OBAMA'S POTENTIAL DOWNFALL

BY BERNARDO V. LOPEZ
BUSINESS WORLD columnist
eastwind_777@yahoo.com
www.bworldonline.com

IF NOT TO YOUR INTEREST

PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ANYTIME


INVITATION FOR THE TERMINALLY SICK

SISTER RAQUEL'S HEALING BLOG SITE

www.sisterraquel.com

eastwind@motherignaciahealingministry.com



**********************

article 1 of 2

OBAMA'S POTENTIAL DOWNFALL

Part 1 - Militarism



UPSHOT column, feb 5, 2009



Historians say that waging war has been the downfall of rulers since the middle ages – monarchs, dictators, presidents. The question is – will Obama's shift from Iraq to Afghanistan be his downfall?

Obama's Middle East strategy is to reduce troops in Iraq only to augment those in Afghanistan. The Iraq war is a thorn. There is no value in lingering in Iraq. Obama knows that. Withdrawal in Iraq may also appease the Islamic militants. The US ultimate goal in Afghanistan is to destroy Al Queda. The Taliban is not important. It is important only in so far as it is the stumbling block to getting Al Queda, the author of 911. The Taliban is a local force that has control over the entire countryside, protecting Al Queda, a multinational force dependent on these locals.

Escalating the war in Afghanistan can be Obama's downfall. Afghanistan is similar to Vietnam in many ways. The Talibans are the Vietcongs of the Middle East. The Vietcongs were the jungle guerrillas. The Talibans are the mountain guerrillas. Guerrilla warfare defeated the superior conventional US forces in Vietnam. And it could in Afghanistan.

The Afghans have a good memory. They remember they defeated the vastly superior forces of the British and Russians, as much as the Vietnamese remember driving out the French at Dien Bien Phu. For Afghans and Vietnamese, the Americans are the same, bullies they can handle. They believe they can outlast the Americans in a guerrilla war. They are that over confident. Their over confidence is not a fiction of the mind but based on reality and history. The inhospitable mountain ranges at the border with Pakistan have never been penetrated by the 30,000 US troops. B52 bombings and precision missiles are not effective here. Even if they had an army of half a million, they cannot penetrate this limestone labyrinth.

The Americans have taken control of the cities by ousting the Taliban from government and installing the pro-US regime of President Haid Karzan. But they do not control the all-important countryside, the key to destroying the so-called 'Al Queda Prime', the remnants of an invisible force.

The key to destroying the Taliban which protect Al Queda is not massive troops in inhospitable mountains but incisive intelligence identifying where the scattered forces are and hitting them with precision. They are so scattered and invisible that it defies any conventional attack. The intelligence gathered by sophisticated unmanned drones and surveillance satellites is not enough. The US does not have the needed human intelligence because they do not have any support from the local populace. As in Vietnam's jungle, the superior US troops with their sophisticated digital weapons are helpless in these mountain ranges. On the other hand, the Taliban has deep intelligence everywhere. They know where the Americans are anytime. The Taliban regroup and rearm at will. They have the initiative in spite of US offensives. The logic of Petreaus in Iraq to 'weaken' the enemy into submission will not work in Afghanistan. The 'precision' bombings killing innocent civilians is sending people to the side of the Taliban. Losing the initiative, the US has only one alternative - to be defensive, maintain control of the cities. This stalemate leads to a protracted war that works against the US and for the Taliban.

Obama hardly knows this unless his more knowledgeable generals fill him in. Most of his generals are like MacArthur in Korea, Westmoreland in Vietnam or Petreaus in Iraq, who believed they could end a protracted war fast by resorting to genocide. Ill-advise is Obama's downfall. The generals of the Pentagon, like the CEOs of Wall Street, are capable of big blunders.

On top of the stalemate is the notion that Al Queda is more a myth than a reality. No one really knows if they are still out there and operational. They send out videos to show the outside world they are still a 'force', but perhaps they are a paper tiger. Former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook says Al Queda is a myth, an imaginative creation of American propaganda to justify its military actions across the planet. Al Queda has been blown up out of proportion to get support for the war, to give an impression of a 'unified international leadership' on the war against terrorism. Even if this is an exaggeration, the ultimate question is – is the Al Queda still alive?

Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate that the US war on terror was 'a mythical historical narrative'. Quoting a BBC documentary, A Los Angeles Times article titled 'The Power of Nightmares' revealed the Americans behind the move that had overblown Al Queda into a fictional Hollywood screenplay. The article further claims that the US government had issued numerous fake terror alerts to scare people. This is nothing but 'terror journalism' on the part of the US.

