Thursday, September 17, 2009

How to translate the news!

I thought it would be a good idea to show people how to translate a corporate media news article so we can all learn how to "read between the lines". We will be translating "The Way out of Afghanistan" by Fareed Zakaria. It's a misleading title because its actually a pro-war, pro-imperialistic article.

Hope you enjoy my commentary!

The Way Out of Afghanistan

Author: Fareed Zakaria

The United States, NATO, the European Union, and other nations have invested massively in stabilizing the country over the past eight years, and they will not—and should not—abandon it

The most important reality of the post-9/11 world has been the lack of any major follow-up attack. That's happened largely because Al Qaeda has been on the run in Afghanistan and Pakistan. :End Quote:

Channeling the 9/11 myth and then stating that "Al-Qaeda" (US funded) is on the run. Where are they on the run? Pakistan. Why? Because Obama wanted to and HAS BEEN bombing Pakistan because they are allies with China.

Were America to leave the scene, all the region's players would start jockeying for influence over Afghanistan. That would almost certainly mean the revival of the poisonous alliance between the Pakistani military and the hardest-line elements of the Taliban. :End Quote:

If we left that means that the Afghani's would have control over their own country again......What a Terrible idea, right? "Poisonous alliance" = fear mongering

The number of civilian deaths, while grim, is less than a 10th the number in Iraq in 2006. In the recent election, all four presidential candidates publicly endorsed the U.S. presence there. Compare this to Iraq, where politicians engaged in ritual denunciations of the United States constantly, to satisfy the public's anti-Americanism. :End Quote:

The innocent deaths continue for no reason. Wars built on lies. the Afghani president was funded into power by the US. If the new candidates speak out against the US they may get shot or the funded may be stripped away.

The Obama administration's answer to the worsening situation in the country appears to be: "more." More troops, civilians, tasks, and missions. There is nothing wrong with helping Afghans develop their country. But if the goal is to give Afghanistan a strong, functioning central government and a viable economy, the task will require decades, not years. :End Quote:


The focus must shift from nation building to dealmaking. The central problem in Afghanistan is that the Pashtuns, who make up 45 percent of the country and almost 100 percent of the Taliban, do not feel empowered. We need to start talking to them, whether they are nominally Taliban or not. Buying, renting, or bribing Pashtun tribes should become the centerpiece of America's stabilization strategy, as it was Britain's when it ruled Afghanistan. :End Quote:

Great, use a British destabilization plan to bribe the Afghani people to shoot at our troops so we can loot their land. Wonderful idea.

First, increase American troops. Second, increase Afghan troops. Third, shrink the number of enemy forces by making them switch sides or lay down their arms. That third strategy is what worked so well in Iraq and urgently needs to be adopted in Afghanistan. A few years from now, we can be sure that Afghanistan will still be poor, corrupt, and dysfunctional. But if we make the right deals, it will be ruled by leaders who keep the country inhospitable to Al Qaeda and terrorist groups like it. That's my definition of success. :End Quote:

Translation = Increased number of body bags, pay off Afghan troops to subjugate their own people, and shrink the number of civilians through Obama Predator drone attacks on villiages, wedding parties, friendly sports games, and all of this while siphoning all the natural resources and heroine away from their country.

No comments:

Post a Comment