tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69600789539964256762024-03-19T02:35:38.488-07:00America's Hegemonic Global EmpireHegemony describes the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class, who manipulate the culture of the society — the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores — so that their ruling-class worldview becomes the norm. NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-18378180275627436012016-05-27T21:54:00.000-07:002016-06-16T19:50:02.200-07:00Dancing with America's Darkside<br />
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />
<img alt="Voices" src="http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/media/blogs/blog/tpv_logo_19.gif" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2 style="background-color: #f7f7ee; color: #7788aa; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin: 1ex 0px;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2016/05/25/america-wants-a-world-of#more43189" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">America Wants a World of Vassal States</a></span></h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="bSmallHead" style="background-color: #f7f7ee; color: #868686; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10.752px; margin: 2ex 0px 1ex;">
<pubdate>May 25th, 2016</pubdate> </div>
<div class="bSmallHead" style="background-color: #f7f7ee; color: #868686; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10.752px; margin: 2ex 0px 1ex;">
<br /></div>
<div class="content_full" style="background-color: #f7f7ee; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<div class="bText" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="font-size: 13.44px;">
<strong>Stephen Lendman</strong></div>
<div class="image_block" style="float: left; font-size: 13.44px; padding-right: 5px; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/media/blogs/blog/47/fascism-usa47.gif?mtime=1448097080" style="color: #456dbc; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="" class="loadimg" src="http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/media/blogs/blog/47/fascism-usa47.gif?mtime=1448097080" height="249" style="background: url("about:blank") 50% 50% no-repeat; border: none; display: inline-block; margin: 1ex; min-height: 64px; min-width: 64px;" width="380" /></a></div>
America’s deplorable dark side reflects pure evil, an agenda, including:<br />
<ul>
<li>endless wars on humanity, raping one country after another, murdering millions of helpless victims, creating nightmarish dystopian conditions everywhere it shows up;</li>
<li>g monied (as in gangsta) interests exclusively at the expense of beneficial social change, transforming America into a nation of paupers, run by super-rich elites;</li>
<li>criminalizing whistleblowers and activists for justice, systematically destroying fundamental freedoms at home and abroad, tolerating nothing interfering with its hegemonic agenda.</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="more43189" name="more43189" style="color: #425f99; font-weight: bold;"></a><br />
Lunatics in Washington fear real democracy, governance serving everyone equitably and fairly, peace and stability, nation-state sovereign independence, and mutual cooperation among all nations, a level playing field benefitting everyone.<br />
<br />
They want a world of subservient vassal states, serving their interests exclusively, controlling global resources, exploiting populations as serfs.<br />
<br />
Regime change is longstanding US policy - targeting all sovereign independent states, war its usual strategy of choice, other times coups, installing puppets like in Ukraine, many times assassinating “uncooperative” leaders, replacing them with convenient stooges.<br />
<br />
America demands its choices run key world institutions - the Bank of International Settlements (the central bank for central banks), all other central banks, the IMF, World Bank and other financial institutions, the UN, the World Trade Organization, labor groups, the OECD, judicial bodies, academia, the clergy, everything everywhere.<br />
<br />
Hegemons demand everyone worldwide march to the same drummer. Washington insists its rules alone apply, obedience demanded. Deviants are punished, independent thought and reasoning not tolerated.<br />
<br />
Orwell’s envisioned future “imagine(d) a boot stamping on a human face forever” - Big Brother watching everyone. Huxley’s dystopian, totalitarian Brave New World portrayed one controlled by mind manipulation and soma (a narcotic drug), people assigned to certain roles, conditioned to accept them docilely.<br />
<br />
America combines characteristics of both worlds - including a permanent state of war against invented enemies combined with police state repression, targeting nonbelievers, along with bread and circuses (soma) distracting people from what matters most.<br />
<br />
The narcotic of weekend football, other popular sports, shopping, television with nothing to watch but watched anyway, and other favored diversions manipulate people to ignore their own welfare, accept a miserable status quo instead of demanding something better.<br />
<br />
The courage of persecuted Palestinians is absent in America. Societies where serfs love their masters or cower under their boot aren’t fit to live in - the deplorable state of today’s America, a warrior police state, threatening humanity’s survival.<br />
<br />
The political philosopher Montesquieu (1689 - 1755) said “(t)here is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.”<br />
<br />
Rule of law principles no long matter in America. State terror replaced them, disguised as humanitarian intervention and democracy building, as well as maintaining order and security.<br />
<br />
A permanent state of war exists. US streets are battlegrounds. Lunatics run things. Washington’s criminal class is bipartisan. The unthinkable is more possible than ever - humanity-destroying nuclear war.<br />
<br />
Humans may become the first species ever to destroy themselves, exterminated by arrogance, hubris and overreach - emanating from Washington, partnered with Israel, Britain and other rogue states, ending life on earth, returning it to its state before bacteria emerged or however things began.<br />
<br />
We’re our own worst enemies as long as lunatics in Washington run things. They’ll kill us all if not stopped.<br />
<div style="font-size: 13.44px;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" style="font-size: 13.44px;">
-###-</div>
<div align="center" style="font-size: 13.44px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 13.44px;">
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at <a href="mailto:lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net" style="color: #456dbc; font-weight: bold;">lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net</a>.</div>
<div style="font-size: 13.44px;">
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0986073148/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0986073148&linkCode=as2&tag=thepeoplesvoi-20" style="color: #456dbc; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks World War III</a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=thepeoplesvoi-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0986073148" height="1" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" />".</div>
<div style="font-size: 13.44px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 13.44px;">
<a href="http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html" style="color: #456dbc; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html</a></div>
<div style="font-size: 13.44px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 13.44px;">
Visit his blog site at <a href="http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/" style="color: #456dbc; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">sjlendman.blogspot.com</a>.</div>
<div style="font-size: 13.44px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 13.44px;">
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-88854499432722585662016-03-22T12:27:00.001-07:002016-05-27T21:43:52.036-07:00The Ostensible Writing On the Wall: Hillary et. al. See One Thing, #StillSanders Stubbornly Sees Another<br />
<img alt="Home" src="http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/cd_tagline_logo_blue-500_0.jpg" height="128" width="640" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="field field--name-field-article-date field--type-datestamp field--label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'PT Sans Narrow', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: italic;">
<div class="field__items" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="field__item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<span class="date-display-single" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Monday, March 21, 2016</span></div>
<div class="field__item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<span class="date-display-single" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/further/2016/03/21/ostensible-writing-wall-hillary-et-al-see-one-thing-stillsanders-stubbornly-sees" target="_blank"><br /></a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; font-family: 'PT Serif', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: 5px !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/further/2016/03/21/ostensible-writing-wall-hillary-et-al-see-one-thing-stillsanders-stubbornly-sees" target="_blank">The Ostensible Writing On the Wall: Hillary et. al. See One Thing, #StillSanders Stubbornly Sees Another</a></h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="field-wrapper content-container clearfix inline-fields" id="field-wrapper-author" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">
<div class="grouping-prefix" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; margin: 0px 0.5em 0px 0px; vertical-align: middle; zoom: 1;">
by</div>
<div class="profile-titles clearfix" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle; zoom: 1;">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/author/abby-zimet-staff-writer" rel="nofollow" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Abby Zimet, staff writer</a></div>
</div>
<img alt="Image result for Hillary as Hegemon" height="334" src="https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSCPFeu81T6rg9y8m2gwqjWya8SGCtff0M48PQn9Q4f47IIbf8fRA" width="640" /><br />
<div class="field-wrapper content-container clearfix" id="field-wrapper-share" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'PT Serif', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 10px 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "pt serif" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">The discrepancies mount. In March, a grotesquely and unnecessarily</span><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/hillary_clinton_s_aipac_speech_was_a_symphony_of_craven_delusional_pandering.html" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; font-family: 'pt serif', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; text-decoration: none;"> pandering</a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "pt serif" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 17px;"> Hillary gave perhaps her most </span><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AIPAC2016?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; font-family: 'pt serif', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; text-decoration: none;">hawkish</a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "pt serif" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 17px;"> speech yet to the Zionist confab AIPAC, where to thunderous applause she </span><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/mar/21/us-election-2016-live-trump-clinton-sanders-cruz-kasich#56f00531e4b0304172354e6b" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; font-family: 'pt serif', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; text-decoration: none;">spoke out </a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "pt serif" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">against the "appalling" BDS movement she has long </span><a href="http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/controversial-israel-supporter-funneling-millions-clinton-campaign" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; font-family: 'pt serif', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; text-decoration: none;">criticized</a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "pt serif" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">, promised to invite Netanyahu to the White House right after she's elected, described sitting in Israeli hospital rooms comforting the victims of "terrorist bombs," vaguely urged everyone to try "avoiding damaging actions" on illegal settlements, and insisted American support of Israel's "security or survival" is not negotiable.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'PT Serif', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div class="field__items" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="field__item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />
<img alt="" class="media-element file-default _none caption-processed" src="http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/media/bernienice.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">A Gleeful Bernie in Washington</em></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
In contrast, the Jewish Sanders, who spent time on an Israeli kibbutz in the 1960s and has promised to seek a "<a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/03/09/bernie-sanders-promises-level-playing-field-on-israel-palestine/" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">level playing field" </a>for Israelis and Palestinians, skipped the event, the<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/19/sanders-stands-alone-only-candidate-skipping-aipac" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">only </a>candidate to do so. It's unclear if that was because of his campaign schedule, or because he was <a href="https://www.change.org/p/bernie-sanders-tell-bernie-sanders-to-reject-aipac-s-invitation" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">heeding</a> the <a href="https://www.change.org/p/bernie-sanders-tell-bernie-sanders-to-reject-aipac-s-invitation" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">petition</a> asking him to <a href="http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/petition-urges-sanders-to-snub-aipac-hotbed-of-clintonism-and-neoconservatism/" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">reject </a>a lobby representing "the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/17/binyamin-netanyahu-israel-arab-election" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">r</a>acist, militaristic, and anti-democratic policies of the most right-wing government in Israel's history.”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
Instead, Sanders headed to Washington <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/further/2016/03/21/%20https%3A//berniesanders.com/press-release/big-crowds-rally-bernie-washington-state/" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">rallies </a>that <a href="http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-seattle-rally-biggest-crowd-yet/" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">drew </a>over 35,000 supporters in three cities, including over 15,000 in Seattle, where many <a href="http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/bernie-sanders-rallies-thousands-at-seattles-keyarena/" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">stood</a> in lines in the rain for hours, and many more had to settle for listening from outside (with the bonus of Bernie eventually making his way out to greet them.) His events were all free. When Hillary goes to Washington this week, she'll be <a href="http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/costco-co-founder-to-host-clinton-at-fundraiser-next-week/" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">speaking </a>at a small, <a href="http://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/Clinton-is-coming-Will-she-come-out-of-6894104.php" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">private</a> fundraiser that will cost $2,700 to get in. For $50,000, you get to talk to her. 'Nuff said.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
The mind-blowing kicker: Despite everything - the fact that Sanders just raised a record $43.5 million from 1.5 million small contributors, his campaign has galvanized millions, his core arguments on <a href="http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-americas-pay/" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">economics, </a>military<a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/03/19/vote-sanders-everyone-else-will-send-your-kids-war/aJzUYVFOaivEbPy3BiButO/story.html?event=event25" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;"> interventionism</a>, police violence etc have resonated so deeply with Americans that establishment bestie Clinton now repeatedly parrots and sometimes <a href="http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/03/13/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-snl-skit-video-kate-mckinnon/" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">morphs into </a>him, that <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865650513/Poll-Utah-would-vote-for-a-Democrat-for-president-over-Trump.html" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">polls </a>find Sanders trouncing Drumpf et al by the biggest margins - despite all this, most of the <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/further/2016/03/21/%20http%3A//tyndallreport.com/comment/20/5773/" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">press</a> continues to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/upshot/sanders-campaign-will-travel-on-but-path-to-victory-is-all-but-blocked.html" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">ignore</a>, bury, patronize and <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-fantasy-campaign-hopes-win-hillary-clintons-pledged-delegates-unlikely-2338452" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">belittle</a> him and his "fantasy" campaign.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
Now, establishment pols, out of patience and/or a tad panicked by his grit, are politely <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-dems-winddown-220966" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">calling for</a> Sanders, in the words of <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Politico</em>, to "start winding things down," or as Barbara Boxer would <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-dems-winddown-220966%20" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">have</a> it, "The writing's on the wall." Yes, well. Depends on your interpretation. For evidence it's not over till it's over and many, many people swear it's not and are willing to work hard to make it so, see <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/wearebernie" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">here, </a><a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/stillsanders?source=feed_text&story_id=1123105687709477" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">here </a>and <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/stillsanders?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Ehashtag" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">here. </a></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
In the latest shock to the people who are supposed to know about these things, a new poll has <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865650513/Poll-Utah-would-vote-for-a-Democrat-for-president-over-Trump.html" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">found</a> that even in super-red Utah, where a Democrat hasn't won anything for 50 years, Bernie would beat Drumpf 48% to 37%, compared to Clinton narrowly beating him 38% to 36%. Chris Karpowitz, co-director of Brigham Young University's Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, calls "any matchup in which Democrats are competitive in the state of Utah" as "shocking." He adds, "Wow. Wow. That's surprising." There's been a lot of that going around.<br />
<br />
<img alt="Image result for Hillary as Hegemon" height="320" src="https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSFVrSv_BuqwasVhc8R7nQMbweuyCi86Cf6Bw7w0gSSMfQKDwQ0" width="640" /><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<img alt="" class="media-element file-default _none caption-processed" src="http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/media/berniewords_of_the_prophets.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<img alt="" class="media-element file-default _none caption-processed" src="http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/media/berniepeace.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<img alt="Image result for Hillary as Hegemon" height="350" src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKDoRlK_zFcEuho9bQzg2Bp4W0xB5VQxFSWFY8y5yH78Wd3mAj" width="640" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<img height="640" src="http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1460909706l/29429524.jpg" width="420" />NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-52260541964720804802014-10-04T16:40:00.004-07:002016-03-22T12:19:49.233-07:00 America’s Secret War in 134 Countries <br />
<img alt="The Nation" class="non-sticky" src="http://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/d-logo-header.png" /><br />
<br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/177964/americas-secret-war-134-countries?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> America’s Secret War in 134 Countries </span></a></h2>
<div class="article-teaser">
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;">The deployment of US Special Operations forces is a growing form of overseas power projection.</span></h3>
<br /></div>
<div class="views-field-value byline">
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/authors/nick-turse">Nick Turse</a></div>
<div class="views-field-value byline">
</div>
<span class="article-date">January 16, 2014</span><br />
<br />
<img alt="US-Special-forces" src="http://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/special_forces_sudan_rtr_img.jpg" height="416" width="640" /><br />
<div id="wysiwyg">
<div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-type-text field-field-image-caption">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<br />
<em>A US Special Forces trainer supervises a
military assault drill for a unit within the Sudan People’s Liberation
Army. (Reuters/Andreea Campeanu)</em><br />
<em><br /></em></div>
</div>
</div>
<em>This article originally appeared at <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175794/" target="_blank">TomDispatch.com</a>. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the <a href="https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:Join/signupId:43308/acctId:25612" target="_blank">latest updates from TomDispatch.com</a>.</em><br />
<br />
<br />
They operate in the green glow of night vision in Southwest Asia and stalk through the jungles of South America. They <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/us-commando-raids-john-kerry-defends-capture-of-libyan-terror-suspect-abu-anas-alliby-in-tripoli-8863933.html" target="_blank">snatch</a> men from their homes in the <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/356614/Maghrib" target="_blank">Maghreb</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/world/africa/Al-Qaeda-Suspect-Wanted-in-US-Said-to-Be-Taken-in-Libya.html" target="_blank">shoot it out</a>
with heavily armed militants in the Horn of Africa. They feel the salty
spray while skimming over the tops of waves from the turquoise
Caribbean to the deep blue Pacific. They conduct missions in the
oppressive heat of Middle Eastern deserts and the <a href="http://yle.fi/uutiset/us_army_special_forces_in_finland_for_winter_war_games/6517027" target="_blank">deep freeze</a> of Scandinavia. All over the planet, the Obama administration is <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175790/" target="_blank">waging a secret war</a> whose full extent has never been fully revealed—until now.<br />
<br />
Since September 11, 2001, US Special Operations forces have grown in
every conceivable way, from their numbers to their budget. Most telling,
however, has been the exponential rise in special ops deployments
globally. This presence—now, in nearly 70 percent of the world’s
nations—provides new evidence of the size and scope of a secret war
being waged from Latin America to the backlands of Afghanistan, from
training missions with African allies to information operations launched
in cyberspace.<br />
<br />
In the waning days of the Bush presidency, Special Operations forces were reportedly <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/socom/posture2008.pdf" target="_blank">deployed</a> in about sixty countries around the world. By 2010, that number had swelled to seventy-five, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304965.html" target="_blank">according</a> to Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe of <em>The Washington Post.</em> In 2011, Special Operations Command (SOCOM) spokesman Colonel Tim Nye <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175426/" target="_blank">told</a> TomDispatch that the total would reach 120. Today, that figure has risen higher still.<br />
<br />
In 2013, elite US forces were deployed in 134 countries around the
globe, according to Major Matthew Robert Bockholt of SOCOM Public
Affairs. This 123 percent increase during the Obama years demonstrates
how, in addition to conventional wars and a <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175551/engelhardt_assassin_in_chief" target="_blank">CIA drone campaign</a>, public diplomacy and <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175713/tomgram%20percent3A_engelhardt,_you_are_our_secret/" target="_blank">extensive electronic spying</a>,
the US has engaged in still another significant and growing form of
overseas power projection. Conducted largely in the shadows by America’s
most elite troops, the vast majority of these missions take place far
from prying eyes, media scrutiny, or any type of outside oversight,
increasing the chances of unforeseen blowback and catastrophic
consequences.<br />
<div style="margin-top: 34px;">
<strong>Growth Industry</strong></div>
<br />
Formally established in 1987, Special Operations Command has grown
steadily in the post-9/11 era. SOCOM is reportedly on track to reach
72,000 personnel in 2014, up from 33,000 in 2001. Funding for the
command has also jumped exponentially as its baseline budget, $2.3
billion in 2001, hit $6.9 billion in 2013 ($10.4 billion, if you add in
supplemental funding). Personnel deployments abroad have skyrocketed,
too, from 4,900 “man-years” in 2001 to 11,500 in 2013.<br />
<br />
A recent <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175790/tomgram%20percent3A_nick_turse%20percent2C_special_ops_goes_global" target="_blank">investigation</a> by TomDispatch, using open source government documents and news releases as well as press reports, <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175790/tomgram%20percent3A_nick_turse%20percent2C_special_ops_goes_global" target="_blank">found</a>
evidence that US Special Operations forces were deployed in or involved
with the militaries of 106 nations around the world in 2012–13. For
more than a month during the preparation of that <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175790/tomgram%20percent3A_nick_turse%20percent2C_special_ops_goes_global" target="_blank">article</a>,
however, SOCOM failed to provide accurate statistics on the total
number of countries to which special operators—Green Berets and Rangers,
Navy SEALs and Delta Force commandos, specialized helicopter crews,
boat teams and civil affairs personnel—were deployed. “We don’t just
keep it on hand,” SOCOM’s Bockholt explained in a telephone interview
once the article had been filed. “We have to go searching through stuff.
It takes a long time to do that.” Hours later, just prior to
publication, he provided an answer to a question I first asked in
November of last year. “SOF [Special Operations forces] were deployed to
134 countries” during fiscal year 2013, Bockholt explained in an email.<br />
<div style="margin-top: 34px;">
<strong>Globalized Special Ops</strong></div>
<br />
Last year, Special Operations Command chief Admiral William McRaven
explained his vision for special ops globalization. In a statement to
the House Armed Services Committee, he said, “USSOCOM is enhancing its
global network of SOF to support our interagency and international
partners in order to gain expanded situational awareness of emerging
threats and opportunities. The network enables small, persistent
presence in critical locations, and facilitates engagement where
necessary or appropriate…”<br />
<br />
While that “presence” may be small, the reach and influence of those
Special Operations forces are another matter. The 12 percent jump in
national deployments—from 120 to 134—during McRaven’s tenure reflects
his desire to put boots on the ground just about everywhere on Earth.
SOCOM will not name the nations involved, citing host nation
sensitivities and the safety of American personnel, but the deployments
we do know about shed at least some light on the full range of missions
being carried out by America’s secret military.<br />
<br />
Last April and May, for instance, Special Ops personnel took part in
training exercises in Djibouti, Malawi and the Seychelles Islands in the
Indian Ocean. In June, US Navy SEALs joined Iraqi, Jordanian, Lebanese
and other allied Mideast forces for irregular warfare simulations in
Aqaba, Jordan. The next month, Green Berets traveled to Trinidad and
Tobago to carry out small unit tactical exercises with local forces. In
August, Green Berets <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/usasoc/9492888165/" target="_blank">conducted</a> explosives training with Honduran sailors. In September, <a href="http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130930/DEFREG03/309300033" target="_blank">according to</a>
media reports, US Special Operations forces joined elite troops from
the ten member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations—Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,
Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar (Burma) and Cambodia—as well as their
counterparts from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, China,
India and Russia for a US-Indonesian joint-funded counterterrorism
exercise held at a training center in Sentul, West Java.<br />
<br />
In October, elite US troops <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/06/us-special-forces-libya-somalia" target="_blank">carried out</a> commando raids in Libya and Somalia, <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/06/world/africa/us-forces-africa-terrorist-raids/" target="_blank">kidnapping</a> a terror suspect in the former nation while SEALs killed at least one militant in the latter before being <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-navy-seals-raid-al-shabab-leaders-somalia-home-in-response-to-nairobi-attack/2013/10/05/78f135dc-2e0c-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html" target="_blank">driven off</a>
under fire. In November, Special Ops troops conducted humanitarian
operations in the Philippines to aid survivors of Typhoon Haiyan. The
next month, members of the 352nd Special Operations Group <a href="http://www.afsoc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123375269" target="_blank">conducted</a>
a training exercise involving approximately 130 airmen and six aircraft
at an airbase in England and Navy SEALs were wounded while <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/world/africa/us-mission-in-south-sudan-shows-limits-of-military.html" target="_blank">undertaking</a>
an evacuation mission in South Sudan. Green Berets then rang in the new
year with a January 1st combat mission alongside elite Afghan troops in
Bahlozi village in Kandahar province.<br />
<br />
Deployments in 134 countries, however, turn out not to be expansive
enough for SOCOM. In November 2013, the command announced that it was
seeking to identify industry partners who could, under SOCOM’s Trans
Regional Web Initiative, potentially “develop new websites tailored to
foreign audiences.” These would join an existing global network of ten
propaganda websites, run by various combatant commands and made to look
like legitimate news outlets, including CentralAsiaOnline.com, <a href="http://sabahionline.com/" target="_blank">Sabahi</a>
which targets the Horn of Africa; an effort aimed at the Middle East
known as Al-Shorfa.com; and another targeting Latin America called <a href="http://infosurhoy.com/" target="_blank">Infosurhoy.com</a>.<br />
<br />
SOCOM’s push into cyberspace is mirrored by a concerted effort of the
command to embed itself ever more deeply inside the Beltway. “I have
folks in every agency here in Washington, DC—from the CIA, to the FBI,
to the National Security Agency, to the National Geospatial Agency, to
the Defense Intelligence Agency,” SOCOM chief Admiral McRaven said
during a panel discussion at Washington’s Wilson Center last year.
Speaking at the Ronald Reagan Library in November, he put the number of
departments and agencies where SOCOM is now <a href="http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121167" target="_blank">entrenched</a> at thirty-eight.<br />
<div style="margin-top: 34px;">
<strong>134 Chances for Blowback </strong></div>
<br />
Although elected in 2008 by many who saw him as an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/us/politics/26obama.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">antiwar candidate</a>,
President Obama has proved to be a decidedly hawkish commander-in-chief
whose policies have already produced notable instances of what in CIA
trade-speak has long been called <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175578/best_of_tomdispatch%20percent3A_chalmers_johnson,_the_cia_and_a_blowback_world/" target="_blank">blowback</a>. While the Obama administration oversaw a US withdrawal from Iraq (<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/24/news/la-pn-obama-bush-iraq-withdraw-20111024" target="_blank">negotiated</a> by his predecessor), as well as a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-afghanistan-drawdown-us-forced-to-take-costly-option-in-transporting-military-gear-out/2013/09/12/6a5e260a-1bde-11e3-b4fb-944b778463f5_story.htmlhttp:/www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/" target="_blank">drawdown</a> of US forces in Afghanistan (after a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/world/asia/06reconstruct.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">major military surge</a> in that country), the president has presided over a ramping up of the US military presence in <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175743" target="_blank">Africa</a>, a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/world/americas/us-turns-its-focus-on-drug-smuggling-in-honduras.html?_r=0" target="_blank">reinvigoration</a> of <a href="http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2544:us-expands-its-presence-in-mexico-ramping-up-drug-war" target="_blank">efforts</a> in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/world/americas/us-turns-its-focus-on-drug-smuggling-in-honduras.html?_r=0" target="_blank">Latin America</a>, and tough talk about a rebalancing or “<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/12/17/us-japan-asia-security-strategy/4049517/" target="_blank">pivot to Asia</a>” (even if it has amounted to little as of yet).<br />
The White House has also overseen an exponential expansion of
America’s drone war. While President Bush launched fifty-one such
strikes, President Obama has<a href="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/06/a-changing-drone-campaign-us-covert-actions-in-2013/" target="_blank"> presided</a>
over 330, according to research by the London-based Bureau of
Investigative Journalism. Last year, alone, the US also engaged in
combat operations in Afghanistan, <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/06/world/africa/us-forces-africa-terrorist-raids/" target="_blank">Libya</a>, <a href="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/06/a-changing-drone-campaign-us-covert-actions-in-2013/" target="_blank">Pakistan</a>, <a href="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/06/a-changing-drone-campaign-us-covert-actions-in-2013/" target="_blank">Somalia</a>, and <a href="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/06/a-changing-drone-campaign-us-covert-actions-in-2013/" target="_blank">Yemen</a>. Recent revelations from National Security Agency whistleblower <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/11/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-profile" target="_blank">Edward Snowden</a>
have demonstrated the tremendous breadth and global reach of US
electronic surveillance during the Obama years. And deep in the shadows,
Special Operations forces are now annually deployed to more than double
the number of nations as at the end of Bush’s tenure.<br />
<br />
In recent years, however, the unintended consequences of US military
operations have helped to sow outrage and discontent, setting whole
regions aflame. More than ten years after America’s “<a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/174127/ten-years-ago-bush-declared-mission-accomplished-and-media-swooned" target="_blank">mission accomplished</a>” moment, seven years after its much vaunted <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/thegamble/timeline/" target="_blank">surge</a>, the Iraq that America helped make is <a href="http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/06/osullivan/" target="_blank">in flames</a>. A country with <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/15/bush-acknowledges-absence_n_151144.html" target="_blank">no Al Qaeda presence</a> before the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print" target="_blank">US invasion</a> and a government <a href="http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2015277,00.html" target="_blank">opposed</a> to America’s enemies in Tehran now has a central government <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/14/iraq-iran-ties_n_1664728.html" target="_blank">aligned</a> with Iran and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june14/newswrap_01-07.html" target="_blank">two cities</a> flying Al Qaeda flags.<br />
<br />
A more recent US military intervention to aid the ouster of Libyan
dictator Muammar Qaddafi helped send neighboring Mali, a US-supported
bulwark against regional terrorism, into a downward spiral, saw a coup
there carried out by a US-trained officer, ultimately led to a bloody
terror attack on an Algerian gas plant, and helped to unleash nothing
short of a <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175714/" target="_blank">terror diaspora</a> in the region.<br />
<br />
And today South Sudan—a nation the US shepherded into being, has supported <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-risk-civil-war-south-sudan-21474955" target="_blank">economically</a> and <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/13/141703/in-south-sudans-violence-us-backed.html" target="_blank">militarily</a> (despite its reliance on <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/10/01/2704611/child-soldier-waivers/" target="_blank">child soldiers</a>), and has used as a <a href="http://bangordailynews.com/2012/04/30/news/wheres-joseph-kony-us-troops-have-yet-to-find-him/" target="_blank">hush-hush base</a> for Special Operations forces—is being torn apart by violence and sliding toward <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-risk-civil-war-south-sudan-21474955" target="_blank">civil war</a>.<br />
<div style="color: #bf0e15; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
The Obama presidency has seen the US military’s elite tactical forces
increasingly used in an attempt to achieve strategic goals. But with
Special Operations missions kept under tight wraps, Americans have
little understanding of where their troops are deployed, what exactly
they are doing, or what the consequences might be down the road. As
retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich, professor of history and
international relations at Boston University, has noted, the utilization
of Special Operations forces during the Obama years has decreased
military accountability, strengthened the “imperial presidency,” and set
the stage for a war without end. “In short,” he <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175547/andrew_bacevich_golden_age" target="_blank">wrote</a>
at TomDispatch, “handing war to the special operators severs an already
too tenuous link between war and politics; it becomes war for its own
sake.”<br />
<br />
Secret ops by secret forces have a nasty tendency to produce
unintended, unforeseen, and completely disastrous consequences. New
Yorkers will <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/9-11imagemap.html" target="_blank">remember</a> well the <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175578/best_of_tomdispatch%20percent3A_chalmers_johnson,_the_cia_and_a_blowback_world/" target="_blank">end result</a> of <a href="http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=574" target="_blank">clandestine US support</a> for <a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/qaeda/fahdreagan.htm" target="_blank">Islamic militants</a> against the <a href="http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/fisking-war-on-terror-once-upon-time.html" target="_blank">Soviet Union</a> in Afghanistan during the 1980s: 9/11. Strangely enough, those at the other primary attack site that day, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/pentagon-attack_n_1873357.html" target="_blank">the Pentagon</a>,
seem not to have learned the obvious lessons from this lethal blowback.
