The US and The UK; The World Hegemony Unionists by *Mahboob A. Khawaja, Ph.D.

Wars are planned, financed and fought by governments, not by groups or ordinary people. Wars are based on political agendas bent on complete control over resources, people and territory. Most wars have multiple reasons, domestic, foreign and global outreach. The U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are fought to maintain US domination worldwide, to occupy the untapped natural resources of the Middle East, in particular oil and gas, and to protect the value of U.S. dollar as a stable international reserve currency. In September 2000, the proactive policy paper written by the neoconservative intellectuals to envision the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC), sets the milestone, seeking U.S. domination over the rest of the world powers. Its objectives: meeting U.S. energy demands through occupation by force of all the oil and gas resources in the Arab Middle East. The blueprint supports military occupation of the oil-exporting Arab countries and regime change wherever necessary – to fulfill the PNAC policy aims of global domination. Centuries ago, German historian Carl Von Clausewitz wrote On War: “War is not merely a political act but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.”

The wars are declared by the few and not the majority masses. The small ruling elite who plans and wages war is often afraid of citizenry reaction and refusal to accept the rationality of a war. Throughout history, European nationalism institutionalized the doctrine of war as a necessary means to promote national interest and racial superiority over "the others". Most proponents of wars have used “fear” as one of the major instruments of propaganda and manipulation to perpetuate allegiance from the ordinary folks to the elite warmongers in a crisis situation. Sheldon Richman (“War is Government Program” ICS, 05/2007), notes that “war is more dangerous than other government programs and not just for the obvious reason – mass murder….war is useful in keeping the population in a state of fear and therefore trustful of their rulers.”

Ordinary citizens do not have passion for war as it disturbs their safety and security, and destroys the living habitats. The ruling elite, the actual warmongers, force people to think in extreme terms of hatred and rejection of others so that people would be forced to align with the rulers to support and finance the war efforts. Sheldon Richman describes how Herman Goering, Hitler’s second in command, understood the discourse of war-making:

“Of course the people don’t want war….but after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether, it’s a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a Communist dictatorship.” (Sheldon Richman, “War is Government Program”)

Paul Craig Roberts (“The Collapse of America Power”: ICS, 03/2008), attempts to explain how the British Empire had collapsed once its financial assets were depleted because of the 2nd World War debts. Correlli Barnett (The Collapse of British Power, 1972) states that at the beginning of WWII, Britain had limited gold and foreign exchange funds to meet the pressing demands of the war. The British Government asked the U.S. to help finance their ability to sustain the war. Thus, ‘this dependency signaled the end of British power.’ For its draconian wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States is heavily dependent on China, Japan and Saudi Arabia. It is well known that the U.S. treasury owes trillions of dollars to its foreign debtors and therefore, its financial dependency is increasingly becoming an obvious indicator of the end of U.S. global hegemony and its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now that the US financial system has broken down and some of the leading banking institutions have gone into bankruptcy, the roller coaster repercussions can be seen across the U.S. economic, social and political spectrum of life. Under the Bush administration, U.S. capability and vitality has shrunk and in fact the country appears to be dismantled as a superpower in global affairs. It is no wonder that other nations of world no longer seem to take the U.S. and its traditional influence, seriously.

In The Collapse of American Power, Paul Craig Roberts stated:

"Noam Chomsky recently wrote that America thinks that it owns the world. That is definitely the view of the neoconized Bush administration. But the fact of the matter is that the US owes the world. The US 'superpower' cannot even finance its own domestic operations, much less its gratuitous wars except via the kindness of foreigners to lend it money that cannot be repaid."

It is undeniable that the US is “bankrupt” because of the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. David M. Walker Comptroller General of the US and Head of the Government Accountability Office (December 2007). reported that “In everyday language, the US Government cannot pass an audit.”

If one is a financial investor, the obvious question asks Paul C. Roberts,“Would you want to hold debt in a currency that has such a poor record against the currency of a small island country that was nuked and defeated in WW II, or against a small landlocked European country that clings to its independence and is not a member of the EU?” 

