By George Friedman
From: stratfor.com

The weeklong extravaganza of G-20, NATO, EU, U.S. and Turkey meetings has ended. The spin emerging from the meetings, echoed in most of the media, sought to portray the meetings as a success and as reflecting a re-emergence of trans-Atlantic unity.

The reality, however, is that the meetings ended in apparent unity because the United States accepted European unwillingness to compromise on key issues. U.S. President Barack Obama wanted the week to appear successful, and therefore backed off on key issues; the Europeans did the same. Moreover, Obama appears to have set a process in motion that bypasses Europe to focus on his last stop: Turkey.

Berlin, Washington and the G-20

Let’s begin with the G-20 meeting, which focused on the global financial crisis. As we said last year, there were many European positions, but the United States was reacting to Germany’s. Not only is Germany the largest economy in Europe, it is the largest exporter in the world. Any agreement that did not include Germany would be useless, whereas an agreement excluding the rest of Europe but including Germany would still be useful.

Two fundamental issues divided the United States and Germany. The first was whether Germany would match or come close to the U.S. stimulus package. The United States wanted Germany to stimulate its own domestic demand. Obama feared that if the United States put a stimulus plan into place, Germany would use increased demand in the U.S. market to expand its exports. The United States would wind up with massive deficits while the Germans took advantage of U.S. spending, thus letting Berlin enjoy the best of both worlds. Washington felt it had to stimulate its economy, and that this would inevitably benefit the rest of the world. But Washington wanted burden sharing. Berlin, quite rationally, did not. Even before the meetings, the United States dropped the demand — Germany was not going to cooperate.

The second issue was the financing of the bailout of the Central European banking system, heavily controlled by eurozone banks and part of the EU financial system. The Germans did not want an EU effort to bail out the banks. They wanted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail out a substantial part of the EU financial system instead. The reason was simple: The IMF receives loans from the United States, as well as China and Japan, meaning the Europeans would be joined by others in underwriting the bailout. The United States has signaled it would be willing to contribute $100 billion to the IMF, of which a substantial portion would go to Central Europe. (Of the current loans given by the IMF, roughly 80 percent have gone to the struggling economies in Central Europe.) The United States therefore essentially has agreed to the German position.

Later at the NATO meeting, the Europeans — including Germany — declined to send substantial forces to Afghanistan. Instead, they designated a token force of 5,000, most of whom are scheduled to be in Afghanistan only until the August elections there, and few of whom actually would be engaged in combat operations. This is far below what Obama had been hoping for when he began his presidency.

Agreement was reached on collaboration in detecting international tax fraud and on further collaboration in managing the international crisis, however. But what that means remains extremely vague — as it was meant to be, since there was no consensus on what was to be done. In fact, the actual guidelines will still have to be hashed out at the G-20 finance ministers’ meeting in Scotland in November. Intriguingly, after insisting on the creation of a global regulatory regime — and with the vague U.S. assent — the European Union failed to agree on European regulations. In a meeting in Prague on April 4, the United Kingdom rejected the regulatory regime being proposed by Germany and France, saying it would leave the British banking system at a disadvantage.

Overall, the G-20 and the NATO meetings did not produce significant breakthroughs. Rather than pushing hard on issues or trading concessions — such as accepting Germany’s unwillingness to increase its stimulus package in return for more troops in Afghanistan — the United States failed to press or bargain. It preferred to appear as part of a consensus rather than appear isolated. The United States systematically avoided any appearance of disagreement.

The reason there was no bargaining was fairly simple: The Germans were not prepared to bargain. They came to the meetings with prepared positions, and the United States had no levers with which to move them. The only option was to withhold funding for the IMF, and that would have been a political disaster (not to mention economically rather unwise). The United States would have been seen as unwilling to participate in multilateral solutions rather than Germany being seen as trying to foist its economic problems on others. Obama has positioned himself as a multilateralist and can’t afford the political consequences of deviating from this perception. Contributing to the IMF, in these days of trillion-dollar bailouts, was the lower-cost alternative. Thus, the Germans have the U.S. boxed in.

