& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

US economy will suffer

Monaem Sarker
AS the violence in Syria worsens, Washington is ramping up threats to intervene without UN approval in the absence of international consensus. As reports of a new massacre emerged from Syria, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced a new transition plan that would remove Assad from power completely, possibly signaling that the US was ready to make good on its threats to go it alone.
Washington has made clear its desire for larger intervention in Syria, with Senator John McCain publicly calling for arming the rebels. The US has a history of ignoring the UN Security Council if international consensus does not coincide with American interests.
The real question about Syria is: Why is the United States involved at all? Before we discuss that, we need to know the goals of American foreign policy in the region.
In fact, Syria poses no direct threat to the United States. The US will gain no direct benefit in assisting the Syrian rebels or in overthrowing Assad. On the other hand, US "allies" -- Saudi Arabia and Israel -- clearly want Assad gone. Both those countries have the ability to get rid of Assad on their own. They should feel free to do so, but without the assistance or complicity of the US. Each time the US intervenes needlessly in the internal affairs of another country, it only prolongs the conflict.
Furthermore, it is disturbing that the US and other nations are using the UN to further their foreign policy agenda. The United Nations was set up to moderate peaceful resolution of issues between nations and it should not be involved in internal affairs of sovereign states. For the US and others to use the UN as a tool to get rid of Assad delegitimises the UN and puts its overall mission at risk.
Certainly, democracy and human rights should be promoted through diplomatic means whenever possible. But the process should not be manipulated to benefit the US and its allies. US policy towards Syria needs to be reconsidered.
There is no doubt that Assad is a ruthless despot. However, he is one of the last secular Arab leaders in the most ethnically diverse nation in the Middle East. At the moment, he enjoys popular support because many Syrians view him as the last bastion between them and a fundamentalist Islamic government, like the one just installed in Libya.
The US has targeted Syria, both because of its strategic alliance with Iran and because of Pentagon’s underlying strategy of isolating and encircling Iran as a prelude to toppling its current
government. The US has systematically occupied and/or militarised nearly all the countries that border Iran. First, you have US-occupied Afghanistan and Pakistan (the target of a second undeclared US war) on Iran's eastern border. Then you have Iraq, which is still partially occupied, Kuwait (where the US deployed 15,000 troops in December), and Turkey, with its US airbases, on Iran's western border. Finally, you have Saudi Arabia (also host to major US military bases) and Qatar to the south. US military intervention in Syria will spill over and involve the Hezbollah in Lebanon, effectively neutralising Iran’s last remaining allies.
The US persists in its occupation of Iraq, in addition to major military engagements in Somalia and Sudan. Presumably, the military intervention in Libya is complete, now that the new US-friendly regime has agreed to privatise Libyan oil for the benefit of US oil companies.
Countries such as Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Iran and
The US economy is suffering because of the wars. Growth is low and unemployment is high. The debt crisis in Europe is also connected to what is happening in the Middle East and the resulting uncertainty in the oil market.
Sudan became US military targets because they refused to play ball by allowing Anglo-American oil companies unlimited access to their oil resources. In contrast, oil-poor countries like Syria and Lebanon are current targets because of strategic alliances with oil-rich Iran.
US involvement in armed conflict is nothing new. US was involved in the Vietnam War and spent billions of dollars funding that war over two decades. Its aim was to control communism. On the other hand, the former Soviet Union was also spending billions of rubles trying to spread communism in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Both the US and the Soviet Union were interested in spreading their own agenda while disregarding the condition of the people in the countries that they were invading.
We see the same situation today. The US is involved in Iraq. Now it is trying to bring down the Assad regime in Syria. Toppling the government in Iran is also in the cards. This US involve-
ment in the region is not in the interest of the people in the region. The US wants to use the people as pawns in its desire to dominate the region.
But the US should learn from the Vietnam War and Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. Involvement in Afghanistan ultimately contributed to the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Soviet mothers could no longer take the return of their sons in body bags from Afghanistan. The domestic resentment that the Afghanistan war created in the Soviet Union has been well documented in the literature. The Soviet Union never recovered from the collateral political damage that the Afghan war created.
The US economy is suffering because of the wars. Growth is low and unemployment is high. The debt crisis in Europe is also connected to what is happening in the Middle East and the resulting uncertainty in the oil market. If the US continues with this wrong-headed policy of extending the war to Iran and/or Syria, then it will affect the economic condition in the US.
As the US spreads out its armed forces around the world, it also imposes a burden on its own economy, which is suffering from huge budget deficits. The US is forced to borrow from other countries including China. So, continued presence of US armed forces around the world will deepen US budget crisis and prolong the economic hardship of the people in the US.
The CIA and the Pentagon have led the US to war in different parts of the world. The political leadership in the US has been misled by the armed forces over the years. That trend has continued. If the US doesn’t change its course, its economic and political situation will remain in a precarious condition.
When Obama was elected president in 2008, the entire world anticipated a fundamental change in the political philosophy of the US government. We thought that he would be able to free the US government from the clutches of the Pentagon and CIA. However, that has not happened. Obama himself has become a tool in the hands of the Pentagon. Not only that, he has also tagged Nato along with him. A number of other Nato countries, especially the United Kingdom, have followed the US lead in extending their military presence around the world.
Tony Blair had to leave office in a humiliating fashion due to the popular uproar created by British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Obama doesn't change course now, he will face the same fate as Blair.