Davide Ferri / May 4, 2011
US president Barack Obama announced that Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden was killed on Sunday during a Navy Seals ground operation in Pakistan.
'Servant of Capital' Osama Bin Laden — undoubtedly one of the most philistine symbols both of the decay of Islamic Bonapartist Capitalism and the irrational 'backfire' of US imperialism — dies at the age of 54, leaving behind many doubts to the 'liberal analysts'; especially those on the alleged willingness of Pakistani government, military forces and intelligence to provide the US with a full 'inter-capitalist' collaboration in the 'War on Terror'.
The Saudi-born 'radical' had been nicely hiding for more than 3 years in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad — a hillside retreat popular with retired paunchy Pakistani generals about two hours north of Islamabad — wherein he could build a concrete compound and even hire up private guards to be displayed on the structure roof and the surrounding area: all 'allegedly unbeknown' to Pakistani intelligence.
The typical military and political 'negligence' of the Pakistani authorities, which emerged as particularly self-evident through the recent events, is nothing new for the US intelligence, which by no means trust its Asian ally in the War on Terror.
The same CIA director Leon Panetta bluntly stated that the US did not intend to alert Pakistan for fear that the Pakistani authorities might have blabbed out all to Bin Laden.
Beyond the rhetoric on the importance of such an operation which is promptly seasoned with liberal intellectual deliria on justice and the achievement of a safer world, it must be said that Bin Laden's death has little strategic importance for the US affairs.
Though Bin Laden's mere existence as a ‘wicked bearded monster' and his reactionary threatening video-messages kept on legitimising the US-led War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq in terms of propaganda, it is quite evident that the Al-Qaeda leader did not play a crucial role in the opposition to the US occupation in Afghanistan, despite the sheikh's rhetoric.
It is also self-evident that his demise is not going to wipe out the inherent problems of Islamic and Liberal Capitalism, as well as the oppression and repression of all the workers and toilers in Afghanistan and all the Middle East.
Within the framework of US foreign policies in the 'patriotic' 80's, it must be said that Bin Laden's activity as a jihadist played an active role in favour of American Capitalism during what is historically known as 'the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan'.
The Soviet occupation, planned in 'help' of the Stalinist clique of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, definitely marked the determination of the US to give the final blow to an already-crippled bureaucratic USSR, at least abroad.
Bin Laden greatly facilitated the US attempt to get the 'Soviet bear' stuck into mud in Afghanistan, along with the contribution of 'less radical' Massoud and the jihadist clique of Hekmatyar.
For years, the US Reagan administration kept stirring the jihadist mob against the Afghan Stalinists and the Russian troops, surrounded by the usual inoffensive political passivity of 'Liberal' institutions and NGOs; which are so much loved by post-Marxist apologists à la Negri and Hardt. The United States administration would historically succeed in hindering the geo-political plans of the USSR, with their aid. It would do it by dint of coughing out millions of dollars for the most reactionary anti-communist jihadists, whose practical approach was known as remarkably violent, especially against the women, and any liberal or progressive activities falling outside the framework of Quoran.
The Soviet Union, in its turn, would soon fall into the neo-liberal abyss; especially thanks to the inherent contradictions of its Stalinism, whose loyal representatives all of a sudden revealed themselves as investor-friendly IMF buddies in the 'happy' 90's.
As has been pointed out by Zuyara's words, “the active role of Pakistani and US authorities is politically quite evident: 'Between 1980 and 1992 alone, more then 35,000 Islamic fundamentalists from 43 Islamic countries joined the Afghan mujaheedin. Pakistan had already given standing instructions to all its embassies abroad to give visas with no questions asked to anyone wanting to come and fight in Afghanistan. Among the thousands of foreign recruits, one was Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden once admitted that: “to counter the revolution in Afghanistan, the Saudi regime chose me as their representative in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I recruited volunteers from many Arab and Muslim countries who came to answer the call. I set up camps where Pakistanis, Americans and British officers trained these volunteers. America supplied the weapons, the money came from the Saudis.”