Even today in Afghanistan and Pakistan, more than twelve years after
the US invaded the former and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/world/asia/origins-of-cias-not-so-secret-drone-war-in-pakistan.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">almost ten years</a> after it began conducting <a href="http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/01/six-month-update-us-covert-actions-in-pakistan-yemen-and-somalia/" target="_blank">covert attacks</a> in the latter, the US is still dealing with that Cold War–era fallout: with, for instance, CIA drones conducting <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/world/asia/us-drone-strike-kills-6-in-pakistan-fueling-anger.html" target="_blank">missile strikes</a> against an organization (the <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/363" target="_blank">Haqqani network</a>) that, in the 1980s, the Agency <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/world/asia/brutal-haqqani-clan-bedevils-united-states-in-afghanistan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" target="_blank">supplied with missiles</a>.<br />
<br />
Without a clear picture of where the military’s covert forces are
operating and what they are doing, Americans may not even recognize the
consequences of and blowback from our expanding secret wars as they wash
over the world. But if history is any guide, they will be felt—from
Southwest Asia to the Mahgreb, the Middle East to Central Africa and,
perhaps eventually, in the United States as well.<br />
<br />
In his blueprint for the future, <em>SOCOM 2020</em>, Admiral McRaven
has touted the globalization of US special ops as a means to “project
power, promote stability, and prevent conflict.” Last year, SOCOM may
have done just the opposite in 134 places.<br />
<br />
Read Next: <em>Nick Turse’s <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/177797/why-are-us-special-operations-forces-deployed-over-100-countries"><span style="color: firebrick;">investigation of SOCOM’s global network</span></a>.</em> </div>
<div class="views-field-value byline">
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/authors/nick-turse">Nick Turse</a> </div>
<span class="article-date"></span>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-72266434803842020082014-09-28T11:58:00.000-07:002014-09-28T11:58:59.758-07:00American Leadership or Hegemonic Global Empire Continued<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<img alt="The Guardian home" height="22" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/static/ee328ab8d8e6808034197b26fcd2d6eeb4d45d8e/common/images/logos/the-guardian/comment.gif" width="115" /><br />
<br />
<img alt="The Observer home" height="22" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/static/ee328ab8d8e6808034197b26fcd2d6eeb4d45d8e/zones/comment/images/logo_observer.gif" width="113" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="article-header" style="background-color: white; background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; border-color: rgb(0, 97, 166); clear: left; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; margin: 0px; min-height: 68px; padding: 0px; position: relative;">
<div id="main-article-info" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; float: left; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<h2 style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 97, 166); border-collapse: collapse; border-left-color: rgb(0, 97, 166); border-right-color: rgb(0, 97, 166); border-top-width: 0px; font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 2.166em; line-height: 1.154; margin: 0px 0px 2px; padding: 0px; width: 460px;">
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/13/obama-american-foreign-policy-isis-iraq" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Obama's great dilemma: to be or not to be the world's policeman</a></h2>
<div class="stand-first-alone" data-component="Article:standfirst_cta" id="stand-first" itemprop="description" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #666666; font-size: 1.333em; line-height: 1.25; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 34px; width: 460px;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #666666; line-height: 1.25; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 34px; width: 460px;">
<span style="font-size: large;">The president's willingness to lead the fight against Isis doesn't tally with his talk of curbing America's role on the world stage</span></h3>
</div>
<ul class="share-links trackable-component" data-component="Article:top share tools" id="content-actions" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; float: right; font-size: 12px; list-style: none; margin: 5px 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; width: 140px;">
<li class="full-line facebook" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 5px !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span class="facebook-share" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; display: block; font-size: 0.88em; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;"><span class="facebook-share-count" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(205, 213, 229); float: left; height: 14px; margin: 1px 0px 0px 6px; padding: 1px 2px; position: relative;"><i style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; border-color: transparent white transparent transparent; border-style: solid; border-width: 4px 5px 4px 0px; display: block; height: 1px; left: -3px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: absolute; top: 4px; z-index: 5;"></i><u style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; border-color: transparent rgb(215, 215, 215) transparent transparent; border-style: solid; border-width: 4px 5px 4px 0px; display: block; height: 1px; left: -5px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: absolute; top: 4px;"></u><br /></span></span></li>
<li class="full-line" data-link-name="Twitter Top" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 5px !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px;"><iframe allowtransparency="true" class="twitter-share-button twitter-tweet-button twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" data-twttr-rendered="true" frameborder="0" id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1411706120.html#_=1411928127116&count=horizontal&counturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fcommentisfree%2F2014%2Fsep%2F13%2Fobama-american-foreign-policy-isis-iraq&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fcommentisfree%2F2014%2Fsep%2F13%2Fobama-american-foreign-policy-isis-iraq&related=commentisfree&size=m&text=Obama%27s%20great%20dilemma%3A%20to%20be%20or%20not%20to%20be%20the%20world%27s%20policeman%20%7C%20Michael%20Cohen&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgu.com%2Fp%2F4xh3n%2Ftw&via=guardian" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; height: 20px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 109px;" title="Twitter Tweet Button"></iframe></li>
<li class="full-line google-plus" data-link-name="Google plus Top" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 2px !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: -2px !important; padding: 0px;"><br /></li>
<li class="full-line linked-in" data-link-name="LinkedIn Top" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 5px !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span class="IN-widget" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; display: inline-block; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; display: inline-block !important; font-size: 1px !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important; vertical-align: baseline !important;"></span></span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="content" style="background-color: white; background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; float: left; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 1.166em; line-height: 1.357; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; width: 460px; z-index: 2;">
<ul class="article-attributes trackable-component b4" data-component="Article:byline" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-collapse: collapse; border-color: rgb(0, 97, 166); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 1px; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.25; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 10px; min-height: 70px; overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 0px 12px; position: relative;">
<li id="contrib-shift" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; left: 70px; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: absolute; top: 5px;"><ul style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="byline" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; display: block; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px;"><div class="contributor-full" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span itemprop="author" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span itemprop="name" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a class="contributor" href="http://www.theguardian.com/profile/michael-cohen" itemprop="url" rel="author" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Michael Cohen</a></span></span></div>
</li>
<li class="article-attributes-social-buttons" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;"><span class="social-buttons-twitter-contributor trackable-component" data-component="Twitter Follow Journalist" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></span><span class="social-buttons-twitter-brand trackable-component" data-component="Twitter Follow Brand" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></span></li>
<li class="publication" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/" itemprop="publisher" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">The Observer</a>, <time datetime="2014-09-13T18:05EDT" itemprop="datePublished" pubdate="" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Saturday 13 September 2014 18.05 EDT</time></li>
<li class="comment-count" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 3px 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;"><br /></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<div class="trackable-component " data-component="Article:in body link" id="article-wrapper" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: static !important;">
<div id="main-content-picture" itemprop="image" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 0px 0px 14px; padding: 0px;">
<img alt="Obama, Michael Cohen" data-pin-description="'American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world': Barack Obama addresses America last week. Photograph: Rex" height="276" itemprop="contentUrl representativeOfPage" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/pictures/2014/9/13/1410605355290/Obama-Michael-Cohen-011.jpg" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" width="460" /><div class="caption" itemprop="caption" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #666666; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
'American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world': Barack Obama addresses America last week. Photograph: Rex</div>
</div>
<div id="article-body-blocks" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
Iraq… America just can't quit you. For 23 years and across four presidencies, American planes have been waging war either against or on behalf of Iraqis. And if <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/sep/10/obama-speech-strategy-destroy-isis-iraq-syria" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="">President Obama's </a>prediction of a long-term struggle against Isis is correct, it might soon be five presidents and a quarter of a century.</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
How does that keep happening? How did a candidate who won the nation's highest office on a platform of ending the war in Iraq find himself six years later announcing yet another military engagement in Iraq? How has a president who has seemingly made it his priority to pivot to Asia, rely less on the military and put forward a more restrained foreign policy been thwarted once again?</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
A good part of the reason is that while Americans might talk about imposing limits on American power and defining our global interests more narrowly, we rarely follow through – and here Obama, who has sought to step back from using American power to solve every international problem, must shoulder some of the blame.</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
The fact is, the same president who has tried to offer something of a more modest and realistic vision for American foreign policy can't seem to keep himself out of the swampy environs of American exceptionalism. Don't take my word for it – look at his <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/obama-isis-speech-problems-key-points-mean" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="">speech </a>on Wednesday announcing America's strategy for "degrading and defeating" <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/isis" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="">Isis</a>.</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
On the one hand, Obama played down the threat from Isis by noting "we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland" (even though he warned that Isis could attack in the future). His strategy was eminently reasonable and relatively restrained. America would be one of many acting in Iraq; would rely on air power and no boots on the ground; would work with regional allies and utilise a few tools in the national security toolbox other than aerial bombardment.</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
This looks a lot different from the wars in Iraq or the ill-fated 2009 surge in Afghanistan. It's outsourced counter-terrorism, reliance on proxy militaries in Syria and Iraq and American air power. So far so good, right?</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
It's the rest of Obama's speech that is more problematic, because to sell his strategy for destroying Isis he laid it on pretty thick. According to Obama, the reason for America to act in Iraq is not just because Isis might one day be a threat or because it challenges key US interests in the region or because the group is a deeply nihilistic and malignant force that merits a militarised response to its hateful actions, but rather, well, because we're America.</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
"American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world," said Obama. "It is America that has the capacity and the will to mobilise the world against terrorists."</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
It is America that "rallied the world against Russian aggression"; "that can help contain and cure the outbreak of Ebola"; "that helped remove and destroy Syria's declared chemical weapons" and "is helping Muslim communities, not just in the fight against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity and tolerance and a more hopeful future". That's a lot of responsibilities.</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
And in case you thought those recent public opinion polls that showed the American people were a bit tired of playing the role of global cop, think again. "As Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead," said the president. "Our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden."</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
Moreover, America's "own safety" and its "own security" depends on its "willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation and uphold the values that we stand for". Except if upholding those values is really difficult, like in Syria over the past three years.</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
Pointing out this rhetorical inconsistency isn't necessarily a policy criticism. Obama's strategy for dealing with Isis and his approach to the bloody civil war in Syria have demonstrated modesty and restraint. These are underrated and underappreciated attributes; as, too, are Obama's deliberation and caution, which you'd want any American president who commands the world's largest military, several times over, to exhibit.</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
But if you really want the US to play a less active role in global affairs or even "lead from behind", making the claim that only America has the capacity and will to mobilise the world … well, guess who is going to get asked to organise a posse when there's trouble? By describing America as the indispensable nation, Obama and his Oval Office predecessors have created a self-fulfilling outcome in which it's basically impossible for the US to share the responsibilities of maintaining global peace and security with anyone else. Of course, doing so also leaves the rest of the world, and in particular our close allies, off the hook. Why should they take the lead when they know the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/usa" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="More from the Guardian on United States">United States</a> always will?</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
Perhaps there is no way around this dilemma. Every group needs a leader and why not America? After all, we certainly do benefit from a world that is more stable and peaceful; that is more democratic and prosperous and that abides by global rules and norms. In a very real sense that's the postwar world we were trying to create at the end of the second world war and, nearly 70 years later, one can say that we've largely succeeded. But in an era when the threats to America are few and far between and when, current events notwithstanding, the world is unusually safe, this would be the perfect moment for America to fob off some of its global responsibilities to others and, as Obama has often said in the past, conduct some nation-building at home.</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
But the practically unquestioned notion of US global responsibility and leadership makes that nearly impossible. The contradictions in Obama's approach are ones that are evident among the American people who on the one hand want the US to remain the most powerful country in the world but also want other countries to share more of our international burdens.</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
So perhaps Obama has little choice but to appeal to American's sense of national pride when asking them to support yet another military engagement in a nation where so much American blood has already been spilled. And that's perhaps why a less ideologically tinged, more interest-based argument won't do. After all, dropping bombs seems a bit more legitimate when it's done on behalf of values rather than interests. But to be clear, all this chest puffing comes with a price.</div>
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
In 2008, when Obama was running for president he said his goal wasn't simply to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="">end the Iraq war</a> but to end the mind-set that got America involved in that terrible conflict in the first place. Six years later, there's a lot more work to do and it begins with Obama's bully pulpit.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-6477288822101336062014-09-18T15:52:00.001-07:002014-09-18T15:52:17.457-07:00The God of War is on the Verge of Another Victory<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<img alt="Home" height="128" src="http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/cd_tagline_logo_blue-500_0.jpg" width="640" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="field-wrapper content-container clearfix inline-fields" id="field-wrapper-attribution" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'PT Sans Narrow', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: italic; margin: 10px 0px 5px;">
<div class="grouping-prefix" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; margin: 0px 0.21em 0px 0px; vertical-align: middle; zoom: 1;">
Published on</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-article-date field--type-datestamp field--label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle; zoom: 1;">
<div class="field__items" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="field__item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<span class="date-display-single" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Thursday, September 18, 2014</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grouping-spacer" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; margin: 0px 0.5em 0px 0px; vertical-align: middle; zoom: 1;">
by</div>
<div class="profile-titles clearfix" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle; zoom: 1;">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/" rel="nofollow" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a></div>
</div>
<div class="field-wrapper content-container clearfix inline-fields" id="field-wrapper-attribution" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'PT Sans Narrow', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: italic; margin: 10px 0px 5px;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; font-family: 'PT Serif', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: 5px !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/09/18/god-war-verge-another-victory" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The God of War is on the Verge of Another Victory</a></h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="field field--name-field-subtitle field--type-text-long field--label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'PT Serif', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 20px; margin-bottom: 5px;">
<div class="field__items" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="field__item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
Addressing the complexity of others’ brutal behavior means facing our terrifying complicity in it</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field-wrapper content-container clearfix inline-fields" id="field-wrapper-authors" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; line-height: 10px; margin: 0px 0px 20px;">
<div class="grouping-prefix" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px !important; margin-right: 0.21em !important; margin-top: 0px; vertical-align: middle; zoom: 1;">
by</div>
<div class="profile-titles clearfix" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle; zoom: 1;">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/author/robert-c-koehler" rel="nofollow" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Robert C. Koehler</a></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="field field--name-field-article-img field--type-image field--label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'PT Serif', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">
<div class="field__items" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="field__item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<img alt="" class="caption-processed" height="500" src="http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/views-article/barack.jpg?itok=I01bCgKS" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="955" /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-main-caption field--type-text-long field--label-hidden" style="background: rgb(240, 240, 240); box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; padding: 5px 10px; position: relative; top: -4px;">
<div class="field__items" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="field__item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
"What Obama doesn’t bother to say, though perhaps in some helpless, futile way he knows, is that engaging in the game of war is always an act of defeat." (Photo: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/viirok/15132005081" style="background: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">Johan Viirok</a>)</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'PT Serif', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">
<div class="field__items" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="field__item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
Barack Obama’s central dilemma last week, when he tried to sell a new war to the American public on the eve of the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11, was to speak convincingly about the wisdom and effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy over the last decade-plus while at the same time, alas, dropping the bad news that it didn’t work.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Thus: “Thanks to our military and counterterrorism professionals, America is safer.”<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Hurray! God bless drones and “mission accomplished” and a million Iraqi dead and birth defects in Fallujah. God bless torture. God bless the CIA. But guess what?<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />“Still we continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm.”<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />So it’s bombs away again, boys—another trace of evil has popped up in the Middle East—and I find myself at the edge of outrage, the edge of despair, groping for language to counter my own incredulity that the God of War is on the verge of another victory and Planet Earth and human evolution lose again.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Obama ended his executive declaration of more war with words that the military-industrial shills have slowly managed to turn into an obscenity: “May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.”<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />God bless another war?<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Tom Engelhardt, writing a few days ago at TomDispatch, called it “Iraq 3.0,” noting: “Nowhere, at home or abroad, does the obvious might of the United States translate into expected results, or much of anything else except a kind of roiling chaos. . . . And one thing is remarkably clear: each and every application of American military power globally since 9/11 has furthered the fragmentation process, destabilizing whole regions.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />“In the twenty-first century, the U.S. military has been neither a nation- nor an army-builder, nor has it found victory, no matter how hard it’s searched. It has instead been the equivalent of the whirlwind in international affairs, and so, however the most recent Iraq war works out, one thing seems predictable: the region will be<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />further destabilized and in worse shape when it’s over.”<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Obama’s speech is addressed to a nation with a dead imagination. Doing “something” about the Islamic State means dropping bombs on it. Bombing runs don’t inconvenience a politician’s constituents and always seem like stalwart action: a squirt of Raid on an infestation of bugs. They never kill innocent people or result in unintended consequences; nor, apparently, do they provoke an instant sense of horror, the way a beheading does.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Indeed, declarations of war always seem to lift people up. This is because they separate us from the evil that our enemies are committing. Addressing the complexity of others’ brutal behavior means facing our terrifying complicity in it—which is asking far too much of any Beltway-entrenched U.S. politician. Obama hasn’t broken in any way from his inarticulate predecessor in attempting to exploit the simplistic emotional safe haven of war and militarism.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />“How do I respond when I see that in some Islamic countries there is vitriolic hatred for America?” George Bush asked during a press conference a month after the 9/11 attacks (quoted recently by William Blum in his latest Anti-Empire Report). “I’ll tell you how I respond: I’m amazed. I’m amazed that there’s such misunderstanding of what our country is about that people would hate us. I am—like most Americans, I just can’t believe it because I know how good we are.”<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Obama is trying to extract the same public acquiescence to military aggression from the IS beheadings of two U.S. journalists and a British aid worker as Bush did from 9/11. Bush had the distinct advantage of not having himself—and the disastrous mess he created—as his predecessor. Nevertheless, Iraq 3.0 is going to become a reality, even though bombing Iraq will just strengthen IS and likely open the door to the next multi-year military quagmire.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />As David Swanson laments on the website World Beyond War, speaking of the first journalist IS brutally murdered, “James Foley is not a war ad.”<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />“When 9/11 victims were used as a justification to kill hundreds of times the number of people killed on 9/11, some of the victims’ relatives pushed back,” Swanson writes. Linking to a video in which Foley talks about the hell and absurdity of war with filmmaker Haskell Wexler during the NATO protests in Chicago two years ago, he adds: “Now James Foley is pushing back from the grave.”<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />He invites us to watch Foley talk about “the dehumanization needed before people can be killed, the shallowness of media coverage” and other toxic realities of war that usually don’t show up in presidential speeches.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />“We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world . . .”<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />I can’t believe I live in a country that still tolerates such simplistic, knife-edged rhetoric. Oh, so much evil out there! The U.S. government, in all its might and purity, has no choice but to go after it with every weapon in its arsenal. What Obama doesn’t bother to say, though perhaps in some helpless, futile way he knows, is that engaging in the game of war is always an act of defeat. And the opponents, in their brutal aggression toward each other and everyone else, are always on the same side.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field-wrapper content-container clearfix" id="field-wrapper-copyright-cond" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'PT Serif', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; margin: 10px 0px;">
<div class="field field--name-field-copyright field--type-text field--label-hidden" style="border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-top: 10px; text-align: center;">
<div class="field__items" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="field__item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-author-profile field--type-entityreference field--label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'PT Serif', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; margin: 50px 0px;">
<div class="field__items" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="field__item even" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">
<div class="cdreams-profile teaser author" id="cdreams-profile-6580" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="content clearfix grid-size-16" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="field field--name-field-profile-img field--type-image field--label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin: 4px 12px 10px 0px;">
<div class="field__items" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="field__item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/author/robert-c-koehler" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="" class="caption-processed" height="65" src="http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_bio_small/public/bob_koehler.jpg?itok=2-sitxJB" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%;" width="65" /></a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-desc field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="field__items" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="field__item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.9em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. His new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/055771754X?tag=commondreams-20/ref=nosim" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">Courage Grows Strong at the Wound</a> is now available. Contact him at <a href="mailto:koehlercw@gmail.com" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">koehlercw@gmail.com</a> or visit his website at <a href="http://commonwonders.com/" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; color: #336699; text-decoration: none;">commonwonders.com</a>.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-41498141373441084332014-09-16T10:32:00.001-07:002014-09-16T10:46:18.788-07:00America Caused the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL or IS)<br />
<br />
<div class="container header-container">
<div class="header">
<a href="http://www.infowars.com/">
<img class="header-img mobile-hidden img-responsive" src="http://hw.infowars.com/wp-content/themes/infowars-new/images/original-header_main.jpg" height="117" width="640" />
</a>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<h2>
</h2>
<div class="row">
<h2>
</h2>
<div class="col-sm-12">
<h2 class="entry-title">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">America Caused the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL or IS)</span></h2>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-12 article-featured-image-wrapper">
<div class="article-featured-image-date">
</div>
<div class="article-featured-image">
<a href="http://www.infowars.com/america-caused-the-islamic-state-isis-or-isil-or-is/" title="America Caused the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL or IS)"><img alt="America Caused the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL or IS)" class="Thumbnail thumbnail full img-responsive" src="http://hw.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/isis-flag-unibrow.jpg" /></a> <br />
<div class="image-credits">
Image Credits: ISIS via Twitter</div>
<div class="image-credits">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="author">
<i>by</i> <span style="font-weight: bold; text-transform: uppercase;"> Michael S. Rozeff | <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null">LewRockwell.com</a> </span> |
<span style="text-transform: uppercase;">August 27, 2014</span></div>
<div class="author">
<br /></div>
<div class="author">
<span style="text-transform: uppercase;"> </span>
</div>
<div class="share-top">
<div class="ssba">
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<h5>
Obama’s remark that the IS is nihilistic has been bothering me
ever since he made it, but not for the reason that it is a false
statement. Indeed, it is obvious to anyone with access to a dictionary
that the IS has political-religious objectives and that it is not
nihilistic. The problem with Obama’s statement is that it fails to
recognize and acknowledge the cause of the IS, and by not seeing the
cause it misapprehends the inflammation and chooses a course of action
that throws gasoline on the fire and spreads the conflagration further.</h5>
Like Bush before him with Saddam Hussein and Iran, Obama’s impulse is
to view the IS in moral terms as an evil organization and to affix
responsibility and blame for its evil actions upon those who lead it and
adhere to it. He judges them, and this moral judgment is prone to
result in a sentence and a punishment inflicted by him or assisted by
him with the cooperation of other states and peoples in the region.
However, calling something evil and seeking to exterminate it or its
perpetrators doesn’t necessarily get at the cause of the evil and
doesn’t necessarily stop it from spreading further. It does exactly the
opposite, attracts fuel to the evil fire. World War II cannot be used as
a model scenario for exterminating evil. That required unbelievably
barbaric bombing and destruction. The temptation to do the same and
widen the war occurred in Korea but was averted. However, in Southeast
Asia the bombing of Cambodia alone exceeded that dropped on Japan in
World War II, and it failed in its goal.<br />
<br />
Obama and Bush before him have both made a great effort to separate
their attacks on evil from attacks on the Muslim world in general, and
they have been exactly correct in doing so. Nevertheless, the methods
they have used, military methods, have occurred in Muslim lands and have
severely damaged innocent Muslim people as so-called collateral damage.
Even if a person perpetrating evil has been eliminated, justice has
been severely undermined by the American methods of operation. America
has done evil, but this is the basic fact that Bush and Obama and the
American people following them are ignoring. Evil easily begets evil,
and this has occurred. American evil has caused the retaliation on
American soil. This has caused the blowback. It has caused the threats
against America. It has provided the sparks leading to bigger and bigger
fires, first al-Qaeda and now the IS.<br />
<br />
I know that most Americans will reject what I am saying out of hand.
To admit that one’s country has done unimaginable evil is very
difficult, and especially difficult when one has heard the opposite for
years on end, when one is patriotic, when one empathizes with the
Americans killed and injured in what was advertised as a noble effort to
remove some threat or some evil. The inability of America’s leaders to
see the evils they have perpetrated, much less acknowledge them and
change their behavior, is symptomatic of a disorder of the mind in which
one fails to see reality. Instead one discards certain facts and
selectively emphasizes certain other facts, the result being to create
an illusory image of reality and what one has actually done. Bush and
Obama cannot recognize and admit to themselves that they are murderers.
The large numbers of senators and representatives who have participated
in the murders likewise cannot admit this fact. How far down or how
deeply this illusory reality has spread among members of government and
within the American people is something I do not know. I only know that
the U.S. government in the name of the American people has done great
evil. I say this with no hatred in my heart for this country or its
people. If anything, my emotion is the opposite. I say it not as a
judgment but to state a fact that contradicts the basis of righteousness
upon which American leaders have been proceeding.<br />
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The specific evil that got me writing for LRC was the propaganda
campaign of Bush prior to attacking Iraq. That period of time,
2001-2003, was when the full impact of the American empire first hit me.
My consciousness had been awakened earlier, a good deal earlier, but
the scope of the lies being told and the aggression being perpetrated
were so great and so blatant that I could only maintain my own sanity by
objecting. Fortunately, LRC provided a means.<br />
<br />
What is the source or the sources of the evil that grips
Washington? This is lost in the fogs of history. It is enough if we
recognize the psychopathology, the disorders of the mind, that are now
prevalent in Washington and among Americans and that continue over and
over and over to construct a fantasy version of reality that breeds evil
in response.<br />
<br />
It is true that the behavior of the IS stands miles apart from
that of others who also are Muslims and who do not identify people as
apostates and kill them. It is true that those doing this bear
responsibility for their actions. However, although they have chosen to
murder, they are not solely the cause or causes of their decisions. They
didn’t create the context from which their evil has sprung. They didn’t
intervene in the Middle East for decades on end. They didn’t apply
sanctions to Iraq for years on end. They didn’t attack Iraq. They didn’t
attack Libya and Afghanistan. They didn’t undermine Syria. They didn’t
supply arms and training to various groups in these countries that they
laid their hands on. They didn’t look the other way as various other
Arab nations, allies of the U.S., supplied arms. Americans did all this
and more.<br />
<br />
It’s always been a source of wonder to me that peoples on the
receiving end of America’s foreign and war policies in these lands were
not more radicalized as they have been as in the IS. Maybe this was
simply a matter of time.<br />
<br />
The clock is ticking. America keeps adding fuel to the fires it
has sparked. American leaders and Americans have to recognize their own
guilt and part in causing something like the IS to form. They have to
recognize that their interferences in the Middle East, Afghanistan and
parts of Africa have been evil and a failure, and, if possible, they
need to recognize the sources of that evil and root them out of their
thinking. The same sources have brought America into Ukraine and that
conflict. A kind of insanity, a kind of psychopathology, is prevalent.
There is excessive fear of the foreign. Senators excite the population
with images of members of IS flying into the U.S., ready to wreak havoc,
just as earlier propaganda collated Saddam Hussein with mushroom
clouds. Paranoid leaders hold the matches in their hands, ready to start
more fires overseas.</div>
</div>
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-32182360512108616132014-08-20T12:57:00.000-07:002014-08-20T12:58:21.717-07:00The GOP has reasons for warmongering in Iraq<br />
<h2>
<a href="http://hubpages.com/"><span style="font-size: x-large;">HubPages</span></a></h2>
<br />
<br />
<div class="" id="crumbs" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #999999; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 0.794em; line-height: 20.700000762939453px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<ul id="crumbslist" style="line-height: 1.4; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://data-vocabulary.org/Breadcrumb" style="display: inline; margin: 0px 4px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://bobpaulconnors.hubpages.com/" itemprop="url" style="color: #999999; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><span class="crumbspan" itemprop="title">Bob Connors</span></a><span style="padding: 4px 3px;">»</span></li>
<li class="final" itemprop="child" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://data-vocabulary.org/Breadcrumb" style="display: inline; margin: 0px 4px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://bobpaulconnors.hubpages.com/#mycontent_politics_and_social_issues_hubs" itemprop="url" style="color: #333333; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><span class="crumbspan" itemprop="title">Politics and Social Issues</span></a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<br />
<article style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20.700000762939453px;"><div id="title" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 1px; clear: both; margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; overflow: visible; padding: 1em 0px; position: relative;">
<div class="author_attribution" style="font-size: 14px; margin: -20px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: 0px; top: 450.03125px;">
<div class="author_attribution_img" style="float: left; height: 36px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: 3px; width: 36px;">
<img alt="Bob Paul Connors profile image" src="http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9155390_50.jpg" style="border: 0px; height: 36px; width: 36px;" title="Bob Paul Connors profile image" /></div>
<div class="author_byline" style="color: #898989; font-size: 0.8em; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0px 41px; padding: 0px; width: 110px; word-wrap: break-word;">
by <a href="http://bobpaulconnors.hubpages.com/" rel="author" style="color: #333333; outline: 0px;">Bob Paul Connors</a><br />
1 Follower</div>
</div>
<div class="title_box" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 480px;">
<h2 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="http://bobpaulconnors.hubpages.com/hub/The-GOP-has-reasons-for-warmongering-in-Iraq" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The GOP has reasons for warmongering in Iraq</a></span></h2>
</div>
</div>
<div id="hub_container" style="font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; position: relative; width: 658px;">
<div id="hub_main" style="float: left; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 520px;">
<div class="modfloat full" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="module moduleImage" id="mod_27218824" style="background-color: white; clear: both !important; margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px;">
<h2 class="subtitle" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
Project for New American Century</h2>
<div id="imgs_27218824" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="inline_hub_image fullWidth" id="img_url_9190743" style="cursor: pointer; margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px; position: relative;">
<img alt="" class="full" src="http://s2.hubimg.com/u/9190743_f520.jpg" height="302" style="border: 0px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; width: 520px;" width="520" /></div>
<div class="caption_full" id="img_desc_9190743" style="color: #888888; font-size: 0.857em; line-height: 1.1em; margin: 7px 0px 10px; padding: 0px 20px; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="module moduleText color0" id="mod_27218759" style="clear: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;">
<h2 class="subtitle" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
The GOP has reasons for warmongering in Iraq</h2>
<div class="txtd" id="txtd_27218759" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
The GOP chicken-hawks such as Cheney, in their Project for New American Century (PNAC) lusted for US hegemony. If there was a war they wanted it to reach this goal. They knew that attacking Iraq would be a very difficult undertaking, but they didn’t have their relatives in the frontlines so they didn’t care as long as Halliburton's interests were furthered. We all know about Cheney and Halliburton.They wanted a base a base in the Middle East and they knew that the World War 1 <strong>Sykes-Picot </strong>agreement didn’t stabilize Iraq. They knew that Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for centuries. They knew that Iraq has always depended on violent dictators to maintain order, Hussein was just the latest. They knew that <a href="http://americablog.com/2014/06/dick-cheney-lectures-obama-iraq.html" style="color: #551a8b; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">the US soldiers wouldn’t be greeted as liberators.</a> They knew that the Sunnis had portions of the Ottoman Empire that are now Syria and Iraq. ISIS can be seen as only an attempt to get the area Sunnis had occupied.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
Attacking Iraq would be difficult, but they could gain domestically as inciting fear in US’ citizens gains the GOP votes and the GOP has fat cat cronies in the military-industrial complex who benefit from wars. Cheney’s company, Halliburton, in particular made huge profits off of the war.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
To gain these profits, Cheney, had to reverse his earlier held position of 1995 which was against going into Baghdad.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="module moduleImage" id="mod_27218876" style="background-color: white; clear: both !important; margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px;">
<div id="imgs_27218876" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="inline_hub_image fullWidth" id="img_url_9190756" style="cursor: pointer; margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px; position: relative;">
<img alt="" class="full" src="http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9190756_f520.jpg" height="472" style="border: 0px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; width: 520px;" width="520" /></div>
<div class="caption_full" id="img_desc_9190756" style="color: #888888; font-size: 0.857em; line-height: 1.1em; margin: 7px 0px 10px; padding: 0px 20px; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="module moduleText color0" id="mod_27218866" style="clear: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;">
<h2 class="subtitle" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
Iraq has always depended on violent dictators to maintain order, Hussein was just the latest.</h2>
<div class="txtd" id="txtd_27218866" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
The US knew it was opening a Pandora ’s Box when they attacked Iraq. The PNAC individuals knew that Hussein was an evil tyrant; they supplied him with weapons of mass destruction to use against Iran which they also used against Iraqi Kurds, and Rumsfeld is pictured above shaking hands with him. Doesn’t a picture tell a thousand words? They knew the consequences of deposing Hussein would be diametrically opposed to being greeted as liberators.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
The article <a href="http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2014/07/03/Does-Iraq-need-a-Saddam-Hussein-II-.html" style="color: #551a8b; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">”Does Iraq need a Saddam Hussein II?”</a>states “What Iraq needs is a strong man, a man who can keep a violent, bloodthirsty argumentative Iraqi population all under total control. Iraq has always been violent, that’s how Iraqis are. You have to show an iron fist. They are not ready for democracy. Iraq must have a dictator to survive…. Perhaps the most atrocious date in Baghdad’s history is 1258 when the Mongol leader, Hulagu, the grandson of Genghis Khan, raised the once great city to the ground. Hulagu personally boasted in a letter to Louis IX of France that he had massacred 200,000 in Baghdad although other estimates reach as high as 800,000. Tamerlane, the leader of the Tatars, was hardly less brutal in 1401 as he ransacked the city. Ottomans and Persians fought over Iraq, and later Britain played out its rivalry with other powers such as Germany and France in Iraq.”</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="module moduleImage" id="mod_27218928" style="background-color: white; clear: both !important; margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px;">
<div id="imgs_27218928" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="inline_hub_image fullWidth" id="img_url_9190769" style="cursor: pointer; margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px; position: relative;">
<img alt="" class="full" src="http://s2.hubimg.com/u/9190769_f520.jpg" height="404" style="border: 0px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; width: 520px;" width="520" /></div>
<div class="caption_full" id="img_desc_9190769" style="color: #888888; font-size: 0.857em; line-height: 1.1em; margin: 7px 0px 10px; padding: 0px 20px; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="module moduleText color0" id="mod_27218935" style="clear: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;">
<h2 class="subtitle" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
The Middle East was redrawn by Westerners as a result of the World War Sykes-Picot agreement</h2>
<div class="txtd" id="txtd_27218935" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
France and England didn’t care about the Middle East when they redrew it after World War 1. They wanted to further their interests.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
The article <a href="http://www.vox.com/a/maps-explain-the-middle-east" style="color: #551a8b; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">“40 maps that explain the Middle East”</a><u> states “</u>You hear a lot today about this treaty, in which the UK and French (and Russian) Empires secretly agreed to divide up the Ottoman Empire's last MidEastern regions among themselves. Crucially, the borders between the French and British "zones" later became the borders between Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. Because those later-independent states had largely arbitrary borders that forced disparate ethnic and religious groups together, and because those groups are still in terrible conflict with one another, Sykes-Picot is often cited as a cause of warfare and violence and extremism in the Middle East.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
The article <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25299553" style="color: #551a8b; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">“Why border lines drawn with a ruler in WW1 still rock the Middle East”</a><u></u>states “For the period from the end of the Crusades up until the arrival of the European powers in the 19th Century, and despite the region's vibrant trading culture, the different sects effectively lived separately from each other.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
But the thinking behind Sykes-Picot did not translate into practice. That meant the newly created borders did not correspond to the actual sectarian, tribal, or ethnic distinctions on the ground. “</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="module moduleText color0" id="mod_27218936" style="clear: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;">
<h2 class="subtitle" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
The Sunnis had portions of the Ottoman Empire that are now Syria and Iraq</h2>
<div class="txtd" id="txtd_27218936" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
Now the Sunnis are only attempting to live together in as they have wanted for centuries.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
The article <a href="http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/isis-declares-establishment-of-caliphate-in-iraq-and-syria/" style="color: #551a8b; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">“ISIS Declares Establishment of Caliphate in Iraq and Syria”</a> states “In a chilling move over the weekend, the extremists of the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) declared the establishment of a caliphate or an Islamic state in large areas of Iraq and Syria…..Such restoration, which brings with it a measure of glory and pride connected to Islam’s 1400-year long golden age beginning in mid-7th century, has been the stated goal of Sunni Muslim activists for decades, from the Muslim Brotherhood to al Qaeda.” The article <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/101818814" style="color: #551a8b; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">“Extremists in Iraq need a history lesson”</a>. states “ISIS released a promotional <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/101818814" style="color: #551a8b; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">video</a> entitled "The End of Sykes-Picot." The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement is a flash-point for Arab resentment.”<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="module moduleText color0" id="mod_27218943" style="clear: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;">
<h2 class="subtitle" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq have been fighting for centuries</h2>
<div class="txtd" id="txtd_27218943" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
The article “Conflict in Iraq Follows Centuries of Shiite-Sunni Mistrust” shows what is occurring in Iraq is nothing new.<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
The article states “The Iraq conflict plays out on several levels between Sunnis and Shiites. First and foremost, it's about how to share power in a 21st century state. The prime minister, a Shiite, has failed abysmally in creating a formula to share power with the Sunnis, the traditional political masters in Iraq," said Robin Wright, a joint fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson Center, non-partisan institutions.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
Tension between other countries in the region has also stoked the fighting, which revives suspicions that have existed between Shiites and Sunnis that date back 1,400 years, she said.”</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="module moduleText color0" id="mod_27218978" style="clear: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;">
<h2 class="subtitle" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
Inciting fear in US’ citizens gains the GOP votes</h2>
<div class="txtd" id="txtd_27218978" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
<strong>The article </strong><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/roots-fear-94379" style="color: #551a8b; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">“The Roots of Fear”</a><u> illustrates that President Obama realized that the GOP was fearmongering.</u></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
It states “For the candidate whose slogans include "Got Hope?" the question was so perfect he might have dreamed it up himself. At an appearance this month at Wartburg College in Waverly, Iowa, a foreign student asked Barack Obama about the fear that has gripped the American psyche since September 11, 2001, and which a number of politicians are hoping to ride to victory….So when the student asked about America's climate of fear, Obama pounced. "We have been operating under a politics of fear: fear of terrorists, fear of immigrants, fear of people of different religious beliefs, fears of gays that they might get married and that somehow that would affect us," he declared. "We have to break that fever of fear … Unfortunately what I've been seeing from the Republican debates is that they are going to perpetuate this fearmongering … Rudy gets up and says, 'They are trying to kill you' … It's absolutely true there are 30,000, 40,000 hard-core jihadists who would be happy to strap on a bomb right now, walk in here and blow us all up. You can't negotiate with those folks. All we can do is capture them, kill them, imprison them. And that is one of my pre-eminent jobs as president of the United States. Keep nuclear weapons out of their hands."</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
The article <a href="http://politicalconundrum.lefora.com/topic/19412844/SHAMELESS-FEARMONGERING-ITS-DICK?page=1" style="color: #551a8b; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">“Cheney to public: Be afraid; be very afraid”</a> shows how the master of fearmongering operates.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
It states “For Americans who’d forgotten what shameless fear mongering sounds like, a certain former vice president offered <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/dick-cheney-attack_n_5527567.html?1403651054" style="color: #551a8b; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">a timely reminder</a>.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
Former Vice President Dick Cheney offered an extremely morose prediction about the country’s <a href="http://politicalconundrum.lefora.com/topic/19412844/SHAMELESS-FEARMONGERING-ITS-DICK?page=1" style="color: #551a8b; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">future</a> on Tuesday.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
Asked on the Hugh Hewitt radio show whether he believes the United States could survive the decade without another attack on the homeland, Cheney said, “I doubt it.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
Cheney specifically told the conservative host, “I think there will be another attack and next time, I think it’s likely to be far deadlier than the last one. Imagine what would happen if somebody could smuggle a nuclear <a href="http://politicalconundrum.lefora.com/topic/19412844/SHAMELESS-FEARMONGERING-ITS-DICK?page=1" style="color: #551a8b; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">device</a>, put it in a <a href="http://politicalconundrum.lefora.com/topic/19412844/SHAMELESS-FEARMONGERING-ITS-DICK?page=1" style="color: #551a8b; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">shipping container</a> and drive it down the Beltway outside Washington, D.C.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
Why is Cheney like this? The article states “That this is practically the definition of demagoguery doesn’t seem to bother him because, well, he’s Dick Cheney.”</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="module moduleImage" id="mod_27218994" style="background-color: white; clear: both !important; margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px;">
<div id="imgs_27218994" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="inline_hub_image fullWidth" id="img_url_9190806" style="cursor: pointer; margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px; position: relative;">
<img alt="" class="full" src="http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9190806_f520.jpg" height="302" style="border: 0px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; width: 520px;" width="520" /></div>
<div class="caption_full" id="img_desc_9190806" style="color: #888888; font-size: 0.857em; line-height: 1.1em; margin: 7px 0px 10px; padding: 0px 20px; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="module moduleText color0" id="mod_27219015" style="clear: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;">
<h2 class="subtitle" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
The GOP has fat cat cronies in the military-industrial complex including Cheney’s Halliburton</h2>
<div class="txtd" id="txtd_27219015" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
The article <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/rand-paul-dick-cheney-exploited-911-iraq-halliburton" style="color: #551a8b; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;">“Rand Paul Says Dick Cheney Pushed for the Iraq War So Halliburton Would Profit” </a>shows Cheney’s ulterior motive for forcing a war with his Iraq intimate cohort Hussein.<br />
<h3 style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 1.15em; line-height: normal; margin: 1.2em 0px 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
The article states illustrates how Rand Paul is convinced Cheney led us into the Iraq War for his company’s profit.</h3>
<h3 style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 1.15em; line-height: normal; margin: 1.2em 0px 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
</h3>
<h3 style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 1.15em; line-height: normal; margin: 1.2em 0px 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
Paul used recent history to illustrate this as the article states “There's a great YouTube of Dick Cheney in 1995 defending [President] Bush No. 1 [and the decision not to invade Baghdad in the first Gulf War], and he goes on for about five minutes. He's being interviewed, I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it'd be civil war, we would have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes. Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea. And that's why the first Bush didn't go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government and it's a good idea to go into Iraq.”</h3>
<h3 style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 1.15em; line-height: normal; margin: 1.2em 0px 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
</h3>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="module moduleText color0" id="mod_27218980" style="clear: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.4em; padding: 0px;">
<h2 class="subtitle" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; padding: 0px;">
GOP reasons for warmongering including Iraq</h2>
<div class="txtd" id="txtd_27218980" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
The GOP PNAC lusted for US hegemony via wars. They wanted a base a base in the Middle East and Iraq would do. Wars with and Syria and Iran, among other Middle Eastern countries have been promoted by the GOP also.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.75em; padding: 0px;">
Attacking any Middle Eastern country will be difficult, but the GOP could gain domestically in two ways. Inciting fear in US’ citizens gains the GOP votes and the GOP has fat cat cronies in the military-industrial complex who benefit from wars. If it is not Cheney’s Halliburton another of their fat cronies in the military-industrial complexwill be in line to make huge profits off of another preemptive war. There are UN sanctions against preemptive wars, which Bush 43 ignored to attack Iraq, and which any other GOP president will happily shrug off for another disastrous Middle Eastern war.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</article>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-48281135264643671682014-03-13T17:55:00.000-07:002014-03-13T17:55:13.234-07:00Disaster militarism <div id="branding">
<span class="grid-8 alpha" id="logo">
<a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity"><img alt="Site Logo" height="88" src="http://www.opendemocracy.net/sites/all/themes/security/logo.png" title="" width="431" /></a>
</span>
</div>
<br />
<h2 class="entry-title">
<a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/vron-ware/disaster-militarism" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Disaster militarism </span></a> </h2>
<div class="grid-8 author-links">
<div class="submitted grid-6 alpha">
<span class="authors"><a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/vron-ware">Vron Ware</a></span> <span class="timestamp"><abbr class="published" title="2014-03-03T08:50:31+00:00">3 March 2014</abbr></span></div>
<div class="submitted grid-6 alpha">
<span class="timestamp"><abbr class="published" title="2014-03-03T08:50:31+00:00"> </abbr></span> </div>
<div class="grid-6 terms" id="content-terms">
<strong>Subjects:</strong><ul class="links inline">
<li class="taxonomy_term_11862 first last"><a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/freeform-tags/up-in-arms" rel="tag" title="">Up in Arms</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="grid-2 alpha" id="od-print-links">
<span class="print_html"><a class="print-page" href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/print/79819" rel="nofollow" title="Display a printer-friendly version of this page."><img alt="Printer-friendly version" class="print-icon" height="16" src="http://www.opendemocracy.net/sites/all/modules/print/icons/print_icon.gif" title="Printer-friendly version" width="16" /></a></span><span class="print_mail"><a class="print-mail" href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/printmail/79819" rel="nofollow" title="Send this page by email."><img alt="Send to friend" class="print-icon" height="16" src="http://www.opendemocracy.net/sites/all/modules/print/icons/mail_icon.gif" title="Send to friend" width="16" /></a></span><span class="print_pdf"><a class="print-pdf" href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/printpdf/79819" rel="nofollow" title="Display a PDF version of this page."><img alt="PDF version" class="print-icon" height="16" src="http://www.opendemocracy.net/sites/all/modules/print/icons/pdf_icon.gif" title="PDF version" width="16" /></a></span> <span class="custom-facebook-button"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/vron-ware/disaster-militarism&t=Disaster%20militarism" name="fb_shared" type="icon_linked"><img alt="Facebook" height="14" src="http://www.opendemocracy.net/sites/all/themes/od960/images/fb_icon.jpg" title="Share on Facebook" width="14" /></a> </span><span class="custom-twitter-button"><a href="http://twitter.com/share?text=Disaster%20militarism" target="_blank"><img alt="Twitter" height="16" src="http://twitter-badges.s3.amazonaws.com/t_mini-b.png" title="Share on Twitter" width="16" /></a></span> </div>
</div>
<div class="grid-8 alpha omega article-content">
<div class="content entry-content grid-6" id="contentgrid">
<div class="entry-summary">
<div>
<a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/vron-ware"><img align="right" alt="" hspace="5" src="http://www.opendemocracy.net/files/Up%20in%20Arms%20highlights_0.png" style="margin-top: 3px;" width="140" /></a><br />
The
country’s military institutions must not be seen as deserving of
special consideration. Once the ethos of public service has been smashed
and
discredited by neoliberal restructuring, the danger is that it will take
more
than an army to bring it back.<br />
</div>
</div>
<div class="entry-content">
For some time now, <a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/vron-ware">Up in Arms</a> has been
drawing attention to the process of militarisation taking place in the UK. This
has meant tracking the changing profile of the armed forces in civil society, ears
pricked for anything that suggests that military norms and values are
inherently superior and therefore worthy of unquestioning support. It can be
hard to distinguish the long term shifts from the immediate gear changes, and to
know how seriously to take some of the ‘information’ that makes it into the
public domain – particularly if it emanates from unnamed ‘senior’ officials in
defence departments or cranky media pundits with an interest in military
welfare.<br />
<br />
Take the use of soldiers in Britain’s recent flood disasters. Following
their successful deployment as security guards for the London Olympics, the MoD
could be more confident that the public would accept their role as a reserve body
of odd-job men who by their physical strength and numbers alone could be put to
work in a civil emergency. But after all those years in Iraq and Afghanistan, how
does this latest form of unarmed yard work change public perceptions of the jobs
that soldiers are actually trained to do, at great expense to the taxpayer?<br />
<br />
<span class="wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none caption-xlarge"><a class="lightbox-processed" href="http://dy1m18dp41gup.cloudfront.net/cdn/farfuture/Tm69YflQiUgKWGzRyqvQaJJox7TP3q-iGo2Mzurb1oE/mtime:1394678247/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/537772/3954036.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img alt="The army in front of a flooded house in Surrey" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload caption-xlarge imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" height="306" src="http://dy1m18dp41gup.cloudfront.net/cdn/farfuture/Gb1MjJBDzbTVfMLNJVeCWRNw1TUaywkYbOa10Nr5FJk/mtime:1394678223/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/537772/3954036.jpg" title="" width="460" /></a> </span><br />
<span class="wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none caption-xlarge"><span class="image_meta"><span class="image_title">The army securing properties in Surrey following torrential rain in Feb 2014. Demotix/Maja Smiejkowska. All rights reserved.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
We might have got used to seeing uniformed soldiers in public spaces.
