The blind in the US

The US is routinely annoyed at the world's refusal to believe what it 'wants' it to believe. Successive US administrations labelled the dissenters as either demented or evil because the US simply couldn't err or be dishonest. Proof: its record to-date beginning with its bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
That US problem that grows by the day is the rising number of its enemies, the latest addition thereto being Pakistan's ISI - an old trusted ally. Yet, what the US never did was to look inside its own shirt. Intoxicated by power, it blindly resorts to the gun rather than civilised dialogue to resolve issues.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the unsuccessful US military chief retiring shortly, is looking for scapegoats; he is the typical American general and wants to pass the buck for his failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the likely defeat in Afghanistan being foretold by rising casualties of Nato soldiers on both these fronts.
Isn't it odd that there were no Afghan or Nato security barriers in hundreds of miles of territory between Kabul and North Waziristan from where came the alleged attackers. The terrorist attack on Kabul was a massive goof on the part of the US and Nato, which have every conceivable detective gadgetry.
This failure necessitated a cover-up to successfully persuade the US and Nato taxpayers that their soldiers weren't at fault; the devil was Pakistan. But, hopefully, the Americans haven't forgotten how close the US was to the Haqqani group at the time when America was busy "giving the USSR its Vietnam."
As for the allegation that the Haqqani network carried out this attack on prodding by Pakistan's ISI, Major General Athar Abbas said "we have solid information that several countries have contacts with this group" operating from Nooristan and Kunar - the Afghan provinces from where the attacks were launched on Pakistan.
While US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta threatened unilateral action against allegedly Pakistan-based terrorist networks as America's "right", he never opened his mouth on the attacks on Pakistan from the US and Nato-occupied Afghanistan. Yet, Pakistan didn't hurl such naked threats at the US or Nato.
According to Major General Abbas, contacts with such groups are for the sake of gathering intelligence - something the US and Nato do openly - nothing else. Who is negotiating 'peace' with the Taliban? Who has proposed to provide the Taliban an office in one of the Gulf states? Isn't it the US?
In his latest parleys with General James Mattis, head of US Central Command, General Kayani expressed grave concerns over the infiltration of militants from the Afghan side and made it clear that Pakistan would neither tolerate such incursions nor any allegations of the sort levelled by Adm. Mullen.
General Kayani warned General Mattis that, allegations against the ISI for its ties with the Haqqani network without any proof (not even tapes of the alleged tele-conversation) must stop to sustain Pak-US ties, and that any US operation inside Pakistan would be opposed with full force.
Earlier, Pakistan's Foreign Minister was blunt in telling the US that "you can't afford to alienate Pakistan and its people" adding further that, publically accusing (without proof) an otherwise "strategic" ally was a diplomatic gaffe. Impliedly, that's how the US adds to its enemies.
But what is odd about the tough Pakistani stand is that while the Foreign Office and the Army are on the same page, the Prime Minister is not as outspoken in his reaction to what he too calls a "propaganda blitz by the US against Pakistan". While he talks about the US disregard for the "sacrifices by the people of Pakistan and negation of all that we have endeavoured to achieve over the last so many years, wherein more than 35,000 Pakistanis fell victim to acts of terrorism and many more were injured", he hasn't condemned the US in a befitting manner.
Even now he says: "We need to jointly develop a clear and coherent strategy, a clear roadmap so that all three - Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US are on the same page and work together for achieving the stated goal of reconciliation and peace. It is with this in view that we established the trilateral Core Group."
What the PM can't see is that being a US ally never paid any dividends. All Pakistan got in return was a stigma because the US doesn't believe in making friends; it only believes in nurturing disposable stooges - a reality reflected in the "Arab spring" wherein US and Western stooges (except Gaddafi) are on the run.
What the US refuses to accept is the fact that its imperial mindset made it unacceptable globally. Insisting on always being right while it did practically everything on the basis of US-serving expediency, was sheer bad politics but the power-drunk administrations kept indulging therein.
Unstinted US backing for every crime committed by Israel made America the most unacceptable state for Muslims everywhere. The only reason that hatred hasn't blown up fully owes itself to the presence of US stooges in the corridors of power in many Muslim states. By vetoing the Palestinian request for recognition as a state and UN membership, the US will bolster Muslim hatred for the US and erode the UN image because veto power is a wholly illegitimate UN-sanctioned authority that belies UN claims to treating all nations equally.
The Afghans never accepted foreign intervention in their affairs. They know that the US backed their struggle against the Red Army not because America was an ally; it did so to settle its scores with the Soviet Union. That's why Americans left Afghanistan (in shambles) after the Soviet withdrawal, and returned as invaders after 9/11.
If the PM is really a visionary, it is time he told the US what's wrong with the US foreign policy to convince the US that its real enemies are inside its military-industrial complex, not in Muslim countries. Also, that the US has a great future but only if it can check the nefarious designs of this power-hungry complex.
On January 17, 1961, in his final speech as President, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave the nation a dire warning about the developing threat - the military-industrial complex, a formidable union of defence contractors and the armed forces - because an arms race [with the USSR] could take resources away from the social sectors. That's what happened making the US the world's most indebted and economically strained nation in the world.