Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Usama bin Laden

What is the new mission of the NATO? Who is the enemy now?

Zaki Laidi publish a French book “The World according to (President) Obama” in 8 chapters.  Among the chapter we have the following:

The heritage of Obama from the US tendencies in glorifying the market mechanism and concept of war.

The great return of realism in foreign policies and renouncement on “messianic democracy”

Exit of the ideology of September 11, 2001 and its impasse

Definitive exit from Iraq;

Leaving Afghanistan but not giving the image of fleeing this quagmire;

Without Europe?

The conclusion deals with the refusal of the US Administration of a multipolar organization and its preference for minilateralism.

This article on the North Atlantic Organization (NATO) was inspired by chapter 7 on how the US view the role of Europe in the near future in the world scene.

Two key concepts clarify the behavior of the NATO and how we may predict its evolving mission.  First, the US never felt the need to consult with any European State on any foreign activities and policies since before the WWI, and more so after WWII. Europe was to come to term that it is needed just for non-military services, supporting US decisions and activities outside its borders, based on the assumption that Europe will ultimately fall back in line with the general decisions of the US.  What is needed from the European States is coming to the rescue in matters of civil activities in invaded countries or countries planned to be preempted: Europe has more experience, knowledge, and presence since the colonial periods.

Second, Germany is never in the mood of considering Russia as an enemy.  Russia is the first trade partner to Germany since the 16th century, and more so after the fall of Berlin Wall.  Russia suffered great losses, militarily and economically, everytime it allied against Germany.  The same is true when Germany considered Russia an enemy.  After WWII, the German electorate failed any candidate who proclaimed to be allied or supporting militarily any war outside Germany borders.

After WWII in 1945, the US troops settled in Europe, mainly in Germany.  Europe was in terrible shape and the citizens suffered 5 more years of food shortage.  The US flow of investment (Marshal Plan) and money pouring in to maintaining the troops were very welcomed.  As in Japan, the US had no intention of vacating Europe:  The myth of the Soviet threat was disseminated, as if Russia, which lost over 20 million in the war and suffered more than all States combined, was in the mood of further expansion at the detriment of Europe.

The motto of Bush Jr “Either you are with us or against us” was not new, but Bush said it officially. For four decades, the US was behind all military coups in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, just to preempt any communist advances in the developing new States.

The NATO was created to “challenge” any foolishness emerging from Russia:  The US was not threatened, but fresh memories of the nasty war could be appreciated by the western European States to accepting the presence of US troops.  Things went fine till early 60’s.  The French president De Gaulle got pretty aghast with the heavy handed posturing of the US Administrations, especially after the Cuba crisis:   The US felt Europe irrelevant to share its decisions with its leaders.  De Gaulle decided to get out of NATO: France  started to manufacture its own military hardware (jet fighters and nuclear weapons…) and increased its trade and diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.

As the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the US was taken aback and a new mission for NATO was to be conceived in order for US troops to remain in Europe.  Coincidentally, the Balkan new emerging ethnics wanted independence or their own recognized State; was it coincidence?  I doubt it strongly.  The US didn’t meddle, even after tens of thousand were massacred in the former Yugoslav State.  The European States and European Union could not intervene militarily and for cause: The EU was expanding and military interventions would hamper further unification.  Finally, President Clinton decided to bomb Belgrade (Capital of Yugoslavia) as part of NATO:  the NATO found a new mission for stabilizing Europe of the violent emerging ethnic uprising.

Currently, Europe is stable but the US is trying hard to creating newer missions for the NATO.  Bush Jr. brought up the specter of Russia of Poutine because Russia didn’t join the US in invading Iraq.  Bush Jr. wanted to display ballistic missiles along the borders of Russia, just like that.  This plan was not convincing to the Europeans but Bush Jr could salvage some time to rethinking a more valid reason for NATO to stay.

For the time being, a new enemy was targeted: Iran.  The falsehood pieces of intelligence have been spread for a decade now:  Extremist Islamic Iran is about to produce an atomic bomb next week.  Iran is still importing nuclear fuel from Russia to start its nuclear energy plants.  Iran will continue to be ready to disclosing its atomic military capability, next week, until the US negotiate a satisfactory strategy with Iran! The NATO main purpose is targeting prospected Iranian nuclear missiles!

Currently, NATO discovered an urgent mission: Bombing Libya of Kadhafi, using drones, as it is doing in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  NATO is running out of excuses to remaining in Europe, as the US has no more excuses to staying in Japan.  China military and economic power is to be negotiated diplomatically, and NATO troops in Europe is too far away.

Note: The new trend for analyzing political trends of President of States is counting the frequency of key words in their official speeches.  This method may clarify the shift of emphasis in foreign policies between Bush Jr. and Barack Obama.

For example, Turkey occurred 25 times in Bush Jr.  official speeches, while reduced to 7 mentions in Obama’s.  Lebanon is no longer in Obama speeches and the words Palestine or Palestinians have increased drastically.  Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are still top on the list of frequencies.  India has increased dramatically in Obama speeches and Pakistan should increase fast after the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  Syria was not priority in Obama’s but should witness great increase very shortly.  Russia regressed to 9th place during Obama tenure.

Apache, Tomahawk… Any common relation to  Usama bin Laden?

Noam Chomsky wrote an article on his opinion for the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  I adopted the article and did a few editing and offered further opinions. Thus, Chomsky’s original article was rewritten, altered in many parts, and opinions added to coincide to my style and views. You may read the original version on

The operation for the assassination of Osama bin Laden was a planned months ago, demonstrating that the intelligence services of Pakistan, the US, and a few other nations knew the location of the symbolic Al Qaeda leader.  It appears that the US decided not to give Pakistan prior notice of the operation on its soil, though President Obama acknowledged the cooperation of Pakistan authority in his speech.  The US never desisted to multiply violating elementary norms of international law, even after the election of Barak Obama.

There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.”

In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot (blowing the Twin Towers) was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany.

What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus, President Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. Bin Laden boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

There is also much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination.

Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, Bush’s Jr. crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime , differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal), for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghanistan civilian deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There’s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the “Bush doctrine” that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk, Geronimo… (the original enemies of the USA, the original Indian tribes).

Would the US have appreciated that Germany fighter bombers, missiles, and operations…the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew”, King George, Roosevelt, and “Gypsy?”

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.

Note: You may read my post:




March 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,519,061 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 764 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: