Andy Bacevich Again

Consider the following claims, each of which in Washington circles has attained quasi-canonical status.

* The presence of US forces in the Islamic world contributes to regional stability and enhances American influence.
* The Persian Gulf constitutes a vital US national security interest.
* Egypt and Saudi Arabia are valued and valuable American allies.
* The interests of the United States and Israel align.
* Terrorism poses an existential threat that the United States must defeat.

For decades now, the first four of these assertions have formed the foundation of US policy in the Middle East. The events of 9/11 added the fifth, without in any way prompting a reconsideration of the first four. On each of these matters, no senior US official (or anyone aspiring to a position of influence) will dare say otherwise, at least not on the record.

Yet subjected to even casual scrutiny, none of the five will stand up. To take them at face value is the equivalent of believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy — or that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell really, really hope that the Obama administration and the upcoming Republican-controlled Congress can find grounds to cooperate.

Let’s examine all five, one at a time.

The Presence of US Forces: Ever since the US intervention in Lebanon that culminated in the Beirut bombing of October 1983, introducing American troops into predominantly Muslim countries has seldom contributed to stability. On more than a few occasions, doing so has produced just the opposite effect.

Iraq and Afghanistan provide mournful examples. The new book Why We Lost by retired Lieutenant General Daniel Bolger finally makes it permissible in official circles to declare those wars the failures that they have been. Even granting, for the sake of argument, that US nation-building efforts were as pure and honorable as successive presidents portrayed them, the results have been more corrosive than constructive. The IS militants plaguing Iraq find their counterpart in the soaring production of opium that plagues Afghanistan. This qualifies as stability?

America’s New War in the Middle East

And these are hardly the only examples. Stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia after Operation Desert Storm was supposed to have a reassuring effect. Instead, it produced the debacle of the devastating Khobar Towers bombing. Sending G.I.’s into Somalia back in 1992 was supposed to demonstrate American humanitarian concern for poor, starving Muslims. Instead, it culminated in the embarrassing Mogadishu firefight, which gained the sobriquet Black Hawk Down and doomed that mission.

Even so, the pretense that positioning American soldiers in some Middle East hotspot will bring calm to troubled waters survives. It’s far more accurate to say that doing so provides our adversaries with what soldiers call a target-rich environment — with Americans as the targets.

The Importance of the Persian Gulf: Although US interests in the Gulf may once have qualified as vital, the changing global energy picture has rendered that view obsolete. What’s probably bad news for the environment is good news in terms of creating strategic options for the United States. New technologies have once again made the United States the world’s largest producer of oil. The US is also the world’s largest producer of natural gas. It turns out that the lunatics chanting “drill, baby, drill” were right after all. Or perhaps it’s “frack, baby, frack.” Regardless, the assumed energy dependence and “vital interests” that inspired Jimmy Carter to declare back in 1980 that the Gulf is worth fighting for no longer pertain.

Access to Gulf oil remains critically important to some countries, but surely not to the United States. When it comes to propping up the wasteful and profligate American way of life, Texas and North Dakota outrank Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in terms of importance. Rather than worrying about Iraqi oil production, Washington would be better served ensuring the safety and well-being of Canada, with its bountiful supplies of shale oil. And if militarists ever find the itch to increase US oil reserves becoming irresistible, they would be better advised to invade Venezuela than to pick a fight with Iran.
Does the Persian Gulf require policing from the outside? Maybe. But if so, let’s volunteer China for the job. It will keep them out of mischief.

Arab Allies: It’s time to reclassify the US relationship with both Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Categorizing these two important Arab states as “allies” is surely misleading. Neither one shares the values to which Washington professes to attach such great importance.
For decades, Saudi Arabia, planet Earth’s closest equivalent to an absolute monarchy, has promoted anti-Western radical jihadism — and not without effect. The relevant numbers here are two that most New Yorkers will remember: 15 out of 19. If a conspiracy consisting almost entirely of Russians had succeeded in killing several thousand Americans, would US authorities give the Kremlin a pass? Would US-Russian relations remain unaffected? The questions answer themselves.
Meanwhile, after a brief dalliance with democracy, Egypt has once again become what it was before: a corrupt, oppressive military dictatorship unworthy of the billions of dollars of military assistance that Washington provides from one year to the next.

