BANJUL, Gambia — I am neither a fan of the president of the United States – the Nobel Prize winning Barack Hussein Obama – nor am I an admirer of the Republicans. Both, often make no sense although the latter is more senseless than Mr Obama. But, I agree with Mr Obama that putting boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq against terrorism bodes more danger and costs for the United States. There is no benefit in such a plan. From a purely historical and policy point of view, there are several instances where sending troops by a foreign power to distant lands did not augur well for the invading country.
If history is therefore any measure to go by, then I think Mr Obama is absolutely right that sending troops into the Middle East again will aggravate the situation. The U.S. will most likely emerge from it with a bloody nose and its tail between its legs while failing to contain terrorism. The mere presence of U.S. forces on the ground will serve ISIS with an obviously cheap propaganda against the West. In the final analysis, ISIS will be the beneficiary.
Already there is a high level of disquiet among Middle Easterners against the West’s engagement in the region. Not least is the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Also, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the role that the West continues to play in propping up tyrannical regimes and monarchs around the region. This includes the stoking of fires in the Iraq-Iran War of the 1980s. All of which serve to generate contempt for the U.S. in the region. Following the massive failure and lies about the Iraq War which invariably led to the rise of terrorist groups and the excruciating instability of the region, a U.S. comeback will only give rise to more discomfort that can only turn into more terrorism, thus endangering not just the U.S. and the West but also the rest of the world.
To understand why it would be disastrous, one needs to look into history itself. There have been many instances where powerful nations have sent forces to another country to seek and contain rebels only to fail. While ISIS is not a nationalistic or liberation army like many of the examples cited below, the character and nature of the actors and circumstances are very close to a revolutionary army, hence the need for sober reflection.
No one should be fooled and become ignorant of the fact that ISIS and like-minded groups in Nigeria, Somalia, Mali and Libya pose a clear and present danger to all humanity. The attacks in San Bernardino, Paris, Nairobi, Garissa, Sharma el-Sheikh, Bamako, Tunis, London, Nigeria, Syria and Iraq show that the world is increasingly becoming more and more dangerous.
The History
In 1801, in the midst of the Haitian Revolution, French despot Napoleon sent 31,000 troops into a tiny island to suppress the demand for freedom by enslaved Africans led by their leader, the gallant Toussaint l’Overture. By this invasion, liberation forces of Haiti stood their ground and eventually crushed the French into defeat within two years.
In 1935, the Italian Fascist pig Mussolini deployed over 500,000 troops into Ethiopia in an attempt to control and exploit that last remaining bastion of African dignity. Under the leadership of Emperor Haile Selassie, the Abyssinians were able to repel the Italians within one year.
We see a similar scenario in Vietnam when the ever-belligerent French State deployed more than 20,000 troops into Vietnam to contain the Viet Minh revolutionary forces in 1954. Under the leadership of Gen. Nguyen Giap, considered one of the finest military strategists of all time, French forces were treated to a cool but humiliating defeat at Dien Bien Phu. This was the incident that opened the floodgates for the full Vietnam War in which the U.S. became the main aggressor from 1959 to 1975. With over 500,000 U.S. troops sent to Vietnam over the period, Washington suffered a spectacular defeat despite the deceptive war movies produced and circulated around the world by Hollywood seeking to showcase and celebrate U.S. military prowess that never existed.
Furthermore, in 2003 the U.S. supported by the United Kingdom, Australian and Poland initially led an invasion to oust the government of Saddam Hussein on the pretext that the Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. This was a lie. With combined forces of more than 500,000 troops the so-called Coalition of the Willing flushed out the Iraq leadership, but were not able to establish a comfortable system of governance and stability in that country.
The Fallout of that invasion did not only lead to the emergence of ISIS, but also it continues to generate calls for the arrest and trial of President George W. Bush of the U.S., Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK and their officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during and after the war. While the U.S. presence served to oust Saddam completely, it produced a situation that has become a greater danger to global security.
Finally, we have also seen how the former USSR sent boots into Afghanistan to prop up an unpopular government that was aiming to modernize the country and wrest it from feudalists and Islamists who had formed formidable insurgent groups such as the Mujahedeen and later the Taliban. Ironically these rebel groups were supported by the U.S. and its Western and Gulf States allies. The fact is that these rebels they supported are the forbears of present-day ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
In his book, ‘New Rulers of the World,’ John Pilger noted that these insurgents, which became known as the Taliban, were being formed, trained and supported by the U.S. under the Carter Administration almost 6 months before the Soviet invasion. At its peak the Soviet Union had over 100,000 forces in Afghanistan, yet the huge communist state had its only defeat after 9 years of an atrocious presence in that country. It is instructive to remember that those rebel forces that the U.S. supported against the Soviets and the Afghan government at the time are the very ones that became the architects of violent extremism and global terrorism as we witness today.
Way Forward
In light of the foregoing, one must therefore be completely weary of any idea that seeks to send foreign soldiers into this region. One useful lesson that must be learned is the case of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in which both the U.S. and the former USSR stood at opposing ends of the conflict. The effect of their opposing positions in that conflict resulted in the creation of terrorist groups today.
There appears to be a similar case unfolding in Syria today where the U.S. is again propping up and training and supporting rebel forces against the Head of State of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, while at the same time, the Russians have come in to support Mr Assad. This is the very scenario that happened in Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989. Thus, if the U.S. sends forces to fight ISIS, and along with it seek to oust Bashar, while Russia is there to support Bashar and purportedly to fight ISIS as well as U.S. – supported rebel groups, we may therefore see new forms of terror groups emerge, as has happened before. This could produce new forms of threats around the world. Obama therefore is absolutely right that there should not be U.S. forces in Syria or Iraq.