The last resort for a desperate superior army is chemical warfare, the true weapon of mass destruction. The US, in desperation, used Agent Orange and Napalm in Vietnam and Laos. These are obsolete chemicals. They have now battle-tested white phosphorous through the Israelis in Gaza.

Even if the US succeeds in finally destroying Al Queda, there will be replacements in unknown places, more intelligent, more sophisticated, more vicious, more radical.



eastwind_777@yahoo.com



****************************************

article 2 of 2

OBAMA'S POTENTIAL DOWNFALL

Part 2 - Economics



UPSHOT column, feb 4, 2009



Bailout is like chemotherapy. It kills good and bad cells. It cures cancer short term only to induce it more long term by weakening the entire immunity system, which ultimately brings healing, if there will be one. Here may lie the folly of Obama, who is viewed by all as the 'messiah'.

Obama is a lawyer by profession. He depends heavily for advice from his inner circle of economic experts. There may be an inherent weakness in his perspective.

Some experts say we can rebound in time. Some say the crisis is too big and is beyond human intervention. Everyone is guessing, because no one really knows the depth of the global financial crisis, not even the most prophetic economic visionaries. Educated guesses are still guesses. Global economics is simply too complex and massive for econometrics to really quantify accurately. No one knows if the $820 billion bailout fund Obama wants is enough.

The US has spent about $1.2 trillion so far in varying forms of bailouts. If you add the $820 Obama seeks, this is a total of $2.1 trillion. Latest figures say the US needs $3 trillion to get out of the mire. Some say this is only a drop in the bucket. It is a guessing game. For all we know, the US may need $5 to $7 trillion. We will know only in time, slowly, as the crisis unfolds in slow motion. There are no quick fixes. US media ran a survey of CEOs on when the US would be able to recover. Majority said 2009. No CEO will paint a dark picture. It is better to assure everybody than tell the truth. This is the dilemma of econometrics, the gap between confidence building and truth.

So far, the entire planet has spent about $3 trillion in bailouts, mostly from the affluent countries, who are the first to be hit. The poor countries come later. As I said, it is a guessing game. No one knows. A global bailout may need $10 trillion, for all we know.

Let us go back to the chemotherapy metaphor. The essence of bailout is Keynesian, meaning, it should 'stimulate' growth by pouring in more money into the system. If the $820 billion does not work or is not enough, which is likely, the temptation for Obama, in despair, is to ask for more. But there is a limit to printing more money for bailout. Analyst Tony Anciano says, "Only real money can protect wealth, and that is gold bullion." Arbitrarily-printed dollars are not real wealth, but paper wealth. The end result of overprinting is hyper-inflation. At a certain point, the rubber band snaps, causing an economic implosion of massive proportions.

Interest rates diving towards zero imply monetary policy is no longer an option. Interest rates cannot turn negative, namely, they pay you if you borrow money. The key, experts say, is fiscal measures. But even fiscal measures are problematic. A tsunami is beyond human intervention. As we see giants tumble down one after the other, manufacturing reeling at an all-time low, unemployment rising rapidly, global trade is grinding to a halt. The velocity of money is slowing down dramatically due to credit failure, in spite of large increases in the volume of money supply. This means the bailout approach is not working or has minimal short-term positive effect. It only gives the specter of long-term negative effect, invisible to many.

They say any form of shift from recession to depression will take years. But as we see the momentum building up in so short a time, is the specter of a 1929-like depression possible even as early as 2009? US unemployment was officially posted at 7.2% but 'shadow statistics' say it is more like 10%. Depression means unemployment circa 15%. We are not far from that figure. The EU unemployment is at 8%.

Economist Gerard Jackson writes, "During the extremely severe 1920-21 crisis, the US experienced the most rapid deflation in its history with wholesale pricing diving by 45%. By late 1921, the economy was on the road to recovery. So why didn't this process repeat itself during the 1930s? Because for the first time in its history, politicians decided that they would bring about recovery and prosperity. The result was the Great Depression (www.safehaven.com)". Human intervention messed up the natural economic broth. Economic chemotherapy was invented.

Obama is the symbol of the much-needed 'change' which he articulated so well during his campaign. He is the rain after the protracted drought that was Bush. He is the messiah everyone looks up to solve the crisis and sufferings of our lives today. There is hope, not despair. If indeed the global financial crisis is beyond human intervention, then Obama's image will turn overnight from 'messiah' to 'culprit', even if the crisis is not his fault and is beyond him. The hope he imbued will turn into despair and everyone will see him wrongly as the cause of all their miseries. Great expectations can turn into great frustrations. Obama is the potential global scapegoat, if indeed the crisis heightens. Perhaps it is better for the storm to pass with minimal short term interventions.



eastwind_777@yahoo.com