Israel: The United States and Israel share more than a few interests in common. A commitment to a “two-state solution” to the Palestinian problem does not number among them. On that issue, Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s purposes diverge widely. In all likelihood, they are irreconcilable.
For the government of Israel, viewing security concerns as paramount, an acceptable Palestinian state will be the equivalent of an Arab Bantustan, basically defenseless, enjoying limited sovereignty and possessing limited minimum economical potential. Continuing Israeli encroachments on the occupied territories, undertaken in the teeth of American objections, make this self-evident.
It is, of course, entirely the prerogative — and indeed the obligation — of the Israeli government to advance the well being of its citizens. US officials have a similar obligation: they are called upon to act on behalf of Americans. And that means refusing to serve as Israel’s enablers when that country takes actions that are contrary to US interests.
The “peace process” is a fiction. Why should the United States persist in pretending otherwise? It’s demeaning.

Terrorism: Like crime and communicable diseases, terrorism will always be with us. In the face of an outbreak of it, prompt, effective action to reduce the danger permits normal life to continue. Wisdom lies in striking a balance between the actually existing threat and exertions undertaken to deal with that threat. Grown-ups understand this. They don’t expect a crime rate of zero in American cities. They don’t expect all people to enjoy perfect health all of the time. The standard they seek is “tolerable.”

That terrorism threatens Americans is no doubt the case, especially when they venture into the greater Middle East. But aspirations to eliminate terrorism belong in the same category as campaigns to end illiteracy or homelessness: it’s okay to aim high, but don’t be surprised when the results achieved fall short.

Eliminating terrorism is a chimera. It’s not going to happen. US civilian and military leaders should summon the honesty to acknowledge this.

My friend M has put his finger on a problem that is much larger than he grasps. Here’s hoping that when he gets his degree he lands an academic job. It’s certain he’ll never find employment in our nation’s capital. As a soldier-turned-scholar, M inhabits what one of George W. Bush’s closest associates (believed to be Karl Rove) once derisively referred to as the “reality-based community.” People in Washington don’t have time for reality. They’re lost in a world of their own.  Source

Cowardly Dissimulating Midgets

The wonderful phrase is James Kuntsler's from his angry blog this week entitled "Barbarism vs Stupidism" which begins thus: "In my lifetime, the USA has not blundered into a more incoherent, feckless, and unfavorable foreign policy quandary than we see today." Notice, he tells us, how the crisis in Ukraine has disappeared from the news and front pages. Why? Because:

The US-led campaign to tilt Ukraine to Euroland and NATO — and away from the Russian-led Eurasian Customs Union — turned an “intelligence” fiasco into a strategic humiliation for the Obama White House. . . . So, the reason that all this has vanished from the news media is that it’s game-over in Ukraine. We busted it up, and can do more with it, and pretty soon the rump Ukraine region run out of Kiev will go crawling back to Russia begging for a little heating fuel.

And this before he sinks his teeth into the incredibly insane policy we've just initiated in Syria.

Does any tattoo-free American adult outside the Kardashian-NFL mass hypnosis matrix feel confident about the trajectory of US policy regarding the so-called Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL)? First, there is the astonishing humiliation that this ragtag band of psychopaths managed to undo ten years, 4,500 US battle deaths, and $1+ trillion worth of nation-building effort in Iraq in a matter of a few weeks this summer. The US public does not seem to have groked the damage to our honor, self-confidence, and international standing in this debacle. . . .

We’ll look back on these weirdly placid years after the 2008 train wreck with amazement. These are the rudderless years of no leadership, of cowardly dissimulating midgets. A people can only take so much of that.  

Although I agree almost totally with Kuntsler, particularly in his disgust for the imbecility that passes for leadership of this country, I'm not sure I agree that the NLF-saturated, smug, overfed gullible idiots who allow their government get away with so many monstrous lies and to perpetrate an unending stream of outrages on common sense without taking to the streets in dudgeon right now will one day be stirred enough to register some massive protest to these crimes. I agree with the general proposition that people can only take so much, but don't you see? We're past the point of doing anything about it. We've let things go too far to get anything changed without a blood bath ensuing. We'll be gunned down like dogs if the national security state decides that we finally get it. And half of us, at least, will be right there with the storm troopers applauding the final crushing of American constitutional democracy, not that we're not well on the road already.