In this regard there are several sources, both Marxist and non- Marxist, which more or less shine a light on the current political ambitions of Pakistan, the United States and International Capital in general here in Central Asia; within the framework of what is commonly known as the new Great Game, as the 'old one' was already 'played' by British Capitalism against Tsarist Russia in the same region in the nineteenth century.
After the killing of Afghani president Najibullah at the hand of the Talibans, who was hanged to death with its genital parts stuffed into his mouth, the growing influence of the jihadist movement in Central Asia started revealing itself an unbearable burden for the American imperialistic ambitions. These puppets would slip out of control of the US authorities, which would soon invade Afghanistan, which in the meantime had become an Emirate on the footsteps of the first millennium caliphates.
Soon after the events of 9/11, US president Bush authorised 'Operation Enduring Freedom', that is, the invasion by US, UK et al of the then-Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan with the excuse of capturing Bin Laden, regarded as the mastermind behind 9/11 attack. On the other hand, president Bush soon showed no interest in insisting on Bin Laden's capture, as he even admittedly confessed in an interview saying he was 'truly not that concerned' about the whereabouts of the Al Qaeda leader.
The US authorities in December 2001 definitely knew that Bin Laden was hiding along with Al Qaeda fighters somewhere in the Tora Bora caves complex at the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It should be noted that Bush administration, which authorised a military operation against Al Qaeda in the same place commonly known as the 'battle of Tora Bora', surprisingly failed in capturing the fundamentalist sheikh, allegedly 'by not deploying a consistent number of troops'.
A Senate report on the battle of Tora Bora requested by US Senator John Kerry showed that by deploying a high number of US military forces both Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar would have been easily killed in the operation. In this regard, the then US Secretary of Defence D.Rumsfeld ambiguously commented at the time by saying that a larger number of troops would have created resentment amongst the Afghan population. Gen. T.R. Franks, even more ambiguously, declined to comment on the matter though he pointed out the uncertainty of Bin Laden's presence inside the Tora Bora caves complex in the White mountains of Eastern Afghanistan.
Leaving aside the rhetoric and non-rhetoric of the official evidences: wasn't Osama Bin Laden's capture one of the most important propagandistic Official' excuses to invade the then Taliban-led Emirate of Afghanistan after the 9/11 events? Wasn't it the most efficient excuse to go there and 'smoke him out of his cave and get him eventually' as US president Bush would have remarked in his cowboy-style rhetoric?
Despite the liberal boring circumlocutions of high officials on the matter, there is evidence of Bin Laden's presence in Tora Bora complex in December 2001.
Dalton Fury, the officer in command during the operation Tora Bora, stated in one article "Our job was to go find him, capture or kill him, and we knew the writing on the wall was to kill him because nobody wanted to bring Osama bin Laden back to stand trial in the United States somewhere".
Furthermore, Fury, who also wrote a book on the battle of Tora Bora, stated that, the officer in command during the operation, requested a land mines dropping on the mountain passes which led to Pakistan, that is, on Bin Laden's escape route; but the plan was disapproved for reasons Fury doesn't know.
The US forces, attacking Al-Qaeda with fewer than 100 troops committed to the area, literally failed to capture Bin Laden, who then fled to Pakistan. It goes without saying that such events and evidences leaves plenty of doubts on the nature of US-led and UN-backed invasion of Afghanistan in the name of Bin Laden's capture for a safer world and the War on Terror. If trapped within the analytical framework of a liberal boring set of explanations, these events don't clarify the US 'official' geopolitical intentions in general.
Now that Bin Laden has died, after years of relaxing absconding in Pakistan at few steps from one of its most important military academy, the average unconsciously-servile liberal journalist is surely more than ever confused about the aims of US and Pakistan, after most of the western media supported the War on Terror, whether indirectly or bluntly, for the entire 2000's.
Even a kid understands that Pakistani president Zardari's care for underlining no responsibility in the raid against Bin Laden and at the same time his denial of any organisational negligence] by Pakistani authorities give blunt hints about the deeply rotten character of Pakistani Capitalism; both in terms of corruption, as well as economic and political organisation.
