MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Bin Laden’

Why No Deal is Needed with the Taliban | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on July 21, 2020

Advocates of continuing the war in Afghanistan want to make the issue about whether the Taliban can be trusted. But no trust is necessary; all one needs to see the way forward is a clear understanding of American national security interests and the incentives and goals of the militant organization. From that perspective, the best choice for the United States is a clear commitment to withdrawal, regardless of whether or not we are able to achieve a comprehensive deal before doing so.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-no-deal-is-needed-with-the-taliban/

The U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan and tend to its own interests. Let local powers worry about theirs.

As President Trump moves forward with his plan to withdraw the United States from Afghanistan, a new talking point has emerged among those who would like the United States to stay.

According to current and former government officials, the Taliban cannot be trusted. The argument is that the militant group has proven over the years that it will break any agreement it has reached if doing so accords with its ideological or political interests. According to one scholar, “what we judge the Taliban on is whether they honor the deal.”

Unfortunately, this argument avoids clear thinking about what the vital American national security interests are in Afghanistan, and how to best achieve them. Nearly two decades ago, the United States invaded that country in response to the 9/11 attacks. There was no evidence that Mullah Omar and his government approved of Bin Laden’s plans, or were even aware of them. It is likely they were not, as it was clear to the entire world that a terrorist strike against the United States would end the regime.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the Taliban expressed a willingness to hand over Bin Laden, but demanded evidence and wanted to negotiate the terms. The Bush administration was in no mood for discussions, and military operations to remove the Taliban began about two weeks later.

The Taliban showed no inclination to attack American territory before 9/11, and it has not done so since. Its goal has always simply been to rule over Afghanistan, a country that means little to American interests. Given that the United States went into the country for the purposes of responding to and fighting terrorism, in principle a deal should have been easy to work out.

As the Afghanistan Papers reveal, however, what began as a counter-terrorism war morphed into nation building. Particularly after the failure to find WMDs in Iraq, the Bush administration began to justify its seemingly pointless wars by framing them as struggles for democracy. President Obama came into office skeptical of an open-ended commitment, but was pressured into adopting the kind of counter-insurgency (COIN) mission favored by top military officials. The increase in funding and American troop commitment to Afghanistan coincided with more violence and the Kabul government losing more territory, discrediting the theory of nation-building underlying COIN.

Just as in fall 2001, today the U.S. has no interest in a long-term occupation of Afghanistan, and the Taliban has no interest in attacking the United States. No deal between the two sides is necessary. President Trump can simply withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, as he has been promising to do for years, and the Taliban’s sense of self-preservation should be enough to prevent it from allowing its country to be used as a base for terrorist attacks. In seeking to come back into political power and while facing rival insurgents, the Taliban will have its plate full at home without picking another fight with the United States.

A more serious concern is that the United States leaving Afghanistan would lead to the Taliban eventually replacing the Kabul government. Indeed, the movement has lasted twenty years under pressure from the most powerful military in the world, taking large swaths of territory from a central government receiving overwhelming military and financial support from abroad. Given the extent to which the Taliban has proved itself as a fighting force over two decades, it looks possible it would be able to take power once the United States withdrew.

Even if this is true, few Americans believe that which government rules Kabul is a vital national security interest of the United States. If, after twenty years, the government we have supported is no closer to complete control over its territory than it has been before, it is time to acknowledge that our experiment in nation building has failed. The current government of Afghanistan rests on the agreement and consent of warlords, the likes of which cut deals with the Taliban before and could do so again.

Many citizens prefer the courts and criminal justice system of the Taliban over the central government, seeing the former as less corrupt, better able to provide security, and more consistent with the people’s conservative religious values. Even by the measure of humanitarian concerns, while the central government is in many ways less brutal than the Taliban was, the U.S. occupation has done little to improve the well-being of the Afghan people.

The U.S. should waste no time in withdrawing all American forces from Afghanistan, acknowledging the Taliban as a legitimate player in the future of that country and establishing open dialogue with the group.

Deluding ourselves into believing the Afghan government can stand on its own simply avoids the much-needed honest assessment of the balance of power on the ground.

Advocates of continuing the war in Afghanistan want to make the issue about whether the Taliban can be trusted. But no trust is necessary; all one needs to see the way forward is a clear understanding of American national security interests and the incentives and goals of the militant organization. From that perspective, the best choice for the United States is a clear commitment to withdrawal, regardless of whether or not we are able to achieve a comprehensive deal before doing so.

 

Richard Hanania is a Research Fellow at Defense Priorities and the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How Controlled Explanations Are Achieved – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on January 3, 2020

The “institutional investor” in question was Alex Brown Inc., a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank whose former CEO and Chairman A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard (until 1998) had just become Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001.

