Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey: where next will the anti-union campaigns erupt? They are sponsored by radical, not "Tea Party," pro-corporate Republicans.
Wisconsin demonstrates that they're trampling on dangerous ground. In each state, the basic strategy is the same: we're in fiscal crisis so public employee unions must be defanged. It doesn't matter if the unions cave on the financial demands--they already have in Wisconsin--they still have to become, in effect, not unions: they are to be denied collective bargaining rights.
As a former member of the National Writers Union, I can attest: a union without collective bargaining rights doesn't make headway as a union. A perennial bill to gain those rights for freelancers has never made it out of Congressional Committee. .
Scott Walker exempts police and firemen, saying: they're public safety officers. But the exemption is political: they supported his election. However, even those exempted union members are visibly supporting the protest in Madison. They know what's at stake: their rights in the workplace.
Not long ago Americans were polled about whether they'd join a union at work, if they could: a clear majority said they would. Yet, because of the anti-union subversion and propaganda by business and business associations, private union employment has declined from a post WWII high of nearly one-third of the labor force, to about 8%. Only public employee unions have gained workers, the largest component of union labor, today. Public Employee unions, Rachel Maddow pointed out, are overwhelmingly supportive of Democrats, providing organization, money and numbers.
Is it any wonder that Republicans have painted a great big target on their backs?
In the South, very few private sector workers are unionized, because the states are "right to work," in which union membership is voluntary when you get a job at a union shop. So, why pay dues? Scott Walker's ploy is the first act in bringing "right to work" and no collective bargaining to as many states as possible.
In Indiana, Republicans are proposing to prohibit collective bargaining in construction, as well as taking away rights for public employees. If they can get away with that, pretty soon, unions will have about as much power as the official unions in China! That may be the point: make American labor "competitive" with the Chinese, with corporations in control.
This is why the protests in Wisconsin are so important, and why protests in Indiana, Ohio and New Jersey may soon erupt: Republicans are determined to get their way. They've found a means to please their funders--ranging from billionaires like Koch, to small businesses--while cutting Democrats off at the knees.
Re unions, Scott Walker is as imperious as a Roman Senator towards his slaves, or Qaddafi facing opposition. He will brook no quarter. Workers shouldn't either.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Qaddafi, King of Kings
Compare Qaddafi to Mubarak and Ben Ali: the latter two look mild by comparison and he's held power for 41 years.
Qaddafi has styled himself as leader of a people's revolution, sequentially a pan-Arabist, a pan-Islamist and finally, a pan-Africanist. He recently crowned himself "King of Kings" at a meeting of African nations; he even tried to sponsor an assembly of Kings, but his Ugandan hosts canceled the meeting as contrary to their constitution!
In his activist heyday, he exported, or supported terrorists or terrorism globally: he's just for revolution, of whatever kind--
Unless its his own people rebelling against him.
Recently, he appeared to go a bit zany with his pseudo-king costumes, but seemed to moderate his politics: he negotiated with the US and the EU, gave up his nuclear weapons program and cooperated with international cases against terrorists he had sponsored.
But, as his current resistance demonstrates, Qaddafi hasn't moderated at all. He defends his own power at all costs. As to costs, he's now using Libya's oil money to fly planeloads of mercenaries from African countries, to mow down his opponents.
A survivor of one massacre in Benghazi said the shooting by Qaddafi's forces was not to drive demonstrators away; “it is meant to kill them.” The security forces might have been Libyans of other tribes--it's a tribally divided society--but they were probably "African mercenaries." The just-resigned deputy Ambassador to the UN from Libya pleaded with African states to stop exporting them to kill his countrymen.
Megalomaniacs can drive nations to fiery cataclysms, and Qaddafi appears willing to go that far--"to the last bullet" his son declared.
Qaddafi has, at times, styled himself as a socialist and even an anarchist (but also a monarchist). He recently moved to abolish most government departments and distribute the oil wealth directly to the Libyan people (except for the part he kept for himself and friends, and for contingencies like this, apparently). He also ranted about creating direct democracy and about abolishing the legislature, favoring local tribal councils.
When leaders like Qaddafi or Napoleon speak of "the people," they are only speaking about themselves, and their own divinely or ideologically inspired insights into what 'the people' want. For Qaddafi, rebelling Libyans can't be 'the people;' they must have been suborned by 'foreign powers.'
Libya may become the most radical Arab revolution yet, because of the violence used against it by Qaddafi, but if Qaddafi prevails, using his hired palace guard, the resulting autocracy could be even worse than before.
