POPULAR UPRISING IN KYRGYZSTAN AGAINST CORRUPT LEADER, U.S. CONCERNED ONLY WITH ITS MILITARY AIR BASE

The recent events in Kyrgyzstan point up the continuing lack of realism in the State Department and thus in the Obama administration's foreign policy. The people in Bishek, Kyrgyzstan's capital, rose up to throw out a corrupt leader, and the only response from the United States was one of wondering whether the U.S. would be allowed to keep its airbase in the country.

Luke Harding reports for The Guardian:

"Protesters said they had been driven to revolt by the decision to raise communal charges for water and electricity. The hikes had been the last straw in the country of five million people already wrestling with mass unemployment and widespread poverty. The unrest began in provincial cities on Tuesday, with locals seizing regional government buildings, before riots erupted in Bishkek.

"Opposite the White House, Melis Deripasov was still incredulous at the security forces' reaction. "So many boys died. Two of my friends died. A young girl died just over there. The government used snipers against us," he said. "I'm unemployed. There is no work and no factories. Bakiyev stole everything. All that was left was the air we breathe.""

OBAMA ORDERS INCREASE IN U.S. DRONE ATTACKS IN PAKISTAN

Should the U.S. under Barack Obama be sending drones flying over Pakistan and firing missiles at Taliban leaders, and, in the process, killing their families as well? I argue, no. These are extra-judicial killings of people only suspected to be enemy combatants. Whether they are or not should first be determined in a court of law. Who knows how many innocent men, women and children have been incinerated by U.S. attacks from the sky?

And, furthermore, what gives the U.S. the right to kill members of the Taliban? Yes, they are backward, illiterate and often fanatical. But does this warrant their execution and destruction by U.S. attack drones?

Scott Shane reports in today's The New York Times that Obama has ordered an increase in these drone attacks:

"The White House has authorized an expansion of the C.I.A.’s drone program in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas, officials said this week, to parallel the president’s decision, announced Tuesday, to send 30,000 U.S. more troops to Afghanistan. American officials are talking with Pakistan about the possibility of striking in Baluchistan for the first time — a controversial move since it is outside the tribal areas — because that is where Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to hide."

I argue that these drone attacks will create 10 more enemies of the U.S. for each member of the Taliban killed. And 100 more for each innocent man, woman and child killed by mistake.

Americans claim their land is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Yet the American use of lethal drones tells the whole world that the U.S. is also a military killer that causes death and destruction in poor Pakistani villages.

CRAZIES FAVOR MILITARY ACTION AGAINST NORTH KOREA

Politico runs a story by Harry Siegel that a majority of Americans favor the use of military force in preventing North Korea from obtaining or developing intercontinental rockets. This is plain craziness. Drop bombs on people in North Korea because their leaders fire a missile with the ostensible purpose of launching a communications satellite.

Writes Siegel:

"American voters across lines of age, party and gender support a military approach to eliminate North Korea's nuclear capabilities, according to a Rasmussen Reports survey released Sunday morning — and conducted in the two days prior to North Korea's test missile launch on Saturday.

"The poll shows that 57 percent of all voters support such a response, while just 15 percent oppose it. A military response is favored by a majority in both parties — 66 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats — and by 57 percent of both men and women.

"A majority of respondents, 51 percent, also oppose the U.S. offering economic aid to North Korea in exchange for it agreeing to dismantle its nuclear program."

STOP AMERICAN BUILD UP OF TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN

I don't understand Barack Obama's thinking in sending 10,000+ more American soldiers to Afghanistan. Obama surely knows that killing people who you think are "enemies" cannot achieve the objectives you want, no matter how lofty they are. True, killing your enemies used to be the only solution, but that was before the Enlightenment, before we had due process and the rule of law.

Obama says his main goal is to stop Al Qaeda. Well then, Obama should try personal diplomacy, given his stardom and popularity in the world. Why resort to bombing and shooting members of Al Qaeda? Obama has the answer, not in airplanes or tanks, but in his self.

If Al Qaeda represents radical and fundamental Islam, then military force and compulsion will do nothing except exacerbate the hatred and distrust of Al Qaeda members for Americans and secular Western customs.

I have good advice for Pres. Obama - stop the buildup of American forces in Afghanistan. Stop the militaristic approach to solving a problem that can never be solved with drones and bullets.

OBAMA: STOP MILITARY FOOLISHNESS IN AFGHANISTAN

Pres. Barack Obama is making a huge mistake committing troops to Afghanistan. Yes, that country is still mired in the 8th Century, with women rarely seen on the streets and with the rule of law practically non-existent in the face of Islamic
fundamentalism.

So what role does the U.S. have fighting over there. Obama says he wants to rid Afghanistan and Pakistan of members of Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda is composed of ordinary Afghanis and Pakis, young men barely in their twenties who have committed to Islam in the most fundamental way. There is no possibility that the U.S. and Obama are going to defeat those guys by force of arms or warplanes or tanks or special forces raids.

That's what I don't understand about Obama's move. I thought he was more committed to the use of America's soft power. Apparently he still believes in force of arms. Hasn't anybody ever told him the dirty little secret? - that military action never works, unless to create hatred and animosity that will last many generations if not hundreds of years in the minds of the invaded and occupied towards the invader and occupier.