I don’t know what is going with the lack of images-MCViewpoint

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/12/28/how-controlled-explanations-are-achieved/

Paul Craig Roberts

In 2014 Progressive Press published a book by a French author, Laurent Guyenot, titled JFK-9/11: 50 Years of Deep State. The book contains much interesting reporting that shows that the official explanations we are given about even major events, such as the assassination of a President and 9/11, are transparently false. Yet, these transparently false explanations are hard to challenge despite all available evidence being against the explanations.

Reviewing such a book is a challenge that I avoided by securing permission to reprint two chapters from the book. One chapter, “Ghost planes,” deals with the mystery of the four allegedly hijacked airliners. No trace of the one that allegedly hit the Pentagon has ever been found, and the many videos of the event remain under lock and key. No trace of the one that allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania has ever been found. Neither has any trace of the two that allegedly hit the two World Trade Center towers ever been found, although an unburnt passpost was allegedly found in the ruins of two massive buildings.

Readers might remember that I raised the question why we did not hear demands for explanations from the families of the victims of the four destroyed airliners like we did from the families whose relatives were in the twin towers. Guyenot reports that of the alleged casualties of AA77 “only five of these have relatives who received the 9-11 Compensation Fund offered by the State. . . . no family of the victims of Flight UA93 requested compensation.”

How can this be?

The other chapter, “The Art of the Patsy,” shows that the key to the ability of the authorities to control the explanation is to have an explanation of the event ready at hand. No one expected President Kennedy’s assassination or he wouldn’t have been riding in a convertible. Yet it was instantly known that Oswald was the assassin. The explanation for 9/11 was also instantaneous. It was CIA-asset Osama bin Laden, who was dying from renal failure and no longer useful to the CIA.
If you find Guyenot interesting, you might want to read his book. What Guyenot shows us is that what the CIA has schooled the dumbshit presstitute media to ridicule as “conspiracy theory” is indeed a conspiracy, a real one usually involving the CIA.

Sorry. The images didn’t transfer.

Ghost Planes Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

George H. Walker Bush: The Bush Family and the Mexican Drug Cartel – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Posted by M. C. on December 4, 2019

https://www.globalresearch.ca/jeb-bush-the-mexican-drug-cartel-and-free-trade/5448747

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Donald Trump has offered to intervene in Mexico, i.e. “to go after the Drug Cartels” following “the brutal killing of an American family in Mexico”. The Mexican president has turned down Trump’s generous offer.

In a recent interview, President Trump confirmed that his administration is now considering categorizing “drug cartels” as “terrorists”,  akin to Al Qaeda (with the exception that they are “Catholic terrorists”).

They would henceforth be designated by Washington as “foreign terrorist organizations”.

What is the intent? 

Create a justification for US-led “counterterrorism” (military) operations inside Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America?

Extend the “War on Terrorism” to Latin America?  “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P). Go after the “Narco-terrorists”. 

The unspoken truth is:

1. Al Qaeda and its related terrorist organizations (including ISIS) in the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia are creations of the CIA.

2. The CIA protects the multibillion dollar global drug trade as well as the Mexican drug cartels. Moreover, it is estimated that 300 billion dollars (annually) worth of drug money is routinely laundered in casinos across America including Las Vegas and Atlantic City… As well as in Macau. Guess who is the World’s richest casino owner.

4. Both American and Latin American politicians are known to have ties to the drug trade.

Flash back to the 1990s: George H. W. Bush, the dad of  Bush Junior had developed close personal ties with Carlos Salinas de Gortari (former president of Mexico) and his dad Raul Salinas Lozano who, according to the Dallas Morning News (February 27, 1997) was “a leading figure in narcotics dealings that also involved his son, Raul Salinas de Gortari…  And Raul was an intimo amigo of  Jeb Bush, (former Governor of Florida) and the brother of  George W, Bush.  

The Bush family has ties to the Bin Laden Family as well as ties to the Salinas de Gortiari family. Is it relevant?

The following text was published in May 2015 under the title  Jeb Bush, the Mexican Drug Cartel and “Free Trade”. The Bush Family and Organized Crime. It also documents the signing of the North american Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by a Mexican head state with links to the Drug Cartels.  

Michel Chossudovsky, December 1, 2019

***

Jeb Bush is a presidential candidate.  [was in 2015]

But Jeb is not only the brother of George W. and the son of George H. W. Bush.

Jeb Bush also had close personal ties to Raul Salinas de Gortari, brother of Mexico’s former president Carlos Salinas de Gortari. In the 1990s, Raul the “drug kingpin”, according to Switzerland’s  federal prosecutor Carla del Ponte, was one of the main figures of the Mexican Drug Cartel.

