The End of Combat Mission in Iraq,

Obama’s unwinnable wars

By: Ali Younes

President Obama realizes that the war In Iraq is still too early to call a “win” despite his expected speech on Tuesday in which he will declare in it the “end of combat missions” in Iraq. Obama’s Oval office speech will usher the start of the “New Dawn” mission of US troops as “advisory and assistance” phase. This involvement with the Iraqi army and troops is stipulated by the Status of Force agreement (SOFA) and the Strategic framework agreement signed by the Iraqi government and Obama’s predecessor George Bush’s government. Unfortunately for the president, he will not be able to claim to the American people that Iraq is on the path of democratic transformation without a government in Baghdad.

President Obama is not interested in Iraq, this was not his war, he holds no intentions to continue with president Bush failed project of “ remaking the Middle East” in a “ neoconic image” . The war in Iraq is also an unpopular adventure among the American public particularly during a steep economic downturn and rising cost of funding two wars simultaneously. Obama is therefore in a situation that sees Iraq as a “wrong war” that should have never been fought, and as a “liability” that might cost him a second term through its economic cost when Americans are suffering their worst economic conditions in decades.

Withdraw with honor:

But how to get out of it “with honor”, to use Richard Nixon’s term in his strategy to withdraw the US troops from the unwinnable war in Vietnam in 1969, is the key question the answer of which appears to be by sticking to the signed agreeme... [Read More]

Politics and Racism, behind "Manhattan Mosque" Controversy By: Ali Younes

The firestorm that erupted against building a Muslim cultural center in downtown Manhattan is a political issue. The Bill of Rights and the constitutional arguments aside, this case is serving several groups as vehicle to score political victories in the upcoming mid-term congressional elections. For the Republican Party and the neocons and people like newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin the real issue is not the September 11 victims or their families and, of course, not the first amendment or freedom of religion in this country. The real issue is politics.

First, what has been proposed to be built in Manhattan was not a “Mosque” a word that is being heavily used by the right wing conservatives and others to conjure up an image of a free-standing building of a traditional Mosque with a long minaret and a dome. By adding the words like “Ground Zero”, September, 11 and a “Mosque”, the issue becomes a combustible mix in the minds of those who think Islam is “inherently evil” and in the minds of average Americans who, for various reasons, view Islam as a whole as an “enemy” and that on September, 11 over a Billion Muslim attacked the United States, not 19 men who happened to Muslims. The proposed cultural center is a 100 million dollar center that will include a sport center, swimming pool, restaurant, culinary school and a prayer room.

Even though the owners of the cultural center have the constitutional right to go ahead and build their center anywhere they want; right wing conservatives and neocons attacked them not out of real “Patriotism” given that Muslims in this country are no less Americans than they are, at least in theory, but ra... [Read More]

By: Ali Younes

When the Commanding General of the US forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus said last week during a television interview that the 2011 date set by president Obama to start the drawdown of troops from Afghanistan might not be attainable, everyone took notice of the General’s comments. Petraeus, of course, was speaking in confident terms about the counter insurgency strategy which requires a stable and strong Afghan government that has the confidence of its people and is able to deliver security and stability to the general public. Nine years after the US invaded and took over Afghanistan, this belated strategy requires much more time and more US troops commitment to train and prop up the Afghan national army. Petraeus Counter Insurgency strategy, in order to succeed, it must depend on establishing good and stable governance in Afghanistan. The government of President Hamid Karzai, however, is nothing more than a collection of corrupt warlords who in the final analysis might doom the US counter insurgency strategy and in the end enable the Taliban to regain power in Afghanistan.

Afghanization strategy

President Obama’s war strategy since he became president and according to his promises during his election campaign has been based on withdrawing the US forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama intends to implement an Afghanization strategy concurrent with the counter insurgence strategy which appears to be odd and counter productive because an Afghanization strategy might undermine the Counter Insurgency strategy. An Afghanization strategy will eventually and gradually turn over Afghanistan to an Afghani government, is a direct descendant of former President Richard Nixon’s Vietnamization strategy. Nixon sought to withdraw the US troops from South Vietnam, gradually while the US trains the South Vietnamese army to fight the war against the North Vietnamese. Whether the South Vietnamese can win or lose, the... [Read More]

By: Ali Younes

The reasons that there will be no US war or military strike against Iran, in the near future, and under the current political environment, are that the US military command, under the guidance of its political leadership, is implementing a strategy of “deterrence” to prevent Iran from continuing its nuclear program. This strategy is based on the latest US military concept of “Joint Operations” which was released on 15 January 2009.

The key question here, moreover, is what will be the purpose of a military strike against Iran? Will it end the Iranian nuclear program forever, or delay it by few years then eventually and perhaps go for regime change similar to the Iraqi scenario. Such options will not bring about, if not impossible, the desired change the US and Israel wants in Iran. The only option remains is “convincing” the Iranian leadership that its nuclear program is not in its best interests. Iran, however, is also developing its own counterstrategy of “convincing” and “Deterrence” against the US and Israel, by having its own forward operating bases in the Levant, Iraq and Afghanistan. Such bases and influence can serve Iran politically and military should the US and or Israel decides to attack Iran.

When US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, (CJCS) Admiral Mike Mullen said on NBC’s Meet the Press last Sunday that “Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is unacceptable” and that the US has plans to attack Iran if needed to prevent it. His statement generated a perception among the countries in the Middle East that a US and possibly Israeli attack on Iran is imminent.