However, though Bin Laden's demise represents little, many 'party' reactions to his killing means a lot; as they undoubtedly throw the light on the non-progressive and philistine political character of certain factions of the likes of Hamas et al in Palestine; which put the entire struggle on 'ethnic', religious and postmodernist matters.
It should also throw some light on the 'perceptive' aims of certain European petty bourgeois 'socialists' and their worthy enjoyment of 'useless', nay negative, support for Hamas, which is everyday hindering the workers' struggle in the region by blows of post- modern apology in the west and Bonapartist bigotry in the east.
Transcending all the liberal circumlocutions in regard to the recent events — Bin Laden's demise is not going to have any political consequence for the liberation of workers and toilers in the Middle East or West Asia. Islamic and 'Liberal' Capital — from the vales of Chechnya to the mountains of Swat — is not going to stop lengthening its tentacles on the workers' surplus.
In this regard, we should acknowledge that the primary concerns for US Capitalism are not the principles behind the War on Terror, but the economic and political returns generated from this 'War' – which has been material and ideal.
The anti-Islamic mood generated by the events of 9/11 and the 'patriotic upheaval' of European and American media certainly contributed, in terms of popular consent, to a more friendly environment for US imperialism.
The regime of Saddam Hussein, once the 'petty bourgeois socialist' friend of the US, has been neutralised after the clique of Paul Bremer, without too many concerns, took direct political and economic control of Iraq by forming the Coalition Provisional Authority.
This wouldn't have obviously occurred without the 'worthy' efforts of the US-led coalition in the Second Gulf War, shamefully disguised as 'War on Terror'. In fact, it must be said that petty-bourgeois reactionary 'socialists' à la Hussein in Iraq were certainly not the friends of the anti- communist sheikh wanted by the US.
The 'provisional' clique of Mr. Bremer, the 'US administrator of Iraq', in the process of Iraq's privatisation and commodification, nicely allowed American firms to cast their tentacles on the national reconstruction, in a highly-devastated country where lakhs of innocent civilians died; not to mention the huge 'returns' of the American Capitalists achieved thanks to military expenditure for howitzers, tanks, equipment etc. for the US-led War on 'Terror'.
It must also be said that a friendly 'Washington man' of the likes of Al Maliki, whose government hasn't certainly boasted democratic pioneering, is definitely more convenient for stable oil pricing policies in Mesopotamia.
Bin Laden dies with the growing weakening of Islamic investor-friendly radicalism, which is nothing but a desperation sigh produced by the rottenness of Islamic Capitalism.
Most of the workers of the middle east, though still unaware and confused by the liberal promises, are now merely choosing a less Bonapartist direction. We could witness such tendency in the last months in Egypt and in most of the MENA region in general, where Bonapartist capitalists like Ben Ali and Mubarak have been ousted through the unprecedented social-liberal uprisings.
On the other hand, in these areas the risk of philistine 'reaction' is still high. The clique behind the human face of Obama — who during the Egyptian uprisings acted with the strategy 'let-us-see-who-is-gonna-come-to-the-top', typical of imperialism, is not going to drop the support to reactionary Bonapartist Capitalists à la Mubarak and Ben Ali.
By no accident the United States, whilst caring for the 'Libyan human rights’, neglect those of Bahrain; wherein the US fifth fleet is based and where the élite of Al-Khalifa keeps repressing demonstrations and killing innocents.
But the liberals pretend not to see. In their rhetoric of free trade, free choice and freedom, they only 'see' what and where they want to see by self-flagellations of cognitive assonance, just like Hilary Clinton proves it in the flaunt of her miserable opportunism, with phrases of the likes of "I am impressed by the commitment that the government has to the democratic path that Bahrain is walking on”.
The demise of Osama Bin Laden is not going to bring any change to contemporary world, but undoubtedly will make the reactionary clique of Obama sigh with relief, as the temporarily revived enthusiasm of the common liberal American will make the crisis, the unemployment and the growing inequalities pass unobserved for a while.
However, as Marx put it- the economic factors, which determine the social ones, weigh like a burden on people's consciousness and will sooner or later make themselves felt. So in celebrations of Osama’s demise, the liberal capitalism, is reflecting upon its own, in near future.