Jeb Bush  –before becoming Governor of the Sunshine State– was a close friend of Raul Salinas de Gortiari (image right):

“There has also been a great deal of speculation in Mexico about the exact nature of Raul Salinas’ close friendship with former President George Bush’s son, Jeb. It is well known here that for many years the two families spent vacations together — the Salinases at Jeb Bush’s home in Miami, the Bushes at Raul’s ranch, Las Mendocinas, under the volcano in Puebla.

There are many in Mexico who believe that the relationship became a back channel for delicate and crucial negotiations between the two governments, leading up to President Bush’s sponsorship of NAFTA.” (Prominent intellectual and former foreign Minister of Mexico Jorge G. Castañeda, The Los Angeles Times. and Houston Chronicle, 9 March 1995, emphasis added)

The personal relationship between the Bush and Salinas families was a matter of public record. Former President George H. W. Bush  had developed close personal ties with Carlos Salinas and his father, Raul Salinas Lozano. (left)

Raul Salinas Lozano was the family patriarch, father of Carlos and Raul Junior. According to the former private secretary to Raul Salinas Lozano (in as statement to US authorities):

“… Mr. Salinas Lozano was a leading figure in narcotics dealings that also involved his son, Raul Salinas de Gortari, his son-in-law, Jose Francisco Ruiz Massieu, the No. 2 official in the governing Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, and other leading politicians, according to the documents. Mr. Ruiz Massieu was assassinated in 1994.” (Dallas Morning News, 26 February 1997, emphasis added).

Former president George H. W. Bush and Raul Salinas Lozano were “intimo amigos”…

Be seeing you
drug war

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

In Defense of Ilhan Omar – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on July 20, 2019

https://original.antiwar.com/dave_decamp/2019/07/19/in-defense-of-ilhan-omar/

President Trump held a rally in North Carolina on Wednesday after a week of criticizing certain freshman members of Congress, drawing much media attention. Of course, the cries of racism from the left are nothing new to hear, but in specifically targeting Rep. Ilhan Omar (Dem-Minn) the president hit a new low. Omar needs to be defended. Despite what you think of her domestic policy, she has been one of the most consistent antiwar voices in Congress.

When Trump brought up Omar the crowd started chanting “send her back.” As disgusting as that chant is, it’s no surprise to hear at a Trump rally. Xenophobia is nothing new from Trump or his base. it’s what he built his campaign on. But Just calling Trump “racist” doesn’t work, the Democrats should have learned this from the 2016 election. What needs to be addressed is the falsehood of Trump’s claims against the congresswoman.

Trump started his attacks on Omar during the rally with, “Representative Omar blamed the United States for the terrorist attacks on our country, saying terrorism is a reaction to our involvement in other people’s affairs.” The crowd responded with boos, clearly not educated on Osama bin Laden’s motives for the attacks on September 11th.

Bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa was entitled “Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holiest Sites. (Expel the infidels from the Arab Peninsula).” Bin Laden’s jihad against the US started because we were occupying his holy land (a point this author has been making a lot lately).

Even George W. Bush’s Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz admitted in 2003 that US troops in Saudi Arabia had “been Osama bin Laden’s principal recruiting device.”…

Somehow acknowledging or even questioning the cause of terrorism is considered radical in this country. We are supposed to believe that we were attacked on September 11th because those crazy Muslims hate our way of life and are jealous of our freedom, not because we occupy their land. For Trump, it’s just too easy for him to make Omar’s point about terrorism seem so crazy. Especially since she is a black Muslim immigrant who wears a headscarf and speaks with an accent.

“She smeared US service members involved in ‘Black Hawk Down’ — in other words, she slandered the brave Americans who were trying to keep peace in Somalia,” Trump said, referencing a tweet by Omar from 2017.

Omar did not “smear” any US troops. She responded to a twitter user who said the worst terrorist attack in Somalia’s history was the battle of Mogadishu, also known as “Black Hawk Down.” The twitter user listed US service member casualties and left out Somali casualties to which Omar responded, “In his selective memory, he forgets to also mention the thousands of Somalis killed by the American forces that day!”…

One of the more ridiculous claims Trump made this week was that Omar and her freshman colleagues are “pro al-Qaeda,” based on nothing. If anybody is “pro al-Qaeda” it’s the president who arms Saudi Arabia, while it is known the Saudis are arming al-Qaeda in Yemen. What makes this claim even more baseless is that Omar has been fighting to stop US arms sales to Saudi Arabia and end US involvement in the war in Yemen altogether.

