Democrats spark another war: Pakistan

September 19 2008

Since the Iraq War started, the Democrats have countered Republicans not by pointing out U.$. exploitation of the Mideast but by saying Republicans should have attacked other countries--Korea with its weapons of mass destruction or Pakistan with its support of the Taliban. Thanks to campaign rhetoric, Bush has now obliged the Democrats by attacking in Pakistan in little known news--eight missile attacks and a ground attack in recent days. (1) Pakistan has ordered return-fire against the United $tates.(2) Responsible are the Democrats not satisfied with the wars already going on.

A Washington Post author Barton Gellman pointed to where the focus should have been:

"The nexus, if it was anywhere, was in Pakistan--a nuclear state whose national hero sold parts to the highest bidder, whose intelligence service backed the Taliban, and whose North-West Frontier Province became a refuge for al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia, too, had a lot more links to bin Laden than Iraq did."(3)

In 2004, Kerry said that Bush's Iraq war let Osama bin Laden get away.(4)

Generally, Pakistan has always had U.$. lackeys for leaders. It's a question of how the two countries cover for each other. On September 18, Pakistan's Foreign Minister sought to appease Pakistan's public opinion by saying the u.$. attacks were a surprise, not something Pakistan's government collaborated with. Even Pakistan's Shiites were involved in burning the U.$. flag despite having no connection to the Taliban or Al-Qaeda.(5)

On the bright side, the U.$. attacks expose the bankruptcy of the Democratic Party's bait-and-switch attitude toward war. Bush gave the Democrats what they wanted and now the Democrats can explain how great the attacks are. English cabinet official Jack Straw says England does not support unilateral u.$. attacks in Pakistan.(6) Such a statement could be a bit of a dodge if the united $tates secured covert backing from Pakistan for the attacks.

Chief among the pseudo-communists in the imperialist countries are those bashing Islam for one reason or another. MIM already covered extensively the State Department, Defense Department and intelligence links to pseudo-communists in the united $tates protesting against Iran.

It turns out that Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz were directly involved in funding such "dissent" against Iran. The money was covert.(7) Covert money is only necessary when the politics would not survive public scrutiny.

On September 19, I$raeli newspaper "Haaretz" reported that Obama sponsored legislation to divest from Iran. His other pals organized yet another anti-Iran rally, probably to pander to Florida's Jewish vote. Senator Durbin from Illinois says they made a mistake in inviting Palin and then disinviting her.(8)

Even Obama's "talk-to-them" line on Iran stems from Bill Clinton, who said it first.(9) It was only after Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, C. Powell and Madelaine Albright said the united $tates should negotiate with Iran that one pseudo-communist organization changed its line on Iran-basher Phyllis Chesler. One thing mature political activists have to do is spend enough time investigating what they are doing to understand the timing and context.

In February 2007, the fakes still had not answered MIM's criticism of them and Phyllis Chesler. Here is what the Moonie reactionary paper in DC had to say:

"The enemy in Iraq has been able to deploy twice as many improvised explosive devices, or IEDs -- the weapon that kills the most U.S. troops -- now versus a year ago, the nation's senior military officer told a Senate committee yesterday.

"The increase means the billions of dollars spent to date to defeat the roadside and vehicle-borne bombs have only managed to keep U.S. casualties steady.

"'The increase in the number, despite the decrease in their effectiveness, has resulted in about a sustained level of casualties from IEDs,' Marine Gen. Peter Pace, Joint Chiefs chairman, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said another reason that casualties have not declined is that Iran is providing the enemy with more-powerful IEDs, called 'explosively formed projectiles.'"(10)

Naturally, when pro-Iranian elements in Iraq took up cease-fires later in the year, Bush ordered an improvement in relations. Only at that time did the lackey-bitch crypto-Democratic organization opposing MIM all these years order a criticism of Phyllis Chesler. Timing is everything in leadership questions. Far from opposing war on Iran, the pseudo-communists attack Iran when Cheney pays for the attacks and they withdraw when the imperialist major parties say withdraw. Not getting on board with MIM when MIM says so means following Cheney/Clinton leadership in practice.

With regard to Pakistan, it was Obama taking the more militarist stance than the Republicans prior to Bush's attacks on Pakistan. Obama called for attacks inside Pakistan while McCain and Romney both said it was irresponsible to attack a nuclear power.(11) This sort of "I'm a better warrior than thou" game has gone on between Democrats and Republicans forever, one indication that there is in practice no proletariat able to exert a pull on either of two parties.

