The Return of CENTCOM

[Aria2013]

Look Aria with due apology I am really shocked by your lukewarm approach to the discussion and your participation here in these forums.

You promised that you will comment on my article Public Diplomacy but after lapse of so many days, no response from your side. Here in this thread your absence is conspicuous.

Please avail this opportunity as this site is visited by thousands of Afghans/Pashtuns and you can have a wonderful window for your public diplomacy and positive propaganda as well as creating good image of your country and organization.

After your participation you can have more viewers and readers here who will find some one to answer their questions in a real human way, in a dialog manner not just one way propaganda. This will be an ideal model for Centcom and others to engage people in real world.



Talk to your seniors to let you participate more and more with substantial stuff . Take start from the queries of Dr Abdali above, Give your comments on my article . Let the people know what are you doing in Afghanistan. Justify your presence there. Do some research and share it with us here.

As I said earlier, we will do our best to respond to all issues raised, and again, as long as it pertains to CENTCOM and is within the scope of what we can discuss here. And if there is something we cannot discuss we will let you know as well. Thanks Badlum.

Aria2013
DET-CENTCOM

"Patience is a Virtue"

[JAMALUDEEN]

man this guy is just trolling..

[randolph85]

"Patience is a Virtue"

not according to your employers

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over | World news | guardian.co.uk

[Aria2013]

Please prove it. Deeds speak louder than words.

What do you mean prove it? Prove what?

[Aria2013]

Aria,

I have some basic questions that I think a military afficionado like yourself might be able to help out with and I encourage a serious heart felt back and forth:

1) Why wont CENTCOM instead work on democratizing, occupying, and civilizing Pakistan? If the general premise that was given for the Afghan invasion and occupation was that a government sympathetic to Bin Ladin had to be done away with to avoid safe havens (i.e. our own national security goal) - has Pakistan with its various safe havens not met that criteria at this point? Moreover, when it comes to the other premise of human rights etc, once again why not utilize military force to change Pakistani society since Pakistan also meets that criteria?

2) What are your thoughts on the CIA's analysis and stated documentation that US interventionalism world round has sparked many of the qualms and attacks that have occurred? For instance, the CIA writes about blowback in the context of our government backing the brutal totalitarian Shah of Iran who gave way to the Ayatollahs due to the concept of blowback. Michael Scheuer head of Alec Station wrote his magna opus, Imperial Hubris documenting open source evidences to this effect.

A very recent example, perhaps in our own hemisphere of such actions is as follows:
In Guatamela, we backed the dictator Jose Effron Rios Montt who in turn began a campaign of brutalization and extermination of the indigenous peoples:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...os-montt-trial

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...b49_story.html

Based on the aforementioned, can you enlighten us as to why, with such a track record:
eg. the removal of Mossadegh by force in Iran, the removal of Allende by coup, the backing of Batista in Cuba, the initial buttressing of Saddam in Iraq, the backing of Mubarak and his predecessor in Egypt, Saudi Royals, now Maliki etc

The average Afghan, seeing this track record might wonder how and why Karzai is different and why his team, that you have a stake in, is better for indigenous peoples in the long run when the former dictators also infused capitalism with some degree of success coupled to dictatorial and corrupt leadership and ended up doing much wrong in the long term for their people (e.g. once again refer to Guatamala example above).

3) Regarding the successes of democracy and capitalism and what not... one of our closest allies is Saudi Arabia, a dictatorial monarchy nation state with many human rights abuses on its record. However, our military has friendly ties with Saudi and in fact buttressed and observed their troops in Bahrain suppressing democratic revolt. So with that in mind, how does CENTCOM reconcile its conflicing narrative regarding attempts to democratize and secularize Afghanistan by force but yet maintaining strong ties of friendship with Saudi Arabia? Should we not be invading and occupying Saudi Arabia for A) toppling its monarchy B) infusing the country with womens rights and C) ensuring human rights are observed?

