- Periodically, US administrations prepare NNS documents
for Congress, outlining their major national security concerns and plans
for addressing.
-
- On May 27, the White House Office of the Press Secretary
announced Obama's saying it's to "Advanc(e) Our Interests: Actions
in Support of the President's National Security Strategy." UN ambassador
Susan Rice called it a "dramatic departure" from the Bush administration.
The White House claims it's "to keep the American people safe"
and advance the nation's "values and ideals."
-
- In fact, it's old wine in new bottles, rebranded to appear
softer. Rhetoric is one thing, policy another, revealing actions much louder
than words. Under all administrations, they're menacing, given America's
permanent war agenda, discussed by this writer on March 1, accessible through
the following link:
-
- http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/03/americas-permanent-war-agenda.html
-
- It addressed permanent wars, waging them in the name
of peace, what historians Charles Beard and Gore Vidal called "perpetual
war for perpetual peace," suppressing truths too disturbing to reveal,
like creating pretexts to pursue them, always for imperial gain and benefits
for war profiteers.
-
- As a candidate, Obama campaigned against militarism,
promised limited escalation and the removal of all combat troops from Iraq
by August 31, 2010. In fact, permanent occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan,
and elsewhere is planned, increased military spending annually, and more
conflicts for greater dominance that eventually will bankrupt the country
and leave it as damaged and isolated as Israel is becoming from a policy
Stratfor's George Friedman calls r(unning) into its own fist."
-
- Even the world's superpower is vulnerable, maneuvering
perhaps for goals too lofty, running out of ways to pay for them, and perhaps
enough allies willing to go along.
-
- In his writings and a recent interview, Chalmers Johnson
"worr(ies) about the future of the United States; whether, in fact,
we are tending in the same path as the former Soviet Union (as well as
other former empires), with domestic, ideological rigidity in our economic
institutions, imperial overstretch (that) we have to be everywhere at all
times. (We're richer than Russia), so it will take longer. But we're overextended,"
and are headed for the same fate. "I think we will stagger along under
a facade of constitutional government (until one day) we're overcome by
bankruptcy." Obama is pursuing the same reckless path as his predecessors,
more so, in fact, with greater spending and new fronts.
-
- What then to make of his NSS? On May 27, New York Times
writers David Sanger and Peter Baker headlined, "New US Strategy Focuses
on Managing Threats," saying:
-
- Obama's first plan describes a time when America "will
have to learn to live within its limits - a world in which two wars cannot
be sustained for much longer and (other) rising powers inevitably begin
to erode some elements of (US) influence around the globe."
-
- Seeking help to advance global hegemony, Secretary of
State, Hillary Clinton, stressed "patience and partners (to achieve)
results more slowly," claiming "In a world like this, American
leadership isn't needed less. It is needed more. And the simple fact is
that no problem can be solved without us," or perhaps less of them
would exist without US policies creating them - the fractious, threatening
world The Times writers mention, reflecting more continuity than divergence
from Bush.
-
- On May 27 in Foreign Policy, Peter Feaver wondered the
same thing in his article headlined, "Obama's National Security Strategy:
real change or just 'Bush Lite,' " saying:
-
- Despite trying to frame it as a new direction, in fact,
he's continuing "a slightly watered down but basically plausible remake"
of his predecessor's. Beyond the hyperbole and talking points, "the
conclusion is pretty obvious."
-
- Instead of Bush's "strengthen(ed) alliances to defeat
global terrorism," Obama stresses prevention of "attacks against
us and our friends, (and) agendas for cooperative action with the other
main centers of global power." Further, "comprehensive engagement"
with our traditional allies, as well as "more effective partnerships
with other key centers of influence." In other words, greater efforts
to co-opt more nations to expand America's global dominance.
-
- Bush also addressed reforming international institutions.
So does Obama, saying:
-
- "we need to be clear-eyed about the strengths and
shortcomings of international institutions that were developed to deal
with the challenges of an earlier time and the shortage of political will
that has at times stymied the enforcement of international norms. Yet it
would be destructive to both American national security and global security
if the United States used the emergence of new challenges and the shortcoming
of the international system as a reason to walk away from it."
-
- Instead, he stresses focusing on strengthening it to
"serve common interests," mostly benefitting America.
-
- Bush and Obama both identified WMD proliferation as an
major threat, "particularly the danger posed by the pursuit of nuclear
weapons by violent extremists and their proliferation to additional states."
They both recognized the importance of military and police power to combat
it, and according to Obama's NSS:
-
- "The United States must reserve the right to act
unilaterally if necessary to defend our nation and our interests."
In other words, like Bush, preemptive war will be pursued to combat perceived
threats.
-
- Also, both presidents stressed US leadership, Bush's
2006 NSS saying:
-
- "The challenges America faces are great, yet we
have enormous power and influence to address those challenges." The
"time has long since passed" that Washington can lead by example
alone. "America cannot know peace, security, and prosperity by retreating
from the world. America must lead by deed as well as example."
-
- As true for Obama stressing "global leadership (dependent
on) strong and responsible American leadership" directing it to ensure
other nations follow.
-
- Overall, the language and tone differ, but policy remains
the same - permanent wars in a threatening world, America in the lead waging
them along with willing partners offering support; that is, until they
cut their losses and opt out.