But it’s still slightly jarring to watch troops of marines wading through floodwaters
on the Somerset Levels, or to read BBC <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26148404">headlines</a> like:
‘Military on the streets in Berkshire’. It’s not just sandbags at dawn either
either - the MoD has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/06/dawlish-railway-line-army-network-rail-flood?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487">offered</a> the
expertise of army engineers to rebuild train track in the South West. And while
people are starting to wonder what soldiers will actually do when they are not
dispatched to far-off wars, a recent <em>Guardian</em>
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/11/britain-armed-forces-future-of-war">editorial</a> asked
the question: ‘do we need to start thinking about our military establishment
less in terms of firepower and more in terms of a fire brigade, with war
somewhere in the middle, rather than right at the top, of the list of duties?’<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;">Blurring
the lines</span></h3>
<br />
It is important to demystify the conditions under which military labour
is performed and to be reminded that it belongs to the wider realm of public
service, along with other tasks such as policing, fire-fighting, teaching and
nursing. But there is also a danger in blurring the lines between what is
military and what is civilian, a development that is becoming increasingly
common in the UK.<br />
<br />
The armed forces sit uneasily in the public sector, estranged from other
public service organisations not least because their workers are trained to
kill people and to smash things up. I’m not being funny – this is the basis of
British Army doctrine as it has been defined in the late twentieth century. A key
document issued by the army secretariat in 1996, entitled ‘The Extent to which
the Army has a Right to be Different’, explains that:<br />
<blockquote>
<em>‘The
fundamental and perhaps only difference of significance between military
service and other legitimate professions and occupations is that servicemen and
women must be prepared, at any time and in the service of others rather than
themselves, to participate in protracted and sometimes wholesale destruction
and violence, to kill and be killed for benign and politically justifiable
purposes.’</em><br />
</blockquote>
This unchanging characteristic of warfare and the ‘profession of arms’
can be distinguished from other professions, such as the police and fire
services – who also face death and injury – because ‘none face the potentially
devastating experience of taking life as a normal part of their roles’.<br />
<br />
However, in the UK, as in many other countries they also occupy a
disproportionate amount of space as a unique institution that symbolises the
essence of the nation as a historical entity. As we are bound to be reminded in
this World War 1 anniversary year, military service is often cast as a form of
sacrifice that is drenched in the blood of those who have fallen in previous
wars in defence of the nation.<br />
<br />
But nowadays working in military organisations is also a job like many
others, even though it might require a particular mindset and aptitude. It
involves training, career development, promotion paths and other mundane issues
such as pension schemes and work-related perks and benefits. Of course, this
does not include the right to belong to a trade union. But for a lot of people,
joining the army is regarded as an opportunity to gain qualifications,
prestige, experience and physical prowess. For many officer types, a spell in
the forces is a stepping stone to a lucrative career in the corporate world.
However, the process of attracting new recruits can be a fraught process for
military employers with their insatiable demand for mouldable minds and young,
fit bodies.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;">Blocked pipelines</span></h3>
<br />
One of the biggest problems faced by the armed forces in almost any
country that has abolished conscription is keeping the pipeline of suitable
young entrants flowing. While recruitment provides a focal point for examining
public attitudes to military work, there is surprisingly little discussion
about the factors that might entice or deter young people from applying. These
are issues that can become more intriguing by comparison between national
contexts.<br />
<br />
In <a href="https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20140208.aspx">Taiwan</a>, for
example, where conscription is being replaced by an all-volunteer army, problems
of recruitment have arisen because of the army’s reputation for brutalising new
recruits. As a result, the government has been forced to reduce numbers of military
personnel from 215,000 to 170,000 over the next five years. <em>Up in Arms</em> has reported before how
some European countries have opted to keep conscription and, in the case of
Norway, even make it gender neutral, rather than follow the trend to an all-volunteer
professional army.<br />
<br />
Consider this list of reasons why Europe’s armed forces have struggled
with recruitment over the last few decades. Kings War Studies professor Christopher
Dandeker and his colleague David Mason recently summarised the problem of ‘how to secure an appropriate, consistent and
sustained level of voluntary enlistment’:<br />
<blockquote>
<em>profound cultural changes, such as the decline of
deference and the rise of individualism; shifts in relationships between social
classes arising from the decline of the traditional working class and the rise
of an aspiring middle class; the emergence of new economic sectors in the
second half</em><em> </em><em>of the
twentieth century, such as those based on knowledge, marketing and service
provision; increasing levels of participation in higher education among members
of the military recruitment age group; and social changes relating to
population profiles and acceptable gender roles.</em></blockquote>
Add to this the more immediate issue of mass redundancies after an
extended period of wasteful, unpopular and exorbitant warfare, and the problems
can only increase.<br />
<br />
The army is now given space in job centres to set up their own
recruitment <a href="http://web202.ssvc.com/news/articles/army/2069">‘clinics’</a> in an
attempt to attract potential employees, both full time and reserves. Although
the mechanics of the recruitment process have been handed over to Capita, in
line with teachers and many other professions, catastrophic IT failures have
meant that soldiers have been pulled back into ‘front line’ roles, appearing at
<a href="http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/10855605.Regular_Army_and_reserves_seek_jobs_fair_recruits/">jobs
fairs</a> all over the country. The crisis in recruitment, appearing at a time of
substantial redundancies and cutbacks to the armed forces – the army in
particular – has received massive coverage, particularly from supporters in
high places.<br />
<br />
One of the most recent and
widely reported was former US defence secretary Robert Gates who promoted his
new book in the UK with the argument that Britain would no long be able to be a
full partner to the US because of the drastic cuts to its defence budget.<br />
<br />
What he didn’t say was that
the Department of Defense in his own country was also being forced to make
stringent cuts and that comparable arguments about the feasibility of a large
standing military continue to make headlines over there too. US Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel has recently outlined <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3">plans</a> to
shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since 1940. The new
spending proposal was described by ‘officials’ as the first Pentagon budget
aggressively to push the military off the war footing that was adopted after
September 2001. This has been met by a predictably angry response, not just
from certain Congress members who oppose substantial cuts to numbers as well as
hardware but also from groups like the National Guard
Association, an advocacy group for reservists, which fears that their members
will be affected.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;">Flood
fighters</span></h3>
<br />
Elsewhere the <em>Telegraph</em> has been waging a vociferous
campaign against the MoD plan to supplement full time soldiers with part-time
ones. A recent article highlighted the fact that Simon
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10581582/Simon-Weston-I-wouldnt-join-the-Army-now.html">Weston</a>, survivor of the Falklands War, explains why he wouldn’t join the army
now if he was young. ‘Honestly, I wouldn’t sign up now. There have just been
cuts after cuts after cuts, and the Army has been left a shadow of its former
self.’<br />
<br />
This coverage
is in stark contrast with the fate of other public sector organizations
undergoing cuts and restructuring. Firefighters, for example,
perform a dangerous job which entails risking their own lives to protect and
save members of the public. Yet their services are being cut back and their facilities
sold off like there’s no tomorrow. January saw 10 fire stations <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/09/clerkenwell-london-britains-oldest-fire-station-closes">closed</a> in
London, including the UK’s oldest station in Clerkenwell. A total of 552 jobs
are also being slashed and the number of fire engines is being reduced by 14.
In the north, the <a href="http://www.fbu.org.uk/?p=9706">Tyne and
Wear</a> Fire Authority voted to
close three fire stations, cut 131 firefighter jobs and axe six fire appliances
(with two more being ‘stood down’ at night). Meanwhile members of the Fire
Brigades Union have been staging strikes in protest at government <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/firefighters-launch-fresh-strikes-pensions">proposals</a> to
increase pension contributions.<br />
<br />
The absence of a public
outcry over these cuts and closures reflects the relatively low profile of
firefighters as a particular category of public servants. <em>Guardian</em> columnist Suzanne <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/09/saving-fire-brigades-sentimentality-life-and-death">Moore</a> was one
of the few to spell out what these cuts mean, pouring scorn on ‘this brave new world where we can somehow have more
health and safety with fewer people taking care of us.’ She pointed out that
the ‘savings’ were all the more reckless since firefighters were also proving
indispensible in current flooding emergencies. In such extreme and unpredictable
weather it seemed utterly bizarre to reduce the services that are trained to
respond.<br />
<br />
<span class="wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none caption-xlarge"><a class="lightbox-processed" href="http://dy1m18dp41gup.cloudfront.net/cdn/farfuture/R6m9UY6Jbdw2-oKKH681Hrx5J83eSbewMdtEHU79lGQ/mtime:1394678247/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/537772/3953992.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img alt="The army securing a house in Surrey following the flooding" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload caption-xlarge imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" height="306" src="http://dy1m18dp41gup.cloudfront.net/cdn/farfuture/cLwrOetxhII3ylQC30SeD_HinVSDrfu9zPZp_p8y1dQ/mtime:1394678223/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/537772/3953992.jpg" title="" width="460" /></a> </span><br />
<span class="wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none caption-xlarge"><span class="image_meta"><span class="image_title">The army outside a house in Surrey following the flooding. Demotix/Maja Smiejkowska. All rights reserved.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
When the flood waters
started to rise back in January, few expected that the regular emergency
workers would be replaced or augmented by Marines and army engineers trained to
build bridges in hostile environments. Perhaps the <em>Guardian</em> editorial was correct in predicting that soldiers would adopt the role of fire-fighters as their war duties appeared
to diminish. That scenario is entirely in keeping with their extraordinary <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/11/british-forces-century-warfare-end">claim</a>
that Britain is about to enjoy ‘peace’ after 100 years of constant conflict. If
only it was that simple. As Seumas Milne <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/12/pause-centuries-british-wars-elite-panicking">pointed</a>
out in response, ‘For the political and commercial elite, British warmaking
under the wing of Washington is about state prestige, corporate profits and the
protection of a system of global economic privilege’.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;">Defending public service</span></h3>
<br />
A few weeks
ago, armed forces chief General Nick <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10526828/Head-of-Armed-Forces-military-risks-becoming-hollow-force.html">Houghton</a> publicly voiced his unease about the organisation
being severely affected in the interests of saving money. He warned that
Britain’s military would become a ‘hollow force’ with state-of-the-art
equipment but no one to operate it unless manpower budgets increased:<br />
<blockquote>
‘Unattended
our current course leads to a strategically incoherent force structure:
exquisite equipment, but insufficient resources to man that equipment or train
on it.’ </blockquote>
Yet there’s a
version of this ‘hollowing out’ that has been gradually destroying all the UK’s
national institutions, whether they deal with education, healthcare, public
safety or even broadcasting. It’s part of the process of gradual privatization
which entails replacing the ideal of public service with a string of corporate
values and vacuous mission statements, and reinforcing the associations between
<em>public, cheap but inferior</em>, and <em>private, costly but invariably better</em>.<br />
<br />
One argument repeatedly
used in connection with the armed forces is that, once an organization so steeped
in tradition has been dismantled, it is impossible to grow it back. In the case
of the army, the chipping away of the regimental system with its strong
geographical and historical roots began decades ago. Countering Houghton’s
lament, the same <em>Guardian</em> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/11/britain-armed-forces-future-of-war">editorial</a> asked: Is the twenty-first century, in general, so
unpredictably dangerous that we need to maintain state of the art militaries on
the basis that if we let the skills, traditions and supporting industries die
it will be impossible to revive them?<br />
<br />
One response to this line of reasoning is that the country’s military
institutions must not be seen as exceptional or deserving of special consideration.
This is a logic that must be applied to all public institutions, not least the
ones that deal with health, education and social welfare. Once the ethos of
public service has been smashed and discredited by neoliberal restructuring, the
danger is that it will take more than an army to bring it back.<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-2 more-info alpha omega">
<div class="about-author">
<div class="title">
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;">About the author</span></h3>
</div>
<div class="title">
</div>
<div class="content">
<img align="right" src="http://www.opendemocracy.net/files/Vron_OpenD.jpg" style="margin-left: 5px;" width="70" /><br />
Vron
Ware is a research fellow at the Centre for Citizenship, Identities and
Governance (CCIG) and the ESRC Centre for research in socio-cultural
change (CRESC) based at the Open University. Her book <em><a href="http://militarymigrants.org/">Military Migrants: Fighting for YOUR country</a></em> was published in 2013. Her openDemocracy column is called <em><a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/freeform-tags/up-in-arms">Up in Arms</a></em>.</div>
<div class="content">
</div>
<div class="content">
</div>
</div>
<div class="about-author">
<div class="title">
<b>Related Articles</b></div>
<div class="article-right-column">
</div>
<div class="article-right-column">
<a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/vron-ware/no-more-heroes">No more heroes</a><br /><strong>Vron Ware</strong><a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/vron-ware/no-place-like-home">No place like home</a><br /><strong>Vron Ware</strong><a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/vron-ware/lest-we-forget">Lest we forget </a><br /><strong>Vron Ware</strong><a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/vron-ware/military-in-our-midst">The military in our midst</a><br /><strong>Vron Ware</strong></div>
<div class="article-right-column">
<strong> </strong> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="content-copyright grid-8 alpha omega">
<div class="hrights">
<div class="grid-2 alpha" id="rights-logo">
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/" rel="license"><img alt="Creative Commons License" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc/3.0/88x31.png" style="border-width: 0;" /></a></div>
<div class="grid-4 omega" id="rights-text">
</div>
<div class="grid-4 omega" id="rights-text">
This article is
published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0
licence.
If you have any
queries about republishing please <a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/contact">contact us</a>.
Please check individual images for licensing details.
</div>
</div>
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-50677581695626962882014-01-16T18:05:00.000-08:002014-01-16T18:28:09.142-08:00Benghazi: Another Tool for Hegemony<br />
<br />
<a href="http://whowhatwhy.com/" style="float: right;"><img alt="WhoWhatWhy logo" class="WhoWhatWhy logo" src="http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/themes/WhosWho/images/we-uncover-tagline.png" name="Top" style="margin-top: -1px;" /></a>
<br />
<div id="categories">
</div>
<br />
<h1 class="titles">
</h1>
<h1 class="titles">
</h1>
<h1 class="titles">
<a href="http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/01/15/benghazi-cover-parties/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to Benghazi: Cover-up By Both Parties?">Benghazi: Cover-up By Both Parties?</a></h1>
<div class="post-info">
</div>
<div class="post-info">
By <a href="http://whowhatwhy.com/author/russ-baker/" rel="author" title="Posts by Russ Baker">Russ Baker</a> on Jan 15, 2014 </div>
<div class="post-info">
</div>
<div class="post-info">
</div>
<a href="http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/1236.jpg"><img alt="123" class="wp-image-8595 alignleft" src="http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/1236-300x225.jpg" height="480" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
The
continued finger-pointing between the GOP and the Obama Administration
over “what really happened in Benghazi” may be obscuring a much more
disturbing narrative—a story in neither party’s interest.<br />
<br />
<i>WhoWhatWhy’s</i> discussion of that new possibility comes below, but first, here’s the background:<br />
<br />
On September 11, 2012, a heavily armed group of more than 100 gunmen
destroyed the US consulate compound and a nearby CIA facility in the
Eastern Libyan city; ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans
died. The attack has been characterized as “the most significant attack
on United States property…since Sept. 11, 2001.”<br />
<br />
Shortly after the incident, Susan Rice, then Obama’s UN ambassador,
claimed publicly that the uprising was spontaneous—a reaction to an
anti-Islam YouTube video that had just aired. She, then-Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton and others soon came under severe attack for
purportedly making a false claim to deflect attention from
administration security failures, and the blogosphere has <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-obama-hillary-clinton-deliberately-misled-nation-on-benghazi-attack/article/2541752">continued to resound with the issue ever since.</a><br />
<br />
The GOP—along with its allies at Fox News and elsewhere—insistently <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/29/house-intelligence-chair-benghazi-attack-al-qaeda-led-event/">drummed allegations</a>
that the Obama Administration was responsible for the tragedy. The
charges have ranged from a failure to address Al Qaeda’s purported
presence in Benghazi to not properly controlling weaponry in the hands
of local militias.<br />
<br />
These critics also decry what they say is a long-running cover-up. According to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/08/letter-questions-whether-boehner-was-briefed-on-benghazi-ops/">one count</a>,
nearly 80 percent of House Republicans now say they want a
Watergate-style inquiry convened. Liberals have charged the Republicans
with being recklessly partisan and exhibiting “<a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/01/03/gop%E2%80%99s_benghazi_insanity_reaches_new_depths/">lunacy.”</a><br />
<br />
Recently, the controversy’s simmer went back to boil when <i>The New York Times </i>published an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0">investigative report</a>
on Benghazi. Some of its conclusions vindicated the Obama
Administration. It concluded that there was no Al Qaeda role, and that
indeed the inflammatory video may have played some role. However, while
finding that the crowd attack was partially spontaneous, the paper’s
reporter suggested that some intelligence lapses might have contributed.
Specifically, he laid out superficial evidence that a local, non-Al
Qaeda militia leader played some possible role as an inciter and
sympathizer with the attack—and that the man should have already been
drawing scrutiny from American spies. In other words, a kind of draw,
with neither the GOP nor the Obama administration fully vindicated.<br />
<br />
When the <i>Times </i>piece came out, the GOP and its echo chamber, including <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/benghazi-trump-times-cover-up/2013/12/30/id/544372">Donald Trump,</a>
raced to accuse the paper of covering up the role of Al Qaeda in the
attacks. By most accounts, though, that critique is dependent on
perpetuating a still-popular though overly simplified notion of Al Qaeda
as a unified, globe-girdling command, ignoring the local origins of so
much Islamist activity. The perpetuation of the “Al Qaeda threat” has
worked well because it continues as an easy sell for those stoking the
fear machine.<br />
<br />
On a scorecard comparing the traditional news outlets, the <i>Times </i>would, not surprisingly, score higher on the credibility and integrity meter with the Benghazi story than, say <i>Fox News</i>.
But that’s not saying a lot. Because very few establishment news
entities of any stripe are willing to look deeper at the true causes of
convulsive events, to wade into the shadowy world of larger interests
duking it out through surrogates and deception.<br />
<br />
Sometimes, to be sure, such events as the Benghazi “uprising” are as
they appear: spontaneous acts of anger and passion. But often enough,
there is more to the story.<br />
<br />
That appears to be the case here. Delve deep into the particulars and
you will uncover clues that, when carefully juxtaposed, suggest a more
coherent design.<br />
<br />
Here are some of those pieces:<br />
<br />
-The date of the assault: anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks<br />
<br />
-The evidence of advance planning and preparation<br />
<br />
-The timing, content, provenance, and beneficiaries of the inciting video<br />
<br />
-The nature of the uprising itself and its similarity to other
supposedly spontaneous or locally-ignited debacles with international
implications and hints of a guiding hand.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Cui Bono?</b></span></h3>
<br />
Let’s start with the last point.<br />
<br />
At least 12 hours before the attack, guards at the US compound had
noticed evidence that the complex was under some kind of surveillance.
They’d seen a man taking cell phone photos from the second floor of an
unfinished building across the street, and when they approached, the man
fled in a police car with others—all of whom were wearing the uniform
of a quasi-official militia. So if the crowd was whipped up over the
video, and spontaneous, then the crowd was phase two of a far less
spontaneous, and carefully planned, operation.<br />
<br />
If those so obviously “staking out” the building chose to wear
uniforms of a Libyan-government-connected militia and to “escape” in a
police car, most likely they were neither government nor police.<br />
<br />
All investigators know to ask: <i>Cui Bono</i>? It’s Latin, which
loosely translates as “who benefits?” Who benefited from the
destruction of the consulate and the deaths of the Americans, and the
subsequent US-prompted heat placed on the militias by deeply embarrassed
Libyan authorities? Not the militias. Not the Libyan government or the
local police. And certainly not the Obama administration.<br />
<br />
The net effect of the attack—and the outsized attention devoted to it
at the time and over the course of the 16 months since it unfolded—was
to revive concerns about global Islamic fundamentalism.<br />
<br />
In the long stretches of quiet, public sentiment tends to move toward
cutting aggressive foreign military action and the tremendous costs, as
well as the domestic equivalent, in the form of the post-9/11
government and highly profitable private enterprises all grouped under
“homeland security.” When Obama has tried at various points to rein in
military operations and to promote diplomatic initiatives over armed
intervention, especially in his second term, he has faced <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/world/middleeast/obama-fights-a-push-to-add-iran-sanctions.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0">staunch opposition</a>, including in Congress, where those benefiting most from war and discord spend heavily to influence members.<br />
<br />
It was no surprise, really, that the Benghazi attack was quickly
followed by claims that the Obama administration is not doing enough to
protect American lives and property. And the result almost certainly has
not been further restraint in spending or implementation of security
measures. Indeed, with the emphasis on Benghazi as “the most significant
attack on United States property…since Sept. 11, 2001,” the US
compound attack became the far bookend on a period of actual substantive
safety and calm for Americans, lasting eleven years since the Twin
Towers came under attack.<br />
<br />
The GOP and its allies have, remarkably, even sought to create some
kind of equivalency between Benghazi and 9/11—but on the Democrats’
watch, instead of George W. Bush’s. However, given that four people died
in Benghazi, compared to nearly three thousand <i>deaths </i>from 9/11,
the alacrity with which the Republicans, their partners at Fox and the
like have pummeled Obama tells you something about their cynicism.<br />
<br />
Practically, though, the Benghazi attack sends the message that the
US must continue to be aggressive abroad, and that it expects the same
from “friendly” regimes in the Middle East.<br />
<br />
And no friendly regime was watching developments more closely than the one right next door—in Egypt.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>For Answers, Look Next Door</b></span></h3>
<br />
For decades, dictators ruled Egypt with the full support of European
powers and the US government. With the Arab Spring uprising—which was
viewed with consternation by US authorities—the country finally embraced
democracy. But it brought new perils, as Egyptian voters elected
Islamists.<br />
<br />
On June 30, 2012, Mohamed Morsi of the Islamic Brotherhood was sworn
in as president of Egypt. He won 51.73 percent of the vote in that
country’s first free election, becoming its first civilian president.<br />
The Brotherhood, however, did not last long. A year later, the army overthrew Morsi.<br />
<br />
At the time, US authorities predictably issued restrained
condemnations of the army and its overtly anti-democratic action. In the
ensuing months, however, the criticism became more and more muted as
the mandarins of American foreign policy argued that military dictators
were preferable to elected Islamists.<br />
<br />
While the Egyptian military could be expected to serve the interests
of the wealthy and of transnational corporations, as it had in the past,
its supporters abroad cited humanitarian concerns as justification.<br />
Among these concerns was the instability and intolerance that
Islamist control heralded, particularly in the form of retribution
against Egypt’s religious minorities. Most notably, these included the
affluent Coptic Christian community, traditionally protected by the
Egyptian government just as minorities in Syria have been protected by
President Assad. Assad himself is a member of a minority Muslim sect,
the Alawites.<br />
<br />
With this background, consider the role of that briefly infamous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims">viral video</a>
in the Benghazi attack. The video was a strikingly crude production
characterized by the secrecy of the sponsors and the seeming intention
to antagonize Muslims—and perhaps direct the antagonism against
Christians.<br />
<br />
The video, with its Egyptian roots, appeared barely two months after
Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood took power. It was publicized heavily
by Egyptian television stations closely allied with the country’s
military–stations whose audience includes Libyans, and specifically
much of the population of Benghazi. We learned that the odd figures
behind it were….Coptic Christians.<br />
<br />
The details of the production of this amateurish film remain hazy; no
serious investigation has yet established who was ultimately behind it.
But the multiple deceptions involved in tricking the actors and others
who worked on the film, the subsequent overdubbing of dialogue highly
offensive to Muslims, the criminal past of the Coptic Egyptian
purportedly responsible for the film, all these cry out for further
investigation. They also send up flares that we’re looking at a classic,
multilayered disinformation operation orchestrated by someone with lots
of skin in the game.<br />
<br />
That it appeared on television channels closely associated with the
Egyptian military just as the anniversary of 9/11 rolled around, and
that it allegedly became the match that set off the Benghazi
mini-conflagration cannot be ignored.<br />
<br />
When Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and others were noting the role of the video in the tragedy, they may well have been <i>right. </i>But we heard no more from the administration on who they believed was responsible for the video or the timing of its release.<br />
<br />
Given the strong Egyptian connection, it’s hard to imagine that no
one put two and two together and wondered if the attack on the American
mission, with its apparent advance planning and sophisticated deception,
were not the work of some disciplined entity with substantial interests
and resources.<br />
<br />
So far, the evidence pointing to Egypt is purely circumstantial. But
the net effect, and the message, is clear: North Africa is a tinderbox,
and we’d be well to leave the Egyptian military alone while it pursues
its brutal and bloody campaign to eradicate the Muslim Brotherhood. (The
latest of a constant series of moves to quash the Islamists was the <a href="http://www.aawsat.net/2014/01/article55326999">announcement</a> by the Egyptian minister of education that the government had taken over more than 150 Brotherhood-run schools.)<br />
<br />
Hence, our question: Were Egyptian intelligence services responsible
for the inciting video, for stirring up the crowd, and essentially stage
managing the attack on their “friend’s” consulate, with the goal of
firming US support for their “get tough” policy? The net effect, more
than a year later, has certainly been favorable to the military
government. The dictatorship is firmly ensconced in power, and the US
government has made little effort to get the military to withdraw to its
barracks which would allow for democracy, however messy, to prevail in
Egypt.<br />
<br />
For the US military-industrial complex that has profited mightily
from Egyptian military purchases, much of which is subsidized by US
taxpayers,<b> </b>the benefits of a continued justification are apparent. Although the US has periodically announced <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/world/middleeast/obama-military-aid-to-egypt.html?_r=0">modest and highly temporary freezes</a>
on military assistance to Egypt to symbolically protest aggression,
these moves do nothing to seriously restrain aid that has typically run
up to $1.5 billion dollars a year. And Secretary of Defense Hagel and
Secretary of State Kerry have been supportive of the military regime;
Kerry has been public in his praise of purportedly democratic moves by
the generals in charge.<br />
<br />
Whipping up unwitting crowds is nothing new. It’s been done in Iran,
Chile, and in other places—including, as WhoWhatWhy has reported, a
covert French role in the initiatory incident for the <a href="http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/08/31/now-that-we%E2%80%99re-celebrating-qaddafi%E2%80%99s-end-can-we-get-a-little-truth/">Libyan “Arab Spring”</a>
itself in 2011. It is a classic trick of the covert operations trade.
It would not have been hard to light the match that turned into the
Benghazi conflagration. Many of the veterans in “friendly” foreign
intelligence services were trained by masters of public opinion
manipulation from the West, spiritual heirs of familiar old intriguers
such as <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKphillips.htm">David Atlee Phillips</a> and <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhuntH.htm">E. Howard Hunt.</a><br />
<br />
If our hunch on Benghazi is correct—and despite the indications, it
is only a hunch—this pattern might mirror what happened with 9/11. In
that situation, an attack bearing evidentiary signs of Saudi sponsorship
paradoxically resulted not in investigations but in a <i>strengthening </i>of the US relationship with the dictatorial Saudi royal family. <b>(</b>For more on that, see <a href="http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/12/19/saudi-sized-cracks-in-the-911-wall-of-silence/">this</a>, <a href="http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/06/05/fbi-knew-about-saudi-911-hijacker-ties-but-lied-to-protect-national-security/">this</a>, and <a href="http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/09/22/saudi-royal-ties-to-911-hijackers-via-florida-saudi-family-0/">this</a>.)<b> </b>In the case of 9/11, the US government has consistently <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/05/3434487/graham-fbi-hindered-congresss.html">blocked disclosure</a><b> </b>of
relevant documents, apparently on the grounds of undefined “national
security” interests. Is the Obama administration in the same
self-imposed “bind” regarding Benghazi?<br />
<br />
And here we see another convergence. Besides the Egyptians, another
power that made sure everyone heard about that inflammatory video was
Egypt’s traditional ally, Saudi Arabia. In a <a href="http://rt.com/usa/complete-emails-guccifer-clinton-554/">confidential memo</a>
from Clinton family confidant Sid Blumenthal to then-Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, later obtained by a hacker and released, a “sensitive”
source cites information from the French intelligence services which<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
“indicates that the funding (for the Benghazi attack) originated with wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia.”</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Our Media, Unhelpful As Always</b></span></h3>
<br />
Did you hear any of this in the conventional media? Doubtful. From the <i>Times </i>to
Fox News, we’ve seen little more than perpetuation of the
Democratic-versus-Republican slugfest. This makes easy-to-follow
coverage, but it obscures deeper patterns of behavior benefiting
institutions and individuals that transcend party.<br />
<br />
Fox and the GOP, however, ought to be singled out for the extent of
their cynicism, whipping up their typically uninformed and perpetually
choleric base. By hammering away relentlessly at the Obama
administration for its purported “failures” and alleged “cover-up” of
Benghazi, and by not looking at the likelihood of what really happened,
they have only heaped manure on any original cover-up.<br />
<br />
As always, the only hope for getting to the bottom of things is to turn to non-traditional “muckrakers” and whistleblowers.NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-77125894451414867232014-01-09T09:09:00.000-08:002014-01-09T09:09:51.132-08:00Privatizing Human Rights: Can Multi-Nationals Excel Where Governments Fail?<br />
<br />
<img height="45" src="http://images.china.cn/images1/en/lic/18.jpg" width="373" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2 class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/bjrenquan/190905.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Privatizing Human Rights: Can Multi-Nationals Excel Where Governments Fail?</span></b></span></a></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></b><span lang="EN-US">J. Oliver Williams</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Professor of Political Science</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">North Carolina State University</span><span lang="EN-US">, USA</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">I. Introduction</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Recognition
of the link between business and human rights has increased
significantly in recent years placing a greater emphasis on social and
economic rights. Although human rights are principally the
responsibility of governments, this has become increasingly an important
issue for business. Responsibilities of businesses, especially
multi-national corporations, in fields of labor rights [child labor,
freely chosen employment, wages and working conditions inhuman
treatment] are contained in national and international law and are
recognized my responsible multinational corporations. Now, social,
cultural and even civil rights are being privatized as expectations of
companies regarding human rights emerge among governments and
non-governmental organizations [NGOs].</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">An
important question is the prospects of promoting human rights standards
beyond traditional areas of labor law into the realms of political and
civil rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Can
business succeed, where government has failed, in spanning the cultural
gap between countries and regions in human rights that are regarded as
universal in western societies but culturally relevant in Asian
countries?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Although the commitment of business in human rights are voluntary, unless backed<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>by
national and international law, public opinion, shareholders, and
international organizations can bring support and pressure to
incorporate human rights standards in international commerce.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Can the reach of business across national borders play an effective role in promoting human rights?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
so, will businesses that engage in global commerce help to create
harmonious environments among countries that promote international trade
but differ on cultural principles of rights of individuals? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">II. Business and Human Rights</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Recognition
of the role of business in advancing human rights has increased
significantly in recent years. As a result evidence indicates that
discourse on human rights is increasing in corporations that span
national borders, expectations regarding human rights have increased
among the largest companies, and that businesses operating in global
commerce are under greater pressure from the public, from government and
from human rights [NGOs] to avoid business practices that violate human
rights. Likewise, increasingly, there is evidence that more of the
largest companies are following business practices that are consistent
with legal principles embodied in national and international laws.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">The social responsibility movement is relatively new in the history of capitalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1800, Adam Smith wrote, in Wealth of Nations: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">“By
pursuing his own interest [an individual] frequently promotes that of
the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I
have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the
public good.”</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">As late as 1970, Milton Friedman, modern day proponent of free market economy, wrote:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">“There
is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its
resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so
long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages
in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">“That’s
the orthodox view among free market economists: that the only social
responsibility a law-abiding business has is to maximize profits for the
shareholders.”</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Today, in both the European Union and North America,
codes of social conduct are prevalent in a wide variety of
international corporate sectors. Business for Social Responsibility
lists 98 corporations in North America
with a human rights policy in its business codes of conduct, along with
economic and social rights and environmental protection. BSP for over a
decade has helped companies to achieve success in ways that demonstrate
respect for ethical values, people, communities and the environment. BSR
connects members to a global network of business and industry peers,
partners, stakeholder groups and thought leaders. BSR also convenes and
facilitates cross-sector dialogue and collaboration and includes human
rights among its other concerns which include business ethics,
responsibility to communities and the environment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
2005, the UN Commission on Human Rights requested the UN
Secretary-General to appoint a special commission on the issue of human
rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises.
The SRC, while recognizing that human rights principles were intended to
limit state actions towards individuals or groups, has taken the stance
that human rights principles relate directly to private sector actions.
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">The
SCR categorizes human rights into economic, social. cultural, political
and civil Most notably, the SRC takes the positions that corporate
responsibility includes protecting civil rights, as well as economic and
social. At the same time, it refutes the contention that human rights
are a western or northern concept that do not apply universally. Noting
that economic and social rights, including the avoidance of forced
prison labor and child labor, has been a longer and more publicized area
of corporate responsibility, the SRC recognizes that the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the most widely recognized
human rights benchmark and holds that corporate concerns must preclude
activities that that deprive citizens of basic civil liberties. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Recognition
of the link between business and human rights, the SRC points to two
recent trends which include [1] inclusion of human rights and civil
rights corporate codes of conduct; [2] inclusion of human rights into
global business principles that include trade sanctions on nations<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>that
broadly disregard international human rights standards. The attention
paid to human rights by consumers and investors as well as shareholder
resolutions calling upon corporations to ensure that business is
conducted consistent with human rights standards, is cited by the SRC as
the stimulus for the embodiment of civil rights standards in business
practice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Apart
from corporate response to consumes, NGOs and shareholders, human
rights embodied in national and international law has been a major
factor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the U.S. and Europe,
courts have accepted lawsuits alleging that multinational companies
have contributed to human rights violations, particularly in third world
countries. To avoid legal responsibility, the SRC states that both
business practice and corporate codes of conduct needs to be consistent
with local and international laws to avoid challenges to their global
operations. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">The
most comprehensive data on business practices in the field of human
rights is a recently released survey undertaken by the UN
Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Business and Human
Rights. Respondents to the survey, released in September, 2006, were a
“global Fortune 500”, included the world’s largest firms defined by revenue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some 450 of these firms were located in the United States [176], Europe [195] and Japan [80]. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Among
these large multinational corporations, nine out of ten reports having
an explicit set of human rights principles or management practices in
place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Significantly fewer, about half, reported to have had a significant human rights issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At
the same time, corporate leaders stated that embarrassing relegations
created an immediate necessity to drive an uptake of human rights
concerns.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Of
significant interest, corporations include in their concerns issues that
span the spectrum of human rights included in the UN’s declaration on
universal rights and the social and economic rights embodied in other UN
covenants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Among the 450 responding companies:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 宋体; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">•</span><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Recruitment
and promotion based on merit, not race, gender or religion or other
factors, and workplace health and safety were cited by all of the 450
respondents.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 宋体; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">•</span><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Freedom of association and collective bargaining were included by 87 percent.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 宋体; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">•</span><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Forced, bonded or compulsory labor and child labor was cited by 80 percent of the companies.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 宋体; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman';">•</span><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Three out of four companies indicate that they recognize a right to privacy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Some variation occurred among countries in various regions of the global and across corporate sectors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Apart
from non-discrimination and workplace safety, which were virtually
universal concerns, extractive industries more frequently that European,
listed freedom of association and collective bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Forced
labor and child labor were mentioned more frequently by European firms,
and European firms were more likely to recognize right to life, liberty
and security of the person.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Right to privacy showed little regional variation and is supported across sectors.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">The overall clear and strong levels of support do show some slight regional differences, at least in rankings. U.S.
companies rank employees and suppliers higher in their concerns but
place lower emphasis on community and country of operation than do
European firms. Japanese companies are least likely to include countries
of operation in their human rights concerns.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">When
asked what if any human rights instruments influence policies and
practices, not surprisingly international business organizations were
cited. However, outside of business groups, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights was the most cited. A fourth of the companies cited no
international instruments, but notably all extractive industries cited
the universal declaration and nearly half of Japanese firms indicated
that no outside international agreements affected human rights
practices.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">III. Assessing the Impact Business Human Rights Initiatives</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Non-governmental participation in human rights is receiving considerable emphasis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However,
the premise that capitalist markets will necessarily foster human
rights improvements is far from being realized. Still the growth of
international trade, and the increasing influence of international trade
organizations, and the willingness of multinational corporations to
articulate a human rights commitments hold promise that the
privatization of human rights will become an important strategy of
attaining human rights globally. Not only are corporations and
international business groups assuming greater roles in formulating and
advancing human rights concerns; businesses have begun to establish code
of conduct and monitoring business practices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">The
growing number of non-state actors, among multinational corporations,
international leading institution as well as insurgency groups and even
terrorists are part of the growing privatization movement.
Non-governmental organizations [NGOs], including Amnesty International
and<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Human Rights Watch that
serve monitoring and advocacy roles have taken the stance that private
sector action is important but must be accompanied by legislation and
continued governmental leadership.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Nevertheless,
important questions are raised by the privatization movement. While
bringing greater emphasis to economic rights, will privatization lead,
on the other hand, to less emphasis on non-economic, civil rights
embodied in the Universal Declaration? Will the power of citizens’
groups hold corporate human rights abusers accountable through
information campaigns and even product boycotts? Will good citizen
corporations set standards that third-party suppliers and companies that
violate human rights will be compelled to follow?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Of
great importance is what effect wills commercial human rights practices
have on countries with serious violations of universal rights? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">On several of these questions, the record does not allow an assessment yet of the effectiveness of the privatization movement.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u><span lang="EN-US">1.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Has the privatization movement embraced non-economic rights?</span></u></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Concern
for political and civil rights of citizens in countries where they
operate has been expressed widely in the codes of conduct of the largest
multinationals. Business for Social Responsibility on its web site
lists the codes of human rights practices of 21 top companies with human
rights reports. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Cisco
is among the corporations that affirm support of the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Global Compact, Cisco's codes
of conduct, employee policies and guidelines substantially incorporate
laws and ethical principles including those pertaining to freedom of
association, non-discrimination, privacy, collective bargaining,
compulsory and child labor, immigration and wages and hours. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Cisco’s
approach is to have codes, policies and guidelines are reviewed by a
corporate citizenship council consisting of an executive committee and a
broad-based global membership of Cisco management.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Hewlett-Packard, another international corporation that cites human rights in its code of conduct, states:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">“We
also engage globally with various stakeholder communities to address
issues related to the environment, economic development, digital divide,
privacy, labor and human rights.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">HP has a policy of encouraging employees to apply time and effort to help solve problems in their communities.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">In
reference to human rights, the HP code of business conduct “upholds and
respects human rights as reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">HP
is also states a commitment to fair labor practices and the respectful
treatment of all employees, including the protection of workplace health
and safety and data-privacy protections. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Publishing
reports on social concerns and adopting codes of conduct do not
guarantee respect for human rights in corporative practices any more
than human rights are practiced in countries that a signature nations in
United Nations covenants.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Amnesty
International, on of the most respected non-governmental organizations
in the field of human rights, believes that the business community also
has a wider responsibility -- moral and legal -- to use its influence to
promote respect for human rights and advocates national and
international legal instruments that promote greater corporate
responsibility for human rights, including those that assure the risk of
legal accountability if a company commits or is complicit in human
rights abuses in their operations. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u><span lang="EN-US">II. Status of Universal Rights in Government and Business</span></u></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">It
is in the area of individual rights embodied in the basic United
Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where governments have
so widely diverged in the support and the practice of human rights
principles. It is in coming to an agreement on the principles of this
declaration that nation’s having failed so basically in human rights
practices. Throughout Europe and North America and some areas of South
and Central America and Africa these principles are considered universal rights that all individuals want and deserve. In most of Asia,
however, governments consider these rights to be based on western
values that do not reflect the values of Asians who culturally have
greater regard for social harmony and stability.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Until
there is agreement on these principles there is likely to be little
harmony on human rights among the major countries of the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Despite
the Bangkok Declaration that states a commitment to principles
contained in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>leaders
in most Asian nations continue to advocate a cultural relevance in
universal rights, act on the principle that individual rights conflict
with social harmony and stability, and cite Asian values as
contradicting the western ideal of universality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, it was from the Bangkok
meetings that Asian leaders began to promote a cultural relevance
approach to universal rights, although the principle had been argued
before then.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">International
NGOs which are largely prohibited from monitoring and reporting human
rights violations in these countries, through contact they maintain with
human rights advocates in Asia,
conclude that non-democratic rulers are a bigger impediment to human
rights than the cultural and social value system of the region. Some
Asian scholars, as well, believe that the Asian values, historically
from the time of Confucius, have philosophical roots in individual
freedoms and rights. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u><span lang="EN-US">II.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Has there been an increase in the concerns for economic rights and the rights of women and children?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></u></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">The
damaging exposure of the Nike Corporation, and later as many of ten more
multinational companies, in the treatment of women workers and use of
child labor shifted the debate over corporate social responsibility for
human rights. It created a watershed in the past decade by developing a
positive role in business and trade in enhancing respect for human
rights in countries with widespread violations. Revelations of child
labor and abysmal working conditions led corporations to express respect
for essential human and labor rights, such as freedoms of association
and expression, as well as an end to cruelty and discrimination and
inequality on the basis of ethnicity or gender. Advocacy by human rights
groups, repeated media exposure, and legislative interest in banning
products made by child labor from import in the United States
has made child labor and women’s working conditions a foremost human
rights issue in the global economy. The extensiveness of child labor,
estimated at over 250 million children working around the world, has
indicated a major social problem of condemning children to a life of
poverty by putting them to work in lieu of education.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Whether
the attention has improved significantly, or even marginally, women’s
working rights or reversed a trend in child labor has not been
documented. Journalist reports indicate that poor working conditions of
women China
is less a problem with joint venture companies in Special Economic
Zones [SEZs] than small scale manufacturers surrounding these zones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">III.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Has privatization affected country human rights policies?</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">The ascension of China to the World Trade Organization, which facilitated dropping annual assessments of China’s human rights under Most Favored Nation trading status, has moved human rights from a central place in U.S. foreign policy to in most cases subordinate to trade policy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From a high point
in the Carter administration, when human rights were prominent in
foreign policy debate, human rights concerns now are raised in
conjunction with trading issues. While trade policies mandate that the
U.S. advance human rights through its voting in multinational trade
groups and its security assistance to other countries, the subordination
of human rights to trade and security concerns has not led to
consistency in current U.S. policy. Countries important to U.S. economic and political interests are not subjected to the same degree of human rights scrutiny as nations deemed less vital to U.S. interests. Recognizing that human rights are not central in U.S.
foreign policy, and inconsistent as well, NGOs that watch human rights
compliance have pushed for sanctions against nations committing gross
human rights violations.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">The internet restrictions agreed to in China
by American internet providers illustrates two sides of a problem with
international corporations violating principles in the Universal
Declaration. The actions by the large information providers were viewed
as corporate complicity in restricting rights of freedom of speech and
information. The enormous outcry from western NGOs and citizens in
western countries indicate the scrutiny the corporations receive in
social and human rights issues. Although public opinion has not led to
any reversal of agreements made by Google</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">Actions
by Yahoo, Google and Microsoft are viewed in the West as corporate
complicity in restricting freedom of speech and information. The
enormous public outcry has not reversed agreements made by Google.
However, these corporations are likely to be more reluctant in making
further restrictions and will be especially guarded in the types of
information that they filter. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">The issue also acerbates China’s
problem of human rights in international business. Private markets
thrive on information and to remain a hub in international trade and
manufacture, China
confronts a conflict between information flow that is vital to business
and the government’s ability to control, or even appear to control,
speech and information. The expectations of multinational corporations
in upholding human rights are likely to reverberate inside China as much as outside, with as much scrutiny as social and economic rights have previously received. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>IV. Conclusions</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">In
the past decade, there has been considerable advancement in the trend
toward injecting human rights issues in global trade. In the business
world, public opinion, non-governmental organizations, and trade
organizations that have become a leading source for business throughout
the world have worked to raise the expectations of companies in social
and civil rights. This has led to the adoption of business codes of
conduct in many of the world’s largest companies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Significantly,
western businesses have included many of the rights considered as
universal rights in the United Nations declaration. Harmony on human
rights has been impeded by conflicting value systems toward universal
rights between western nations and the economically advancing nations of
Asia. It remains to be seen if global trade will become a vehicle for bridging the gap this basic human rights divide. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US">(China.org.cn)</span></div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-7382575622309583182013-11-24T21:53:00.001-08:002013-11-24T22:29:06.197-08:00The Iran Accord: What Really Happened Was Not Much of Anything - But Less IS More<br />
<br />
<a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/"><img alt="Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice" height="200" src="http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/themes/dissident/images/header.jpg" width="760" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<h1 class="title">
<a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/11/the-iran-accord-profoundly-and-primarily-symbolic/#more-51841" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Iran Accord: Profoundly, and Primarily, Symbolic</a></h1>
<div class="byline">
by William O. Beeman / November 24th, 2013</div>
<div class="byline">
<br /></div>
The principal benefit of the negotiations between Iran and the
P5+1 nations on November 23 is that Iran and the United States were able
to down to talk and reach an agreement on <i>something</i>. Given 33
years of estrangement and non-communication, this is an extraordinarily
important development — nearly equivalent to the U.S. breakthrough to
China — perhaps the signal achievement of the Nixon administration.<br />
<br />
The profound symbolism of the moment more than outweighs the lighter
substantive elements of the temporary agreement. The United States and
its partners appeared tough and got very little. Iran appeared tough and
gave up very little. Both sides saved face. This is the essence of a
successful agreement. No one “won” and no one “lost.”<br />
<br />
Iranians have been both sincere and clever in the negotiations. They
played up to the insubstantial straw-man accusations promulgated by the
U.S. and its partners, making them seem weightier than they were in
reality. By yielding to the P5+1 demands, in essence Iran has allowed
itself to be persuaded to stop temporarily doing what it never intended
to do — make a nuclear weapon. The bottom line is that Iran did not give
up very much in the negotiations, (but it didn’t gain very much
either).<br />
<br />
Reviewing the terms of the agreement in conjunction with the reality
on the ground in Iran, one can see how easy it was for Iran’s
negotiators to agree to these terms.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Low Enriched Uranium</b></span></h3>
<br />
Iran’s enrichment of uranium was the crux of the matter. The United
States and its allies had fetishized Iran’s uranium enrichment program.
They had made the improbable leap that having enriched uranium would
immediately lead to a nuclear weapon. This is an immense mistake — so
large that one must suspect that it is essentially hyped for public
consumption. The public has certainly been convinced of this.<br />
<br />
However, Iran’s low-enriched uranium stockpile cannot be used for any
military purpose, short of the rather improbable construction of a
“dirty bomb” — a conventional warhead containing radioactive material,
not to explode, but to pollute. Such a primitive weapon has no practical
use. Under the agreement, Iran would cease adding to this stockpile.<br />
<br />
Under the agreement, Iran will be allowed to continue to enrich
uranium at less than 5 percent purity — a concession that preserves
Iran’s rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to peaceful
nuclear development — its fundamental demand going into the talks.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>High Enriched Uranium</b></span></h3>
<br />
Iran’s stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium would be eliminated
through conversion to fuel plates for use in a research reactor or
oxidized. It could then not be further enriched or weaponized in any
way. This seems like a major concession, but when one understands why
Iran was enriching to the 20 percent level to begin with, it is less so.<br />
<br />
Iran had a research reactor, the <a href="http://www.nti.org/facilities/182/">Tehran Research Reactor</a>
(TRR) that produced medical isotopes for the treatment of cancer. The
reactor had been supplied by the United States in 1967. The United
States at that time provided weapons grade fuel for running the reactor.
Iran was running out of 20 percent fuel, and was expected to deplete
the supply entirely by 2011. Iran tried to broker a deal for more 20
percent fuel with the United States. A preliminary agreement was reached
on October 1, 2010. The United States reneged on the agreement. Iran
then began enriching its own uranium to the 19.75% level — technically
below the high-enriched uranium threshold of 20%. After converting part
of this this indigenously produced fuel into non-weaponizeable reactor
plates, <a href="http://www.isisnucleariran.org/static/443/" target="_blank">it was introduced</a>
into the TRR in February, 2012. The November 23 agreement will allow
Iran to do what it was going to do anyway, and finish converting the
rest of its 19.75 percent fuel into non-weaponizable reactor plates.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Arak Heavy Water Research Reactor</b></span></h3>
<br />
The agreement requires Iran not to activate its new small heavy water
research reactor in Arak. This small reactor was known to nuclear
inspectors for some time, but because it contained no fissile material,
it was not required to be monitored. The reactor was suddenly seized
upon by Israel and later by French Prime Minister François Hollande as a
“path to plutonium” — a massive over-reaction. This was quickly echoed
and exaggerated in the press. The <i>Christian Science Monitor</i> <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2013/1118/Iran-s-Arak-nuclear-reactor-Real-dealbreaker-or-red-herring-video">suggested</a> that this facility was in truth a “red herring” in the negotiations.<br />
<br />
The reactor has faced considerable delays in construction and is not
scheduled to open until 2016. It will produce a small amount of
electricity, but it is designed to eventually supplement then replace
the TRR, producing medical isotopes. Plutonium can be extracted from
spent fuel rods, but only if there is a completely new facility
constructed to so this. Iran has no such facility. If Iran were to
decide to make a weapon from this extracted plutonium, it would then
need a third facility. Additionally, as former IAEA nuclear inspector
Robert Kelley <a href="http://therealnews.com/mobile/story.php?id=10995">points out</a>: ”the
reactor doesn’t do anything without fuel, and so if you don’t have
fuel, the reactor doesn’t run. If the reactor doesn’t run, it doesn’t
make plutonium.”<br />
<br />
All of this time, the International Atomic Energy Agency would be
monitoring the use of the fissile material. Parallels with India,
Pakistan and Israel , who did use heavy-water reactors to extract
plutonium and build bombs are inaccurate, because as non-signatories to
the NPT, the actions of these nations were not monitored.<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span></h3>
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Building a Bomb?</b></span></h3>
<br />
There is a strange irony in President Obama’s announcement of the
temporary agreement. He mentioned the term “nuclear weapon” multiple
times in his announcement, implying that Iran was on a path to develop
such a weapon. One wonders if he actually believes this or if his
repeated implied accusation was a rhetorical device designed to placate
his hard-line critics.<br />
<br />
The president must know by this time that there is no evidence that
Iran has or ever had a nuclear weapons program. Every relevant
intelligence agency in the world has verified this fact for more than a
decade. Two U.S. National Intelligence Estimates that were made public
in 2007 and 2011 underscored this. The International Atomic Energy
Agency has also consistently asserted that Iran has not diverted any
nuclear material for any military purpose.<br />
<br />
Even Israeli intelligence analysts agree that Iran is “not a danger” to Israel. Typical is ex-Mossad chief <a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-is-dead-scared-of-israel-says-ex-mossad-chief/">Efraim Halevy who said</a>
on March 16 this year that Iran “will not make it to the bomb,” and
that Israel’s existence “is not in danger and shouldn’t be questioned.”<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>What Iran Gets in Return</b></span></h3>
<br />
Though Iran is not giving up very much in the November 23 agreement,
it is also not receiving a great deal in return. It will receive 6 to 7
billion dollars’ worth of sanctions relief, more than 4 billion of which
is money already owed to Iran in oil revenues, but frozen. In addition,
Iran has saved face; it did not give up on its inalienable right to
enrich uranium as guaranteed in the NPT. This may be enough to placate
hardliners in the Islamic Republic who have objected to dealings with
the United States and its allies in the past.<br />
<br />
There will be some good feelings both in Washington and Tehran that
this astonishingly long impasse has finally been broken. Could either
side have gotten more from these talks? Probably not. In fact the
limited gains for both sides may well be a sign of the success of the
negotiations.<br />
<br />
The vitriolic nay-sayers trying to torpedo these talks in both
capitals and elsewhere have been thwarted for the moment, but they will
certainly begin condemning this process immediately. However, leaders in
both nations should flatly ignore them. The world can only hope that
this small accord will lead to more substantive rapprochement in the
near future.<br />
<br />
<div class="author">
William O. Beeman is a Professor, Department of
Anthropology at the University of Minnesota. During 2013-2014 he will be
a Visiting Scholar at the Department of Anthropology, Stanford
University. <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/author/williamobeeman/">Read other articles by William</a>, or <a href="http://www.wbeeman.com/">visit William's website</a>.</div>
<div class="author">
<br /></div>
<div class="postmeta">
This article was posted on Sunday, November 24th, 2013 at 9:28pm and is filed under <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/middle-east/iran/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Iran">Iran</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/energy/nuclear-energy-2/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Nuclear">Nuclear</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/nuclear-proliferation/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Nuclear Proliferation">Nuclear Proliferation</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/security/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Security">Security</a>. </div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-66550111029261906042013-09-11T04:13:00.000-07:002013-09-11T04:17:56.214-07:00 If Obama strikes Syria, what will Putin do?<br />
<br />
<div class="header-logo-container">
<a class="header-logo" href="http://america.aljazeera.com/">
<img alt="Al Jazeera America logo" class="hidden-phone" src="http://america.aljazeera.com/content/dam/ajam/logos/logo-header-new.png" />
</a><a class="header-logo" href="http://america.aljazeera.com/">
</a>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<article>
<div class="article articleComponent">
<div class="article-box">
<div class="box-content">
<div class="box-body clearfix">
<h2>
<a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/8/if-obama-strikessyriawhatwillputindo.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">If Obama strikes Syria, what will Putin do?</span></a></h2>
<div class="container-byline">
<div class="byline">
by <a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/profiles/k/mark-n-katz.html" title="Mark N. Katz">Mark N. Katz</a></div>
<div class="byline">
</div>
<div class="date-time">
<span class="date">September 8, 2013</span>
<span class="separator"></span>
<span class="time">6:00AM ET</span></div>
<div class="date-time">
</div>
<div class="date-time">
<span class="time"> </span>
</div>
</div>
<div class="split70 info">
<div class="teaser">
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;">Commentary: Despite its show of strength, Russia has no appetite for military confrontation beyond its immediate borders</span></h3>
</div>
</div>
<div class="split30">
<div class="sharing-abvr">
<div class="share" id="share-8742682139284576358_gig_containerParent">
<div class="shareDiv sharing" data-description="Commentary: Despite its show of strength, Russia has no appetite for military confrontation beyond its immediate borders" data-device-type="auto" data-media-src="http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/8/if-obama-strikessyriawhatwillputindo.img.jpg" data-media-type="image" data-show-counts-position="right" data-subtitle="" data-title="If Obama strikes Syria, what will Putin do?" data-url="http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/8/if-obama-strikessyriawhatwillputindo.html" id="share-8742682139284576358" style="visibility: visible;">
<div class="gig-bar-container gig-share-bar-container">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td style="vertical-align: bottom; white-space: nowrap; zoom: 1;"><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: bottom; white-space: nowrap; zoom: 1;"><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: bottom; white-space: nowrap; zoom: 1;"><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: bottom; white-space: nowrap; zoom: 1;"><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: bottom; white-space: nowrap; zoom: 1;"><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: bottom; white-space: nowrap; zoom: 1;"><br /></td><td style="vertical-align: bottom; white-space: nowrap; zoom: 1;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="parsys mainpar">
<div class="adaptiveImage section">
<br />
<figure class="image"><div class="" data-alt="Assad Putin" data-class="" data-picture="">
<img alt="Assad Putin" height="400" src="http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2013/9/8/if-obama-strikessyriawhatwillputindo/jcr:content/mainpar/adaptiveimage/src.adapt.960.high.1378669522353.jpg" width="640" /></div>
<div class="image-info">
<br />
<figcaption> Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad shake hands as they meet in Moscow's Kremlin in 2006.</figcaption><small class="image-credit">Sergei Karpukhin/AFP/Getty</small></div>
</figure>
</div>
<div class="text section">
<br />
Even after Iran appeared to distance itself from Damascus in response
to reports that the Bashar al-Assad regime used chemical weapons on its
opponents last month, Russia has remained a vociferous supporter of its
Syrian ally. The Kremlin has also unflinchingly opposed President
Barack Obama's call for a military strike to punish the Assad regime
over to its suspected use of chemical weapons, even beefing up Russia's
naval presence in the waters off Syria.<br />
<br />
Why does Putin have Assad's back? And what will the Russian leader do
if the Obama administration does launch a military strike against
Syria?<br />
<br />
Russia believes that as bad as Assad is (and Russian statements
indicate Moscow understands that Assad is bad), what will follow him is
likely to be far worse. Russian officials and analysts are adamant that
Sunni Arab fighters linked to al-Qaeda will be in the strongest position
to take power if Assad is overthrown, and that they will then move to
establish Taliban-like rule in Syria.<br />
<br />
That scenario would imperil not
only Syria itself, but also its immediate neighbors and Russia's restive
North Caucasus, where predominantly Muslim ethnic groups have long
chafed under Moscow's rule.<br />
<br />
Some might argue that the rise of separatist insurgencies the North
Caucasus and elsewhere in Russia is a result of Moscow's own misguided
policies, and that the fate of the Assad regime is irrelevant to that
dynamic. The Kremlin, however, believes that it knows better. From the
1990s through the early 2000s, Moscow had accused Saudi Arabia and other
Gulf states of supporting the separatist rebellion in Chechnya. But as
Moscow's harsh military tactics subdued that insurgency, a Saudi-Russian
rapprochement began in 2003.<br />
</div>
<div class="pullQuote section">
<div class="quote-box">
<hr class="D" />
<div class="quote-inner">
The Kremlin maintains its starkly negative view of Saudi and Qatari intentions.</div>
<hr class="D" />
</div>
</div>
<div class="text section">
<br />
Even before the Arab uprisings began in early 2011, Riyadh-Moscow
ties had begun to fray. Russia believed Saudi Arabia and Qatar were
somehow responsible for renewed anti-Moscow agitation throughout the
North Caucasus. And when Saudi Arabia and Qatar supported rebels seeking
the downfall of long-standing Russian allies in Libya and then in
Syria, the Kremlin imagined a larger, Gulf-backed plot aimed at Russia.<br />
<br />
This Russian view of Saudi and Qatari aims, in my view, is mistaken.
Neither Riyadh nor Doha wishes to see the rise of Islamist militancy,
which potentially threatens their own well-being. They're more motivated
by fear of Iran. Syria's minority Alawite regime has been closely
allied to Tehran, and the rise of opposition to it on the part of the
Sunni majority was seen in Riyadh and Doha as an opportunity to weaken
Iran.<br />
<br />
Even though many Russian specialists understand that Iran is their
main concern, the Kremlin maintains its starkly negative view of Saudi
and Qatari intentions. Indeed, Moscow imagines itself more at odds with
these two Arab monarchies than it is with the United States over Syria.<br />
<br />
Before the widely reported use of chemical weapons on the outskirts
of Damascus last month, Moscow may even have believed it had a tacit
understanding with Washington on Syria. While the Obama administration
criticized the regime and even called for Assad to stand down, unlike
Saudi Arabia and Qatar it has not offered much practical help to the
Syrian rebellion. And since Moscow's experience will have taught the
Kremlin that it is unable to prevent U.S. interventions once
Washington's mind is made up, Putin may even have convinced himself that
Obama really did not want to see the downfall of Assad -- thus giving
Moscow a freer hand to support him.<br />
<br />
But Obama's response to the chemical weapons reports will have
disabused Putin of the idea that Washington's opposition to Assad is
simply rhetorical. Moscow now fears that if President Obama carries out
his threat to launch a military strike against Syria, the balance of
forces there will shift in favor of the opposition and potentially bring
down the Assad regime.<br />
<br />
As much as Putin does not want this to happen, though, Moscow will
not intervene in Syria to defend Assad. Russian officials, including
Putin himself, have stated this repeatedly. And passivity would be
consistent with how they have acted in response to other post-Cold War
American military interventions, such as those in Kosovo, Afghanistan,
Iraq and Libya. Moscow is no longer willing or able to get directly
involved in conflicts beyond the boundaries of the former Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
Until the Obama administration does launch a military strike on
Syria, though, Putin still hopes to prevent it. But if he can't prevent
it, then he hopes to limit it. And if he can't limit it to his
satisfaction, then he hopes to discredit it.<br />
And, of course, the Kremlin is not alone in seeking to do this. Most
of the allies that Obama had sought to rally in favor of a strike on
Syria have so far proven reluctant to support him. And Obama is facing
stiff opposition domestically both in Congress and in the polls.<br />
<br />
These other parties, of course, do not oppose Obama on Syria out of
any desire to curry favor with Moscow. Nor can Moscow do much to sway
the decisions of those Obama is courting to support an attack on Syria.
Moscow's ability to get what it wants in Syria, then, depends on
decisions made by others -- not least Obama -- over whom Putin has very
little control or even influence.</div>
</div>
</article>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-8604708828234934282013-09-08T09:49:00.000-07:002013-09-08T09:49:05.327-07:00Top 10 Unproven Claims for War Against Syria<br />
<br />
<div class="banner_ banner_world" id="banner">
<div id="banner_container">
<div class="logo">
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/" id="logo" rel="home" title="Home"><img alt="Home" src="http://www.alternet.org/sites/all/themes/custom/alternet/logo.png" /></a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="coverage_header_bar coverage_header_bar_world">
<h3>
<span class="white"> World </span></h3>
</div>
<div class="byline world">
<h3>
<span class="field field-name-field-sources field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden"><span class="field-items"><span class="field-item even"><a href="http://alternet.org/">AlterNet</a></span></span></span> / <em>By</em> <em><a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/dennis-kucinich">Dennis Kucinich</a></em></h3>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="headline">
<h2 class="node-title">
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/world/top-10-unproven-claims-war-against-syria?paging=off" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Top 10 Unproven Claims for War Against Syria</span></a></h2>
</div>
<div class="teaser">
<div class="field field-name-field-teaser field-type-text-long field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;">Here
are some key questions which President Obama has yet to answer in the
call for congressional approval for war against Syria.</span></h3>
</div>
<div class="field-item even">
</div>
<div class="field-item even">
</div>
<div class="field-item even">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="the_body body_world clearfix">
<div class="story_images">
<div class="field field-name-field-story-image field-type-image field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<img height="300" src="http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/america_syria.jpg" width="400" /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="story-image-sourcing">
<div class="story-image-source">
<cite>Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/PromesaArtStudio</cite><br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="story-date">
<em><span class="field field-name-field-date field-type-date field-label-hidden"><span class="field-items"><span class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" content="2013-09-07T12:12:00-07:00">September 7, 2013</span></span></span></span>
</em> | </div>
<div class="article_insert_separator">
</div>
<div class="article_insert_separator">
</div>
In the lead-up to the Iraq War, I researched, wrote and circulated a <a href="http://action.kucinich.us/page/-/email/Analysis_of_Joint_Resolution_on_Iraq.pdf" target="_hplink">document</a> to
members of Congress which explored unanswered questions and refuted
President Bush's claim for a cause for war. The document detailed how
there was no proof Iraq was connected to 9/11 or tied to al Qaeda's role
in 9/11, that Iraq neither had WMDs nor was it a threat to the U.S.,
lacking intention and capability to attack. Unfortunately, not enough
members of Congress performed due diligence before they approved the
war.<br />
<br />
Here are some key questions which President Obama has yet to
answer in the call for congressional approval for war against Syria.
This article is a call for independent thinking and congressional
oversight, which rises above partisan considerations.<br />
<br />
The questions the Obama administration needs to answer before Congress can even consider voting on Syria:<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Claim #1. The administration <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21" target="_hplink">claims</a> a chemical weapon was used.</strong></span></h3>
<br />
The UN inspectors are still completing their independent evaluation.<br />
<br />
Who
provided the physiological samples of sarin gas on which your
evaluation is based? Were any other non-weaponized chemical agents
discovered or sampled?<br />
<br />
Who from the United States was responsible for the chain of custody?<br />
Where was the laboratory analysis conducted?<br />
<br />
Were U.S. officials present during the analysis of the samples? Does your sample show military grade or lower grade sarin gas?<br />
<br />
Can you verify that your sample matches the exact composition of the alleged Syrian government composition?<br /><br />Further reading: Brown Moses <a href="http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/" target="_hplink">blog</a>; McClatchy News <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/02/201027/to-some-us-case-for-syrian-gas.html#.UifyscPD-Uk" target="_hplink">report</a>; Global Research <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/point-by-point-rebuttal-of-u-s-case-for-war-in-syria/5347826" target="_hplink">report</a>.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Claim #2: The administration <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21" target="_hplink">claims</a> the opposition has not used chemical weapons.</strong></span></h3>
<br />
Which opposition?<br />
<br />
Are you speaking of a specific group, or all groups working in Syria to overthrow President Assad and his government?<br />
<br />
Has
your administration independently and categorically dismissed the
reports of rebel use of chemical weapons which have come from such
disparate sources as Russia, the United Nations, and the Turkish state
newspaper?<br />
<br />
Have you investigated the rumors that the Saudis may have supplied the rebels with chemicals that could be weaponized?<br />
<br />
Has the administration considered the ramifications of inadvertently supporting <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" target="_hplink">al Qaeda-affiliated</a> Syrian rebels?<br />
<br />
Was
any intelligence received in the last year by the U.S. government
indicating that sarin gas was brought into Syria by rebel factions, with
or without the help of a foreign government or intelligence agents?<br />
<br />
Further reading: <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/point-by-point-rebuttal-of-u-s-case-for-war-in-syria/5347826" target="_hplink">Global Research report</a>; Wall Street Journal <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324507404578596153561287028.html" target="_hplink">article</a>; Reuters <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505" target="_hplink">story</a>; Zaman <a href="http://www.zaman.com.tr/gundem_adanada-el-kaide-operasyonu-12-gozalti_2094730.html" target="_hplink">story</a> (in Turkish -- see Google translate from Turkish to English); Atlantic Sentinel<a href="http://atlanticsentinel.com/2013/09/syrian-rebels-suspected-of-deploying-chemical-weapon/" target="_hplink">story</a>; AP <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-sources-intelligence-weapons-no-slam-dunk" target="_hplink">story</a><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Claim #3: The administration <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21" target="_hplink">claims</a> chemical weapons were used because the regime's conventional weapons were insufficient</strong></span></h3>
<br />
Who
is responsible for the conjecture that the reason chemical weapons were
used against the Damascus suburbs is that Assad's conventional weapons
were insufficient to secure "large portions of Damascus"?<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Claim #4: The administration <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21" target="_hplink">claims</a> to have intelligence relating to the mixing of chemical weapons by regime elements</strong></span></h3>
<br />
Who saw the chemical weapons being mixed from August 18th on?<br />
<br />
Was any warning afforded to the Syria opposition and if not, why not?<br />
<br />
If,
on August 21st a "regime element" was preparing for a chemical weapons
attack, has an assessment been made which could definitively determine
whether such preparation (using gas masks) was for purpose of defense,
and not offense?<br />
<br />
Further reading: McClatchy <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/02/201027/to-some-us-case-for-syrian-gas.html#.UifyscPD-Uk" target="_hplink">report</a>; Brown Moses <a href="http://brown-moses.blogspot.com/" target="_hplink">blog</a><br /><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Claim #5: The administration <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21" target="_hplink">claims</a> intelligence that Assad's brother ordered the attack</strong></span><br />
<br />
What is the type of and source of intelligence which alleges that Assad's brother personally ordered the attack?<br />
<br />
Who made the determination that Assad's brother ordered the attack, based on which intelligence, from what source?<br />
<br />
Further reading: <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-sources-intelligence-weapons-no-slam-dunk" target="_hplink">here</a><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Claim #6: The administration claims poison gas was released in a rocket attack</strong></span></h3>
<br />
Who was tracking the rocket and the artillery attack which preceded the poison gas release?<br />
<br />
Did these events occur simultaneously or consecutively?<br />
<br />
Could these events, the rocket launches and the release of poison gas, have been conflated?<br />
<br />
Based
upon the evidence, is it possible that a rocket attack by the Syrian
government was aimed at rebels stationed among civilians and a chemical
weapons attack was launched by rebels against the civilian population an
hour and a half later?<br />
<br />
Is it possible that chemical weapons were released by the rebels -- unintentionally?<br />
<br />
Explain the 90-minute time interval between the rocket launch and chemical weapon attacks.<br />
<br />
Has forensic evidence been gathered at the scene of the attack which would confirm the use of rockets to deliver the gas?<br />
<br />
If there was a rocket launch would you supply evidence of wounds from the rockets impact and explosion?<br />
<br />
What is the source of the government's analysis?<br />
<br />
If
the rockets were being tracked via "geospatial intelligence," what were
the geospatial coordinates of the launching sites and termination
locations?<br />
Further reading: FAIR.org <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/which-syrian-chemical-attack-account-is-more-credible/" target="_hplink">report</a><br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span></h3>
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Claim #7: The administration <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21" target="_hplink">claims</a> 1,429 people died in the attack</strong></span></h3>
<br />
Secretary Kerry claimed 1,429 deaths, including 426 children. From whom did that number first originate?<br />
<br />
Further reading: McClatchy <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/02/201027/to-some-us-case-for-syrian-gas.html#.UifyscPD-Uk" target="_hplink">report</a><br /><br /><strong>Claim #8: The administration has made repeated references to <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21" target="_hplink">videos and photos</a> of the attack as a basis for military action against Syria</strong><br />
When and where were the videos taken of the aftermath of the poison gas attack?<br />
<br />
Further reading: FAIR.org <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/which-syrian-chemical-attack-account-is-more-credible/" target="_hplink">report</a><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Claim #9: The administration <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21" target="_hplink">claims</a> a key intercept proves the Assad regime's complicity in the chemical weapons attack</strong></span></h3>
<br />
Will
you release the original transcripts in the language in which it was
recorded as well as the translations relied upon to determine the nature
of the conversation <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-on-syria-whos-got-a-secret/2013/09/04/9cc5b360-15a8-11e3-a2ec-b47e45e6f8ef_story.html" target="_hplink">allegedly intercepted</a>?<br />
<br />
What
is the source of this transcript? What was the exact time of the
intercept? Was it a U.S. intercept or supplied from a non-U.S. source?<br />
<br />
Have you determined the transcripts' authenticity? Have you considered that the transcripts could have been doctored or fake?<br />
<br />
Was the "senior official," whose communications were intercepted, a member of Assad's government?<br />
<br />
How
was he "familiar" with the offensive? Through a surprised
acknowledgement that such an attack had taken place? Or through actual
coordination of said attack? Release the transcripts!<br />
<br />
Was he an
intelligence asset of the U.S., or our allies? In what manner had he
"confirmed" chemical weapons were used by the regime?<br />
<br />
Who made the
assessment that his intercepted communications were a confirmation of
the use of chemical weapons by the regime on August 21st?<br />
What is the source of information that the Syrian chemical weapons personnel were "directed to cease operations"?<br />
<br />
Is this the same source who witnessed regime officials mixing the chemicals?<br />
Does
the transcript indicate whether the operations they were "directed to
cease" were related to ceasing conventional or chemical attacks?<br />
<br />
Will you release the transcripts and identify sources of this claim?<br />
<br />
Do
you have transcripts, eyewitness accounts or electronic intercepts of
communications between Syrian commanders or other regime officials which
link the CW attack directly to President Assad?<br />
<br />
Who are the
intelligence officials who made the assessment -- are they U.S.
intelligence officials or did the initial analysis come from a non-U.S.
source?<br />
Further reading: FAIR.org <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/which-syrian-chemical-attack-account-is-more-credible/" target="_hplink">report</a> and <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-sources-intelligence-weapons-no-slam-dunk" target="_hplink">AP story</a>; Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-on-syria-whos-got-a-secret/2013/09/04/9cc5b360-15a8-11e3-a2ec-b47e45e6f8ef_story.html" target="_hplink">editorial</a><br /><br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Claim
#10: The administration claims that sustained shelling occurred after
the chemical weapons attack in order to cover up the traces of the
attack</strong></span></h3>
<br />
Please release all intelligence and military
assessments as to the reason for the sustained shelling, which is
reported to have occurred after the chemical weapons attack.<br />
<br />
Who
made the determination that was this intended to cover up a chemical
weapon attack? Or was it to counterattack those who released chemicals?<br />
How does shelling make the residue of sarin gas disappear?<br />
Further reading: <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/point-by-point-rebuttal-of-u-s-case-for-war-in-syria/5347826" target="_hplink">here</a><br />
<br />
The
American people have a right to a full release and vetting of all facts
before their elected representatives are asked to make a decision of
great consequence for America, Syria and the world. Congress must be
provided answers prior to the vote, in open hearings, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-on-syria-whos-got-a-secret/2013/09/04/9cc5b360-15a8-11e3-a2ec-b47e45e6f8ef_story.html" target="_hplink">not in closed sessions</a> where information can be manipulated in the service of war. We've been there before. It's called Iraq.<br />
<br />
<div class="bio-new body_world">
<div class="author-bio">
Dennis Kucinich is a
former U.S. Representative, serving from 1997 to 2013. He was also a
candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United
States in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections. Visit his website
at <a href="http://www.kucinichaction.com/" target="_hplink">www.KucinichAction.com</a>.<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-31333767473739964302013-09-05T21:29:00.000-07:002013-09-05T21:29:16.578-07:006 Major Players Who Turned the Syrian Crisis Into a Devastating Proxy War Nightmare<br />
<br />
<div class="banner_ banner_world" id="banner">
<div id="banner_container">
<div class="logo">
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/" id="logo" rel="home" title="Home"><img alt="Home" src="http://www.alternet.org/sites/all/themes/custom/alternet/logo.png" /></a>
</div>
<div class="banner_search_box">
<span class="banner_search"> </span>
<div class="region region-header-search">
<div class="block block-search first last odd count-1" id="block-search-form">
<div class="content">
<form accept-charset="UTF-8" action="/world/meet-major-players-who-turned-syrian-crisis-devastating-proxy-war?paging=off" id="search-block-form" method="post">
<div>
<div class="container-inline">
<br /></div>
</div>
</form>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="coverage_header_bar coverage_header_bar_world">
<h3>
<span class="white"> <span style="font-size: large;"> World </span></span></h3>
</div>
<div class="byline world">
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="field field-name-field-sources field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden"><span class="field-items"><span class="field-item even"><a href="http://alternet.org/">AlterNet</a></span></span></span> / <em>By</em> <em><a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/alex-kane">Alex Kane</a></em></span></h3>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="headline">
<h2 class="node-title">
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/world/meet-major-players-who-turned-syrian-crisis-devastating-proxy-war?paging=off" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">6 Major Players Who Turned the Syrian Crisis Into a Devastating Proxy War Nightmare</span></a></h2>
</div>
<div class="teaser">
<div class="field field-name-field-teaser field-type-text-long field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;">What
started out as a civil uprising against Bashar al-Assad’s regime has
turned into a regional proxy war that is engulfing the Middle East.</span></h3>
</div>
<div class="field-item even">
</div>
<div class="field-item even">
</div>
<div class="field-item even">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="the_body body_world clearfix">
<div class="story_images">
<div class="field field-name-field-story-image field-type-image field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<img src="http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/shutterstock_111913646.jpg" /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="story-image-sourcing">
<div class="story-image-source">
The Syria flag painted on cracked ground with vignette.<br /><cite>Photo Credit: Aleksey Klints/Shutterstock.com</cite><br />
<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="story-date">
<em><span class="field field-name-field-date field-type-date field-label-hidden"><span class="field-items"><span class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" content="2013-09-04T12:58:00-07:00">September 4, 2013</span></span></span></span>
</em> | </div>
<div class="article_insert_separator">
</div>
<div class="article_insert_separator">
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
The Syrian uprising’s first stirrings in 2011 marked the
Arab Spring’s arrival to a country ruled by a regime intent on holding
onto power forever. But two and a half years after protests first broke
out, the uprising has turned into a catastrophic civil war fueled by
outside powers jockeying for their own interests.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>Inspired
by the fall of dictators in Egypt and Tunisia, Syrian children in the
border town of Deraa drew anti-government graffiti on a school in
February 2011. The arrests and brutal torture of the 15 young boys
sparked protests that spread across the country. The Assad regime
unleashed immense firepower on Syrian demonstrators calling for
democracy and an end to the Assad family’s 43-year reign. The opposition
then took up arms, eventually forming what came to be known as the Free
Syrian Army (FSA), a ragtag group of fighters loosely organized to try
to bring down Assad’s regime. While the FSA has taken over some
territory, the Assad regime still exercises power in the country.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>Meanwhile,
the ongoing fighting has attracted thousands of foreign fighters, some
of them radical Islamists, to take on Assad, who is viewed unfavorably
by them because of his Alawite religious sect, an offshoot of Shiite
Islam.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>Outside powers also
got involved quickly. So what started out as a civil uprising against
years of repression, poverty and government corruption turned into a
regional proxy war that is now engulfing the entire Middle East, with
the nonviolent section of the opposition withering under the weight of
civil war. Refugees have poured into Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan,
and Lebanon has itself seen fighting linked to the Syrian crisis.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>Now,
the United States’ threats to rain cruise missiles down on Damascus
threatens to ignite more turmoil in the region. Here’s a guide to the
external players playing a role in and fueling the Syrian crisis, which
has claimed the lives of over 100,000 people and displaced a third of
the population.</span></span><br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span> </span></span></h3>
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong><span>1. United States</span></strong></span></h3>
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>The
looming military strikes on Syria by the U.S. would be the most
forceful intervention yet from the world’s superpower. But even without
the strikes, the U.S. has long played an outside role during the Syrian
civil war.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>President Barack Obama </span><a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-18/politics/35271355_1_syrian-government-assets-syrian-president-bashar-al-assad-syrian-people">first showed his hand in 2011</a><span>, when he said, “</span><span>the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” By the next year, the </span><a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-cia-syria-20130622">CIA was training Syrian rebels in Jordan</a><span>,
a longstanding ally of the U.S. now playing an important role as a base
for the rebels and a haven for millions of refugees. CIA agents have
trained a small group of FSA fighters with anti-tank and anti-aircraft
weapons in the hopes of helping American-vetted rebels gain an upper
hand in the civil war. And in March 2013, </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?pagewanted=all">the New York Times reported</a><span>that
“with help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply
increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters.”</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>The
training of rebels represented a direct break from past U.S. dealings
with the Assad regime. Before the uprising emerged, the U.S. had a
complicated relationship with Syria which included cooperation on
anti-terrorism, sanctioning the regime and meeting with the Assads to
encourage U.S.-backed reform measures.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>But
the U.S. training of the rebels made only a small impact. Perhaps the
most effective fighting force within Syria has been the Jabhat al-Nusra
front, an Al-Qaeda linked group. Trepidation about U.S. arms falling
into the hands of jihadist groups that could threaten Israel and other
U.S. allies has tempered the willingness to open the arms floodgates.
Although the U.S. Congress authorized arming the rebels earlier this
year, much of the equipment hasn’t reached the rebels.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>Now,
the alleged chemical weapons attack on a Syrian suburb seems to have
overridden past qualms about not getting in too deep. Cruise missile
strikes may not shift the battlefield, but it could embroil the U.S.
further into the war while doing little to calm the refugee and
humanitarian crises.</span></span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong><span>2. Iran</span></strong></span></h3>
<br />
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: small;">The
Obama administration’s pitch to lawmakers to convince them bombing
Syria is a good idea centers on the alleged threat from Iran. They have
been telling Congress it’s important to send a message to Iran about its
own nuclear energy program. And hawkish U.S. politicians have long
framed the Syrian crisis as an opportunity to strike a blow at Iran.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>There’s
a reason for all the focus on Iran: it's a crucial ally of the Assad
regime. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, the two countries
have been largely united by the common political goals of opposition to
the U.S. and Israel, though there have been rough patches in their
partnership. For Iran, Syria is a crucial foothold in the Arab world and
a conduit for arming the Lebanese group Hezbollah. Iran has poured
billions of dollars of investments in Syria. And during the Syrian civil
war, Iran has been a key force helping Assad stay in power. Iranian
Revolutionary Guard troops have reportedly fought on the side of Assad.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>The
Iranian leadership is opposed to a U.S. strike on Syria, though Iran’s
past with chemical weapons has led officials to denounce their use in
the civil war without explicitly assigning blame. The potential U.S.
strike on Syria could impact hopes of rapprochement between Iran and the
U.S.—hopes that have intensified since the election of Iran’s president
Hassan Rouhani earlier this year.</span></span><br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span> </span></span></h3>
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong><span>3. Hezbollah</span></strong></span></h3>
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>Closely
linked to Iran’s involvement in Syria is Hezbollah’s even greater
involvement. The Lebanese militant group that grew out of resisting the
Israeli occupation of Lebanon and won the praise of Arabs in various
countries for that feat is a key ally of Iran and Syria. Iran provided
the arms that made Hezbollah such a potent force because Syria allowed
it to do so. Now, </span><span>Hezbollah i</span><span>s
deeply enmeshed in the Syrian civil war, acting as an effective
fighting force to keep Assad in power. Hezbollah sees the survival of
the Assad regime as crucial to its own survival.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: small;">Since
the civil war started, there have long been reports of Hezbollah
fighters backing Assad. But it was decisively confirmed in May 2013,
when Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah gave a speech casting the Syrian
conflict as a battle against America, Israel and the radical Sunni
jihadists he claimed they were backing. Hezbollah fighters were sent to
fight alongside Syrian forces in the strategic town of Qusayr, and in
June Syria captured the town from rebels.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>Hezbollah’s
actions have been controversial within Lebanon, with some questioning
why Hezbollah is fighting other Arabs instead of Israel. And the war has
followed Hezbollah back home. Lebanon—which, like Syria, is composed of
various competing ethnic and religious groups—was beset by intense
fighting between sides who back different players in Syria over the
summer. Car bombs have targeted Lebanese Shiite neighborhoods, where
Hezbollah’s power is the strongest. And refugees have flowed into
Lebanon, adding considerable economic and political strain to the
country.</span></span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong><span>4. Israel</span></strong></span></h3>
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>Israel
and Syria have a complicated relationship. Officially, they are
enemies. Syria was one of a handful of Arab states that fought Israel in
a number of wars, most notably the 1967 war, when Israel captured the
Golan Heights from Syria and occupied it ever since. In a move never
recognized by the international community, Israel annexed the part of
Golan it controlled in 1981, and it has built illegal settlements in the
Israeli-controlled side of the area. It has long been a Syrian goal to
regain the Golan Heights, and negotiations between the two sides have
accelerated over the past decade with that goal in mind. But they have
not been successful, and Israel continues to control part of the
Heights.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr">
The Syrian regime has long used
anti-Israel rhetoric as a rallying cry to bolster its own legitimacy.
But that rhetoric has never matched military action to retake the Golan.
And Israel has been perfectly content with the Assad regime’s rule,
since it provided much needed stability on its border with Syria, though
Syria has backed Israel’s more potent enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah,
though the relationship with Hamas has frayed since the Palestinian
group announced it was supporting the uprising against Assad.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Israel’s
preferred outcome of the conflict is to have no solution at all—to have
both sides, neither of whom Israel particularly likes, fight and bleed
each other dry. Although the fall of the Syrian regime would greatly
weaken Hezbollah and Iran, Israel is wary of the prospect of radical
Islamists who are willing to turn their arms toward the Jewish state.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
The
most decisive action Israel has taken has been to bomb Syria as the
regime sought to transfer weapons to Hezbollah. Israel has launched
airstrikes on Syria three times since the uprising began. But those
strikes were not aimed at toppling Assad.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: small;">Now, Israel is backing U.S. bombs on Syria, and supplied <span>intelligence
to the U.S. to make its chemical weapons case. But its willingness to
see U.S. intervention is more about Iran than Syria. Israel wants the
U.S. to show Iran that a “red line” crossed would mean military action.
That’s why the pro-Israel U.S. lobbying group, American Israel Public
Affairs Committee, is also backing U.S. strikes on Syria.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong><span>5. Russia</span></strong></span></h3>
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span>While
the U.S. has only tepidly backed the overthrow of Assad, Russia has
decisively backed the Assad regime. Russia has vetoed every UN Security
Council attempt to take action against the Assad regime. It is also
steadfastly opposed to any military action against Assad, and retains
close political and intelligence links to the Syrian regime.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr">
Russia’s
close ties to Syria dates to a Cold War-era alliance, but the collapse
of the Soviet Union did not end the relationship. Russia’s only naval
base in the Mediterranean is located in Syria, providing it a military
foothold outside of its normal purview and a sphere of some influence in
the Middle East. Syria is also a frequent buyer of Russian arms.
Furthermore, Russia also has its own reasons to worry about the radical
Islamists who are part of the rebel groups in Syria. Russia has battled
an Islamist-fueled insurgency in Chechnya, and it’s wary of any similar
group gaining power.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Lastly, as <a href="http://beta.syriadeeply.org/2013/05/syria-deeply-asks-relationship-russia-syria/#.Uid4DmQ4XKw">former U.S. intelligence officer Wayne White explains</a>,
Russia “may well view supporting Bashar al-Assad as yet another way of
expressing displeasure with much of the criticism they have received
from Washington predating the Syrian uprising, and demonstrating that
their Middle East policy is not subject to American approval.”</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<h3 dir="ltr">
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>6. Saudi Arabia</strong></span></h3>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
This
theocratic monarchy and close U.S. ally has been a crucial node of
opposition to the Arab Spring in many countries. But in Syria, Saudi
Arabia would like nothing more than to see the Assad regime fall in
order to install a Sunni Arab regime friendly to Saudi interests. And
they’re forcefully backing the prospect of U.S. military action.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Saudi
Arabia’s preoccupation in recent years has been Iran. Both powers have
their own spheres of influence, and are locked in a battle for regional
hegemony. So they see the downfall of the Assad regime as a decisive
blow against Iran’s government.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
Saudi Arabia has translated this
desire into action. It has funded and armed Syrian rebels, including to
Islamists. (Qatar, another oil-rich country, is backing its own group of
rebels, and these also include jihadists.) A small number of Saudis
funded by rich compatriots have also flocked to Syria to fight the Assad
regime.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="bio-new body_world">
<div class="author-bio">
Alex Kane is AlterNet's New York-based World editor, and an assistant editor for <a href="http://mondoweiss.net/">Mondoweiss</a>. Follow him on <a href="http://twitter.com/alexbkane">Twitter @alexbkane.</a><br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-19488678554937393302013-09-02T14:55:00.000-07:002013-09-05T21:34:30.226-07:00Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?<h1 id="logo">
<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/" title="CommonDreams.org"><img alt="CommonDreams.org" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.commondreams.org/images/common-dreams.png" /></a></h1>
<div class="inside-limiter clear-block" id="navigation">
</div>
Published on Monday, September 2, 2013 by <a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/which-syrian-chemical-attack-account-is-more-credible/">Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)</a><!-- I converted this one --> <!-- (2) if field_source_url url is empty AND the field_source_url title is empty AND field_op_source is NOT empty AND source_profile_url is NOT empty --> <!-- (3) if field_source_url url is empty AND the field_source_url title is NOT empty AND field_op_source is NOT empty AND field_op_source is NOT empty AND source_profile_url is empty --> <!-- (4) if field_source_url url is empty AND the field_source_url title is NOT empty AND field_op_source is NOT empty AND source_profile_url is NOT empty --> <!-- (5) if field_source_url url is NOT empty AND the field_source_url title is empty AND field_op_source is NOT empty --> <!-- (6) if field_source_url url is NOT empty AND the field_source_url title is NOT empty AND field_op_source is NOT empty --> <br />
<div class="node-title">
<h2 class="title">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/02-3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?</a></span></h2>
</div>
<!-- $authors is created within profiles/openpublishdroplits/modules/cd/theme_helpers/node-views_article.tpl.php --> <br />
<div class="author">
by <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/author/jim-naureckas">Jim Naureckas</a> </div>
<div class="author">
</div>
<div class="author">
</div>
<div class="node-content clear-block prose">
<div class="node-body">
<span class="image-full" style="width: 540px;"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/ap_john_kerry_syria_nt_130830_16x9_992_0.jpg" style="height: 304px; width: 540px;" title="Secretary of State John Kerry makes a statement about Syria at the State Department in Washington, Aug. 30, 2013. (Photo: Charles Dharapak/AP)" /></span><br />
<span class="image-full" style="width: 540px;"><span class="caption">Secretary of State John Kerry makes a statement about Syria at the State Department in Washington, Aug. 30, 2013. (Photo: Charles Dharapak/AP)</span></span><br />
<span class="image-full" style="width: 540px;"><span class="caption"></span></span><br />
<span class="image-full" style="width: 540px;"><span class="caption"></span></span><br />
<span class="image-full" style="width: 540px;"><span class="caption"></span></span><br />
<span class="image-full" style="width: 540px;"><span class="caption"></span></span>Let's compare a couple of accounts of the mass deaths apparently caused by chemical weapons in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta on August 21. One account comes from the U.S. government (<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21" target="_blank" title="White House: Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013">8/30/13</a>), introduced by Secretary of State John Kerry. The other was published by a Minnesota-based news site called <b>Mint Press News</b> (<a href="http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/" target="_blank" title="Mint Press: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack">8/29/13</a>).<br />
<br />
The government account expresses "high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack" on August 21. The <b>Mint </b>report bore the headline "Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack." Which of these two versions should we find more credible?<br />
<br />
The U.S. government, of course, has a track record that will incline informed observers to approach its claims with skepticism–particularly when it's making charges about the proscribed weapons of official enemies. Kerry said in his <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Text-of-Kerry-statement-on-Syria-4775612.php" target="_blank" title="AP: Text of Kerry statement on Syria">address</a> that "our intelligence community" has been "more than mindful of the Iraq experience"–as should be anyone listening to Kerry's presentation, because the <a href="http://fair.org/press-release/a-failure-of-skepticism-in-powell-coverage/" title="Press Release: A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage">Iraq experience</a> informs us that secretaries of State can express great confidence about matters that they are completely wrong about, and that U.S. intelligence assessments can be based on <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/colin-powell-wmd-iraq-war_b_2624620.html" target="_blank" title="Huffington Post: Lie After Lie After Lie">distortion of evidence</a> and deliberate suppression of <a href="http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/star-witness-on-iraq-said-weapons-were-destroyed/" title="Media Advisory: Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed">contradictory facts</a>.<br />
<br />
Comparing Kerry's presentation on Syria and its accompanying document to Colin Powell's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html" target="_blank" title="Washington Post: 'A Policy of Evasion and Deception' ">speech</a> to the UN on Iraq, though, one is struck by how little specific evidence was included in the case for the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. It gives the strong impression of being pieced together from drone surveillance and NSA intercepts, supplemented by <b>Twitter</b> messages and <b>YouTube</b> videos, rather than from on-the-ground reporting or human intelligence. Much of what is offered tries to establish that the victims in Ghouta had been exposed to chemical weapons–a question that indeed had been in <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.542849" target="_blank" title="Haaretz: Defense Minister: Assad used chemical weapons multiple times in Syria">some doubt</a>, but had already largely been settled by a <a href="http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029&cat=press-release" target="_blank" title="MSF: Syria: Thousands Suffering Neurotoxic Symptoms Treated in Hospitals Supported by MSF - See more at: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029&cat=press-release#sthash.33Tw00wF.dpuf">report</a> by Doctors Without Borders that reported that thousands of people in the Damascus area had been treated for "neurotoxic symptoms."<br />
<br />
On the critical question of who might be responsible for such a chemical attack, Kerry's presentation was much more vague and circumstantial. A key point in the government's white paper is "the detection of rocket launches from regime-controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media." It's unclear why this is supposed to be persuasive. Do rockets take 90 minutes to reach their targets? Does nerve gas escape from rockets 90 minutes after impact, or, once released, take 90 minutes to cause symptoms?<br />
<br />
In a conflict as conscious of the importance of communication as the Syrian Civil War, do citizen journalists wait an hour and a half before reporting an enormous development–the point at which, as Kerry put it, "all hell broke loose in the social media"? Unless there's some reason to expect this kind of a delay, it's very unclear why we should think there's any connection at all between the allegedly observed rocket launches and the later reports of mass poisoning.<br />
<br />
When the evidence isn't circumstantial, it's strikingly vague: "We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the UN inspectors obtaining evidence," the report asserts. Taken at face value, it's one of the most damning claims in the government's report–a veritable confession. But how was the identity of this official established? And what exactly did they say that "confirmed" chemical weapons use? Recall that Powell played tapes of Iraqi officials supposedly talking about concealing evidence of banned weapons from inspectors–which turned out to show <a href="http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2011/021811a.html" target="_blank" title="Consortium: Colin Powell's Disgraceful Lies">nothing of the kind</a>. But Powell at least played tapes of the intercepted communication, even as he spun and misrepresented their contents–allowing for the possibility of an independent interpretation of these messages. Perhaps "mindful of the Iraq experience," Kerry allows for no such interpretation.<br />
<br />
Another key claim is asserted without substantiation: "Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of 'Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21, near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin." How were these personnel identified, and what were the signs of their operations? How was this place identified as an area used to mix sarin? Here again the information provided was far less detailed than what Powell gave to the UN: Powell's presentation included satellite photographs of sites where proscribed weapons were being made, with an explanation of what they revealed to "experts with years and years of experience": "The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions," he said, pointing to an annotated photograph of bunkers that turned out to be storing no such thing. Powell's presentation graphically demonstrated that US intelligence analysts are fallible, which is part of why presenting bare assertions without any of the raw materials used to derive those conclusions should not be very convincing.<br />
<br />
Kerry did offer an explanation for why the report was so cursory: "In order to protect sources and methods, some of what we know will only be released to members of Congress, the representatives of the American people. That means that some things we do know, we can't talk about publicly." It is not clear, however, why intelligence methods that produced visual and audible evidence that could be shared with the public 10 years ago cannot be similarly utilized today. It does point to why the $52 billion the United States spends on surveillance annually, according to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden (<b>Washington Post</b>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/black-budget-summary-details-us-spy-networks-successes-failures-and-objectives/2013/08/29/7e57bb78-10ab-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html" title="WaPo: U.S. spy network’s successes, failures and objectives detailed in ‘black budget’ summary">8/29/13</a>), provides relatively little information that's of value to American democracy: The collection of information is considered so much more valuable than the information collected that it rarely if ever can be used to inform a public debate. Instead, as we discuss the dreadful question of whether to launch a military attack on another country, we are offered an undemocratic "trust us" from the most secretive parts of our government–an offer that history warns us to be extremely wary of.<br />
<br />
Unlike the U.S. government, <b>Mint</b> does not have much of a track record, having been founded only about a year and a half ago (<b>CJR</b>, <a href="http://www.cjr.org/news_startups_guide/2012/03/mint-press-news.php" target="_blank" title="CJR: Mint Press News">3/28/12</a>). The founder of the for-profit startup is Mnar Muhawesh, a 24-year-old Palestinian-American woman who believes, reasonably enough, that "our media has absolutely failed our country" (<b>MinnPost</b>, <a href="http://www.minnpost.com/david-brauer-blog/2012/01/who-mintpress-and-why-are-they-doing-all-hiring#94-34403" target="_blank" title="MinnPost: Who is MintPress and why are they doing all this hiring?">1/18/12</a>). One of its two reporters on its Syrian chemical weapons piece, Dale Gavlak, is a longtime <b>Associated Press</b> <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/author/dale-gavlak" target="_blank" title="AP: Author: Dale Gavlak">Mideast stringer</a> who has also done work for <a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168898508/syrian-refugees-attack-aid-workers-amid-deteriorating-conditions" target="_blank" title="NPR: Syrian Refugees Attack Aid Workers Amid Deteriorating Conditions"><b>NPR</b></a> and the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20104169" target="_blank" title="BBC: Jordan teeters on edge of political instability"><b>BBC</b></a>. <b>AP</b> was one of the few US corporate media outlets to question official assertions about Iraqi WMDs, contrasting Powell's assertions with what could be discerned from on-the-ground reporting (<b>Extra!</b>, <a href="http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/wrong-on-iraq-not-everyone/" target="_blank" title="Extra!: Wrong on Iraq? Not Everyone">3-4/06</a>).<br />
<br />
<b>Mint</b> takes a similar approach to the Syrian story, with a reporter in Ghouta–not Gavlak but <a href="http://jo.linkedin.com/pub/yahya-ababneh/63/830/108" target="_blank" title="LinkedIn: Yahya Ababneh">Yahya Ababneh</a>, a Jordanian freelancer and journalism grad student–who "spoke directly with the rebels, their family members, victims of the chemical weapons attacks and local residents." The article reports that "many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out" the chemical attack. The recipients of the chemical weapons are said to be Jabhat al-Nusra, an Al-Qaeda-linked rebel faction that was caught possessing sarin nerve gas in Turkey, according to Turkish press reports (<b>OE Watch</b>, <a href="http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/Archives/GSW/201307/Turkey_02.html" target="_blank" title="OE Watch: Al Nusra with Sarin Gas?">7/13</a>).<br />
<br />
<b>Mint</b> quotes Abu Abdel-Moneim, described as the father of a rebel killed in the chemical weapons attacks, as saying that his son had described carrying unconventional weapons provided by Saudi Arabia to underground storage tunnels–a "tubelike structure" and a "huge gas bottle." A rebel leader identified as J describes the release of toxic weaponry as accidental, saying, "Some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions." Another rebel referred to as K complains, "When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them."<br />
<br />
Of course, independent media accounts are not necessarily more credible than official reports–or vice versa. As with the government white paper, there are gaps in the <b>Mint</b> account; while Abdel-Moneim cites his late son's account of carrying chemical weapons, the rebels quoted do not indicate how they came to know what they say they know about the origin of the weapons. But unlike the government, <b>Mint</b> is honest about the limits of its knowledge: "Some information in this article could not be independently verified," the story admits. "<b>Mint Press News</b> will continue to provide further information and updates."<br />
<br />
This humility about the difficulty of reporting on a covert, invisible attack in the midst of a chaotic civil war actually adds to the credibility of the <b>Mint</b> account. It's those who are most certain about matters of which they clearly lack firsthand knowledge who should make us most skeptical.<br />
<div class="copyright-info">
© 2013 FAIR</div>
<!-- <h3>
</h3>
--> <br />
<div class="clearfix user-profile" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
<!-- wrapper div --> <br />
<div class="author-wrapper">
<div class="clearfix author-bio" style="border-top-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 1px; padding: 15px 0px 20px;">
<div class="author-image" style="float: left; padding: 1px 15px 15px 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/author/jim-naureckas"><img alt="Jim Naureckas" class="imagecache imagecache-author_photo" height="85" src="https://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imagecache/author_photo/jim_naureckas.jpg" title="Jim Naureckas" width="90" /></a> </div>
<div class="author-brief-article">
Jim Naureckas is editor of <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4" target="_blank">EXTRA! Magazine</a> at <a href="http://www.fair.org/" target="_blank">FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting)</a>. He is the co-author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/156584260X?tag=commondreams-20/ref=nosim" target="_blank">Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error</a>, and co-editor of The FAIR Reader. He is also the co-manager of FAIR's website.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-52457952257510039702012-10-08T14:19:00.003-07:002012-10-08T14:19:44.565-07:005 Ways Mitt Romney Would Double Down on U.S. Empire and Hegemony<br />
<br />
<div class="logo">
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/" id="logo" rel="home" title="Home"><img alt="Home" src="http://www.alternet.org/sites/all/themes/custom/alternet/logo.png" /></a>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<h2>
<span class="white">News & Politics </span>
</h2>
<div class="story-body-container news-politics">
<div class="region region-content">
<div class="block block-system first odd count-1" id="block-system-main">
<div class="content">
<div class="node node-story view-mode-full clearfix" id="node-723478">
<div class="byline news-politics">
<h2>
<span class="field field-name-field-sources field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden"><span class="field-items"><span class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/">AlterNet</a></span></span></span> / <em>By</em> <em><a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/alex-kane">Alex Kane</a></em></h2>
</div>
<div class="headline">
<h2 class="node-title">
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/5-ways-mitt-romney-would-double-down-us-empire-and-hegemony?akid=9504.203360.MCdrxN&rd=1&src=newsletter723536&t=7&paging=off" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">5 Ways Mitt Romney Would Double Down on U.S. Empire and Hegemony</span></a></h2>
</div>
<div class="teaser">
<div class="field field-name-field-teaser field-type-text-long field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<h2>
Romney's
Virgina speech on foreign policy was boilerplate content, with nods to
the belligerent neoconservative wing of the Republican Party.</h2>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="the_body body_news-politics clearfix">
<div class="story-date">
<em>
<span class="field field-name-field-date field-type-date field-label-hidden"><span class="field-items"><span class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" content="2012-10-08T10:27:00-07:00">October 8, 2012</span></span></span></span></em> | </div>
<div class="story_images_top">
</div>
<div class="story_images">
<div class="field field-name-field-story-image field-type-image field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<img src="http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/romneyspeech.jpg" /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="article_insert_separator">
</div>
<div class="article_insert_separator">
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
Mitt Romney put foreign policy squarely back in the spotlight with his speech at the Virginia Military Institute today.<br /><br />Romney
launched a rhetorical attack on the Obama administration’s foreign
policy, focusing on the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya
that killed American ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others.<br /><br />“The
attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They
are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the
broader Middle East,” said Romney, noting that it was likely an Al Qaeda
affiliate who attacked the U.S. embassy.<br /><br />The GOP candidate added
that “the blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks
on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who
carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our
President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from
behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events.”<br /><br />He also
laid out a broad foreign policy vision that called for the U.S. to “lead
the course of human events” with “more American leadership.”<br /><br />In
other words, it was a boilerplate speech with nods to the
neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, a wing that leads his
foreign policy team as well. But as<em> </em><a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/romney-obama-second-term/"><em>Wired</em>’s Spencer Ackerman notes</a>,
“the policies Romney outlines in his speech differ, at most,
superficially from Obama’s.” Obama’s record on foreign policy is an
aggressive one, with escalated drone strikes that have killed scores of
civilians in Pakistan and Yemen and the continuation of the war in
Afghanistan. Romney didn’t offer anything specific that was more
aggressive than Obama, though his rhetoric was ratcheted up.<br /><br />But
if Romney’s speech didn’t contain new ideas, that doesn’t mean they were
necessarily good ones. In fact, the prescriptions he offers for U.S.
foreign policy will deepen the commitment to U.S. empire and hegemony.
Here are 5 bad ideas Romney offered in his foreign policy speech.<br /><br /><strong>1. More American Meddling Around the World</strong><br /><br />When
Romney says “the 21st century can and must be an American century” and
that is the U.S.’s responsibility to steer the world towards “the path
of freedom, peace, and prosperity,” that’s code for the maintenance of
U.S. hegemony. Romney still believes that the U.S. should be able to
shape the world as we see fit--the rest of the world who refuses to go
along with it be damned. These ideas are particularly galling given that
Romney was partly addressing the Arab Spring--a series of revolts that
were decidedly against U.S. support for repressive dictatorships.<br /><br />Romney
also believes that in the case of Iran, “American support”--read
meddling-- for the opposition in that country would be helpful. But that
ignores the fact that the Green movement in Iran <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-ayatollahs-democracy-western-misunderstanding-of-the-green-movement/">did not want U.S. support and intervention.</a><br /><br />The
Republican candidate also lamented the fact that “America’s ability to
influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the
abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence.”<br /><br />Lastly, he
hinted that U.S. involvement in Afghanistan could continue for years to
come if he was president. “The route to more war – and to potential
attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the
Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used
it to launch the attacks of 9/11,” the candidate said. “I will evaluate
conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military
commanders.”<br /><br /><strong>2. Belligerence Towards Iran</strong><br /><br />The
Obama administration, with the pushing of an eager U.S. Congress, has
implemented extremely tough sanctions on Iran already--so much so that
the Iranian rial’s value has been in freefall recently, with reports
that the sanctions are causing <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/07/iran-santions-suffering">food insecurity and medicine shortages</a>. But Romney wants more belligerence towards Iran.<br /><br />“I
will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the
sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of
aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the
Gulf region,” said Romney.<br />
An approach like this will put the U.S. on a clearer path to a catostrophic military conflict with Iran.<br /><br /><strong>3. Increased Military Spending </strong><br /><br />The
world Romney wants to see is one where militarization increases and
armament makers profit more. Referring to the U.S., Romney “complained
that our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut...I will
make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure.”<br /><br />As
for the rest of the world, Romney wants the same: an increase in
spending on militaries at a time of austerity and budget cutting that is
wreaking havoc on the lives of Europeans. “I will call on our NATO
allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by
honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to
security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this
benchmark,” Romney vowed.<br /><br /><strong>4. Neoliberal Trade Agreements</strong><br /><br />Romney wants more so-called free trade agreements, which in reality are agreements that often hurt workers around the globe.<br /><br />“I
will champion free trade and restore it as a critical element of our
strategy, both in the Middle East and across the world,” said the former
Massachusetts governor.<br /><br />He also made a misleading remark when he
claimed that “the President has not signed one new free trade agreement
in the past four years.” While it is true that negotiations over the
trade agreements Obama has signed began before he took office, it is a
distortion to imply that Obama didn’t sign free trade agreements.
Agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea have been signed by
Obama--and as <a href="http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/10/romney-hits-obama-on-free-trade-137788.html?hp=l4">Politico notes</a>, they were implemented “in defiance of what labor groups, a major Democratic constitutency, wanted.”<br /><br /><strong>5. More Military Assistance to Israel</strong><br /><br />President
Obama has already increased the amount of military aid the U.S. gives
to Israel to unprecedented levels. But Romney wants Israel, a state that
is occupying Palestinian land and threatening Iran with war, to receive
more.<br /><br />Romney said that he would “work with Israel to increase
our military assistance and coordination.” Israel already receives 3.1
billion in military aid from the U.S.--aid that directly bolsters the
occupation and the building of illegal settlements in the occupied
territories, since the Israeli military solely protects settlers in the
West Bank.<br /><br />This military aid would be sent with a blank check.
Romney vowed that under his presidency, “the world must never see any
daylight between our two nations.” In practice, this would mean that no
matter what Israel did with U.S. weaponry, a Romney administration would
never criticize the state publically. This has largely been the stance
the U.S. has taken in recent history, and it has been catastrophic for
the people of Palestine and Lebanon.<br /><br /><br /><br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bio-new body_news-politics">
<div class="author-bio">
Alex Kane is AlterNet's New York-based World editor, and a staff reporter for <a href="http://mondoweiss.net/">Mondoweiss</a>. Follow him on <a href="http://twitter.com/alexbkane">Twitter @alexbkane.</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-70578666946478412932012-07-05T15:08:00.001-07:002012-07-05T15:08:18.929-07:00Houla Massacre Update - The UN Report<br />
<div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<img alt="JA slide show" height="169" src="http://www.medialens.org/images/stories/slideshow/we_the_people.jpg" style="bottom: auto; display: block; left: auto; opacity: 1; position: absolute; right: auto; top: auto; visibility: visible; z-index: 22;" title="JA slide show" width="640" /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="createdate">July 05, 2012 </span>
<br />
<div class="article-toolswrap">
<div class="article-tools clearfix">
<div class="article-meta">
</div>
<div class="buttonheading">
<span>
<a href="http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_mailto&tmpl=component&link=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5tZWRpYWxlbnMub3JnL2luZGV4LnBocD9vcHRpb249Y29tX2NvbnRlbnQmdmlldz1hcnRpY2xlJmlkPTY4Nzpob3VsYS1tYXNzYWNyZS11cGRhdGUtdGhlLXVuLXJlcG9ydCZjYXRpZD0yNTphbGVydHMtMjAxMiZJdGVtaWQ9Njk=" title="E-mail"></a> </span><span><a href="http://www.medialens.org/index.php?view=article&catid=25%3Aalerts-2012&id=687%3Ahoula-massacre-update-the-un-report&tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=&option=com_content&Itemid=69" rel="nofollow" title="Print"></a> </span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="contentheading">
<a href="http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=687:houla-massacre-update-the-un-report&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Houla Massacre Update - The UN Report </span></a></h2>
<div class="article-content">
<br />
By: David Edwards<br />
<br />
In two alerts on <a href="http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=682:the-houla-massacre&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=9">May 31</a> and <a href="http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=683:the-houla-massacre-part-2-shades-of-grey&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=9">June 13</a>,
we noted how the UK corporate media system instantly found, not just
the Syrian government, but its leader Bashar Assad, responsible for the
May 25 massacre of 108 people, including 49 children, in Houla, Syria.<br />
<br />
Numerous cartoons depicted Assad smeared with blood or bathing in
blood. Just two days after the massacre, the Independent on Sunday’s <a href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/05/496550.html">front cover</a> wanted to know what its readers were going to do about it:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘There is, of course, supposed to be a
ceasefire, which the brutal Assad regime simply ignores. And the
international community? It just averts its gaze. Will you do the same?
Or will the sickening fate of these innocent children make you very,
very angry?’ (Independent on Sunday, May 27, 2012)</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
Quite what readers were supposed to do, other than gaze, was unclear.
After all, one of the great triumphs of modern politics is the
near-complete insulation of US-UK foreign policy against democratic
pressures.<br />
<br />
Inside the paper, David Randall <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/exclusive-dispatch-assad-blamed-for-massacre-of-the-innocents-7791507.html">wrote </a>these bitter words:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘He is the President; she is the First
Lady; they are dead children. He governs but doesn't protect; she shops
and doesn't care… And one hopes that those on the United Nations
Security Council, when it reconvenes, will look into the staring eyes of
these dead children and remember the hollow words of Assad's wife when
she simpered that she “comforts the families” of her country's victims.’</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
This was standard for political commentary and media coverage right
across politics and media. Houla was not reported as just one more ugly
event in world news. It was sold to the British public as an historic
‘something must be done’ tipping point on a par with the <a href="http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=185:a-tale-of-two-massacres-jenin-and-racak&catid=16:alerts-2002&Itemid=43">contested </a>Racak and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/15/global-justice-nato-libya">hypothetical </a>Benghazi massacres used to justify the West’s attacks on Serbia in 1999 and Libya in 2011, respectively.<br />
<br />
US and UK politicians were clearly desperate to use Houla to stoke
their regime-change agenda. Rehearsing the crude tactics of the
Bush-Blair era, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UK Foreign
Secretary William Hague endlessly repeated their damning judgements:
facts were irrelevant, propaganda stunts everything. No holds were
barred. The media, as ever, were happy to go along for the ride.<br />
<br />
If the US-UK alliance was to succeed in justifying externally-imposed regime change, then the Assad government <em>had</em> to be declared responsible – certainly, solely, unforgivably. And that indeed was the message supplied by the media.<br />
However, as we explained in our June 13 alert, cracks in the story quickly began to emerge. It <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/06/reporting_conflict_in_syria.html">turned out</a> that women and children had <em>not</em> had their throats cut, as had been universally asserted. Moreover, the BBC’s World News editor Jon Williams <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/06/reporting_conflict_in_syria.html">commented</a>:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘In Houla, and now in Qubair, the finger
has been pointed at the shabiha, pro-government militia. But tragic
death toll aside, the facts are few: it's not clear who ordered the
killings - or why.’</div>
But these and a handful of other comments – and the sources informing
them – were kept low-profile and did not become part of the media
discussion. Inexplicably, the implications for earlier media claims went
unexamined, undiscussed.<br />
<h2>
The UN - 'Unable To Determine The Identity Of The Perpetrators At This Time'</h2>
Last week, on June 27, a UN Commission of Inquiry delivered its <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/COI_OralUpdate_A.HRC.20.CRP.1.pdf">report </a>on the massacre. In considering those responsible, the UN described the three most likely possibilities:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘First, that the perpetrators were
Shabbiha or other local militia from neighbouring villages, possibly
operating together with, or with the acquiescence of, the Government
security forces; second, that the perpetrators were anti-Government
forces seeking to escalate the conflict while punishing those that
failed to support – or who actively opposed - the rebellion; or third,
foreign groups with unknown affiliation.’</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
The report’s assessment:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘With the available evidence, the CoI [Commission of Inquiry] could not rule out any of these possibilities.’</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
The UN summarised:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘The CoI is unable to determine the
identity of the perpetrators at this time; nevertheless the CoI
considers that forces loyal to the Government may have been responsible
for many of the deaths. The investigation will continue until the end of
the CoI mandate.’</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
A remarkably cautious conclusion, given that it was produced in the
face of intense Western political and media pressure (no doubt also
behind the scenes) to blame the Syrian government.<br />
<br />
So how did the media react to this high-profile report starkly
contradicting its consensus on Houla? An honest media would have
headlined the UN’s doubt, alerting readers to the earlier baseless
assertions and misreporting.<br />
<br />
Instead, the LexisNexis media database search engine finds (July 5)
just six articles mentioning the report in UK national newspapers and
their websites, with only five of these mentioning Houla. An
astonishingly low level of coverage given the massive media attention
that preceded it. LexisNexis records 1,017 print and online articles
mentioning Houla in all UK newspapers since the massacre on May 25.<br />
<br />
The Independent, which, as discussed, initially led the field in Houla hype, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/i/matrix/the-news-matrix-thursday-28-june-2012-7893526.html">described </a>the UN findings thus:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘Gunmen raided the headquarters of a
pro-government Syrian TV station yesterday, killing seven employees,
kidnapping others and demolishing buildings. The government described
the killings as a “massacre,” just as the UN was blaming state forces
for the Houla massacre.’</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
If this was a gross misrepresentation of the UN's findings, it was rendered absurd by clicking an online link to ‘<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-rebels-accused-of-massacre-after-seven-die-in-attack-on-tv-station-7893588.html">More</a>’, which took readers to these words from Patrick Cockburn:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘The UN report on last month's massacre
at Houla, near the northern city of Homs, does not name those
responsible, saying only that forces loyal to the government “may have
been responsible” for many of the deaths.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘It does not name the Alawite militia –
the Shabiha – as being responsible, as has been widely reported, but
said they had easiest access to Houla.’</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
That indeed <em>was </em>the news – the UN report had starkly contradicted the ‘widely reported’ but false certainty.<br />
<br />
In similar vein, a Guardian piece was <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/27/syria-loyalists-houla-massacre-un">titled</a>: ‘Syrian government loyalists “may be responsible” for massacre – UN report.’<br />
<br />
A separate Guardian headline bullet point <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/jun/27/syria-at-war-assad-live?newsfeed=true">read</a>: ‘Assad forces may be to blame for many Houla deaths – UN.’<br />
<br />
By contrast, more accurately, Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News <a href="https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/217922536137170945">tweeted</a>:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
'UN Syria report: says al-Houla massacre of 108 could have been done by either pro or anti Assad militias'</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
We <a href="https://twitter.com/medialens/status/217924043423223808">wrote </a>to Thomson: 'Interesting, the Guardian is reporting it thus: 'Syrian government loyalists "may be responsible"' UN report.'<br />
<br />
Thomson <a href="https://twitter.com/alextomo/statuses/217925097892225025">replied</a>: 'true but UN equally saying anti-govt militia could have done it. And I speak as someone interviewed by UN on this.'<br />
<br />
The former Guardian and Observer journalist, Jonathan Cook, emailed us:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
'Yes, in fact, the Guardian's headline
stating that Syrian government loyalists "may have been responsible" for
the Houla massacre is simply preposterous. The narrative already
promoted by the Guardian (and everyone else) is that they *were*
responsible. So it should be blindingly obvious to the editors that the
only *news* in this UN report is that the government loyalists may *not*
have been responsible. Jonathan' (Email to Media Lens, June 27, 2012)</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
Just three days after the UN report was published, Martin Chulov <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/30/syria-rebels-peace-plan">wrote </a>in the Guardian:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘In the Syrian village of Qatma, not far
from the Turkish border, a family from the town of Houla, where a
massacre widely blamed on regime backers took place in late May, has
taken refuge.’</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
In the article, which focused solely on the perspective of Syria’s
armed opposition, Chulov made no mention of the UN report or the fact
that it had challenged the ‘widely’ circulated claims. Instead, he
concluded:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘Where the UN and the international
community may have been seen as ponderous in the Balkans, they are
viewed in a worse light through a Syrian opposition lens – impotent.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘"What they are talking about [in Geneva] is meaningless," said Idris [a Syrian exile]. "It won't change things."’</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
Seen as ‘ponderous’ by whom? Presumably not the current Syrian
opposition. And presumably not by those of us appalled by the mendacious
propaganda used to justify Nato’s war on Serbia in 1999. Chulov meant,
of course, right-thinking people. The comment recalled Chulov’s earlier <a href="https://twitter.com/martinchulov/status/208066587306106880">response </a>on Twitter:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘Took a v long time to muster support for a response in Bosnia and Kosovo. Syria will be even more difficult.’</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
Even The Times did better than the Guardian:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘The [UN] authors said that they were
unable to determine who carried out a massacre of more than 100 people
in Houla last month but added that forces loyal to Mr Assad may have
been responsible for many of the killings.’ (Janine di Giovanni, ‘Assad
and rebels think they have more to gain from violence, UN general says,’
The Times, June 28, 2012)</div>
The BBC website initially <a href="http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/529675/diff/2/3">commented</a>:<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘UN investigator and author of the report
Karen Abuzayd told the BBC that “there is the possibility of three
different groups who may have done this”.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
‘She said that government forces were
responsible for the initial shelling in which some people died. But what
she called the “massacre” afterwards in people's homes was done either
by militiamen from Alawite villages - known as shabiha - or possibly by
armed opposition groups.’</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
As the <a href="http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/">News Sniffer</a> website <a href="http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/529675/diff/2/3">recorded</a>, these words were quickly edited out. Similar comments were later <a href="http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/529675/diff/3/4">restored</a>.<br />
<br />
Media response to the UN report on Houla is a striking example of how
the corporate system has evolved to channel and boost government
propaganda claims on demand. As ever, counter-evidence, even from
highly-respected sources, struggles to make any headway against this ‘<a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/09/pilger-megrahi-justice">babbling brook of bullshit</a>’.<br />
One might think that the primary concern of editors and journalists
would be to provide media consumers with accurate, comprehensible
information, not least by correcting earlier high-profile errors. But
not a single editorial or comment piece examining the implications of
the UN report on Houla has sought to do this. Most readers and viewers
will continue to believe that women and children had their throat cuts,
certainly on the orders of the Syrian government. Others will be simply
bewildered by an overwhelming consensus punctuated by odd, apparently
credible, but unexplored contradictions.<br />
<br />
<h2>
SUGGESTED ACTION</h2>
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and
respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you
to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. Please write
to:<br />
<br />
John Mullin, editor of the Independent on Sunday<br />
Email: <a href="mailto:j.mullin@independent.co.uk">j.mullin@independent.co.uk</a><br />
<br />
David Randall at the Independent<br />
Email: <a href="mailto:d.randall@independent.co.uk">d.randall@independent.co.uk</a><br />
<br />
Martin Chulov at the Guardian<br />
Via Twitter: @martinchulov<br />
Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor<br />
Email: <a href="mailto:alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk">alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk</a><br />
<br />
Via twitter: @arusbridger<br />
Steve Herrmann, BBC News online editor<br />
Email: <a href="mailto:steve.herrmann@bbc.co.uk" target="_blank">steve.herrmann@bbc.co.uk</a></div>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-13535087679035242092011-12-03T17:22:00.000-08:002011-12-03T17:27:12.242-08:00Israel’s grand hypocrisy<img style="width: 670px; height: 81px;" src="http://www.globalresearch.ca/site_images/topbanner.jpg" alt="" name="TopBanner" usemap="#bannermap" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0" /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><br /><a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27973"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Israel’s grand hypocrisy </span></a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Netanyahu slams ‘anti-liberal’ Arab Spring</span><br /><br />by Jonathan Cook<br /><br /><img src="http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures2/27973.jpg" border="0" /><br /><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"><br />As protests raged again across the Middle East, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, offered his assessment of the Arab Spring last week. It was, he said, an “Islamic, anti-western, anti-liberal, anti-Israeli, undemocratic wave”, adding that Israel’s Arab neighbours were “moving not forwards, but backwards”. </span><table id="ViewArticleTable" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" align="left"><div style="margin-right:10px;" class="bigArticleText"> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">It takes some chutzpah – or, at least, epic self-delusion – for Israel’s prime minister to be lecturing the Arab world on liberalism and democracy at this moment. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">In recent weeks, a spate of anti-democratic measures have won support from Netanyahu’s rightwing government, justified by a new security doctrine: see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil of Israel. If the legislative proposals pass, the Israeli courts, Israel’s human rights groups and media, and the international community will be transformed into the proverbial three monkeys.</span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">Israel’s vigilant human rights community has been the chief target of this assault. Yesterday Netanyahu’s Likud faction and the Yisrael Beiteinu party of his far-right foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, proposed a new law that would snuff out much of the human rights community in Israel. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">The bill effectively divides non-governmental organisations (NGOs) into two kinds: those defined by the right as pro-Israel and those seen as “political”, or anti-Israel. The favoured ones, such as ambulance services and universities, will continue to be lavishly funded from foreign sources, chiefly wealthy private Jewish donors from the United States and Europe. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">The “political” ones – meaning those that criticise government policies, especially relating to the occupation – will be banned from receiving funds from foreign governments, their main source of income. Donations from private sources, whether Israeli or foreign, will be subject to a crippling 45 per cent tax.</span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">The grounds for being defined as a “political” NGO are suitably vague: denying Israel’s right to exist or its Jewish and democratic character; inciting racism; supporting violence against Israel; supporting politicians or soldiers being put on trial in international courts; or backing boycotts of the state. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">One human rights group warned that all groups assisting the UN's 2009 report report by Judge Richard Goldstone into war crimes committed during Israel’s attack on Gaza in winter 2008 would be vulnerable to such a law. Other organisations like Breaking the Silence, which publishes the testimonies of Israeli soldiers who have committed or witnessed war crimes, will be silenced themselves. And an Israeli Arab NGO said it feared that its work demanding equality for all Israeli citizens, including the fifth who are Palestinian, and an end to Jewish privilege would count as denying Israel’s Jewish character. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">At the same time Netanyahu wants the Israeli media emasculated. Last week his government threw its weight behind a new defamation law that will leave few but milionaires in a position to criticise politicians and officials. Mr Netanyahu observed: “It may be called the Defamation Law, but I call it the ‘publication of truth law’.” The media and human rights groups fear the worst. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">This monkey must speak no evil.</span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">Another bill, backed by the justice minister, Yaacov Neeman, is designed to skew the make-up of a panel selecting judges for Israel’s supreme court. Several judicial posts are about to fall vacant, and the government hopes to stuff the court with apppointees who share its ideological worldview and will not rescind its anti-democratic legislation, including its latest attack on the human rights community. Neeman’s favoured candidate is a settler who has a history of ruling against human rights organisations. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">Senior legislators from Mr Netanyahu’s party are pushing another bill that would make it nigh impossible for human rights organisations to petition the supreme court against government actions. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">The judicial monkey should see no evil. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">At one level, these and a host of other measures – including increasing government intimidation of the Israeli media and academia, a crackdown on whistleblowers and the recently passed boycott law, which exposes critics of the settlements to expensive court actions for damages – are designed to strengthen the occupation by disarming its critics inside Israel. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">But there is another, even more valued goal: making sure that in future the plentiful horror stories from the Palestinian territories – monitored by human rights organisations, reported by the media and heard in the courts – never reach the ears of the international community. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">The third monkey is supposed to hear no evil.</span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">The crackdown is justified in the Israeli right’s view on the grounds that criticism of the occupation represents not domestic concerns but unwelcome foreign interference in Israel’s affairs. The promotion of human rights – whether in Israel, the occupied territories or the Arab world – is considered by Netanyahu and his allies as inherently un-Israeli and anti-Israeli.</span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">The hypocrisy is hard to stomach. Israel has long claimed special dispensation to interfere in the affairs of both the EU and the United States. Jewish Agency staff proselytise among European and American Jews to persuade them to emigrate to Israel. Uniquely, Israel’s security agencies are given free rein at airports around the world to harass and invade the privacy of non-Jews flying to Tel Aviv. And Israel’s political proxies abroad – sophisticated lobby groups like AIPAC in the US – act as foreign agents while not registering as such.</span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">Of course, Israel’s qualms against foreign meddling are selective. No restrictions are planned for rightwing Jews from abroad, such as US casino magnate Irving Moskowitz, who have pumped enormous sums into propping up illegal Jewish settlements built on Palestinian land. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">There is a faulty logic too to Israel’s argument. As human rights activists point out, the areas where they do most of their work are located not in Israel but in the Palestinian territories, which Israel is occupying in violation of international law. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">Privately, European embassies have been trying to drive home this point. The EU gives Israel preferential trading status, worth billions of dollars annually to the Israeli economy, on condition that it respects human rights in the occupied territories. Europe argues it is, therefore, entitled to fund the monitoring of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. More’s the pity that Europe fails to act on the information it receives.</span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">Given the right’s strengthening hand, it can be expected to devise ever more creative ways to silence the human rights community and Israeli media and emasculate the courts as way to end the bad press. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">Israelis are obssessed with their country’s image abroad and what they regard as a “delegitimisation” campaign that threatens not only the occupation’s continuation but also Israel’s long-term survival as an ethnic state. The leadership has been incensed by regular surveys of global opinion showing Israel ranked among the most unpopular countries in the world. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">The Palestinians’ recent decision to turn to the international community for recognition of statehood has only amplified such grievances.</span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">Israel has no intention of altering its policies, or of pursuing peace. Rather, Netanyahu’s government has been oscillating between a desperate desire to pass yet more anti-democratic legislation to stifle criticism and a modicum of restraint motivated by fear of the international backlash. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">A cabinet debate last month on legislation against human rights groups focused barely at all on the proposal’s merits. Instead the head of the National Security Council, Yaakov Amidror, was called before ministers to explain whether Israel stood to lose more from passing such bills or from allowing human rights groups to carry on monitoring the occupation.</span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">Deluded as it may seem, Netanyahu’s ultimate goal is to turn the clock back 40 years, to a “golden age” when foreign correspondents and western governments could refer, without blushing, to the occupation of the Palestinians as “benign”. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">Donald Neff, Jerusalem correspondent for Time magazine in the 1970s, admitted years later that his and his colleagues’ performance was so feeble at the time in large part because there was little critical information available on the occupation. When he witnessed first-hand what was taking place, his editors in the US refused to believe him and he was eventually moved on.</span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span _yuid="yui_3_1_1_3_132273831062269" lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">Now, however, the genie is out the bottle. The international community understands full well – thanks to human rights activists – both that the occupation is brutal and that Israel has been peace-making in bad faith. </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;">If Israel continues on its current course, another myth long accepted by western countries – that Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East” – may finally be shattered.</span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"><i><strong>Jonathan Cook</strong> won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is <a href="http://www.jkcook.net/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">www.jkcook.net</a>.</i></span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></div> <div class="yiv507459874MsoNormal" align="justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;"><i>A version of this story was first published in the National, Abu Dhabi</i></span></div></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="bigArticleText" colspan="2" valign="middle"><br /><a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Jonathan&authorName=Cook"><i>Global Research Articles by Jonathan Cook</i></a></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" width="50%"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-74362233407898037142011-12-01T16:42:00.000-08:002011-12-01T16:45:45.547-08:00War is a Racket<span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">lexrex.com/</span></span><br /><br /><br /><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="83%"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="223" width="89%"><tbody><tr><td height="170" width="35%"><blockquote><p><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler" target="_blank"><img src="http://lexrex.com/images/150px-SmedleyButler.jpeg" usemap="#Map2" border="0" height="242" width="177" /></a></span><map name="Map2"><area shape="rect" coords="-35,-106,199,298" href="http://www.lulu.com/content/8616011" target="_blank"></map></p></blockquote></td><td height="170" valign="MIDDLE" width="61%"><blockquote><p align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:180%;"><b><span style="font-size:130%;color:#000000;">Written by Two-Time </span></b></span><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:130%;"><b><span style="color:#000000;">Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient<br /></span></b></span></p><p align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:130%;color:#000000;"><b>Major General Smedley D. Butler</b></span></p><p align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:130%;color:#000000;"><b>USMC, Retired</b></span></p></blockquote></td><td height="170" width="4%"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:180%;"><u><b>CHAPTER ONE</b></u></span> </p> <p align="JUSTIFY"><a href="lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:7;"><u><b><i>WAR IS A RACKET</i></b></u></span></a></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">WAR is a racket. It always has been.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">And what is this bill?</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor. </span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:</span></p><b> <p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."</span></p></b> <p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Yes, and what does it profit the nation?</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:180%;"><u><b>CHAPTER TWO </b></u></span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:7;"><u><b><span style="font-size:6;">WHO MAKES THE PROFITS?</span></b></u></span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">International Nickel Company – and you can't have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public – even before a Senate investigatory body.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches – one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 – count them if you live long enough – was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢[cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them – a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers – all got theirs.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment – knapsacks and the things that go to fill them – crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them – and they will do it all over again the next time.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float! The seams opened up – and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee – with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator – to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses – that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:180%;"><u><b>CHAPTER THREE</b></u></span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:7;"><u><b><span style="font-size:6;">WHO PAYS THE BILLS?</span></b></u></span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Who provides the profits – these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us – the people – got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par – and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn't stand it.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">But don't forget – the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share – at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't. </span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Napoleon once said,</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">"All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them."</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side...it is His will that the Germans be killed.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies...to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill...and be killed.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">But wait!</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance – something the employer pays for in an enlightened state – and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Then, the most crowning insolence of all – he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back – when they came back from the war and couldn't find work – at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly – his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too – as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u><b><span style="font-size:180%;">CHAPTER FOUR</span></b></u></span></p><u><b> <p align="left"> <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:6;">HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET!</span></p></b></u> <p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">WELL, it's a racket, all right.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Why shouldn't they?</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else. </span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">We must take the profit out of war.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u><b><span style="font-size:180%;">CHAPTER FIVE</span></b></u></span></p><u><b> <p align="left"> <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:6;">TO HELL WITH WAR!</span></p></b></u> <p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Money.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">"There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money...and Germany won't.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">So..."</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars." </span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munitions makers.</span></p><p align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:85%;">So...I say,</span></p><span style="font-size:7;"> <p align="LEFT"><span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong><i><span style="color:#FF0000;">TO HELL WITH WAR!</span></i></strong></span></p></span></td></tr></tbody></table>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-28192908143568971002011-11-19T12:55:00.000-08:002011-11-19T12:56:52.910-08:00Is Israel Preparing an Assault against Iran?<a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/"><img src="http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/themes/dissident/images/header.jpg" alt="Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice" height="200" width="760" /></a><br /><br /><h1 class="title"><a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/11/is-israel-preparing-an-assault-against-iran/">Is Israel Preparing an Assault against Iran?</a></h1> <p class="byline">by Neve Gordon / November 19th, 2011</p> <p>The IAEA report on Iran’s alleged nuclear programme was surrounded by a media frenzy in Israel supporting an attack.</p> <p>Skimming the newspapers as I rushed to get my children ready for school, I suddenly understood that Israel might actually be preparing for a military attack against Iran. “[United States Secretary of Defence Leon] Panetta Demanded Commitment to Coordinate Action in Iran” read one headline, and “A Bomb at Arm’s Length” read another.</p> <p>Feeding this hype were a series of military events that had been planned months in advance yet mysteriously coincided with the publication of the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran’s efforts to produce a nuclear bomb. For four days straight all of the major television channels repeatedly showed images of Israel preparing for war.</p> <p>It began with a report on Israel’s testing of a long-range ballistic missile, which emphasised the missile’s capacity to carry nuclear warheads. This was followed by interviews with pilots who were part of a comprehensive Israeli Air Force drill on long-range attacks carried out at an Italian NATO air base. Archival images of a missile being launched from an Israeli submarine were also shown. <em>Ha’aretz</em> readers were told that the submarine was important because it would enable Israel to carry out a second strike in case of a nuclear war.</p> <p>These images of offensive arrangements were followed by images of Israel’s defence preparations. On November 3rd, the three major news channels dedicated several minutes of air time to covering a drill simulating an attack on central Israel; these clips showed people being carried on stretchers and soldiers treating casualties who had been hit by chemical weapons. A day later, <em>Ha’aretz</em> reported that the military preparations against Iran had indeed been upgraded.</p> <p>Iran with nuclear capabilities has been continuously presented as an existential threat to Israel. On October 31, in the opening speech of the Knesset’s winter session Prime Minister Netanyahu noted that a “nuclearised Iran will constitute a serious threat to the Middle East and to the whole world and obviously also a direct and serious threat against us,” adding that Israel’s security conception cannot be based on defence alone but must also include “offensive capabilities which serve as the basis for deterrence.”</p> <p>Analysts repeatedly mentioned that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier and Reuven Barko from <em>Yisrael Hayom</em> even compared Iran to Nazi Germany. One cannot underestimate the impact of this analogy on the collective psyche of Jewish Israelis.</p> <p>Barko went on to connect Hamlet’s phrase “to be or not to be” to Israel’s current situation, while posing the existing dilemma confronting the State as “to hit or not to hit”. President Shimon Peres claimed that Iran is the only country in the world “that threatens the existence of another country”, but he neglected to mention that for generations, the Palestinians have been deprived of their right to self-determination.</p> <p>On the day when the International Atomic Energy Agency report was finally published practically all Israeli media outlets described it as a “smoking gun”. The report, according to the media, provides concrete evidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is also aimed at producing weapons. Zvi Yechezkeli from Channel Ten described it as “the end of the era of Iranian ambiguousness”, but failed, of course, to remark that Israel’s own ambiguity regarding its nuclear capacities continues unhindered; Roni Daniel from Channel Two declared that “we are relieved” by the report, suggesting that Israel’s claims have now been corroborated and that the report can serve to justify both the imposition of harsher sanctions against Iran and even an attack.</p> <p>Notwithstanding the endless war mongering, most Israeli commentators claimed that the frenzy was no more than a “nuclear spin”. The majority of political analysts tended to agree that the media campaign, which presented Israel as seriously preparing to attack Iran, was orchestrated just in order to pressure the international community to impose harsher sanctions against Iran. Channel Ten’s Or Heller put it succinctly when he said: “It appears that neither Iran nor the Israeli public is the target of what is going on here, but first and foremost it is the international community, the Americans, the British.”</p> <p>The commentators also noted that there is wall-to-wall opposition to an Israeli assault, including the US, Europe, Russia and China. Alex Fishman summed up the international sentiment when he wrote: “If someone in Israel thinks that there is a green or a yellow light coming from Washington for a military attack against Iran – this person has no inkling whatsoever of what is going on; the light remains the same, a glaring red.”</p> <p>The portrayal of Israel as a neighbourhood bully who feigns a rage attack while calling out to his friends to hold him back is not particularly reassuring, however.</p> <p>After 10 days of media frenzy, Defence Minister Ehud Barak tried to calm the public by saying that “not even 500 people would be killed” in the event of an attack — but he failed to say that there would be no attack.</p> <p>Yossi Verter from <em>Ha’aretz</em> explained that the media hype serves Barak’s interests. “A successful attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities under his ministerial leadership can rehabilitate his personal status, and help him recover the public’s trust.” Verter cites a leading member of the political system, who claims that “Barak is convinced that only a person of his security stature can lead perhaps the most fateful battle in Israel’s history since the War of Independence.”</p> <p>Regardless of whether Netanyahu and Barak are already set on launching an assault, the media hype and the portrayal of Iran as constituting an existential threat to Israel surely help to produce the necessary conditions for a military campaign.</p> <p>What is remarkable about this saber rattling is its abstraction. Not a single analyst noted that entering war is easy but ending it is far more difficult, particularly if on the other side stands a regional power with vast resources and a well-trained military (unlike Hamas or Hezbollah). And, of course, no one really talked about the likelihood of a gory future or what kind of life we were planning for our children. This kind of abstraction makes war palatable, providing a great service to the war machine.</p> <p class="author">Neve Gordon is the author of <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520255313/dissivoice-20">Israel's Occupation</a></em> and can be reached through his <a href="http://www.israelsoccupation.info/">website</a>. <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/author/NeveGordon/">Read other articles by Neve</a>.</p> <p class="postmeta">This article was posted on Saturday, November 19th, 2011 at 8:00am and is filed under <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/middle-east/israelpalestine/" title="View all posts in Israel/Palestine" rel="category tag">Israel/Palestine</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/media/" title="View all posts in Media" rel="category tag">Media</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/militarymilitarism/" title="View all posts in Military/Militarism" rel="category tag">Military/Militarism</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/propaganda/" title="View all posts in Propaganda" rel="category tag">Propaganda</a>. </p>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-8279181737646211932011-09-20T18:00:00.000-07:002011-09-20T18:13:01.774-07:00The Third World War: Why NATO Troops Can't Deliver Peace in Afghanistan<a href="http://www.spiegel.de/" id="spLogo"><img class="spIEsixPng" src="http://www.spiegel.de/static/sys/v9/spiegelonline_logo.png" alt="SPIEGEL ONLINE" title="SPIEGEL ONLINE" height="39" width="282" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" ><a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international"> International</a></span><br /><h1><a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,556304,00.html">The Third World War</a></h1><a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,556304,00.html"> </a><h2><a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,556304,00.html">Why NATO Troops Can't Deliver Peace in Afghanistan</a></h2> <p class="spAuthor">By <a href="mailto:ullrich_fichtner@spiegel.de">Ullrich Fichtner</a> </p> <p id="spIntroTeaser"><strong>Forty nations are embroiled in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. Anyone who travels through the country with Western troops soon realizes that NATO forces would have to be increased tenfold for peace to be even a remote possibility. </strong></p><br /><div id="spMultiPagerHeadlines"> <ul><li> <strong>Part 1:</strong> Why NATO Troops Can't Deliver Peace in Afghanistan</li><li> <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,556304-2,00.html" title="The Third World War: Why NATO Troops Can't Deliver Peace in Afghanistan"><strong>Part 2:</strong> Bomb Attacks, Roadside Bandits and Kidnappers</a></li><li> <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,556304-3,00.html" title="The Third World War: Why NATO Troops Can't Deliver Peace in Afghanistan"><strong>Part 3:</strong> ISAF Flags Provide Illusion of Success</a></li><li> <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,556304-4,00.html" title="The Third World War: Why NATO Troops Can't Deliver Peace in Afghanistan"><strong>Part 4:</strong> Karzai, the Mayor of Kabul</a></li><li> <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,556304-5,00.html" title="The Third World War: Why NATO Troops Can't Deliver Peace in Afghanistan"><strong>Part 5:</strong> A Plot against the President</a></li></ul> </div><p>Thirteen days before the next attempt on his life, Afghan President Hamid Karzai arrives at a cabinet meeting, surrounded by a swarm of bodyguards. He holds his shirt collar shut against the rainy cold in Kabul. It's a Monday in mid-April -- and while there may be some good news this morning, most of it is bad. The Canadians want Karzai to dismiss the governor of Kandahar, the United Nations contingent is missing 50,000 tons of food and the Kazakh ambassador is promising money for a hospital in Bamyan. A suicide bomber has blown himself up in Helmand, the Norwegian defense minister is visiting Kabul and the opium harvest has begun in southern Afghanistan. A cabinet meeting is about to begin in the presidential palace.</p> <p> </p> <p>Karzai is the last to arrive, long after his ministers have gathered at the palace. Visitors must pass through four security checkpoints, walk through metal detectors three times and turn over their bags to be sniffed by dogs. It takes an hour to reach the innermost courtyard, where Karzai's palace -- the cheerful villa Gul Khana, set in a garden planted with cedar trees -- is located. When the president enters the room at 9 a.m., everyone sitting around the long conference table stands up, 28 men and one woman. This is the group that governs Afghanistan -- officially, at least.</p><p>To begin the meeting, an imam chants lengthy suras from the Koran. Then Karzai listens to a report from his defense minister, who has just returned from a trip to India. The president's demeanor is that of a royal leader. Instead of asking many questions, he simply gives orders. He is not wearing his trademark felt cap and brightly colored coat. Instead, he chairs the meeting in his shirtsleeves, and the demands he imposes on the cabinet are impossible. He wants the ministers to take immediate action against high food prices, he orders the transportation minister to finally bring security to the highway between Kabul and Kandahar, and he says: "It's raining in the north; at least that's good news."</p> <p>At 10:15, a secretary wearing a pinstriped suit enters the room quietly, sidles along the table and hands the president a piece of paper. Karzai reads the note and nods. The aide leaves the room and returns with a telephone.</p> <p>Karzai picks up the receiver, and when he speaks everyone in the room can hear him. "What? Pakistani troops have crossed the border? Where exactly? They're shooting with rockets? There is fighting?" The news descends on Karzai's mood like a hammer. He hangs up the phone, wipes his hand across his bald head and says: "I handed the students at the university their diplomas yesterday. That was a very good day."</p> <p>Good days are in short supply in Afghanistan, a country at war -- or involved in several wars, to be exact. There is constant fighting on many fronts, hard and soft. The newspapers, and there are many of them in Kabul now, serve up pages of chaotic images every day. Their reports are about bombs and drinking water, holy warriors and wheat prices, NATO air attacks and schoolbooks, kidnapped children, refugees and bandits.</p> <p>Almost seven years have passed since the overthrow of the Taliban regime, and in those seven years half of the world has tried to bring a better future and, most of all, peace to this new country, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. As part of the NATO military operation known as the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), 40 nations have 60,000 soldiers deployed in the country. There are 26 United Nations organizations in Afghanistan, and hundreds of private and government agencies are pumping money, materials and know-how into the country's 34 provinces. But anyone seeking success stories or asking about failures will encounter reports that do not seem to be coming from the same country.</p> <p>According to the speeches and statements Western military officials, diplomats and politicians are constantly churning out, the security situation has improved substantially, the military successes are obvious and the Taliban are as good as defeated. But peace and Afghanistan, say the Afghanis when speaking to a domestic audience, are still two incompatible words.</p> <p>Last year, 1,469 bombs exploded along Afghan roads, a number almost five times as high as in 2004. There were 8,950 armed attacks on troops and civilian support personnel, 10 times more than only three years earlier. One hundred and thirty suicide bombers blew themselves up in 2007. There were three suicide bombings in 2004.</p> <p> There is no peace anywhere in Afghanistan, <span class="spTextlinkInt"><a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,554545,00.html" title="not even in the north">not even in the north</a></span> , which officials repeatedly insist has been pacified. Anyone who travels the country -- making the obligatory rounds to its ministries, speaking with Western ambassadors, UN directors, ISAF commanders and provincial governors, and meeting with women's rights activists, narcotics officers and police chiefs -- is bound to return with many dark questions and an ominous feeling that this mission is not a task to be measured in years, but in decades, many decades.