4) The Brits also had a record of nation building projects and expressing with Kiplingesque glee about how it was civilizing the far reaching corners of the earth... yet nearly half a century after the demise of that empire we see problems world round in hot zones that were created because the British generally supplemented nation building with machinations and designs that altered regional balances in favor of perpetual war when they drew the lines that demarcated nation states. In Iraq, with the rise of Maliki and his suppression of free speech in a manner similar to that of Saddam Hussein - and the current conflageration in Libya can you address any concerns that the track record of the US is going along a british trajectory?

Barakzai Abdali,

While I do appreciate the time taken to formulate this lengthy post involving several questions and/or statements, moving forward it might be best to focus on one topic at a time. I believe this will allow for better conversation and faster response and it will be more interactive.

I think we can all agree that human history has been marred with violence. We do not say this in justification of the blood that was shed during the history of the United States. However, it’s important to stress that the comfortable majority of nations have experienced very bloody conflicts. If one narrates similar incidents to the ones described for other nations, one will inevitably see that conflict has been a prominent feature of human history.

Furthermore, it is misleading to interpret past events from a non-historical lens. You considered many conflicts the United States went through without an adequate assessment of the historical context. The U.S. is not a changeless, timeless entity. Consequently, one should not evaluate historical events from the very restricted lens of the present. Therefore, accusing today’s United States of past, possible wrongdoings is erroneous and misleading in today’s discourse. For example, today’s international affairs are hardly comparable to the world affairs that fascist, Nazi Germany existed in, and surely, aren’t analogous to the belligerence of WWI and WWII times either. Accordingly, creating a link between past events and current administrations is an inaccurate, insincere tactic many are tempted to use.

Lastly and most importantly, discussions about politics and policy, whether in Afghanistan, Guatemala or elsewhere, are simply beyond the scope of USCENTCOM. As you know, we are a military command that tries to clarify some of the misconceptions concerning our military. The apolitical nature of the U.S. military is one of the things we’re most proud of and we’d like to keep it that way.

Aria2013
DET-CENTCOM

[randolph85]

so basically you are saying because other nations have blood on their hands, the US is nothing special in this regard without answering any of barakzais points and hilariously trying to sidestep any real future debate by saying politics and policy is beyond the scope of centcom lol what the

so you won't discuss policy or politics? what else is there to talk about then? you are worthless at this point.

[Badlun]

What do you mean prove it? Prove what?

Prove that you are not trolling, spamming and just doing a copy paste but human interaction , conversation and meaningful dialog. May be at a stage negotiations with different parties.

I do appreciate your first reply to Dr Abdali and this is what I wanted as a proof.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Barakzai Abdali,

While I do appreciate the time taken to formulate this lengthy post involving several questions and/or statements, moving forward it might be best to focus on one topic at a time. I believe this will allow for better conversation and faster response and it will be more interactive.

I think we can all agree that human history has been marred with violence. We do not say this in justification of the blood that was shed during the history of the United States. However, it’s important to stress that the comfortable majority of nations have experienced very bloody conflicts. If one narrates similar incidents to the ones described for other nations, one will inevitably see that conflict has been a prominent feature of human history.

Fair enough but that doesnt excuse continuing that trend. We have information access at our very finger tips and can understand how past wrongs dont justify current ones and should not build momentum for continuing past wrongs.

Furthermore, it is misleading to interpret past events from a non-historical lens.

The events are interpreted in a historical context so thats completely a misrepresentation of discussion being had. The historical context is what matters completely and built the case for the CIA itself using the term "blowback." Rather it is you that is failing to provide the historical justification.

You considered many conflicts the United States went through without an adequate assessment of the historical context. The U.S. is not a changeless, timeless entity.

I know, its a complex society and deserves that respect any society deserves. No society deserves to be painted in one color as either Pro Terrorist or Anti Terrorist or Pro imperialism or against it. We can agree that here at home we have a wide variation of views such as those of Congressman and Dr. Paul to that of the neconservatives.

Consequently, one should not evaluate historical events from the very restricted lens of the present. Therefore, accusing today’s United States of past, possible wrongdoings is erroneous and misleading in today’s discourse.

