Barack Obama's Idiotic Foreign Policy

"For Every Sad Fly, There is a Happy Spider "

—Joseph P. Kennedy

You might think from the title of this essay that I am a right-wing hater of President Barack Obama. I don't hate the President. If you have read enough of my opinion pieces you might categorize me as "leftist" if you had too, but you know "left," "right," and "center" have all become pretty meaningless terms. "Modern," "Orthodox," and "Ultra-orthodox" are the three big categories of people in the 21st century.

I am "Modern." And as a Modern, I think Barack Obama's foreign policy is idiotic. It is a product of a man, and an establishment, that are trapped in the Orthodox political webs they have spun. The flies they were supposed to catch have mutated into zombies that multiply faster than they can be killed. Except they are really human beings, endowed by nature with all the rights of human beings.

I am beginning to think that Barack Obama was too busy studying law, trying to get ahead, to crack open a history book before he became President. Well, actually, to learn enough history to be an effective President, which might require careful study of 50 to 100 history books.

Let's start with the American Revolution. In 1770 most American colonials wanted to remain part of the British Empire, even if they had some complaints. The more Americans complained, the more the idiots in London tried to use the force of law, and then military force, to remain in control. How did that work out for the Brits? Not too well.

True, revolutions have been successfully put down by force more often than not. And nations have been conquered by force. But mostly force has not worked out as an option since the colonial era blew up into World War I and World War II. Force can be used to install a puppet when manipulation and bribery fails, but if the puppet is to obviously a foreign stooge, sooner or later nationalists seize power. Example: how well did America's puppets in the "nation" of South Vietnam work out? Not too well.

More recently, how did the overthrow by military force of the old regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq work out? It looks like Afghanistan will become another kingdom of warlords by the end of 2015. In Iraq the nation is now mainly divided between anti-U.S. ( and anti-Modern) ISIS/Sunnis and pro-Iranian Shia tribes.

Elections? Obama and the U.S. establishment don't need no stinking elections when they elevate Orthodox or Ultra-orthodox Islamic parties to power, as happened in Algeria, Palestine, and Egypt. And how well did the deposing of the old Libyan government work out? And if we are against Ultra-orthodox Islamic dictators, why don't we help the internal opposition to the Saud dictatorship?

To some extent President Obama and some of the establishment know this. They know using force just pisses people off. The force option only works if you exterminate people or ethnically cleanse areas. Obama may execute people without trial, but he is no Hitler, or at least would want to hear back from the pollsters before building ovens for tribes aligned with Islamic radicals.

So, using force to kill Islam is not going to work. Justice, kindness, education, and some economic relief would probably work in the long run to lure people towards the Modern end of the social-political spectrum, but that would take time. What about the short run?

In the short run, the first thing the President could do (if he could get the establishment to go along with him) is to end the various punitive economic measures that have been imposed on various states, notably Iran and Cuba. I'm not saying sell fighter jets or plutonium to either country, I'm saying just resume ordinary trade with everyone. Even North Korea.

Second, stop the obvious interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. We don't want foreign nations stirring up trouble in the U.S.; we should reciprocate.

Third, recognize the State of Palestine. Just do it. Let the Palestinians govern themselves. If Israel objects, stop using U.S. taxpayer money to supply them with fighter jets and plutonium.

Fourth, let's get our own house in order. Let's make sure there really is liberty and justice, including economic justice, for all Americans. Let's prosecute our own war criminals, rather than running around the world accusing others of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Oh, the list is long, I won't repeat the details here, you know the details (unless you are in the oblivious 1%). Instead of pretending to be a shining light, let us actually do the work needed to shine brightly.

ISIS Thrives after Demonizing Assad Backfires

Why do we think of kings as better than dictators? Could it be too much Disney, or the old tradition of upper-class Americans sucking up to the Queen (or King) of England? What differentiates an elected President-for-life like Franklin D. Roosevelt from a dictator like Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein?

