PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues

The Murderous U.S. Government Explained

(5 posts)
  1. Long one with a lot of links but a MUST READ
    http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2010/11/murderous-us-government-explained.html

    An excerpt:

    ...
    One of the best passages in Chandrasekaran's article is his description of how the selection of Petraeus made possible this latest exercise in murderous barbarism:

    Although Petraeus is widely regarded as the father of the military's modern counterinsurgency doctrine, which emphasizes the role of governance, development and other forms of soft power in stabilization missions, he also believes in the use of intense force, at times, to wipe out opponents and create conditions for population-centric operations. A less-recognized aspect of the troop surge he commanded in Iraq in 2007 involved a significant increase in raids and airstrikes.

    "Petraeus believes counterinsurgency does not mean just handing out sacks of wheat seed," said a senior officer in Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency "doesn't mean you don't blow up stuff or kill people who need to be killed."

    Since his arrival in Kabul, Petraeus has permitted - and in some cases encouraged - the use of tougher measures than his predecessors, the officials said. Soon after taking charge, he revised a tactical directive issued by the commander he replaced, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, to prohibit subordinate officers from placing additional restrictions on the use of air and artillery strikes.

    "There is more top-cover support for appropriate aggression," said a civilian adviser to the NATO command in Kabul.

    ...

    "Because Petraeus is the author of the COIN [counterinsurgency] manual, he can do whatever he wants. He can manage the optics better than McChrystal could," the adviser said. "If he wants to turn it up to 11, he feels he has the moral authority to do it."

    The reader who actively thinks as he reads this article (as he should actively think when he reads anything at all) will realize that he is not likely to come across a better description of the operation of evil in a news article. Keep that in mind: this isn't an opinion piece. But Chandrasekaran provides all the facts you need to reach certain conclusions.

    It is precisely Petraeus's reputation and status, together with the fact that he is "the author of the COIN manual," that make it possible for Petraeus to "do whatever he wants." What he wants includes bringing what he views as the required degree of "awe, shock and firepower" to Afghanistan. I repeat: that is why Obama chose him.
    ...
    Here is the additional connection I fear most readers will miss. I've described the nature and operation of U.S. foreign policy for over a hundred years as follows:

    The fundamental lesson is unmistakable, and unmistakably evil in intent and execution (a word made horribly appropriate in more than one sense by our government's actions): you will do exactly as we say -- or else.

    This is the lesson now being so hideously reenacted in Afghanistan.
    ...

    Posted 1 year ago on 21 Nov 2010 15:51 #
  2. nota, thanks for post. Far-reaching stuff it was but, when all's said and done, it doesn't add anything specially new to what we have already understood. A summing up rather it is of the tentacles of the Evil Empire.

    I didn't like the tone overmuch, though. As though we were singing an epitaph over Afghanistan because the EE had decided to do their worst. Take the matter of the Abrams armoured tanks. If anyone knows how many of those have already been destroyed in Iraq, one knows for sure it will be just another target for the Afghan Resistance to take out. And there are all those weapons in the background still waiting to fall into their hands. But the time is not quite ripe yet.

    US can give any amount of ultimatums it likes and in any tone of menace they care to use, your adversary must also be willing to be intimidated. In this particular case, I think, they've picked on the wrong lot to bring to heel.

    Posted 1 year ago on 21 Nov 2010 17:44 #
  3. @MG
    "it doesn't add anything specially new"

    Indeed. But a good "summing up" is needed from time to time... ;-)

    Posted 1 year ago on 21 Nov 2010 18:09 #
  4. Indeed, nota, indeed. And now let me touch upon something that also came up in the piece above. Afghanistan is simply by the way the recent Global Research piece, also mentioned in the article, suggests. The real goal in it all is to target Russia and topple over China. Now these two particular giants can easily match US-NATO in deviousness, deception and cunning. I suppose you see what I'm getting at. The day they've had enough of bogging down the enemy in its quagmire, it will be all over with yet another defeat chalked up to the brilliant EE.

    Posted 1 year ago on 21 Nov 2010 18:16 #
  5. shimatoree
    Member

    The West knows they have lost the game.

    They have lost with all their technology and all their money.

    Bringing in " tanks" is meaningless at this stage.

    All this " new" stuff is to create a make believe situation where Obama can look Macho but that won't help either.
    He is lost too.

    The question should be who will play Gorbachev in the West and call for an immediate withdrawl.
    Of course the "insurgents" could facilitate the withdrawl by changing tactics.

    More later.

    Posted 1 year ago on 21 Nov 2010 19:48 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.