The political aspect of this should not be underestimated. George W. Bush had extremely bad relations with the Europeans (in large part because he was prepared to confront them). This was Obama’s first major international foray, and he could not let it end in acrimony or wind up being seen as unable to move the Europeans after running a campaign based on his ability to manage the Western coalition. It was important that he come home having reached consensus with the Europeans. Backing off on key economic and military demands gave him that “consensus.”

Turkey and Obama’s Deeper Game

But it was not simply a matter of domestic politics. It is becoming clear that Obama is playing a deeper game. A couple of weeks before the meetings, when it had become obvious that the Europeans were not going to bend on the issues that concerned the United States,Obama scheduled a trip to Turkey. During the EU meetings in Prague, Obama vigorously supported the Turkish application for EU membership, which several members are blocking on grounds of concerns over human rights and the role of the military in Turkey. But the real reason is that full membership would open European borders to Turkish migration, and the Europeans do not want free Turkish migration. The United States directly confronted the Europeans on this matter.

During the NATO meeting, a key item on the agenda was the selection of a new alliance secretary-general. The favorite was former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Turkey opposed his candidacy because of his defense on grounds of free speech of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish magazine. NATO operates on consensus, so any one member can block just about anything. The Turks backed off the veto, but won two key positions in NATO, including that of deputy secretary-general.

So while the Germans won their way at the meetings, it was the Turks who came back with the most. Not only did they boost their standing in NATO, they got Obama to come to a vigorous defense of the Turkish application for membership in the European Union, which of course the United States does not belong to. Obama then flew to Turkey for meetings and to attend a key international meeting that will allow him to further position the United States in relation to Islam.

The Russian Dimension

Let’s diverge to another dimension of these talks, which still concerns Turkey, but also concerns the Russians. While atmospherics after the last week’s meetings might have improved, there was certainly no fundamental shift in U.S.-Russian relations. The Russians have rejected the idea of pressuring Iran over its nuclear program in return for the United States abandoning its planned ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The United States simultaneously downplayed the importance of a Russian route to Afghanistan. Washington said there were sufficient supplies in Afghanistan and enough security on the Pakistani route such that the Russians weren’t essential for supplying Western operations in Afghanistan. At the same time, the United States reached an agreement with Ukraine for the transshipment of supplies — a mostly symbolic gesture, but one guaranteed to infuriate the Russians at both the United States and Ukraine. Moreover, the NATO communique did not abandon the idea of Ukraine and Georgia being admitted to NATO, although the German position on unspecified delays to such membership was there as well. When Obama looks at the chessboard, the key emerging challenge remains Russia.

The Germans are not going to be joining the United States in blocking Russia. Between dependence on Russia for energy supplies and little appetite for confronting a Russia that Berlin sees as no real immediate threat to Germany, the Germans are not going to address the Russian question. At the same time, the United States does not want to push the Germans toward Russia, particularly in confrontations ultimately of secondary importance and on which Germany has no give anyway. Obama is aware that the German left is viscerally anti-American, while Merkel is only pragmatically anti-American — a small distinction, but significant enough for Washington not to press Berlin.

At the same time, an extremely important event between Turkey and Armenia looks to be on the horizon. Armenians had long held Turkey responsible for the mass murder of Armenians during and after World War I, a charge the Turks have denied. The U.S. Congress for several years has threatened to pass a resolution condemning Turkish genocide against Armenians. The Turks are extraordinarily sensitive to this charge, and passage would have meant a break with the United States. Last week, they publicly began to discuss an agreement with the Armenians, including diplomatic recognition, which essentially disarms the danger from any U.S. resolution on genocide. Although an actual agreement hasn’t been signed just yet, anticipation is building on all sides.

The Turkish opening to Armenia has potentially significant implications for the balance of power in the Caucasus. The August 2008 Russo-Georgian war created an unstable situation in an area of vital importance to Russia. Russian troops remain deployed, and NATO has called for their withdrawal from the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There are Russian troops in Armenia, meaning Russia has Georgia surrounded. In addition, there is talk of an alternative natural gas pipeline network from Azerbaijan to Europe.

