American Foreign Policy and the Somalization of Syria

Around the globe in particular in African and Asian (Middle Eastern) nations, the typical US policy has been and continues to be the Bushian agenda of destabilizing and genocide. I describe it as Bushian because although such is historical US policy in general, when we cannot buy of an autocratic dictator or start a war, in the modern era it began with Bush 41. Specifically when President George H. Bush sent 28,000 U.S. troops to Somalia to do what he described as "God's work." Although he promised the American people that our military would “not stay one day longer than is absolutely necessary," we ended up being there for almost two years before President Bill Clinton suddenly ended the mission in 1993.

The price of the UN/US mission was heavy: 24 Pakistani UN peacekeepers inspecting a weapons site were ambushed and killed by Somalia soldiers under the warlord General Mohammed Aidid, 18 Elite Delta Force soldiers were killed and 84 wounded during an assault on Mogadishu's Olympia Hotel in search of Aidid. Although it was said the mission was to help deliver food aid, it became visibly clear the goal was to remove General Mohammed Aidid from power. As well as be in the position to control oil and gas reserves, since Aidid would block the permission granted to several large multi-national oil corporations from the Somalia president Siad Barre to search for oil. Not forgetting that Somalia has the largest coastline in Africa, part of which. One part of this coastline is just in front of the most important region in the world for the moment, the Middle East. Another part of the coastline faces the Indian Ocean.

From my narrow-mindedness, it appears that the goal of President Obama currently has nothing to do with growing democracy and protecting the citizens of Syria, but more so with the removal of President Bashar Assad. And as in Somalia, natural resources reinforce or interventionist agenda, especially considering the news that Iraq has approved the construction of a 900 plus mile natural gas pipeline that will connect Iran to Syria. I am almost certain this plays into the rational for taking down President Bashar Assad as well.

In East Africa today, there are still Somalis living in the neighboring countries of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti. Likewise, it was just reported that more than a million Syrians are now refuges in the neighboring nations of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq due to the two years of US instigated violence across Syria.

Since our intervention in Somalia, what has happened? One, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) regime of Zenawi Meles in Ethiopia has sent its troops into Somalia and their main goal is to create the Independent republic of Tigray. Then the EPLF (Eritrean People Liberation Front) from Eritrea that was occupied by Ethiopia, stepped in the political and military picture. Then in 2006, a group of high-ranking officers led by General Kamal Galchuu joined the Oromo Liberation Front. In the Orome area a real intifada started up and a few months ago, the OLF launched an appeal to all opposition groups to join the united front ADF (Alliance for Democracy and Freedom). All of this led eventually to incessant social and political destabilization and you guessed it, a nation stabilized via Islamic fundamentalist and anti-US rule via Islamist who did what America couldn’t (defeat the warlords and liberate the entire nation whole country in six months).

What we saw in Somalia, was the result of U.S. government meddling. All fueled by the United States support unpopular warlords, who once the Somalia people found out they were being supported by the US, made the popularity of the Islamist movement more appealing. Plus the manner in which the US backed Ethiopia and their indiscriminate shelling of Mogadishu’s civilian areas didn’t make it easier for anything other than a stronger hatred of America.

Now we see the same thing again. President Obama has stated that Assad has lost his legitimacy as a leader. In Mexico his position was outlined more specifically when while in Los Cabos, Mexico, he pointed fingers at Russia and China say that the have "not signed on" to any plan that promotes the removal of Bashar al-Assad's from power.

Truth be told the Obama administration doesn’t want a solution for they don’t believe there is any solution that exist that would to the violence that leaves him in power. The reason there is no diplomatic solution to the conflict in Syria is because the Obama Administration doesn’t desire one. They want to continue to implement a policy of Bushian destabilization in Syria, they want Assad to go or be killed instead of what the Syrian People want.

The Obama Administration is trying with its all to make a case for more support for al- Qaeda rebels he calls the FSA and sequentially describing their actions as leading a popular uprising against an "illegitimate" government.

