Obama Declares War on Pakistan

[Jackpine Radical]

http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/2009/12/tarpley-obama-declares-war-on-pakistan.html

OBAMA DECLARES WAR ON PAKISTAN

By Webster G. Tarpley

Washington DC, Dec. 11 -- Obama’s West Point speech of December 1 represents far more than the obvious brutal escalation in Afghanistan -- it is nothing less than a declaration of all-out war by the United States against Pakistan. This is a brand-new war, a much wider war now targeting Pakistan, a country of 160 million people armed with nuclear weapons. In the process, Afghanistan is scheduled to be broken up. This is no longer the Bush Cheney Afghan war we have known in the past. This is something immensely bigger: the attempt to destroy the Pakistani central government in Islamabad and to sink that country into a chaos of civil war, Balkanization, subdivision and general mayhem. The chosen strategy is to massively export the Afghan civil war into Pakistan and beyond, fracturing Pakistan along ethnic lines. It is an oblique war using fourth-generation or guerrilla warfare techniques to assail a country which the United States and its associates in aggression are far too weak to attack directly. In this war, the Taliban are employed as US proxies. This aggression against Pakistan is Obama's attempt to wage the Great Game against the hub of Central Asia and Eurasia or more generally.

US DETERRED FROM OPEN WAR BY PAKISTAN’S NUKES

The ongoing civil war in Afghanistan is merely a pretext, a cover story designed to provide the United States with a springboard for a geopolitical destabilization campaign in the entire region which cannot be publicly avowed. In the blunt cynical world of imperialist aggression à la Bush and Cheney, a pretext might have been manufactured to attack Pakistan directly. But Pakistan is far too large and the United States is far too weak and too bankrupt for such an undertaking. In addition, Pakistan is a nuclear power, possessing atomic bombs and medium range missiles needed to deliver them. What we are seeing is a novel case of nuclear deterrence in action. The US cannot send an invasion fleet or set up airbases nearby because Pakistani nuclear weapons might destroy them. To this extent, the efforts of Ali Bhutto and A.Q. Khan to provide Pakistan a deterrent capability have been vindicated. But the US answer is to find ways to attack Pakistan below the nuclear threshold, and even below the conventional threshold. This is where the tactic of exporting the Afghan civil war to Pakistan comes in.

The architect of the new Pakistani civil war is US Special Forces General Stanley McChrystal, who organized the infamous network of US torture chambers in Iraq. McChrystal’s specific credential for the Pakistani civil war is his role in unleashing the Iraqi civil war of Sunnis versus Shiites by creating “al Qaeda in Iraq” under the infamous and now departed double agent Zarkawi. If Iraqi society as a whole had lined up against the US invaders, the occupiers would have soon been driven out. The counter-gang known as “Al Qaeda in Iraq” avoided that possibility by killing Shiites, and thus calling forth massive retaliation in the form of a civil war. These tactics are drawn from the work of British General Frank Kitson, who wrote about them in his book Low Intensity Warfare. If the United States possesses a modern analog to Heinrich Himmler of the SS, it is surely General McChrystal, Obama’s hand-picked choice. McChrystal’s superior, Gen Petraeus, wants to be the new Field Marshal von Hindenburg – in other words, he wants to be the next US president.

[Junkdrawer]

1. Bookmarked for later....n/t

[TwilightGardener]

2. This is just dumb. Sorry.

[ixion]

7. Some Saudis allegedly flew some airplanes into a couple of our buildings, and we declared

war on the world...why is it so hard for you to imagine that Pakistan might look on the presence of US drone aircraft as an act of war?

Dumb? No, dumb is our hostile occupation of Afghanistan, and our current infringement on Pakistan's sovereignty.

[TwilightGardener]

9. We didn't declare war on the world. We declared war on the Taliban regime

for hosting Al Qaeda, and much of the world was, in fact, WITH us. It wasn't near-unilateral the way Iraq was. Pakistan is presumably allowing the drone strikes--we are not at war with the Pakistani people nor their government. We give them aid, we have an embassy there. If we were afraid of their nukes, why on earth would we destabilize them and possibly lose influence altogether? It's a ridiculous assertion.

[ixion]

12. no, they are not happy with them, and yes we did

* said we could go anywhere in the world we wanted, and use whatever force we deemed necessary, to pursue people who were a threat to Pax Americana.

And no, Pakistan is not allowing our drone attacks, we're just doing them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4171896

[TwilightGardener]

14. Even Numbnutz and Cheney had no compelling interest to destabilize Pakistan--

to what benefit would we do it? And as for the drones, what the Pakistani government says publicly may be different than what they allow privately. Remember, they have troops supposedly fighting extremists and foreign fighters in Waziristan, too.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. officially we declared war on nothing

unofficially we declared a Global War On Terror and with a doctrine of American Hegemony that entitled us to invade and conquer, disrupt and destroy any nation whenever we felt like doing so, rendering many post wwii international treaties on national sovereignty and security (and in the case of the GC a series of agreements going back much further) null and void.

We did not declare war on the taliban or al qeada.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Not by name--but AUMF against terrorists and enablers.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Your assertion upthread was false.