Turkey is the key to all of this. If Ankara collaborates with Russia, Georgia’s position is precarious and Azerbaijan’s route to Europe is blocked. If it cooperates with the United States and also manages to reach a stable treaty with Armenia under U.S. auspices, the Russian position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe opens up, decreasing Russian leverage against Europe.

From the American point of view, Europe is a lost cause since internally it cannot find a common position and its heavyweights are bound by their relationship with Russia. It cannot agree on economic policy, nor do its economic interests coincide with those of the United States, at least insofar as Germany is concerned. As far as Russia is concerned, Germany and Europe are locked in by their dependence on Russian natural gas. The U.S.-European relationship thus is torn apart not by personalities, but by fundamental economic and military realities. No amount of talking will solve that problem.

The key to sustaining the U.S.-German alliance is reducing Germany’s dependence on Russian natural gas and putting Russia on the defensive rather than the offensive. The key to that now is Turkey, since it is one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to get to Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey — which has deep influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, the Middle East and the Balkans — is prepared to ally with the United States, Russia is on the defensive and a long-term solution to Germany’s energy problem can be found. On the other hand, if Turkey decides to take a defensive position and moves to cooperate with Russia instead, Russia retains the initiative and Germany is locked into Russian-controlled energy for a generation.

Therefore, having sat through fruitless meetings with the Europeans, Obama chose not to cause a pointless confrontation with a Europe that is out of options. Instead, Obama completed his trip by going to Turkey to discuss what the treaty with Armenia means and to try to convince the Turks to play for high stakes by challenging Russia in the Caucasus, rather than playing Russia’s junior partner.

This is why Obama’s most important speech in Europe was his last one, following Turkey’s emergence as a major player in NATO’s political structure. In that speech, he sided with the Turks against Europe, and extracted some minor concessions from the Europeans on the process for considering Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Why Turkey wants to be an EU member is not always obvious to us, but they do want membership. Obama is trying to show the Turks that he can deliver for them. He reiterated — if not laid it on even more heavily — all of this in his speech in Ankara. Obama laid out the U.S. position as one that recognized the tough geopolitical position Turkey is in and the leader that Turkey is becoming, and also recognized the commonalities between Washington and Ankara. This was exactly what Turkey wanted to hear.

The Caucasus is far from the only area to discuss. Talks will be held about blocking Iran in Iraq, U.S. relations with Syria and Syrian talks with Israel, and Central Asia, where both countries have interests. But the most important message to the Europeans will be that Europe is where you go for photo opportunities, but Turkey is where you go to do the business of geopolitics. It is unlikely that the Germans and French will get it. Their sense of what is happening in the world is utterly Eurocentric. But the Central Europeans, on the frontier with Russia and feeling quite put out by the German position on their banks, certainly do get it.

Obama gave the Europeans a pass for political reasons, and because arguing with the Europeans simply won’t yield benefits. But the key to the trip is what he gets out of Turkey — and whether in his speech to the civilizations, he can draw some of the venom out of the Islamic world by showing alignment with the largest economy among Muslim states, Turkey.

An explosive situation prevails aboard MV FAINA; according to converging information, crew members attacked — unsuccessfully — some pirates, in an effort that clearly reflects the impossibility of a human being to be help hostage of such a piracy for 1800 hours without a major international reaction.

Quite unfortunately and extremely inhumanely, the MV FAINA crew members have become — precisely like the pirates themselves — the victims of an incredible conspiracy against Somalia, the Somali Nation, and the entire Horn of Africa region.

   Ukrainian Merchant Vessel – MV Faina as observed from the guided-missile cruiser the USS Vella Gulf

   [Enlarge]

The negotiations have been carried out in a deceptive way in order to offer the NATO admirals the timing they had planned; the pirates and their negotiators cannot realize that some guys among them have been deceived and have therefore cultivated illusions as regards the final outcome.

On the other hand, the crew members, their physical and psychological resistance, and their lives are the least concern of the criminal gangsters who impersonate respectable admirals and generals, politicians and diplomats, PR specialists and well known statesmen – all hidden behind the anonymity.