I agree with Obama on this, that the U.S. should help build Afghanistan's schools, roads, bridges, hospitals, highways. That the U.S. should help train and outfit a rule of law police force that will keep public peace and welfare.

But I disagree with seeing the Al Qaeda problem as solvable by military means. Killing Al Qaeda adherents will have no beneficial effect. Shooting Afghan women and children by mistake will not make the U.S. safer, but just the opposite. Conducting special forces raids at 2 AM just reinforces the notion already in the hearts and minds of most Afghanis that the U.S. is a cruel and dishonorable people and nation that Afghans of all ages must repel and destroy.

DEFENSE DEPT. WARNS CHINA ON MILITARY BUILD-UP

What is the purpose of the Department of Defense stirring up trouble by accusing China of building up its military and weapons systems? This is sure to rile not only Chinese leaders but also the common man in the street.

Here we have the United States, the most armed and militaristic of all countries on earth, telling China it has no right to beef up its military. Put yourself in China's shoes. What would you think? How would you react? Angry and resentful. Incredulous in the face of American hypocrisy.

The Washington Post carries a story by Trini Tran of AP today on its web site. Writes Tran:

"A U.S. Defense Department report released in Washington _ the first under the Obama administration _ said Beijing's rapidly growing military strength is shifting the military balance in the region and could be used to enforce its claim in disputed territories.

"China's objections were strong, signaling what continues to a bumpy start with the new U.S. administration. The two governments have tried to minimize differences, but frictions already have surfaced, including this month's confrontation between a U.S. naval ship and Chinese vessels and China's concerns over the weakened U.S. economy."

Where is Barack Obama on all of this? Was the DOD's statement first cleared with him? Does he approve the old Bush line of dictating to other countries how they should act and behave? It's hard to believe Obama would approve this imperialistic tactic. China's reaction of fury and resentment would have been easy to predict. So why stir up trouble?

Tran reports on China's anger:

"Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang lashed out at the report as "interference" in China's affairs and said his country had formally complained.

""It is a gross distortion of facts and interference into China's internal affairs. China resolutely opposes it and has made solemn representation to the U.S. side," he told a regularly scheduled news conference."

WHY IS U.S. NAVY SPY SHIP SAILING IN SOUTH CHINA SEA?

What is the United States doing with a navy ship in the South China Sea? Why does the U.S. need a naval vessel on the other side of the world?

Today, the Navy announced that five Chinese ships had "harassed" the American spy ship.

The BBC reports:

"The incident happened as the USNS Impeccable was on routine operations in international waters 75 miles (120km) south of Hainan island, a US statement said.

"The ships "aggressively manoeuvred" around the Impeccable "in an apparent co-ordinated effort to harass the US ocean surveillance ship while it was conducting routine operations in international waters", according to the Pentagon.

"Impeccable is designed specifically to detect underwater threats such as submarines for the US navy.

"Aggressive manoeuvring by ships by rival navies in sensitive international waters is not uncommon but Washington was sufficiently disturbed by the incident involving the Impeccable to make its concerns public, the BBC's Kevin Connolly reports from Washington."

I want Obama to pull U.S. war ships out of far-away seas and oceans. They have no business being there anyway other than to spy on foreign countries and cause resentment and incidents like the above.

Suppose China had one of its spy ships sail 75 miles off the coast of Long Island? What would the American people say about that? That it was justified by international law and that China had every right to be there? Or that China was engaged in spying on the American people and that it should immediately pull its ship away from the United States.

Some Americans will say that China is merely testing a new U.S. president but this is patently ludicrous. China has no reason to "test" Obama. Most Chinese hope that Obama will reverse Bush's antagonistic policies towards China and that Obama will establish more friendly relations. So there is no inner dynamic in China or its government to put Obama to a test.

This incident in the South China Sea underlines once again the imperialistic, militaristic and hegemonic foreign policy of the United States. Obama, call off the Navy ships and bring them home. The world awaits a new American foreign policy and hopes for a Pax Obama that relies not on guns and bombs but on diplomacy and mutual respect.

ISRAEL'S DIRTY WAR IN GAZA KILLS 30 IN U.N. "SAFE" SCHOOL

Israeli troops fire tank shells into a U.N. school thought to be a safe haven by Palestinian civilians, primarily children. At least 30 are killed, many children.

Does Israel think it can accomplish any political aims by killing children? Does it think this action makes it more safe and more immune from Palestinian rockets?

On a more fundamental level, what makes any nation or people or government think it can achieve anything by shooting, bombing, killing its perceived "enemy"? We know that George Bush and Dick Cheney will go down in infamy because they stupidly believed that the U.S. army was justified in killing Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussein. So too will the Israelis who lobbied and insisted on this dirty war in Gaza

RID U.S. FOREIGN POLICY OF MILITARY FORCE

We need a whole rethinking of U.S. foreign policy, specifically where it comes to military force. Currently the U.S. maintains military bases in over 100 countries. The thinking is that the U.S. is the enforcer of American values and interests throughout the world. No wonder most of the world's population dislikes America and has a negative view of Americans.