I would add though, that ultimately, even airstrikes and other forms of war should be abandoned in the region. What is necessary is that the U.S., Russia and Iran all need to withdraw from Syria so that the United Nations can institute a ceasefire. This will help bring Mr. Assad to a negotiation table for a smoother transition. Syria can be held under UN and GCC leadership to ensure return of refugees, reconstruction, demobilization, reconciliation, voter registration and elections eventually. This is to say that a political solution is the only option that can bear fruits for all and eventually stabilize the region.
Exception
However, in the event that the belligerent forces on all sides are not going to ceasefire and withdraw, then the U.S. can only defeat ISIS and terrorists provided there is an absolute coalition comprising the U.S., the EU, Russia and Iran with a common strategy and direction. This brings to mind lessons of the Second Imperialists War (otherwise know as WWII) in which there was indeed the Allies comprising the U.S., the USSR and most of Europe against Germany and Japan. Even China was in the camp of the Allies to fight off an obnoxious ideology – Nazism or Fascism of the Germans, Italians and the Japanese – which is more or less similar to ISIS ideology today.
Unless such a strategy is coordinated, a single or a few countries cannot send in forces into Syria and hope to defeat ISIS. The current strategy where major players are clearly on a collision course further complicates this plan. For example, within the NATO camp, it is clear that Turkey has ulterior motives just as the U.S., France and the UK have underhanded objectives. The Russians also have a different agenda from Iran.
Certainly Iran is more inclined towards Russia. This is a recipe for disaster if the U.S. is to send in troops, because NATO will not only seek to exterminate ISIS, it will also target the Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad. This will create a theater of chaos where the actors may go as far as employing Hezbollah, and eventually Israel and possibly the Gulf States.
In light of the foregoing, U.S. boots on the ground should be considered a non-starter.
Consider: US troops remained in Germany after WWII and Germany became the strongest economy in Europe. US troops remained in Japan and Japan became the strongest economy in Asia. US troops removed and Japan has slipped to number 2. US troops remained in Korea and South Korea became one of the strongest economies in Asia. President Obama pulled troops out of Iraq and ISIS filled the vacuum as the Iraqi government fell apart.
Or we could say US and Russian presence in Asia created North Korea and South Korea and the war between them. US presence in Afghanistan against Russia strengthened the Mujahideen which gave rise to Al-Qaeeda, and indirectly Al-Shabab and Boko Haram. US invasion of Iraq gave birth to ISIS. And US support of Saudi Arabia strengthens Wahabism the mother ideology of Islamic fundamentalism in the Arab World @ Dick Fox
The difference between fact and speculation.
I agree, and you are the one in bed with speculation. You may want to listen to this video where even Hillary Clinton admits US role in the funding of the Mujahideen that later became Al-Qaeeda under Osama Bin Laden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw
I don’t doubt Hillary funded the Al-Qaeeda. Giving weapons to the Mujahideen to defeat the Soviet Union is a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That is much different from giving weapons to Mexican drug dealers to kill their own people and US border agents which she and President Obama did with Fast and Furious, or brokering weapons to Syrian terrorists and getting a US ambassador killed.
Dick Fox, your worldview needs lot of augmenting to enable an informed debate between you and me. Trump – like analysis is worse than burying one’s head in the sand. It means one has decided to condone and perpetuate injustice and ignoring human values. Hitler did not have to murder. Japan had no right to pillage neighbours. Portugal or Spain or UK or France or Belgium had no right to enslave or colonise anyone. America did not have to invade Vietnam or Korea or prop up tyrants. One cannot impose your own reality on another person yet blame that person for reacting in the way he or she sees fit. That’s victimising the victim. It smacks of racism. Bigotry. Inhuman. By your speculation you dehumanise the world.
Madi Jobarteh I appreciate what you are saying but your article was all speculation and hypothesis. All I did was state facts. The reason I stated these facts is because the discussion was one-sided. The US has done awful things but the US has also done more good things than any country in history. When you get into trying to one-up a position is futile because all governments and movements have good and bad. I would never justify the bad the US has done with the good it has done. The bad is bad and the good is good. But bias is easily perpetuated without critical thinking.
Dick Fox Are you therefore seeking that we better the bad that the US has done? You did not give facts. You merely went on a wild day dream of Ifs….. US like any other government is supposed to do good and only good. Period. Government is not created to be allowed to do either good or bad. If it does good that is indeed the sole purpose of government. But when it does bad it must be held to account. I can tell you that the most organized and empowered and powerful institution in any society is the government. The government is so empowered that it has no excuse to make a mistake. But governments misconduct because you have men and women in it who decide to distort and abuse the power and function of government. These are the people in charge of government who must be held to account in order to cleanse the governance environment. By your argument, it means you are seeking non-accountability and perpetuation of violence and injustice. Dick, in such environment rest assured you may not live your full human capacity and long life. Not just the US government but all governments can list a number of good things they have done. But none can justify a single bad thing. I cannot be cool with such government.
Made Jobarteh you speak of a fantasy world. You cannot name any government that always does good and as a matter of fact most governments do more bad than good. Politicians are sinful human beings who use their power to enrich themselves. The US is different in that it is a liberal constitutional democratic republic that has the institutions to correct the bad. Other systems of government require a violent revolution to correct the bad. At times, especially on Facebook we must be general because there is not room to totally explore a proposition. I will give you more detail concerning anything you want to discuss as best i can.
Dick, I look forward to your detail… I am not saying any government always does good. Certainly not. What i am saying is that the purpose of a government is to do good. But government is handled by individuals and many of these people in their various areas of responsibility and by the powers vested in them abuse their power and responsibilities to transform a government into to serve their selfish interests. I am surprised that you want to cleanse the US Govt as innocent and better as if there exists no politicians (whom you say are sinful) in Washington! This is far from the truth. Probably the government that has perpetuated the most crimes both against its own citizens and the rest of the world, particularly Africa is the US Government. When you provide your detail, I can show you also that the corruption, criminality and violence that the US Government has committed against its citizens and the rest of the world in the past 238 years.