There is little to be done in order to avoid the terrible hit prepared against the prefab ghost of piracy that became an apocalyptic hot air balloon about to go burst over the western part of the Indian Ocean. This possibility of successful exit, I will analyze in a separate article. Here I publish the latest Ecoterra Press Release update, issued a few hours ago.

74th Update 2008-12-09 13:52:38 UTC

Ecoterra Intl. – Stay Calm & Solve it Peaceful & Fast !

Ecoterra International — Update & Media Release on the stand-off concerning the Ukrainian weapons-ship hi-jacked by Somali pirates.

We also can make sea-piracy in Somalia an issue of the past – with empathy and strength and through coastal and marine development as well as protection!

New EA Seafarers Assistance Programme Emergency Helpline: +254-738-497979
East African Seafarers Assistance Programme – Media Officer: +254-733-385868

Day 76 – 1799 hours into the FAINA Crisis – Update Summary

Efforts for a peaceful release continued, but the now over two months long stand-off concerning Ukrainian MV FAINA is not yet solved finally, though intensive negotiations have continued.

Crew members on the arms laden cargo ship held by Somali pirates attempted to overpower two of their captors, prompting the hijackers to threaten to punish the men on Tuesday. Speaking to AFP from the MV FAINA cargo they hijacked on Sept 25 and have held off the coast of Somalia ever since, a spokesman for the pirates said the incident took place late on Monday. ‘Some crew members on the Ukrainian ship are misbehaving. They tried to harm two of our gunmen late Monday’, said the pirate, who declined to give his name. ‘This is unacceptable, they risk serious punitive measures. Somalis know how to live and how to die at the same time, but the Ukrainians’ attempt to take violent action is misguided’, the spokesman added. He said two of the pirates were taken by surprise when a group of crew members attacked them.

‘Maybe some of the crew are frustrated and we are feeling the same but our boys never opted for violence, this was a provocation’, the pirate spokesman explained. More than 120 attacks by Somali pirates have been reported this year alone in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean but all the hijackings have so far been resolved peacefully through the payment of ransoms. The pirates of FAINA have lowered their ransom demand to US$3.5 million and told AFP late last month that an agreement had already been reached for the ship’s release. In recent days, some sources have reported frustration among the pirates over delays in the ransom payment.

The operation to release the crew of the FAINA is continuing, Vasyl Kyrylych, chief of the foreign ministry press service, told a news briefing at the ministry, according to the Ukrainian press agency. “The pattern for setting the hostages free is being carried out now. We hope to witness successful completion of the release operation soon”, he said. Pirates captured the FAINA with 17 Ukrainian citizens among its crew off Somalia on September 25. The FAINA is under surveillance of several US ships whose objective is to prevent unloading of the military hardware. As reported, the pirates and the ship-owners reached agreement on November 30 on releasing the dry cargo ship with defence technologies aboard. Local observers had spotted the vessel delivering the ransom to MV CAPT. STEFANOS and believed it was a vessel concerning MV FAINA. After MV CENTAURI and MV CAPT. STEFANOS were released FV FAINA remains solely at the coastal stretch off Harardheere.

Ukraine expressed on Tuesday its desire to join the European Union’s naval task force protecting ships in the Gulf of Aden against Somali pirates.

Ecoterra Intl. renewed it’s call to solve the FAINA and the SIRIUS STAR cases with first priority and peaceful in order to avert a human and environmental disasters at the Somali coast. Anybody encouraging hot-headed and concerning such difficult situations inexperienced and untrained gunmen to try an attempt of a military solution must be held responsible for the surely resulting disaster.

Clearing-house:

News from other abducted ships ———-

The Greek ship-owner’s company Chartworld Shipping Corporation (Athens) finally confirmed that the Greek ship MV CAPT. STEFANOS with a Ukrainian citizen as a crew member, one Chine and 17 Filipino seafarers, captured by Somali pirates September 21, was set free following 11 weeks of captivity. The crew members’ state of health is estimated as satisfactory, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry informed. According to the ship-owner’s information, presently the released ship is heading for Brindisi port (Italy).

