Category: News

I’ve written a guest blog over at the Silver Circle Underground, a blog related to a forthcoming sci-fi film about a future revolt against the Federal Reserve. I was asked to write about what US foreign policy will be like in 2019, when the film is set. I’ve cross-posted it below.

The consistency of United States foreign policy is truly remarkable. Since its inception, America’s approach was expansion and control; first with westward annexation – humbly called Manifest Destiny – and then with interventions and impositions to the south through the Monroe Doctrine. But exceptionally since the end of World War II, US policy has remained notably undeviating.

US national security planners understood, correctly, that unlike war torn Europe America would emerge from the war as an economic and military powerhouse with unrivaled security and influence. The world was divided up into war zones and plans were set to implement an Imperial Grand Strategy over a region encompassing the Western Hemisphere, the Far East, the former British Empire, with a high focus on Middle East oil reserves. As a Top Secret National Security Council briefing put it in 1954, “the Near East is of great strategic, political, and economic importance,” as it “contains the greatest petroleum resources in the world” as well as “essential locations for strategic military bases in any world conflict.”

The primary aim, according to official documents was to maintain “unquestioned power” with “military and economic supremacy,” while ensuring the “limitation of any exercise of sovereignty” by states that might interfere with its global designs. As an illustration of how unchanged the US imperial approach has been, these precise strategies were reiterated in the 2002 National Security Strategy. It was of foremost importance that “our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.” Similarly, in former Secretary of Defense William Cohen’s 1999 annual report to President Clinton, the crucial task was to “retain the capability to act unilaterally” to prevent “the possibility that a regional great power or global peer competitor may emerge” and to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.”

Maintaining global hegemony through the threat or use of military force has been the singular approach in American foreign policy, and it manifests in ugly ways. Regime changes (often just a synonym for international terrorism) in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Iraq and more are prime examples.

So to consider what US foreign policy will look like in 2019, a mere eight years from now, is really to consider how little will change. Some specifics may change, as has happened in this Arab Spring – a hated and feared development in the annals in Washington, as it signifies a potential for the policies of Middle East government’s to more closely reflect the will of the people (something national security planners have been actively preventing for decades). But the fundamentals will prove as durable as they have since WWII.

The United States will still have approximately 900 military bases in 150 countries around the world, although the numbers may increase slightly. Our army is likely to still have a presence in Iraq, and a large-scale military occupation will still be going on in Afghanistan. The likelihood of our 53,960 troops being pulled out of Germany, or the 57,586 in South Korea is next to zero. We will still be supporting tyrannies throughout the Middle East in Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and perhaps even still Egypt. We will continue to impose a power structure subservient to Washington throughout Latin America, probably fighting the same sorts of proxy wars and drug war adventures we are now. We will still have a massive military industrial complex, a sprawling and unaccountable national security state, and a foreign policy largely dictated by the powerful, with help from the banksters.

One aspect of imperial policy that looks to be changing rather rapidly, although simply upholding the same imperial approach, is air power. Increasingly, military technology has developed such that unmanned, remotely controlled aerial vehicles can bomb countries and assassinate enemies of the state without declaring war, asking the permission of Congress, or even making it public at all. Ominously, this could lead the aggressors in Washington to keep wars increasingly secret and unaccountable.

Some perceive the fall of the American Empire just around the corner, with rising powers like China presenting problems for US global hegemony. But the US domain of power is still too far-reaching. And in 2019, we can expect it to remain the most dominant – and the most violent.

A much underreported story in the press recently was the UN bombing in Abuja, Nigeria by the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram. Also known as the Nigerian Taliban, the Muslim group was founded in response to what its founders saw as the westernization of Nigeria, Islam and, specifically, education.

The event was significant in many aspects, but like so many other important global affairs, goes underreported or completely ignored.

