3 December 2009
By Shamus Cooke
Tuesday’s announcement that
President Obama will send an additional 30,000
soldiers to Afghanistan — while begging his foreign
allies to send an extra 10,000 — will have dramatic
effects throughout the American and world society.
The
hope that Obama’s election would drastically change
U.S. foreign policy has been destroyed. The effects
of his troop surge will change the minds of millions
of Americans, who, until this point, were giving Obama
the benefit of the doubt.
Such
moments in history are capable of instantly removing
piles of dust from the collective eyeball — just as
the
bank
bailouts did.
The
announcement will also send tremors throughout the
military: many soldiers and their families remained
silent about fighting with hopes that Obama would
bring them home. They see little point in dying in a
pointless war. Thus, morale is likely to continue
deteriorating, while more brazen acts of defiance will
surely increase.
The
reasons behind the surge — Al Qaeda, “rooting out
terrorism,” etc. — are unlikely to fool many people,
with the exception of the media. This “war
on terror” propaganda is based on the same
illogical catch-phrases that Bush’s limited
intelligence tripped over. Coming from Obama, such
stupid reasoning sounds especially bizarre, akin to an
evolutionary biologist forced to argue in favor of
creationism.
Obama is compelled to tell the really big lie because
the truth is too damning. If he remotely
approached the real motives behind the war, the public
would be pushed into total defiance — Obama’s new $660
billion
military
budget for 2010 would have caused mass
demonstrations.
In
reality, the war in Afghanistan was a convenient way
for U.S. corporations — who dominate U.S. politics —
to get a firmer hold in the resource-rich
Middle
East. For example, soon after
Afghanistan was invaded, we were told that
Iraq
was a “ticking time bomb,” while now Obama assures us
that
Pakistan
is the real threat — and don’t forget
Iran!
When considering the above
military
budget, these countries are threats to the U.S
in the same way that a flea is a threat to an
elephant.
Who
really benefits from war in the Middle East? So far,
U.S. weapons manufacturers have (Boeing,
etc.), U.S. oil companies (Exxon,
etc.), and the big banks that help move the spoils
around (Citigroup, etc.) who also dominate the
finances of the conquered country. Corporations that
deal with “reconstruction” contracts love war (Halliburton,
etc.), while also the multitude of “private
contractors” that specialize in everything from
cooking (Halliburton again) to mercenary fighting (Blackwater,
etc.).
The
many U.S. corporations that export abroad also benefit
from the war, since a dominated country offers them a
monopoly market to sell their goods in, or the ability
to set up shop where none existed before. It is these
collective interests that are driving Obama’s foreign
policy; they would rather see the U.S. and Afghani
people bled dry than allow a foreign competitor —
China, Russia, etc. — to dominate Afghanistan’s
resources and markets.
The
U.S. is certainly not fighting terrorists in
Afghanistan — the
Al
Qaeda bogey men and the “evil genius”
Osama
Bin Laden are not directing
military operations from a cave. The
vast majority of people fighting U.S. troops are not
“Islamic
extremists” (another catchphrase), but
average citizens enraged by foreign troops rummaging
around in their homes, patting them down at check
points, indiscriminately detaining them at torture
centers (U.S. Bagram
Air base), and killing their family members.
Yes,
many Afghanis are deeply religious, but the presence
of U.S. troops is the motor force behind their
“radicalism,” i.e. resistance to
military occupation. Islam is not
inherently violent, but a military occupation
unquestionably is.
Those wishing to end these wars must end their
reliance on the corporate-bought two-party system, and
begin organizing independently. The anti-war movement
was strong while Bush was President, based not only on
mass outrage, but the cynical maneuvering of those
sitting atop of Democratic Party front groups like
MoveOn
and others — who helped organize and fund anti-war
(Bush) demonstrations.
When
Obama became President, the leaders of these groups
played a thoroughly destructive role in the anti-war
movement, shifting away from the effective measures
used against Bush, or abandoning the struggle
altogether, taking their funding with them. This
disruption in organization, plus the mass-effect of
the Obama illusion, had a temporary derailing effect
on organizing.
But
Obama’s troop surge may very well breathe new life
into the deflated movement. Demonstrations are being
organized for the spring, and there is plenty of time
to join local groups/coalitions to help with the
planning.
Mass
demonstrations are a very effective tool, since they
educate about the undemocratic nature of the state,
while showing demonstration participants that there is
power in
collective action. More importantly,
large marches prove to U.S. soldiers that they will
have public support if they collectively choose to
publicly oppose the war (by marching in a
demonstration), or individually opt not to fight in
these illegal wars. The
Vietnam
War was ended largely because so many
soldiers opposed the war, demonstrated against it, or
refused to fight;
a courage they found by the massive public support
felt at home.
Mass
demonstrations do not organize themselves. It will
take ordinary people working together to make it
happen, while collectively demanding:
BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW!
END
THE U.S. WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST!
Shamus Cooke is a
social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for
Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be
reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments
Save