Americans don't ask themselves these questions, but they should. While this essay is focused on Dr. Bashar Assad [or al-Assad], the current President of Syria, this is just one example of how Americans fall prey to propaganda created by the government of the United States of America. And how lying, especially systematic lying, backfires.

[Note that the U.S. government, with cooperation from Microsoft and Google, has hidden or blocked access to official Syrian government web sites. Try searching "government of syria official web site" or any variation on it if you don't believe me.]

In the Dictator column place the fact that Bashar Assad became President when Hafez Assad, his father, died. On the other hand, we have had two father-son presidencies in the U.S., Adams and Bush, and have come close to having others (Taft).

The U.S. considered Hafez Assad an enemy because he was a leftist, and therefore pro-Soviet, back when we demonized anyone who dared to not let their country become a U.S. colony. But within the leftist — everyone get up in the morning and have a nice day instead of slaving for some capitalist boss — countries, Hafez was a pretty decent leader. Richard Nixon's Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger's, description of Hafez is worth quoting at length:

"Withal, I developed a high regard for Assad. In the Syrian context he was a moderate indeed. He leaned toward the Soviets as the source of his military equipment. But he was far being from a Soviet stooge. He had a first-class mind allied to a wicked sense of humor. I believe that I was the first Western Leader with whom he had dealt consistently. He grasped the opportunity for some free tutorials on Western political systems. During the Syrian shuttle, almost every bargaining session began with an hour or so of perceptive questioning on the institutions and personalities of the Western democracies."

The quote is direct from Years of Upheaval [page 781], and is about negotiations in the year 1974, the year Nixon was hounded out of office.

Why did the end of the Soviet era not result in the un-demonization of Hafez Assad, which would have meant that Bashar Assad might have been viewed factually, rather than demonized?

Syria, not just the Assad family, had reason to be anti-U.S. aside from being socialist. Syrians know Syrian history. Add that to the ability of the state of Israel to look covetously upon any lands adjacent to their own, and the enormous pro-Jewish bias of America, and you have your answer. It never had anything to do with Islam, though it will pretty soon if ISIS adds all of Syria (except that part already occupied by Israel) to its new Caliphate.

Syria is in the Fertile Crescent, the birthplace of civilization, as far as we know. It has had its ups and downs over the past five millennia. When industrialization gave the western European powers the ability to take any colonies they wanted, starting around 1800, for a long time Syria was "protected" by the Ottoman (Turkish) empire.

Contrary to popular mythology (taught as history) in the U.S., World War I was started by England (the British Empire), France, and Russia mainly in order to grab the lands governed by a weakened Ottoman empire. France had already grabbed Algeria in 1830 and Tunisia in 1881, and after the war grabbed Syria (sending in troops to depose Faisal I in 1920), with the fig leaf of calling their colony a League of Nations mandate. This is despite the fact that the British Empire had promised that a united Arab nation would be created, which would have included present-day Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria.

France, of course, was allied with the United States. France became Vichy France during World War II, a Roman Catholic dictatorship allied with Nazi Germany. A sucked-dry Syria gained independence in 1946, unlike other French colonies like Vietnam and Algeria. American support for the continuation of the French and British empires led not just Syria, but most newly-independent nations, to be rightfully suspicious of the United States.

And so Syrians were not pro-American, and had to be demonized, long before the first Assad came to power in 1971. But it is political suicide for anyone in a position of power in the U.S., like Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, or members of Congress, to stand up and say "Bashar Assad is okay." The other dogs would rather use such an incident to rip their rivals apart, rather than change U.S. policy to reflect reality.

Not to mention Zionist Israelis and Americans. Say anything nice about Bashar and money just would drain from the campaign funds, and the slush funds, and the other indirect bribes that make America a pseudo-democracy.

