HEAD ICE
29th May 2011, 17:08
Yeah, it has already become old news, it took awhile to translate the Italian. In any case, though this is probably my bias showing through, this is the best analysis I have seen from any leftist group thus far:
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2011-05-29/the-strange-death-of-osama-bin-laden
How Bin Laden really died we’ll probably never know. The American Seals’ [special forces] blitz was quick, determined and left no trace. Within hours, the villa bunker was violated, the prey killed, his body flown by helicopter to a ship waiting in the middle of the Indian Ocean. The US narrative would like us to believe that he was even given an unlikely Islamic burial. Why not just arrest him and put him before an international tribunal, why such a hurry, why was not a single frame of the whole process, which was filmed live, shown?
The answer is simple: because the “green primrose” had to disappear without a trace, and because a trial would open a cupboard full of skeletons which would not benefit the U.S. Secret Service and the Clinton-Bush administrations, or the image that Obama administration would like to give of itself. As we know, Osama was used by the CIA for 12 years, from 1979 to 1991 as coordinator and trainer of international Islamic fundamentalism (Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was established in 1988) against the Soviet Union in the Afghan theatre of the Cold War. The Taliban themselves were invented by the Secret Services, aided by the Pakistani military intelligence (the ISI), financed by Washington, Saudi Arabia and the oil company Unocal, which had major projects in the Central Asian exploitation, control and transport of oil and gas in Kazakhstan and neighboring countries.
Afghanistan was supposed to become a territory through which various pipelines would pass to avoid the competing territories of Russia and Iran. In this perspective, the various previous American governments, backed the Mujahideen of Rabbani and Massoud, then dumped them to focus on the Taliban, when this card also failed they returned to support the Mujahideen, making the territory of Afghanistan even more unstable than it was, despite the creation of the Karzai government, which is still in office.
Everything went to plan, except that the U.S. did not gain a thing, due to two “independent” variables, that of the nationalist Sha Massoud, who was eliminated before the offensive against the Taliban, because he was reluctant to be used for a second time, and the “internationalist ” oilman Bin Laden — who was unleashed by American sponsorship after the first Gulf War — and was then suddenly set aside due the US’ serious internal economic situation and their future imperial projects.
Whatever happened in Abbottabad, the chronological coincidence presented, a success against international terrorism on a silver platter which the Obama administration desperately needed. The current President, having failed to meet all the promises of his election campaign, and after touching the lowest approval rating of his short history, went up 10 points in the polls at a stroke after that fateful May 2. He thus raised his image in domestic public opinion and relaunched U.S. imperialist pretensions in the Asian theatre, which had encountered serious difficulties in recent years through the Bush administration and the devastating effects of the economic crisis.
Although he eliminated public enemy number one, Obama was quick to declare that the fight against terrorism was not over, that the elimination of Osama was a significant victory, but war on fundamentalist jihadism will be long and difficult. So the withdrawal from Afghanistan remains, as planned, to be by 2014, provided that the Kabul government, not necessarily led by Karzai, shows it is capable of governing the country. The Pentagon might think otherwise and try to stay on. However things go, a significant military contingent to protect the interests of Washington will remain, both in the north and close to Pakistan.
While formally remaining a U.S. ally and a pawn in the strategic balance in Asia, for decades, a lynchpin of the US imperialist policy in the area, Pakistan has not given sufficient guarantees to its munificent patron. This had already happened with the previous Musharraf Government and the attitude has not changed with the current President, Zardari. The American irritation, has resulted on more than one occasion in open complaints related to the ambiguity of the Pakistani leadership in combating terrorism, the Taliban, and all forms of political-military organisations that worry the U.S… In simple terms, the accusation was that the government of Washington showered billions of dollars on Islamabad which did not make proper use of it and, moreover, did not keep to agreements on protection with the same force that they should have done.
The very way the operation of Abbottabad for the capture and killing of Bin Laden was carried out demonstrated this. The huge, disproportionate deployment of forces used (four helicopters, at least two drones, dozens of men belonging to special forces, connections to the naval forces based in the Indian Ocean) was not justified by the possible reaction of their prey who, by the way, put up no resistance, but by the concern that the ISI and the Pakistani army could make it harder to capture him or even assist his escape. It was obvious to everyone that Bin Laden could not have stayed in this house for eight years, seventy metres from a Pakistani army barracks, without the heads of the secret services and politicians in Islamabad knowing nothing of the presence of their guest.
