Andrew Gavin Marshall: PunishingPakistan and Challenging Chinah

As Senator Obama became the President-elect Obama, his foreign policy strategy on Afghanistan was already being formed. In 2007, Obama took on veteran geo-strategist and Jimmy Carter's former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski as one of his top foreign policy advisers, and he remained his foreign policy adviser throughout 2008. On Obama's campaign, he announced that as President, he would scale down the war in Iraq, and focus the "War on Terror" on Afghanistan, promising to send in about 10,000 more troops and to strike next-door Pakistan, if top terrorists are spotted there. In October of 2008, before the Presidential elections, senior Bush administration officials gathered in secret with Afghanistan experts from NATO and the United Nations, to deliver a message to advisers of McCain and Obama to tell them that the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse, and that the next president needed to have a plan for Afghanistan before he took office, or else it could be too late. Both McCain and Obama had agreed to a troop increase for Afghanistan before he took office, or else, it could be too late. Both McCain and Obama had agreed to a troop increase for Afghanistan, essentially ensuring the continuity of empire from one administration to the next. A week after winning the election, Obama invited one of Hillary Clinton's top supporters and advisers to meet with him. Richard Holbrooke, who had worked in every Democratic administration since John F. Kennedy, which extended from the Vietnam War, in the sixties, to the Balkan conflicts of the nineties, was Clinton's Ambassador to the United Nations for the last year and a half of the Clinton administration. Obama had decided that Holbrooke should take on the the hardest foreign-policy problem that the administration faced: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Holbrooke wrote in March 2008, before Obama won the Presidency, that "The conflict in Afghanistan will be far more costly and much, much longer than Americans realize, and it will eventually become the longest in American history!"

William Blum: Unending American Hostility in Libya

If I could publicly ask our "beloved" (sarcasm) president one question, it would be this:"Mr. President, in your SHORT time in office, you have waged war against six countries - Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, this after stiffing the Nobel Prize committee of their Peace Prize. With all due respect: "What is WRONG with you"!! The idiot American media, whom you tolerated to pimp for you, has done its best to dismiss or ignore Libyan charges that NATO/US missiles have been killing civilians (re-the people you had wanted to "protect" by blowing them and their infant children up with our high-priced, and taxpayer purchased bombs), but recent bombing "mistakes" are so easily covered up, especially if they happen to be five months old! But who in the mainstream media has questioned the NATO/US charges that Libya was targeting and "massacring" Libyan civilians a few months ago, which, we've been told by those who manufacture these lethal weapons, is the "reason" for our attacks? Don't look to Al Jazeera for answers: The government of Qatar, which owns the station, has a deep-seated animosity toward Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and was itself a leading purveyor of the Libyan "massacre" stories, as well as playing a military role in the war against Tripoli. Al Jazeera's reporting on the subject has been so disgraceful that I've stopped looking at the station. Alain Juppe, Foreign Minister of France, which has been the leading force behind the attacks on Libya, spoke at the "Brookings" Institution in Washington on June 7. After his "useless" talk, he was asked a question from the audience by local activist Ken Meyercord: "An American observer of events in Libya has commented: "The evidence was NOT persuasive that a large-scale massacre or genocide was either likely or imminent." That comment was made by Richard Haass, President of our Council of Foreign Relations. If Mr. Haass is right, and if he is a fairly knowledgeable fellow, then what NATO has done in Libya is attack a country that wasn't threatening anyone; in other words: AGGRESSION! Are you at all concerned that NATO deals more and more death and destruction on the people of Libya that the International Criminal Court may decide that you and your friends in the Naked Aggression Treaty Organization should be prosecuted rather than Mr. Gaddafi?" Monsieur Juppe then stated that, without attribution, someone's estimate that 15,000 Libyan civilians had been killed by pro- Gaddafi forces, to which Monsieur Juppe then stated, without attribution, some-bodies estimate estimate that 15,000 Libyan civilians had been killed by pro-Gaddafi forces, to which Mr. Meyercord replied: "So where are the 15,000 bodies?"

Andrew Hammond: Libya Risks Extremism if the War Drags On!

A protracted struggle for Libya could leave it in the hands of extremists instead of the liberal economic technocrats who now lead its rebel movement, the World Bank's representative for Libya said on Thursday: "If this civil war goes on, it would be a new Somalia, which I don't say lightly," said Marouane Abassi, World Bank country manager for Libya, who has been in Tunisia since February. "In three months, we could be dealing with extremists. That's why time is very important in this conflict, before we face problems in managing it." Abassi, who is Tunisian, said the World Bank had been working with Libya since 2006 on plans for economic reforms led by leader Muammar Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam, although many of those reform plans were scuppered by Gaddafi. He described some of the leaders of the rebel "Transitional National Council" as among those most strongly associated with economic reform plans. "We know them, we did good work with them," Abassi said, citing Ali Issawi, a former economy minister and ambassador, and Mahmoud Jebril, who resigned from a state economic think-tank after Gaddafi overruled his suggestion for liberalizing the economy. "These guys tried inside Gaddafi's government. In 2009, Gaddafi stopped the connection between us and them," said Abassi. Nevertheless, parts of Gaddafi's government and local councils were still seeking World Bank advice up to February, when pro-democracy protests broke out, he said. "In the last two years it was a battle between reformists and the old guard, but even the last minister of economy who was against us accepted the rules of the game," he said.