American foreign policy has a way of shooting itself in the foot. We helped France grab its former colony of Indochina after World War II, and ended up fighting the Vietnam War. We helped radical Islamists throw a modern, Soviet-backed regime out of Afghanistan, and they morphed into the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We talk about democracy, but when the people of a nation decide not to elect American puppets, we back military coups. We are allied with the Dictator of Saudi Arabia, but opposed to a democratic regime in Iran.

We, led by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, decided to encourage the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria. Instead of just demanding elections, the pro-U.S. faction, which would have lost elections, started a civil war. This provided an opening for radical Islam, which before had been minimally present in Syria. Not only has ISIS grabbed much of Syria, but it used Syria as a base for grabbing much of Iraq.

President Obama is befuddled. If he helps Assad, the Republicans will accuse him of helping Iran, another unfairly demonized nation. If he helps the non-ISIS rebels against Assad, most likely ISIS will take over the entire country. So Obama's best domestic political bet is to do as little as possible and hope that Assad's popularity will enable him to defeat ISIS, and of course the pro-U.S. rebels, without U.S. assistance.

The Israelis are stone-cold crazy too. If they had any sense they would let the Palestinians have their rump independent state in the West Bank and come to the aid of Bashar Assad. ISIS is the equivalent of the Jews after the Holocaust: it has come through the fire, and if it has the resources of both Iraq and Syria at its disposal, it will probably take over Jordan and Saudi Arabia too and then drive Israel into the sea.

Hillary will likely be our next President. Despite the liberal gloss, Hillary is America's Margaret Thatcher, a cold-hearted imperialist who will kill anyone who gets in her way, including women and children. That is why everyone is trying to get their battles won before January 2017. No one who knows her expects any mercy or humanity from President Clinton II.

Caitlin Hayden Delivers Obama's Declaration of War on Syria

Caitlin Hayden, speaking for the National Security Council (NSC) announced yesterday President Barack Obama is requesting $500 million from Congress to fund a war against Syria. [See White House Caitlin Hayden press release, June 26, 2014]

This amounts to requesting a declaration of war, and if acted upon would constitute a war crime under international law.

Americans have trouble understanding how criminal their international actions are. Imagine that nations are actually equal under international law. Now imagine the Syrian government openly giving $500 million in weapons to a U.S. opposition group to overthrow the U.S. government. Any U.S. President would feel justified in declaring war on Syria in that circumstance.

Giving military aid to groups trying to overthrow their government is an act of war. Sure, it is an act of war the U.S. has gotten away many times since 1776. We act as if we are above the rules of international law and common decency.

Barack Obama has always been a slick lawyer-politician. Note he should ask the Congress to declare war on Syria, as the U.S. Constitution requires. Instead he is raping Syria through the backdoor. [But Congress declaring war, if Syria has not invaded the U.S., would still be a war crime.]

It will take time for the new "Counter-Terrorism Partnerships Fund," of $1.5 billion (of which $500 million is designated to be used against Syria) to become law. It is part of the Administration's Fiscal 2015 Overseas Contingency Operations budget. Congress could reject it, but with almost every Congressional district containing either a military base or major military contractor, the chances are Congress will pass it. A few congress people with anti-war constituencies will preserve their electoral chances by voting against the measure, while going along and benefitting from the system.

To get a successful opposition in Congress would require massive, nationwide popular opposition to the legislation. To get that Americans would have to care that they are a war criminal nation led by war crimes parties, a war crimes government, and a war crimes military-industrial establishment.

Note that this illegal attack on the government of the sovereign state of Syria is not about dictatorships or democracy. The current leader of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, was recently re-elected. Close by we have the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, which has a far worse human rights record than Syria. Women have no rights in Saudi Arabia; they do in Syria. Syria has religious freedom; Saudi Arabia does not. In terms of crushing any opposition, Saudi Arabia is worse than Syria.

So why is the U.S. government (it was U.S. policy long before Barack Obama lied his way into the Presidency) attacking Syria instead of Saudi Arabia? Because Saudi Arabia is a pro-U.S. woman-oppressing radical Islamic dictatorship.

