*A MILLION MARCH IN EGYPT TODAY

*
**

*"About 1,000,000 people have gathered for the planned 'march of a 
million' in the Egyptian capital, calling for Hosni Mubarak, the 
embattled Egyptian president, to step down," reports /al Jazeera/ this 
morning, the first report we've seen indicating protesters hit their 
goal of a million.  Another million person march is planned later for 
Alexandria.
*

*Various political factions have refused to participate in discussions 
for reform with the Mubarak government, demanding instead that Mubarak 
step down-- leaving him, it would seem, no other option, with the 
military having announced it will not fire on the people.
*

*Chillingly, our Congress, inspired by the internet shutdown in Egypt, 
is working on a way to shut down the internet itself 
<http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/141215-qkill-switchq-bill-raises-concerns-after-egyptian-web-block>.
  
It appears that, despite corporate control of the mass media (and our 
elections), a trickle of public interest information is still getting 
out to the American people, and that is unacceptable to the ruling 
Forces of Greed <http://members.cox.net/libertyuv/FOG.htm>.*

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*ACTION OF THE MONTH


*
**
*This month we ask our readers to help the homeless and hungry in their 
communities.  This has been a cruel winter, with people having lost 
their jobs and houses over the past few years exacerbating the 
situation.  Food banks are running out of food, and shelters are 
overflowing as winter makes it concluding thrust over the next six 
weeks. Here's our action. <http://members.cox.net/libertyuv/>

We think donating close to home is best, so you can keep an eye on the 
groups who get your money.  Sadly, there are a lot of groups that pay 
executives big salaries and don't get much of your dollar to those who 
need help.  We do not accept donations ourselves at /LUV /*/**/*/News/.
*
<http://members.cox.net/libertyuv/>
**
<http://members.cox.net/libertyuv/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*FOOD PRICES RISING


*
**
*Fidel Castro has an interesting piece this morning about the effect of 
global warming on food prices 
<http://www.granma.cu/ingles/reflections-i/30january-reflections.html> 
in the world.  Despite our government's claim that inflation is not a 
problem, working class people are seeing food and fuel prices skyrocket 
this winter, two costs that particularly hurt the working poor.

Fidel also points out that as hunger spreads, the USA is supplying third 
world nations like Egypt, full of hungry people, with weapons which eat 
up billions of dollars that could go to mitigating climate change, and 
ensuring a stable food supply to the world.

Control is all the ruling Forces of Greed 
<http://members.cox.net/libertyuv/FOG.htm> care about.
*
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Our strategy in the Middle East has been a disaster from the start, 
when our government paid a tribute of 20% of its annual revenues for ten 
years to Barbary pirates off the Arabian coast of North Africa to 
protect American shipping.  Despite the massive cost, we kept losing 
ships to the pirates, until President Jefferson had enough of it and 
sent naval forces to return the hostilities.

The emergence of the USA as a world power after World War Two gave 
international capitalists the new protector they were looking for, as 
the British Empire began to crumble, with India, the African colonies 
and others leaving for independence.  For decades the USA has worked out 
ways to dominate the Middle East, as we have pointed out in /LUV News/ 
over the past several days, and Gareth Porter shows in the following 
piece why we are trapped in a failed strategy and how we could get out 
of it  --Jack
**

*Why Washington Clings to a Failed Middle East Strategy * 
<http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/31-9>




*by Gareth Porter*

*The death throes of the Mubarak regime in Egypt signal a new level of 
crisis for a U.S. Middle East strategy that has shown itself over and 
over again in recent years to be based on nothing more than the illusion 
of power.  The incipient loss of the U.S. client regime in Egypt is an 
obvious moment for a fundamental adjustment in that strategy.
*

*But those moments have been coming with increasing regularity in recent 
years, and the U.S. national security bureaucracy has shown itself to be 
remarkably resistant to giving it up.  The troubled history of that 
strategy suggests that it is an expression of some powerful political 
forces at work in this society, as former NSC official Gary Sick hinted 
in a _commentary_ 
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/29/the_worst_of_both_worlds> 
on the crisis. *

*Ever since the Islamic Republic of Iran was established in 1979, every 
U.S. administration has operated on the assumption that the United 
States, with Israel and Egypt as key client states, occupies a power 
position in the Middle East that allows it to pursue an aggressive 
strategy of unrelenting pressure on all those "rogue" regimes and 
parties in the region which have resisted dominance by the U.S.-Israeli 
tandem:  Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. *

*The Bush administration's invasion of Iraq was only the most extreme 
expression of that broader strategic concept.  It assumed that the 
United States and Israel could establish pro-Western regime in Iraq as 
the base from which it would press for the elimination of resistance 
from any of their remaining adversaries in the region. *

*But since that more aggressive version of the strategy was launched, 
the illusory nature of the regional dominance strategy has been laid 
bare in one country after another. *

    *

      *The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq merely empowered Shi'a
      forces to form a regime whose geostrategic interests are far
      closer to Iran than to the United States; *

    *

      *The U.S.-encouraged Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 only
      strengthened the position of Hezbollah as the largest, most
      popular and most disciplined political-military force in the
      country, leading ultimately the Hezbollah-backed government now
      being formed.*

