Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist

Al Qaeda as an international terrorist organization does not exist as the West claims. Since the 9/11 attacks there has been no evidence that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the strike. It is clear that the radical political Islamist movement is a reaction to US imperialism, support for Israel, and autocratic regimes in the Middle East. Former vice president Cheney even stated that "we never made the case that Osama Bin Laden was involved in 9/11. What became Al Qaeda was the remnants of US covert action in Afghanistan. Arming rebel factions known as the mujahideen. The Carter administration began arming extremists in the 1970s. This induced a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. When the Soviets withdrew, the Islamists began to take over. This culminated in blowback and the subsequent attacks in 2001. 

King Salman's Visit To The United States

King Salman made a visit to the United States to discuss urgent political and military concerns with President Obama. Relations between the two countries have been strained due to the Iran nuclear deal and disagreements over the Syrian Civil War crisis. This was not a simple diplomatic meeting, it was a major turning point. There are disagreements, but in regards to Yemen the US and Saudi Arabia seem to have consensus. This meeting signals several foreign policy actions. First, it appears as if the US will arm Saudi Arabia and the country will see a major build up. The US and Saudi Arabia will eventually coordinate some form of regime change in Syria. The Saudi relationship may become more important than relations with Israel, which is becoming more isolated internationally. The US strategy seems to be building up the Saudi Kingdom as balance to Iran. At some point this could be a practice for a war of proxy against the Islamic Republic. These possibilities and scenarios lead to one conclusion: a mass regional war. It some respects it is already occurring. 

           The major source of contention between bilateral relations is the Syrian Civil War. Saudi Arabia has been extremely active in arming rebels and terrorists seeking Bashir Al-Assad's overthrow. Saudi Arabia's intentions are not about the plight of the Syrian people, but to expand regional power. As a Gulf monarchy, Baathist or Pan-Arabist  regimes were considered natural enemies. Hostility directed at Syria is a way to undermine Iran. Both Syria and Iran are allied with one another. Installing a puppet government would certainly work in the favor of Saudi Arabia. 

Under King Salman military action has escalated 

Just like the US, Saudi Arabia presents its military operations as an act of humanitarianism. The real motive is to stop Arab Spring like regime changes from occurring around its borders. The worst fear is that the Saudi Kingdom would be swept up in rebellion. The monarchy may not have the strength to withstand violent insurrection. This explains intervention in Bahrain. A majority Shia Muslim country that is controlled by an unpopular Sunni Muslim minority was cause for alarm for the kingdom. Saudi Arabia probably wanted the US to send ground troops. The US continues to bomb Northern Syria, claiming it is fighting ISIS. King Salman wants the President to be committed to regime change in Syria. This seems unlikely, after the devastation that happened in Libya. Another presidential administration may be willing to do military strikes, but not this one. The United States still continues to arm rebel factions and terrorists.
            Seeing as the United States is no longer willing to do direct invasions, Saudi Arabia will eventually to armed to the highest extent. Traditionally, it was the UK that would do large arms deals with the Saudi Kingdom. King Salman's visit was not just about gaining what it views as security;it was about getting access to US arms. This was a major topic of discussion. The balance of power has shifted in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia wants that shift to be beneficial to it. Increasing military power is a way for Saudis to preserve their rule and become a regional enforcer. The US empowered Israel to become this during the Cold War. It seems as if Israel will be replaced, in favor of Saudi Arabia. Israel and US relations have been strained ever since Operation Protective Edge in the Gaza Strip. That action complicated diplomatic relations with Arab nations. Saudi Arabia is a major financial contributor to reconstruction efforts in the Gaza Strip. Saudi Arabia like other Arab nations do not approve of Israel. It would be counterproductive to the United States to favor Israel over Arab countries. The US will gradually shift more support for Saudi Arabia, to increase its popularity in the region. The US is regarded negatively by most Arab countries. President Obama wants to reverse this by repairing US-Saudi relations. A friendly gesture was to propose an arms agreement. The only  goal is to have the Saudi Kingdom to enforce US foreign policy in the Middle East.
            When examining the situation in Yemen, the US and Saudi relationship is still functional. Saudi Arabia has engaged in a war of aggression in an attempt to restore the former government. The Houthi rebels established a government after President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi resigned. There were claims that this was a forced resignation. The truce between the Houthi movement had been broken and war broke out. Such disorder allowed Saudi Arabia to make an excuse for invasion. King Salman's reign is now marked by military aggression and possible territorial expansion. The US will not object to blatant violence, because it has conducted military operations in Yemen as well. Drone strikes directed at   Al-qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula have caused many civilian causalities. These numbers escalate when Saudi Arabia uses cluster bombs. This was supplied by the United States and exposes the level of contradiction in regards to human rights. King Salman can bomb Yemen, while Bashir Al-Assad is castigated for fighting an armed insurrection. Yemen was part of the agenda when the King visited Washington. The general consensus is that Yemen's current government will be replaced.
            The Iran nuclear agreement has been a source of schism. Saudi Arabia does not want to see a powerful Iran. Nuclear weapons would only increase its leverage in regional affairs. King Salman stated that they would accept this new agreement. This may not be entirely honest. President Obama reassured the monarch that the US is willing to defend the kingdom. This has been an unwritten agreement since the first Gulf War. The US provides some level of security by having bases in Saudi Arabia.There has been a change in course. Now, Saudi Arabia will act unilaterally or in some cases with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. King Salman could decide to act unilaterally and attack Iran. While this poses levels of risks, a militarily powerful Saudi Kingdom would do so. Other Gulf monarchies could join. If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, the US fears this could start an arms race. This only adds to complications in a web of intricate rivalries and alliances.Israel may strike before Saudi Arabia. Iran and Israel are the most powerful countries in the region and Saudi Arabia wants to dislodge both. This means the Saudi monarchy has no desire to see a successful nuclear agreement, because that would remove Iran's pariah status. Keeping Iran isolated internationally and economically allows Saudi Arabia to have an advantage. King Salman's method is to undermine Iran, provide financial  support to Gaza to challenge Israel, and to have an aggressive Saudi military presence throughout the Middle East. Getting President Obama's auspices legitimized his aggressive campaigns in Yemen, Syria, and the operations in Bahrain. It is unclear where these policies will lead to, but at present there are devastating repercussions.   