Number one problem that must be changed is the U.S. policy towards Afghanistan. To think that military force can re-make or pacify Afghanistan is pure fiction without any basis in reality. Any peace in that troubled country will come from negotiation and compromise, and such negotiation must of necessity include the Taliban who are mostly Pashtun.

Afghanistan is comprised of tribal groups, such as the Uzbeks, the Tajiks, the Hazaras, the Turkmen, the Qizilbash and the Pastun. The Taliban are mostly Pastun. So the Taliban's interests are not only religious but also involve Afghani tribal politics.

There is no way that the U.S. is going to win hearts and minds of Afghanis, no matter of what tribal affiliation, with its current policy of dropping bombs and firing lethal rockets on Afghan villages and homes from war planes. That approach results in the deaths of mostly Afghan civilians and innocent families. Of course, the U.S. military loves to recite how many "terrorists" it killed through such a destructive approach, but upon inspection, the dead incinerated bodies reveal women and children and mostly poor agrarian farmers.

Imagine if you had your child killed by an American rocket or bomb, how you would feel towards the Americans.

The current U.S. military policy, no matter the claims for "terrorists" killed, is cruel as well as counterproductive.

Military force will never obtain U.S. objectives nor will it ever protect "American interests."

The first step must be the grounding of all U.S. bombers and war planes in Afghanistan. A second step would be to officially recognize the futility of imposing U.S. foreign policy by military force.

CHENEY THREATENS RUSSIA

We don't need Dick Cheney stirring up trouble with Russia over its recent action in Georgia to protect civilians who would rather be Russian than Georgian. Cheney was in Lake Como today denouncing the Russians and saying that NATO would not allow Russia to get away with its actions.

Roger Runnigen reports today in Bloomberg:

"Vice President Dick Cheney increased U.S. pressure on Russia, saying its attack on Georgia last month and ``bullying'' of other former Soviet states risk a confrontation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."

Fortunately it appears that other European statesmen are taking a calmer and saner approach, eschewing the military option so favored by war mongers like Cheney in favor of a less dangerous diplomatic approach.

Writes Runnigen:

"The Georgia crisis ``can only be solved politically and not with warships,'' French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told reporters today after a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in Avignon, France. France brokered the cease-fire that ended the five-day war over the breakaway region of South Ossetia, though Russian troops remain inside Georgian territory in defiance of Western calls to pull out."

Runnigen reports on more of Cheney's militaristic threats and bluster:

"Cheney accused Russia of ``bullying others'' while using its oil wealth to fuel its own economic progress.
"``They cannot presume to gather up all the benefits of commerce, consultation and global prestige, while engaging in brute force, threats or other forms of intimidation against sovereign countries.'' "

Cheney is dangerous. Americans still must suffer more than four months of him before his term is up. Let's hope he does not start another war during this time.

CHENEY A WORLD TROUBLEMAKER FEATURED IN TODAY'S NY TIMES

We don't need Vice President Cheney travelling to Georgia on Tuesday stirring up trouble there against the Russians.

Cheney's idea of American power is exclusively one of military power. He would like to attack Iran and also maybe North Korea. He was the architect of using methods of torture to interrogate Islamic prisoners of war held at Bagram and Guantanamo. He approved every use of waterboarding.

And what is the result? The world loathes Americans and their pretentious portrayal of themselves as defending liberty and justice for all. Cheney has made the world so much more dangerous, so much more liable to acts of terrorism, with so much more hate and racial and ethnic distrust.

Yet Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in today's The New York Times a story on Cheney that attempts to make him less of a monster, more mellow, more introspective.

Writes Stolberg:

"Mr. Cheney declined to be interviewed. But those close to him say he approaches retirement with neither reticence nor eagerness, but rather with a Zen-like confidence that even his most controversial moves, like his stance in favor of domestic wiretapping, have been necessary to keep the country safe.

"“It’s not suffering defeats, it’s not nostalgia, it’s not urgency to get stuff done, it’s not, ‘I can’t wait to get out of here,’ ” said Mary Matalin, a longtime adviser, describing Mr. Cheney’s state of mind. “I hate to use yoga terms, but he’s really in the moment.”"

Hasn't Stolberg read Jane Mayer's The Dark Side? How can we talk about Cheney without talking about torture, waterboarding, rendition, secret prisons, disregard for human rights, desire to attack Iran, predilection for military confrontations, the shredding of the U.S. Constitution in favor of executive power?

GEORGE BUSH - WAR IN IRAQ MIGHT LAST 40 YEARS

Now George Bush says that the War in Iraq will take "40 years." And that this War is the nation's defining moment in the 21st Century. All this according to a new book by Richard Engle, "War Journal, My Five Years in Iraq."

Bush can't stop trying to burnish his own miserable imperialistic legacy with his infatuation with being a "war president" who will lead America to historic world greatness.

Instead of telling Americans that Iraqis would greet U.S. soldiers with embraces and flowers, George Bush should have laid out his grandiose plans for U.S. militaristic foreign policy before March 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq. Then the reaction of a supine U.S. press corps and the ennui of an American public may have been different.