Terrorism aside, Obama’s focus is concerned with Chinese penetration in these territories. For several years Beijing has been penetrating Kunduz in Afghanistan, an area rich even if only moderately, in gas and petroleum, and copper and iron mines in the centre-north. Whilst American imperialism was spending on military operations and in order to support the corrupt regime of Karzai, the Chinese advanced in the exploitation of mineral and energy resources of Kabul with the consent of the Afghan government, by investing 3.5 billion dollars. The same happened in Pakistan, in the richest mining area in the country, Baluchistan, where it helped with an investment of 200 billion yen for the construction of the port of Gwadar which is destined to become a major hub on the major oil routes of the Indian Ocean.
Not to mention the explicit support to Pakistan in an anti-Indian vein, and the undeclared aid of the two neighboring states to the Taliban of the area. Not surprisingly, as we read in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago, President Zardari had tried to convince his counterpart Karzai to abandon the alliance with the United States for a more generous and safer alliance with China. This is the same Zardari who, since 2008, the year he took office has made five trips to Beijing, and certainly not just to visit the “Forbidden City”. The Kabul-Islamabad strategic axis, which once looked to the absolute pre-eminence of US imperialism, now allows deep penetration by the Chinese. In play are the energy raw materials, the passage of oil and gas pipelines, the strategic value of the two countries in geographical terms, not least, the opportunity of productive investments at paltry wage costs.
If the current inter-imperialist clash sees the fortunes of the Americans gradually in retreat, the new “Obama line ” is trying by every means to regain lost ground with the soft power approach, in the sharp contrast to that of his predecessor, but with the same objectives. Not more, nor better, not only with wars of intervention, so far disastrous and economically wasteful, but also with political acceptance of the “revolutions” in the Middle East, with the return to the task of the Palestinian issue, with the disbursement of two billion dollars to anyone willing to accept the patronage of Washington. The music has slightly changed, but the conductor remains the same.
With or without bin Laden, the imperial manouevres have not ceased. Capitalists, always, but especially when they are ravaged by the effects of a deep economic crisis, cannot afford to stand idly by watching the system’s contradictions explode. They have to make the international proletariat bear the costs, and they are forced to take all necessary steps in the international imperialist theatre which enable them to survive, even if the poverty and subjection of others is the condition for their survival.
-FD (fabio damen)
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2011-05-29/the-strange-death-of-osama-bin-laden
How Bin Laden really died we’ll probably never know. The American Seals’ [special forces] blitz was quick, determined and left no trace. Within hours, the villa bunker was violated, the prey killed, his body flown by helicopter to a ship waiting in the middle of the Indian Ocean. The US narrative would like us to believe that he was even given an unlikely Islamic burial. Why not just arrest him and put him before an international tribunal, why such a hurry, why was not a single frame of the whole process, which was filmed live, shown?
The answer is simple: because the “green primrose” had to disappear without a trace, and because a trial would open a cupboard full of skeletons which would not benefit the U.S. Secret Service and the Clinton-Bush administrations, or the image that Obama administration would like to give of itself. As we know, Osama was used by the CIA for 12 years, from 1979 to 1991 as coordinator and trainer of international Islamic fundamentalism (Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was established in 1988) against the Soviet Union in the Afghan theatre of the Cold War. The Taliban themselves were invented by the Secret Services, aided by the Pakistani military intelligence (the ISI), financed by Washington, Saudi Arabia and the oil company Unocal, which had major projects in the Central Asian exploitation, control and transport of oil and gas in Kazakhstan and neighboring countries.
Afghanistan was supposed to become a territory through which various pipelines would pass to avoid the competing territories of Russia and Iran. In this perspective, the various previous American governments, backed the Mujahideen of Rabbani and Massoud, then dumped them to focus on the Taliban, when this card also failed they returned to support the Mujahideen, making the territory of Afghanistan even more unstable than it was, despite the creation of the Karzai government, which is still in office.
Everything went to plan, except that the U.S. did not gain a thing, due to two “independent” variables, that of the nationalist Sha Massoud, who was eliminated before the offensive against the Taliban, because he was reluctant to be used for a second time, and the “internationalist ” oilman Bin Laden — who was unleashed by American sponsorship after the first Gulf War — and was then suddenly set aside due the US’ serious internal economic situation and their future imperial projects.