Trump brought up Omar’s criticism of his policy of aggression towards the Maduro regime in Venezuela, “Omar blamed the United States for the crisis in Venezuela.” But all Omar did was speak the obvious truth that US sanctions play a role in the suffering in Venezuela. No matter what is to blame for the country’s failing economy, US sanctions do not help…

And of course, Omar has been a critic of Israel’s influence on US politicians. Omar’s very mild criticism of Israel has gotten her the most backlash. She tweeted, “It’s all about the Benjamin’s baby,” when referring to a story that journalist Glenn Greenwald shared on twitter. The story was about a US politician condemning Omar’s criticisms of Israel. When asked who was paying politicians to be pro-Israel Omar responded in another tweet, “AIPAC!” The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee is one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying organizations in the US and has lots of influence on US politicians. Both republicans and democrats condemned these statements as “anti-Semitic”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other House Democrats released a statement on Omar’s tweets, “Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive.” This no doubt paved the way for Trump to attack Omar.

In the middle of these attacks from the president, Omar introduced legislation on Wednesday to protect our constitutional right to boycott Israel. The resolution said, “Affirming that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.”…

Be seeing you

aipac

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bin Laden Won – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on April 16, 2019

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/bin-laden-won/

by

Fool’s Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan by Scott Horton (Chicago: The Libertarian Institute, 2017); 317 pages.

According to official U.S. government accounts, the body of Osama bin Laden slid off the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson into his watery grave in the Indian Ocean sometime on the morning of May 2, 2011. Nearly 10 years after 9/11, the terrorist leader of al-Qaeda responsible for nearly 3,000 murdered Americans was no more, and the rationale for the Afghan War gone with him.

Fast-forward another seven years. On September 2, 2018, Gen. Austin S. Miller assumed control of NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the 17th commander to inherit the longest military quagmire in the nation’s history. Miller replaced Gen. John W. Nicholson, who led the coalition war effort for 17 months. Upon his departure, Nicholson said, “It is time for this war in Afghanistan to end.”

The opposite, however, is happening.

What’s clear from Miller’s promotion from commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, the military’s most elite killing machines, is that Washington cannot leave well enough alone in this graveyard of empires. Seventeen years of unnecessary bloodshed and atrocity and wasted treasure and corruption in Afghanistan isn’t enough. In June, General Miller told lawmakers that there was no timeline for the end to the war, while the situation on the ground only worsens as the Taliban continues to gain territory at the expense of the U.S.-supported puppet government in Kabul.

As journalist Scott Horton documents in his exhaustive history of the Afghan War, Fool’s Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was always a mistake. Upon close scrutiny, Horton shows, every rationale for the war — from destroying al-Qaeda or defeating the Taliban or denying a terrorist safe haven or, even more unbelievable, creating a stable and democratic nation ruled from the capital city of Kabul — falls apart…

In the end, it didn’t matter that the United States finally got its man in neighboring Pakistan. The chants of “USA, USA” outside the White House on May 1, 2011, represented a pyrrhic victory. Bin Laden laid a trap on 9/11, and the U.S. government fell into it. Almost two decades after the towers fell, American soldiers continue to kill and die in vain in Afghanistan while propping up a corrupt regime in Kabul, a toxic combination that only ensures the insurgency never quits. Yet the powers that be continue to fight on, telling the American people that they can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

But this is a lie. Bin Laden, as Scott Horton masterfully documents, has already won. And nothing will change that fact, no matter how hard Washington spins various counter-narratives or promotes another commander to finally win the unwinnable in Afghanistan’s graveyard of empires.

Be seeing you

graveyard

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Culture Wars – Paris Attacks, NPR and Bush The Simple

Posted by M. C. on November 22, 2015

This week I heard NPR’s ATC correspondent in Paris tells us that the Paris attacks were against French freedom and culture. Today on the NPR’s 360 whatsis show there was the same from the correspondent and local interviewees. “We don’t need your prayers, we are French and we have love and our culture to see us through”. Well, good luck with that.

Oh and why did the terrorists chose a stadium, concert hall and bistros to wreak their havoc? It is because they represent western culture! Maybe those places were chosen for the same reason Clyde Barrow chose to rob banks. That is where the money (people) is. Your typical effective terrorist does not blow up empty buildings. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Clash of Political Positions

Posted by M. C. on January 22, 2012

Robert Cogan’s Clash of Political Positions in the current Erie Reader got me to thinking about political tags from a Libertarian viewpoint. Mr. Cogan presents an enlightening comparison of political philosophies, primarily liberal, progressive, conservative and Libertarian. He describes many characteristics of each breed that I agree with. There are many unfortunate similarities also. These groups are not at all what they pretend to be. There are few real conservatives for example, at least not in the paleo-conservative Robert Taft tradition. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Political Philosophy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »