Propaganda in the form of a TV series: it really sounds/looks as if it comes from the CIA.
Madam Secretary is a made for streaming on Netscape.
The new Secretary, “the Company’s” emergency candidate after the last one exploded near Africa, is a youngish, good-looking blonde, who doesn’t care about her appearance, until it becomes necessary. She cares about “making a difference.” It appears she’s ex-CIA, and still well-connected to it: the diplomatic corps, not at all, apparently.
Action involves a heart-rending kidnapping of two teens in Syria. Her solution, after a failed “extraction” attempt: shady international mafia/CIA connections, $1.5 million, and the two boys are kissing the ground as they arrive back in the good old USA.
You see. Just let the CIA do it. You don’t even need the Pentagon. CIA and its myriad foreign allies and illicit connections can fix everything, and for so little money.
I mean: $1.5 million to get those two American boys out of Syria: you can bet the previous “extraction” attempt cost more.
A few minutes mistake of mine cost our military $10,000, my angry Sergeant told me (in 1963).
So, the CIA solves our problems by cutting corners. But it hasn’t solved our problems in the past. The CIA’s first great triumph was overthrowing the “Socialist” (not Communist) Mossadegh in Iran, and installing the Shah and a pro-western government, that opened up Iran to US exploitation—of its oil. So, why did those ungrateful Iranians rebel and establish the Islamic Republic?
Extreme religion breeds in such instances; it finds fertile ground. The Iranian revolution was part religious, a large part nationalist, as in expel the exploitative foreigners who don’t even know how cultured and sophisticated we are, even as we are good Muslims.
But here’s the point: it was CIA meddling that destabilized Iran enough to make the Islamic revolution happen.
Not that Pentagon meddling in Iraq was even as successful. We’d be a lot better off with Saddam, and the semi-stability he maintained, than the chaos that Iraq is now. So would the Iraqis, except, possibly, the Shia in the south.
CIA disasters are legion: Bay of Pigs, Castro assassination plots, Allende-Pinochet, the Guatemalan coup against Social Democrat Jacopo Arbenz that began civil war lasting a generation. The intel during the Iraq war, perhaps “the best in the world,’ was “tailored.” CIA assessments of Soviet strength was consistently boosted, so Defense expenditures could rise.
Perhaps every major nation has to have intelligence services. Point of disclosure: I was a lowly analyst of radio traffic in places like Sinop, Turkey and Bad Aibling, then West Germany. I found the work rewarding: I was helping to monitor what the Soviets were doing, and possibly all of our work was mandated by international treaties. It was understood they did the same.
To solve problems through these same undercover institutions—and their illicit connections—injects real moral problems into American foreign policy.
Which is what we’re doing with our drone wars, almost none of which are officially acknowledged in the country in which the bombing happens, except for our limping survivor, Afghanistan.
The CIA only conducts about a third of the attacks; they are much less mouthy about them, compared to the Pentagon. The latter will give medals to drone “pilots” in their bunkers, in the Rockies, probably in a poor attempt to bolster morale.
Drone pilots, it seems, can’t stand the work: seeing real people in real time destroyed, graphically, before their eyes, onscreen, by the drones they control 3,000 miles away—and then having to work seven days a week, 12 hours a day, because the Air Force can’t train them as fast as they’re leaving. A canker at the heart of the Empire.
Which brings me back to Madam Secretary, and a lot of other “product” available at places like Netflix and Amazon. There is a noticeable (to me) attempt to persuade us that we have to be hard-boiled. We have to use any means, even torture, but only when necessary: we’re the good guys. Morality is… troublesome.
What do we stand for? It’s not at all clear, except, we’re Americans, so we must be good. I don’t think the words ‘democracy,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘liberty,’ were even spoken during the episode I saw of Madam Secretary.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
War with DAESH/ISIS?
Are these the times when even the NYT promotes war?
Yesterday, 12/7/15, in ‘Obama Says of Terrorist Threat: 'We Will Overcome It,’ the NYT reported on Obama’s oval office speech.
You’d think the “paper of record” would cover significant points put forward in the President’s address, but you’d be wrong. There was much about what Obama had done and was doing about Daesh*, aka Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL militarily, but no mention of his major, multilateral initiative with Russia, Iran, China, France and Saudi Arabia (number 4 of his points), in which tentative agreements have already been reached on a process to establish a cease-fire between ‘moderate’ opposition forces and the Syrian Government, with the further tentative agreement that the initial result would be an interim government. Without an agreement, no progress against Daesh is possible. Why? Arab Sunnis rebelling against both Iraqi and Syrian Shiite/Alawite dominated governments are not going to fight against Daesh, which is also Sunni Arab, though extremist thugs, until the conflict between the rest of the (Sunni) opposition is at least tentatively resolved.
Russia’s initial solution—backing Assad—won’t bring Sunnis to its side; it can drive them into the arms of Daesh.
American Republicans call for war with Daesh, inching towards US troops on the ground, but that’s precisely what Daesh wants. It would empower it to portray itself as Islam attacked by Infidels, which would make its current successful worldwide recruiting look pale by comparison.
Yes, it would lose on the battlefield, but we’ve been down that road too many times: The US lost no battles in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, but it effectively lost all three wars. Attacking Daesh directly would have the same result, but it could be global; the West, even Russia and China, could be under constant attack of the kind demonstrated in San Bernardino. We might call it Terror by Example, or Inspirational Terror, instead of a Terror Network.
Further, to demonize and alienate Muslims, as Trump and his ditto-heads advocate, would be counter-productive: it would prime Muslims all over the world, including those in the US (relatively well integrated and prosperous up until now) to be even more receptive to Daesh than its small thuggish fringe has been already.
*Daesh is the Arabic acronym for Islamic State in Syria and the Levant, but it sounds like the Arabic words for one who crushes something underfoot, or one who sows discord, hence it is intensely disliked by Daesh adherents. IS is not appropriate, since it is not a true state, only a conquest gang or a global mafia.
You’d think the “paper of record” would cover significant points put forward in the President’s address, but you’d be wrong. There was much about what Obama had done and was doing about Daesh*, aka Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL militarily, but no mention of his major, multilateral initiative with Russia, Iran, China, France and Saudi Arabia (number 4 of his points), in which tentative agreements have already been reached on a process to establish a cease-fire between ‘moderate’ opposition forces and the Syrian Government, with the further tentative agreement that the initial result would be an interim government. Without an agreement, no progress against Daesh is possible. Why? Arab Sunnis rebelling against both Iraqi and Syrian Shiite/Alawite dominated governments are not going to fight against Daesh, which is also Sunni Arab, though extremist thugs, until the conflict between the rest of the (Sunni) opposition is at least tentatively resolved.