Michael Parenti: Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy

Why has the United States government supported counterinsurgency in Columbia, Guatemala, El Salvador and many other places around the world, at such a loss of human life to the populations of those nations? Why did it invade tiny Grenada and then Panama? Why did it support mercenary wars against progressive governments in Nicaragua, Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, East Timor, Western Sahara, South Yemen, and elsewhere? Is it because our leaders want to save "democracy?" Are they concerned about the well-being of these defenseless people? Is our "national security" threatened? I shall try to show that the arguments given to justify US policies are false ones. But this does not mean that the policies themselves are senseless. American intervention may seem "wrongheaded" but, in fact, it is fairly consistent and horribly successful. The history of the United States has been one of territorial and economic expansionism, with benefits going mostly to the US business class in the form of growing investments and markets, access to rich natural resources and cheap labor, and the accumulation of enormous profits. The American people have had to pay the costs of empire, supporting a huge military establishment with their taxes, while suffering the loss of jobs, the neglect of domestic services, and the loss of tens of thousands of American lives in overseas military ventures. The greatest costs, of course, have been borne by the peoples of the Third World, who have endured poverty, pillage, disease, dispossession, exploitation, illiteracy, and the widespread destruction of their lands, cultures, and lives. As a relative latecomer to colonialism, the United States could not match the older European powers in the acquisition of overseas territories, but the United States was the earliest and most consummate practitioner of neo-imperialism or neo-colonialism, the process of dominating the politico-economic life of a nation without benefit of direct possession. (Please read the rest of this important story by Michael Parenti, titled- Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy)

Huffington Post: A Defiant Moammar Gadhafi

A defiant Moammar Gadhafi threatened Friday to carry out attacks in Europe against "homes, offices, families", unless NATO halts its campaign of airstrikes against his regime in Libya: The Libyan leader, sought by the International Criminal Court for "brutally crushing an uprising" against him, delivered a warning in an audio message played to thousands of supporters gathered in the main square of the capital Tripoli. It was one of the largest pro-government rallies in recent weeks, signalling that the embattled Libyan leader can still muster significant support. Gadhafi addressed the mass meeting in Green Square, speaking from an unknown location in a likely sign of concern over his safety. Addressing the West, Gadhafi said Libyans might take revenge: "These people (the Libyans) are able to one day take this battle to Europe, to target YOUR homes, offices, families, which would become legitimate military targets, just as you have targeted OUR homes." "We can decide to treat you in a similar way," he said of the Europeans. "If we decide to, we are able to move to Europe like locusts, like bees. We advise you to retreat before you are dealt a disaster." Friday's was one of the largest pro-government rallies in recent weeks, coming just four days after the "International Criminal Court" issued arrest warrants for Gadhafi, his son Seif al-Islam and Libyan intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanoussi for crimes against humanity.

Pravda: Bank of America agrees to pay $85 billion to resolve claims of bondholders!

Bank of America, America's biggest bank, agreed to pay $85 billion to resolve claims made by bondholders that the lenders sold "troubled mortgage-backed securities" that soured when the housing market tanked! The deal, which must be approved by a court, was announced Wednesday after a group of 22 investors demanded that the Charlotte, NC bank repurchase $47 billion in mortgages that its Countrywide unit sold to investors in the form of bonds. The group, which includes the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Blackrock Financial Management, argued that Countrywide enriched itself at the expense of investors in the form of bonds. The group, which also includes the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Blackrock Financial Management argued that Countrywide enriched itself at the expense of investors by continuing to service bad loans while running up fees. According to the New York Daily News, Bank of America, which bought Countrywide in 2008 for $4 billion, has denied those claims. The payout settles claims by just 22 investors, who said Bank of America Corp. sold bonds based on substandard home mortgages. The bonds fell in value, when the housing market collapsed and left investors with losses on $424 billion worth of mortgages. The $8.5 billion settlement eclipses earnings from the past three years at the Charlotte, NC bank. Bank of America still faces the prospect of billions of dollars in fines from US and state regulators investigating foreclosure procedures!

Raw Story: Death Toll Spikes for Iraqis and US Troops!

Violence killed more Iraqis last month than at any time since September, figures showed Friday, after the US reported deaths that also made June the deadliest month for its troops in Iraq for three years. The Baghdad (read US) government blames Al-Qaeda for most of the 271 deaths of its citizens last month, while the US military accuses "Iranian-backed" Shiite insurgent groups for the attacks that killed 14 Americans. Data compiled by the health, interior, and defense ministries showed that 155 civilians, 77 policemen, and 39 soldiers died in attacks last month, 34 percent more than the 177 killed in May. Last month's toll was the highest monthly figure for the number of Iraqis killed since September 2010, when 273 died. The previous high for this year was January, when 273 died. The previous high for this year was January, when 259 were killed. A further 454 people were wounded in June, including 192 civilians, 77 policemen, and 39 soldiers. The majority were killed or wounded by car bombs, improvised explosives or shootings, with a large number of senior officials also assassinated with silencer guns. The worst attack was a June 21 double car-bombing outside the governor's home in the central city of Diwaniyah, which killed 26 people, most of them policemen guarding the official, who escaped unharmed. Two days later, three bombs packed in shopping carts killed 21 people and wounded 86 others at a market in southern Baghdad crowded with weekend shoppers. On the same day, an American contractor with USAID was killed, and another wounded by an improvised bomb next to their armored vehicle in the capital.