Madi Jobarteh Perhaps you misread my post. Here is my quote, “The US is different in that it is a liberal constitutional democratic republic that has the institutions to correct the bad. Other systems of government require a violent revolution to correct the bad.” I am glad that you recognize that all governments tend to be bad. I got the feeling from your first post that you felt the US was bad while others were good. My point with my post is that the US system of a liberal, constitutional, democratic republic is designed to recognize the bad and allow the people to correct the problems. This is significantly different from governments that are totalitarian in nature.
You forget the American Civil War – that was a violent revolution. Was it not? You forget the Civil Rights Movement some 100 years later – Selma, Montgomery, Memphis, etc. These were violent times in America. Were they not? You see, Dick Fox, I often conveniently ignore this kind of misinformation, unless of course I can give it some prophetic direction. So here is your Orwellian interpretation. If all others accepted this lie you’ve imposed here—if all records told the same tale—then your lie passed into history will become the truth. Would it not? You, like America, like to control the past, ran the Party slogan, and control the future. All that you needed in order to misinform was an unending series of victories over your own memory of the facts of the past. But I see that memory is heavily white-washed as well, since all you see in American History, are Whites. Not African Americans, not Native Americans, not Mexicans. Right! The Norm for you is White. So why face this fact – America’s violent history, America’s uncouth culture of brutality – genocides, slavery, Jim Crow, mass incarceration – in the midst of what you call “a liberal constitutional democratic republic.” Yah, right!
Akosua M. Abeka Yes the US had a Civil War. That was a huge part of the making of our liberal, constitutional, democratic, republic. Slavery was opposed to the very founding of the United States and a majority of the delegates acknowledged that by including provisions to end it. The US is the only country in the world that fought a civil war to end slavery. There are countries in Africa who still practice slavery not to mention radical Islam. You also ignore that each of the incidents you brought up were corrected. They are mistakes from the past. Has Ghana made mistakes? Has Nigeria made mistakes? Did Spain and France make brutal mistakes in Mexico? But through it all the US has come out the strongest country in the world. The US is not strong because of race or evil policies such as the Democrat Party’s Jm Crow laws. The US is strong because of the foundation of freedom of the individual that is still being attacked by autocratic government. The citizens of the US will constantly struggle to correct the wrongs committed by evil men. But that is the foundation of the American system. When nations have adopted governments that respect the individual, whether Communist China or Fascist Chile, the people experience more freedom and that leads to more prosperity. It is this foundation for liberty and freedom that the US has brought to the world, not evil. Then countries of the world can find their evil all by themselves.
Dick Fox I did not misread you and certainly you did not still give any detail. The democratic liberalism you claim for the US is not peculiar to Washington alone. In fact in the hierarchy of democratic states the US will not feature in the top. Secondly the democratic liberalism in the US is a distortion, skewed in favour it’s European population against all others. The evidence is clear. In fact just a few months ago a university in the US has described America as an oligarchy following a survey. Thus there is nothing exceptional about America other than its incredible consistency of unleashing violence and discrimination against other non – European populations. Again the evidence is clear and incontrovertible. In the arena of justice and democracy, the US has no place to claim. It is a hotbed of injustice and inequality. The facts are there if you care to know. See this site – http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Madi Jobarteh The US was never founded as a democracy. The American Founding Fathers feared democracy because of the sinful nature of man. The study by these leftist academics is flawed from the beginning because their assumption is that socialist democracy is better than a republic and that it is even possible. Socialist democracy inherently morphs into a totalitarian state, either totalitarian oligarchy or dictatorship. A republic does tend more toward oligarchy than pure democracy but that is the intention. Dictatorial oligarchy leads to the rule of man over the rule of law. A republic leads to rule of law over the rule of man. On a scale where total oligarchy is on one side and pure democracy on the other, most countries are much closer to oligarchy than the US. But I will confess that the political powers of totalitarian oligarchy have done their damage to the US. I can only hope that our people are effective in resisting the confiscation of our freedom.
Dick Fox you just confirmed the study in your last sentence in spite of your gymnastic analysis in the preceding sentences. Contrary to your misconceived analysis the Founding Fathers wanted real democracy but only for White People. Their intentions are well articulated in the Declaration of Independence. When they spoke of British tyranny against them yet they refused to acknowledge slavery and the confiscation of Indian lands as tyranny. In fact the Founding Fathers spoke of Indians as savages while it made no mention of Blacks in the entire Declaration. So Dick we are very clear about issues and no amount of your effort can distort the reality. The Founding Fathers wanted democracy for themselves but not for others. That is the incontrovertible fact.
Madi Jobarteh you need to study the history of the United States Constitution. It would open your eyes. There are many things that were not mentioned in the Constitution. That does not mean they were not part of the debate. Article I Section 2 limited the South from increasing their representation in congress by owning slaves. It also defined slaves as persons not property. Article 1 Section 9 set a deadline for the importation of slaver off 1808. Article IV Section 2 did establish that fugitives from slave states who entered free states were to be returned to the slave state but again it recognized personhood. Now what has to be understood is that while the US struggled with how to create a country and deal with slavery every country in Africa still practiced slaver when the US Constitution was ratified. Africa was the hotbed of slavery and Muslims were the primary traders. Any condemnation of the US demands a condemnation of African countries and peoples. But the US constitution allowed for the abolition of slavery and that was done. Africa still has slave states and Muslims are still the primary traders.