Qaddafi on Democracy

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at Stanford - "The Other America" 1967

Martin Luther King's "The Other America" was addressed at Stanford University.  What Dr. King explains is the division of the US by race and class. The US is a racially segregated society that divides African Americans and Whites. Even when de jure segregation was dismantled, de facto segregation remained. American racism did not only target African Americans, but Mexicans, Native Americans, and South East Asians. Martin Luther King exposes this in his speech.  As Dr. King explains that the ultimate end of racism will be genocide. When one group sees itself as superior, it will being to dehumanize groups it views as inferior. The other America is the groups that are oppressed : the poor, African Americans,  South Americans, Asians, and women. However, Whites live in a society that favors them and gives them privilege. The only equality that exists is equality for Whites only. White liberals abandoned Dr. King in the late 1960s, because they believed most of the problems had been solved. They were also vexed that he opposed the Vietnam War. If racial equality is to be a realized, Whites must change. They will always hate, but laws can change behavior.  

Women In Combat: Social, Political, and Qualification Considerations

The recent graduation of two women from the US Army Ranger training course has once again ignited debate. Women have been banned from combat in the US military. This ban was lifted by the Department of Defense in 2013. Leon Pennetta who was secretary of defense was certain that women could perform well enough to serve in ground combat. While it is clear prohibiting participation is discrimination, there are particular considerations that should be examined. There are social, political , and qualification aspects that cannot be ignored. If this integration process is going to happen certain steps must be taken. Some commentators hailed this as "historic" and a demonstration of women's advancement. Upon further investigation, there are ulterior motives. 

          The political impact of women in combat presents challenges. The first problem is with the selective service. Young men are required to register with the selective service. Now that the ban on women in combat is lifted, there is no reason not to extend this to women. The unusual amount of silence on this from feminist groups is more revealing. Women have a choice, but men do not. Allowing this unequal burden to remain is a clear double standard. A reverse scenario would result in numerous protests by feminist organizations.Besides that issue, there remains political opposition to the decision. This comes from American conservatives and people in the army themselves. Conservatives who are extremely militaristic do not support women in the armed forces. This seems almost contradictory considering their willingness to use military might against other nations. They still believe that a woman's pace in in the home and out of the public sphere. American liberals do support US military aggression, but disguise it in the form of humanitarian intervention. They are only supportive of women in the army when it presents them as "progressive." Although the debate on women in combat has been present for several decades, this could gradually become a major wedge issue. Abortion, gun control, same-sex marriage, and immigration are just a few examples of wedge issues that divide the American public.The reason the ban was lifted was not because of some revelation of wrong doing, but necessity. The US has been losing wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and it makes no sense that able bodied people not be allowed to fight.

 Women account for at least 14% of the armed forces and in a way already have been fighting. There are no front lines, but wars of attrition and insurgents resisting occupation with guerrilla warfare tactics. The reality is this has nothing to do with women's empowerment, but the continuation of never ending wars. It will not be just poor men who will fight, but poor women. The elite upper class will then gain the rewards from the deaths of  the socioeconomically disadvantaged. 

