Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan

Foreign fighters view the American continent as a valid forum to reciprocate for American-led lawlessness and instaiblity in Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan.

* * *

The President called for a "new approach" that's more of the same. No wonder the US is doing more of the same in Somalia that didn't work in Afghanistan: Bringing instability, and not considering the opposing warlords who are poised to confront each other.

When the US entered Afghanistan, it knew the Russians had had problems. The Taliban were not behind 9-11, but Afghanistan and Pakistan were being used for training sites. Iran, seeing the injustice of Sept 2001, offered to help the US. The US invaded, but did not commit to nation building, simply removed the government, but did not resolve the reconstruction or rivalries. Diverted with Iraq, the Taliban returned.

In 2007, the US is doing the same with Somalia. By supporting Ethiopia in removing the Islamic Courts, the US and Ethiopia are not offering a viable alternative, as was the case in Afghanistan.

As with Iraq, the US has supported the Ethiopians in stirring up the situation, but has not provided a credibly support structure for a system of governance more effective than the Islamic Courts.

Talking about democracy is one thing; going after terrorists is something else; but removing what little stability there was on the back of "bringing order" or "fighting terrorism" is meaningless.

The Somalis don't really care whether the courts are or are not Islamic. What they want is something better. As with Iraq and Afghanistan, the Somalis are seeing the show again: The US entrance, instability, and domestic fighting.

* * *

The common theme: The US, in the name of "exporting democracy," is introducing instability around the globe. The US cannot credibly point to the ideas of "freedom" when attached with that slogan is a more unstable situation, conflict, and fighting.

* * *

The failure of the US governance model is to assert that the proposed alternatives are better; or that the system in place cannot be supported.

The error is to not deliver on the promise, but unleash the forces taking advantage of the American-inspired instability.

* * *

All the US is doing is removing the bad and brining the worst. Islamic moderates are seeing this replay in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. The problem for the US isn't the instability, but the stretched supply lines -- exactly what the American opposition wants.

No one can credibly claim the US was "sucked into" Iraq, Afghanistan, or Somalia. The use chose to walk into the traps.

The error is to use conventional forces against an unpopular government; and then provide a less stable alternative. There should be no surprise why the insurgents, even if they are momentarily defeated or driven away, return and expand their combat operations: The local population shifts away from the Americans and supports something that provides more stability.

The world doesn't care about extremism when America is perceived as providing less stability on the back of "fighting extremism."

* * *

The US is calling for a "new approach" in Iraq, but using the same approach that has failed and is falling around the globe in Moslem nations.

It doesn't matter what denial or spin the US provides -- Muslims perceive this as being a crusade by the Western barbarians, who offer nothing but problems, as they fight and bring instability.

* * *

There is no credible basis to connect the ideas of "freedom" and "American combat results" anywhere around the globe.

The Congress needs to awaken: The President is using the idea of American principles of the Revolutionary War, but asserting the barbarism of the British Empire.

It doesn't work, and Congress, until it accepts it has a reckless tyrant in the Oval Office, will be seen as complicit. Foreign fighters have to decide whether the problem is the US military, or the American nation.

Unless Congress ends this non-sense, foreign fighters are poised to reciprocate. The President proposes using combat forces to solve problems. The result is a bigger disaster. Foreign fighters may legally do the same.

Just as the Islamic Courts, Saddam, and Taliban have been removed from power but the American left nothing but a bigger mess, foreign fighters may legally do the same in the United States.

This is a transnational civil war. America is about to get targeted as the US has targeted the unpopular, but stable governments in Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan.

* * *

Any US effort to target, abuse, or commit war crimes against foreign fighters who lawfully target the US government for like destruction will be seen as unjust.

Congress has more than a legal problem on its hands. The American public knows there are options: A New Constitution, and legal options of the States to prosecute Members of Congress for failing to assert their oath.

Governors are going to have to decide whether they will support illegal warfare; or whether they will prosecute contractors providing illegal support to the US government for waging illegal warfare and brining instability.

America is not immune to the violence of Iraq, Afghanistan, or Somalia. When the US government is perceived as the Islamic Courts -- a threat -- the US government no longer has the good will to ask friends for support or assistance.

This conflict is not something the US government wants, but it may find impossible to avoid. The action the NeoCons deluded themselves into believing -- that force can be used to export values -- is the driving force behind American barbarism; the false arguments the President used to export instability is precipitating the very instability behind world opposition to the US.

These risks were known and openly discussed on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq. Senator Kennedy well stated that the US invasion of Iraq in the name of fighting terrorism might precipitate the very terrorism and insatiably the US was supposedly hoping to contain.

World fighters perceive the American Continent as a valid forum and stage to reciprocate and bring instability. These are not people who are crazy, but perceive their only option is to bring the fight to American civilians.

Until American civilians are jeopardized, the US government does not appear inclined to end illegal warfare, nor end its proxy wars.

The US appears less credible, and Osama bin Ladin appears more credible: The US appears to be the source of the problem, especially when it targets those who provide stability which the US is unable or unwilling to provide.

There is little sympathy when the US President claims a "clash of civilizations" when he alone had the choice whether to solve a problem, or make things worse. There was an other approach and that involved working with the Russians and Chinese to create an export market. The US chose to ignore this option, and has run out of options.

There is little sympathy as America is called what it is -- a rogue nation -- and lawfully targeted by foreign fighters for destruction.

Congress has to act to end this, or foreign fighters are going to enter the US arena and lawfully destroy the DC Metro area, and bring havoc to the North American Continent. This is not a threat, but what can reasonably be expected to happen as We the People delegate powers to foreign fighters to lawfully check this government.

Congress needs to move to remove this President from office, or the foreign fighters are going to spread the decimation.