Attack Syria, Instead of Iran!

Gee, let's see: Syria is smaller than Iraq, which is smaller than Iran, so maybe we should attack Syria, instead of Iran. The US has to attack somebody, doesn't it? Can't you see Republicans thinking this? After all, Romney and all the other monkeys, except Ron Paul, are calling for a much larger Defense budget, and a neat little war would help that along nicely. Further, if we took control of Syria, Iran would have to cave on nukes, wouldn't it? Besides, if we could take over Syria, Israel would be deliriously happy. Republicans do sense that anything they can offer that is more Israel-centric than Obama's strained dialog with Netanyahu, might win them votes among Jews, in places like Florida, and even New York. And campaign funds.

Actually, Syria is closely aligned with Iran, but more importantly, with Russia, and that relationship goes back a long way. So, we attack Syria and Russia might send in materiel, at least, to make Americans bleed.

It's a lot better for the Arabs to lead on this, and for the US to stay the hell out of the way. America's big feet would just mess up the neighborhood even more. The only thing the US should do, is either look for a negotiated peace, or supply the opposition with our best defensive weaponry (if there is such a thing). Or the best of our weaponry that the Free Syrian Army, or whatever they'll call themselves tomorrow, can use given their needs and their skills.

It is true, I think, that the opposition represents a variety of democratic impulses, while Assad's regime represents brutal autocratic rule. Americans should favor democracy, but American business often prefers to dicker with an autocrat--only one or a few to buy off, instead of hundreds in a parliament. American businesses, however, will find it hard to cooperate with an internationally condemned butcher of his own people. And we could have some influence on that, by organizing collective protests, or threatening boycotts.

This is life at the center of a declining empire. The US simply doesn't have the boots to land on the ground to sustain anything meaningful against Assad, especially given the difficulties of the neighborhood. Remember, we helped destroy Russia's Soviet empire by supporting the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Putin might feel that turnabout is fair play. Russia is a Syrian ally, and Putin has been running against western influence since the first time he ran for President. It would probably be popular--as was Reagan's support for the mujahedeen.

I really hope Syria doesn't enter the electoral shouting match, it could initiate the dying gasp of the American Empire and it wouldn't be pretty, sort of like Adrianople, when Fritigern killed the Roman Emperor Valens in 378.

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.

An Anniversary We Should Learn From

What Dien Bien Phu meant, and what it means today.

The French air fortress established there to interdict supplies coming to the Vietminh through Laos, fell on May 7, 1954, after a protracted battle. It was a terrible defeat for the French, and not only mobilized the Vietnamese, but empowered those in France, who had campaigned to end the Indochina war.

The French withdrew from all of Indochina within a year, and although the US attempted to take up the slack in South Vietnam, well, we know the outcome. The significance of Dien Bien Phu is similar to the battle of Adrianople, in which Germanic (barbarian) cavalry overran the Roman army, and captured the ruling Emperor in 378. Colonial empires continued after 1954, and (in the American variant) do to this day, and the Roman Empire lasted for another 98 years in the West, after Adrianople. But both battles demonstrated that new powers were in the ascendancy, and the old were in retreat.

We still are.

In 476, a whole new order, less civilized, less technologically advanced, but more warlike, took formal control of all of Western Europe. After 1954, the French, British, Dutch, Belgians and Portuguese were slowly driven out of their "possessions," and the US attempted to take their place--in Vietnam, especially, and also, tragically, in the Middle East, in Iran.

Afghanistan could create another Dien Bien Phu, if we don't recognize that 'non-western' peoples will control their own fates, even if they have to overcome the incredible barbarism of some of their leaders, like Jalaluddin Haqqani and Mullah Omar.

We may not like what the Taliban stands for--extreme male chauvinism, brutality, fundamentalist Islam--but even if many Afghans hate the Taliban, they are a significant native force in their nation. The NATO and US forces are foreign. We are invaders, perhaps attempting to create a more humane Afghan society, but the inescapable fact is: we are foreigners. Many Afghans, even those who vehemently oppose the Taliban, fear that the US really wants to control their country, which resisted Imperial rule during the whole colonial era. Tragically, they may be at least partially right. American leaders want a "friendly" Afghanistan, meaning one that will bend to American interests.

The US cannot control the world, any more than the French could control Indochina, or the Romans could continue to control all of Europe.

It is because of America's attempt to maintain--and even expand--world hegemony (creating a new Africom, for example), that draws extremists to attack us as in 9/11, and as in the recent Times Square attempt.

The colonial era died at Dien Bien Phu. US imperialism has been attempting to ignore that ever since.

Trained to Kill

An Afghan bystander asked plaintively, after US troops shot up a bus in Kandahar, "Why didn't they shoot out the tires? Why did they shoot the people?"

It's a good question.

When I was in Basic Training back in 1961 (Yes, the Dark Ages), our cry as we lunged at stuffed dummies with our bayonets was: "Kill, Kilo, Kill!" It was Kilo Company, you see.

Since 1961, since the Vietnam war, and then the wars since (quite a few), American soldiers (and marines) have been trained to be more and more lethal killers, it seems. With their weaponry, American troops are probably the most deadly military on Earth.

But in wars of counterinsurgency, killing is counterproductive most of the time. As both military and civilian leaders keep on saying, the American mission in Afghanistan is to win over the people to the established Afghan governing institutions. Killing ten civilians here and 5 there, is not going to win their hearts; shooting pregnant women and then gouging the bullets out of their bodies to hide their crime isn't cool, either: it's going to drive them into the hands of the Taliban.

With the Joker we foisted on them (Karzai), what other choice do they have? We prevented them from naming a stable head of state (their former King), which was the Afghans' first choice in the loya jirga, the one in which they finally were persuaded/pressured (by our Ambassador) to pick Karzai, instead.

Yet, it seems clear, from sources like the Wikileaks video of a helicopter gunner, and this report of the bus killing (four or five dead and 30 wounded?) that American soldiers may be there to win hearts and minds, or to "clear, hold and build," but what they seem to be trained to do best is to kill lots of people--very quickly.

Don't get me wrong: American servicemen and women aren't evil. Most of them probably think and hope they're doing good. And many try hard. But the military-industrial-security complex is evil; it drives people to do evil, whether they know it or not.

When I was stationed in Turkey (1962-3), I worked and bunked with fellow Traffic Analysts, and drank with them, too, occasionally. I liked them, and they all meant well. But the common opinion they held of the local Turks was appalling: dirty "abies," who will always cheat you, or kill you if you so much as look at their women.

I doubt that American soldiers in Afghanistan are as well disposed towards the locals as my friends were. After all, none of the Turks were trying to kill us.

We don't belong there; we end up killing civilians--and being killed. Afghanistan could bury the American Empire as it buried the Soviets in the 1980's; it could weaken us as decisively as Goths debilitated Romans when they beat Emperor Galen at Adrianople in 378, beginning Rome's slide into oblivion.