Hi Prof Cole,
I think there's a typo in there. You write "The US has spent $1.7 billion for combat and reconstruction."
Shouldn't that be $1.7 trillion? That's the number I saw here: link to google.com
Thank you for stating the obvious. I can only hope that MLK would be thoroughly disgusted with Pres. Obama and the rest of the scoundrels of both parties.
Prof. Cole, you write that "Last month US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta visited Cairo and pressured the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) to abrogate the state of emergency...."
That seems like a stunning statement of faith that you actually know what Panetta really was up to in Egypt - do you have some proof that we don't know about? Given the role of the US in the Middle East it seems much more likely that whatever Pannetta "claimed" to have been doing, the US has been working hard to stiffen the Egyptian military into holding power and wielding it to control the revolution so that it serves US military/corporate interests (and of course those of Israel).
Ballen writes "While the U.S. may have individual victories, if WE reduce the thrust of American policy to targeted assassinations, WE could well end up stoking the radical flame WE are trying to extinguish."
I have to say I am really tired of reading articles and analyses that use "we" to talk about the actions of the Corporate/Military Government that runs this country. It does not represent me in any way, shape or form.
Even if the author had changed the pronoun, I have to question why anyone would conclude that the US war machine is "trying to extinguish" the "radical flame." Virtually every significant foreign policy action taken in the last 15 years (and many significant ones going back to the end of WWII) seems to have no other purpose than stoking radical violence and endless war - while a lot of lip service is given to political solutions and non-violence...
You have made some powerful and compelling arguments which I appreciate - but I just don't think you have addressed the domestic precedent of a expanding the president's ability to unilaterally make war. I can just see no way in which the UN Sec Council resolution trumps the Constitutional restrictions on presidents making war without Congress. The Obama claim that this is not "war" is frankly Orwellian; I can hear the same argument being made if there is a "kinetic military action" against Iran.
The other thing that you don't address is the contradiction of turning to such a violent, antihumanitarian, and repulsive organization as the US military for a short term positive. Or the contradiction of approving of the US leading such an operation when it has supplied and approved the mass slaughter of unarmed civilians by Israel - most recently in Lebanon and Gaza.
"The great curse of Somalia is that it lies near the oil-rich Middle East and ALL SORTS OF INTERESTED PARTIES have played their hands to ensure that the country remains unstable for geopolitical reasons. Since the collapse of the Somali state in 1991, these state and non-state actors have included Al Qaeda, Iran, Sudan, Eritrea and a shadowy network of financial backers and charities in Middle East countries."
Was Pirio's omission of the United States from this list intentional?
Thanks for yet another really informative post. History, context, opinion, implications, etc., a model I suspect our dominant national news outlets will never adopt.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Hi Prof Cole,
I think there's a typo in there. You write "The US has spent $1.7 billion for combat and reconstruction."
Shouldn't that be $1.7 trillion? That's the number I saw here: link to google.com
Thank you for stating the obvious. I can only hope that MLK would be thoroughly disgusted with Pres. Obama and the rest of the scoundrels of both parties.
Prof. Cole, you write that "Last month US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta visited Cairo and pressured the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) to abrogate the state of emergency...."
That seems like a stunning statement of faith that you actually know what Panetta really was up to in Egypt - do you have some proof that we don't know about? Given the role of the US in the Middle East it seems much more likely that whatever Pannetta "claimed" to have been doing, the US has been working hard to stiffen the Egyptian military into holding power and wielding it to control the revolution so that it serves US military/corporate interests (and of course those of Israel).
Ballen writes "While the U.S. may have individual victories, if WE reduce the thrust of American policy to targeted assassinations, WE could well end up stoking the radical flame WE are trying to extinguish."
I have to say I am really tired of reading articles and analyses that use "we" to talk about the actions of the Corporate/Military Government that runs this country. It does not represent me in any way, shape or form.
Even if the author had changed the pronoun, I have to question why anyone would conclude that the US war machine is "trying to extinguish" the "radical flame." Virtually every significant foreign policy action taken in the last 15 years (and many significant ones going back to the end of WWII) seems to have no other purpose than stoking radical violence and endless war - while a lot of lip service is given to political solutions and non-violence...
You have made some powerful and compelling arguments which I appreciate - but I just don't think you have addressed the domestic precedent of a expanding the president's ability to unilaterally make war. I can just see no way in which the UN Sec Council resolution trumps the Constitutional restrictions on presidents making war without Congress. The Obama claim that this is not "war" is frankly Orwellian; I can hear the same argument being made if there is a "kinetic military action" against Iran.
The other thing that you don't address is the contradiction of turning to such a violent, antihumanitarian, and repulsive organization as the US military for a short term positive. Or the contradiction of approving of the US leading such an operation when it has supplied and approved the mass slaughter of unarmed civilians by Israel - most recently in Lebanon and Gaza.
"The great curse of Somalia is that it lies near the oil-rich Middle East and ALL SORTS OF INTERESTED PARTIES have played their hands to ensure that the country remains unstable for geopolitical reasons. Since the collapse of the Somali state in 1991, these state and non-state actors have included Al Qaeda, Iran, Sudan, Eritrea and a shadowy network of financial backers and charities in Middle East countries."
Was Pirio's omission of the United States from this list intentional?
Thanks for yet another really informative post. History, context, opinion, implications, etc., a model I suspect our dominant national news outlets will never adopt.