The next time you wonder why one of these pseudo-communist organizations never has a real reply to MIM, can't calculate total super-profits and bashes Iran, just remember that Cheney pays for anti-Iran dissent and Kennedy gives them office space. Then there is no longer any mystery why stupid things persist in the name of Marx. They can claim to be for driving out the Bush regime all they want, but these fakes have always worked with Bush and Cheney against MIM and the Third World.

Sometimes the fakes say they oppose U.$. wars on the Mideast, right after bashing Iran, Palestinians or Al-Qaeda, but only after they have riled up their labor aristocracy supporters so that their opposition to war is ineffective. It's why Bush can start a war with Pakistan without the media even reporting it on the front page. The Democrats and their pseudo-communist fronts have already riled up public opinion that Bush follows through on. Mature political activists learn how that works rather than taking everything people say at face-value.

The U.$. war on Pakistan spawned by Democrats and crypto-Democrats stirs up the hopes of Indian chauvinists, and gives them a basis in u.$. money. This in turn raises tensions internally in India. These tensions only complicate the life of the Indian Maoists who are the crux of world revolution today. Hindu versus Islamic war is not the war that the Indian Maoists want. Quite the contrary, Christians and Muslims make natural allies of communists against the caste system of India. Because of concentrated U.$. attacks on Islamic peoples, the Islamic people also make natural anti-imperialist allies of Indian communists of Hindu background. The ones resisting the MIM line in South Asia are Brahmins, closet Hindu fanatics and appendages of the U.$. Democratic Party.

Amerikan nationalists with Black, Brown or other token front-men are still just Amerikan nationalists. Those who seek majority support in the united $tates inevitably pander to anti-Islamic sentiments. It is not that Amerikans are so scientific that they oppose all religion. No, atheists are a tiny percentage of the u.$. population, so discussion of atheism in this context is a smokescreen for U.$. chauvinism. It's one thing for Amerikans to oppose Islam and all religion within u.$. borders, but another thing to extend such a cultural drive in a missionary way toward the Third World, especially given that the missionary atheist drive has hardly succeeded within the united $tates. The U.$. population opposes Islam in particular, because it is the lifestyle of a billion oppressed and exploited people. The united $tates has always had inordinate concern with "terrorism," because a disproportionate fight against terrorism serves as a guise for anti-Third World racism/chauvinism. The Timothy McVeighs are few and far between.

Amerika's supposed socialists and communists are 99% social-imperialist. They'll discuss promoting atheism in other peoples' countries as a guise for imperialism. That's another reason that Islamic radicalism is not an irrational or recalcitrant response to u.$. imperialism. If the united $tates had a real "Left," it could have a real anti-imperialist movement, but it doesn't have a real "Left," so how is the rest of the world supposed to relate becomes the question. There is no translation from the culture of rich Amerikans to the culture of the truly oppressed.

The fact that Bush ordered military trials at Gitmo when Obama wrapped up the nomination against Clinton and the fact that Bush ordered attacks on Pakistan at the height of U.$. campaign season to protect himself from Democratic Party attacks partially proves that U.$. voters are oppressors. There are no reasonable people to appeal to in the presidential campaign, and it's been that way for decades, because Amerikans are exploiters and there is no Amerikan proletariat.

Notes:
1. "America's top military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, flew to Islamabad to meet with the Pakistani prime minister and Army chief Wednesday. He sought to quell mounting anger about recent US attacks against militants in Pakistan – eight missile strikes and a first-ever ground assault since Aug. 13.

"A day earlier, a Pakistani Army spokesman had said soldiers would fire on US troops if they came into Pakistan again."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0919/p01s05-wosc.html

2. "Pakistan in border warning to US ," http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7618929.stm
3. Barton Gellman, The Cheney Vice Presidency (NY: Penguin Press, 2008), p. 229.
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10573-2004Oct6?language=printer
5. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122176685511753465.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
6. http://www.newspostonline.com/world-news/uk-doesnt-support-us-unilateral-strikes-in-pak-200809185322
7. Gellman, op. cit., p. 242.
8. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1022772.html; http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1022819.html
9. Bob Woodward, The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-8 (NY: Simon & Schuster, 2008), p. 226.
10. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/feb/06/20070206-111243-4357r/
11. http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801, "Obama might send troops to Pakistan," http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/