         Another dynamic that needs examination is the social transformation of the military institution. The US Army has been for a longtime viewed as a male only affair. Women who go into male dominated fields often face discrimination, prejudice, and harassment. The US military tends to view women as a liability rather than an asset. There is some form of institutional sexism that exists in the army. The evidence is clear when revealing the high level of sexual assault in the US military. So far little has been done to stop the thousands incidents of rape. Detractors of women serving in combat positions often claim that women would be more vulnerable to rape in the battlefield. Statistics prove that women soldiers are more likely to raped by their peers, rather than by enemy combatants. Women who attempt to expose such crimes are either bullied into silence or removed. These criminal acts must be punished and attitudes must change. Men must learn to work with women as a cohesive unit.

 This means a level of integration in training and other tasks. Another problem is that some myths must be discredited. The idea that women disturb unit functionality seems ludicrous. Detractors state that men would do dangerous actions in order to protect women. Chivalry they believe is instinctual. When an extremely precarious situation arises it is dubious if you can depend on your fellow soldier. The fictionalized Hollywood version of a soldier is a man bravely going into bullet fire, with no sense of fear. He safes his comrades drags them off to safety and is a hero. Real warfare is less glamorous. Nearly 6,600 soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that the casualties are high and the chances people being saved are diminutive. The first priority of people in danger is self- preservation and no amount of  training can unravel that.Many men still believe that women are beneath them. They look at their female peers as inferiors. There is also the conviction that women soldiers are less competent. Even if this is proven false, their presence is unwanted. The social structure formed in the army is modeled like a college fraternity organization. A machismo culture combined with misogynist  beliefs. This seems unfitting for an institution that considers itself professional.

         Qualifications are pivotal. When discussing qualifications the argument shifts to physical fitness . Women have less upper body strength compared to men on average. Seeing as women produce more estrogen their total body composition would consist mostly fat. Men produce more testosterone allowing for a higher amount of muscle mass. This means men would be on average stronger than women. Hormones also influence total bone mass. Women have less bone density as compared to a male. Endocrinology and sexual dimorphism explain the differences in physical fitness levels between males and females. However, it is not impossible for women to build up their physical strength. There was a controversy in 2013 about the three pull-ups requirement. There was talk of lowering the standard for women recruits when a large number failed. This was a mistake. Lowering standards would only create resentment among male recruits and give cogency to detractors. The another problem is it reinforces the notion of female physical inferiority.Women need extra training and improved nutrition if they are going to be successful on the Army Physical Fitness Test. Weight training can improve women's physical strength. Any woman would not be able to these training courses. That is why the army should seek to recruit  women with athletic skills. A woman who is exceptional is the only one capable of passing. 

Kristen Greist  carries soldier in US Army Ranger School 

Certain health considerations need to be addressed. Women can suffer stress fractures higher than their male counter parts. Women must build up bone mass to avoid such hazards. While exercise can build up strength and endurance, nutrition can also help. Protein is essential for the muscles, just like fruits and vegetables are for overall health. For both men and women, there is the issue of obesity. A majority of the US population would not be able to combat ready due to weight management issues.Fitness programs for women should designed specifically to increase upper body strength. 

        Through out history, there have been women who fought in war. Women during the American Civil War incognito as males fought  for the Union or Confederacy. The Soviet Union allowed women to engaged in combat mostly as snipers and bombers. Women have seen combat, so this is nothing new. The amount of backlash seems like a new phenomenon. Men's and some women's objections to women serving seems reactionary. If a woman is qualified to perform all tasks, there is no legitimate reason to ban her from combat. Gender biases are not a reasonable excuse to exclude women from the military. There is an urgent concern. Women's inclusion could be part of an agenda for greater military expansion.Seeing as women can apply for combat positions this would mean an increase in troops. The US realizes that if its empire is to continue, every able bodied person has to fight. What ever the true motives are for a reverse in a long term policy will only reveal itself decades later.      

            

RIP Julian Bond

Qaddafi's Address To The United Nations (2009)

When Libya was no longer considered an international pariah, it was allowed to express itself  on the international stage. Qaddafi addressed the UN in 2009. His speech was a significant one. Muammar Qaddafi eloquently exposes the contradictions of the supranational organization. The United Nations has not prevented conflict, but increased it. The DRC, Yugoslavia, the African Central Republic, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, and Haiti have been victims of intervention. Qaddafi states in his address " that there should be equality among nations." There has never been equality among nations in the organization. The West dominates the UN. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has used the UN to justify military aggression. Qaddafi proposed that the Security Council be open to all nations. The African Union, Arab League, ASEAN, and other regional supranational organizations should have representation. The only way some form of peace can be sustained is if the superpower monopoly is dismantled in the UN. No nation has the right to dominate other countries. Yet, the US, UK, France, Italy, and Germany do this to African, Asian, and South American nations. The global south has been constantly attacked by sanctions, warfare, and neocolonialism. Weak and poor nations are at the mercy of the ICC, US, and the IAEA. This address exposes the brutality of the trusteeship system after World War II and past colonization. The UN is not humanitarian, but seeks to advance imperialist agendas.It is up to the people of the global south to resist the West and have the vision of freedom continue.