Lol. Dick Fox I admire your ability at generating confusion. That Africa you mention is not a single political entity as the United States. Secondly we are talking about a single country, the US in terms of its legal and institutional setup. Thirdly I am not defending any African or Muslim state or laws. Fourthly I am very au fait with the history of the US. Your arguments just now only confirms the racist nature of the US setup. For your information, Slavery is illegal in all independent African states. Secondly slavery in African communities was not chattel. It was part of the caste system. It is very different from the Atlantic Slave Trade and chattel slavery in the US. Just like Europeans, Arabs had earlier enslaved Africans and racist ideology was infused with Islam to justify that. I hold no brief for slavery in any society and at any time and regardless of the type. Thus I condemn human slavery in all its forms – in Africa or elsewhere. Let’s be clear on that. So do not try to divert and confuse matters. By law and practice the US is a racist society. Prove this wrong.
Madi Jobarteh I am continually amazed at your lack of education. Mauritania had absolute no limits on slavery until 1981. At that time there was a Presidential decree issued but no formal law, so slavery continue to be practiced. In 2007 a law was passed that allowed the prosecution of slave traders but did not outlaw slavery. Estimates are that 17% of the population are slaves and there are active organizations fighting the practice. Mauritanian law requires the slave to file suit against the slave holder. One of the justifications of the slave trade in Mauritania is slavery is a natural order of the society. Classifying slavery may make you feel better when talking about your ancestors but slavery is slavery, just as a dead man killed by an knife is just as dead as one killed by a gun. What I would like to suggest to you is that we stop fighting one another, we both oppose slavery, and start fighting those who continue slavery. There is Islamic slavery in Africa, the middle east and Asia. Slaves are transported all over the world, especially sex slaves. In Asia young boys and young girls are taken before puberty and forced into the trade. It is easy to oppose things in the past or things others have done, but the important work is to oppose it today and do something about it.
Dick, you are quite a juggernaut of history. Your selective memory of history, which was noxious, was what everyone here questioned. No one has said, Africa (if we can even combine some 3,450 Traditional African States and Kingdoms together) was the beacon of Civilization in this Century or the former. Your claim of a Benevolent America that is spreading Freedom and Democracy is what was brought into question. We are not stooped in as much Ignorance as to forget what happened here or even, what we did to ourselves. No. So, stop deviating from the subject. Neither are we running around the world causing trouble – funding revolutions (Nicaragua, Cuba), arming thieves (IS or ISIL), supporting despots (Saudi Arabia). We are no Black Angels of God, pouring the oil of Godliness and Riches on anyone. But we are far from the White Devil that the US is. I have called the integrity of America into question. I will continue to assert that your belief in a beacon of Democracy that is America is both baleful and baneful. The internecine history of the American Empire is not on your side. To turn this back to blaming Africans is as usual the typical Orwellian tactic. Whenever we point to your faults, you refuse them. You turn and paint us as a big part of your faults. Whenever African Americans in America call for Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights, America turns back and blames them for not taking Personal Responsibility. So I ask, when will America itself, the Richest Nation in the world, take some Personal Responsibility? For all we see, from here, is a simple tale: America is the scourge of the Earth. The world would have been better off had it not existed, at all! That is indefatigable, whether you like it or not. But, of course, your monomania can be expected – you’ll cry foul and point the finger again at Africa. Mauritania? You forgot the history of that nation, once a shining Berber Kingdom (2BC – 9AD), which was later ravaged by the Almoravids, the Yemeni Maqil Arab invaders and then the French. You forget that Daddah (1960 – 78) was originally installed by the French who used nothing but Bribery to sow condescension. That slavery was brought there by people who had come to Africa to learn the essence of civilization. The record is clear: Every single time we open the eyes of savages, they come and invade us. Even in this conversation, every single time your eye is opened to a fact of history, you come back to invade us with turbulent non-factual ideology. This has been your philosophy since the beginning. It is nihilty that rules your perspective, nothing substantial. You have no history, lest an understanding of it; what you have is essentially a phantasmogoria set to history.
Akosua M. Abeka You are missing the point. I am saying do not put your faith or your blame in an amoral entity such as nation. It is people who are the most important resource and asset. There is much to blame the United States for, but I have demonstrated that such blame can go against anyone. But it is the ideal of liberty and freedom that is important. Socialism looks to the state and that is foolish because the despots use the state. The state must only be a tool to empower the people. Do not let you praise or blame get misdirected.
Dick Fox. Are you implying some form of causation that when US troops remain in a country, the economy of that country gets stronger? And then you add that because President Obama pulled troops out of Iraq he actually initiated the growth in strength and the formation of ISIS? This is typically Orwellian. This is Doublethink, Reality Control. You know the truth and you do not know the truth. You are conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies. And you hold simultaneously the two opinions which cancel out! You know what you speak of is contradictory to the reality of US, Israeli, NATO imperialism, but you believe in the contradiction and the truth. You use logic against logic, you repudiate morality while laying claim to it, you believe that democracy and economic growth are impossible without the US and that the US is the guardian of democracy. You forget whatever it is necessary to forget, and you draw it back into memory again at the moment when you need it, and then promptly you forget it again, and above all, you apply the same process to the process itself—this is the ultimate subtlety: consciously you induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, you become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word “doublethink” involves your use of doublethink.