'Servant of Capital' Osama Bin Laden — undoubtedly one of the most philistine symbols both of the decay of Islamic Bonapartist Capitalism and the irrational 'backfire' of US imperialism — dies at the age of 54, leaving behind many doubts to the 'liberal analysts'; especially those on the alleged willingness of Pakistani government, military forces and intelligence to provide the US with a full 'inter-capitalist' collaboration in the 'War on Terror'.
The Saudi-born 'radical' had been nicely hiding for more than 3 years in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad — a hillside retreat popular with retired paunchy Pakistani generals about two hours north of Islamabad — wherein he could build a concrete compound and even hire up private guards to be displayed on the structure roof and the surrounding area: all 'allegedly unbeknown' to Pakistani intelligence.
The typical military and political 'negligence' of the Pakistani authorities, which emerged as particularly self-evident through the recent events, is nothing new for the US intelligence, which by no means trust its Asian ally in the War on Terror.
The same CIA director Leon Panetta bluntly stated that the US did not intend to alert Pakistan for fear that the Pakistani authorities might have blabbed out all to Bin Laden.
Beyond the rhetoric on the importance of such an operation which is promptly seasoned with liberal intellectual deliria on justice and the achievement of a safer world, it must be said that Bin Laden's death has little strategic importance for the US affairs.
Though Bin Laden's mere existence as a ‘wicked bearded monster' and his reactionary threatening video-messages kept on legitimising the US-led War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq in terms of propaganda, it is quite evident that the Al-Qaeda leader did not play a crucial role in the opposition to the US occupation in Afghanistan, despite the sheikh's rhetoric.
It is also self-evident that his demise is not going to wipe out the inherent problems of Islamic and Liberal Capitalism, as well as the oppression and repression of all the workers and toilers in Afghanistan and all the Middle East.
Within the framework of US foreign policies in the 'patriotic' 80's, it must be said that Bin Laden's activity as a jihadist played an active role in favour of American Capitalism during what is historically known as 'the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan'.
The Soviet occupation, planned in 'help' of the Stalinist clique of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, definitely marked the determination of the US to give the final blow to an already-crippled bureaucratic USSR, at least abroad.
Bin Laden greatly facilitated the US attempt to get the 'Soviet bear' stuck into mud in Afghanistan, along with the contribution of 'less radical' Massoud and the jihadist clique of Hekmatyar.
For years, the US Reagan administration kept stirring the jihadist mob against the Afghan Stalinists and the Russian troops, surrounded by the usual inoffensive political passivity of 'Liberal' institutions and NGOs; which are so much loved by post-Marxist apologists à la Negri and Hardt. The United States administration would historically succeed in hindering the geo-political plans of the USSR, with their aid. It would do it by dint of coughing out millions of dollars for the most reactionary anti-communist jihadists, whose practical approach was known as remarkably violent, especially against the women, and any liberal or progressive activities falling outside the framework of Quoran.
The Soviet Union, in its turn, would soon fall into the neo-liberal abyss; especially thanks to the inherent contradictions of its Stalinism, whose loyal representatives all of a sudden revealed themselves as investor-friendly IMF buddies in the 'happy' 90's.
As has been pointed out by Zuyara's words, “the active role of Pakistani and US authorities is politically quite evident: 'Between 1980 and 1992 alone, more then 35,000 Islamic fundamentalists from 43 Islamic countries joined the Afghan mujaheedin. Pakistan had already given standing instructions to all its embassies abroad to give visas with no questions asked to anyone wanting to come and fight in Afghanistan. Among the thousands of foreign recruits, one was Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden once admitted that: “to counter the revolution in Afghanistan, the Saudi regime chose me as their representative in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I recruited volunteers from many Arab and Muslim countries who came to answer the call. I set up camps where Pakistanis, Americans and British officers trained these volunteers. America supplied the weapons, the money came from the Saudis.”
In this regard there are several sources, both Marxist and non- Marxist, which more or less shine a light on the current political ambitions of Pakistan, the United States and International Capital in general here in Central Asia; within the framework of what is commonly known as the new Great Game, as the 'old one' was already 'played' by British Capitalism against Tsarist Russia in the same region in the nineteenth century.