With the latest captures and releases still at least 15 foreign vessels with a total of around 335 crew members (of which 91 are Filipinos) are held and are monitored on our actual case-list, while several other cases of ships, which are observed off the coast of Somalia, have been reported or reportedly disappeared without trace or information, are still being followed. Over 123 incidences (including attempted attacks, averted attacks and successful sea-jackings) have been recorded to far for 2008 with until today 51 factual sea-jacking cases (incl. the presently held 15). Several other vessels with unclear fate (not in the actual count), who were reported missing over the last ten years in this area, are still kept on our watch-list, though in some cases it is presumed that they sunk due to bad weather or being unfit to sail.

The First Victim of War is the Truth!

Did pirates attack Aussie cruise ship? A traveler on board the Australian cruise ship MV Athena says owners are trying to cover up news of a pirate attack. Pirates did attack a cruise ship carrying 400 Aussies off Somalia, says an Australian passenger, but the cruise company — which claimed that the 52 boats reported to have approached the ship were manned by ‘friendly’ fishermen — is trying to cover up the incident, the passenger says. The Melbourne woman, who remains on board the MV Athena and does not want to be named, said passengers who informed relatives back home of the attack had been given “a real dressing down” by the ship’s crew. Classic International Cruises Australia, which owns the Athena, has said there was no substance to reports that dozens of pirate boats attacked the ship and tried to board it on Tuesday. A spokeswoman for the company said the boats turned out to be fishing vessels whose crew were “very friendly”. However, the Melbourne woman who contacted wire service AAP said there was no doubt the ship was the target of a co-ordinated pirate attack as it passed through the Gulf of Aden, separating Yemen and Somalia. She said the crew had ordered passengers to stay indoors after small motorboats surrounded the vessel. Observers using binoculars on the bridge reportedly counted between 30 and 40 small boats to the port side and 12 to starboard at the height of the incident, she said. “Less than an hour later the master of the vessel, Captain Antonio Morais of Portugal, confirmed to listeners that two attacks by pirates had taken place”. Crew members used blasts from high-powered water cannon to drive back the pirates who clearly wanted to board the Athena, the woman said. She said the official line now being put around the ship was that “as no shots were fired by the assailants it was merely a reconnaissance mission by those in the motorboats rather than an attack as such”. And yesterday, two days after the attack, Captain Morais again addressed passengers to stress that “no attack” had occurred.

Other related news ——

The United Nations will convene a two-day international conference in Nairobi, Kenya, to discuss the rampant piracy off the coast of Somalia. The gathering, hosted by the Kenyan Government, will begin on 10 December, when technical experts will discuss the issue. The following day, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Somalia, and Moses Wetangula, Kenya’s Foreign Minister, will co-chair a ministerial-level meeting. Some 140 representatives from 40 countries are expected to attend the event, which will be addressed by President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya. “It is clear that the problem of piracy is linked to the need for peace and stability in Somalia itself’, said UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Somalia, Mr. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah. ‘We hope that this high-level Conference will lead to greater international attention and cooperation between countries, regional and international organizations’. He said the gathering is very important and timely given the increasing threat of piracy in Somali waters which threatens the safety of trade routes. “We hope that this high-level Conference will lead to greater international attention and cooperation between countries, regional and international organizations”.

Spain could delay sending about 200 military personnel to participate in the international anti-piracy naval operation off the coast of Somalia, Spanish daily ABC reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed military sources. Defence Minister Carme Chacon has decided not to seek authorisation from parliament on Wednesday to send the Spanish ship SPS Victoria to the Somali coast, which means it will not set sail on Jan. 8, as was expected, ABC said. The sources cited by the newspaper said the ship may now join the task force in the second phase of the anti-piracy operation, called Atlanta. EUNAVOR operation ATALANTA began today with only two ships from France and Britain and two surveillance planes from France and Spain.

Germany has led calls for a debate on a UN special pirate court for those caught by the European mission, given that the EU will not transfer prisoners to countries with the death penalty, potentially leaving it with pirates on its hands. “The EU is reviewing agreements whereby suspects could be taken by third countries that are willing and in a position to launch criminal proceedings”, said Mr Steinmeier and added: “Moreover we are in favour of reviewing whether the United Nations could use existing international courts or found a new one to conduct such criminal proceedings”.