Akosua M. Abeka You need to think practically rather than psychologically and mystically. When the US defeated Germany and Japan in WWII they allowed the two countries to develop their own governments. The presence of the US military was to provide law and order as the nations recovered and developed workable governments dedicated to liberty and freedom. The same thing happened with South Korea. Because of the presence of the US military North Korea was not a threat. This allowed the South Koreans to develop a free market system that made them one of the greatest economic powers in the world. The same could have happened in Iraq. A democratic government was beginning to develop in Iraq, but President Obama pulled out the US military and the security was removed. The vacuum was then filled by totalitarian forces that took land and assets by force. Productive resources were destroyed; there was no rule of law nor was there preservation of property rights. This could have been prevented if the US military had not been removed. Where you make your error in reason above is to forget that the greatest resource any country has is its citizens. But the citizens cannot produce and innovate in an atmosphere of thievery and violence. Germany, Japan, and South Korea are totally different societies but each is hugely productive in its own way. Yet they are not at all colonies of the US. They are independent productive countries even with the presence of the US military (because of). Contrast that to the chaos in Iraq. It is obvious to a reasonable person that security and safety allows production while violence and disruption destroys production. Examples of security leading to prosperity can be seen throughout history and throughout the world. It is chaos that is the enemy of peace and prosperity and our world is currently in chaos because of lack of leadership and security.
You know too well that the United States did not defeat Germany and Japan. You know that, right? The Allied Forces defeated the Axis Powers in WWII. The Soviet Union was marshalling the Allied Forces towards Nazi defeat since June 1941 before the United States joined, perhaps out of fear of a Soviet world domination, in December 1941. Let’s please get the facts of history straight. I have little patience for revisionist history. Japan was well defeated, the Soviets were moving in, way before America committed the most atrocious War Crime in human history – Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These are facts, contrary to what you’d like us to believe.
So tell me Dick Fox, if the US was so compassionate, helping nations regroup from the war, why didn’t the ‘Almighty Benevolent America’ do the same for African states, or for their own citizens – African Americans? Nkrumah attended two universities in Philadelphia. Nnamdi Azikiwe of Nigeria, the same. Why didn’t America after the Independence of these nations commit to building up and advancing the economies of African States?
After Europe and the United States had plundered African Wealth for centuries, used African and African American troops in WWII, your kindly America was still somehow stooped in the barbarism of pillaging African Wealth and Resources. No? Even after the Cold War, your America still had a chance. But, I guess they were used to shirking any sense of morality or responsibility when it comes to Africa and African Americans! Your wonderful America is on record for invading many African and Caribbean nations and treating these nations like they were plantations. Or? This too I see, your view of history is completely and utterly white-washed. You don’t see Africa, and you definitely don’t see African Americans in any rendition of the historicity of the material culture of the America you so paint as so giving.
Hence, this wet dream of yours needs to be put in the proper perspective. This America you so believe in is the giver of chaos that is the enemy of peace and prosperity of the world Africans and African Americans live in today. It is exactly through American leadership and insecurity that we face instability in the world today. Contrast this chaos in a world before Columbus! It is obvious to a reasonable person that American security and safety only allows their agents around the world to produce the violence and disruption necessary for maintaining the most heartless Empire the world would ever know. This is fact. Not myth!
Akosua M. Abeka Nothing in your post is about the topic at hand. Germany, Japan, and Korea needed security after their countries were devastated. By leaving troops in these countries the US provided that security. In 2007 President George Bush spent many speeches explaining what would happen if the US abandoned its support for security and freedom in the middle east. And sadly he described the middle east as it became under the policies of President Obama and this was 2 years before Barak Obama was elected president. President Bush’s predictions have been proven frighteningly accurate and the whole world is less secure. https://www.facebook.com/TheCSConservative/videos/1019404614747006/?pnref=story
Dick Fox. Perhaps I need to spell it out completely. I said: “It is obvious to a reasonable person that American security and safety only allows their agents around the world to produce the violence and disruption necessary for maintaining the most heartless Empire the world would ever know.” Again, any reasonable person can see that Germany (in fact, all of Europe) had to be quickly developed to contain The Soviet Union. Remember that West Germany was the project – not all of Germany. This is fact once again. You are misinforming once again. Now, Japan was quickly developed to contain both China and The Soviets. That is also fact – another correction to your misinformation. Still, South Korea (not Korea) was needed to form a counterweight to North Korea. Yet another correction to your misinformation. So, everywhere you look, America only builds counterforces to challenge other players on the Geopolitical stage. There is absolutely no benevolence in this. There is absolutely no posture for the security and freedom of the world. Only domination, at any costs. These are the facts. Otherwise, you would see the U.S. cleaning its own house first. That is, the Freedom and Security demanded by African Americans in their own country. Otherwise, America would have taken African Development also seriously. But America has no interests in Africa because The Soviets are not at the doorsteps of African states. Now, the Chinese are, and we have seen American Troop movement in Africa. As for Iraq, only the supporters of this Jewish-American Hegemony don’t see through the Hypocrisy. Which is okay. The Orwellian reality of the American citizenry is nonetheless stupefying. America has been run over by Jews (Ken O Keefe, who was a Marine by the way). The plan to bulkanize the Middle East and place Israel as the controlling power over the region is still in play. We know. it’s not even news anymore. But call it conspiracy as you like. The fact still remains, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq have never been a threat to America nor to Israel. Iran by the way has had a better Human Rights record than the Jewish State of Israel. If your America was in fact benevolent, Libya wouldn’t be what it is today. You know why America hasn’t invested in Libya in the same way you claim it did in Japan, West Germany and South Korea? Libya is not important. It only helps, in its present state, to fuel the growth of ISIS, which America and the Jewish State of Israel actually want in order to forge a concerted war on Islam and the Middle East – and bulkanize it. This is all that it is. We all know the facts. So, why spend your time trying in futility to rewrite History?
Akosua M. Abeka No your diatribe is not at all obvious. It is false as proven by the fact that every time a nation or people get into trouble they always cry out to the US to solve their problems.
Dick Fox. I do not remember The Soviets calling on the US to help defeat the Nazis who had in fact encircled the Russians in a single city in the middle of winter. I do not recall the Asantes of Ghana, or Dahomey, calling on the US to help defeat the British or the French. I do not recall Haiti calling on the US in 1804 to expel French slave-owning savages and Napoleon’s Army. I do not recall Rwanda calling on the US to help them reach their current state of development. I do not recall Cuba calling on the US. I do not recall Libya calling on the US. I can go on, and on. In all these cases, the US has been part of the aggression if not the aggressor. Or, the US has stood idly by. The alternative history you are telling is entirely the one you force on poor American citizens in American public schools. No one takes that bait. This alternative history that you are so fond of is the one that is forced down the throats of Europeans in school. I have lived on both of those continents and that amnesia of historical events is well-placed within a violent colonizing global hegemony that is putting the world at risk for the first time in the history of humanity. Come to think of it, Africa, which had dominated geopolitics for millennia, had never put the world in this jeopardy. But inside the American Orwellian psychiatry, you believe the American-Jewish Party Slogan. I am deeply sorry, your Matrix is not at all-encompassing. The Rabbit Hole ends right here, where the rest of the world believes in facts, not myths!
Madi’s analysis is excellent! The historical context is obvious but I feel Madi has unearthed a profound issue in world politics today. The powers that be – the US, the EU, Russia – have spawned the Terrorism that puts the world in danger today. These people have put the world in jeopardy no matter where you look. It’s amazing. And then they call themselves ‘civilized’. Civilized indeed!
Akosua M. Abeka I will only comment on one thing in your post. You do realize that the Soviet Union was allied with Germany at the beginning of WWII?
And what would Dick Fox say about the 1938 Anglo-Nazi agreement that the British PM brought back to London. When Hitler gobbled up Checkoslovakia, the west was okay with it. So the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939 was no different. Let us not get into the Dulles brothers and Prescott Bush financing of the nazis.
They wanted to use Hitler as the hammer against the Soviet Union. Even in the last days of the war, powerful western elements were negotiating with “moderate” nazis to turn the shattered German military machine allied with the west against the Soviets. And the last time I checked, who planned operation unthinkable and later operation dropshot to nuke the Soviet Union killing millions of civilians. It was the so called democracies ruled by the one percenters.
Gbemela Kobla history has judged the Anglo-Nazi agreement British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who waved the agreement and claimed “pease in our time” is the most reviled PM in British history. That is what I say to that agreement. But that was an agreement in an attempt to prevent war. If failed. The 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop was hugely different from the idiocy of Chamberlain. The treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland into German and Soviet “spheres of influence.” It was essentially an agreement between Russia and Germany to take Europe for themselves. It is very ignorant to try to draw parallels between the two.
Then what about the Berlin conference to carve up Africa or the Skyes-Picot agrreement to carve up the provinces of the Ottoman empire.
Dick Fox The time has passed. The era of paternalism is over. You cannot impose your narrative on Africans anymore. As Nkrumah said a new African is on the stage. We know that the US in particular is the leading nation responsible for perpetuating Apartheid in South Africa. The evidence is there. You cannot cleanse America and Europe. You have wreaked so much havoc and injustice onto yourselves and the rest of the world and on Africa in particular that you should just shut up by now. You are still talking and playing because Africa is still hijacked by its immoral leaders in cahoots with the West. Liberation will come sooner than later. Surely it will be a new day indeed. Am done.
“We have escaped like a bird from the snare of the White Fowler; the snare of whiteness and racism have been broken, and we have escaped.” ~ Pslam 124:7 (The African Standard Bible).
Gbemela Kobla The agreements to carve up Africa and the middle east were generally awful and the world is still suffering the consequences.
Concerning the Berlin Conference there was one good consequence. Wikipedia states it, “To gain public acceptance the conference resolved to end slavery by African and Islamic powers. Thus, an international prohibition of the slave trade throughout their respected spheres was signed by the European members. Because of this point the writer Joseph Conrad sarcastically referred to the conference as “the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs” in his novella Heart of Darkness.” But all other provisions were a reflection of the imperialism of the time and were awful.
The Skyes-Picot agrreement was totally different. The Ottomans were a regime of conquest and war. Islam took over the Turks in 1299 and began to expand militarily. The Ottoman conquests took in most of the Mediterranean basin and the primary industry was piracy, thievery, and extortion. This led to most of the European states paying bribes to protect their commerce in the Mediterranean and off north Africa. It is interesting that the first “war” the US actually declared was against the north African Barbary state in the empire.This was because US ships were being seized and plundered and those on the ships taken into slavery. This is the background of the Skyes-Picot agreement. The Ottomans began losing their empire when the Europeans began to strike back. With the advent of WWI the Ottomans saw the possibility of once again conquering the land so they joined Germany.
The Skyes-Picot agreement was in large part the breaking up of the Ottoman dictatorship so that they could not wage war against Europe and the people of the middle east. The agreement was a farce because it was a continuation of 19th Century colonialism and created unnatural protectorates for the French and British which they exploited. We are still suffering from the inability of the Allies to give the people who has suffered so much under the Ottomans their freedom and independence. Thanks for the questions.
Madi Jobarteh Nkrumah was a very important and significant leader in Africa. His only problem was that he allowed himself to be carried away by socialism and did not understand the importance of the individual. He taught African nations that they could stand on their own and that was important. Africa needed to resist the destructiveness of colonialism. But African nations are still suffering under the yoke of big government socialism, often falling into dictatorship. The important thing now for Africa is to give freedom to the people of the countries of Africa. The people are the real treasure that is too often being plundered by demagogues, much as by the colonial powers. As you so wisely note the people of the African nations must understand that the time has passed. They must leave recriminations behind them and become the great people they can be. They must stop blaming others and take responsibility for themselves. The greatness of the United States is its ideal of liberty and freedom and that speaks to the future.