Qaddafi is as autocratic as the most arbitrary late Roman Emperor; he speaks a radical line, but struts as if he really was King of Kings! His downfall might further open the region to democracy, but not necessarily to American advantage. The US imperial system in the Mideast will be driven further into disarray if Libya finally sheds its mercurial dictator.
Qaddafi has styled himself as leader of a people's revolution, sequentially a pan-Arabist, a pan-Islamist and finally, a pan-Africanist. He recently crowned himself "King of Kings" at a meeting of African nations; he even tried to sponsor an assembly of Kings, but his Ugandan hosts canceled the meeting as contrary to their constitution!
In his activist heyday, he exported, or supported terrorists or terrorism globally: he's just for revolution, of whatever kind--
Unless its his own people rebelling against him.
Recently, he appeared to go a bit zany with his pseudo-king costumes, but seemed to moderate his politics: he negotiated with the US and the EU, gave up his nuclear weapons program and cooperated with international cases against terrorists he had sponsored.
But, as his current resistance demonstrates, Qaddafi hasn't moderated at all. He defends his own power at all costs. As to costs, he's now using Libya's oil money to fly planeloads of mercenaries from African countries, to mow down his opponents.
A survivor of one massacre in Benghazi said the shooting by Qaddafi's forces was not to drive demonstrators away; “it is meant to kill them.” The security forces might have been Libyans of other tribes--it's a tribally divided society--but they were probably "African mercenaries." The just-resigned deputy Ambassador to the UN from Libya pleaded with African states to stop exporting them to kill his countrymen.
Megalomaniacs can drive nations to fiery cataclysms, and Qaddafi appears willing to go that far--"to the last bullet" his son declared.
Qaddafi has, at times, styled himself as a socialist and even an anarchist (but also a monarchist). He recently moved to abolish most government departments and distribute the oil wealth directly to the Libyan people (except for the part he kept for himself and friends, and for contingencies like this, apparently). He also ranted about creating direct democracy and about abolishing the legislature, favoring local tribal councils.
When leaders like Qaddafi or Napoleon speak of "the people," they are only speaking about themselves, and their own divinely or ideologically inspired insights into what 'the people' want. For Qaddafi, rebelling Libyans can't be 'the people;' they must have been suborned by 'foreign powers.'
Libya may become the most radical Arab revolution yet, because of the violence used against it by Qaddafi, but if Qaddafi prevails, using his hired palace guard, the resulting autocracy could be even worse than before.
Qaddafi is as autocratic as the most arbitrary late Roman Emperor; he speaks a radical line, but struts as if he really was King of Kings! His downfall might further open the region to democracy, but not necessarily to American advantage. The US imperial system in the Mideast will be driven further into disarray if Libya finally sheds its mercurial dictator.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Hypocrisy, Insanity, or Protest?
Egyptians and Tunisians have thrown off their tyrants. They demand all the freedoms a democracy can offer. Libyans, Yemenis and Bahrainis are willing to die for those freedoms.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton lectures the world about America's freedoms. Fine. It's good that we've got the rhetoric right, but what's happening while she's speaking? Ray McGovern, a well-known progressive activist, stands up, and turns his back on her. He's saying something, isn't he? He's protesting the foreign policy she represents, and the wars she promotes. McGovern manifests freedom of speech as Hillary speaks: freedom to protest, too, but he also, inadvertently demonstrates the administration's hypocrisy. Hillary calls in Security. Uniforms arrest McGovern and bundle him off.
Maybe, freedom of speech is not getting shot with live ammunition or rubber bullets. It's being arrested for turning your back on the Secretary of State--and then, eventually being sprung by supporters and human rights activists. Oh, I get it. Because we have laws that can be used, sometimes, to defend ordinary citizens, we have freedom and democracy.
It's good we do have those laws, because the powerful are becoming more brazen, regardless of party. It isn't just governments: corporate honchos are flexing their monetary muscles, too. The confrontation in Wisconsin demonstrates the extremes to which the powerful are willing to go: they want to strip union rights from public employees (their lame excuse: cut the state's deficit). Wisconsin brings together both political and corporate elites, since new Governor Scott Walker(R) is a client of the Koch brothers, energy industry billionaires. The Kochs want to destroy unions and government regulations, especially environmental ones.
Most Democrats in power are either hypocrites, like Hillary, or Republican lite, like Obama. In Wisconsin Democrats do know to support the unions--that's obvious. But New York's new Governor, Andrew Cuomo(D), has sounded almost as anti-union as Walker. And Hillary can go on about the virtues of freedoms, and then have McGovern arrested--for a silent protest.
Remember the millions demonstrating against the war in Iraq before we invaded? I was there, but would Bush have listened if we'd occupied Times Square? What if millions came to occupy the National Mall in Washington, or camped outside the White House to protest, what then? Maybe, they'd protest the Afghan war, torture, the security state with its bloated military, the "PATRIOT Act," black prisons and Guantanamo. Maybe, millions would come to protest the skewed political economy: the wealthy getting trillions of taxpayer dollars while the rest of us get laid off, or slashed wages.
Why don't Americans protest like Egyptians? Maybe we have to be reduced to Egyptian wages and unemployment before people will explode. Romans were passive, more concerned with circuses; then, it was too late. Will we sit by, let Fox News' lies wash over us, stay at home and watch TV? Then it, too, will be too late.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton lectures the world about America's freedoms. Fine. It's good that we've got the rhetoric right, but what's happening while she's speaking? Ray McGovern, a well-known progressive activist, stands up, and turns his back on her. He's saying something, isn't he? He's protesting the foreign policy she represents, and the wars she promotes. McGovern manifests freedom of speech as Hillary speaks: freedom to protest, too, but he also, inadvertently demonstrates the administration's hypocrisy. Hillary calls in Security. Uniforms arrest McGovern and bundle him off.
Maybe, freedom of speech is not getting shot with live ammunition or rubber bullets. It's being arrested for turning your back on the Secretary of State--and then, eventually being sprung by supporters and human rights activists. Oh, I get it. Because we have laws that can be used, sometimes, to defend ordinary citizens, we have freedom and democracy.
It's good we do have those laws, because the powerful are becoming more brazen, regardless of party. It isn't just governments: corporate honchos are flexing their monetary muscles, too. The confrontation in Wisconsin demonstrates the extremes to which the powerful are willing to go: they want to strip union rights from public employees (their lame excuse: cut the state's deficit). Wisconsin brings together both political and corporate elites, since new Governor Scott Walker(R) is a client of the Koch brothers, energy industry billionaires. The Kochs want to destroy unions and government regulations, especially environmental ones.
Most Democrats in power are either hypocrites, like Hillary, or Republican lite, like Obama. In Wisconsin Democrats do know to support the unions--that's obvious. But New York's new Governor, Andrew Cuomo(D), has sounded almost as anti-union as Walker. And Hillary can go on about the virtues of freedoms, and then have McGovern arrested--for a silent protest.
Remember the millions demonstrating against the war in Iraq before we invaded? I was there, but would Bush have listened if we'd occupied Times Square? What if millions came to occupy the National Mall in Washington, or camped outside the White House to protest, what then? Maybe, they'd protest the Afghan war, torture, the security state with its bloated military, the "PATRIOT Act," black prisons and Guantanamo. Maybe, millions would come to protest the skewed political economy: the wealthy getting trillions of taxpayer dollars while the rest of us get laid off, or slashed wages.
Why don't Americans protest like Egyptians? Maybe we have to be reduced to Egyptian wages and unemployment before people will explode. Romans were passive, more concerned with circuses; then, it was too late. Will we sit by, let Fox News' lies wash over us, stay at home and watch TV? Then it, too, will be too late.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Pakistan Versus the US
Our ally, Pakistan, may stand up to the US, yet. Pakistan's government is deciding whether Raymond Davis has US diplomatic immunity.
The circumstances are suggestive. Raymond Davis killed two Pakistanis riding motorcycles, while driving alone in a poor area of Lahore not frequented by foreigners. Davis claimed the cyclists tried to rob him, but he was carrying a loaded Glock, so he shot them. An official US diplomatic vehicle rushing to the rescue, ran over and killed another motorcyclist; then it fled the scene. Davis was arrested.
The US insists Davis holds a diplomatic passport, and therefore is immune from prosecution, but Pakistan imprisoned him, and wants to charge him with a double murder. Another suspicious aspect: while the embassy insists Davis is a “technical and administrative” official, he is also ex-Special Forces.
So, what do you think Raymond C. Davis was doing? He was driving with an armed Glock and "other security gear" in a poor part of Lahore, where he was attacked by three armed motorcyclists. I assume they were armed, since Davis claims they were trying to rob him: the account from the NYT doesn't mention arms, but why else would an official US vehicle attempt rescuing him?
The US insists, and will continue to insist, that “technical and administrative” official, the designation under which Davis was issued his visa, has diplomatic immunity as specified, in that precise language, in the Vienna Convention, which governs diplomatic relations among nations. Our lawyers dot their i's.
But this looks more than suggestive: this looks fishy. The US is protecting with diplomatic immunity what looks like an undercover op, something that's not covered by the Vienna Convention--but probably often practiced by countries with intelligence/covert agencies.
Two principles are at stake: whether the US is lying about Davis and covering up a covert op, and whether Pakistan will stand up to the US.
Pakistan is an extremely nationalistic nation, albeit now a nearly failing nuclear state. Pakistan hasn't surged economically like India, but its geography is crucial--to US hegemony--and we have flooded it with military and development aid. As you might expect, a lot of that money has been pocketed by the powerful; Pakistan is extremely poor, except for the few rich.
Further, the democratic government is extremely weak and highly unpopular, and only the Army is well-organized and fairly functional.
What would a weak, unpopular, ostensibly democratic government do, given that the US is already unpopular in Pakistan? The government might face down the US. It would gain popularity for doing so.
A face down would also demonstrate American helplessness. Talk about "credibility!" The American Empire could be the world's next joke, after Mubarak's defiant speech to the Egyptians--the night before he fled. The Romans lost credibility at the battle of Adrianople; the US could lose it in a Pakistani court.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Strange (Congressional) Bedfellows
I called my newly elected Tea Party Congressman, today. I was surprised to discover: we share at least one important idea. If you're going to cut the government's budget, look to the Pentagon. "Yes," said his aide, "the Congressman has been thinking defense should\ be cut."
I would never have heard my former blue-dog Democratic Congress-people, either Scott Murphy or Kirsten Gillibrand, say anything like that. I always got back some mealy-mouthed answer about "supporting the troops."
I can't agree with cutting Head Start, WIC, or the home heating oil winter aid program proposed by the Republicans in the House. I wouldn't be surprised if Congressman Gibson is for all those cuts. And for cuts in Pell Grants, and aid to schools. Krugman called such cuts "eating our seed corn," which seems about right.
But politics is also the art of cultivating strange bedfellows. There is surprising support, apparently, among the new Tea Party Republicans, for cutting the Defense budget in order to cut the deficit. Obama, most Blue Dog Democrats and mainstream Republicans have all waxed eloquent about ruling out cuts from Defense--except for Gates' minimal recommendations: they support "the troops."
It seems rather hard to swallow, considering that Obama is also proposing to slash food stamps in half (from about $80 billion): the proposed Defense Budget is approximately $553 billion, and together with the separate budgets for wars and intelligence, it weighs in at almost $730 billion (nearly 3/4 of a trillion). For many years, the US has spent more money on Defense than all of the rest of the world combined. Are we safe yet? Why not cut Defense, even if you ignore the perennial findings of huge waste and accounting errors in the Pentagon?
Since Bobby Kennedy, there has been a strong anti-war wing in the Democratic Party, and it has become stronger, relatively, in this Congress, because so many blue dogs went down to defeat, while fewer antiwar Democrats lost their seats.
Now they have natural allies, not just in Ron Paul and Rand Paul, but in Congressmen like Gibson, who was elected as a Tea Party deficit hawk. I don't know if the Pauls supported Gibson, but like them, he's considering defense cuts. I hope he gets together with another Hudson Valley Congressman, Maurice Hinchey, the surviving anti-war Congressman in the region.
Amendments to the continuing resolution, proposed by Congressman Nadler and Polis, would cut the Defense budget by "cutting the empire," i.e. bringing home the troops from Afghanistan (budgeting only for the costs of withdrawal), and radically reducing the troops stationed in Europe.
We could begin our peaceful withdrawal from empire before we are defeated or driven bankrupt. Do we really want to follow Rome, Spain, the USSR? Why not emulate the British Empire's withdrawal (sometimes reluctant) from Asia and Africa? It would make more sense than cutting food stamps.
I would never have heard my former blue-dog Democratic Congress-people, either Scott Murphy or Kirsten Gillibrand, say anything like that. I always got back some mealy-mouthed answer about "supporting the troops."
I can't agree with cutting Head Start, WIC, or the home heating oil winter aid program proposed by the Republicans in the House. I wouldn't be surprised if Congressman Gibson is for all those cuts. And for cuts in Pell Grants, and aid to schools. Krugman called such cuts "eating our seed corn," which seems about right.
But politics is also the art of cultivating strange bedfellows. There is surprising support, apparently, among the new Tea Party Republicans, for cutting the Defense budget in order to cut the deficit. Obama, most Blue Dog Democrats and mainstream Republicans have all waxed eloquent about ruling out cuts from Defense--except for Gates' minimal recommendations: they support "the troops."
It seems rather hard to swallow, considering that Obama is also proposing to slash food stamps in half (from about $80 billion): the proposed Defense Budget is approximately $553 billion, and together with the separate budgets for wars and intelligence, it weighs in at almost $730 billion (nearly 3/4 of a trillion). For many years, the US has spent more money on Defense than all of the rest of the world combined. Are we safe yet? Why not cut Defense, even if you ignore the perennial findings of huge waste and accounting errors in the Pentagon?
Since Bobby Kennedy, there has been a strong anti-war wing in the Democratic Party, and it has become stronger, relatively, in this Congress, because so many blue dogs went down to defeat, while fewer antiwar Democrats lost their seats.
Now they have natural allies, not just in Ron Paul and Rand Paul, but in Congressmen like Gibson, who was elected as a Tea Party deficit hawk. I don't know if the Pauls supported Gibson, but like them, he's considering defense cuts. I hope he gets together with another Hudson Valley Congressman, Maurice Hinchey, the surviving anti-war Congressman in the region.
Amendments to the continuing resolution, proposed by Congressman Nadler and Polis, would cut the Defense budget by "cutting the empire," i.e. bringing home the troops from Afghanistan (budgeting only for the costs of withdrawal), and radically reducing the troops stationed in Europe.
We could begin our peaceful withdrawal from empire before we are defeated or driven bankrupt. Do we really want to follow Rome, Spain, the USSR? Why not emulate the British Empire's withdrawal (sometimes reluctant) from Asia and Africa? It would make more sense than cutting food stamps.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Is Egypt's Army Democratic?
"We were dwarves under Mubarak," said a protester. "Now we are giants." There are moments in history, in the histories of nations and sometimes moments over much of the world, when people feel like that. The day Mubarak was forced to resign, on February 11, 2011, did feel like that, and not just for Egyptians.
I could go on about how Mubarak's fall is a blow against empire, but it really isn't about that. No matter what happens in Egypt, and that's still up in the air, the revolution peacefully accomplished by millions of people against a repressive and rapacious regime is astounding--and inspiring. But it makes me humble, to realize how many people it took, and with what persistence, and against what odds--and with 300+ dead--heroes of the revolution, perhaps.
I don't know if I'd have had the guts to go to Tahrir Square on one of those early days, nor to persist for 18 days; I know I loathe committees and crowds, and yet I hope I would have been there.
What comes afterward is still open to speculation. The army is now, again, in control, as it has been at each turning point in Egypt since it overthrew King Farouk in 1952. Some speculate that Egypt's senior officers might be more inclined to reconstitute the regime without Mubarak and Suleiman, than to institute true democracy. They have too much to lose: luxurious villas, lucrative industries and power.
But in those 18 days, the Army played a sophisticated game. It appears that the conservative high command knew they had to be careful, since they lead a conscript army, whose lower ranks often seemed to sympathize with the protesters. On the other hand, they want to protect their accustomed and expected perks, so there is a tension between the demands of the protesters and the generals' interests.
If I were an Egyptian general, I would have argued not for repression, but for flexibility. I would have said that the Army could give way over Mubarak and then people won't notice that we still have the same system that rewards us so handsomely.
This may be why some say more protests will be necessary, and they're ready to continue to protest in Tahrir Square. They should if the army simply re-establishes its Mubarak era.
However, given the mass turmoil all over the Middle East, it's hard to see the Egyptian Army turning its back on the popular demands. Old guys like General Tantawi may want to, but even the younger generals know they could have a bloody revolution on their hands if they tried to re-establish the status quo.
As for the American role, if it doesn't adapt to the emerging order, its influence in the Middle East will shrink even faster, and there's goes the Empire!
I could go on about how Mubarak's fall is a blow against empire, but it really isn't about that. No matter what happens in Egypt, and that's still up in the air, the revolution peacefully accomplished by millions of people against a repressive and rapacious regime is astounding--and inspiring. But it makes me humble, to realize how many people it took, and with what persistence, and against what odds--and with 300+ dead--heroes of the revolution, perhaps.
I don't know if I'd have had the guts to go to Tahrir Square on one of those early days, nor to persist for 18 days; I know I loathe committees and crowds, and yet I hope I would have been there.
What comes afterward is still open to speculation. The army is now, again, in control, as it has been at each turning point in Egypt since it overthrew King Farouk in 1952. Some speculate that Egypt's senior officers might be more inclined to reconstitute the regime without Mubarak and Suleiman, than to institute true democracy. They have too much to lose: luxurious villas, lucrative industries and power.
But in those 18 days, the Army played a sophisticated game. It appears that the conservative high command knew they had to be careful, since they lead a conscript army, whose lower ranks often seemed to sympathize with the protesters. On the other hand, they want to protect their accustomed and expected perks, so there is a tension between the demands of the protesters and the generals' interests.
If I were an Egyptian general, I would have argued not for repression, but for flexibility. I would have said that the Army could give way over Mubarak and then people won't notice that we still have the same system that rewards us so handsomely.