Some Perspective

From Kuntsler this morning:

The US claims to have interests in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. These nations are respectively 11,925, 11,129, 10,745, and 10,072, miles away from America — not exactly neighbors of ours. All of them, one way or another, and partly due to our exertions, are checking into the homeless shelter of failed statedom. Afghanistan was, shall we say, a special case, since it was being used thirteen years ago explicitly as a “base” (al Qaeda) for launching attacks on US soil. But that was then. No other war or “war” in US history has lasted as long. And it remains unclear whether our presence there yet today is a “nation-building” project or a mere occupation, in the absence of some better idea of what to do.

Got that? Ponder the "national interest" for the United States in all of the named countries. Remember Libya? Quick now . . . why did we overthrow Qaddafi again? Oh yeah, it was so we could turn that country into a seething caldron of Islamic militias with no government at all in the nation. James Kuntsler again:

How many educated, media-marinated professors in their Ivy League turrets can explain in one paragraph what the necessity of overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi was, exactly? Anyone remember? I suppose, like many actions in history, it just seemed like a good idea at the time. If the idea was to keep the oil and gas flowing to western nations — i.e. the “Carter Doctrine” —well, excuse me while I cough into my sleeve. Production is about one-eighth what it was before Mr. Gaddafi exited the scene. That really worked.

Israel's Best Friend

That would be us, as in US. Israel would have a far tougher time throwing its weight around without Uncle Sugar. Now it turns out we're doing a lot more than the known $3.5 billion we subsidize their relentless oppression of the Palestinian people. Yet more revelations from the Snowden papers have made clear the extent of our complicity with the Middle East's longest-standing mess.

The U.S. government has long lavished overwhelming aid on Israel, providing cash, weapons and surveillance technology that play a crucial role in Israel’s attacks on its neighbors. But top secret documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden shed substantial new light on how the U.S. and its partners directly enable Israel’s military assaults – such as the one on Gaza.

Over the last decade, the NSA has significantly increased the surveillance assistance it provides to its Israeli counterpart, the Israeli SIGINT National Unit (ISNU; also known as Unit 8200), including data used to monitor and target Palestinians. In many cases, the NSA and ISNU work cooperatively with the British and Canadian spy agencies, the GCHQ and CSEC.

The relationship has, on at least one occasion, entailed the covert payment of a large amount of cash to Israeli operatives. Beyond their own surveillance programs, the American and British surveillance agencies rely on U.S.-supported Arab regimes, including the Jordanian monarchy and even the Palestinian Authority Security Forces, to provide vital spying services regarding Palestinian targets.

The new documents underscore the indispensable, direct involvement of the U.S. government and its key allies in Israeli aggression against its neighbors. That covert support is squarely at odds with the posture of helpless detachment typically adopted by Obama officials and their supporters.  Source

 I cannot help but think that if the American people really understood the ramifications of the day-to-day skullduggery, crime, and mayhem their tax dollars are paying for, they would rise up in righteous indignation.

But remember, I am unfortunately afflicted with flights of fantasy.

Bombs Away!

The Favorite US Solution

The "humanitarian" bombing in Iraq that our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president has declared is an obscenity. Of course, the US is not going to bomb anybody for any other reason but a noble one. Right? In this case it's to save a hapless group of people who practice an ancient religion that predates both Christianity and Islam from the murderous Islamic State militants who are overrunning parts of Syria and Iraq. They are bad people. They do terrible things, hateful things. And in this case they've run these people out of their town and up onto a nearby mountain. They are threatening to wipe them out, every last one. And the people are helpless without weapons or even the necessities of life.

The question confronting the Christian, the follower of Jesus, is what do you do? Well, you offer the suffering all the aid you can. But you do not wield the sword against their enemies. If you are going to be faithful to the gospel, you cannot do violence against another child of God. The command is love your enemies, not kill your enemies. If there's one truth that's been established by the history of our species on Earth, it's that violence begets violence. Always. It never solves a problem. It always spawns new problems, usually worse problems. Killing spawns more killing. War and its hellish fruits must be opposed. All war. Always. There's no other way I can think of that we will ever have peace. Violence must cease.

This is hard stuff. Real hard. It's impossibly idealistic, isn't it? And given our species's love of blood and war, seemingly insane. You would not have trouble finding a lot of people to agree. Pacifists and conscientious objectors are almost universally despised people. They are so far off the reservation, so at odds with the huge majority of humanity, that for that reason alone--they are that different--they must be spurned. But it seems to me there's no other way if you're going to try and model your life of the way Jesus lived his. I'm sorry. There is injustice and suffering the globe over. People are being killed everywhere because they are the wrong color, the wrong religion, the wrong nationality, have the wrong political beliefs, follow the wrong ideology, leader, or movement. Is more killing going to put an end to killing and injustice? Humans have been killing people who are different for centuries on end . . . and has it made us happier, more prosperous, more secure? If you can answer yes to these questions, then stand up a salute our reentry into war in Iraq. 