And these not quite declarations of war, your cited AUMFs, are outside of the clear constitutional requirements, a fact that has been explicitly ignored since this bullshit started after WWII. In addition the document you cite does not declare war against the Taliban, it was and is a blank check for the executive branch to do just about anything it wishes to do without having to bother Congress or pay even passing attention to the now effectively defunct war powers act. For example, the prior administration argued that the AUMF allowed it to bypass wiretap regulations, ignore the GC, and invent tribunals to push victims of the Guantanamo gulag into the execution chamber without any bother with constitutional requirements. These authorizations, and our military activities since 2001, have only been tangentially about the Taliban, and certainly our focus has not been to bring to justice or kill trying to bring to justice al qaeda leaders. Osama bin Who? Eight years and counting.

[closeupready]

13. I agree. I don't see it like this at all, nor did my Pakistani friends who watched his speech.

n/t

[grantcart]

3. Thanks for the laughs

quoting from the hype

Webster Tarpley is one of the most important geopolitical analysts of our time. His brand-new article "Obama Declares War on Pakistan" rips the veil off the covert Anglo-American war against Pakistan. I am posting the entire article below, since it is brand-new and I can't find it posted elsewhere yet


Rather tan one of the most important geopolitical analysts of our time he is a former LaRouche flunkie who argues that 9/11 was a "false flag operation" conducted by US interests.

[el_bryanto]

5. You might find that many DUers also believe that 9/11 was a "false flag operation"

I am not one of them.

Bryant

[Jackpine Radical]

6. The whole piece was posted by Kevin Barrett,

who is a big-time conspiracy theorist. But here is a little more from the piece:

One elected official who has criticized this incongruous mismatch is Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who said in a television interview that ‘Pakistan, in the border region near Afghanistan, is perhaps the epicenter , although al Qaida is operating all over the world, in Yemen, in Somalia, in northern Africa, affiliates in Southeast Asia. Why would we build up 100,000 or more troops in parts of Afghanistan included that are not even near the border? You know, this buildup is in Helmand Province. That's not next door to Waziristan. So I'm wondering, what exactly is this strategy, given the fact that we have seen that there is a minimal presence of Al Qaida in Afghanistan, but a significant presence in Pakistan? It just defies common sense that a huge boots on the ground presence in a place where these people are not is the right strategy. It doesn't make any sense to me.’ Indeed. ‘The Wisconsin Democrat also warned that U.S. policy in Afghanistan could actually push terrorists and extremists into Pakistan and, as a consequence, further destabilize the region: "You know, I asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, and Mr. Holbrooke, our envoy over there, a while ago, you know, is there a risk that if we build up troops in Afghanistan, that will push more extremists into Pakistan?" he told ABC. "They couldn't deny it, and this week, Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan specifically said that his concern about the buildup is that it will drive more extremists into Pakistan, so I think it's just the opposite, that this boots-on-the-ground approach alienates the Afghan population and specifically encourages the Taliban to further coalesce with Al Qaida, which is the complete opposite of our national security interest."’<1> Of course, this is all intentional and motivated by US imperialist raison d’état.

[kerrywins]

4. He had been hinting that Pakistan was on the table before he was elected

this shouldn't be surprising.

He's a warmonger just like Bush I and II.

[blondeatlast]

8. "US DETERRED FROM OPEN WAR BY PAKISTAN’S NUKES" Yeah--the same ones they used on India. Some bored,

failed poli-sci PhD who posts on "truthjihad"?

[Ozymanithrax]

10. I am still waiting on Congress to publish their authoriztion to use force or...

their declaration of war against Pakistan.

Without it, this story is just another lie from the media.

[NYCGirl]

11. We're quoting LaRouchites now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Tarpley

[dionysus]

17. you're surprised?

:shrug:

[Vehl]

18. I'm sorry but this article is silly. nt

[GreenArrow]

19. our allies at work

I posted this yesterday and it dropped like a stone, but since it kind of ties in to this article, some of you might find it of interest, the 10 minute video particularly so.

>> As Pakistan battles militant insurgency in South Wazirsitan, a Channel 4 News/ITN team finds that this may just be the start of the battle to defeat the Taliban.

>>snip<<

Foreign intervention
Army officers of various ranks came and went, and discussions with them, as well as others with pilots and other soldiers over the next few weeks, revealed their mindset.

Nearly every officer who discussed the situation was convinced there was foreign involvement helping or at least in arming the Taliban. They were astonished at the amount of weaponry that had been seized from the Taliban some of which had Indian marking, proof enough that India was providing the Pakistan Taliban with logistical support.

When I tried to point to the contradictions in that claim, I was thought to be naive and not understanding the complexity of the politics of the subcontinent.

Most of them are also convinced that America was complicit with India in helping the Taliban.

When I expressed exasperation at that claim, they argued back that American intentions are to create a civil war-like situation in Pakistan so that the US can send in their troops and take out Pakistan’s nuclear assets.

This distrust of American intentions is widespread in political and even government circles in Pakistan. Despite huge American aid and close traditional ties with the US over decades, Pakistanis in general have a serious distrust of American intentions and this propaganda victory of the Islamists in Pakistan is their greatest success.

Even a government minister told me over a private dinner that he believes the Americans are involved in helping the Taliban in Pakistan, and pointed out to the removal of Nato posts from the border when Pakistan launched its action in South Waziristan.

>>snip<<

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/asia_pacifi... ?

[EmeraldCityGrl]

20. More on Obama's secret war...

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23303

"At a covert forward operating base run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, "snatch and grabs" of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan, an investigation by The Nation has found. The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes, according to a well-placed source within the US military intelligence apparatus."

This is long but well worth the read. Obama started bombing with drones Jan. 23, three days after the inauguration. Blackwater is his military and we're paying for it. This all makes me sick
to my stomach.