This may be why some say more protests will be necessary, and they're ready to continue to protest in Tahrir Square. They should if the army simply re-establishes its Mubarak era.
However, given the mass turmoil all over the Middle East, it's hard to see the Egyptian Army turning its back on the popular demands. Old guys like General Tantawi may want to, but even the younger generals know they could have a bloody revolution on their hands if they tried to re-establish the status quo.
As for the American role, if it doesn't adapt to the emerging order, its influence in the Middle East will shrink even faster, and there's goes the Empire!
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Palin and the Brothers (Muslim)
Egyptian VP, Suleiman, suggested unspecified “other people” and “an Islamic current” were pushing the young people forward. “It’s not their idea,” he said. “It comes from abroad” (NYT 2/6/11). Rashid Mohammed Rashid, a former minister went further. He said of Americans, "There was so much interference. They shouldn’t actually get involved in this.”
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin claims that, "...surely they know more than the rest of us know, who it is who will be taking the place of Mubarak." (ABC 2/6/11) She doesn't like that very much. 'They' clearly refers to Obama/Clinton/Biden.
So, it looks like a consensus between the Egyptian regime and Palin, that Americans are running the show, behind the scenes--or the Muslim Brotherhood is, but we can't support them, because they're Muslim extremists.
A Muslim extremist is not the same as a fundamentalist. The Saudi regime is fundamentalist, and although extremists have spawned there, the monarchy is fighting them as hard as we are. Apparently, the Brotherhood is more moderate than the Saudis; it does not favor extremism.
The Brotherhood is clearly not behind the revolt in Egypt; it is a participant after the fact, and most of the revolutionary activists in Tahrir Square appear to be young, secular and un-supportive of fundamentalists taking power. The Brotherhood has appeared reluctant to take a prominent role in the uprising, even stating that they won't run candidates in the coming elections, either in September or later. They may end up with some power, since they are the best-organized opposition grouping, but that doesn't mean they'll be in a position to order attacks on Israel, or the Coptic Church.
Mubarak has held on to power so long, by cozening his country and the world with the 'extremist threat' and predicting 'chaos' après moi. Palin still buys it. Now, Mubarak's regime is trying to blame all the unrest on 'foreigners,' and Palin assumes Obama is calling the shots. Both sell paranoia. And they feed on each other. Both promote only one American interest--the sale of more American war toys.
In Tahrir Square, today, Muslims kept guard while Coptic Christians had a service, and Coptic Christians, earlier kept guard while Muslims prayed. Where are those extremists?
It's true that Obama/Hillary/Biden/Wisner are pressing Mubarak and the opposition to follow their script for a "peaceful transition," but neither side is listening. The inchoate, but determined and persistent opposition/revolution wants Mubarak out now, and they have good reasons. Mubarak seems determined to stay, even though he won't run again. By staying, he could control the succession, which is precisely why the protesters want him out now.
But if America isn't in control, then the Emperor has no clothes. That's not a bad thing, but most Americans still assume the opposite, and think conspiracy when events prove otherwise. The right wing battens on this paranoia, as they hasten the American Empire's decline.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin claims that, "...surely they know more than the rest of us know, who it is who will be taking the place of Mubarak." (ABC 2/6/11) She doesn't like that very much. 'They' clearly refers to Obama/Clinton/Biden.
So, it looks like a consensus between the Egyptian regime and Palin, that Americans are running the show, behind the scenes--or the Muslim Brotherhood is, but we can't support them, because they're Muslim extremists.
A Muslim extremist is not the same as a fundamentalist. The Saudi regime is fundamentalist, and although extremists have spawned there, the monarchy is fighting them as hard as we are. Apparently, the Brotherhood is more moderate than the Saudis; it does not favor extremism.
The Brotherhood is clearly not behind the revolt in Egypt; it is a participant after the fact, and most of the revolutionary activists in Tahrir Square appear to be young, secular and un-supportive of fundamentalists taking power. The Brotherhood has appeared reluctant to take a prominent role in the uprising, even stating that they won't run candidates in the coming elections, either in September or later. They may end up with some power, since they are the best-organized opposition grouping, but that doesn't mean they'll be in a position to order attacks on Israel, or the Coptic Church.
Mubarak has held on to power so long, by cozening his country and the world with the 'extremist threat' and predicting 'chaos' après moi. Palin still buys it. Now, Mubarak's regime is trying to blame all the unrest on 'foreigners,' and Palin assumes Obama is calling the shots. Both sell paranoia. And they feed on each other. Both promote only one American interest--the sale of more American war toys.
In Tahrir Square, today, Muslims kept guard while Coptic Christians had a service, and Coptic Christians, earlier kept guard while Muslims prayed. Where are those extremists?
It's true that Obama/Hillary/Biden/Wisner are pressing Mubarak and the opposition to follow their script for a "peaceful transition," but neither side is listening. The inchoate, but determined and persistent opposition/revolution wants Mubarak out now, and they have good reasons. Mubarak seems determined to stay, even though he won't run again. By staying, he could control the succession, which is precisely why the protesters want him out now.
But if America isn't in control, then the Emperor has no clothes. That's not a bad thing, but most Americans still assume the opposite, and think conspiracy when events prove otherwise. The right wing battens on this paranoia, as they hasten the American Empire's decline.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
My Personal History Collides with Egypt
When Mubarak's supporters attacked Egyptian protesters with sticks and knives, I felt an unwelcome kinship. Most of the pro-government demonstrators are probably goons from the security services; my mother's family was high up in similar institutions in Venezuela when Juan Vicente Gomez was military dictator (1908 to 1935). When Gomez died in 1935 (of natural causes), my Great Uncle Velasco, Governor of Caracas, delayed news of Gomez's death by 24 hours. He needed time to load a gunboat with all his valuables, so he could flee to Costa Rica.
My grandfather was not so foresighted. When he was Gomez's governor in Estado Falcon, he invested in land; when Gomez died, he lost it all.
Velasco was known for a particular form of torture, so it's likely that his appointees' main job was regime security. My mother's father, and almost all his brothers, worked for Velasco. My uncles were probably counterparts to the Cairenes deploying the police goons in mufti, today--not the men wielding sticks and knives, or riding horses and camels into Tahrir Square, but the ones who sent them.
My sympathies go out to the anti-government protesters, who defended themselves with stones.
Deploying the pro-government goons would be something Gomez might have done, but Gomez was always careful to tightly control his military. It was not a conscript army. In Egypt it is, dividing the army into elite officers and civilian soldiers.
The chaos and violence precipitated by Mubarak's followers is probably a tactic for bringing the army over to the President's side. The officers revere order, and order is now being visibly disrupted--by the President's men.
There have been extraordinary stories in both Tunisia and Cairo of the demonstrators/protesters policing themselves; there were even TV scenes of young men cleaning up the trash in Tahrir Square. Other stories told of young men protecting neighborhoods from looting, and of the elaborate but self-deputized efforts of the protesters to screen newcomers, preventing them from bringing weapons into Tahrir Square.
And then on Wednesday, the army let in the pro-Mubarak demonstrators with knives, clubs, and even a few guns.
Either the army still feels constrained when faced by security forces, or it prefers a passive role: letting the protesters protest, and letting the counter-protesters into the square--until it tries to separate them with armored cars. Maybe the army sees itself as Egypt's arbitrator.
The people recruited for the pro-Mubarak demonstrations are like the people who worked for my mother's family. Now, in Venezuela, my cousins are united in their disgust for Chavez.
But it was the people who won for Chavez in Venezuela, after he was toppled in a coup. The Egyptian people can win, too; I hope they have better luck in leaders.
Their triumph will mark another important step in the decline of the American Empire.
My grandfather was not so foresighted. When he was Gomez's governor in Estado Falcon, he invested in land; when Gomez died, he lost it all.
Velasco was known for a particular form of torture, so it's likely that his appointees' main job was regime security. My mother's father, and almost all his brothers, worked for Velasco. My uncles were probably counterparts to the Cairenes deploying the police goons in mufti, today--not the men wielding sticks and knives, or riding horses and camels into Tahrir Square, but the ones who sent them.
My sympathies go out to the anti-government protesters, who defended themselves with stones.
Deploying the pro-government goons would be something Gomez might have done, but Gomez was always careful to tightly control his military. It was not a conscript army. In Egypt it is, dividing the army into elite officers and civilian soldiers.
The chaos and violence precipitated by Mubarak's followers is probably a tactic for bringing the army over to the President's side. The officers revere order, and order is now being visibly disrupted--by the President's men.
There have been extraordinary stories in both Tunisia and Cairo of the demonstrators/protesters policing themselves; there were even TV scenes of young men cleaning up the trash in Tahrir Square. Other stories told of young men protecting neighborhoods from looting, and of the elaborate but self-deputized efforts of the protesters to screen newcomers, preventing them from bringing weapons into Tahrir Square.
And then on Wednesday, the army let in the pro-Mubarak demonstrators with knives, clubs, and even a few guns.
Either the army still feels constrained when faced by security forces, or it prefers a passive role: letting the protesters protest, and letting the counter-protesters into the square--until it tries to separate them with armored cars. Maybe the army sees itself as Egypt's arbitrator.
