (Robert Bales) in the heart of the region. Since the event, I have only heard sentiments of justification of his behavior, namely that he must have been mentally ill. I agree. But what strikes me as bazaar was that no such acceptance of mental illness (which is obvious to me) was ever pronounced for Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist who allegedly opened fire inside Fort Hood in Texas killing thirteen people and wounding 30 people. Any who.

To properly understand our central Asian foreign policy, a brief history of our approach to foreign policy philosophy is in order. After World War II, the significance of American exceptionalism supported and justified our interventionist policies. Basically, that as the “cosmic policeman”, righteousness of our nationalism evinced the position that only the U.S. was the last best hope of mankind and the world. This was code for American aspirations of hegemony over much of the world and defined overtly that democratic globalism rather than the national interest of the United States were the central issues at heart when considering the utility of military intervention. As if our self-proclaimed moral righteousness was eugenically paramount over pragmatism.

Although the Cold War mentality was supposedly over, it continued to exist and it legacy revamped, via a conservative movement that pursued no strategic alternatives in our foreign other than military action. That leads us to present day Iraq and Afghanistan. First, we fail to recognize our approach to borders versus the people is setting us for failure. Until we deal with such as a Pashtun issue, we will continue to run around like a chicken with its head cut off. The region is occupied by what history would call the Scythians or the Saka, those folks who live on the land from the Black sea to china. This is where most of our concern is presently and our presence is cloaked under the guise of wanting a stable democratic government fin the region albeit facts assert that the characteristics required for the formulation of such governments are not existent in Afghanistan or Iraq.

This however has not stopped Bush or Obama for attempting to produce such an outcome. Even Bill Clinton, who supposedly was a progressive, had the same approach to foreign policy in Central Asia. All three have never provided any well defined objectives other than perpetual peace through the dream of a universal democratic order on the American model. This desire to see American political structure manifest in other regions is a consequence of our historical imperialistic and colonial roots and is no different under Obama as it was Bush. Look at Yemen for example. It is really just another open ended war designed to make us look good and feel good. But all it accomplishes is to add more debt and more ant-American sentiment in the region. Before this there was Iraq, a nation of only 24 million that was destroyed by U.S. military power with a 12-year U.S.-led economic embargo prior to the war and daily bombing which our Air Force destroyed most of Iraq’s water purification plants and sewage systems, resulting in the deaths of more than 500,000 children from water-borne disease and lack of medicines alone. And all to protect the people and bring about peace through democracy. One thing we were able to accomplish was to increase the presence of Shia death squads that inflicted untold violent acts on Sunnis. Paul Wolfowitz, said that invading Iraq would cost a mere $40 billion and would be paid for by taking over its oil.

Post-Saddam Iraq will not be a pro-Western model of democratic stability. In particularly under the autocratic rule of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, It will be a quasi-democratic state with a strong pro-Iranian orientation. Likewise in Pakistan, we will be left with a corrupt and ineffectual government run by President Hamid Karzai where the Taliban remains at full strength and growing. Was this what was our desire for producing a democracy under of the US model in a pursuit for universal peace?

I can’t answer this, but I will assume the answer is no or else we would have not entered Libya. I mean, it too was based on humanitarian principles, to defend the civilian population based on the “responsibility to protect” doctrine that was used to justify Libya. Strange since it is used selectively – not for Syria or the Sudan. Especially given that such an argument is more valid for Syria and the Sudan than it did in the case of Libya. Assad’s and Umar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir’s militaries have killed way more people compared to just a few hundred deaths at the time of NATO’s intervention against Gaddafi.

Fact is just as the Neoconservatives in the Bush administration, Obama is on a similar crusade to transform the Middle East. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have hidden the cost of our current Central Asian interventions from the American people by refusing to pay for it through taxes. Both continue the post-cold war legacy of the quest for universal democratic order based on the American democratic model and the desire to transform the Middle East and central Asia. The question is how are American interest defined in these military interventions outside of emotional terms? It is as if we have not received the memo.

Remember it was Hillary Clinton’s State Department who suggested that Egypt appeared stable and opposition forces would not topple Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship. WRONG and what we do know after elections is that a democratic Egyptian government won’t be pro-U.S.

This is the definition of O-bushian nationalism. It means we spend trillions of dollars and the lives of thousands for the purposes of accomplishing nothing but establishing and entrenched hatred for America across the Muslim world with nations being more dangerous than when our troops first arrived. And all for merely not wanting to show weakness politically, for wanting to develop a stable democratic government without the request of the occupied nation with merely a threat on our emotions called terror and no US interest involved.