</p> <p>A dramatic chapter in world history is being written in the process, in this country dominated by the Hindu Kush mountains and the formidable Sefid Kuh range, and the endless deserts of Kandahar and Helmand. The United States and Europe have stumbled their way into a new type of international war, one in which all of today's global and regional powers are involved. What will happen to NATO if it fails in the first out-of-area mission in its history? And where will the UN be if this ambitious nation-building project is ultimately a disappointment?</p> <p>The country is in the grip of global interest-driven politics. It is, as so often in its history, a pawn on a chessboard surrounded by many more than two players. If the concerted efforts of the Western community are not delivering results as quickly as expected, this can be attributed partly to the fact that the efforts of one half of the world are constantly being thwarted by those of the other half.</p> <p>While NATO tries to disarm the population, the flow of bazookas and guns coming into the country from Pakistan remains unabated. The Iranian government is accused of promoting the trade in Afghan opium and heroin to inflict harm on the West. Meanwhile, Russia is blamed for using its Soviet-era influence to weaken NATO, its old rival, on Afghan soil.</p> <p>China, Afghanistan's easternmost neighbor, hopes to exploit untapped mineral sources in the nearby mountains. Dubai, the Liechtenstein of the Middle East, offers a place to launder and park dirty money. It is as if a first, crude world war of the 21st century were taking place on Afghan soil, a war that remains unacknowledged and undeclared.</p> <p> <b>"What We're Fighting For"</b> </p> <p>"Look at this," says ISAF Commander Dan McNeill, wearing sunglasses as he stands next to a Canadian C-130 transport plane about to take off from Kabul's military airport. "Look, take a picture of this. This here is what we're fighting for."</p> <p>The general cuts through the delegation he is accompanying to Helmand in the south. He pushes aside Zalmai Rassoul, President Karzai's national security advisor, brushing past deputy interior ministers and even General Karimi, the chief of operations for the Afghan national army. On this hazy day, McNeill finally reaches the lone woman standing at the back of the group, an Afghan woman, wearing makeup and no veil.</p> <p>McNeill presents her like a trophy, and says: "Here, this is it." The woman, a government employee who looks to be about 40, smiles shyly and gives the impression of wanting to be somewhere else. The four-star general, wearing his combat uniform, poses for a photograph with the woman. McNeill, in his last few days as ISAF commander and accustomed to giving orders, says: "Write about this. This is why we're here."</p> <p>The flight to Helmand passes along mountain chains south of Kabul. Within about an hour, the plane lands at Camp Bastion, little more than a dusty airstrip in a vast, empty desert. The delegation from Kabul has to transfer to a helicopter to reach Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand Province. There they will meet with the new governor, Gulab Mangal, who has invited them to attend a grand shura, or council of elders, leaders and religious figures.</p> <p>The travelers board two Sea Knight helicopters, which take them on a high-speed, low-altitude flight westward across a sea of opium poppy fields. </p> <p>At the landing site, a soccer field, the guests board armored personnel carriers in groups of three and don bulletproof vests. Eventually the long convoy embarks on what amounts to a very short journey. The destination, the governor's official residence, is less than 300 meters from the soccer field, past Afghan soldiers who line the street, saluting the visiting dignitaries. Leading up to the Helmand trip, McNeill had been brimming with success stories and rosy analyses. He said: "All neighboring countries are interested in regional stability." And he said that not a single child could attend school before the ISAF operation began, and that there are now 6 million schoolchildren in the country. Of course, the general added, there are still "volatile areas" along the border with Pakistan. But the security situation, he insisted, had "improved significantly."</p> <p>He said the terrorists are, by and large, little more than a fractured bunch, no longer capable of launching substantial attacks. Those were the words of Dan McNeill, the words he used in his messages intended for a Western audience, the words he used in his standard speech, written for chancellors and prime ministers. But little of what the general said jibes with the reports he is now getting during his visit to Helmand.</p><p style="font-weight: bold;" id="spIntroTeaser"><span style="font-size:180%;"> <span style="font-size:130%;">Part 2: Bomb Attacks, Roadside Bandits and Kidnappers</span></span></p> <div class="spMiddle2Old"> </div> <p> </p> <p>In an office behind closed doors, filled with furniture upholstered in a floral motif, the governor reports that half of the districts in his province are out of control. Alliances formed by the Taliban and drug barons, he says, rule the villages, and none of the highways are safe against bomb attacks, roadside bandits and kidnappers. According to Mangal, Pakistan has a finger in every pie here, driving the teachers from the schools (the ones that haven't been burned to the ground yet), and forcing farmers to plant opium poppies.</p> <p>The delegates from Kabul listen and drink their tea. They are listening to familiar words, the words of reports meant for the Afghan and not the Western public, words that are brutally realistic and unadorned. </p> <p>McNeill promises the governor that he is now able to send an additional 3,200 US Marines to Helmand, and that the British have also maximized their troop levels in the province. Things are moving forward, the general insists, and things will continue to move forward. Karzai's people promise money and show good faith.</p> <p>The guests nibble on nuts and raisins, and after two hours the conversation begins to subside. "If you want people to produce melons instead of heroin, you have to give them a market for melons," says a man in the governor's group. No one even attempts to respond to his sentence. Food is brought in: soup, salad, flatbread and kebabs on long skewers. The armored personnel carriers are waiting outside. It's time for the guests to return to Kabul.</p> <p> <b>Three Million People Whose Livelihoods Depend on Opium</b> </p> <p>Since the fall of the Taliban regime almost seven years ago, the country's opium harvest has been more abundant in almost each successive year. Last year, 93 percent of the heroin traded in the world came from Afghanistan. In 2007, opium poppies were grown on 193,000 hectares (476,900 acres), a 17-percent increase over the previous year. Meanwhile, ISAF looks on without taking any action. But its inaction is a precautionary measure.</p> <p>For fear of triggering hostility against foreign troops among the local population, the powers that be agreed early on that the Afghans would have sole responsibility for waging the drug war, with no NATO involvement whatsoever. To demonstrate their supposed commitment, the police and Afghan army occasionally stage symbolic drug burnings, and sometimes they even wade into the fields to decapitate a few plants. The operation, dubbed "eradication," is one of the most dangerous in this war. </p> <p> The narcotics agents routinely face enemy fire. The drug mafia's militias, the Taliban and al-Qaida, launch perfectly planned counterattacks, almost as if someone had faxed them the government forces' plans in advance. Drugs and corruption go hand-in-hand in Afghanistan, where a policeman can count himself lucky if he earns €200 to €300 ($315 to $470) a month. When the harvest begins, even army officers shed their uniforms to work in the fields as pickers. Teachers moonlight as smugglers, mayors operate heroin laboratories and provincial governors have been stopped with 150 kilograms (331 pounds) of pure heroin in the trunks of their cars.</p> <p>"We assume that 500,000 families have their fingers in the pie," says General Mohammed Daoud, once a young commander under the legendary mujahedeen leader Ahmed Shah Massoud. Today Daoud is the deputy interior minister in charge of running Kabul's anti-drug operation. "And if you consider that an Afghan family has at least six members," says Daoud, "you have 3 million people in our country whose livelihood depends on opium production." This contingent, one-tenth of the country's total population of 30 million, is much larger than any army in Afghanistan.</p> <p>Daoud has 2,500 men under his command to wage his battle against the opium industry. Last year, his department arrested 820 smugglers, nabbed 20 corrupt army officers, destroyed 63 heroin laboratories and removed tons of heroin from the market.</p> <p>But when Daoud's people capture a few criminals, the arrests are nothing but symbolic. Afghanistan has never developed anything approaching an effective judicial system. There are no mechanisms in place to enforce sentences, and there are few lawyers and judges. Although the country supposedly has 1,500 prosecutors, only half of them have studied law. "We have certainly arrested people and sentenced them to 19 years in prison," says Daoud, "but all of them were released by the next day."</p> <p> </p> <p>It is still 10 days before the next attempt on the life of Hamid Karzai. It is near the end of April, and there is good news and a lot of bad news. In Zabul and Ghazni, dozens of Taliban fighters are killed in battles with government troops, while Afghanistan's women's network expresses its concern over the growing number of children being forced into marriages. In Nimruz, a suicide bomber blows himself up in front of a mosque, killing 23 people. Germany promises additional millions of euros for police training. And in the Maiwand district of Kandahar Province, soldiers in the B Company of the Third Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment are preparing for a patrol.</p> <p>The unit has received warnings that the enemy has planted remotely detonated bombs northeast of Hutal, in planning quadrant 9951. Hutal is a small district capital with about 7,000 residents living in mud huts, with no electricity or running water. The town has a bazaar along the main street, a school, a veterinarian and, in the north, an old fort that the British once tried to capture, albeit unsuccessfully, in the 19th century.</p> <p> <b>'We Know They're Out There Somewhere'</b> </p> <p>They arrived here in late March, the first Western troops to set foot in the area. The Canadians, who are in fact responsible for Kandahar, lacked the manpower to deploy troops to all of the districts in the province. When the British arrived, they expected to encounter resistance. They brought in 500 soldiers, vehicles and equipment, and on March 26 they stood, in the gaping desert north of Hutal, and proceeded to march westward into operations zones identified on their maps with names like "Birmingham," "Camberley" and "Thailand." But nothing happened.</p> <p>They drove and marched for four days, hoping to flush out the enemy, but all they found were generators in "Burma," which they seized, and an enemy radio station in "Malaysia." But the fighters themselves, from the Taliban and other groups, were nowhere to be found. They turned to Hutal, where they wanted to establish a base, and were assigned three dilapidated concrete police buildings. It is a drafty, sandy outpost, where the men haven't shaved in five weeks and have had little opportunity to shower or even wash themselves, and where they spend much of their time lounging around, drinking instant tea from plastic bottles.</p> <p>"They're hiding," says Major Stuart McDonald, a 35-year-old company commander with a Jesus-like face. At home, his daughter celebrated her third birthday three days ago, "which breaks my heart." He and his officers are standing on a makeshift veranda surrounded with sandbags, planning a patrol toward the northeast, where there could be bombs, and where they hope that they finally will be able to flush out the enemy. </p> <p>"We know that they're out there somewhere," says McDonald. "They are observing us, but they're hiding. It's pathetic." His unit, known in Great Britain simply as "3 Para," is part of an elite force within the British Army. </p> <p>At the beginning of the week, his men opened fire on a teenager on a moped who, with his brother sitting on the back, was foolishly driving in their direction. They could only conclude that he was a suicide bomber, because he ignored all gestures and all warnings, and simply continued driving toward them. The company doctor later tended to his wounds, and now the boy is up and walking in his village again, but the mood has deteriorated since then. The locals say that the foreign troops are shooting at their children.</p> <p>The company's 6th Platoon, a group of 30 to 35 men, heads out on patrol, leaving the camp in loose formation, their guns at the ready, and turns toward the northeast. Since the moped shooting incident, the locals know that it's better to stop whenever they see soldiers. Now life comes to a sudden standstill as soon as the British appear. Cars stop and pedestrians freeze. Only on the highway do trucks and buses continue traveling. The buses are carrying migrant workers from around the country who have come to work in the opium harvest. There are hundreds of buses, traveling around the clock, many with German writing on the sides: "Prima Tours Günther" or "Alpina Express." </p> <p>The soldiers cross a wide, dry riverbed where there are freshly dug graves marked by flags of mourning and the green color of the prophet. The air is hot and heavy with the stench of decay. Children, women and the elderly gather in front of dwellings along the route, standing still and staring at the soldiers. The foreigners occasionally toss pieces of chewing gum or chocolate to the children. Every child here knows one English sentence by heart: "Mister, give me one dollar."</p> <p>The soldiers have soon reached the desert, a landscape of sand and stone stretching to the horizon, which is part of enemy territory near the road and may be mined. They are in planning quadrant 9951. The paratroopers stop to rest. It is hot and each of them is carrying 60 pounds of equipment. They kneel in the sand and drink from their canteens. Then they continue marching, without making enemy contact, in a wide arc back to the camp.</p> <p>The Taliban and their allies have learned that man-to-man combat with NATO troops isn't worthwhile. Anyone who attacks a US platoon or a British unit directly will likely face the devastating firepower of Apache helicopters within minutes. This realization has led to the development of a ghostly indirect war, a war by remote control, conducted with booby traps, land mines, home-made explosives and cars turned into bombs. It is a lopsided contest.</p> <p>The Western troops, most of them still trained to conduct land-based wars the way warfare was waged at the beginning of the 20th century, are faced with an adversary that carries guerilla tactics to the extreme. The Taliban, whoever they are, are not bound by any NATO doctrine, and certainly not by the Geneva Convention. According to their logic, the mass murder of civilians can be counted as a victory. Blowing up the guests at a wedding can provide strategic advantages, while television images of dead children become a dirty bomb in the battle for public opinion.</p><p style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Part 3: ISAF Flags Provide Illusion of Success</span></p><p>In the evening, the British play volleyball in their camp. The pitch is delineated with pieces of rope on the ground, while a burning pile of garbage smolders in an adjacent hole in the ground. One in four soldiers suffers from chronic diarrhea, and all of them have sunburns. Major McDonald is pleased, he says, "that this vacation here will soon be over."</p> <p>The paratroopers are getting ready to move on to Helmand, where they will join up with US Marines. A Portuguese company will replace them at the Hutal camp. Two of the Portuguese commanding officers visited the camp at noon. Since then, Major McDonald's mood has worsened significantly.</p> <p>The Portuguese were not satisfied with the condition of the camp. They asked their British counterparts whether it would be possible to set up an Internet café prior to their arrival. They also wanted an ice machine and an ATM. "An Internet café," says McDonald, "and an ice machine, now that's impressive."</p> <p>The next attempt on the life of Hamid Karzai is still nine days away. April days are hot in Kandahar, as the Portuguese move into the camp at Hutal. An advance guard arrives in the early morning hours in Humvees with the Portuguese flag fluttering from the antennas, looking like victors entering captured enemy territory.</p> <p>The Portuguese soldiers pose in front of their vehicles in groups, taking pictures to send home and behaving as if they were on vacation. McDonald, the British major, stands there, looking disgusted. He hands over command of the camp to his successor, the Portuguese commander Antonio Cancelinha. When the two men shake hands, they look as if they hoped to never cross paths again.</p> <p> </p><div class="spArticleImageBox spAssetAlignleft" style="width:182px;"> <a><img src="http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1195406,00.jpg" alt="Graphic: Mission Impossible?" title="Graphic: Mission Impossible?" height="180" width="180" /></a> <div style="width:182px; background-color:#f5f5f5;padding-bottom:6px;"> <div class="spPicZoom" style="top:146px"><a><img class="spIEsixPng" src="http://www.spiegel.de/static/sys/v9/icons/ic_lupe.png" title="Zoom" alt="Zoom" height="28" width="28" /></a></div> <div class="spCredit" align="right">DER SPIEGEL</div> <p>Graphic: Mission Impossible?</p> </div> </div>Anyone standing in front of a map of Afghanistan, with shading delineating the five ISAF regional commands, must conclude that the country is under control. Colorful little flags identify the NATO troops' presence throughout the country, with Germany's colors flying in the northeast, Italy's in the far west, the Stars and Stripes covering the east, and the Union Jack and Canada's Maple Leaf blanketing the south. Interspersed among these flags are those of the Turks, the Dutch, the Lithuanians, Australians, Swedes and Spaniards. But the flags are an illusion. <p>ISAF Commander McNeill has said himself that according to the current counterterrorism doctrine, it would take 400,000 troops to pacify Afghanistan in the long term. But the reality is that he has only 47,000 soldiers under his command, together with another 18,000 troops fighting at their sides as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, and possibly another 75,000 reasonably well-trained soldiers in the Afghan army by the end of the year. All told, there is still a shortfall of 260,000 men.</p> <p>Large, intricately subdivided tables hang on the wall at ISAF headquarters in Kabul. The charts indicate which troops, from which country, can be used for which operations -- or, conversely, are barred from engaging in certain operations. Very few units can be used for everything, including combat missions. In conversation, General McNeill says that NATO is running "on reserve" in Afghanistan. Otherwise, he says, cooperation is "generally quite good."</p> <p> <b>Good News and a Lot of Bad News</b> </p> <p>Seven days still remain before the next attempt on Hamid Karzai's life, and on this day the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) are launching a vaccination campaign in Kabul. In only three days, their goal is to vaccinate 7 million Afghan children against polio. There is good news and a lot of bad news.</p> <p>In Pakistan, the army has begun razing the 30-year-old Jalozai refugee camp, which had provided shelter for 80,000 Afghans, who will now be forced to return home, joining a flood of millions of other refugees. In Kandahar, five policemen are killed by an improvised mine. In Paktiam, the Taliban have kidnapped two trucks loaded with military equipment, and in Khost the teachers at 15 schools are on strike because they haven't been paid in months. A petite woman named Habiba Sarabi is sitting in the tearoom at the Serena Hotel in Kabul.</p> <p>She is the governor of Bamyan Province, the country's only female governor. Her region is one of the poorest in a poorhouse of a country. The topography is too mountainous for ordinary farming, the weather is too cold for decent harvests, in the winter the region is often cut off from the outside world for four months at a time, and even in the summer it is relatively inaccessible.</p> <p>In some parts of Bamyan, 99 percent of residents can neither read nor write. A man is considered wealthy if he owns a mule, and anyone who falls seriously ill is given up for lost. This is the life that 90,000 people lead.</p> <p>The Italians have promised to build a new road to Kabul, crossing the Hajigag Pass into Wardak Province, but no one has even broken ground yet. Habiba Sarabi says: "We need the wisdom to take advantage of this opportunity, or else we will fail once again, and this time it will be permanent."</p> <p>That opportunity, she says, is the world's current interest in Afghanistan, an interest that Sarabi is convinced will not last. People are weary, she says, and even former members of the Taliban have laid down their weapons. "There is a development taking place, but it began 'at zero,'" says Sarabi. </p> <p>A native of Mazar-i-Sharif, she an ethnic Hazara and she's a good woman who knows how to give straightforward answers to simple questions, and who doesn't sugarcoat anything. After studying medicine in Kabul and India, she fled from the Taliban regime in 1996, taking her family with her to Peshawar in neighboring Pakistan. When the Taliban later destroyed the famed Bamiyan Buddhas, she read about the incident in the newspaper.</p> <p>When President Karzai offered her the governorship three years ago, Sarabi accepted without hesitation. She is undeterred by the fact that death threats are now part of her life, and that other governors refuse to interact with her because she is a woman. "We will also change the brains of men in Afghanistan," she says, "it will take a long time, but it will happen."</p> <p> <b>Cheerful Little Corners in a Down-at-its-Heels City</b> </p> <p>Six days before the next attempt on the life of Hamid Karzai, two US military trucks come under rocket fire in Khost, and in Faizabad a delivery truck containing 9,000 schoolbooks plunges into the Kokcha River. The police defuse a car bomb in Paktia, and in Kabul Chris Alexander, political director of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), walks across the marketplace to have dinner at the Boccaccio Restaurant.</p> <p>Alexander is 39, a boyish-looking Canadian, and pundits at home in Canada predict that he has an important political career in his future. He has already been his country's ambassador in Kabul and he worked in Moscow for several years. The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, chose him as a "Young Global Leader," a distinction that he acknowledges with a shy smile. He orders beef Carpaccio and pizza, while he and his friends at the table discuss the situation.</p> <p>Drinking Chianti, the four friends, young businessman and diplomats, occasionally glance to the side to greet cabinet ministers who are also fond of dining at Boccaccio. At the surrounding tables, American intelligence agents cut their steaks, Swedish embassy employees load their forks with spaghetti, and bodyguards from New Zealand drink Corona beer. It is a collection of the members of Kabul's parallel world, envoys of a many thousand-headed army of helpers and mercenaries. After dinner, they go to La Cantina for a cocktail or to Bella Italia for dessert. Kabul, an otherwise down-at-the-heels city, has its cheerful little corners, populated almost exclusively by foreigners from around the world.</p> <p>Alexander tells the story of how 40 convoys from the World Food Program disappeared last year, somehow, somewhere, entire columns of trucks loaded with food and medicine. Forty civilian aid workers were killed, he says, and 89 were abducted.</p> <p>Yes, says Alexander, there is a lot of bad news, but there is also good news to report. "We had less than 1,000 schools here in 2001. Today there are 9,000, which is quite impressive."</p> <p>The conversation at the table soon turns to the Karzai government. It has been in office for six years, but has failed to produce any presentable successes. Two-thirds of the ministries are hopelessly corrupt, they say, the cabinet is split along ethnic lines. As for Karzai? Merely the mention of his name is a source of amusement. He is seen as nothing but a weak, paranoid leader.</p><p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Part 4: Karzai, the Mayor of Kabul</span></span></p><p>Five days before the next attempt on the life of Hamid Karzai, anti-drug officers in Baghlan incinerate 300 bottles of hard liquor, 94 kilograms of opium, 93 kilograms of hashish and 13 kilograms of heroin. In the afternoon, Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta, who returned to the country from exile in Germany, says that he considers the lack of faith in democracy in his country to be his "personal nightmare." On that same afternoon, General Khodaidad, the minister in charge of the government's anti-drug policies, takes a drive out into the countryside.</p> <p>Khodaidad perches majestically in a four-ton, armor-clad Toyota Land Cruiser, as he embarks on a laborious two-day tour that will take him across thousands of kilometers of bumpy country roads and steep mountain passes. </p> <p>The general is visiting the governors of Sar-e-Pol and Jowzjan in the far north, near the border with Turkmenistan. Parliamentarians from both regions are also along for the ride, as the Land Cruiser climbs through the icy splendor of the Salang Mountains, through Baghlan, Samangan and Balkh, traveling along the same route taken by the withdrawing Soviet army after almost 10 years of futile fighting.</p> <p>Khodaidad was part of that army, a Soviet commander from Afghanistan, fighting for Afghanistan. He knows every valley and every hiding place here, and he knows the back roads that no American Humvee will ever take. Massoud was his adversary in the Pandjir Valley, as was General Daoud, who fought for the mujahedeen and is now a deputy interior minister, and with whom Khodaidad now cooperates in his effort to eradicate opium farming. "It's difficult for you to understand, isn't it? That we now work together? But the explanation is easy: We ruined this country together, and now we must rebuild it together." </p> <p> </p> <p>Khodaidad has brought along a lot of music. He is a short, impish-looking man with eyes hidden behind fleshy eyelids. His glasses sit so crookedly on his face that he peers through the lens with one eye and over the top of the frame with the other, while the stereo blares the love songs of Afghan pop singer Nashena.</p> <p>He periodically uses his walkie-talkie to confer with the other drivers in the convoy of five Land Cruisers, which includes an armed guard of 22 soldiers. A more prosperous and more peaceful Afghanistan soon begins to unfold: the north, where the land is farmed and where there is a rhythm to life, where dromedaries graze and children play -- children who look as though they had time to play.</p> <p>Khodaidad is using the trip to promote his political agenda, which mainly consists in simply showing his face. The governors he meets, with whom he drinks tea, eats nuts and kebabs and spends entire evenings sitting barefoot on carpets, say that they haven't seen a cabinet minister in their provinces in two years. "Those who never leave Kabul," says Khodaidad, "lose their connections. But what is politics in Afghanistan? Nothing but connections. Have you heard what Karzai is called? The people call him the 'mayor of Kabul'…"</p> <p>In Sar-e-Pol, late in the evening, Khodaidad's chief of current operations, Mohammed Ibrahim Azhar sits in the garden of the provincial government's guesthouse. One of his brothers died in the struggle against the Soviet occupiers and he lost three cousins in the war against the Russians. Azhar himself smuggled weapons and money into the country from Pakistan for the mujahedeen. Before taking his current position with the ministry, he worked for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Once a week, he meets with ISAF personnel and Americans to discuss strategy. But he and his foreign counterparts have little to say to each other.</p> <p> The Americans, says Azhar, refuse to understand that for many Afghans, there is no alternative to growing opium. "There is no market for wheat, rice, fruit or vegetables. We import all of these things, from Pakistan, Iran and China. What can you say to a farmer who makes $4,000 (€2,550) per hectare (2.47 acres) with opium and only $300 (€191) with wheat? A year!"</p> <p>His telephone rings. His ring tone is the triumphant march from Verdi's "Aida." The people from Nangarhar are calling again. A suicide bomber blew up himself and 25 police officers in an opium field in Nangarhar that afternoon.</p> <p>Three days before the next attempt on the life of Hamid Karzai, Ambassador William Wood is sitting in his large apartment in the fortress-like US embassy in Kabul. He asks the photographer not to take his picture while he smokes a cigarette. Wood arrived from Colombia last year. His knowledge of drug cultivation is extensive, but he doesn't know a whole lot about Afghanistan. His nickname is "Chemical Bill," because he doggedly champions a policy of large-scale aerial spraying of the poppy fields with pesticides to destroy the crops.</p> <p>Wood says that Afghanistan's "drug tragedy" also feeds into the tragedy of terror. The ISAF countries, he says, should realize that they are losing more of their citizens to heroin than on the battlefield in Afghanistan. He adds that 2007 was a good year, all things considered, with the possible exception of corruption. All neighboring countries want regional stability, he says, adding that more than 6 million children now attend school in Afghanistan. It sounds as if he were giving a speech using McNeill's notes.</p> <p>Two days before the next attempt on the life of Hamid Karzai, Najia Zewari, of the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), says that Afghanistan actually looks very good on paper. Women's rights are guaranteed under the constitution, says Zewari, and they are part of the country's future development. One-fourth of the members of parliament are women but, she adds, "the daily reality is unfortunately a different story altogether."</p> <p>More nine- and 10-year-old girls are being forced into arranged marriages once again, she says. Outside Kabul, almost all women over 13 are required to wear the burqa. According to Zewari, girls do not go to school, and no one reports kidnappings and rapes. "Do not misunderstand me," says Zewari, "it's a great thing that the terror of the Taliban is over. But that doesn't mean that their rules have disappeared. Their rules are the Afghan rules."</p> <p>These Afghan rules are the rules that foreigners find so difficult to understand.</p> <p>The overthrow of the Taliban took place just over seven years ago. Until well into the 1990s, the warlords and the mujahedeen were constantly at war and constantly forming new coalitions. In the area around Kabul, they conducted their own version of total war. The withdrawal of Soviet troops happened less than 20 years ago. The wounds inflicted by all of these wars are still raw. The country has a great deal of history to work its way through, a great deal of suffering to digest and, most of all, a great deal of mourning to make up for.</p> <p>But there are already voices -- in the parliament, in Karzai's cabinet and in the remote provinces -- that point to a new rivalry among ethnic groups, groups jockeying for power, influence and the legends of history.</p> <p> Old warriors with world-famous names, like Dostum and Hekmetyar, are active once again, as old rifts spark anew between the peoples of the country's south and north. Mutual suspicions continue to grow as it becomes clear that the new era is failing to produce successes. Rival clans are already embroiled in their small wars and feuds. Afghanistan remains a combustible country, a potential battlefield where civil war is still an option -- a civil war that some are already waging.</p> <p>On the day of the attack on Hamid Karzai, Mujahedeen Day, a national holiday in Afghanistan and a day of parades, three men have been lurking for at least 36, probably 72 hours, in a guesthouse less than 500 meters from the Kabul parade ground. Their accomplices have locked them into their room from the outside. A padlock is on the door to create the impression the room is unoccupied. The assassins have stocked up on energy drinks, water and crackers. They urinate into bottles and send short text messages to telephone numbers in Pakistan.</p> <p>The room on the fourth floor, which offers a clear line of fire at the grandstand where the government of Afghanistan, headed by President Karzai, and the country's top generals and religious leaders, members of parliament and foreign guests, ambassadors, ISAF commanders and UN directors are about to sit down, has been rented for 45 days. One of the attackers, a Turkmen, claimed to be a carpet merchant with business at the nearby bazaar. The weapons are hidden in rolled-up carpets.</p> <p>Spies for the Defense Ministry have been scanning the area around the parade ground for weeks, asking residents about suspicious activities and strangers new to the area. The police have gone into every house, inspecting rooms and looking out of windows, including the guesthouse where the would-be assassins are holed up, which they visited one or two days before the attack. But the door to the room was locked from the outside, the owner of the guesthouse tells police. The people aren't home, he says, and he hasn't seen them in a while. Why break down the door, he asks?</p><p style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Part 5: A Plot against the President</span></p><p>No one has any idea that a police colonel is part of the plot. The Taliban have a mole in the heart of the country's security apparatus. Perhaps their man is guiding preparations for the parade in the wrong direction, or perhaps he is sending police on the wrong track. </p> <p>The mole is the one who procures the weapons for the attack. Unable to get sniper rifles, he does manage to bribe his way into buying assault rifles. Corrupt accomplices set the guns aside in an Afghan army training camp, behind the Americans' backs. They even manage to line up a bazooka and a grenade launcher.</p> <p>The guests begin arriving on the parade ground at 8 a.m. on April 27. McNeill is there, and so is UN Director Chris Alexander. US Ambassador Wood and his British counterpart, Sherard Cowper-Coles, are standing between chairs, chatting. The government of Afghanistan is gathering on the central stands.</p> <p>At this time, Karzai is standing below the grandstand, in the hatch of a Humvee, waiting for his appearance. At 9 a.m., the Humvee begins traveling at a walking pace along the grandstand, and then it turns toward an honor guard standing at attention in front of the Id Gah Mosque -- a force of 1,000 men, trained by the West to take charge of security for Kabul beginning in August.</p> <p>At 9:25, Karzai has returned from the honor guard and takes his seat on the grandstand. The attackers wait, less than 500 meters away, keeping a watchful eye on Karzai. They plan to open fire during the national anthem -- for the effect.</p> <p>At 9:45, the national anthem begins booming from the loudspeakers. "This is the land of Afghanistan, the pride of all Afghans. A land of peace, a land of the sword, a land of courageous sons." A salute is fired, a long series of shots beginning with a single cannon beat, followed by two, three, four and five shots. The assassins get into position and aim their guns.</p> <p>"This country will shine forever," the hymn continues, as machine gun fire suddenly explodes into the parade. Three members of parliament are hit on the grandstand, 25 meters (82 feet) below Karzai to the right. Grenades explode on the asphalt, killing a child and a policeman in the line of fire.</p> <p>The people on the parade ground and on the grandstand begin running and jostling, security personnel form rings around their VIPs and lead them away, up along the rows of seats to an area behind the stadium, but there is also shooting there, where a second group of attackers is firing haphazardly at the fleeing dignitaries. The scene has disintegrated into scores of people ducking and waiting, running and cowering, on this national holiday in Afghanistan, a day that ends up making world headlines. On this day, the news from Afghanistan is not good. In fact, on this day the news from Afghanistan is exclusively bad, chaotic and disastrous.</p> <p>The next day, US Ambassador Wood will say: "The whole thing was over within 120 seconds." This is the sugarcoated version for the Western public. The people in Afghanistan, however, know that in reality the shooting continued for 25 or 30 minutes, and that the attackers used bazookas, machine guns and grenades. Soon there were helicopters in the air and the assassination attempt turned into a battle, with the presidential guard returning fire, eventually killing the three attackers and chasing three of their accomplices through the city.</p> <p>These are the images of war in downtown Kabul, in the heart of Afghanistan, where half the world has spent the last seven years trying to bring peace to an oppressed country, and where the fighting continues, in Afghanistan's valleys, mountains, cities and deserts, on many fronts hard and soft, day after day.</p> <p> <i>Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan.</i> </p>NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-29874679091805790962011-09-18T18:37:00.000-07:002011-09-18T18:40:06.107-07:00How Washington Creates Global Instability<a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/" title="Return to TomDispatch Home" id="logo"><img src="http://www.tomdispatch.com/application/images/site/tomdispatch_logo_v1.gif" alt="Return to TomDispatch Home" id="logoImage" width="347" /> <h1>TomDispatch.com</h1></a><a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/" title="Return to TomDispatch Home" id="logo"> </a><br /><a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175442/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_how_washington_creates_global_instability/#more"><span style="font-size:180%;"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Tomgram: Nick Turse, How Washington Creates Global Instability </span></span></a><br /><br /><div class="byline"> Posted by <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/authors/nickturse/">Nick Turse</a> at 5:22pm, <span style="white-space: nowrap;">September 18, 2011.</span> </div> <p>It was built for... well, not to put too fine a point on it, victory. I’m talking, of course, about the ill-named Camp Victory, the massive military complex, a set of bases really, constructed around an old hunting lodge and nine of former dictator Saddam Hussein’s opulent palaces near Baghdad International Airport.</p> <p>Within months of American troops entering Baghdad in April 2003, it was <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/world/middleeast/09military.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print">already</a> “the largest overseas American combat base since the Vietnam War.” It would become the grand visiting place for American politicians -- back when the U.S. was still being called <em>the</em> global “hyperpower” -- arriving in what was almost imagined as our 51st state. It was the headquarters for the American military effort and later “surge” strategy in Iraq. It was also the stomping grounds for at least 46,000 U.S. troops stationed there and who knows how many spooks, contractors, hire-a-guns, Defense Department civilians, and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/06/06/110606fa_fact_stillman">third-world workers</a>. It had its own Cinnabon and Burger King, its massive PXs, and it’s 27-mile perimeter of “blast walls and concertina wire,” as well as its own hospital and water-bottling plant. It was a “city,” a world, unto itself.</p> <p>American reporters passed through it regularly and yet for most Americans who didn’t set foot in it, our massive outpost in the heart of the oil heartlands of the planet (the place we were supposed to <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174807/">garrison for decades</a>, if not generations) might as well not have existed. For all the news about Iraq that, once upon a time, was delivered to Americans, the humongous Camp Victory itself never struck journalists as particularly newsworthy, nor generally did the billions of dollars that went into building the more than 500 U.S. bases, mega to micro, that we now know were constructed in that country at U.S. taxpayers’ expense. </p> <p>All this was true until Camp Victory was at the edge of what can only be called ultimate defeat and finally found, if not its chronicler, then its <a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/camp-victory-the-us-military-headquarters-in-iraq-getting-ready-to-close/2011/09/01/gIQA4tb5NK_print.html">obituary writer</a> in Annie Gowan of the <em>Washington Post</em>. Perhaps it’s often true that only at a funeral do any of us get our due. But with the last American slated to leave Camp Victory (<a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175401/tomgram%3A_peter_van_buren,_how_not_to_withdraw_from_iraq/">though</a> not <a target="_blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/16/us-embassy-iraq-state-department-plan_n_965945.html?page=1">Iraq</a>) in early December, with the gates to be locked and the keys turned over to the Iraqi government, she quotes Lt. Col. Sean Wilson, an Army public affairs officer, on the emptying of the base this way: “This whole place is becoming a ghost town. You get the feeling you’re the last person on Earth.” (Of course, Iraqis might have a different impression.)</p> <p>The U.S. military will evidently conduct no final interment ceremonies in which the base is renamed Camp Defeat before being abandoned. Nonetheless, even as Washington <a target="_blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-van-buren/soldiers-iraq-withdrawal_b_963234.html">hangs on grimly </a>to its remaining militarized toeholds in Iraq, that should be the one-line summary obit on America’s great Iraq adventure. </p> <p>In his latest <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175426/nick_turse_a_secret_war_in_120_countries">piece of reportage</a> for TomDispatch, Nick Turse offers us an eye-opening reminder that, while the U.S. is drawing down to bare bones in Iraq, it has actually been building up its forces, operations, and infrastructure in the Greater Middle East. Still, somewhere in the Camp Victory story, isn’t there a modest lesson that Washington could draw? (Though, as Turse makes clear, it won't...) <em>Tom</em></p> <blockquote> <p><strong><span style="font-size: x-large;">Obama’s Arc of Instability<br /></span><span style="font-size: medium;">Destabilizing the World One Region at a Time </span></strong><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span>By <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdisapatch.com/authors/nickturse">Nick Turse</a></p> <p>It’s a story that should take your breath away: the destabilization of what, in the Bush years, used to be called “the arc of instability.” It involves at least 97 countries, across the bulk of the global south, much of it coinciding with the oil heartlands of the planet. A startling number of these nations are now in turmoil, and in every single one of them -- from Afghanistan and Algeria to Yemen and Zambia -- Washington is militarily involved, overtly or covertly, in outright war or what passes for peace. </p> <p>Garrisoning the planet is just part of it. The Pentagon and U.S. intelligence services are also running covert special forces and spy operations, launching drone attacks, building bases and secret prisons, training, arming, and funding local security forces, and engaging in a host of other militarized activities right up to full-scale war. But while you consider this, keep one fact in mind: the odds are that there is no longer a single nation in the arc of instability in which the United States is in no way militarily involved. </p> <p><strong>Covenant of the Arc</strong></p> <p>“Freedom is on the march in the broader Middle East,” the president said in his speech. “The hope of liberty now reaches from Kabul to Baghdad to Beirut and beyond. Slowly but surely, we're helping to transform the broader Middle East from an arc of instability into an arc of freedom.”</p> <p>An arc of freedom. You could be forgiven if you thought that this was an excerpt from President Barack Obama’s <a target="_blank" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/19/remarks-president-middle-east-and-north-africa">Arab Spring speech</a>, where he said “[I]t will be the policy of the United States to… support transitions to democracy.” Those were, however, the words of his predecessor George W. Bush. The giveaway is that phrase “arc of instability,” a core rhetorical concept of the former president’s global vision and that of his <a target="_blank" href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MI10Dj02.html">neoconservative supporters</a>.</p> </blockquote> <a name="more"></a> <p>The dream of the Bush years was to militarily dominate that arc, which largely coincided with the area from North Africa to the Chinese border, also known as the Greater Middle East, but sometimes was said to stretch from Latin America to Southeast Asia. While the phrase has been dropped in the Obama years, when it comes to projecting military power President Obama is in the process of trumping his predecessor. </p> <p>In addition to waging more wars in “arc” nations, Obama has overseen the deployment of greater numbers of special operations forces to the region, has transferred or brokered the sale of substantial quantities of weapons there, while continuing to build and expand military bases at a torrid rate, as well as training and supplying large numbers of indigenous forces. Pentagon documents and open source information indicate that there is not a single country in that arc in which U.S. military and intelligence agencies are not now active. This raises questions about just how crucial the American role has been in the region’s increasing volatility and destabilization.</p> <p><strong>Flooding the Arc</strong></p> <p>Given the centrality of the arc of instability to Bush administration thinking, it was hardly surprising that it launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and carried out limited strikes in three other arc states -- <a target="_blank" href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-11-04-yemen-explosion_x.htm">Yemen</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/world/asia/28pstan.html">Pakistan</a>, and <a target="_blank" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6243459.stm">Somalia</a>. Nor should anyone have been shocked that it also deployed elite <a target="_blank" href="http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020318/fronts.html">military forces</a> and special operators from the Central Intelligence Agency elsewhere within <a target="_blank" href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh">the arc</a>.