Caitlin Hayden, war crimes spokesperson for Barack Obama

Barack Obama, like President George W. Bush and many others before him, is a war criminal. I would love to put him on trial and prove it. But that is not going to happen. I'm much more likely to be put on trial, or jailed or murdered without trial for telling the truth, than he is for his war crimes.

As to my friends in the Democratic Party and Republican Party, I just want to remind you that you, too, are war criminals. Your fate should be the fate of the Nuremberg Trials defendants and the members of their organizations [See denazification]. Check out the Nuremberg principles if you are not sure if you are a war criminal, or member of an organization of war criminals, or the specifics of what constitutes a war crime.

Barack Obama's Darkest Africa

"Two hundred different languages," he said, "spoken inside the borders of a so-called country invented by Belgians in a parlor." — Barbara Kingsolver, The Poisonwood Bible

What can we expect following another ruling class victory in the U.S. elections? Just enough relief for the (upper) middle class to keep it aligned with the capitalist corporate security state.

Deception is at the heart of American governance. Want to fight a war that is none of your business? Elect a peace candidate for President, like Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, or Barack Obama.

The ignorance of the American electorate is so vast that the databases that keep track of it are a major contributor to global warming. Among the darkest of dark areas is U.S. policy in Africa. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama seemed to talk about African policy when they debated about the successful assassination of U.S. embassy officials in Libya. The candidates agreed that while it is a fine thing for the U.S. to kill anyone who disagrees with us in Africa, it is a horrible crime for anyone in Africa who disagrees with the U.S. to fight back. That is the level of sophistication that the typical undecided voter can comprehend.

Your average African citizen, of course, is no better informed than your average American. By all accounts many if not most Africans love Barack Obama, or at least love the concept of an ethnically part-African man running the most powerful nation in the world.

Africa, of course is a big place. It has many nations, and most of those nations were carved up by European colonial powers with no regard to ethnic lines or even natural geographic boundaries. Africa includes the ancient city of Alexandria and numerous new cities that have arisen in the past hundred years, as well as vast rural areas, some of them densely populated, while others are nearly deserted.

What is U.S. policy in Africa? Aside from killing anyone who disagrees with U.S. policy in any way (which is only a means to an end) our policy is to maximize corporate profits while gaining as much political control as possible. Right now there are three concrete objectives being pursued.

The most visible objective is the destruction of Anti-American forms of Islam. Islam is the new communism. It is important to realize that President Obama and friends do not care about the degree of radicalness. Radical Islamists who support the American agenda, like the dictator of Saudi Arabia, are fine. Moderate Islamists, or even secular cultural Islamists, are not fine if they support a local nationalist or anti-corporate business agenda. Nor is brutality, in itself, considered to be anti-American. Brutal pro-U.S. regimes, like the U.S. puppet government of warlords in Somalia, are promoted. The former, moderate, peaceful Islamic Courts Union of Somalia was considered insufficiently pro-America, and so was destroyed.

One item of this week's African news is a threat by Uganda to pull out of Somalia. As if Somalia did not have enough problems, the U.S. has paid the brutal governments of Uganda, Burundi, Ethiopia and Kenya to invade Somalia. Uganda has, nevertheless, been accused of aiding a rebellion in the Congo. The brutal warlords who rule the Congo are considered pro-U.S., so aiding a rebellion against them is not allowed.

Extracting wealth from the Congo is an age-old game, with a history well worth studying, though I can't take the time to recount it here. Today Americans think we are a generous people who send our excess food to starving people in Africa, to nations like the Congo. But the U.S. no longer has food surpluses. Our over 330 million citizens slurp up more food than the U.S. can produce, even in the eco-damaging manner used here.