Take up that argument with the CIA which defined blowback based on these events:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

For example, today’s international affairs are hardly comparable to the world affairs that fascist, Nazi Germany existed in, and surely, aren’t analogous to the belligerence of WWI and WWII times either.

Sure they are. Esteemed professors have written books and books on how Woodrow Wilson was the initiator of hostilities and involvements that would lead to the conditions being ripe for the rise of the Third Reich.

The McCollum Memo itself outlines how involved we would become in trying to get into the theater of war with provocations:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/McCollum_memorandum

Accordingly, creating a link between past events and current administrations is an inaccurate, insincere tactic many are tempted to use.

That is an overt attempt to extinguish discussion and divert it by not answering the facts that exist. It is clear that Kermit Roosevelt for instance overthrowing the Mossadegh government in Iran would lead to the rise of the Shah. That in turn would result in brutalization of the Iranian people and the subsequent rise of teh Ayatollah government. This in turn would lead to our being upset at the overthrow of our man the Shah and the arming to the teeth of Saddam Hussein with US arms to attack Iran. He would then turn his military in the direction of local ARab states, once again with our consent:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-wa...-glaspie/31145

This would in turn lead to global blowback and view, once the military got involved in the Saudi Kuwait conflict, that the US was there for resources and occupation. This view, secondary to blowback, has become common in the Muslim world unfortunately:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...ricara/591.php

The link above is to the most powerful polling done yet in the Muslim world:

"A study of public opinion in predominantly Muslim countries reveals that very large majorities continue to renounce the use of attacks on civilians as a means of pursuing political goals. At the same time large majorities agree with al Qaeda's goal of pushing the United States to remove its military forces from all Muslim countries and substantial numbers, in some cases majorities, approve of attacks on US troops in Muslim countries."

This would lead to the rise of the militancy that would affect the lives of millions around the world.


Lastly and most importantly, discussions about politics and policy, whether in Afghanistan, Guatemala or elsewhere, are simply beyond the scope of USCENTCOM.

I disagree. The Pentagon has been involved in Politics for generations. Most recently they attempted to politicize sequestration cuts in order to keep their bloated budget up:
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill...-pentagon-says

Eisenhower himself warned about the Military Industrial Complex and its motives:
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst3...ts/indust.html

As you know, we are a military command that tries to clarify some of the misconceptions concerning our military. The apolitical nature of the U.S. military is one of the things we’re most proud of and we’d like to keep it that way.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...ell-afghan-war

Well then Petreus should have been reprimanded not over a personal matter such as an affair, but rather over giving such wide open access and taking such advice from politicized and polarizing figures such as the Kagans who are extremist war mongering neocons and whose advice extended to matters they had no expertise in.

Aria2013
DET-CENTCOM

I do appreciate your discourse though and look forward to responses to the original questions posed since they do bear on military matters and perceptions around the world.

The other thing that pretty much destroys your argument that these are historical matters is that we continue to use the same covert military means even in the past few years. This is often in situations where it has no real bearing on our national security:

http://rt.com/news/wikileaks-venezuela-us-chavez-358/

That wikileaks documents confirms that the military industrial complex was very involved in still trying to oust Venezuala's leader even after the 2002 coup. This is problematic because it confirms suspicion of our interventionalism even in covert ways:

"In a secret US cable published online by WikiLeaks, former ambassador to Venezuela, William Brownfield, outlines a comprehensive plan to infiltrate and destabilize former President Hugo Chavez' government."

So in summary, I would accept your argument about things being history if the same modus operandi were not being used against third world countries everywhere. That makes it fair game since its the same crap being done but just a different day. This in turn renders the world a more unsafe and unstable place.

And I think Badlun, despite our disagreements, is asking the same question regarding how the utter lack of diplomacy has led to a more unstable world.

Finally many a central asian strong man and the former Mubarak were weaponized by our Pentagon selling them arms and continuing represssion on their populaces. This is something that many good Americans are against and I think that you should comment on this failing approach to using sezurainty world round and not expecting predictable blowback to occur (or at least trying to justify it).

I await your comments and look forward to a good discussion.