The Republicans who lost two wars and ruined the American economy and the Likudnik neo-conservatives who advocated all the wars against Arabs and Muslims are now engaged in an all-out war against President Barack Obama to pressure him into approving a surge of U.S troops in Afghanistan, as requested by the military. The United States will not win the war in Afghanistan, if winning means to eliminate the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and impose a westernized democratic government there; also, the politicization of the war, sought by the Republicans, will inevitably lead to defeat. Is this what the Republicans secretly want? Do they want Obama to lose the war, even if that means that their own country will lose, in order for them to be able to face him in the upcoming midterm elections, and in the 2012 presidential voting? I will leave conspiracy theories here for its champions. Nonetheless, I will cite in this vein Dick Cheney's unabated campaigns against the President and his administration, when the former Vice President should instead be in the dock of the war crimes tribunal, and not at large and free to make accusations against others. These stances by the Republicans and the Likudnik warmongering gang have encouraged the generals who are in support of the surge to confront the administration, despite the fact that it is the American president who is the commander in chief of the armed forces, and that the military take its orders from the civilian leadership. The commander of U.S forces in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal complained during a television show that he had only talked to Obama once since his appointment as the commander of the U.S forces in Afghanistan. Replying to a question during a conference in London, he said that Vice President Joe Biden's idea of reducing the number of troops and focusing the war effort against al-Qaeda is futile and short-sighted. It seems that General David Petraeus, the former commander of U.S forces in Iraq and McChrystal's current boss, is inciting such a confrontation, and is perhaps eyeing on a presidential bid of his own in 2012. I read some stances in support of the military against the civilian leadership as in the article written by the Likudnik Max Boot in the Likudnik Jewish publication “Commentary”. In his article, Boot reminds the readers of McChrystal's past in covert counterterrorism operations in Iraq, and writes that the General, according to his assessment report, which was leaked to the Washington Post, is calling for a war on insurgency in Afghanistan. He also says that he [McChrystal] knows what he is saying and that [the president] should listen to him. But what Boot left unsaid is that the Americans have lost the war in Iraq to the resistance and to terrorism, while terrorist attacks are still occurring there. This, if anything, means that McChrystal has failed in Iraq, and that he will also fail in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the Likdunik Charles Krauthammer has been slamming Obama time and again, accusing him of being weak and hesitant like Hamlet, the Shakespearian protagonist of the play that bears his name. He claimed that McChrystol has eliminated “thousands of terrorists” in Iraq, a claim to which my response is the same as the one above, which is that terrorist attacks are still taking place there, and that the General has consequently failed in his mission. The strangest opinion in support of the war, however, came from Conrad Black, the former publisher of the Telegraph Group, in an article he wrote from his prison cell –after having been convicted of embezzling and was sentenced to 78 months in prison in 2007. In fact, Black was quite reasonable until he married the British Zionist woman Barbara Amiel, and became her fourth husband. He has since become both extravagant and extremist, and apparently, being in prison has not rehabilitated him. As such, he is now accusing the Democratic Party of being a group of pacifists, or a group of advocates for new isolationism, and that the losses in Afghanistan are nothing when compared to those in Vietnam. I want to tell the members of the warmongering gang, who are nearly all army deserters, to go and fight themselves instead of sacrificing the youth of America in colonial wars that ultimately only serve Israel. I was reading about the war on the hostilities in Afghanistan and about the attempts to politicize them for purposes that are unrelated to victory there, when I read that the United States has signed a treaty with Colombia to build a military base there. This reminded me of an old speech given by the Representative Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, in which he spoke about the U.S military presence around the world and the expenditures this incurs. I do not want to debate the confirmed figures in this regard, which indicate that there are about 737 to 860 U.S military bases or facilities around the world, with an annual expenditure of about a trillion dollars. The interested reader may consult the Internet, where Google alone has 19.9 million news stories about Ron Paul, and many times more stories about the U.S military spending. Such a military presence abroad, along with the sheer size of its expenditure, can only be interpreted as a form of neo-colonialism. While Obama is trying to ease this burden on the Americans, the warmongering gang is still seeking to build an American empire, despite the military losses and the stifling financial crisis.