After the killing of Afghani president Najibullah at the hand of the Talibans, who was hanged to death with its genital parts stuffed into his mouth, the growing influence of the jihadist movement in Central Asia started revealing itself an unbearable burden for the American imperialistic ambitions. These puppets would slip out of control of the US authorities, which would soon invade Afghanistan, which in the meantime had become an Emirate on the footsteps of the first millennium caliphates.
Soon after the events of 9/11, US president Bush authorised 'Operation Enduring Freedom', that is, the invasion by US, UK et al of the then-Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan with the excuse of capturing Bin Laden, regarded as the mastermind behind 9/11 attack. On the other hand, president Bush soon showed no interest in insisting on Bin Laden's capture, as he even admittedly confessed in an interview saying he was 'truly not that concerned' about the whereabouts of the Al Qaeda leader.
The US authorities in December 2001 definitely knew that Bin Laden was hiding along with Al Qaeda fighters somewhere in the Tora Bora caves complex at the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It should be noted that Bush administration, which authorised a military operation against Al Qaeda in the same place commonly known as the 'battle of Tora Bora', surprisingly failed in capturing the fundamentalist sheikh, allegedly 'by not deploying a consistent number of troops'.
A Senate report on the battle of Tora Bora requested by US Senator John Kerry showed that by deploying a high number of US military forces both Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar would have been easily killed in the operation. In this regard, the then US Secretary of Defence D.Rumsfeld ambiguously commented at the time by saying that a larger number of troops would have created resentment amongst the Afghan population. Gen. T.R. Franks, even more ambiguously, declined to comment on the matter though he pointed out the uncertainty of Bin Laden's presence inside the Tora Bora caves complex in the White mountains of Eastern Afghanistan.
Leaving aside the rhetoric and non-rhetoric of the official evidences: wasn't Osama Bin Laden's capture one of the most important propagandistic Official' excuses to invade the then Taliban-led Emirate of Afghanistan after the 9/11 events? Wasn't it the most efficient excuse to go there and 'smoke him out of his cave and get him eventually' as US president Bush would have remarked in his cowboy-style rhetoric?
Despite the liberal boring circumlocutions of high officials on the matter, there is evidence of Bin Laden's presence in Tora Bora complex in December 2001.
Dalton Fury, the officer in command during the operation Tora Bora, stated in one article "Our job was to go find him, capture or kill him, and we knew the writing on the wall was to kill him because nobody wanted to bring Osama bin Laden back to stand trial in the United States somewhere".
Furthermore, Fury, who also wrote a book on the battle of Tora Bora, stated that, the officer in command during the operation, requested a land mines dropping on the mountain passes which led to Pakistan, that is, on Bin Laden's escape route; but the plan was disapproved for reasons Fury doesn't know.
The US forces, attacking Al-Qaeda with fewer than 100 troops committed to the area, literally failed to capture Bin Laden, who then fled to Pakistan. It goes without saying that such events and evidences leaves plenty of doubts on the nature of US-led and UN-backed invasion of Afghanistan in the name of Bin Laden's capture for a safer world and the War on Terror. If trapped within the analytical framework of a liberal boring set of explanations, these events don't clarify the US 'official' geopolitical intentions in general.
Now that Bin Laden has died, after years of relaxing absconding in Pakistan at few steps from one of its most important military academy, the average unconsciously-servile liberal journalist is surely more than ever confused about the aims of US and Pakistan, after most of the western media supported the War on Terror, whether indirectly or bluntly, for the entire 2000's.
Even a kid understands that Pakistani president Zardari's care for underlining no responsibility in the raid against Bin Laden and at the same time his denial of any organisational negligence] by Pakistani authorities give blunt hints about the deeply rotten character of Pakistani Capitalism; both in terms of corruption, as well as economic and political organisation.
However, though Bin Laden's demise represents little, many 'party' reactions to his killing means a lot; as they undoubtedly throw the light on the non-progressive and philistine political character of certain factions of the likes of Hamas et al in Palestine; which put the entire struggle on 'ethnic', religious and postmodernist matters.