    *

      *Israeli and U.S. threats to attack Iran, Hezbollah and Syria
      since 2006 brought an even more massive influx of rockets and
      missiles into Lebanon and Syria which now appears to deter Israeli
      aggressiveness toward its adversaries for the first time. *

    *

      *U.S.-Israeli efforts to create a client Palestinian entity and
      crush Hamas through the siege of Gaza has backfired, strengthening
      the Hamas claim to be the only viable Palestinian entity.*

    *

      *The U.S. insistence on demonstrating the effectiveness of its
      military power in Afghanistan  has only revealed the inability of
      the U.S. military to master the Afghan insurgency.*

*And now the Mubarak regime is in its final days.  As one talking head 
after another has  pointed out in recent days, it has been the lynchpin 
of the U.S. strategy.  The main function of the U.S. client state 
relationship with Egypt was to allow Israel to avoid coming to terms 
with Palestinian demands. *

*The costs of the illusory quest for dominance in the Middle East have 
been incalculable. By continuing to support Israeli extremist refusal to 
seek a peaceful settlement, trying to prop up Arab authoritarian regimes 
that are friendly with Israel and seeking to project military power in 
the region through both airbases in the Gulf States and a semi-permanent 
bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the strategy has assiduously built up 
long-term antagonism toward the United States and pushed many throughout 
the Islamic world to sympathize with Al Qaeda-style jihadism.   It has 
also fed Sunni-Shi'a tensions in the region and created a crisis over 
Iran's nuclear program.*

*Although this is clearly the time to scrap that Middle East strategy, 
the nature of U.S. national security policymaking poses formidable 
obstacles to such an adjustment   Bureaucrats and bureaucracies always 
want to hold on to policies and programs that have given them power and 
prestige, even if those policies and programs have been costly 
failures.  Above all, in fact, they want to avoid having to admit the 
failure and the costs involved.  So they go on defending and pursuing 
strategies long after the costs and failure have become clear. *

*An historical parallel to the present strategy in the Middle East is 
the Cold War strategy in East Asia, including the policy of surrounding, 
isolating and pressuring the Communist Chinese regime.  As documented in 
my own history of the U.S. path to war in Vietnam, /_Perils of 
Dominance_/ 
<http://www.amazon.com/Perils-Dominance-Imbalance-Power-Vietnam/dp/0520239482>/,
 
/the national security bureaucracy was so committed to that strategy 
that it resisted any alternative to war in South Vietnam in 1964-65, 
because it believed the loss of South Vietnam would mean the end of Cold 
War strategy, with its military alliances, client regimes and network of 
military bases surrounding China.   It was only during the Nixon 
administration that the White House wrested control of national security 
policy from the bureaucracy sufficiently to scrap that Cold War strategy 
in East Asia and reach an historic accommodation with China.*

*The present strategic crisis can only be resolved by a similar 
political decision to reach another historical accommodation - this time 
with the "resistance bloc" in the Middle East.  Despite the demonization 
of Iran and the rest of the "resistance bloc", their interests on the 
primary issue of al Qaeda-like global terrorism have long been more 
aligned with the objective security interests of the United States than 
those of some regimes with which the United States has been allied 
(e.g., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan). *

*Scrapping the failed strategy in favor of an historic accommodation in 
the region would: *

    *

      *reduce the Sunni-Shi'a geopolitical tensions in the region by
      supporting a new Iran-Egypt relationship; *

    *

      *force Israel to reconsider its refusal to enter into real
      negotiations on a Palestinian settlement; *

    *

      *reduce the level of antagonism toward the United States in the
      Islamic world and *

    *

      *create a new opportunity for agreement  between the United States
      and Iran that could resolve the nuclear issue. *

*It will be far more difficult, however, for the United States to make 
this strategic adjustment than it was for Richard Nixon and Henry 
Kissinger to secretly set in motion their accommodation with China.  
Unconditional support for Israel, the search for client states and 
determination to project military power into the Middle East, which are 
central to the failed strategy, have long reflected the interests of the 
two most powerful domestic U.S. political power blocs  bearing on 
national security policy: the pro-Israel bloc and the militarist bloc.  
Whereas Nixon and Kissinger were not immobilized by fealty to any such 
power bloc, both the pro-Israel and militarist power blocs now dominate 
both parties in the White House as well as in Congress. *

*One looks in vain for a political force in this country that is free to 
press for fundamental change in Middle East strategy.  And without a 
push for such a change from outside, we face the distinct possibility of 
a national security bureaucracy and White House continuing to deny the 
strategy's utter failure and disastrous consequences.
*

*http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/31-9
*

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist on U.S. 
national security policy who has been independent since a brief period 
of university teaching in the 1980s. Dr. Porter is the author of four 
books, the latest of which is /Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power 
and the Road to War in Vietnam/ 
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520239482?ie=UTF8&tag=commondreams-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0520239482>
 
(University of California Press, 2005). He has written regularly for 
Inter Press Service on U.S. policy toward Iraq and Iran since 2005.*

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*If you wish to be removed from this list, please let us know*
**
*To join the Liberty Underground news service email 
[email protected] "join" for a subject*
**
*You may also join our talk group 
athttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertyundergroundtalk/ 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertyundergroundtalk/>if you would like 
to participate*
**
*email: [email protected]*
**
*Tell your friends about /LUV News/ because some people just don't get it*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to