We need our diamonds and our minerals, which traditionally have been dug out of Africa with little benefit to the natives. Controlling mining and oil extraction remains the second U.S. objective. The third, and newest, objective is to create giant American-style farms where ever possible in Africa. These farms will not feed hungry Africans. They will employee a few native workers, while throwing many more off their land. The food will be sold to the highest bidder in international markets, which means to the United States, Japan, China or Europe.

Let any African stand in the way of U.S. businessmen, be they a local war lord, national dictator, or democratically elected Prime Minister, and the United States Department of State and its adjuncts, the CIA and Marine Corps, will treat them like a pothole in the road that needs to be paved over. Bribes are always tried before bullets. We can even show dictators how to have elections they can be guaranteed to win, with opposition parties that seem to offer a choice but really don't. We borrowed those skills from the British Empire in 1776 and have honed them for over two centuries now.

The Dictator of Saudi Arabia

Meet the dictator of Saudi Arabia. But be careful not to call him that, even if you are as powerful as the New York Times or Fox News Network.

The New York Times calls him King Abdullah, not to be confused with King Abdullah II of Jordan. His full name is Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud.

Truth is, I am not sure anyone holds the official title of dictator in any nation. Even Joe Stalin of the former U.S.S.R. had the official title of General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Saddam Hussein was President of Iraq. Adolf Hitler, the great dictator himself, was Fuhrer (leader) and Chancellor of Germany.

Dictator is what you call a strongman (or woman) you don't like.

Dictator Abdullah Al Saud is a friend of the United States, of current President Barack Obama, and of his predecessor President George W. Bush. A few days ago President Obama agreed to sell his friend a fleet of F-15 fighter jets. In return Boeing will get about $30 billion and might even squeeze out a bit of reportable net income to pay taxes on and help a bit with the federal deficit. Obama will carry Washington State as Boeing spreads the joy. Everyone will be happy, except anyone ending up on the receiving end of the F-15 weaponry. [See U.S. Bolsters Saudi Ties, 1/29/2011]

A few days before the big sale Dictator Abdullah Al Saud chopped off the head of a woman. Her crime: practicing witchcraft [See Saudis Behead Woman, U.S.A. Today, 12/12/2011]. You might think that "Hope for Change" Obama and his sidekick "I am a woman, vote for me" Hillary Clinton would not want to be too friendly to witch killers. But rhetoric for elections aside, neither Obama nor Clinton cares about human rights except when it is an excuse to beat up on some nation they don't like.

Do witches float in Saudi Arabia? If the U.S. mission is to interfere in the internal affairs of nations that abuse human rights, as we are currently doing in (at least) Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya and Yemen, why do we refer to the gentleman born as Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud as King Abdullah? Reminds me of King Cole and King Arthur. Or maybe King George.

Yes, I can hear you screaming OIL, but that is not enough. Saddam had oil, and Iran has oil. The difference is that as long as Dictator Abdullah plays along with the global corporate security state, he can behead anyone he wants. Of course he needs assistants, he does not have time to do all the beheading personally. After all, he has over thirty wives and far more children and a whole town full of grandchildren and parasitic relations to look after.

What can get you beheaded in Saudi Arabia, aside from witchcraft? The Dictator strictly enforces Sharia law, which is not quite as cruel as English law was 3 centuries ago, but let's just say that you had better walk right if you want to keep your head. If you are a homosexual boy in Saudi Arabia you had better hope you get sent to English Boarding School and never have to go back. Rape and drug trafficking can also lead to headlessness.

The Obama-Clinton team take a very dim view of Sharia law, with its discrimination against women, when enforced by any Islamic group in Somalia or Afghanistan. But in Saudi Arabia, it is okay.

But hey, the real enemy is Iran, right? They attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor and nuked Japan, right? Wait, it was Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor, and the U.S. that nuked two cities filled with civilians. Let's see, what did Iran do? Nothing, absolutely nothing wrong except ... not following U.S. orders.