Dick, with all due respect, I do not need your analysis and opinion about Kwame Nkrumah. I already know that Nkrumah was and is right and one day Africa will have no choice but to follow his path to development and empowerment. Nkrumah was not bogged down by any ‘isms and schisms’ as he said, he faces neither West nor East, he faces Forward. It was the US Govt, once again that did all it could to stifle the progress of a people who are conscious of what they needed to do. The path Nkrumah laid was the path that any developed society had taken to get its people out of poverty and create wealth and development. Nkrumah spoke of socialism in very clear terms and was more than conscious of the fact that Ghana, and Africa had to industrialize. In this project he understood that the State has to be key player given the circumstances but also private initiative and capital is fundamental. Thanks to misguided Ghanaian intellectuals like JB Danquah and the entire arsenal of the West led by the US and UK, Nkrumah was severely derailed and maligned. Records are there to show that George Washington or Abraham Lincoln is not more democratic than Nkrumah. We know the intrigues and schemes launched by the West to once again assault innocent people seeking to be themselves. The victims are many… Nkrumah. Cabral. Lumumba. Toure. Nyerere. African People. I refer you to former CIA man John Stockwell’s ‘In Search of Enemies’.
Madi Jobarteh I simply do not accept your basic assumption, that the western nations are more powerful than the African nations and therefore have been able to keep them down. The nations of Africa have been unable to become independent not because of the US or UK but because they refuse to allow their people liberty and freedom to produce and to benefit from that production. Socialism has become such a huge part of Africa that the people look to the state rather to themselves for solutions. Ghana is a great society because it became one of the most free societies. If African nations develop governments that empower individuals Africa will rule the world. My comments about Nkrumah were not to lecture you but to let you know that I understand him and respect him. You are free to believe what you want. But Nkrumah was wrong to empower the state in an attempt to compete with already developed countries. He did not understand that the state by its very nature cannot do gain and loss calculations so important to investment and production. This is what African countries need to understand. He took step one. Now we need to see step two.
Dick Fox you got it all wrong. If you wish to focus on the surface and therefore conclude based on your own premises, you are free to do that. But that is far from the truth. It is very evident that in spite of the general leadership challenges of Africa, the West continues to deliberately and purposefully interfere and derail African progress. The examples are many Dick. Even before he assumed office Belgium for example was already working to cut Lumumba dead. US had by then already sent in poison to kill him. France had printed fake currencies and circulated it into the Guinean economy in order to damage the Toure regime. This is different from various invasions launched against Guinea. Such examples are numerous. The West had colonised Africa in such a way that it intentionally ensured that all capacities for self rule was destroyed and this explains the kind of leadership that took over from colonial governors. It is easy to look into the face of Africa today and jeer at her. But while we bear responsibility ultimately for our actions and decisions and lives yet we are conscious of the fact that poor leadership in Africa is intricately linked to Western interference in pursuit of their interests.
So once again you hold to the mantra that Africa is failing because they cannot compete with the west. That is what I am trying to fight against. The African people are as good as any people in the world. They are not over powered by the west/ Empower your people. Blame may be the hit of the pity party but it does nothing for liberty and prosperity.
Dick Africa is still beset by poor leadership because primarily our people are still undergoing colonial education from kindergarten to university. This is why our intellectuals and leaders are still so impotent as to imagine freedom and just development for our people. Among us such people as Nkrumah had obtained mental liberation very early to realize that we have to chart our own path. These are the kinds of leaders the West have also destroyed. But the West was willing to protect such other leaders like Mobutu as long as possible because those leaders served their interests. This is why your argument that sought to see only pessimism in Africa is unfair and uninformed.
No. Dick Fox am not saying that. Certainly we can compete and lead like any other. I am fighting against the misconceived idea that Africa is weak because of Africans. Period. No. Our current state of affairs is far more complex than that.
Madi Jobarteh I don’t disagree with your posts above. I do still believe that there needs to be a fundamental change in the concept that socialism is the answer and everyone should rely on the state. The important thing is to empower the people not the state. Currently the US is going through the same problems. There are many who want to empower the state and others who want to empower the people. It is a struggle every country in the world is facing. Just understand that socialism empowers the wrong people.
I disagree again Dick Fox. You see, you Americans’ entire worldview amazes me. Socialism is not a disease and the very nature of the nation-state is socialist. The state is a collective property. We all pay tax. And it’s therefore not strange for the state to deliver public goods and services. But Americans speak of socialism as if they don’t know that Western Europe in particular emerged from the war to become so developed today thanks to socialist policies. Call it social welfare state or anything but we know that UK had public corporations just like Sweden or Germany and they gave free education among other public services. Nkrumah was speaking of the same for Ghana and Africa. He was not more socialist than the leaders of Norway or France or Belgium. In the development of the US early on there were public corporations and still today there are services being provided by the state. So let Americans give us a break about socialism. We are not in the Cold War. Certainly Nkrumah is not so crazy to imagine that citizens can go to bed while the state lullaby them to sleep. The people must work in order for the state to raise revenue. Without a working people no state can survive. Let’s be clear Mr. Fox. In our situation in Africa we lack the necessary and huge capitalists to undertake the job of providing social needs and build people’s capacity. Thus in our circumstances as was the case for developed countries, the state will have to play a leading role until such a time when we have enough capacity and capitalists that it can withdraw from service provision to more of a policy maker and regulator as in the West. Nkrumah is right, Dick.
