Just like "Believe it or Not," America's Republican Party is now calling for a withdrawal from Afghanistan and describes the foreign wars of the United States as "Obama's wars." Members of the party attack the president for the deteriorating US economy and hold him responsible, as they talk about "Obama's economy." Some of them even opposed the partial withdrawal that Barack Obama announced recently, as a prelude to a complete pull-out by 2014. President Dwight Eisenhower was a Republican with unmatched military experience; he commanded the victorious Allied troops in Europe against Nazi Germany and in 1961 he gave his farewell address, which contained some of the most honest comments by any of the 44 US presidents up to today. He warned of the military-industrial complex and expressed his fear of its "unwarranted influence on government." We have lived to see how true Eisenhower's words were. The Republican Party that I see today is a party of war and the wealthy. If we consider only the current situation, the George W Bush administration waged three wars and lost them all, in Afghanistan, in Iraq and against terror. Today, the Obama White House does not know how to withdraw from Afghanistan. Will it be a partial or full withdrawal, as it thinks about leaving troops in Iraq, despite the opposition of the majority of Iraqis there? The war on terror, meanwhile, has been abandoned without this being announced, and it is no longer mentioned in official American rhetoric. The Republican Party, which was led by Neo-conservatives loyal to Israel and advocates of an impossible American empire to rule the world, was behind Bush's wars, and was supported by some Democrats with suspect loyalties. The voting record in the House and the Senate leaves no room for debating this point. When seven Republican presidential candidates gathered in New Hampshire this month, I was surprised that the candidates scarcely mentioned the wars that have brought disaster to the US candidates; it happened only twice, and only tangentially. Mitt Romney said, in response to a question by a student, that US forces should return from Afghanistan. Ron Paul said that US troops should protect America's borders from waves of immigrants instead of trying to protect the borders between Iraq and Afghanistan, and it seems he is unaware that there is a big country between them, called Iran. The candidates opted to focus on the economy, which is the most important thing in all elections. However, they had the individual and collective cheek to blame Barack Obama for what the Republican Party did before all of our eyes, in the first decade of this century. The military adventures led in the end to destroying the biggest economy in the world, and Bush left Obama a bankrupt country that was borrowing money for China. Can anyone inside or outside the United States deny the truth? The biggest economy in the world allocates 5.5 percent of its annual budget to defense, which is a lie, since it actually goes to attacking far-off countries. Meanwhile, Britain spends 2.5 percent of its budget on defense, and the goal of NATO countries is to see this figure drop to 2 percent. In comparison, Britain intervened in Libya at a cost of 100 million pounds up to now, and there have been calls in the country for an end to participation in the war. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost the US $3 billion a week, or around $3 trillion up to now. The wars are the number one reason for the American, and later global, financial crisis. I said the leading reason, because it was not the only one. The George W Bush administration cut taxes on the wealthy and the Republican Party continues to oppose dropping tax exemptions for the wealthy, even though the American economy is nearly bankrupt. In other words, the Republican Party supports wars and then denies it; the party exempts the wealthy from taxes and then treats the poor harshly, as it opposes health insurance for the poor. Some states have begun to pass laws that limit the influence of labor unions. The Republicans say unemployment is at 14 percent but do not add that their policies are the reason; instead, they accuse of Obama of something they did. They are the ones who supported laws that mean 0.1 percent of Americans receive 10.4 percent of the income of all working people in America. The average per capita wage of these people is $1.7 million a year while millions of Americans either lack work, or are seeing their salaries frozen. Can a party with such baggage put forward next year a candidate who will be accepted by American voters? The Republicans have enough media clout to turn reality on its head. Even so, I believe that Obama's good fortune in his political career will remain with him, with the lack of a Republican candidate who can gain people's trust. [email protected]