Consequently, the U.S. dollar is being replaced by Euro and other currencies and soon is going to be abandoned as a reserve currency in global financial system. Roberts appears to be seriously concerned: "I sometimes wonder if the bankrupt ‘superpower’ will be able to scrape together the resources to bring home the troops stationed in its hundreds of bases overseas, or whether they will just be abandoned."

This War on Terror is Bogus

Michel Meacher, British Environment Minister under PM Blair (“This War on Terrorism is Bogus”) – provides reliable insight into the real reasons for the 'War on Terrorism'. He claims that the "war on terror" is flatly superficial:

“the 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination … the so-called 'war on terrorism' is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives … in fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11.”

In their report, the Baker Institute of Public Policy (April 2001), stated clearly that “the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to….the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East” and it its recommendations elaborated the dire need that because it was a challenging risk therefore, the “US military intervention” was the most favored action (Sunday Herald: Oct 6, 2002).

Both the US and United Kingdom have increasing dependence on imported oil from the Middle East. The overriding motivation for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, shielded by a political smokescreen, is that the US and UK will run out of sufficient hydrocarbon energy supplies whereas, the Arab and Muslim world would control almost 60% of the world oil producing capacity and perhaps more significantly, 95% of the remaining global oil production capacity. The news media reports indicate that the US is predicted to produce only 39% of its domestic oil production in 2010, whereas in 1990 it produced 57% of its total oil consumption. The UK Government projects ”severe” gas shortages by 2005 and it confirmed that 70% of the electricity will drawn from gas and 90% of gas will be imported. It is interesting to note that Iraq is said to have 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its approximately 15-20 % of the world oil reserves.

Another research report by the Commission on America’s National Interests (July 2000), observes that the most promising new energy resources are found in the Caspian Sea, Central Asian region and these would spare the US exclusive dependence on the Saudi Arabian oil imports. The report outlined the feasible routes for the Caspian Seas oil deliveries, one hydrocarbon pipeline via Azerbaijan and Georgia and another pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan would ensure the future strategic demands of the US government. To review the documentary evidence of the 9/11 events, it is likely that many strategists have seen the U.S. Government's failure to avert the 9/11 terrorist attacks as facilitating a much needed stage drama for its policy aims and an invaluable opportunity to attack Iraq and Afghanistan – a military intervention already well-planned in early 2000. The PNAC policy blueprint of September 2000 projects the transformation of U.S. power as an unchallengeable global superpower and the need for some tangible tragedy to make it happen. The paper states, it “is likely to be a long one in the absence of some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor.”  In his analytical view, Minister Michael Meacher (“This War on terrorism is Bogus”) states "… 'global war on terrorism' has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda – the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project."

Did the US hegemonic war achieve any of its set goals for world domination? Have the US and UK Governments secured any viable hydrocarbon energy routes to ensure their depleting gas and oil stocks and the much planned control over the Arab oil reserves? Is the US dollar still a welcomed international currency used by the world nations?

Mike Whitney quotes the retired U.S. Army General Ricardo Sanchez challenging the prevailing notion of the Bush Administration “Mission accomplished" in Iraq, when he asserted that the occupation of Iraq is a “nightmare with no end in sight.” The General claimed that the US administration is “incompetent” and “corrupt” and that the most U.S. people could hope for under the present circumstances is to “stave off defeat” in Iraq war.

Mike Whitney (“Come and see our overflowing morgues…..come and see the rubble of your surgical strikes”: An Arab Women Blues by Layla Anwar), elaborates that General Sanchez is neither against the war nor for withdrawal. He simply doesn’t like losing…. and the United Sates is losing.”