A task force from Russia’s Pacific Fleet left its main base in Vladivostok on Tuesday for a tour of duty in the Indian Ocean, a fleet official said, according to the Russian news agancy RIA. The task force comprises the Admiral Vinogradov, an Udaloy class missile destroyer, a tugboat, and two tankers. “The current tour of duty will demonstrate the ability of the Russian Navy to protect the country’s interests in the world’s oceans”, said Capt. 1st Rank Roman Markov, a spokesman for the Pacific Fleet. According to the official, the task force will pay a visit to the Indian port of Mormugao and participate in the joint naval exercises INDRA-2009 with the Indian Navy in January. INDRA is a biennial Russian-Indian exercise aimed at practicing cooperation in enforcing maritime law and countering piracy, terrorism, and drug smuggling. INDRA-2009 is the fourth such exercise since 2003. The task force will also conduct joint exercises with a task force from Russia’s Northern Fleet, led by the Pyotr Veliky (Peter the Great) nuclear-powered missile cruiser, which will arrive in the Indian Ocean after a current tour of duty in the Atlantic and the Caribbean. Following the exercises, the Admiral Vinogradov will replace the Neustrashimy (Fearless) missile destroyer from Russia’s Northern Fleet in the Horn of Africa to protect commercial shipping from pirate attacks off the Somali coast. Vice Admiral Konstantin Sidenko, commander of the Pacific Fleet, earlier said that Russian warships from the fleet would make several long-range training sorties in the South Pacific and Indian oceans in 2009, and participate in a number of exercises involving live-firing drills. Russia announced last year that its navy had resumed and would build up a constant presence in different regions of the world’s oceans.

A more romantic environment of piracy: The Capture of the Pirate Blackbeard by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris, 1718

Writes: Earl Beal in Terre Haute, Indiana

In the power politics of international relations, superpower behavior is governed by the concept of geopolitical spheres of influence. When a superpower nation meddles in the internal affairs of another and attempts to exert undue political or economic influence in its perceived sphere, that’s when trouble starts.

The trouble started when President Bush pressured Poland and the Czech Republic to establish a missile-defense system in their territories. This policy was then, and continues to be, seen by some as a direct threat to Russia, not to mention Bush’s push for democratic reforms in former Soviet Republics still considered vital to Russia’s national security interests.

Also, if Russia placed ballistic missiles in Cuba and/or Venezuela, this would constitute a direct threat to the U.S. Washington’s hue and cry over such a move would be surpassed only by Bush’s hypocrisy when he and his Pentagon took the "dramatic," "brutal" and "disproportionate" measure of invading a sovereign Iraq in 2003.

As a result, what do we have?

• The hemorrhaging of our national treasure in terms of lives lost.

• Thousands of courageous people wounded.

• A cost of more than $10 billion a month to finance this fiasco.

• 5 million Iraqi refugees scattered and without homes.

…..and today secretary Rice ushered in the new COLD WAR:

References:

1. The Cuban Missile Crisis — was a confrontation between the United States, the Soviet Union, and Cuba during the Cold War. In Russia, it is termed the “Caribbean Crisis,” (Russian: Karibskiy krizis) while in Cuba it is called the “October Crisis.” The crisis ranks with the Berlin Blockade as one of the major confrontations of the Cold War, and is often regarded as the moment in which the Cold War came closest to a nuclear war….[ MORE >> ]

2. Abkhazia, Ossetia, Georgia, Russia, Europe, USA, Turkey, and the Yet Untold Truth — Russia may certainly have ceaselessly tried to oppose NATO’s expansion up to the Russian borders, but this does not imply that the West has to take this Russian policy into consideration. However, the Western inconsistent and biased stance, interpreted as grave threat by Russia, only damages the chances of the West to diffuse the Western values, ideas and principles among the numerous oppressed peoples who form a sizeable — and traumatized — minority in Russia, being however the local majority either on small (like the Abkhazians) or vast (like the Yakutians) territory. …[ MORE >> ]

Since yesterday, when John McBOMB’s chief economic adviser, the “Whining” Phil ‘McGramOfPot’ Gramm got thrown under the straight-talk express wreckage, McCain and Bush have been pivoting towards Obama’s positions on Iraq and Afghanistan, shamelessly trying to camouflage their moves with “benchMURK” talking points like a “general time horizon” for withdrawal from Iraq.