Bush Trifecta

As in the vile little pretender who occupied the White House from 2000-2008. That Bush. And the trifecta being Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gaza. All of which are coming unglued and are being convulsed by violence--except maybe Afghanistan which is on the brink of being convulsed by violence on account of a disputed election for president which is ongoing. As we speak, Hamas is firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip and the Israelis are responding with their usual air strikes in retaliation. I don't need to remind you how both of Bush's wars to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq have fared. Iraq is alight as parts of it and Syria are now being claimed as the caliphate proclaimed by Islamic jihadists so violent and extreme that even al qaeda spurns them. And yet we never hear anybody raging against Bush and the consummate folly that has brought us to this pass.

See this piece by Juan Cole for gory details on what a massive fuck-up U.S. policy in the Middle East has been for the past 15 years. The whole area is imploding . . . do you entertain any thought whatsoever that this would be going on had the U.S. military not been there during that time?

Random Stories

With the subtitle: Mostly bad news. The following headlines appeared in today's USA Today.

• Economy shows new signs of weakness -- Well, for the regular people,the 99 percent of us who don't inhabit the realms of unreality where there is no such thing as not enough money to do any damn thing you want, this is not a great surprise. In fact, I would argue that the so-called "recovery" has not arrived for most of those millions brought low by the recession. The real question is whether it ever will.
• Police: Boy's parents researched hot-car deaths -- A mom and dad in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, did some Internet research on child deaths inside of vehicles and the temperatures required for that to happen. Then the dad drives their 22-month old toddler to his job and leaves him locked in the SUV for 7 hours. The little boy died of hypothermia. The father claimed he "forgot" the kid was in the car. I don't know if there is a hell, but there ought to be. With a special place for people like this. 
• Critical need for primary care providers -- Bottom line is U.S. because of population growth, more aging people, and the Affordable Care Act is expected to need 52,000 more primary care physicians by 2025 and we're going to fall far short. There are a number of issues including funding for medical residencies, the rising cost of med school, more lucrative specialty care fields, and the scope of practice laws (states have been slow in allowing PAs and nurse practitioners to take over services traditionally provided by physicians.) I think the only thing this country is going to have more of by 2025 is idiots and poor people. Everything else, we're going to fall short.
• Ebola crisis now deadliest ever -- When does good news come out of Africa? The crisis in western Africa is the worst ever and it's threatening to spread. 400 dead already. This Ebola virus is deadly. Causes high fever, vomiting, muscle pain, diarrhea and can lead to massive internal bleeding and organ failure. It kills 90 percent of its victims. It's spread by simple contact with victim's (human or animal) fluids, tissues, or blood. Traditional African burial rituals, suspicion of foreign doctors, and just plain ole ignorance are not helping in the fight.
• Iraqi insurgents announce new Islamic state -- This Al-qaeda breakaway bunch (ISIL--Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant--they left because Al-qaeda wasn't radical enough) has overrun parts of Syria and northern Iraq. They say they are now a new Islamic caliphate. I guess we'll have to see, but another piece on the editorial page that asks "If the U.S. is going to re-engage, it should do so with the means to win." sends chills up my spine. Can anyone in their right mind think what we should do is get entangled in that shit again?

Communist!

VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope Francis called Friday for governments to redistribute wealth to the poor in a new spirit of generosity to help curb the "economy of exclusion" that is taking hold today.

I can hear the shrieks renting the air from the right already. You can be sure that Francis will be called: a socialist, a Marxist, a communist at the least. And probably a lot of other things. Whaddaya think the chances of "governments" following his advice are?

Bring Back Our Girls

What's the story on these 200+ teenaged girl students seized by this off-the-wall group of Islamist terrorists called Boko Haram in Nigeria? Are you kidding me? These children have been gone now for about 25 days, and the world is just getting around (within the past few days) to noticing that the Nigerian government hasn't done squat to find out where these kids are and rescue them. Of course, their parents and relatives have been screaming bloody murder since it happened. But it's just recently that we've heard from the country's president, Goodluck Jonathan (Is anybody else struck by the absurdity of this name, and especially under the circumstances?) to the effect that the problem is too big for his country's resources to fix.