But the majority of the Islamic faithful in Iran are of the Shia branch (think Protestant) while the Dictator of Saudi Arabia is Sunni (think Roman Catholic). The Dictator discriminates against Shia Muslims in his own nation, which is also ethnic discrimination, since way back when usually whole tribes either became Shia or Sunni. No no religious freedom, even within the Islamic fold.

If Hillary Clinton were anything more substantial than a bunch of cosmetics painted on animated corruption, she would go to Saudi Arabia and drive a car around, demanding rights for women, free elections, freedom of religion, free speech and free abortions. Even if it meant American F-15s buzzing the Arabian sky to protect her. Then she would go apologize to the Somali people for all the damage the U.S. has done to their nation.

Gaddafi: Dictators, Cruelty, and Longevity

Sadly, the dictatorship of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi (or al-Gaddafi), is not guaranteed to fall. Muammar grabbed power in a military coup in 1969 when he was only 27 years old. While admitting he is a pretty remarkable man, going from poor Bedouin born in a tent to dictator of a nation in a very short time, there is little else good to say about him. He was a noted anti-imperialist, which is well and good, but that is not an excuse for crushing the life out of the people of Libya.

Gaddafi could have just abdicated, but he chose instead to kill as many people as necessary to maintain his power. He's an old buzzard now, 68 years old, but if he can kill enough people he might hold onto power and live another couple of decades. Sadly, uprisings often don't work against the most ruthless dictators. A lot of factors come into play.

Chiang Kai-shek was as ruthless as they come. We are taught to hate the war crimes committed by Japanese militarists in China before and during World War II, but Chiang actually killed far more of his own people than the Japanese did. He got the boot from the Chinese Communist Party, only to take over Taiwan and crush it under his heal. He was still in charge of Taiwan when he died. He was a U.S. sponsored dictator.

General Francisco Franco was the most Roman Catholic, fascist dictator of Spain from 1936 until his death in 1975. He should have gone to the gallows with Hitler's crew, but the U.S. security establishment was more afraid of another dictator, Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, when Germany was finally defeated. So Franco kept murdering people until the day he died, with U.S. support. The U.S. got to put some air bases in Spain in return.

There have been successful, and failed, revolutions against both left-wing and right-wing dictators. There have been a surprising number of dictators and monarchs who allowed or even encouraged democracies to develop and replace them. England, after all, evolved from a mainly monarchist to a mainly democratic system. Some monarchs cooperated with the process, others resisted. One, Charles I was beheaded by order of Parliament; another James II, was deposed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

For dictators force of arms does not insure success, defined as keeping a hold on power, but failure to slaughter, or at least imprison, opponents is a guarantee of failure. Often the opponents are not about to establish a democracy, but want to replace one dictator with another. The overthrow of the Fulgencio Batista by Fidel Castro in Cuba in the 1959 is as good example of that as any.

Republics (which allow a limited set of citizens to elect their leaders, as in the original U.S.A.) and democracies don't have a monopoly on goodness. Nor are all dictators all bad all of the time. What allowing a large group of citizens to share in power does is allow for flexibility and growth. With few exceptions, the type of person who aspires to, and obtains, a dictatorship has a pretty inflexible mindset. That means creativity and experimentation gets stifled. Sure, a Napoleon Bonaparte or Joe Stalin might promote scientific advancement, and sometimes a central command can jump start an economy, as Hitler and others showed. But in the long run thought, culture, and business become inflexible under dictators and start losing out to more flexible systems.

Muammar Gaddafi's real power came not from any particular brilliance but from oil. The great powers, corporations as well as nations, wanted Libyan oil, and were willing to leave Gaddafi in place as long as the oil and its profits flowed. The same is true of the Saudi dictatorship.

I hope Gaddafi is overthrown by the people of Libya, not by intervention from Europe or the U.S. However, I won't be surprised if he again manages to kill everyone who disagrees with him. Sadly, if that happens, it will encourage other dictators to reply to popular yearnings for freedom with bullets, not reform.