Russia’s initial solution—backing Assad—won’t bring Sunnis to its side; it can drive them into the arms of Daesh.
American Republicans call for war with Daesh, inching towards US troops on the ground, but that’s precisely what Daesh wants. It would empower it to portray itself as Islam attacked by Infidels, which would make its current successful worldwide recruiting look pale by comparison.
Yes, it would lose on the battlefield, but we’ve been down that road too many times: The US lost no battles in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, but it effectively lost all three wars. Attacking Daesh directly would have the same result, but it could be global; the West, even Russia and China, could be under constant attack of the kind demonstrated in San Bernardino. We might call it Terror by Example, or Inspirational Terror, instead of a Terror Network.
Further, to demonize and alienate Muslims, as Trump and his ditto-heads advocate, would be counter-productive: it would prime Muslims all over the world, including those in the US (relatively well integrated and prosperous up until now) to be even more receptive to Daesh than its small thuggish fringe has been already.
*Daesh is the Arabic acronym for Islamic State in Syria and the Levant, but it sounds like the Arabic words for one who crushes something underfoot, or one who sows discord, hence it is intensely disliked by Daesh adherents. IS is not appropriate, since it is not a true state, only a conquest gang or a global mafia.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Open Letter to Senator Schumer
Dear Senator Schumer,
I was more than dismayed to read that you intended to vote against the Iran treaty.
I understand that you did much research, and spoke to many people in the Administration, as well as opponents of the treaty; I understand that you considered the position of the Israeli government, as well as our own. I even understand that you considered the concerns of your New York constituents, of which I am one.
However, your position on the treaty is extremely short-sighted. It is making the perfect enemy of the good.
Without American participation in the treaty’s enforcement, we will have the worst of alternatives: the treaty will likely still be ratified by our partners (the P4 + 1), we will still have United Nations approval; the sanctions of our partners will be lifted; the US and Israel will stand alone against it.
Or, the treaty will not pass internationally, and we will inevitably have war.
We will not get a “better” treaty. The kind of inspections regime that opponents appear to be proposing would only be agreed to by a nation that has been militarily destroyed, as was Germany and Japan in WWII.
Since we are already over-extended militarily, since we will NOT have international support if we unilaterally attack Iran, any military attempt to stop Iran from going nuclear will inevitably be counter-productive: it will push Iran into building nuclear weapons as fast as they can; it will not do more than delay nuclearization.
By contrast, the treaty would at least delay possible nuclear weapons for ten to fifteen years, and in that time Iran could become a more responsible and moderate nation, since it would have more interchange with the rest of the world. Like many other nations, it could forego developing nuclear weapons (as it claims to have done already).
Further, war with Iran would be many times worse than our ill-advised adventures into Vietnam and Iraq. Iran is several times the size of Iraq; it has an effective political system that would mobilize its population in a way that Iraq was unable to do; war with Iran would probably enable Islamic State to make greater conquests, since Iran is one of its main opponents in the region. War would radically increase the chaos in the Middle East—chaos for which we are already responsible for a good part. The US could bankrupt itself in such a war.
War would also eliminate any chance for the kind of progressive domestic policies that you and I both favor.
To oppose the treaty will ultimately not help Israel, either. It will weaken the US, and drive Iran into a much more belligerent policy towards Israel; it is now rhetorically hostile, but has been tacitly supportive of US actions against Islamic State and could become more cooperative, not less, if the US supports the treaty. Further, the unhinged ravings of former Iranian President, Ahmadinejad, do not represent current Iranian policy, nor the majority of the Iranian people, as witnessed by its more moderate current government. To oppose the treaty would strengthen, not weaken those elements in Iran most inimical to Israel and the US.
To oppose any reasonable treaty on the grounds that peace with Iran will benefit it economically, is to advocate the pauperization of a nation that could play a positive role in the region if it were welcomed and if it benefitted from full participation on the world stage.
It may be true that the treaty will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in 15 years, but it is our best chance at prevention, especially if Iran, as a full participant in regional and world affairs is led to realize that nuclear weapons would not be in its interest.
If you vote against the treaty, I for one will do all I can to oppose your re-election to the Senate, since, to me, such a position is antithetical to the progressive politics that you claim to stand for.
Sincerely
Douglas C. Smyth
I understand that you did much research, and spoke to many people in the Administration, as well as opponents of the treaty; I understand that you considered the position of the Israeli government, as well as our own. I even understand that you considered the concerns of your New York constituents, of which I am one.
However, your position on the treaty is extremely short-sighted. It is making the perfect enemy of the good.
Without American participation in the treaty’s enforcement, we will have the worst of alternatives: the treaty will likely still be ratified by our partners (the P4 + 1), we will still have United Nations approval; the sanctions of our partners will be lifted; the US and Israel will stand alone against it.
Or, the treaty will not pass internationally, and we will inevitably have war.
We will not get a “better” treaty. The kind of inspections regime that opponents appear to be proposing would only be agreed to by a nation that has been militarily destroyed, as was Germany and Japan in WWII.
Since we are already over-extended militarily, since we will NOT have international support if we unilaterally attack Iran, any military attempt to stop Iran from going nuclear will inevitably be counter-productive: it will push Iran into building nuclear weapons as fast as they can; it will not do more than delay nuclearization.
By contrast, the treaty would at least delay possible nuclear weapons for ten to fifteen years, and in that time Iran could become a more responsible and moderate nation, since it would have more interchange with the rest of the world. Like many other nations, it could forego developing nuclear weapons (as it claims to have done already).
Further, war with Iran would be many times worse than our ill-advised adventures into Vietnam and Iraq. Iran is several times the size of Iraq; it has an effective political system that would mobilize its population in a way that Iraq was unable to do; war with Iran would probably enable Islamic State to make greater conquests, since Iran is one of its main opponents in the region. War would radically increase the chaos in the Middle East—chaos for which we are already responsible for a good part. The US could bankrupt itself in such a war.
War would also eliminate any chance for the kind of progressive domestic policies that you and I both favor.
To oppose the treaty will ultimately not help Israel, either. It will weaken the US, and drive Iran into a much more belligerent policy towards Israel; it is now rhetorically hostile, but has been tacitly supportive of US actions against Islamic State and could become more cooperative, not less, if the US supports the treaty. Further, the unhinged ravings of former Iranian President, Ahmadinejad, do not represent current Iranian policy, nor the majority of the Iranian people, as witnessed by its more moderate current government. To oppose the treaty would strengthen, not weaken those elements in Iran most inimical to Israel and the US.
To oppose any reasonable treaty on the grounds that peace with Iran will benefit it economically, is to advocate the pauperization of a nation that could play a positive role in the region if it were welcomed and if it benefitted from full participation on the world stage.
It may be true that the treaty will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in 15 years, but it is our best chance at prevention, especially if Iran, as a full participant in regional and world affairs is led to realize that nuclear weapons would not be in its interest.
If you vote against the treaty, I for one will do all I can to oppose your re-election to the Senate, since, to me, such a position is antithetical to the progressive politics that you claim to stand for.
Sincerely
Douglas C. Smyth
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Keep Guantanamo Open!
In response to GOP Congressional insistence on including a $200 million Defense appropriation to build new barracks at Guantanamo, after Obama declares he'll try again to close it:
Anything that boosts Defense Appropriations is a good thing, obviously.
It's estimated that 3-8% of released Guantanamo detainees may have returned to terrorism. Even if a third of detainees returned to terrorism--largely in their own countries--would their actions cost more than the loss of credibility the US expends by keeping Guantanamo open? Guantanamo continues to imprison 86 men convicted of no crime, and cleared for release three years ago.
It's about the money. Defense contractors favor their friends: Republicans continue to be their loudest and most effective supporters.
The Guantanamo appropriation is symptomatic of the whole Defense complex. It makes you wonder: who really controls?
Noam Chomsky suggested in a recent article, "Humanity Imperiled," that the US has consistently opted for policies that increase tensions not reduce them. Examples included: JFK not agreeing to a public compromise to the Cuban Missile Crisis, risking nuclear war to achieve a secret deal that appeared as if only Krushchev backed down.
In '73 Kissinger risked nuclear war, calling a high nuclear alert, to warn the USSR not to interfere in the Arab-Israel war; in 1983, Reagan ordered SAC bombers to penetrate Soviet airspace to test their responses--risking nuclear war, again. Last year, Obama rejected meeting multilaterally with Iran to consider a nuclear ban in the Middle East.
A decade earlier, Clinton quashed an Israeli-North Korean agreement that would have stopped North Korean exports of nuclear and missile technology in return for Israel's recognition. Agreements with North Korea by Clinton and later, Bush, were sabotaged by the latter, when he reneged on the agreement and intensified sanctions. Obama just oversaw a US-South Korea military exercise that had mock bombing runs up to North Korea's borders. Each incident elicited a predictably bellicose North Korean response.
The US invaded Afghanistan claiming it was responsible for 911 (most of the 911 terrorists were Saudis, the planning was done in Germany and the US), and then invaded Iraq--Bush's personal vendetta--and upended the Middle East. Now the US is engaged in sub-rosa wars: in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and probably in more places we don't know about.
Is there a pattern here? Regardless of the President, ever since Eisenhower warned against the growing power of the "defense-industrial complex," US policy has favored an increasingly militaristic foreign policy. The military, and/or the industries that batten from it, push the US toward aggression: they profit from it.
Everyone else, worldwide, is impoverished and endangered, including the American Empire. Its overreach, and the selfishness of our Senatorial class, is bankrupting us and helping to destroy the planet, much as Rome despoiled Europe and the Mediterranean, then bankrupted itself through endless wars and the rapacity of the Senatorial class.
Anything that boosts Defense Appropriations is a good thing, obviously.
It's estimated that 3-8% of released Guantanamo detainees may have returned to terrorism. Even if a third of detainees returned to terrorism--largely in their own countries--would their actions cost more than the loss of credibility the US expends by keeping Guantanamo open? Guantanamo continues to imprison 86 men convicted of no crime, and cleared for release three years ago.
It's about the money. Defense contractors favor their friends: Republicans continue to be their loudest and most effective supporters.
The Guantanamo appropriation is symptomatic of the whole Defense complex. It makes you wonder: who really controls?
Noam Chomsky suggested in a recent article, "Humanity Imperiled," that the US has consistently opted for policies that increase tensions not reduce them. Examples included: JFK not agreeing to a public compromise to the Cuban Missile Crisis, risking nuclear war to achieve a secret deal that appeared as if only Krushchev backed down.
In '73 Kissinger risked nuclear war, calling a high nuclear alert, to warn the USSR not to interfere in the Arab-Israel war; in 1983, Reagan ordered SAC bombers to penetrate Soviet airspace to test their responses--risking nuclear war, again. Last year, Obama rejected meeting multilaterally with Iran to consider a nuclear ban in the Middle East.
A decade earlier, Clinton quashed an Israeli-North Korean agreement that would have stopped North Korean exports of nuclear and missile technology in return for Israel's recognition. Agreements with North Korea by Clinton and later, Bush, were sabotaged by the latter, when he reneged on the agreement and intensified sanctions. Obama just oversaw a US-South Korea military exercise that had mock bombing runs up to North Korea's borders. Each incident elicited a predictably bellicose North Korean response.
The US invaded Afghanistan claiming it was responsible for 911 (most of the 911 terrorists were Saudis, the planning was done in Germany and the US), and then invaded Iraq--Bush's personal vendetta--and upended the Middle East. Now the US is engaged in sub-rosa wars: in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and probably in more places we don't know about.
Is there a pattern here? Regardless of the President, ever since Eisenhower warned against the growing power of the "defense-industrial complex," US policy has favored an increasingly militaristic foreign policy. The military, and/or the industries that batten from it, push the US toward aggression: they profit from it.
Everyone else, worldwide, is impoverished and endangered, including the American Empire. Its overreach, and the selfishness of our Senatorial class, is bankrupting us and helping to destroy the planet, much as Rome despoiled Europe and the Mediterranean, then bankrupted itself through endless wars and the rapacity of the Senatorial class.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
"Apologies"
Terrible, isn't it that America has to "apologize" for a crude youtube movie! Uhm, an embassy spokesperson, in the Egyptian embassy about to be surrounded by protestors, rightly distanced the US from a rancid anti-Muslim piece of propaganda for which America was not responsible.
Romney called this statement an apology and his politicizing a foreign event has blown up in his face. But it's not as if this is a new position for him. He's previously gone around the nation claiming that Obama apologized rather than standing up for America, so he interpreted the sensible statement of the US Embassy in Egypt in terms of his own campaign propaganda. He was reflexively reacting to Obama's famous speech in Cairo.
What Obama attempted, in that famous speech, was to reach out to Muslims worldwide, to demonstrate his understanding of their concerns and to attempt to move US-Muslim relations forward. He said, "There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground." If that were an apology, then the only alternative would be war---for which Americans have no appetite, after two failed wars in the last ten years.
So, it's not just that Romney demonstrated his ability to put his foot in his mouth, especially on foreign affairs; it's that he has shown an inherent inability to see other people from any but his own perspective.
What's Romney's perspective? Much has been made of his flip-flopping on abortion, on global warming, on health care policy and on war policy. But on the latter, he was for the Vietnam War before he was against it (when campaigning for the Senate in Massachusetts), to paraphrase John Kerry, and now is apparently for any war in prospect. He has consistently advocated a "tough" foreign policy, as in adopting Netanyahu's "red line" on Iran's nuclear policy, thereby justifying an immediate attack, identifying Russia as our primary antagonist and vowing he'd name China a currency manipulator (and initiating a trade war) on his first day in office.
So, Romney's perspective is to see any nation not allied with us as against us, and to discount any concerns other nations have, by saying that any attempt to understand them is "apologizing for America." His unconsidered statement about the Egyptian Embassy attack was consistent with his articulated foreign policy--such as it is.
If Rove's and Saudi Arabia's money still wins Romney the election, the United States might embark on a whole series of "wars of choice," which would also be consistent with Romney's insistence that the Pentagon budget not be cut, but increased to 4% of GDP.
So, every other government program would be cut, people would be left without support and the US would be hollowed out by wars, just like the Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. Not a pretty prospect, but still a possible one.
Romney called this statement an apology and his politicizing a foreign event has blown up in his face. But it's not as if this is a new position for him. He's previously gone around the nation claiming that Obama apologized rather than standing up for America, so he interpreted the sensible statement of the US Embassy in Egypt in terms of his own campaign propaganda. He was reflexively reacting to Obama's famous speech in Cairo.
What Obama attempted, in that famous speech, was to reach out to Muslims worldwide, to demonstrate his understanding of their concerns and to attempt to move US-Muslim relations forward. He said, "There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground." If that were an apology, then the only alternative would be war---for which Americans have no appetite, after two failed wars in the last ten years.
So, it's not just that Romney demonstrated his ability to put his foot in his mouth, especially on foreign affairs; it's that he has shown an inherent inability to see other people from any but his own perspective.
What's Romney's perspective? Much has been made of his flip-flopping on abortion, on global warming, on health care policy and on war policy. But on the latter, he was for the Vietnam War before he was against it (when campaigning for the Senate in Massachusetts), to paraphrase John Kerry, and now is apparently for any war in prospect. He has consistently advocated a "tough" foreign policy, as in adopting Netanyahu's "red line" on Iran's nuclear policy, thereby justifying an immediate attack, identifying Russia as our primary antagonist and vowing he'd name China a currency manipulator (and initiating a trade war) on his first day in office.
So, Romney's perspective is to see any nation not allied with us as against us, and to discount any concerns other nations have, by saying that any attempt to understand them is "apologizing for America." His unconsidered statement about the Egyptian Embassy attack was consistent with his articulated foreign policy--such as it is.
If Rove's and Saudi Arabia's money still wins Romney the election, the United States might embark on a whole series of "wars of choice," which would also be consistent with Romney's insistence that the Pentagon budget not be cut, but increased to 4% of GDP.
So, every other government program would be cut, people would be left without support and the US would be hollowed out by wars, just like the Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries. Not a pretty prospect, but still a possible one.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Who Holds the Power?
Political conventions are mostly to activate the base these days, since the selection of the nominee has taken place long before. That's when Romney bought the primaries, through his superior funding, the support of Rove's Crossroads GPS and Wall Street.
Of course, Obama, as incumbent didn't have to fight contested primaries; the nominee had been selected by his previous election, although there was some opposition and lack of interest, especially among activists
If you look at the two conventions as venues to gin up the activists, the Democrats were far more effective. Obama was by far a better speaker than Romney, and the GOP has no one like Bill Clinton, who gave one of the best speeches of his life. The Democratic convention was much more integrated and the many other speakers created a meaningful whole, climaxing with Obama's speech.
It probably wasn't his best, but it was inspirational for anyone listening, by the climax, though it started out slowly.
Former supporters who had cooled to the President, said in the convention's aftermath, "He's doing the best he can, maybe the best anyone can--and I'm going to give money, and/or I'm going to do something for his campaign."
I hope many saw parts, at least, of the two conventions; apparently, not that many did. From my vantage point (admittedly biased towards Democrats, but wary of its Wall Street wing), they did seem to differ, the way Bill Clinton encapsulated it: the Republicans stressed on-your-own-individualism, while Democrats demonstrated, as well as advocated, for a society in which everyone-is-in-it-together. The second model seemed to work for Democrats. Republican stars hardly gave a nod to Romney in their speeches.
Another expression of this difference was the GOP's insistence that the wealthy already paid too much, and should get tax cuts, while Democrats said they should pay their fair share, meaning higher tax rates, above the top rate of 35% as of now, at least back to Clinton's 39.6% (the top rate was 91% under Republican President Eisenhower). The wealthy are already paying the lowest rate since 1931 (only the 20's had a lower rate--25%) and we know where that led.
Some surprises from the conventions: Democrats came across celebrating the military and national security (the execution of Osama bin Laden), Obamacare, the auto bailout, as well as the partial recovery from the economy's depths in 2009, after Obama's inauguration.
Republicans totally missed any military celebration, entertained warnings from neo-cons that Americans should take on Syria, Iran--or threats anywhere--and complained that Obama had failed abroad, and at home with the recovery.
Neither party focused on financial sector abuses, or impunity, indicating that both are heavily beholden to Wall Street--AG Holder just dropped all suits against banks and banksters.
Even if Obama and Democrats win, the selfish class, our Roman Senators, firmly hold the reins, even though it's clear: most of them would prefer Romney. He's one of their own.
Of course, Obama, as incumbent didn't have to fight contested primaries; the nominee had been selected by his previous election, although there was some opposition and lack of interest, especially among activists
If you look at the two conventions as venues to gin up the activists, the Democrats were far more effective. Obama was by far a better speaker than Romney, and the GOP has no one like Bill Clinton, who gave one of the best speeches of his life. The Democratic convention was much more integrated and the many other speakers created a meaningful whole, climaxing with Obama's speech.
It probably wasn't his best, but it was inspirational for anyone listening, by the climax, though it started out slowly.
Former supporters who had cooled to the President, said in the convention's aftermath, "He's doing the best he can, maybe the best anyone can--and I'm going to give money, and/or I'm going to do something for his campaign."
I hope many saw parts, at least, of the two conventions; apparently, not that many did. From my vantage point (admittedly biased towards Democrats, but wary of its Wall Street wing), they did seem to differ, the way Bill Clinton encapsulated it: the Republicans stressed on-your-own-individualism, while Democrats demonstrated, as well as advocated, for a society in which everyone-is-in-it-together. The second model seemed to work for Democrats. Republican stars hardly gave a nod to Romney in their speeches.
Another expression of this difference was the GOP's insistence that the wealthy already paid too much, and should get tax cuts, while Democrats said they should pay their fair share, meaning higher tax rates, above the top rate of 35% as of now, at least back to Clinton's 39.6% (the top rate was 91% under Republican President Eisenhower). The wealthy are already paying the lowest rate since 1931 (only the 20's had a lower rate--25%) and we know where that led.
Some surprises from the conventions: Democrats came across celebrating the military and national security (the execution of Osama bin Laden), Obamacare, the auto bailout, as well as the partial recovery from the economy's depths in 2009, after Obama's inauguration.
Republicans totally missed any military celebration, entertained warnings from neo-cons that Americans should take on Syria, Iran--or threats anywhere--and complained that Obama had failed abroad, and at home with the recovery.
Neither party focused on financial sector abuses, or impunity, indicating that both are heavily beholden to Wall Street--AG Holder just dropped all suits against banks and banksters.
Even if Obama and Democrats win, the selfish class, our Roman Senators, firmly hold the reins, even though it's clear: most of them would prefer Romney. He's one of their own.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
What Is To Be Done?*
I despair the politics of this era, the lies and distortions that impel it, the money that drives it. Mitt Romney is its perfect symbol; Paul Ryan is the embodiment of its deceptive promises of reaction snake-oil.
The Economist asks, 'Who, really, is Mitt Romney?' I doubt he can answer, except: he's determined to win the Presidency; he has no goal, other than winning it. He's been both a moderate liberal as governor of Massachusetts, and an "extreme conservative," (his own words), while running for President, even after winning the nomination. He was pro-choice, and now, he'll run on a Republican platform in which even rape and incest are not exempt from its absolute ban. He insists, after Akin's blooper, that he'd allow abortion for either reason, but who knows whether he would, or could, given his party.
Romney even threatens a Gold Commission to investigate returning to the Gold Standard--presumably to mollify Ron Paul supporters.
Then Senator, George McGovern, wrote an awful forward to The Promise of the Coming Dark Age: McGovern touted the Khmer Rouge as a beacon! If Mitt is able to buy the Presidency--that's what it would be, a purchase, costing several billion dollars--then the Dark Age could be upon us: the Roman Senators of old couldn't match the callous disregard the elite bear today for the rest of us. Romney would cut services (Food Stamps, Medicaid) for the desperate and cut taxes for his (lightly taxed) class of multimillionaires and billionaires. He'd also increase Defense spending, possibly for fighting another war: Iran, probably, although he'd also start a trade war with China the day he's inaugurated.
Romney appears to have chosen "extreme conservative" over moderate liberal, although he's still claiming he lives in Massachusetts (there is a question whether he did, when he filed taxes and voted in Massachusetts, claiming residence in his son's basement, a possible felony). But Romney still resists political, as well as geographic, definition.
His party tries to rally natives against immigrants, whites against blacks, men against women--its absolutist anti-abortion position is only a small part of that--but all is subsumed in the general war against all who are not owners of significant capital.
Capital is the contemporary version of the gold, land and slaves controlled by Roman Senators in the fourth and fifth centuries. Unlike the wealth of old, however, capital is expandable, and radical. Roman Senators could do only a small fraction of the damage that can be done, is already being done, by our contemporary elites, from eviscerating the safety net, environmental pollution and impoverishing the non-rich, to global warming, global immiseration and buying this election.
Can sanity stop them? Even the sitting President, Obama, doesn't have the money to beat back their misinformation, smears, and outright lies: example, their claim that Obama is reviving welfare.
What is to be done?
*Lenin used the same title.
The Economist asks, 'Who, really, is Mitt Romney?' I doubt he can answer, except: he's determined to win the Presidency; he has no goal, other than winning it. He's been both a moderate liberal as governor of Massachusetts, and an "extreme conservative," (his own words), while running for President, even after winning the nomination. He was pro-choice, and now, he'll run on a Republican platform in which even rape and incest are not exempt from its absolute ban. He insists, after Akin's blooper, that he'd allow abortion for either reason, but who knows whether he would, or could, given his party.
Romney even threatens a Gold Commission to investigate returning to the Gold Standard--presumably to mollify Ron Paul supporters.
Then Senator, George McGovern, wrote an awful forward to The Promise of the Coming Dark Age: McGovern touted the Khmer Rouge as a beacon! If Mitt is able to buy the Presidency--that's what it would be, a purchase, costing several billion dollars--then the Dark Age could be upon us: the Roman Senators of old couldn't match the callous disregard the elite bear today for the rest of us. Romney would cut services (Food Stamps, Medicaid) for the desperate and cut taxes for his (lightly taxed) class of multimillionaires and billionaires. He'd also increase Defense spending, possibly for fighting another war: Iran, probably, although he'd also start a trade war with China the day he's inaugurated.
Romney appears to have chosen "extreme conservative" over moderate liberal, although he's still claiming he lives in Massachusetts (there is a question whether he did, when he filed taxes and voted in Massachusetts, claiming residence in his son's basement, a possible felony). But Romney still resists political, as well as geographic, definition.
His party tries to rally natives against immigrants, whites against blacks, men against women--its absolutist anti-abortion position is only a small part of that--but all is subsumed in the general war against all who are not owners of significant capital.
Capital is the contemporary version of the gold, land and slaves controlled by Roman Senators in the fourth and fifth centuries. Unlike the wealth of old, however, capital is expandable, and radical. Roman Senators could do only a small fraction of the damage that can be done, is already being done, by our contemporary elites, from eviscerating the safety net, environmental pollution and impoverishing the non-rich, to global warming, global immiseration and buying this election.
Can sanity stop them? Even the sitting President, Obama, doesn't have the money to beat back their misinformation, smears, and outright lies: example, their claim that Obama is reviving welfare.
What is to be done?
