The Biden Hawk


Biden’s Hawk Wings Continue to Grow

 

If you are trying to see where the Obama Administration is heading in their foreign policy (especially Afghanistan and Pakistan) you can rely on Vice President Joe Biden to give you a hint.  Actually, when it comes to these two countries, Biden does more than give you a hint – he lets it be known exactly how hawkish he is on the matter. 

            When Biden was appointed to be vice president under Obama, he was hailed as a person with extensive knowledge on foreign policy.  A Huffington Post article quoted TransAtlantic Magazine when they stated that "Senator John McCain for the Republicans and Senator Joe Biden for the Democrats seem to be the most knowledgeable, articulate and concerned potential candidates who are speaking out on foreign policy issues almost on a daily basis at this time."  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-guttman/bidens-foreign-policy-cr_b_38144.html)

            Biden was also lauded by the New York Times for saying how he wants to "restore the balance" of the vice presidency, explaining how Dick Cheney loved power.  Yet, don’t be alarmed, he assures us he "hardly wants to return to the days when the vice president was neither seen nor heard."  Biden also assures us that Cheney’s power-taking was only a problem because it "did not result in effective outcomes."  (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/us/politics/15biden.html?_r=1)  Don’t worry about how the steps that were taken were unconstitutional, and the outcomes were illegal and resulted in mass atrocities. 

            So, if Biden is intelligent and not following in the footsteps of Dick Cheney, we could presume that he would make more intelligent and different decisions that had "effective" outcomes, which would separate him from Cheney. 

            Yet, when we look at statements and actions – we are shocked (not really) to see that it doesn’t match up.  His stance and guidance of the Administration on Afghanistan shines the light on the true Biden (and US Empire). 

            Three days into the presidency of Barack Obama, the administration bombed a village in rural Afghanistan after President Karzai pleaded with Obama and his administration to stop the bombings.  The peasants and shepherds that lived in the village, and even international media, were shocked to learn that Taliban leaders were living there (because they weren’t – and there was never any evidence that they were).  Soon after, Biden, being the fearless foreign policy leader that he is, exclaimed that there would be an "uptick" of military action in Afghanistan, pushing his campaign agenda promise with Obama to increase U.S. troop levels by 30,000.  It should be translated to people in Afghanistan to "there will be an increase in an illegal occupation, violence, repression, and deaths in Afghanistan."  Oh, and "we want to control your resources and continue Cheney’s pipeline through your country." 

            Then we are assured of Biden’s hawkish stance when today, March 10, 2009, Biden "warns of ‘deteriorating’ Afghan situation" according to the headline from the Associated Press.  According to Biden "The deteriorating situation in the region poses a security threat from our respect not just to the United States, but to every single nation around this table."  This will be used as a pretext for the escalation of troops, even though more troops does not equal more security.  Around the table were top NATO members – and there is no way Biden would let himself look "weak" in front of them - therefore, proving himself as a dedicated hawk was a necessity.  Biden also noted that "It was from that remote area (Afghanistan) of the world that al-Qaida plotted 9/11…"  And it was also from Saudi Arabia where the hijackers were recruited from but I don’t see you bombing there – oh, because you can already control them and the oil they sit on.  Biden doesn’t stop there.  He continues by saying he wants "to learn . . . how we can do a better job in stopping Afghanistan and Pakistan from being a haven for terrorists."(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090310/ap_on_re_eu/eu_eu_us_biden)  It is well known to policy experts on how to deal with that problem (see the Middle East Policy Council).  The key factor would be to withdraw the military occupation of the region, but the U.S. has no such intention.   

            Biden didn’t really have to say all that, though.  It would have sufficed for him to say "pretend I’m Dick Cheney, and then replace Iraq with Afghanistan and Pakistan in the statements he and the Bush Administration made to the lead up to the illegal Iraq Occupation, and that is all I have to say."  Profound in its simplicity.

            There are two conclusions we can draw from this.  One is that Biden is neither intelligent nor different than Cheney with his "ineffective outcomes."  His lack of intelligence could be questioned because if the goal is to not make the region a "haven for terrorists" one would have to wonder where he has been for the last eight years with plenty of evidence showing how the U.S. invasion has added fuel to terrorist organizations.  We would more simply have to wonder how he could think that an illegal occupation in one country could "fail," but an illegal occupation in another could "work."  Or possibly he is far beyond the thinking of any logical person – very interesting.  But, since there is so much talk of his intelligence, especially when it comes to foreign policy, we can throw this conclusion out.

            The other conclusion is that Biden is intelligent, but not different than Cheney with his "ineffective outcomes."  This doesn’t really work if we rely on stated goals and objectives that are even misrepresented in the corporate media.  But, if we analyze U.S. actions instead of words, we could find different goals and objectives.  In this case, Biden would be intelligent because he can aptly run the U.S. Empire and extend its aims.  Plus, he wouldn’t differ greatly with Cheney’s "ineffective outcomes."  (I personally think this conclusion is most fitting, even though it is insane that you could have a system where Cheney could be perceived as intelligent).

            I threw out two other conclusions.  They would have been that Biden is intelligent and not Cheney or Biden is not intelligent and not Cheney, but there isn’t enough evidence to back up the assumption that Biden is not Cheney-like, as shown earlier in the article (sorry media).

            I personally think Biden is bombing the wrong thing.  I think he might as well just bomb the whole sentiment among the U.S. population of "hope" and "change you can believe in."  Oh wait, no, he’s so intelligent he’s bombing "two birds with one stone."  Congrats.

             

 

Leave a comment