Preliminary investigations so far have concluded the following: according to UN security chief, a bomb, probably around 100 pounds, was detonated by a suicide bomber under the reception area of the UN building, only after speeding down the “long driveway,” gathering enough speed to crash through two barriers. An unarmed guard was run over and killed after trying to flag down and stop the speeding suicide bomber. Twenty-three people were killed and seventy-three more were injured in this barbaric attack.

Alleged members of Boko Haram almost immediately claimed responsibility:

“Through the wisdom of Allah, we have launched the attack with absolute precision,” a man who identified himself as Abu Darda told a reporter in Kano on Friday. “We have said it several times that the U.N. is one of our prime targets.” Another man claiming to be a spokesman for Boko Haram, Mallam Abu Kaka, in a telephone conference call on Saturday with reporters in Maiduguri, blamed the United States. “The U.S. government has been collaborating with the Nigerian government to clamp down on our members nationwide,” he said. Both men warned that more attacks were imminent.

While it still has not been verified that those two men were Boko Haram members, Nigeria’s Department of State Services hasapparently already found the culprit:

“Investigation has revealed that one Mamman Nur, a notorious Boko Haram element with al Qaeda links who returned recently from Somalia, working in concert with the two suspects, masterminded the attack on the United Nations building in Abuja,” the Department of State Services said in a statement on Wednesday.

It did not give details of how it came to this conclusion, beyond mentioning that the two suspects in detention before the bombing, which killed 23 people, had given “valuable statements.”

“We implore … the general public to cooperate with security agencies by providing useful information that could lead to the arrest of Mamman Nur, who is hereby declared wanted,” it said.

This attack marks the first by Boko Haram against a non-Nigerian target. Typically, the group attacks police and government officials. This time, however, the group began to diversify and has gone international, in a sense. Not only has Boko Haram gone international, but they’ve struck at the core of the status quo, world order: the UN.

The international flavor that Boko Haram has all of the sudden developed a taste for, as well as their increasingly sophisticated attacks, have led some to believe that the group is in contact with or actively working with al-Qaeda. General Carter Ham, the commander of operations in Africa and, consequently, the director of the Libyan war effort, has said that he has several sources that tell him that Boko Haram has made contacts with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and al-Shabaab, the Somali Islamist group. A Nigerian diplomat in Kenya said that 19 members of Boko Haram had stayed with an al-Shabaab commander in Mogadishu in late 2010. Neither of these statements, nor the Department of State Service’s, have been corroborated or independently verified, so their veracity is in question. General Ham said of the possibility of those three groups working with one another, “I think it would be the most dangerous thing to happen not only to the Africans, but to us as well.”

Such language from high level military brass, as well as Boko Haram’s supposed affiliation with arguably the two most important terrorist groups at the moment–AQIM because of Libya and al-Shabaab because of the drought and the recent American offensive against them–are ominous signs for Nigeria. The US has shown itself to be willing to go literally anywhere if a threat against the US, real or otherwise, emerges. This is especially the case if that country happens to have valuable resources, particularly oil. Lest it’s forgotten, Nigeria is the fifth biggest exporter of oil to the United States. Boko Haram has not, however, shown a willingness to strike in the oil rich, Christian south.

The story continues to get even more interesting and is where the media has dropped the ball yet again. Tucked away in a Washington Post article is a mention of FBI agents on the ground to “assist” the investigation. Deb Maclean, the spokeswoman who came forward with this information, decided to not elaborate any further. What Maclean and the FBI call assisting has many heads in Nigeria spinning.

The Punch, “Nigeria’s most widely read newspaper,” ran a bombshell story that will undoubtedly make President Goodluck Jonathan blush:

OPERATIVES of the United States’ domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, have taken over the investigations of Friday’s bombing of the UN building in Abuja.

Sources told THE PUNCH that the FBI agents probing the bombing had sidelined investigators from the Nigeria Police and the State Security Service.

A source in one of the security agencies, who requested anonymity, said the takeover had the support of the Federal Government. The source added that the government might have lost confidence in the Police, SSS and other security agencies for their alleged failure to halt the bombings in the country.