*Lenin used the same title.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Iran Is Not Recalcitrant
Even if Iran were secretly trying to develop the bomb, they would be acquiring it for defense. To fear they would drop it on Israel is to think the Iranians are less rational than even the North Koreans. The most they could do is threaten their non-nuclear neighbors, but even that's unlikely, with the US threatening them if they try. Meanwhile, Israel has several hundred bombs and the missiles and bombers to deliver them.
Even if the Iranians built the bomb, it would be for defense: to prevent the US from trying to force "regime change."
But it's pretty much agreed, by the world's best intelligence agencies, the American and Israeli, that Iran abandoned nuclear weapon development in 2004, and hasn't decided whether to resume it. On the other hand, many analysts believe that Iran has the technological and knowledge capability to build a nuclear weapon, and one of the policy points of contention was that very word, 'capability.' If Iran is to be denied nuclear 'capability,' then there are already grounds for attacking it--and scores of other countries.
What is almost never admitted is this: Iran, as a member of the IAEA, has the international treaty right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, as long as it allows inspections to insure that's what it's doing. Enriching uranium to 20% is for medical use, and as someone with prostate cancer treated by radiation, I believe modern nations should be able to supply their own, and Iran is modernizing.
It is possible that a gold bug's theory, explains why the US is acting this way. Iran has been leading an international movement away from the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. If the movement prevails (it will, eventually, even without Iran), the US would owe debt it couldn't pay, and its strength would be checkmated, because it couldn't credibly borrow the huge sums we now depend on monthly, especially to finance our imperial military.
So, the pressure against Iran may not be what it seems. The conflict isn't really about a few nuclear bombs that do not exist. It's about whether the US remains a viable economic superpower.
It is clear that Iran's leaders don't like us, but then we've been helping Israel and the MEK covertly attack the regime for years. Iran's promotion of a post-dollar international economy fits in with their hostility--and with their experience of the US as a malign international entity, consistently hostile--even when the Iranian regime was more liberal, and inclined to view reconciliation favorably.
Iran is 3.7 times larger than Iraq territorially, is 2.3 times larger in population, and has an effective government not based on one dictator. If bluff and sanctions don't work, war with Iran could be the straw that broke the American camel's back: it could bankrupt the US empire; we'd be facing a replay of Rome's fall in 476.
Even if the Iranians built the bomb, it would be for defense: to prevent the US from trying to force "regime change."
But it's pretty much agreed, by the world's best intelligence agencies, the American and Israeli, that Iran abandoned nuclear weapon development in 2004, and hasn't decided whether to resume it. On the other hand, many analysts believe that Iran has the technological and knowledge capability to build a nuclear weapon, and one of the policy points of contention was that very word, 'capability.' If Iran is to be denied nuclear 'capability,' then there are already grounds for attacking it--and scores of other countries.
What is almost never admitted is this: Iran, as a member of the IAEA, has the international treaty right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, as long as it allows inspections to insure that's what it's doing. Enriching uranium to 20% is for medical use, and as someone with prostate cancer treated by radiation, I believe modern nations should be able to supply their own, and Iran is modernizing.
It is possible that a gold bug's theory, explains why the US is acting this way. Iran has been leading an international movement away from the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. If the movement prevails (it will, eventually, even without Iran), the US would owe debt it couldn't pay, and its strength would be checkmated, because it couldn't credibly borrow the huge sums we now depend on monthly, especially to finance our imperial military.
So, the pressure against Iran may not be what it seems. The conflict isn't really about a few nuclear bombs that do not exist. It's about whether the US remains a viable economic superpower.
It is clear that Iran's leaders don't like us, but then we've been helping Israel and the MEK covertly attack the regime for years. Iran's promotion of a post-dollar international economy fits in with their hostility--and with their experience of the US as a malign international entity, consistently hostile--even when the Iranian regime was more liberal, and inclined to view reconciliation favorably.
Iran is 3.7 times larger than Iraq territorially, is 2.3 times larger in population, and has an effective government not based on one dictator. If bluff and sanctions don't work, war with Iran could be the straw that broke the American camel's back: it could bankrupt the US empire; we'd be facing a replay of Rome's fall in 476.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Fragile Economy, Fragile Politics
Email overload, after falling in the lake--again! No, this time it wasn't frozen and I was only in up to my armpits. It wasn't even so cold that I didn't go in again to try to free the goddam raft that's still stuck near the beach. But it was cold; my hands were numb for more than an hour and my feet took hours to warm up, .
So, yeah, I'm tired. I watched TV news shows tonight: I'd have to be tired for that. I even saw a bit of O'Reilly: what a know-it-all, what a snide SOB he is! Both Schultz and Chris Matthews were shrill, the NPR people were understated, but not that interesting. And Piers Morgan, when I was watching, was covering the most inconsequential stuff I've seen on evening news shows. I was looking forward to Rachel Maddow, but some geek was subbing for her, talking about the "trigonometry" of news, and I switched the channel. And then, after Piers Morgan, I turned the boob tube off.
Now, to the substance of what I saw, After the Santorum sweep of Mississippi and Alabama, of course, there was a lot of gossip--on all the channels--about how Romney was having problems, but amassing more delegates than his rivals. More gossip was: how Santorum supporters wished Gingrich would bow out, and the reason he didn't was, as Matthews suggested, because of his outsize ego.
Afghanistan was yesterday's news, Sudan was visited because of George Clooney's interest, not for any other reason, although the situation there is dire. O'Reilly said snide things, still, about Sandra Fluke, and implied that Obama must want higher gas prices.
Which is absurd: it's one thing that could defeat Obama in the election. If oil skyrockets and not only does gasoline, but fuel oil, then the nation's economy, just getting into gear, will have to downshift once again. Yes, I do drive a shift.
The only thing that could win Obama the election then, would be the absolute idiocy of the Republican candidate--if it's Santorum--or the transparent hypocrisy and vacuity if it's Romney.
But it's a real danger. If the economy had to weather an oil shock, because of Israeli threats, or attack, against Iran, or if the hot peace in Sudan continues to disrupt the oil market, or if any number of other things might slow down our shaky recovery, then whichever clown the Republicans nominate might just win. He'd bring a mandate for: cutting the bejeezus out of social programs and "entitlements," bringing "religion" into government, while cutting taxes for the wealthy. He'd also pursue more wars, including the one on women and corporations would rule.
That looks like the 21st century version of the Roman Empire's Fifth Century, you know, the one that ended the western Roman Empire in 476.
