US must change its useless, troublesome Leninist policies: Burns



Mon Aug 5, 2013 7:38AM GMT


Lenin said: I would sup with the devil if it serves the interest of the state, and I think that is really the philosophy (of) the American State Department..., let us try something different. It cannot be any worse than it is now.”

Related Viewpoints:

What serves to connect global hot spots?


Press TV has conducted an interview with Michael Burns, a military analyst from New York City, to share his opinions on how the US defines its recent closures of 20 of its embassies worldwide due to alleged terrorist threats.


Following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Mr. Burns, your take on this in general? Do you think that it is because of real threats or imaginary threats that this has happened at this point in time?

Burns: The American citizens are so demoralized today and for several weeks, over the deplorable condition of oversight that has been imposed upon them on their private lives, their personal lives, their phone conversations, that there is a broad streak of cynicism running through every announcement coming out of Washington and in respect to the announcement of the terrorist activity, there is a great cynicism that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Scoundrel is too strong a word, but it is the last refuge of a government bureaucracy that feels under attack by demoralized, anger and resentment, by the American people.

Press TV: What about that Mr. Burns? It seems to be some double standards coming out of Washington. I am wondering if people from other countries, that perhaps they would say that former President George W. Bush is a terrorist, perhaps they would say that current President Obama is a terrorist; if they just took it upon themselves to kill whoever they thought or they claim is a terrorist, how the United States would react?

Burns: That is exactly right, that is exactly precisely on target, no pun intended; but any country who has a dispute or feels a grievance with the United States and is recognized as a sovereign country can simply say such and such and so and so and this person, that person is a terrorist and we will simply fire a drone at them.

That is effectively what the United States does. There is no court, there is no judicial process, there is no lawyer and it is really becoming a huge..., a very large painful burden on the emotions of the American citizens to realize that we are living in a country where our rights may be written on these wonderful plaques on official buildings but they add up to a big zero as far as our ability to anticipate surviving the adverse judgment of someone in Washington, not to say someone behind the control panel of a drone unit, somewhere around the world.

Press TV: If these countries, these governments, that many would say the people in power, US puppets, if they decided not to go along with the United States, would the United States abide by the order from another country telling them not to do it?

Burns: No, no, no, not in my opinion. America would go and do just what they want to do.

After 9/11, the threats that we stated, that we gave, to Pakistan, was simply that if you do not go along with what we want, we will just invade you, run over you, we do not really care.


So there is an asymmetry of power in the world. America has the power and is willing to use it. The asymmetry comes because these other countries: Somalia, Yemen, they really do not have any power, they might have a government that is in the pocket of the American policy makers, due to the money we send them to render them in that type of ..., condition to follow our will but they do not have the power, we have the power and we have shown our willingness to use it arbitrarily in the minds of many Americans and may I suggest in the minds of many foreign nationals.

Press TV: What about that? The world is safe Mr. Burns? We have had millions of Iraqis killed since this declaration of war on terror, besides of the other countries that I will not even get to, right now. Do you see the world being safer since this declaration of the war on terror?

Burns: Well, there is a Latin phrase: Post hoc ergo propter hoc: After this then because of this. The fact is that we have not had any attacks, the causality for that good fortune, one can only speculate and guess, perhaps it is due to our aggressive posture, perhaps it is due to the blind state of aggressiveness on the part of terrorists; I do not know and I do not think that many people do know. We are lucky ... , we thank God that we have not had it. As to the reasons why, one can only speculate.

Press TV: What about that Mr. Burns? If we look at al-Qaeda in general, on the one hand as far as the United States saying that it is the biggest threat to them right now, and on the other hand we look at, like al-Qaeda, which has never attacked, it seems, for example like Israel but always seems to be in these Muslim countries and causing chaos. Why do you think that that is the case?

Burns:
I do not have a precise answer to that, except to point out that we have yet to define who the “terrorists” are. Al-Qaeda happens to lead the list, at the same time, however, when it serves the interest of America to put their thumb on the scale, in some of these Middle Eastern countries, Syria comes to mind right away.

We (US) seem to be quite willing to talk, communicate and supply resources to the local al-Qaeda unit there. So it is said, so it is spoken of, quite liberally in the international press.

So it is a very difficult question to answer. I am always brought to that great line of Lenin, the great Marxist who said: I would sup with the devil if it serves the interest of the state, and I think that is really the philosophy that the American State Department takes toward any institution, whether it be the al-Qaeda, a royalty, a right-wing dictator, a banana republic or any other polarity of power which we can use for our interests.

Press TV: So it does not matter, just used for Washington’s interests; it does not matter the effects of those policies on others as long as it is in Washington’s interest? Is that what you are saying?

Burns: Yes.

Press TV: Last question Mr. Burns. Do you think that it would be better for the United States to back away from these countries, to stop the militarism in these various countries and perhaps they would see a very different reaction?

Burns: I think so. I think that many Americans think so. I believe that many Americans feel, as I do, that we expected a big dividend by the end of the Cold War and it has been quite to the contrary. We have managed to get our fingers on every political pie around the world and usually at an expensive cost and without very happy results.

So yes, let us try something different. It cannot be any worse than it is now.


http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/05/317263/us-leninist-policies-must-end/