British Try To Steamroll Obama into Expanded War in Afghanistan
Sept. 22, 2009 (EIRNS)A Sept. 21 leak, in the Washington Post, of a report by U.S. and NATO troop commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was clearly intended to beat the drums for President Obama to immediately increase troops there. Such a policy follows the standing British intention to destroy the United States by involving it in land wars in Asia.
Speaking to colleagues on Sept. 19, Lyndon LaRouche stressed this point:
Land wars in Asia are the chief device by which the British induce the United States, to shoot itself, not only in the foot, but in the head. Therefore, we're against land wars in Asia. And when we look at the thing from that standpoint, we see that there never was a good reason for getting the United States in land wars in Asia.
Our war is with the British Empire, or what we call the British Empire. And we have no other reason for war against anybody else, except defensive wars against attacks, by other forces. But, we're suckers, because we're constantly drawn in by the Brits, into destroying ourselves for the greater glory of the British Empire, by getting into land wars in Asia! You look at this thing in 1966-1967, and you look at it from the standpoint that Kennedy was trying to revive the U.S. economy, from the damage done by previous circles, and got involved in a number of things, which just set him up. And on the question of the land war in Asia, he dug his heels in and said, 'No!' He said, no to McNamara; he said no to all these other creeps. And they killed him! For that!
Then we got into a land war in Asia! Because Johnson was afraid they were going to shoot him, too. And, we were going into that until 1975, in Indo-China.
Now, we've gotten into a couple of Iraq wars, a land war in Asia; we're dragged down into a permanent land war in Asia, called the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is orchestrated by the British; and that's a central featurewe are involved more, mentally, in the Arab-Israeli thing, than in any actual war that we're directly involved in! Our mentality is controlled by that! Look at the way the Congress behaves; look at the way the politicians behave. A land war in Asia, is the ideology by which we are corrupted and destroyed!"
McChrystal's assessment, however, reads like an argument crafted to get the President to increase the troops in Afghanistan, without saying so directly. The President should commit "more resources" to directly confronting the insurgents, McChrystal argues, or face defeat.
There is clearly continued resistance to the McChrystal view, however, as reflected in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement to PBS-TV the evening of Sept. 21. Although McChrystal is the commander on the ground, she said:
I can only tell you there are other assessments from, you know, very expert military analysts who have worked in counter insurgencies that are the exact opposite. So what our goal is, is to take all of the incoming data and sort it out. And I don't think anybody is going to push to a conclusion for the sake of a conclusion.