The General is reported to have admitted that “after more than four years of fighting , America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism.”  Under President Barrack Obama, the global community looks anxiously on how and when the promised change will come to U.S. failed strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. How soon will the new President will be able to put the body of US politics together again after its moral, political and financial collapse? The U.S. and Britain appear to be lost, not knowing how to come out of the self-engineered defeat in wars against Islam.  Masses have sympathies with the true believers and the Islamic Resistance appears to have lost nothing. They had no banks to declare bankruptcy and they had no Bush and Cheney to go down in disgrace. The Mujahideen remain intact and active on all the fronts even buying weapons from the US and Russia to fight against them.

U.S. strategists know well how to do business in global arms market. As a declining superpower, the US is extremely nervous not knowing how soon it could be replaced by smaller nations of the developing world or a combination of new emerging economic powers such as China, India and others. The U.S. is in desperate need of a Navigational Change. President Obama got elected with the moving slogan – “Yes We Can.”  Would President Obama know how to make a navigational change when there is nothing left to navigate for Change?

Mike Whitney attempts to share a new humane perspective of the concerns of the Iraqi civilians who are the real victims of this ferocious war against their country. To reflect on how the adversely affected Iraqi people think about the on-going U.S.-British led war, occupation and continuous daily bombing of the civilian population, Layla Anwar, An Arab Women Blues writes in her website blog:

“Everyday, under the pretext of either al-Qaida, insurgents, militants or whatever imaginary name you coined, you have not ceased, not even for one day, slaughtering our innocents……for 4 years, you have not ceased for one single day, not during holiday periods, not during religious celebrations, not even during the day your so called God was born….if you have a God that is.”

Now after having lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, the world hegemony unionists have opened yet another front in Libya, an oil rich Muslim country.

*Mahboob A. Khawaja, Ph.D. is an academic who specializes in strategic studies with an interest in comparative civilizations. He is the author of Muslims and the West: Quest for Change and Conflict Resolution.

The Libyan Conundrum by *S. M. Hali

The war in Libya, which according to AP, is costing US taxpayers nearly $1 billion, has become a conundrum, because it is not clear what the US is trying to achieve and who is it backing.  In the past, the United States has footed the bill for some costly no-fly zones. In the 1990s, the U.S. participated in Operation Noble Anvil, an air assault in Yugoslavia from March to June 1999, which cost $1.8 billion. After the first Persian Gulf War, two no-fly zones in Iraq to protect citizens from Saddam Hussein's wrath cost about $700 million a year—from 1992 to 2003. The US taxpayers are questioning that after having spent over 1,171,123,022,117 $ so far as the cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan, both of which descended into unwinnable quagmires, it is not clear where the US is headed.

The current military attack on Libya has been motivated by UN Security Council resolution 1973 with the need to protect civilians. Statements by President Obama, British Prime Minister Cameron, French President Sarkozy, and other leaders have stressed the humanitarian nature of the intervention, which is said to aim at preventing a massacre of pro-democracy forces and human rights advocates by the Qaddafi regime. Simultaneously, many analysts  opine that the anti-Gaddafi forces, which are being strengthened by the Libyan operations, have a definite Al-Qaeda link. A 2007 West Point study by Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman: “Al-Qaida’s Foreign Fighter in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records,” and two WikiLeaks documents strongly back this concern. The first secret cable to the State Department from the US embassy in Tripoli in 2008, entitled "Extremism in Eastern Libya" revealed that this area is not only rife with anti-American, pro-jihad sentiment but many eastern Libyans take pride in their participation in the insurgency in Iraq. The second set of documents, titled the “Sinjar Records”, comprise captured Al-Qaeda documents that fell into American hands in 2007. They were duly analyzed by the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy at West Point and conclude that Libya provided "far more" foreign fighters than any other country.