-
- Also in Foreign Policy on May 27, Will Inboden headlined,
"Obama's National Security Strategy leaves an empty feeling,"
saying:
-
- Continuity with Bush is evident in the context of a less
than compelling grand strategy "that connects an analysis of opportunities
and threats with resources, policies and goals."
-
- It's "too heavy on process and light on strategy,"
much of it devoted to "engagement, cooperation and partnerships"
as well as a "world we seek (for) a just and sustainable international
order," not what's needed without Washington rampaging to control
it.
-
- The proof, of course, is in the implementation, and after
nearly one and a half years in office, Obama is clearly pursuing imperial
wars and homeland repression, like the Bush administration, by a leader
who promised change.
-
- Another way came last September when Central Command
head General David Petraeus issued a secret directive to send covert US
Special Operations forces to friendly and hostile states in the Middle
East, Central Asia, the Horn of Africa, and by implication anywhere in
the world by his counterparts - to "penetrate, disrupt, defeat or
destroy" terror threats and "prepare the environment" for
future planned military attacks.
-
- On June 4, Washington Post writers Karen DeYoung and
Greg Jaffe headlined, "US 'Secret War' Expands Globally as Special
Operations Forces Take a Larger Role," saying:
-
- The Obama administration "has significantly expanded
a largely secret US war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups"
with Special Ops forces "in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at
the beginning of last year."
-
- More is planned along with intensified use of CIA drone
attacks, and according to one unnamed "senior military official,"
Obama has allowed "things that the previous administration did not,"
including the largest ever FY 2011 Special Ops budget of $6.3 billion plus
another $3.5 billion contingency funding in 2010.
-
- His NSS aside, Obama plans more war on the world than
George Bush, putting a lie to his campaign promise to withdraw Iraq troops
by August 2010 and begin exiting Afghanistan by July 2011. Earlier as an
Illinois State Senator, he delivered an October 2002 anti-war speech, saying:
-
- "....we ought not....travel down that hellish path
blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate
sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood,
to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."
-
- As president, he's waging war on the world, including
Americans globally, suspected of terrorism. Explaining it, former National
Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told Congress last February that Obama
authorized "direct actions against terrorists," including assassinating
uncharged Americans innocent of any crime, in clear violation of the law.
-
- Law Professor Jonathan Turley cites the "Annex to
the Hague Convention Number IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War
on Land" with a provision stating:
-
- "In addition to the prohibitions provided by special
Conventions, it is especially forbidden....to kill or wound treacherous
individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army...."
-
- Though vague, the Pentagon interprets it as "prohibiting
assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price
upon an enemy's head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy 'dead or
alive.' " In other words, combatants can be targeted on the battlefield,
not civilians, precisely what other international law states, Turley citing
the rights of US citizens, affirmed both in law and:
-
- "in cases like Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957),
American citizens have the same protections regardless of whether they
are within or outside of the country."
-
- The decision referred to two American women who killed
their husbands on US military bases abroad, given the same Fifth Amendment
and other constitutional protections they'd get at home. Turley asked:
"If a president can kill US citizens abroad, why not within the United
States?" What's to stop him, and what do policy statements mean if
he can do as he pleases by executive order, other edicts, or verbal commands
to subordinates.
-
- Russia's RIA Novosti said Obama's NSS "is not a
radical departure" from his predecessor. The document "is intended
mainly for foreign consumption," and to a lesser degree for Congress.
However, it's "just a piece of paper," and will anyone "take
him at his word." Why, when all politicians lie, and Obama matches
the best of them.
-
- While the document denies America targets Islam, policy
clearly shows otherwise abroad and at home, Muslims remaining the enemy
of choice, regularly vilified to hype fear to enlist support for imperial
wars and homeland repression, the same as under Bush.
-
- Added focus also stresses homegrown threats, John Brennan,
Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism,
saying:
-
- "We've seen an increasing number of individuals
here in the United States become captivated by extremist activities or
causes....The president's national security strategy explicitly recognizes
the threat (from) radicalized....individuals, including US citizens, armed
with their US passport, travel(ing) to terrorist safe havens....then return(ing)
to America, their deadly plans disrupted by coordinated intelligence and
law enforcement."
-
- What's going on, in fact, is America's war on Islam to
incite fear, targeting innocent Muslims as convenient scapegoats to gain
popular support for police state policies - Obama doing Bush one better
with indefinite detentions of uncharged persons "who nonetheless pose
a threat to the security of the United States." Despots couldn't say
it better.
-
- His NSS implies no letup in the counterterrorism fight,
Brennan referring to a campaign "harness(ing) every tool of American
power, military and civilian, kinetic and diplomatic," including war.
"We will take the fight to Al Qaeda (read Muslims) and its extremist
affiliates (read Taliban, US citizens, or anyone challenging America) wherever
they plot and train - in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond."
-
- Nor will we "respond after the fact. Instead the
United States will disrupt, dismantle and ensure a lasting defeat of Al
Qaeda and violent extremist affiliates" - a clear declaration of war
on the world with America's full military and homeland security might.
-
- What critic Andrew Bacevich calls America's standard
response to perceived threats, "a normal condition, one to which no
plausible alternatives seem to exist. All of this Americans (and other
nations) have come to take for granted: it's who we are and what we do,"
and why we're increasingly hated. Governing as roguishly as Bush, Obama
will end up as much despised.
-
- Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com
and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the
Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays
at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs
are archived for easy listening.
-
- http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
|