It should also throw some light on the 'perceptive' aims of certain European petty bourgeois 'socialists' and their worthy enjoyment of 'useless', nay negative, support for Hamas, which is everyday hindering the workers' struggle in the region by blows of post- modern apology in the west and Bonapartist bigotry in the east.
Transcending all the liberal circumlocutions in regard to the recent events — Bin Laden's demise is not going to have any political consequence for the liberation of workers and toilers in the Middle East or West Asia. Islamic and 'Liberal' Capital — from the vales of Chechnya to the mountains of Swat — is not going to stop lengthening its tentacles on the workers' surplus.
In this regard, we should acknowledge that the primary concerns for US Capitalism are not the principles behind the War on Terror, but the economic and political returns generated from this 'War' – which has been material and ideal.
The anti-Islamic mood generated by the events of 9/11 and the 'patriotic upheaval' of European and American media certainly contributed, in terms of popular consent, to a more friendly environment for US imperialism.
The regime of Saddam Hussein, once the 'petty bourgeois socialist' friend of the US, has been neutralised after the clique of Paul Bremer, without too many concerns, took direct political and economic control of Iraq by forming the Coalition Provisional Authority.
This wouldn't have obviously occurred without the 'worthy' efforts of the US-led coalition in the Second Gulf War, shamefully disguised as 'War on Terror'. In fact, it must be said that petty-bourgeois reactionary 'socialists' à la Hussein in Iraq were certainly not the friends of the anti- communist sheikh wanted by the US.
The 'provisional' clique of Mr. Bremer, the 'US administrator of Iraq', in the process of Iraq's privatisation and commodification, nicely allowed American firms to cast their tentacles on the national reconstruction, in a highly-devastated country where lakhs of innocent civilians died; not to mention the huge 'returns' of the American Capitalists achieved thanks to military expenditure for howitzers, tanks, equipment etc. for the US-led War on 'Terror'.
It must also be said that a friendly 'Washington man' of the likes of Al Maliki, whose government hasn't certainly boasted democratic pioneering, is definitely more convenient for stable oil pricing policies in Mesopotamia.
Bin Laden dies with the growing weakening of Islamic investor-friendly radicalism, which is nothing but a desperation sigh produced by the rottenness of Islamic Capitalism.
Most of the workers of the middle east, though still unaware and confused by the liberal promises, are now merely choosing a less Bonapartist direction. We could witness such tendency in the last months in Egypt and in most of the MENA region in general, where Bonapartist capitalists like Ben Ali and Mubarak have been ousted through the unprecedented social-liberal uprisings.
On the other hand, in these areas the risk of philistine 'reaction' is still high. The clique behind the human face of Obama — who during the Egyptian uprisings acted with the strategy 'let-us-see-who-is-gonna-come-to-the-top', typical of imperialism, is not going to drop the support to reactionary Bonapartist Capitalists à la Mubarak and Ben Ali.
By no accident the United States, whilst caring for the 'Libyan human rights’, neglect those of Bahrain; wherein the US fifth fleet is based and where the élite of Al-Khalifa keeps repressing demonstrations and killing innocents.
But the liberals pretend not to see. In their rhetoric of free trade, free choice and freedom, they only 'see' what and where they want to see by self-flagellations of cognitive assonance, just like Hilary Clinton proves it in the flaunt of her miserable opportunism, with phrases of the likes of "I am impressed by the commitment that the government has to the democratic path that Bahrain is walking on”.
The demise of Osama Bin Laden is not going to bring any change to contemporary world, but undoubtedly will make the reactionary clique of Obama sigh with relief, as the temporarily revived enthusiasm of the common liberal American will make the crisis, the unemployment and the growing inequalities pass unobserved for a while.
However, as Marx put it- the economic factors, which determine the social ones, weigh like a burden on people's consciousness and will sooner or later make themselves felt. So in celebrations of Osama’s demise, the liberal capitalism, is reflecting upon its own, in near future.
reality...!
ReplyDelete