Thomas Piketty has fully corroborated your case, my friend Madi Jobarteh! America has been a socialist state for centuries. What is the plantation, but for a state that collects free labor to enrich itself? What is free land, but a socialist incorporation of Native American Lands. The American plantation, the labor, and the land was and is the biggest socialist program of all time – no matter how violent! Native American lands and Black Labor to feed marauding whites! But, every nation deserves to follow in the footsteps of their Ancestors – their founders. Our African traditions are Socialist. We intend to start there and improve. As long as the CIA can leave us alone. America and Americans can believe what they want. It’s their right – how they would like to be ruled by the descendants of Plantation Owners. In Africa, we have a right too, as long as the CIA can stay out of it.
Madi Joberteh Socialism will condemn a nation to poverty and despotism. There are so many examples it is amazing that this has to be pointed out but just consider the destruction of the “Bread Basket of Africa,” Zimbabwe, by Robert Mugabe’s socialism. An even more current example is Chavez/Maduro socialism in Venezuela. You are right that Nkrumah was just as socialist as Norway, France, and Belgium but what he did not understand is that these nations had a capitalist base that they could draw from. The nations of Africa did not have this. In the European countries socialists could draw on the savings built up by the capitalism of the 19th Century. This is something that both China and India have come to understand to a point. A current example of this is the countries of Africa being deluded into the alternate energy scam. The result has been a shortage or energy and rationing of electricity. Do you know what countries are building the most new coal fired power plants? India and China. They are dealing with their energy shortages while the rest of the world is starved for energy. Governments need to empower the people to solve problems not impose solutions on them. The US is going down the socialist road and it is being reflected in the lowest GDP since the great depression. Think about how you complain about the decisions government makes and yet through socialism you continue to empower them. They are ignorant and crooked, but even more lazy compared to the people. I am so saddened when I see a paradise like Africa be destroyed by the theories of old white economists of the Great Depression. Socialism removes the ability to calculate and so costs cannot be controlled. It is the nature of the theory.
Akosua M. Abeka Piketty has a political agenda. His book and ideas have been totally refuted.
Refuted by who? ? ?
http://info.visionandvalues.org/problems-with-piketty; http://www.forbes.com/…/thomas-piketty-gets-the…/; http://www.forbes.com/…/23/pikettys-capital-shortcomings/.
Madi Jobarteh Spend some time with the Louis Woodhill article. I have followed his writing for decades and he is excellent. He is also readable.
Dick Fox From your analysis of socialism which I consider inadequate, what do you suggest Africa to do now given that it does not have the necessary capitalists you claimed Europe and America had? Dick, i think you need to bear in mind that Europe and America had slavery and colonialism to draw from in order to generate their development. Of course you are aware that slavery/colonialism gave rise to the Industrial Revolution from 1750. But despite this great opportunity, the West was still unable to remove the vast majority of their people from poverty and oppression. Rather we see intolerable oppression and exploitation in the West leading to incessant wars until 1945. Thanks to socialist policies, which US had earlier implemented and succeeded, and the expansion and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, one can notice a qualitative transformation of Europe between 1950 to now. So Dick, as an American you have the liberty to jeer at socialism today because Washington has used and benefited from it already. We do not have that opportunity and liberty because we have no one to colonize and will not colonize and enslave anyone, while at the same time, the West is not providing the necessary genuine cooperation necessary to empower Africa. The examples you gave, Mugabe or Maduro are not the right examples. We can also point to several leaders or governments that pursued so-called capitalist path yet did not make any difference.
There is very little substance, if at all, in any of these. First that book, I will not waste my money or my time. Second and third the analyses in these two Forbes articles are infantile. Social mobility in and out of the top classes is what makes these so-called intellectuals happy that Piketty might be wrong?
“12 percent of the population will find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39 percent of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 percent of the income distribution, 56 percent will find themselves in the top 10 percent, and a whopping 73 percent will spend a year in the top 20 percent of the income distribution.”
And then what? But more troubling is the data used here. This was data before the crash of 2007/8 and all it shows is that social mobility was not stable- showing a trend towards chaos, the one that finally ensued. Plus, this statistic only shows the deeply fluctuating rates at which people who gain employment or an income quickly loose it (within a year) and slump back to poverty.
The last article is the most childish analytical piece of writing in all my life:
“However Piketty’s numbers ignore the capitalized value of Social Security, Medicare, and our other welfare state programs. These programs are huge, and they disproportionately benefit the “Bottom 50%.”
First if the programs were huge we would see significant benefits to the poor. Would we not? Second, if the programs so disproportionately benefit the Bottom 50% there would be no poverty. As it stand in the U.S., especially, there are more people in poverty than there are in Scandinavia or Ghana!
Then there’s the canny music of the capitalist with the statement:
“After adjustment for the capitalized value of Social Security and Medicare, in 2010, the “Top 10%” actually owned 52.2% of national wealth, not much more than the 50% observed for this group in 1970s – 1980s Scandinavia.”
I wonder if this analyst did the same calculations with social welfare benefits for the bottom 50% in Scandinavia for that period? If he did not, he is not comparing apples and apples – almost always part of the disingenuousness.
Piketty’s stats have stood the test of time: Top 10% owns most (70%) of it, and the “Bottom 50%” owns almost none (5%) of wealth.
I would rather pay close attention to a well-supported, highly regarded 700 page treatise representing a substantial portion of a respected economist’s life’s work, than dismiss it out of hand based upon the critical comments of intellectual dwarfs who seem to have a problem with French intellectuals. I suppose I could be convinced to accept such a line of reasoning, but how are we supposed to discuss Laissez-Faire principles without French intellectuals?
I tell you what Fox, throw in that you fully understand that Slavery and the Colonial Occupation of Africa, India etc. gave Europe and America the upper hand – not Free Markets, not Capitalism. That event, which is still ongoing is called Socialism, not matter how evil. Perhaps an acknowledgement of these facts of history and economics might give me a chance to give your observations some consideration. Outside of that, you cannot be taken seriously.