07/05/10
Sorry, ETpro, you also made some very good and accurate points…
1. By no means was it my intention to let the Reagan Administration off the hook as far as culpability for pernicious and deadly foreign (and domestic) policy decisions and actions:
*Afghanistan and the neighboring regions
* South Africa and its neighboring “front line states” of Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, as well as Angola & Namibia.
* The “charnel house” of El Salvdor, Guatemala, and Nicaragua (Central America in general)
These are especially murderous examples of foreign policy decision-making and actions during the Reagan era.
2. The military buildup near the end of the Carter period was continued and built up to colossal proportions under Reagan, and continues to this day, with some qualified respite during the Clinton years.
3. The George W. Bush Administration’s foreign policy “adventures,” were perhaps not so stupid. What were the primary intentions of these policies and actions?
If it was to project U.S. and allied power into the Middle East, and have U.S. multi-national corporations (e.g., Halliburton, BlackWater, etc.) with their concomitant elites benefit financially and strategically, one may argue that there were, and are, many assets that were obtained.
4. On the other hand, we have the U.S. as a whole nearly bankrupted and in a deep recession, or worse, and the sluggish world economy teetering as well.
However, cui bono?
5. I would like to add some dimension to our discussion and facts about Afghanistan and the Middle East.
*1. The role of the U.S. through the CIA of funding and training Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan , as well as the CIA’s role in Iraq through the original training and funding of Saddam Hussein, is often omitted from many discussions about Afghanistan.
This is the “Frankenstein’s monster” syndrome of the CIA in the Third World, or a phenomenon called “blow back” as detailed by the political analyst Chalmers Johnson,
et. al.
*2 As far as “capturing resources,” and power projection(s), the George W. Bush administration’s “shifting rationale” for invading Iraq, including Al Qaeda, “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” and materials to make nuclear weapons- none of which were in Iraq, as all credible analysts agree upon now- are important considerations in any analysis.
*3. “Pan-Arab Unity” is a more important factor in understanding the formation of the Ba’ath Party in Iraq, than the smaller German influence on native middle eastern thinkers.
There is a tenous link between the German Nazis and Saddam Hussein. This is a U.S. conservative conspiracy theory popular among neo-Republicans like Glenn Beck (along with many similar half- and partial truths).
*4. Afghanistan’s current confict has roots in the struggle during the 1800s between the two colonial powers, Czarist Russia and the colonialist Britain Empire. The British were seeking to consolidate their holdings in the areas around South Asia (India), and the pre-Soviet Russians were looking to expand into adjacent lands; this was known as “The Great Game.”
The British prevailed and held Afghanistan under a “protectorate” until 1919, after which popular rebellions inspired by the Russian Revolution of 1917 began to affect other parts of the world, including Afghanistan, whose autocratic monarchy declared war on the British.
1973 the monarchy was formally overthrown, and replaced by a titular republic, which was still non-democratic.
A pro-Russian political party, the PDPA, seized power in a military coup. Varying factions of the Mujahadeen controlled different parts of Afghanistan, and the U.S. covertly began funding, training, organizing, and supplying several factions of the fundamentalist Mujahadeen, mostly through the CIA, immediately before the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan- per Zbigniew Brzezinski’s (U.S. National Security Advisor under President Carter) calculus.
*5. Brzezinski, and others in the U.S. foreign policy establishment (and elswhere), sought the ruin of the Soviet Union by these maneuvers. This seemed to be efficacious- but at what cost? Brzezinski seems to remain unapologetic (cp. his interview, and confession about motives and previously unknown chronology of events.
Peace.