It is worth noting, however, that Admiral Mullen statement regarding Iran’s nuclear program is not new and does not reflect a new US position with regards to launch or not to launch a military strike against Iran. General David Petraeus, the former commander of CENTCOM, and n... [Read More]

By: Ali Younes

From a military intelligence perspective, the Wiki Leaks documents published earlier in the week are considered to be highly valuable not only as a raw military and intelligence material but also as a manual of how the US commanders operate in the battlefield and in combat situations. The documents therefore will be very helpful to other militaries such as the Chinese or the Russians for example enabling them to get a treasure trove of information on the workings of the US forces during combat operations. Needless to say, that the reactions of combat forces in battles are not necessarily the same each time due to its evolving nature.

As a result of publishing these documents, US commanders on the ground will most likely use coded language in their communications and impose self censorship on what or what not to write in their incident reports knowing that these classified reports might be leaked and become public.

One of the most important things here is that it will be the first time that an argument for war crimes charges against the US can be argued based on raw documentation that came directly from the US military itself.

The significance of the documents, moreover, is that they present a different picture than the one is usually scripted by the White House or the officials at the Department of Defense.

That said, and as in all militaries and in all wars, what’s scripted on paper and said by spokespersons is always different from the messy and horrific situation on the ground. US Air Force General Curtis E. Lemay, for example, who orchestrated a massive incendiary bombing campaign against Japanese cities during World War II, his bombing strategy, was estimated to have killed 500,000 Japanese civilians and left 5 million others homeless and burnt down the majority of Japanese cities.

His bomb... [Read More]

Just because Wiki Leaks published its 92, 000 secret US army documents last Monday, it does not mean that those documents contained hard truths or that they revealed any spectacular secrets the US military in Afghanistan was trying to hide from the public. Those documents should not be treated in a matter-of-factly fashion or taken as absolute truths without examining its validity.

That said however, the documents do paint a chaotic day-to-day picture of the war in Afghanistan which is growing more unpopular here in the US. Another important insight the documents showed was the heavy price the Afghani civilians have paid in this war thus opening the door for the possibility of “war crimes” argument against the US forces in Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan was subjected to years of neglect under the Bush administration in favor of the Iraqi war. As a result this war became a low-intensity war that the US is more than likely to lose according to several defense and military analysts.

Of course, the publication of the documents was a major breach of security within the US army in Afghanistan, but, I don’t think they are serious enough to pose a national security threat to the United States interests or troops in the region. Wiki Leaks founder Julian Assange said that the published documents did not pose any danger to US service men in Afghanistan, as he promised to publish the remaining 15 thousands more documents after security review of those documents.

Assange was later quoted in the world media as saying that he wants the US to execute the war in Afghanistan more “humanely”, and that the goal of his organization is to reveal secrets and provide access to information. Accordingly, Wiki Leaks is more interested in revealing secrets and information, such as its revelation of the ... [Read More]

 

 

Truth must be said; Helen Thomas, the 89 years old dean of White House correspondents is more courageous than the president of the United States, and most members of congress, when it comes to speaking the truth about Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, and about the extremist Israeli policies in the Middle East.

Thomas who covered the White House since President Dwight Eisenhower was in office over 50 years ago, was forced to resign from her job as a columnist of Hearst Corporation when she was accused of “anti-Semitism” for allegedly saying an “anti-Israel comments”

During a “Jewish Heritage celebration” held at the White House on May 27, Helen Thomas, was approached by one of the anti-Palestinian rabbis and a blogger who asked her “what does she think of Israel” a question she responded to by saying “get the hell out of Palestine”.

The blogger-Rabbi then used clever verbal gymnastics to extract “incriminating evidence” and had her say “Remember, these people are occupied. And it’s their land. Not Germany. Not Poland.” He then asked her where should those Israelis go, Thomas answered “Go home”

“Where’s home?” The Rabbi asks.

“Poland. Germany.” She responded.

Helen Thomas answered the questions right, but the so called mainstream media and Israel supporters in this country, shamelessly pounced on this 89 years old lady who will be 90 in August and accused her “anti-Semitism” where in fact she was not. Helen Thomas did not say or mean that Jews should leave West Jerusalem, Haifa, Yafa, Tel Aviv, and Nazareth and to go back to Germany or Poland, as the perception the media gave of the story. The context of her words was,... [Read More]

The pre-dawn Israeli commando raid on civilian flotilla of ships on the high seas, last Monday, which resulted in killing 10 unarmed peace activists who were bringing food and medicine to 1.5 million Palestinians, living under inhumane land, air and sea blockade in Gaza, is a tragic opportunity the United States government is missing. The White House could have used this opportunity, which is unfortunate by all accounts, to force the right wing Israeli government to end its blockade of Gaza, stop its illegal settlements buildings in Jerusalem, and negotiate an honorable peace agreement with the Palestinians.

The world reacted with “shock” and anger over Israel behaving like a rouge state in committing such a heinous act. The White House reaction, in contrast,was muted and disappointing. The statements of president Barack Obama and Secretary Clinton emphasized that “the facts” must be known before making a judgment, or calling for “full investigation” before “condemning the Israeli actions”. What facts the White House is waiting to know? The ships which left from European ports were not carrying missiles or guns as Israel claimed and that’s a fact according to European governments that inspected the ships before they sailed toward Gaza.

Instead, the White House appears to have made a choice to wait until this storm blows over so as not to appear to be pressuring Israel then risking another Israeli rebuke which would make president Obama look like a weak president when it comes to Israel.

After an embarrassing U.S. retreat from its demands that Israel ends its illegal settlement buildings in Arab East Jerusalem; earlier this year, the White House,therefore, seems reluctant to risk another humiliation at the hands of Israeli right wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The risk assessment of t... [Read More]