So now we have the spectacle of the U.S., among other countries, sending a special team of "helpers" over there--no military apparently, just hostage negotiator and intel type people--to see if they can find these kids almost a month after they were seized and their school and dorm burned down.

Methinks it might be a little too little too late.

More on TPP

I found another succinct description of the Trans-Pacific Partnership this morning that I can share. 

Research concludes that if you're making less than $87,000 per year (the current 90th percentile wage), the Trans-Pacific Partnership would mean a pay cut. But that's fine for corporations who want this treaty. 

TPP is a massive "trade" treaty between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. "Trade" is in quotes because only five of the treaty's 29 chapters actually deal with trade. Others set rules on investment, set limits on the ability of governments to regulate corporations, restrict a government's ability to spend its own tax dollars on goods made in that country (such as "Buy America" procurement policies) and other things well beyond the usual scope of what would be considered a trade agreement. This leads many to claim that the treaty is really about limiting the ability of governments to reign in the giant corporations. (For those not familiar with TPP, read all about it in ourfuture.org's TPP section.)

Here's the source for the blip above. Bottom line is plain to see. Another gigantic boondoggle for rapacious, out-of-control capitalism, which, as is becoming increasingly apparent, will be the death of us all.

A Bad Deal

Traveling Salesman: Obama, having completely screwed up a chance to have a national single-payer health system as his legacy, is now trying to make his mark by forcing Asian nations to hand their sovereignty over to international cartels, by labeling anything that cuts into the potential profits of the world-wide corporate masters 'trade barriers'. Let's hope he fails at this at least as badly as he did with healthcare.  Source

 He's talking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Never heard of it? Well, that's by design. This article from the Washington Post will enlighten you. Suffice it to say, this is not a good deal for people. This is a great deal for corporations. This is not a good deal for the environment. This is a great deal for corporations. This is not a good deal for the working class. This is a great deal for corporations. This is not a good deal for global warming. This is a great deal for corporations.

Got the picture? And it's going to be foisted upon us by the servants of the corporations in due time. Count on it.

Another Slant on Crimea

Sounds Plausible: Jack Matlock, former US Ambassador to the USSR, says that in annexing Crimea, Putin may be at least partially reacting to years of provocation by the US, including the eastward march of NATO and the expansion of US military bases in Eastern Europe.  Source: here

 Gee, ya think? Why is it that the U.S. can do anything it damn well pleases in our "national interest," can define anything it damn well pleases as our "national interest," can deploy as many troops, ships, aircraft, and drones as we damn well please in our "national interest" and other countries are not afforded the same privileges?

Could it be that other countries' national interest is what we say it damn well is as well?

Grinding Out the Axiom . . . Again and Again

It is axiomatic, so it seems, that whatever Americans hear from the Western press, politicians, and pundits is the truth.  Even the most enlightened among our citizenry in the USA seem to believe every fable they are fed by these greedy ignoramuses.  For some reason, if the current occupant of the White House makes a claim, and it is repeated ad infinitum by his paid mouthpieces, it becomes gospel for a majority of the country.  What we fail to recollect is that, like most gospels, these fables or fairy tales are constructed and proferred to ameliorate the masses regarding their way of life, their beliefs. 

America is not the pristine and morally righteous land of the free, home of the brave.  Its ignorant leaders and their mouthpieces hide behind false flags and national security, as they manage their kill lists, drone bombings, trumped up NGOs, special ops, secret services, illegal  data collection, and grandiose spectacles; all of it in order to keep the blinders well in place and the masses preoccupied with the problems of housing, clothing and feeding themselves. All of this transpires as the wealthiest in the West, without fear or recrimination, steal and loot and enslave the rest of the world.  Why are we so stupid and oh, so lazy?