Al-Qaeda is not a centralized organization, but a motley crowd comprising fanatics, psychotics, double agents, provocateurs, mercenaries, and other elements. Webster G. Tarpley, in his recent book: ‘9/11 Synthetic Terrorism: Made in USA’ reveals that Al-Qaeda was founded by the United States and the British during the struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Many of its leaders, such as the reputed second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri and Anwar Awlaki, are double agents of MI-6 and/or the CIA. The basic belief structure of Al-Qaeda is that all existing Arab and Moslem governments are illegitimate and should be destroyed, because they do not represent the caliphate described by the Koran. This paves the way for the Anglo-American secret intelligence agencies to attack and destabilize existing Arab and Muslim governments as part of the ceaseless imperialism and colonialism to loot and attack the developing nations. Al-Qaeda emerged from the cultural and political milieu of the Ikhwan (Moslem Brotherhood), a creation of British intelligence in Egypt in the late 1920s. The US and the British used the Ikhwan to oppose the successful anti-imperialist policies of Egyptian President Nasser, who nationalized the Suez Canal and built the Aswan High Dam, contributing to the development of modern Egypt.

Despite much uncertainty, the United Nations and its several key NATO countries, including the United States, have rushed forward to assist the armed forces of this rebel regime with air strikes. It is high time that American and European publics learned something more about this rebel regime which is supposed to represent a democratic and humanitarian alternative to Gaddafi. Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, who promulgated the Islamic emirate of “Barq” at Dernah, a town about 200 kms east of Benghazi, has been a close companion of Osama bin Laden. The Bush administration policy used the alleged presence of Al-Qaeda as a pretext for direct military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. Sifting through the fog of war, one must wade through the spin created by the US that the Al-Qaeda is motivated by a deep hatred of the United States and a burning desire to kill Americans, as well as Europeans on the one hand and Obama’s imprudent choice of taking the side of Al-Qaeda backed rebels in Libya on the other. We have to ponder whether the world will be a safer place with the Al-Qaeda taking control of Libya’s oil wealth and Gadhafi’s fabled gold cache? The world has a right to question!

*S.M. Hali, The author is a retired Group Captain, curently a free lance columnist

Libya: Materiel and Personnel in Place by *Julie Hyland

The United States, Britain and the European powers are deepening their preparations for intervention in Libya, including military action. They hope to exploit the popular revolt against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi to take control of Libya’s oil fields and establish a crucial base for further operations in the region under conditions where dictatorships on which they have relied for years are under siege.

In testimony before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned, “The entire region is changing and a strong and strategic American response will be essential.”

Her statement came as the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise and two amphibious assault vessels complete with helicopters, the USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce, were taking up positions in the southwestern Mediterranean. A US military official said the aim was to “provide for flexibility once decisions are made” as to what action will be taken against Libya.

Britain is reported to have put in position a naval destroyer and a frigate off the coast of Libya. Echoing the statement of Susan Rice, US ambassador to the United Nations, that Gaddafi was “unfit to lead,” Prime Minister David Cameron stated that Gaddafi’s removal was Britain’s “highest priority.”

Britain’s chief of defence staff, Gen. Sir David Richards, is drawing up contingency plans for military operations, which sources state will include potential ground operations. The missions undertaken by various Western powers to rescue their nationals trapped in Libya will have also been used to drop reconnaissance forces into the country in advance of such a move.

As in the interventions in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, “humanitarian” concerns are being advanced as a disguise for colonial invasion. Tens of thousands of immigrant workers fleeing from Libya have passed into Tunisia and thousands are currently trapped in a no-man’s land on the border. Without shelter and only meagre provisions, the workers—many from Bangladesh, Ghana and Egypt—have little support or means of returning home.

According to the Guardian, “Officials said that the support of US and British armed forces might also be required to protect corridors to channel humanitarian relief into Libya through Tunisia and Egypt, if further conflict brought about a mass displacement of the population and a collapse in the food supply.”

Such “corridors” could potentially be used to position Western troops in three of the nations currently at the centre of mass uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East.

On Tuesday, the UN General Assembly voted to suspend Libya from its Human Rights Council. It followed moves by the US, Britain, Germany and Austria to freeze the assets of Gaddafi, his family and closest associates and the imposition of sanctions by the European Union—the recipient of 85 percent of Libya’s oil exports.