It’s not clear whether the Nigerian government sought the help of the United States, but complaints about the competency of the State Security Service by government officials give a lot of credence to accusations by PUNCH.

Later in the article, PUNCH notes that the FBI has been involved in Nigerian investigations before, specifically from the October 1, 2010 bombings onward. A cable released by Wikileaks back in December exposed that the US had actionable intelligence concerning Boko Haram. If the US has done this before, what’s all the fuss about?

First, it appears that the US has genuinely hijacked the Nigerian led investigation of this bombing. Second, the rapid and overblown response by the US comes a mere two weeks after General Ham made apocalyptic statements about Boko Haram. And finally, the rapid conclusion reached by the Department of State Services is worthy of several questions: was this reached independent of the FBI? If not, what was the extent of American involvement? If the damning evidence was really gathered from two detainees before the attack, why was the attack not prevented? Incompetence or willful ignorance? Was it gathered through unsavory means, such as torture, or did the detainees come clean?

Many unanswered questions remain, but such heavy handed involvement by the US is a very unsettling development. Could the US be on its way to significant anti-terrorism “operations” in Nigeria, or is this just a one time thing? Only time will tell, but Nigeria and Boko Haram are certainly worth watching.

Earlier this week I reported on a US State Department diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks detailing the execution by American forces of an Iraqi family, including five children, in March of 2006. McClatchy has now written on the story and provided a photograph I thought was worth a follow up post.

The caption from McClatchy explains this is a cell phone photo  shot by an Iraqi after the incident. According to Iraqi police it depicts children executed by U.S. troops.

The individual who described the incident to Secretary of State at the time Condoleeza Rice, Philip Alston, was contacted by McClatchy:

Reached by email Wednesday, Alston said that as of 2010 — the most recent data he had — U.S. officials hadn’t responded to his request for information and that Iraq’s government also hadn’t been forthcoming. He said the lack of response from the United States “was the case with most of the letters to the U.S. in the 2006-2007 period,” when fighting in Iraq peaked.

Alston said he could provide no further information on the incident. “The tragedy,” he said, “is that this elaborate system of communications is in place but the (U.N.) Human Rights Council does nothing to follow up when states ignore issues raised with them.”

If we think these kinds of horrors never occur in Afghanistan, we’d be kidding ourselves. Furthermore, that this is coming out almost five years after the incident occurred should reveal just how negligent the news media is. Americans simply don’t have a good understanding – or any understanding – of the wars America is engaged in.

One of the many unfortunate consequences of all the breaking news from the Obama administration’s war in Libya, is that many of the details that expose the contradictions of US empire get crowded out in the media. How many know, for example, that the Bahraini Arab Spring is still in full throttle with major protests almost every day? See this al Jazeera segment on a 14 year old boy just killed when Bahraini security forces shot him in the head with a tear gas canister:

According to the New York Times, the Bahraini government is denying its security forces were even involved in today’s crackdown in Sitra that resulted in this boy’s death. They are even offering “a reward of more than $26,000 for information about those responsible for his death.”

The dead boy’s uncle, Isa Hassan, who was also at Wednesday’s morning march, described a small group of protesters assembling after morning prayers and then being confronted by the police, who fired tear gas at them from roughly 20 feet away.

“They are supposed to lob the canisters of gas, not shoot them at people,” Mr. Hassan told The Associated Press. “Police used it as a weapon.”

Surprisingly, the Times even notes the following:

Activists say that because Bahraini government is a strategic ally of the United States — the Navy’s Fifth Fleet is based there — and of Saudi Arabia, the violent suppression of protests has not received the same attention from the international community as the brutal crackdowns in Syria and, before that, Libya.

Even without the extended time on the tube taken up by Libya and Syria coverage, Western media is reluctant to cover the crimes of US allies and clients. What is absurd is that strategic concerns about “regional stability” (read: suppressing democracy in subservience to US demands) and supposed Iranian influence passes as legitimate justifications for the ongoing US support for repression in Bahrain.