Whatever happened in Abbottabad, the chronological coincidence presented, a success against international terrorism on a silver platter which the Obama administration desperately needed. The current President, having failed to meet all the promises of his election campaign, and after touching the lowest approval rating of his short history, went up 10 points in the polls at a stroke after that fateful May 2. He thus raised his image in domestic public opinion and relaunched U.S. imperialist pretensions in the Asian theatre, which had encountered serious difficulties in recent years through the Bush administration and the devastating effects of the economic crisis.
Although he eliminated public enemy number one, Obama was quick to declare that the fight against terrorism was not over, that the elimination of Osama was a significant victory, but war on fundamentalist jihadism will be long and difficult. So the withdrawal from Afghanistan remains, as planned, to be by 2014, provided that the Kabul government, not necessarily led by Karzai, shows it is capable of governing the country. The Pentagon might think otherwise and try to stay on. However things go, a significant military contingent to protect the interests of Washington will remain, both in the north and close to Pakistan.
While formally remaining a U.S. ally and a pawn in the strategic balance in Asia, for decades, a lynchpin of the US imperialist policy in the area, Pakistan has not given sufficient guarantees to its munificent patron. This had already happened with the previous Musharraf Government and the attitude has not changed with the current President, Zardari. The American irritation, has resulted on more than one occasion in open complaints related to the ambiguity of the Pakistani leadership in combating terrorism, the Taliban, and all forms of political-military organisations that worry the U.S… In simple terms, the accusation was that the government of Washington showered billions of dollars on Islamabad which did not make proper use of it and, moreover, did not keep to agreements on protection with the same force that they should have done.
The very way the operation of Abbottabad for the capture and killing of Bin Laden was carried out demonstrated this. The huge, disproportionate deployment of forces used (four helicopters, at least two drones, dozens of men belonging to special forces, connections to the naval forces based in the Indian Ocean) was not justified by the possible reaction of their prey who, by the way, put up no resistance, but by the concern that the ISI and the Pakistani army could make it harder to capture him or even assist his escape. It was obvious to everyone that Bin Laden could not have stayed in this house for eight years, seventy metres from a Pakistani army barracks, without the heads of the secret services and politicians in Islamabad knowing nothing of the presence of their guest.
Terrorism aside, Obama’s focus is concerned with Chinese penetration in these territories. For several years Beijing has been penetrating Kunduz in Afghanistan, an area rich even if only moderately, in gas and petroleum, and copper and iron mines in the centre-north. Whilst American imperialism was spending on military operations and in order to support the corrupt regime of Karzai, the Chinese advanced in the exploitation of mineral and energy resources of Kabul with the consent of the Afghan government, by investing 3.5 billion dollars. The same happened in Pakistan, in the richest mining area in the country, Baluchistan, where it helped with an investment of 200 billion yen for the construction of the port of Gwadar which is destined to become a major hub on the major oil routes of the Indian Ocean.
Not to mention the explicit support to Pakistan in an anti-Indian vein, and the undeclared aid of the two neighboring states to the Taliban of the area. Not surprisingly, as we read in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago, President Zardari had tried to convince his counterpart Karzai to abandon the alliance with the United States for a more generous and safer alliance with China. This is the same Zardari who, since 2008, the year he took office has made five trips to Beijing, and certainly not just to visit the “Forbidden City”. The Kabul-Islamabad strategic axis, which once looked to the absolute pre-eminence of US imperialism, now allows deep penetration by the Chinese. In play are the energy raw materials, the passage of oil and gas pipelines, the strategic value of the two countries in geographical terms, not least, the opportunity of productive investments at paltry wage costs.
If the current inter-imperialist clash sees the fortunes of the Americans gradually in retreat, the new “Obama line ” is trying by every means to regain lost ground with the soft power approach, in the sharp contrast to that of his predecessor, but with the same objectives. Not more, nor better, not only with wars of intervention, so far disastrous and economically wasteful, but also with political acceptance of the “revolutions” in the Middle East, with the return to the task of the Palestinian issue, with the disbursement of two billion dollars to anyone willing to accept the patronage of Washington. The music has slightly changed, but the conductor remains the same.
With or without bin Laden, the imperial manouevres have not ceased. Capitalists, always, but especially when they are ravaged by the effects of a deep economic crisis, cannot afford to stand idly by watching the system’s contradictions explode. They have to make the international proletariat bear the costs, and they are forced to take all necessary steps in the international imperialist theatre which enable them to survive, even if the poverty and subjection of others is the condition for their survival.
-FD (fabio damen)