Addressing the Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, Clinton said she had discussed with European foreign ministers further measures flowing from the UN Security Council resolution passed at the weekend, which imposed an arms embargo and asset freeze on the Libyan leader and those close to him.

“Nothing is off the table,” Clinton said, after she met with the foreign ministers of France, Germany, the UK and Italy to discuss setting up a no-fly zone over Libyan airspace, ostensibly in order to stop Gaddafi’s forces from attacking civilians.

In recent days, Gaddafi has attempted to take back areas captured by opposition forces in Ajdabiya, Misrata and the strategic port town of Zawiyah, to the west of Tripoli. All efforts were apparently repelled. Gaddafi has lost control of much of Libya’s oil and gas fields to the opposition.

There are reports that Tripoli has sent an aid convoy as an olive branch to rebel-controlled Benghazi, including food and medical supplies. Gaddafi is also said to have appointed Bouzaid Dordah, the head of Libya’s foreign intelligence service, to speak to opposition leaders—an offer that has been rejected. Within Tripoli, hundreds demonstrated Monday in Tajoura, a working class suburb, following the funeral of a protester killed by the regime over the weekend.

“A no-fly zone is an option we are actively considering. I discussed it today with allies and partners,” Clinton said.

Germany and France have indicated their support for no-fly zones, while Italy—the former colonial power in Libya—is said to have agreed the use of its bases for possible action against the country.

France said the zones must be approved by the United Nations, while German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said, “The impression that this is about military intervention must not emerge under any circumstances.” In reality, the no-fly zones are conceived of as the prelude to wider military intervention.

Addressing a Senate hearing Tuesday, General James Mattis, commander of US Central Command, said, “My military opinion is that it [no-fly zones] would be challenging. You would have to remove air defence capability in order to establish a no-fly zone, so no illusions here. It would be a military operation—it wouldn’t be just telling people not to fly airplanes.”

In other words, it would mean bombing Libyan airbases and planes.

The no-fly zone option has been attacked by Russia and China. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that world powers needed to “avoid the superfluous” as regards the Libyan crisis, while the country’s NATO ambassador, Dmitry Rogozin, said, “If someone in Washington is seeking a blitzkrieg in Libya it is a serious mistake because any use of military force outside the NATO responsibility zone will be considered a violation of international law.

“A ban on the national air force or civil aviation to fly over their own territory is still a serious interference into the domestic affairs of another country, and, at any rate, it requires a resolution of the UN Security Council.”

Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, also denounced US and UK calls for military intervention as an “absurdity.” “The Middle East and Africa have been viewed by the West as sources of oil and used as pawns in oil wars for decades,” Erdogan said, warning that this was behind the mass uprisings.

But Al Jazeera stated, “It’s worth noting that UN Security Council resolution 1970, passed on Saturday, did authorise member states to ‘adopt all measures necessary’ to secure the prompt and safe delivery of humanitarian assistance to those in need” in Libya.

In a further indication that the US and Britain are once again preparing to flout international law, the Financial Times said, “Erdogan’s comments suggest it could be difficult for a Western military operation to be conducted under NATO auspices. NATO tends to take decisions on military action by consensus. If it is unable to reach this consensus, the US and UK may be forced to mount a no-fly zone using an informal coalition of willing states.”

The terminology is an echo of the run-up to the 2003 war against Iraq, which proceeded without UN authorisation.

The BBC reported former British Prime Minister John Major stating that “ideally, a UN resolution would be put in place for a no-fly zone, but this ‘isn't absolutely necessary’ in law and order, and a collection of nations could take the decision themselves.”

*Julie Hyland, 42, has been a member of the International Committee since 1979, when she joined its youth organisation, the Young Socialists. She went on to become the YS National Secretary, in which position she led numerous campaigns in defence of the rights of the unemployed, students and young workers. Hyland stood as a parliamentary candidate for the Socialist Equality Party in the 1997 General Election. She is a member of the Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Site and a full-time writer on political and social developments in Britain.