The latest boner is the arrogance of the Obama administration and its Euro-dupes to declare financial and economic war on Russia for publicly agreeing to help its own citizens living in Ukraine while addressing its own security interests, safeguarding its own borders from a newly installed fascism (with Washington’s assistance) in its sister country. All I hear from the Western politicians and its media lapdogs is whining about Russia and its evil intentions. I do not care to entertain any more American whining and complaining about Russia or Putin’s ulterior motives in Ukraine.   Let us focus on our own asshole in D.C., not someone else’s!  No modern government is perfect! Quite the opposite. They are all complicit in the degradation of the planet and the destruction of life, human or otherwise.  But, the smug self-righteousness of the American imperium is simply too much for any person with more than a forth grade education to stand for anymore!  source: here

 The writer of these truths continues with his wishes for Obama--the "oligarch in chief"--to suffer the same indignities as he's visited on others, such as being imprisoned in Guantanamo. I'm not going to go there. This sample is angry and true enough. I simply wonder whether he's right about the fourth-grade education part. Alas, if that were true, we'd be OK. But you and I know it's not true. There's a whole nation of sheep out there who have been propagandized and socialized into smug self-righteousness. And it won't be long before we all pay.

SOF

This article in "Tom Dispatch" will give you just the slightest taste of what's going on with our special operations forces. And I can tell you, although you might be shocked by its revelations, the truth of matter is far worse. It's SOF's business to be secretive, and if they are being queried about what they do, they will not tell the truth. Period. So you can take the numbers in this piece with a grain of salt. They are higher. I was in SOCOM after 9/11. I witnessed the vast infusion of money and troops that followed. And I felt the surge of excitement and blood-lust through the place when all of a sudden a numerous, cunning, omnipresent, always-dangerous and ruthless enemy--Muslim terrorists--was out there to stalk and kill for the foreseeable future. The so-called "war on terror" was the best thing since flush toilets as far as SOCOM was concerned. I thought it was ludicrous, but mine was a distinctly minority opinion.

I worked for these people, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) with its thousands of special operations forces (SOF). For a long time, 13 years. Talk about a square peg in a round hole! That's what I was. For deep down, way deep--because to be open about what I really thought would have been insane, under the circumstances--I really despised what was going on around me there, and the tiny part I played in advancing the mission of the organization. Although I take great pains and am prompt to declare that the individuals I met and worked with were for the most part upstanding, outstanding, honorable, dedicated people. And they were smart people, too. SOF is the cream of the crop. But I thought they were in the grip of mass delusion. But for very few I met there, they were all flaming flag-waving "patriots," which is to say they didn't question the foreign policy of the country, they didn't question any of the missions they were given, or the cost of what they were doing, or the secrecy in which everything was cloaked, the blood-curdling mystique which they embraced. They were (naturally) knee-jerk Republicans of the most conservative kind. Me, with my shaggy hair, decidedly un-SOF-like physique, and Democratic politics . . . well, I was looked upon as some sort of curio. I thought of myself as a token liberal that was allowed to inhabit their headquarters dwelling, sort of like you allow stray dog or cat to hang around. I was not sorry to leave there. I don't miss it.

War Is . . .

 

It's the story of America, brothers and sisters. There's big, big money in war . . . and big, big money justifies anything, like selling a nation's soul to corporate profit.

Chomsky on One of My Favorite Themes

And that would be the real danger we face from stupid people.



Don't know about you, but I find this hard to argue with. And it's not without humor either.

Hold the Phone

Well, there's a new twist in the Syrian mess today. The Russians say Assad has agreed to international control of his chemical weapons. And Obama is set to address the nation tonight on this crisis. From all appearances today, it will be a nation decidedly against doing anything in Syria, much less launch an attack. It's extremely doubtful the Congress will support the president on this, but of course he could go ahead with a military strike on his own, and he hasn't said he will or he won't. On top of that we've got the secretary of state John Kerry saying yesterday our planned action will be "extremely small". That should scare 'em.

Dunno . . . this is beginning to look like the Keystone Cops to me.

Imperial Mentality

Whenever Noam Chomsky speaks, I listen. He is one of my heroes. For decades he has spoken out against the madness that is US foreign policy. His spoken just as eloquently in behalf of the poor, the displaced, the miserable, the cheated, the victims of concentrated wealth and power that rule the globe. He reminded me in a recent article, what wonderful things are being done by our close ally the state of Israel in its neighborhood. His reflections were brought on by recent visit to Gaza, that hellhole for Palestinians situated between Israel, the sea, and Egypt, all hostile neighbors. Chomsky talks about the settled Israeli policy to repress the people in the Gaza Strip: "humiliation, degradation, and torture." It's an integral part, he argues, of the conqueror mindset. And without saying so directly--as he has in other places--he would surely argue that the U.S. has it too.

The need to humiliate those who raise their heads is an ineradicable element of the imperial mentality.