So, yeah, I'm tired. I watched TV news shows tonight: I'd have to be tired for that. I even saw a bit of O'Reilly: what a know-it-all, what a snide SOB he is! Both Schultz and Chris Matthews were shrill, the NPR people were understated, but not that interesting. And Piers Morgan, when I was watching, was covering the most inconsequential stuff I've seen on evening news shows. I was looking forward to Rachel Maddow, but some geek was subbing for her, talking about the "trigonometry" of news, and I switched the channel. And then, after Piers Morgan, I turned the boob tube off.
Now, to the substance of what I saw, After the Santorum sweep of Mississippi and Alabama, of course, there was a lot of gossip--on all the channels--about how Romney was having problems, but amassing more delegates than his rivals. More gossip was: how Santorum supporters wished Gingrich would bow out, and the reason he didn't was, as Matthews suggested, because of his outsize ego.
Afghanistan was yesterday's news, Sudan was visited because of George Clooney's interest, not for any other reason, although the situation there is dire. O'Reilly said snide things, still, about Sandra Fluke, and implied that Obama must want higher gas prices.
Which is absurd: it's one thing that could defeat Obama in the election. If oil skyrockets and not only does gasoline, but fuel oil, then the nation's economy, just getting into gear, will have to downshift once again. Yes, I do drive a shift.
The only thing that could win Obama the election then, would be the absolute idiocy of the Republican candidate--if it's Santorum--or the transparent hypocrisy and vacuity if it's Romney.
But it's a real danger. If the economy had to weather an oil shock, because of Israeli threats, or attack, against Iran, or if the hot peace in Sudan continues to disrupt the oil market, or if any number of other things might slow down our shaky recovery, then whichever clown the Republicans nominate might just win. He'd bring a mandate for: cutting the bejeezus out of social programs and "entitlements," bringing "religion" into government, while cutting taxes for the wealthy. He'd also pursue more wars, including the one on women and corporations would rule.
That looks like the 21st century version of the Roman Empire's Fifth Century, you know, the one that ended the western Roman Empire in 476.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Military vs Police Action
People really do conspire to blow up other people, but the FBI is on the job.
The story, of an Iranian-American caught conspiring to use a hit-man from a Mexican drug cartel to blow up the Saudi ambassador in Washington--and anyone else in the vicinity--illustrates an important point.
It's government doing its job, which is protecting people from murder and mayhem. And it didn't do it with troops and aircraft carriers, but with good police work. Given the times, and the propensity to blow up people, whether they are Iranian or Mexican, Arab or Tamil (Tamils in Sri Lanka began the whole suicide bombing thing), we do apparently have to protect ourselves from would-be terrorists.
But it's police work, not the military, which was most effective here. Even with Osama bin Laden, while it was Navy Seals who carried out the assault, what made for success was undercover police/intelligence work, and the use of informers.
But informers can lead down a slippery slope. In the Roman Empire of the Fifth Century, spies were everywhere; they were the only effective policing tools available and everyone informed on everyone: not exactly a democratic or human rights outcome. Democracy had disappeared centuries before, anyway.
Fifth Century Rome was not like contemporary America in many ways, but it presents a picture of the direction in which we may be heading. We live in a dangerous world. Much of that danger has been caused by America, as in unnecessarily attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. American actions have also promoted violence, such as the CIA coup in Iran that brought in the Shah, the Mullahs, and ultimately our would-be bomber. Our meddling in Afghanistan in the 80's to undo the Soviet takeover, and in Guatemala, Chile, Vietnam and so on, each contributed to more violence. But, as I noted above, suicide bombing began in Sri Lanka independent of US intervention.
However, the creation of religion-based states first became legitimate among modern states with Israel (sponsored by the US) and Pakistan (supported by the UK), and then, in reaction, spawned many more, and with it a new, uncivil, international system.
I won't argue that religion-based states were the proximate cause of terrorism, but they did make it more likely: true believers are more absolutist in their thinking, and absolutists will stop at nothing to promote their beliefs. Religion-based states like Israel, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia do appear to spawn terrorists, either in support--as in Pakistan and Iran--or in opposition--as in Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Would a more peaceful US deter terrorists? Possibly; between our military and our militarizing police, our response to terrorism doesn't really defeat it; it creates martyrs and sympathizers. One terrorist killed by drone--with "collateral damage--" ten inspired to fight back.
The Occupy Wall Street movement--if it has lasting effect--could enable less coercive policies; that might promote dialogue, instead of police repression or military adventure.
The story, of an Iranian-American caught conspiring to use a hit-man from a Mexican drug cartel to blow up the Saudi ambassador in Washington--and anyone else in the vicinity--illustrates an important point.
It's government doing its job, which is protecting people from murder and mayhem. And it didn't do it with troops and aircraft carriers, but with good police work. Given the times, and the propensity to blow up people, whether they are Iranian or Mexican, Arab or Tamil (Tamils in Sri Lanka began the whole suicide bombing thing), we do apparently have to protect ourselves from would-be terrorists.
But it's police work, not the military, which was most effective here. Even with Osama bin Laden, while it was Navy Seals who carried out the assault, what made for success was undercover police/intelligence work, and the use of informers.
But informers can lead down a slippery slope. In the Roman Empire of the Fifth Century, spies were everywhere; they were the only effective policing tools available and everyone informed on everyone: not exactly a democratic or human rights outcome. Democracy had disappeared centuries before, anyway.
Fifth Century Rome was not like contemporary America in many ways, but it presents a picture of the direction in which we may be heading. We live in a dangerous world. Much of that danger has been caused by America, as in unnecessarily attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. American actions have also promoted violence, such as the CIA coup in Iran that brought in the Shah, the Mullahs, and ultimately our would-be bomber. Our meddling in Afghanistan in the 80's to undo the Soviet takeover, and in Guatemala, Chile, Vietnam and so on, each contributed to more violence. But, as I noted above, suicide bombing began in Sri Lanka independent of US intervention.
However, the creation of religion-based states first became legitimate among modern states with Israel (sponsored by the US) and Pakistan (supported by the UK), and then, in reaction, spawned many more, and with it a new, uncivil, international system.
I won't argue that religion-based states were the proximate cause of terrorism, but they did make it more likely: true believers are more absolutist in their thinking, and absolutists will stop at nothing to promote their beliefs. Religion-based states like Israel, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia do appear to spawn terrorists, either in support--as in Pakistan and Iran--or in opposition--as in Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Would a more peaceful US deter terrorists? Possibly; between our military and our militarizing police, our response to terrorism doesn't really defeat it; it creates martyrs and sympathizers. One terrorist killed by drone--with "collateral damage--" ten inspired to fight back.