   Pic Courtesy: seedsofdoubt.com

Obama has consistently stated that he wants the U.S. to start withdrawing from Iraq for re-deployment in Afghanistan within sixteen months.

As Obama landed in Afghanistan today, the German magazine newspaper “Der Spiegel” reported that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told them that he supported Barack Obama’s proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months, essentially endorsing Obama, and slapping Bush upside the head.

al-Maliki said: “U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

Asked if he supported Obama’s ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for….”Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems.”

Meanwhile, the White House said on Friday George W. Bush and Maliki had agreed that a security deal under negotiation should set a “time horizon” for meeting “aspirational goals” for reducing U.S. forces in Iraq.

In a speech earlier this week, Obama promised to commit at least two more combat brigades – up to 10,000 men – to Afghanistan, if he wins November’s election. He also said the US military should focus on that country rather than Iraq.

Copycat McCain upped the ante — to 3 brigades. Asked where he would get the troops while bogged in his “100 year Iraq war,” McCain said: “We need to work that out. We need to have greater participation on the part of our NATO allies, as I said in my opening remarks today and we need a lot more help.”

NATO Allies? You mean your cousins in Great Britain?

To the best of my knowledge the Brits are not thrilled at all with this illegal war.

In a campaign stop McCain said: “I know how to win wars. And if I’m elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq.”

And my question is: Which WAR has McCain ever won?

Being caged like an animal in Vietnam — another illegal war that America lost, is not winning, in my opinion.

In Vietnam 2,000,000+ civilian lives were lost, most from South Vietnam. 58,000+ American soldiers also lost their lives in the war.

Just like in Iraq, U.S. military personnel often went on civilian killing rampages — For example:

Nixonian cover-ups and protests followed world wide.

The Vietnam war started because American president Eisenhower did not want “communism to spread throughout the world” and eventually to America. Essentially the U.S. was asked by France, via NATO, to keep the communists from “taking over” the French “Colonial” Territory — Vietnam. A European colonialist (France) asked Neo-European-Colonialist (America) to help it maintain a grip on it’s illegally acquired colony, resulting in Vietnam being split into two, and causing Vietnamese to slit each others throats — just like the Shia and the Sunni have been doing in Iraq — the fruits of an illegal OIL war.

Of late, the U.S has been bribing the Sunnis with the almighty Dollar — hence the “artificial peace.”

“Fear of Communism,”…”Fear of Muslims,”…”Fear of The Obama-Fist-Bump,”…”Fear of Islamo-Fascists,”…”Fear of Black Panthers,”…”Fear of Foreign Languages,”… “Fear of Mexican Immigrants,”…”Fear of a Black President,”…”Fear of Imaginary ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction‘” …RING A BELL?

Lynch them ALL!……AGAIN and AGAIN!

Hallelujah,… Sweet Home Alabama!

That’s what the criminal ‘High Cabal‘ a.k.a The Republican Party has drafted John McCain For — To beat up, lynch, burn, bomb, steal-oil-from and dominate everyone who does not toe the line.

“You are either with us or against us.” — George Bush, November 6, 2001

The world and many Americans are tired of this Moronic Cowboy Republican Dictatorship, and Obama is a much needed fresh face. The whole world is desperately “Clinging To Obama,” and his current tour will only serve to stamp that point.

Contrary to what the right-wing thugs hope — Obama will shine in the Middle-East and in Europe, and will come home fortified and ready to thump McCain’s sorry ass in November — thoroughly well, with or without Hillary Clinton’s racist and un-principled “Angry-White-Whore” army.

   [Enlarge Image]


   Pic Courtesy: seedsofdoubt.com