</p> <p>In his book <em>The One Percent Doctrine</em>, journalist Ron Suskind reported on CIA plans, unveiled in September 2001 and known as the “Worldwide Attack Matrix,” for<strong> </strong>“detailed operations against terrorists in 80 countries.” At about the same time, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld <a target="_blank" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1547561.stm">proclaimed</a> that the nation had embarked on "a large multi-headed effort that probably spans 60 countries.” By the end of the Bush years, the Pentagon would indeed have special operations forces deployed in 60 countries around the world. </p> <p>It has been the Obama administration, however, that has embraced the concept far more fully and engaged the region even more broadly. Last year, the <em>Washington Post</em> reported that U.S. had <a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304965.html">deployed</a> special operations forces in 75 countries, from South America to Central Asia. Recently, however, U.S. Special Operations Command spokesman Colonel Tim Nye told me that on any given day, America’s elite troops are working in about 70 countries, and that its country total by year’s end would be around <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175426/">120</a>. These forces are engaged in a host of missions, from <a target="_blank" href="http://savannahnow.com/bryan-county-now/2011-06-17/richmond-hill-ranger-dies-afghanistan#.Th2ZMWGpaSo">Army Rangers</a> involved in conventional combat in Afghanistan to the team of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/04/seal-team-6-inside-osama">Navy SEALs</a> who assassinated Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, to trainers from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines within U.S. Special Operations Command working globally from the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175426/">Dominican Republic</a> to <a target="_blank" href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/25/afghanistan-troop-drawdown-america-s-other-covert-wars.html">Yemen</a>. </p> <p>The United States is now involved in wars in six arc-of-instability nations: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. It has military personnel deployed in other arc states, including Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates. Of these countries, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175310/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_base_desires_in_afghanistan">Afghanistan</a>, Bahrain, Djibouti, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates all <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175159/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_out_of_iraq%2C_into_the_gulf">host</a> U.S. military bases, while the CIA is reportedly building a <a target="_blank" href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/15/source-drone-base-set-for-persian-gulf-region/">secret base</a> somewhere in the region for use in its expanded drone wars in Yemen and Somalia. It is also using already existing facilities in <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/17/world/threats-and-responses-the-operations-us-turns-horn-of-africa-into-a-military-hub.html?ref=djibouti">Djibouti</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.economist.com/node/10979876">Ethiopia</a>, and the <a target="_blank" href="http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/01-Jul-2011/CIA-shifts-drone-operations-to-Afghan-bases">United Arab Emirates</a> for the same purposes, and operating a clandestine <a target="_blank" href="http://www.thenation.com/article/161936/cias-secret-sites-somalia">base in Somalia</a> where it runs indigenous agents and carries out counterterrorism training for local partners. </p> <p>In addition to its own military efforts, the Obama administration has also arranged for the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175393/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_obama_and_the_mideast_arms_trade">sale of weaponry</a> to regimes in arc states across the Middle East, including <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175367/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_the_pentagon_and_murder_in_bahrain">Bahrain</a>, Egypt, Iraq<strong>, </strong>Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175385/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_how_to_arm_a_dictator">Yemen</a>. It has been indoctrinating and schooling indigenous military partners through the State Department’s and Pentagon’s International Military Education and Training program. Last year, it provided training to more than 7,000 students from 130 countries. “The emphasis is on the Middle East and Africa because we know that terrorism will grow, and we know that vulnerable countries are the most targeted,” Kay Judkins, the program’s policy manager, recently told the American Forces Press Service.</p> <p>According to Pentagon documents released earlier this year, the U.S. has personnel -- some in token numbers, some in more sizeable contingents -- deployed in 76 <a target="_blank" href="http://thomaspmbarnett.com/storage/pnm.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1282003965649">other nations sometimes counted in the arc of instability</a>: Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Syria, Antigua, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.</p> <p>While arrests of 30 members of an alleged <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/world/middleeast/23tehran.html">CIA spy ring in Iran</a> earlier this year may be, like earlier incarcerations of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/02/us-iran-usa-hikers-idUSTRE76113820110702">supposed American “spies”</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101306180">pure theater</a> for internal consumption or international bargaining, there is little doubt that the U.S. is conducting covert operations there, too. Last year, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7136614.ece">reports surfaced</a> that U.S. black ops teams had been authorized to run missions inside that country, and spies and local proxies are almost certainly at work there as well. Just recently, the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> <a target="_blank" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903895904576547233284967482.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">revealed</a> a series of “secret operations on the Iran-Iraq border” by the U.S. military and a coming CIA campaign of covert operations aimed at halting the smuggling of Iranian arms into Iraq.</p> <p>All of this suggests that there may, in fact, not be a single nation within the arc of instability, however defined, in which the United States is without a base or military or intelligence personnel, or where it is not running agents, sending weapons, conducting covert operations -- or at war.</p> <p><strong>The Arc of History</strong></p> <p>Just after President Obama came into office in 2009, then-Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair briefed the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Drawing special attention to the arc of instability, he summed up the global situation this way: “The large region from the Middle East to South Asia is the locus for many of the challenges facing the United States in the twenty-first century.” Since then, as with the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174878/if_the_gwot_were_gone_">Bush-identified phrase</a> “global war on terror,” the Obama administration and the U.S. military have largely avoided using “arc of instability,” preferring to refer to it using far vaguer formulations.</p> <p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1844674517/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20"><img src="http://www.tomdispatch.com/images/managed/tursecase.gif" alt="" vspace="6" hspace="6" align="left" /></a>During a speech at the National Defense Industrial Association's annual Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict Symposium earlier this year, for example, Navy Admiral Eric Olson, then the chief of U.S. Special Operations Command, pointed toward a composite satellite image of the world at night. Before September 11, 2001, said Olson, the lit portion of the planet -- the industrialized nations of the global north -- were considered the key areas. Since then, he told the audience, 51 countries, almost all of them in the arc of instability, have taken precedence. "Our strategic focus,” he said, “has shifted largely to the south... certainly within the special operations community, as we deal with the emerging threats from the places where the lights aren't."</p> <p>More recently, in remarks at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C., John O. Brennan, the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, outlined the president’s new <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175416/">National Strategy for Counterterrorism</a>, which highlighted carrying out missions in the “Pakistan-Afghanistan region” and “a focus on specific regions, including what we might call the periphery -- places like Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and the Maghreb [northern Africa].”</p> <p>“This does not,” Brennan insisted, “require a ‘global’ war” -- and indeed, despite the Bush-era terminology, it never has. While, for instance, planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in Germany and would-be shoe-bomber Richard Reid hailed from the United Kingdom, advanced, majority-white Western nations have never been American targets. The “arc” has never arced out of the global south, whose countries are assumed to be fundamentally unstable by nature and their problems fixable through military intervention.</p> <p><strong>Building Instability</strong> </p> <p>A decade’s evidence has made it clear that U.S. operations in the arc of instability are destabilizing. For years, to take one example, Washington has wielded military aid, military actions, and diplomatic pressure in such a way as to <a target="_blank" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/01/us-pakistan-usa-ambassador-idUSN0122025020070301">undermine</a> the government of Pakistan, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/us-pakistan-military-cooperation/p16644">promote factionalism</a> within its military and intelligence services, and stoke <a target="_blank" href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/09/07/74966/anti-americanism-rises-in-pakistan.html">anti-American sentiment</a> to remarkable levels among the country’s population. (According to a <a target="_blank" href="http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/21/pakistan.bin.laden.poll/">recent survey</a>, just 12% of Pakistanis have a positive view of the United States.)</p> <p>A semi-secret drone war in that nation’s tribal borderlands, involving hundreds of missile strikes and significant, if unknown levels, of civilian casualties, has been only the most polarizing of Washington’s many ham-handed efforts. When it comes to that CIA-run effort, a recent <a target="_blank" href="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/30-2">Pew survey</a> of Pakistanis found that 97% of respondents viewed it negatively, a figure almost impossible to achieve in any sort of polling.</p> <p>In Yemen, long-time support -- in the form of aid, military training, and weapons, as well as periodic air or drone strikes -- for dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh led to a special relationship between the U.S. and elite Yemeni forces led by Saleh’s relatives. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/yemen-demonstrators-killed-raid-camp">This year, those units</a> have been instrumental in cracking down on the freedom struggle there, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/07/13/Yemens-Saleh-is-politcally-dead/UPI-43551310565043/">killing protesters</a> and arresting dissenting officers who <a target="_blank" href="http://news.yahoo.com/yemen-officers-arrested-betraying-president-130259006.html">refused orders</a> to open fire on civilians. It’s hardly surprising that, even before Yemen slid into a <a target="_blank" href="http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/07/11/who_is_running_yemen">leaderless void</a> (after Saleh was wounded in an assassination attempt), a survey of Yemenis found -- again a jaw-dropping polling figure -- 99% of respondents viewed the U.S. government’s relations with the Islamic world unfavorably, while just 4% “somewhat” or “strongly approved” of Saleh’s cooperation with Washington.</p> <p>Instead of pulling back from operations in Yemen, however, the U.S. has doubled down. The <a target="_blank" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303848104576384051572679110.html">CIA</a>, with support from Saudi Arabia’s intelligence service, has been running local agents as well as a lethal drone campaign aimed at Islamic militants. The <a target="_blank" href="http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/06/ap-yemen-report-says-cia-building-drone-base-nearby-061411/">U.S. military</a> has been carrying out its own air strikes, as well as sending in more trainers to work with indigenous forces, while American <a target="_blank" href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/25/afghanistan-troop-drawdown-america-s-other-covert-wars.html">black ops teams</a> launch lethal missions, often alongside Yemeni allies.</p> <p>These efforts have set the stage for further ill-will, political instability, and possible blowback. Just last year, a U.S. <a target="_blank" href="http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/07/11/who_is_running_yemen">drone strike</a> accidentally killed Jabr al-Shabwani, the son of strongman Sheikh Ali al-Shabwani. In an act of revenge, Ali repeatedly attacked of one of Yemen's largest oil pipelines, resulting in billions of dollars in lost revenue for the Yemeni government, and demanded Saleh stop cooperating with the U.S. strikes.</p> <p>Earlier this year, in Egypt and Tunisia, long-time U.S. efforts to promote what it liked to call “regional stability” -- through military alliances, aid, training, and weaponry -- collapsed in the face of popular movements against the U.S.-supported dictators ruling those nations. Similarly, in <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175367/">Bahrain</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/2011415181326266737.html">Iraq</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/03/28/jordan-set-independent-inquiry-attacks-protesters">Jordan</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/02/19/kuwait-dozens-injured-arrested-bidun-crackdown">Kuwait</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0619/Can-fresh-Morocco-protests-build-momentum-for-reform">Morocco</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/world/middleeast/01oman.html">Oman</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12707488">Saudi Arabia</a>, and the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/05/03/uae-civil-society-crackdown-widens">United Arab Emirates</a>, popular protests erupted against authoritarian regimes partnered with and armed courtesy of the U.S. military. It’s hardly surprising that, when asked in a recent survey whether President Obama had met the expectations created by his <a target="_blank" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09">2009 speech in Cairo</a>, where he called for “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world,” only 4% of Egyptians answered yes. (The same poll found only 6% of Jordanians thought so and just 1% of Lebanese.)</p> <p>A recent Zogby poll of<strong> </strong>respondents in six Arab countries -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates -- found that, taking over from a president who had propelled anti-Americanism in the Muslim world to an <a target="_blank" href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0222/p99s01-duts.html">all-time high</a>, Obama managed to drive such attitudes even higher.<strong> </strong>Substantial majorities of Arabs in every country now view the U.S. as not<em> </em>contributing “to peace and stability in the Arab World.”</p> <p><strong>Increasing Instability Across the Globe</strong></p> <p>U.S. interference in the arc of instability is certainly nothing new. Leaving aside current wars, over the last century, the United States has engaged in military interventions in the global south in Cambodia, Congo, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Egypt, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Panama, the Philippines, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Somalia, Thailand, and Vietnam, among other places. The CIA has waged covert campaigns in many of the same countries, as well as Afghanistan, Algeria, Chile, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, and Syria, to name just a few.</p> <p>Like George W. Bush before him, Barack Obama evidently looks out on the “unlit world” and sees a source of global volatility and danger for the United States. His answer has been to deploy U.S. military might to blunt instability, shore up allies, and protect American lives. </p> <p>Despite the salient lesson of 9/11-- interventions abroad beget blowback at home -- he has waged wars in response to blowback that have, in turn, generated more of the same. A recent Rasmussen poll indicates that most Americans differ with the president when it comes to his idea of how the U.S. should be involved abroad. Seventy-five percent of voters, for example, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2011/75_see_vital_u_s_interests_as_only_reason_for_committing_military_forces_to_overseas_action">agreed with</a> this proposition in a recent poll: “The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.” In addition, clear majorities of Americans are against defending Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and a host of other arc of instability countries, even if they are attacked by outside powers.</p> <p>After decades of overt and covert U.S. interventions in arc states, including the last 10 years of constant warfare, most are still poor, underdeveloped, and seemingly even more unstable. This year, in their annual <a target="_blank" href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/17/2011_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_rankings">failed state index</a> -- a ranking of the most volatile nations on the planet -- <em>Foreign Policy</em> and the Fund for Peace placed the two arc nations that have seen the largest military interventions by the U.S. -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- in their top ten. Pakistan and Yemen ranked 12th and 13th, respectively, while Somalia -- the site of U.S. interventions under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, during the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/world/africa/25somalia.html">Bush presidency</a> in the 2000s, and again under Obama -- had the dubious honor of being number one.</p> <p>For all the discussions here about (armed) “nation-building efforts” in the region, what we’ve clearly witnessed is a decade of nation unbuilding that ended only when the peoples of various Arab lands took their futures into their own hands and their bodies out into the streets. As recent polling in arc nations indicates, people of the global south see the United States as promoting or sustaining, not preventing, instability, and objective measures bear out their claims. The fact that numerous popular uprisings opposing authoritarian rulers allied with the U.S. have proliferated this year provides the strongest evidence yet of that. </p> <p>With Americans balking at defending arc-of-instability nations, with clear indications that military interventions don’t promote stability, and with a budget crisis of epic proportions at home, it remains to be seen what pretexts the Obama administration will rely on to continue a failed policy -- one that seems certain to make the world more volatile and put American citizens at greater risk.</p> <p><em>Nick Turse is a historian, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175426/nick_turse_a_secret_war_in_120_countries">investigative journalist</a>, the associate editor of </em><a target="_blank" href="http://tomdispatch.com/">TomDispatch.com</a>,<em> and a senior editor at Alternet.org. His latest book is </em><a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1844674517/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20">The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan </a><em>(Verso Books). You can follow him on Twitter </em><a target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/NickTurse"><em>@NickTurse</em></a><em>, on</em><a target="_blank" href="http://nickturse.tumblr.com/"> <em>Tumblr</em></a><em>, and on </em><a target="_blank" href="http://www.facebook.com/nick.turse"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>.</em><em> This article is a collaboration between <a target="_blank" href="http://www.alternet.org/">Alternet.org</a> and TomDispatch.com.</em></p> Copyright 2011 Nick TurseNOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-1397535450612050422011-09-10T11:57:00.000-07:002011-09-10T12:01:31.778-07:00New evidence links Saudi Arabia to 9/11 hijackers: Graham<span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(51, 153, 153);">tampa</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);">bay</span>.<span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">com</span></span><br /></span><br /><h1>New evidence links Saudi Arabia to 9/11 hijackers: Graham</h1> <blockquote> </blockquote> <p> By <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/writers/stephen-nohlgren">Stephen Nohlgren</a> and <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/writers/susan-taylor-martin">Susan Taylor Martin</a><br /> In Print: Saturday, September 10, 2011 </p> <hr noshade="noshade" size="1"> <table class="grtable450leftcap" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="576"><tbody><tr> <td width="124"> <div class="photo-caption">Abdulazzi al-Hiijjii, his wife and twins lived in this home in the Prestancia community of Sarasota. They left everything behind.</div> </td> <td width="452"><img src="http://www.tampabay.com/multimedia/archive/00190/a4s_SAUDIS091011hou_190629c.jpg" alt="Abdulazzi al-Hiijjii, his wife and twins lived in this home in the Prestancia community of Sarasota. They left everything behind." border="1" width="450" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>SARASOTA — Weeks after terrorists brought down the World Trade Center, FBI agents swarmed into a Sarasota gated community to investigate the mysterious disappearance of a wealthy young Saudi couple who apparently had ties to some of the hijackers.</p><p>The couple and their two children abandoned their home abruptly, just a week or so before Sept. 11, leaving behind cars, furniture and food on countertops.</p><p>According to one published report, the FBI discovered phone calls between the house and at least two of the hijackers and several other terrorism suspects stretching back a year.</p><p>Yet until a Fort Lauderdale website reported the news this week, no mention of the couple has ever appeared publicly — not in the Sept. 11 commission report, nor in FBI briefings to congressional investigators, former Florida Sen. Bob Graham said Friday.</p><p>Graham called on President Barack Obama to reopen the case.</p><p>"This is the most important thing about 9/11 to surface in the last seven or eight years,'' Graham told the <i>St. Petersburg Times</i>. "It's very important for the White House to take control of this situation. The key umbrella question is: What was the full extent of Saudi involvement prior to 9/11 and why did the U.S. administration cover this up?''</p><p>The Sarasota revelations parallel earlier information about a Saudi government employee who had lived in California for years, Graham said. That man, Omar al-Bayoumi, had paid for a San Diego apartment for two of the hijackers, funneled them money and then left the United States in July 2011.</p><p>Graham thinks Bayoumi and the Sarasota husband and wife, as well as her wealthy father could have helped form a shadow support system for the hijackers.</p><p>"These 19 people did not play out this plot as lone wolves,'' Graham said. "The chances that 19 people, most of whom had never been in the U.S., who did not speak English, and most of whom did not know each other, could have completed training, practiced and executed such a complicated plot defies common sense.''</p><p>The current administration should re-examine whether hijackers who stayed in New Jersey, Virginia and other U.S. cities also had secret Saudi supporters.</p><p>One Saudi living in America before Sept. 11 was Esam Ghazzawi, a financier and interior designer, who had built "a gigantic house'' on two waterfront lots on Longboat Key, according to former neighbor Betty Blair.</p><p>"I think he sent his kids to camp here, and that's why he'd come in the summers,'' she recalled on Friday.</p><p>In 1995, Ghazzawi and his American wife, Debra, paid $350,000 for a home in Prestancia, a lush gated community in south Sarasota.</p><p>Their daughter Anoud moved in, along with her husband, Abdulazzi al-Hiijjii, and their twin babies, neighbors said.</p><p>Abdulazzi appeared to be in his 20s, Anoud even younger, said neighbor Tom DiBello, who now lives in Fort Lauderdale. Abdulazzi said he was a student. Anoud was very religious.</p><p>"He would come over for a cigarette and a drink and to get away from that praying every two hours,'' DiBello said</p><p>The couple's house was elaborately furnished, with Persian rugs, statues and over-sized furniture. The wife's family supposedly had royal connections.</p><p>"He said his wife's father was friends with the prince or king or something,'' DiBello said.</p><p>Another neighbor, Patrick Gallagher, said he never saw Anoud in three years. Gallagher had only one contact with Abdulazzi — when he helped the Arab man fix his sprinkler system.</p><p>Then on Labor Day weekend 2001, Gallagher noticed "an incredible amount of trash'' piled in front of the al-Hiijjii home.</p><p>He asked one of the association directors, "What the hell is that trash doing there? There won't be any pickup until Tuesday or Wednesday.</p><p>"She said, 'They went back to Saudi Arabia and said they weren't ever coming back.' ''</p><p>Gallagher found it strange that a car was left in the driveway and that the house was not for sale. </p><p>He grew more suspicious a few days after Sept. 11 when it turned out that two of the hijackers had trained at a Venice flight school just 14 miles away. So Gallagher went on the FBI's website to report what he had seen.</p><p>What happened next comes from BrowardBulldog.org, a nonprofit investigative website in Fort Lauderdale that broke the Sarasota story this week, along with Irish journalist Anthony Summers, whose book <i>The Eleventh Day: The full story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, </i>is due out next month.</p><p>Several weeks after Gallagher's tip, FBI agents arrived at Prestancia and discovered that guard gate logs of vehicle tags showed the al-Hiijjiis had received important visitors. A car owned by Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had gone through. Driver's license information indicated that Atta and fellow hijacker Ziad Jarrah were in the car.</p><p>Phone records from the al-Hiijjiis' home contained calls to Atta, hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi and other terrorist suspects.</p><p><i>Broward</i>Bulldog.org attributed this information to Larry Berberich, then a consultant for the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office who also oversaw security at Prestancia, and an unnamed "counterterrorism agent'' who had worked the case.</p><p>Both entered the abandoned al-Hiijjii house. "There was mail on the table, dirty diapers in one of the bathrooms and all the toiletries still in place . . . all their clothes hanging in the closet,'' BrowardBulldog.org reported.</p><p>Berberich could not be reached for comment Friday.</p><p>The counterterrorism agent said the FBI tracked the couple's departure. They left the United States along with her father, Esam Ghazzawi, and ended up in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.</p><p>According to BrowardBulldog.org,<i> </i>the counterterrorism agent said Ghazzawi and Abdulazzi Hiijii were both on the FBI's watch list before Sept. 11.</p><p>The house stayed vacant until it was sold in 2003.</p><p>Summers, the Irish author, recently stumbled across the Sarasota story while researching his book, said Graham, who has known Summers for years. Summers joined forces with BrowardBulldog.org because he is friends with editor Dan Christensen, Christensen said.</p><p>Graham, who co-chaired the joint congressional committee that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, noted that the FBI heavily redacted portions of the committee's report that dealt with the extent of Saudi involvement.</p><p>Graham said he did not know why the FBI kept information about the Sarasota couple close to the vest. But he has a theory:</p><p>"The administration was so focused on avoiding a second attack that they decided they could not run the risk of irritating the Saudis and this was the results of that.''</p><p>Neither the FBI nor Justice Department responded Friday to a request for comment.</p><p>Times researcher Carolyn Edds contributed to this report.</p> <br /> [Last modified: Sep 09, 2011 11:22 PM]<br /><br /> <a style="color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;" href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.8618?icx_id=1190773" target="_blank" title="Main menu of all reuse options"> <img alt="[Get Copyright Permissions]" src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.gif" align="left" border="0" height="25" width="27" /> Click here for reuse options! </a><br /> Copyright 2011 St. Petersburg TimesNOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-37952988166546667772011-09-03T21:37:00.000-07:002011-09-03T21:40:32.553-07:00Looming Tragedy: Vision of the “New Libya” Visit the “New Iraq”<a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/"><img style="width: 677px; height: 200px;" src="http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/themes/dissident/images/header.jpg" alt="Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice" /></a>
<br />
<br />
<br /><h1 class="title"><a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/09/looming-tragedy-vision-of-the-%E2%80%9Cnew-libya%E2%80%9D-visit-the-%E2%80%9Cnew-iraq-%E2%80%9D/#more-36597">Looming Tragedy: Vision of the “New Libya”</a></h1> <p style="font-weight: bold;" class="subhead"><span style="font-size:180%;">Visit the “New Iraq”</span></p> <p class="byline">by Felicity Arbuthnot / September 3rd, 2011</p> <blockquote style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"><p>Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.</p> <p>— Oscar Wilde, 1854-1900</p></blockquote> <p>As Eid, the great post Ramadan celebration of that month of abstinence, self sacrifice and reflection, dawned on Libya, marked there this year on August 31, the NATO “liberated” country, after seven months, looks a lot like “liberated” Iraq after eight years.</p> <p>Queues of cars now wait for petrol in another oil rich country, other queues form, carrying containers for water (the multi billion$ development of Libya’s vast underground aquifers had been dubbed the “eighth wonder of the world). Shops are without food. The all is “absolute disaster”, according to an eminent legal observer, very familiar with the country. And with electricity largely off, those seeking knowledge as to whether friends and relatives are alive, injured, fled, dead, find internet and telephones dead.</p> <p>As the terribly injured overwhelm hospitals, many are bombed, damaged or without power and pharmaceuticals. No power, no incubators, life support machines or surgery. Another country with a modern, developed infrastructure reduced to a pre-industrial age, with the rebuilding contracts reportedly already being divvied out — in the West.</p> <p>NATO Members, however, eat, as their bombs destroy humanity and vital necessities for the living. Over a “working lunch”, on April 14, they “deplored violence” and underlined the: “need … to restore water, gas, electricity and other services …”</p> <p>Still depriving others of the means to cook, or of any semblance of normality, at another “working lunch” (June 8) they further discussed their “clear mandate to protect civilians (and) populated areas …taking the upmost care to avoid civilian casualties.” This as “Tripoli experienced what were perhaps the heaviest daylight bombardments by NATO since the air strikes began in March.” (<em>Guardian</em>, June 8).</p> <p>As they masticated and munched, they vowed to bring “a speedy resolution … to put an end to the violence”, under “Operation Unified Protector”. There’s delusional and there’s, arguably, psychotic.</p> <p>Just twenty four hours later, on June 9, the decade long destruction of Afghanistan eclipsed Libya. NATO Defence Ministers met to declare it “NATO’s top operational priority.” General David Petraeus, returned from the ruins and about to be confirmed as CIA Head “explained … progress.”</p> <p>“A working lunch commenced at 13.00 hours.”</p> <p>A number of lunches later, on August 23, NATO spokeswoman, Oana Lungesco, re-affirmed their “mandate to protect civilians.” How this squares with hitting “over five thousand legitimate targets (in a) 24/7 operation (with) over twenty thousand sorties”, is confusing. Equally so is how destruction of services essential to maintaining life, State institutions, schools, hospitals, archeological sites and treasures, attacking of all which is illegal under swathes of international law, are included in this “legitimacy.”</p> <p>By September 1, NATO operations from March 31st had reached “<a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26332">a total of 21,090, including 7,920 strike sorties</a>.”</p> <p>In context, this latest “shock and awe” brigandage is being rained down by a twenty-eight country alliance, on a country of under six-and-a-half million people (6,419,925) less than the population of London (7,754.000). The population of Tripoli is just 1,065,409 (or was, until unknown numbers of souls were liberated from their lives in a bombardment which, started with the unleashing of 110 Cruise missiles on March 20, eight years to the day – GMT- of the start of the Iraq invasion).</p> <p>Coincidentally, the considerably Western-backed and funded “uprising” in Benghazi, which preceded the bombing, began on February 15, the eighth anniversary of millions, in the largest global peace rally in history, from Manchester to Melbourne, Hong Kong to Honolulu, rallying against an attack on Iraq.</p> <p>The invaders, though, have “learned from past mistakes.” The “New Libya”, will not be like the “New Iraq” . It is surely beginning to look chillingly like it. A legitimate head of State again has a million$ bounty on his head and is “wanted dead or alive.” Since “boots are on the ground” only unofficially, the pack of playing cards with the “most wanted” on, has not yet been printed. But times are hard, and in 2003, the <a href="http://www.enotes.com/company-histories/united-states-playing-card-company">United States Playing Card Company,</a> commissioned by the US Defence Intelligence Agency, received orders for 750,000 of the packs within a week.</p> <p>Further, if the US and UK were blindly ignorant of Iraq’s social and tribal complexities,<a href="http://www.temehu.com/Libyan-People.htm"> those of Libya</a> are more so in orders of magnitude.</p> <p>Just prior to the Iraq invasion, General Colin Powell was quoted as telling George W. Bush, that after the onslaught, “You will own twenty seven million people, Mr President.”</p> <p>At the “Friends of Libya” gathering in Paris on September 1, hosted by Prime Minister Cameron and President Nicholas Sarkozy, a gloating, unnamed British official is quoted in the <em>Economist</em> as saying that “NATO’s involvement in the Libyan uprising means that now we own it”.</p> <p>Sarkozy – recipient, claims Quaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, of his family’s funding for his <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/16/sarkozy-election-campaign-libya-claim">2007 French Presidential election campaign</a> – is widely reported to have been promised one-third of Libya’s oil by the insurgents, the “National Transitional Council”, prior to NATO involvement. With “Friends” like these, Libya certainly needs no enemies.</p> <p>“The international community will be watching and supporting” Libya, said Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, adding requirements to the new Libyan constitution. There is a “clear road map to democracy”. Afghan and Iraqi puppets now joined by Libyan ones.</p> <p>When it comes to the rebuilding of Libya, “investors can’t call the tune”, was one theme, it must be “Libyan led.” UK Foreign Secretary William Hague blew that lie. Britain, he said: “would not be left behind”. Much focus was on rebuilding the oil industry. Heaven forbid that too follows the Iraq model, with the bereaved, dispossessed and invaded blowing up the pipelines – and contractors.</p> <p>It also transpires that the UK’s surely mis-titled “International Development Minister”, former oil trader, Alan Duncan, allegedly had a hand in, and connections to, Swiss based energy giant Vitol, which established links with the NTC rebels, whilst starving Gaddafi’s troops of transportation fuels.</p> <p>Vitol President, Ian Taylor, has allegedly donated very large sums to Cameron’s Tory Party. Opposition MPs are citing a possible covert “Libyan Oil Cell”, an allegedly billion$ deal, questioning whether Mr Duncan’s fingerprints are on it.</p> <p>As to the Conference, there was one dissenting voice. Bertrand Badie, an expert on international relations, told Xinhua:</p> <blockquote><p>I think this conference is very bad sign, because starting a process of state building by an international conference dominated by western powers …</p></blockquote> <p>But even he did not mention mind-bending illegalities.</p> <p>The half day carve-up (sorry, “meeting”) regarding assets of another sovereign land was followed by “a dinner”, according to a US State Department spokeswoman.</p> <p>Incidentally, the Paris Cabal took place on the 42nd anniversary of the Free Officers Movement bringing Gaddafi to power (September 1, 1969.)</p> <p>“You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists’, said George W. Bush on November 1, 2002. Ten years is certainly a long time in politics. There are many who would say they are now funded by the same US and protected by the might of NATO.</p> <p>Activist Sandra Barr, has compiled just a small snapshot of a vast tragedy. Afew incidents amongst uncounted others, “collateral” humanity, to add to a pitiless twenty year rampage through mortality, legality, basic values and all the normal hold precious:</p> <blockquote><p>May 13, 2011: The murder of 11 Muslim Imams in Brega.</p> <p>April 30, 2011: The bombing of the Downs Syndrome School in Tripoli</p> <p>April 30, 2011: The bombing of a Gaddafi residence, murdering Saif Gaddafi, his friend and 3 Gaddafi children.</p> <p>June 12, 2011: The bombing of the University of Tripoli. Death toll not yet established.</p> <p>July 22, 2011: The bombing of the Great Man made Waterway irrigation system, which supplies most Libyans with their drinking water.</p> <p>July 23, 2011: The bombing of the factory which makes the pipes for the water system, and the murder of 6 of its employees.</p> <p>August 8, 2011: The bombing of the Hospital at Zliten. Resulting in the murder of a minimum of 50 human beings, many of them children. The bombing of hospitals is against all international laws, and a most grievous crime.</p> <p>August 9, 2011: The bombing of the village of Majer, resulting in the murder of 85 civilians. 33 Children, 32 women and 20 men.</p> <p>The persistent ongoing bombing of the civilian population in Zliten and Tripoli, death toll not yet established.</p></blockquote> <p>David Cameron has admitted that UK special services have assisted the terrorists on the ground in defiance of the UN mandate.</p> <p>Today, Cameron has gone further, admitting that British forces played a “key role.”</p> <p>Ms Barr demands the ICC take a stance. Sadly, it would amaze if they did.</p> <p>On May 1 Muammar Gaddafi’s youngest son, Saif al-Arab, and three grandchildren were reported killed in an allied air strike on Tripoli. Another nauseating anniversary: George W. Bush, declaring: “Mission Accomplished” – the destruction of Iraq.</p> <p>One can only fervently pray that we do not hear another sickening, “Viceroy” Paul Bremer wannabe, declaring: “Ladies and gentlemen, we got ‘im’, with accompanying kangaroo court and lynchings.</p> <p>The “New Libya”, it seems, with its formerly free, high quality health care, is anyway in bit of trouble. This full page advertisement by Medcines san Frontieres appeared in today’s<em> Mail</em> and<em> Guardian</em> (SA):</p> <blockquote><p>Tripoli, Libya: Months of conflict have put extreme strain on the Libyan health system.</p> <p>We desperately need more staff” – Jonathan Whittal, MSF Emergency Coordinator Tripoli, August 23.</p> <p>MSF URGENTLY NEEDS:</p> <p>Trauma surgeons
<br />Orthopaedic Surgeons
<br />ER Doctors
<br />OT Nurses
<br />Obstetricians and Midwives.</p> <p>Available for short term contracts (3-4 weeks) – able to leave IMMEDIATELY.</p></blockquote> <p>MSF has been working in eastern Libya since February.</p> <p>Another “liberation”, another unimaginable, international, criminal tragedy.</p> <p class="author">Felicity Arbuthnot is a journalist with special knowledge of Iraq. Author, with Nikki van der Gaag, of <em>Baghdad</em> in the Great City series for World Almanac books, she has also been Senior Researcher for two Award winning documentaries on Iraq, John Pilger's <em>Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq</em> and <em>Denis Halliday Returns</em> for RTE (Ireland.) <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/author/FelicityArbuthnot/">Read other articles by Felicity</a>.</p> <p class="postmeta">This article was posted on Saturday, September 3rd, 2011 at 8:01am and is filed under <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/crimes-against-humanity/" title="View all posts in Crimes against Humanity" rel="category tag">Crimes against Humanity</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/disinformation/" title="View all posts in Disinformation" rel="category tag">Disinformation</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/europe/france/" title="View all posts in France" rel="category tag">France</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/asia/middle-east/iraq/" title="View all posts in Iraq" rel="category tag">Iraq</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/africa/libya/" title="View all posts in Libya" rel="category tag">Libya</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/media/" title="View all posts in Media" rel="category tag">Media</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/militarymilitarism/mercenaries/" title="View all posts in Mercenaries" rel="category tag">Mercenaries</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/militarymilitarism/" title="View all posts in Military/Militarism" rel="category tag">Military/Militarism</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/nato/" title="View all posts in NATO" rel="category tag">NATO</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/oil/" title="View all posts in Oil, Gas, Pipelines" rel="category tag">Oil, Gas, Pipelines</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/propaganda/" title="View all posts in Propaganda" rel="category tag">Propaganda</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/europe/united-kingdom/" title="View all posts in United Kingdom" rel="category tag">United Kingdom</a>, <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/category/war-crimes/" title="View all posts in War Crimes" rel="category tag">War Crimes</a>. </p>
<br />NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6960078953996425676.post-41033601723165871502011-09-03T14:16:00.000-07:002011-09-03T14:18:48.740-07:00Documents Reveal CIA's Rendition Deal with Libya<a title="CommonDreams.org" href="http://www.commondreams.org/"><img src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.commondreams.org/images/common-dreams.png" alt="CommonDreams.org" /></a>
<br />
<br /><div class="node-header"> <span class="submitted"> Published on Saturday, September 3, 2011 by <a href="http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE78209820110903">Reuters</a> </span> <div class="node-title"> <h2 class="title"><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/09/03-1">Documents Show Links Between CIA, Libya Spy Unit</a></h2> </div> </div> <div class="node-content clear-block prose"> <div id="node-body"> <p><span>WASHINGTON</span> - Documents found in Tripoli detail close ties between the CIA and Libya's intelligence service and suggest the United States sent terrorism suspects for questioning in Libya despite that country's reputation for torture, the New York Times reported on Saturday.</p><p><span class="image-right" style="width: 275px;"> <img src="http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imagecache/headline_image/article_images/picture_4_8.png" alt="" title="" class="imagecache imagecache-headline_image imagecache-default imagecache-headline_image_default" height="172" width="275" /> <span class="caption"></span></span></p><p><span class="image-right" style="width: 275px;"><span class="caption">Moussa Koussa, the former Libyan Foreign Minister. Koussa defected from now-fugitive leader Muammar Gaddafi's government and flew to Britain on March 30 amid this year's rebel uprising.(EPA) </span></span>The Times reported that the files cover the time from 2002 to 2007, when Moussa Koussa headed Libya's External Security Organization. Koussa most recently had been Libya's foreign minister but defected from now-fugitive leader Muammar Gaddafi's government and flew to Britain on March 30 amid this year's rebel uprising.</p> <p>The newspaper reported that the documents -- including some English-language files concerning the CIA and Britain's MI-6 intelligence agency -- were found on Friday at the abandoned office of Libya's former spy chief by journalists and the group Human Rights Watch.</p> <p>The Times said it was impossible to verify the authenticity of the documents but that their content appears to be consistent with facts known about the U.S. transfer of terrorism suspects abroad for interrogation -- a practice known as rendition -- and other known CIA practices. Renditions occurred under former President George W. Bush's administration.</p> <p>It has been known that Western intelligence services began cooperating with Libya after Gaddafi abandoned his program to build unconventional weapons in 2004. But the files show cooperation with the CIA and MI-6 was more extensive than previously understood, the Times reported.</p> <p>One document appears to be a proposed speech written by the Americans for Gaddafi about renouncing unconventional weapons. Other files show that MI-6 was willing to trace telephone numbers for the Libyans.</p> <p>A series of communications about renditions is dated after Libya's 2004 renouncement of its weapons program. The files mention having a friendly country arrest a terrorism suspect, and then suggest aircraft would be sent to retrieve the suspect and bring him to Libya for questioning, the Times reported.</p> <p>One document detailed a list of 89 questions for the Libyans to ask a terrorism suspect, the Times said.</p> <p>Some documents told the Libyans to respect detainees' human rights but the Americans still turned over the suspects to a Libyan intelligence service with a long-established history of brutality, the Times said.</p> <p>"The rendition program was all about handing over these significant figures related to al Qaeda so they could torture them and get the information they wanted," Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch, who studied the documents in the intelligence headquarters in downtown Tripoli, told the Times.</p> <p>CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood is quoted by the Times as declining to comment specifically on the documents but saying, "It can't come as a surprise that the Central Intelligence Agency works with foreign governments to help protect our country from terrorism and other deadly threats."</p> <p>The British Foreign Office told the Times: "It is the longstanding policy of the government not to comment on intelligence matters."</p> <div class="copyright-info">© 2011 Reuters</div> </div> </div>
<br />NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03499454400310101800noreply@blogger.com0