In the case of Israel-Palestine, there has long been a near-unanimous international consensus on a diplomatic settlement, blocked by the United States for 35 years, with tacit European acceptance. 

Contempt for the worthless victims is no small part of the barrier to achieving a settlement with at least a modicum of justice and respect for human dignity and rights. It's not beyond imagination that the barrier can be overcome by dedicated work, as has been done elsewhere. 

Unless the powerful are capable of learning to respect the dignity of the victims, impassable barriers will remain, and the world will be doomed to violence, cruelty and bitter suffering.

Related articles

• | Shooting the Messenger: How Noam Chomsky is discussed! (warcrimesinternational.wordpress.com)
• Noam Chomsky: Obama Not Willing To Support Palestinian Rights (womensphilanthropy.typepad.com)

Lest We Forget

With all the folderol lately on the anniversary of the Iraq war, the beginning of the Iraq war, I suppose, we tend to forget that distant time when this country launched itself into a 10 year conflict based on a tissue of lies. All it takes to divert the American people from thinking, remembering, or reflecting is some kind of circus, the greatest of which of course is a shooting war pitting American "heroes" against the boogie man of the hour, in this case Saddam Hussein and his crew of devils in Iraq. Mega sports events are always good for this too. in the country is generously supplied with both.

But Chris Hedges reminds us in a recent article in truthdig. He calls it "The Treason of the Intellectuals." Here's what he had to say:

The rewriting of history by the power elite was painfully evident as the nation marked the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Some claimed they had opposed the war when they had not. Others among “Bush’s useful idiots” argued that they had merely acted in good faith on the information available; if they had known then what they know now, they assured us, they would have acted differently. This, of course, is false. The war boosters, especially the “liberal hawks”—who included Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Al Franken and John Kerry, along with academics, writers and journalists such as Bill Keller, Michael Ignatieff, Nicholas Kristof, David Remnick, Fareed Zakaria, Michael Walzer, Paul Berman, Thomas Friedman, George Packer, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Kanan Makiya and the late Christopher Hitchens—did what they always have done: engage in acts of self-preservation. To oppose the war would have been a career killer. And they knew it.

He goes on to say that all these worthies not only acted as cheerleaders for the war, but went out of their way to ridicule and discredit those of us – and happily I include myself – who opposed the accursed war from the very beginning. Just peruse that list of above. Many shining lights of the left (and some centrists)! And from this vantage point, you really have to wonder about these people. Al Franken? Chuck Schumer? Hedges argues that all of them were more concerned with their political fortunes then with, and I don't think it's an overstatement in this case to say: "virtue." The virtue of standing up for what is right, moral, and true.

Read the piece. Hedges is eloquent in his outrage.

More Leaks, Less Classified!!

It's encouraging to run into people, even if they are just in print on a page, that subscribe the same kind of views as yourself . . . even if the milieu in which you find yourself would automatically brand your views as damn near radical. Case in point: this piece in Atlantic Online by Conor Friedersdorf. All those leaks of State Dept stuff and military stuff and lately Afghan War stuff . . . well, great, I say! Let's have more of them. Why does the government hide stuff from us? Don't even think that national security has much to do with any of it . . . No, it's more elemental than that. The government doesn't want us to know what it's doing in our name and with our money. So all this latest brouhaha about leaks of classified information about CIA drone attacks in Pakistan is just nonsense. Everybody in the world knows we're using drones to kill people in the Middle East. Yet the president is hollering and so are members of both parties in Congress, especially members of the Senate Intelligence Committee such as John McCain and Diane Feinstein. Give me a break.

"The notion that the United States government should wage ongoing war in multiple countries while keeping it secret from its own citizens is noxious. By my lights, the CIA drone program's existence should not be a state secret. Obama ought to declassify it." Right on, brother.

Fact is, Obama has been only too happy to talk classified information himself when it's politically beneficial, and he's has been pure hell on whistle-blowers (this guy is just so wrong on so many counts) All this fuss about something kids in the Congo know about strikes me as a bit more than slightly ridiculous.

"Congress ought to be forcing Obama to declassify more. An illegitimate cult of secrecy is the problem. But Feinstein, McCain and others seem determined to have a less transparent executive. They want a man they regard as having put his political prospects above the safety of Americans to be even less transparent about his actions and more secretive."

Related articles

• Obama denies White House responsibility in national security leaks

  ---

• Why More Secrets Means More Leaks

  ---

• Probing Obama's secrecy games

  ---