The people recruited for the pro-Mubarak demonstrations are like the people who worked for my mother's family. Now, in Venezuela, my cousins are united in their disgust for Chavez.
But it was the people who won for Chavez in Venezuela, after he was toppled in a coup. The Egyptian people can win, too; I hope they have better luck in leaders.
Their triumph will mark another important step in the decline of the American Empire.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Revolution in Egypt
There aren't quite as many people in Tahrir (Liberation) Square as there are particles of snow falling from NY's sky, but the numbers are overwhelming. Al Jazeera estimated that there were at least two million people there on Tuesday (2/1/11), and many were determined to stay the night, insuring ownership of the square.
What is important for Egypt's apparent revolution is that the Army is not blocking it; in fact, it appears to be helping the protesters maintain order. There is an important reason for this, relevant to us: Egypt has a draft, so the army is filled not with professionals, or poverty recruits, as is ours, but with a cross-section of the young men of the nation. Given such a make-up, it would be risky and dangerous for the army to order its soldiers to shoot to kill their fellow Egyptians. The generals could face a general mutiny, an element that helped precipitate the Soviet revolution in Russia.
The question on everyone's mind, from Obama and Hillary to Joe Blow, is what does the likely overthrow of the US's ally of 30 years, President Mubarak, mean for American interests?
First of all, the worst thing the US could do, would be to support Mubarak and drive out the protesters. Second, what the US does short of a misguided intervention is less important; the Egyptian people have clearly made up their minds: Mubarak has to go. What comes next is still up in the air.
The Muslim Brotherhood has been repressed in Egypt since the 1950's, but it seems to be the most organized opposition force. However, the people interviewed in Liberation Square, and in Alexandria, appear to have a more secular bent, so no one knows who will prevail. Further, Mohammed El Baradei, probably an interim figure, is also secular, not an "Islamist."
In any case, Egypt will go in whatever direction it goes, whether through popular pressure or military decision. If the latter, it might be cautiously pro-western. However, if Egypt does have regime change (likely), then there could be a domino effect, and that could affect "our oil." After all, Egypt is the most populous Arab nation, and has been the center of learning in the Middle East for millennia, so the popular overthrow of a pro-western dictator there could have manifold consequences.
One conservative commentator is shrilly warning against $120 oil: even that is possible. It is almost guaranteed, however, that US sponsorship of conservative dictators in the region will no longer insure US regional control.
The Egyptian and Tunisian popular revolutions signal the beginning of the end of the US's current Mideast strategy and tactics. Either, the US adapts to the new facts on the ground, or the popular outpouring will cause a significant weakening of the US Empire. It is one more movement towards a multi-polar world.
What is important for Egypt's apparent revolution is that the Army is not blocking it; in fact, it appears to be helping the protesters maintain order. There is an important reason for this, relevant to us: Egypt has a draft, so the army is filled not with professionals, or poverty recruits, as is ours, but with a cross-section of the young men of the nation. Given such a make-up, it would be risky and dangerous for the army to order its soldiers to shoot to kill their fellow Egyptians. The generals could face a general mutiny, an element that helped precipitate the Soviet revolution in Russia.
The question on everyone's mind, from Obama and Hillary to Joe Blow, is what does the likely overthrow of the US's ally of 30 years, President Mubarak, mean for American interests?
First of all, the worst thing the US could do, would be to support Mubarak and drive out the protesters. Second, what the US does short of a misguided intervention is less important; the Egyptian people have clearly made up their minds: Mubarak has to go. What comes next is still up in the air.
The Muslim Brotherhood has been repressed in Egypt since the 1950's, but it seems to be the most organized opposition force. However, the people interviewed in Liberation Square, and in Alexandria, appear to have a more secular bent, so no one knows who will prevail. Further, Mohammed El Baradei, probably an interim figure, is also secular, not an "Islamist."
In any case, Egypt will go in whatever direction it goes, whether through popular pressure or military decision. If the latter, it might be cautiously pro-western. However, if Egypt does have regime change (likely), then there could be a domino effect, and that could affect "our oil." After all, Egypt is the most populous Arab nation, and has been the center of learning in the Middle East for millennia, so the popular overthrow of a pro-western dictator there could have manifold consequences.
One conservative commentator is shrilly warning against $120 oil: even that is possible. It is almost guaranteed, however, that US sponsorship of conservative dictators in the region will no longer insure US regional control.
The Egyptian and Tunisian popular revolutions signal the beginning of the end of the US's current Mideast strategy and tactics. Either, the US adapts to the new facts on the ground, or the popular outpouring will cause a significant weakening of the US Empire. It is one more movement towards a multi-polar world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)