Assad on the other hand is saying that it is at war with "terrorists." If history is any indication, we will end up with a divided Syria that will eventually become a series of small states like at best, and at worse, a nation run by rise of warlords and militias. Just as we saw in Somalia.

Viral Video: Truth on Wealth Inequality in America

Video: Leaked Document: Military Internment Camps in U.S to be Used for Political Dissidents

Video: RAW NEW Sandy Hook Footage - 3:25 to 3:38

Sen. Elizabeth Warren Gets Ben Bernanke to Admit Government Still Helps Big Banks Be Too Big to Fail

WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER WATCH TV MAINSTREAM NEWS #VIDEO Conan O'Brien Exposes Media Scripting

Rarely Seen Film "King: A Filmed Record" Traces MLK’s Struggle From Montgomery to Memphis

President of the Few Exaggerates Impact of Sequestration

Now I know that for many folk, the sequestration is either serious or not. Although I do accept the ramifications of the process, it is hard to get real involved in make believe political nuance. But as such, It is equally as hard not to weigh in on the inside the beltway kabuki theater we surmise as Washington politics. First, what get me is the big deal folk make out of this entire thing per an economic issue. If anything it is an issue of national security first and foremost (42 percent of cuts will come from defense). But I suspect this is what President Obama anticipated when he first proposed sequestration for whatever reason in 2011 (which in itself is another essay). I say this because I think he really believed that Congress would bow down to protect their cash cow “defense spending.” But they have since then taken his player card.

Truth be told from a federal agency perspective, it only $85 Billion (north of $40 billion this year), that they have to cut. I think what is missed mostly in all of this is that our issue really isn’t related to debt or the deficit, but rather credit and borrowing. Yes we spend too much no question, but ours is a credit problem – we borrow too much which makes economics ignore what is essential – that one can address the debt and deficit and encourage economic growth by leasing in on cutting wasted and duplicated spending.

Again it is just $85 billion. AIG got two times as much when the government bailed them out, yet we can find money to bailout Wall Street but not cut from what we already spend? I find that hard to believe because the average individual, family and small business owner, if had to, could cut less than three cents from each dollar earned without going bankrupt or homeless. I know less than 3 percent is possible from history alone. If FDR could cut the federal budget by almost 40 percent at the start of WW II in one year, surely we can locate 3 pennies of each government dollar currently spent.

Maybe this is why the theater. Three cents on the dollar won’t hurt if done correctly (end waste and duplication.) But if it hurt anybody it will be us, the poor folks in America who depend on services like head start and similar provisions. President Obama knew he was taking a risk, but instead of the wealthy he pretends he wants to tax, he put folk on the hook who live pay check to pay check, struggling to survive in poverty and who depend on head start on the hook as bait for house republicans. And they didn’t take it because they only grab on behalf of rich lobbyist (as well as democrats). Now we are back to Washington at its best, seeing that pointing fingers is more important to the administration and the congress than moving pencils and using erasers. The result is all outside in real America being stuck in the weeds on this matter.

In four days we will have Armageddon as the president describes it. Although all parties agreed to it, why is it Armageddon now and it wasn’t then? America outside the beltway isn’t growing fast like Washington, DC and Wall Street. Since looking at what has happened from 2009 to 2011, more than twenty major corporations have paid no income taxes. Including the likes of General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and Amazon [Amazon made billions in sales in 2011, while paying nothing in corporate taxes]. The reality is that since Obama has taken office, corporate taxes in the U.S., at an all-time low in which we see the most profitable companies paying nothing at all. Yet instead of fighting for the payroll holiday to continue President Obama did not fight for it, for these people were on the hook as bait. In 2011, Facebook made billions and paid not taxes yet was given a rebate of more than $400 million dollars the same year.

The fact is all of the above demonstrates that both the present administration and the members on the hill have only corporate interest at hand. Not only is it government for the few, it is also President of the few. Drake almost got it right, but I would say “we started from the bottom and we still here.”

Weaponized USAF Insect Drone Swarms : #video

History: Rioting Across the US During the Great Depression (Video)