The Occupy Wall Street movement--if it has lasting effect--could enable less coercive policies; that might promote dialogue, instead of police repression or military adventure.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Elections and Anger
"Quick, I want a list of all the incumbents, so I can vote against them!" the voter told me, at the election "in-take" table in our rural-ex-urban Town Hall.
I said I couldn't help him; it's against election law for an election inspector to politic. The Republican inspector sitting next to me remarked, "If he doesn't know who the incumbents are, maybe he should have paid attention for the last couple years; probably, all he did was complain."
The voter, a youngish middle-aged man, was angry and frustrated, but he epitomized, for me, the mood of the electorate, not just locally, but nationally.
There was also the older voter, who was clearly confused by the new voting system (New York recently installed optical scanners and paper ballots to finally comply with the HAVA federal election law; most people wanted their lever machines back). The old man couldn't believe he actually had to blacken ovals by each candidate, and after requesting bipartisan assistance, said he'd wanted to vote for Cuomo, but now he was so frustrated he'd just vote the straight Republican line; anything else was too complicated.
The scanner did break down, repeatedly, and, after several hours wait, was replaced by another from County headquarters. At least, the "emergency" ballots voted in the interim, were easily retrieved and scanned once the new scanner was up and running. Paper ballots are a sturdy paper record.
Our incumbent Democratic Congressman was voted out; the operative mood was simply 'throw the bums out,' even though the 'tea party' gubernatorial candidate, Paladino, was soundly rejected. My Republican colleague pronounced him "crazy."
Republicans swept to control the House of Representatives, but despite tea party rants, there was no clear mandate, not only because Democrats retained the Senate, but because what voters were reflecting was the inchoate anger and frustration of my angry voter, who had no idea what he wanted, except: throw the bums out.
How can the US govern itself as a democracy, when voters have no idea what they want? Voters chose rejection, not direction.
But then Democrats, after campaigning in 2006-08 for Change, were not capable of delivering sufficient positive change, nor, especially, of undoing the economic damage wrought by Republicans and Bush. So, now we get Republicans, aiming to restore the previous, unregulated economy, even though it led to the economic collapse that caused voter anger. There even might be enough spine-challenged Democrats in the Senate to go along.
Will the US experience long-term stagnation, like Japan? Likely--unless Obama, or a rival presidential candidate, promotes war as a solution. The Washington Post has suggested Iran! Let's add Somalia, Pakistan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Yemen: WWIII. The US could lose its empire through bankruptcy and defeat, just like Japan and Rome.
Then, American elites could move to China, Brazil, or?
I said I couldn't help him; it's against election law for an election inspector to politic. The Republican inspector sitting next to me remarked, "If he doesn't know who the incumbents are, maybe he should have paid attention for the last couple years; probably, all he did was complain."
The voter, a youngish middle-aged man, was angry and frustrated, but he epitomized, for me, the mood of the electorate, not just locally, but nationally.
There was also the older voter, who was clearly confused by the new voting system (New York recently installed optical scanners and paper ballots to finally comply with the HAVA federal election law; most people wanted their lever machines back). The old man couldn't believe he actually had to blacken ovals by each candidate, and after requesting bipartisan assistance, said he'd wanted to vote for Cuomo, but now he was so frustrated he'd just vote the straight Republican line; anything else was too complicated.
The scanner did break down, repeatedly, and, after several hours wait, was replaced by another from County headquarters. At least, the "emergency" ballots voted in the interim, were easily retrieved and scanned once the new scanner was up and running. Paper ballots are a sturdy paper record.
Our incumbent Democratic Congressman was voted out; the operative mood was simply 'throw the bums out,' even though the 'tea party' gubernatorial candidate, Paladino, was soundly rejected. My Republican colleague pronounced him "crazy."
Republicans swept to control the House of Representatives, but despite tea party rants, there was no clear mandate, not only because Democrats retained the Senate, but because what voters were reflecting was the inchoate anger and frustration of my angry voter, who had no idea what he wanted, except: throw the bums out.
How can the US govern itself as a democracy, when voters have no idea what they want? Voters chose rejection, not direction.
But then Democrats, after campaigning in 2006-08 for Change, were not capable of delivering sufficient positive change, nor, especially, of undoing the economic damage wrought by Republicans and Bush. So, now we get Republicans, aiming to restore the previous, unregulated economy, even though it led to the economic collapse that caused voter anger. There even might be enough spine-challenged Democrats in the Senate to go along.
Will the US experience long-term stagnation, like Japan? Likely--unless Obama, or a rival presidential candidate, promotes war as a solution. The Washington Post has suggested Iran! Let's add Somalia, Pakistan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Yemen: WWIII. The US could lose its empire through bankruptcy and defeat, just like Japan and Rome.
Then, American elites could move to China, Brazil, or?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
American Checkers, Persian Chess
Americans play checkers, the Persians play chess. In Middle East intrigue, Americans are outclassed. The Persians have been around for at least 5,000 years. Americans are johnnys-come-lately.
Americans in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq, contend with Iranian influence in the governments they support. Nuri al Maliki, Iraq's PM, has long-established ties with Iran, and has recently worked out a coalition agreement with the Sadrist party, supported by Iran. What is the US to do? Maliki was supposed to be our man, nurtured and financed by the US.
Now, we find out that Hamid Karzai, Afghan President, our client in Kabul, has a chief of staff, Umar Daudzai, who is not only pro-Iranian, but Iran's conduit for illicit cash in the millions of Euros a month. His mission, it seems, is to poison Afghan-American relations.
The plot thickens: Daudzai and his friends were members of Hezb-i-Islami, a brutal, militant Islamist group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who now lives in Iran, but has ties to the Taliban. Iran in the west, like Pakistan in the east, maintains ties and provides aid to the Taliban, as well as the government. The intelligence communities of both neighboring countries vie for influence among the Taliban, the President, and with his opponents in Afghan politics.
While Pakistan is our reluctant, or resistant ally, Iran is our rival for power in the region. Yet, both have interests in furthering Afghan stability as well as their own influence; chaos on their borders might provide opportunities to extend their power, but it also endangers their own governments.
Just as the US blundered into an age-old civil war in Iraq--between Shiite and Sunni--a game in which the Persians were deeply engaged, it has done something similar in Afghanistan. Except, the Afghan game is much more complicated. The civil war between the government we installed, and the Taliban, has been ongoing for generations, between Pathans and the peoples of the northern alliance: largely Tajik and Uzbek. Meanwhile, the nations to Afghanistan's east and west have been vying for power in Afghanistan for hundreds of years.
The British Empire marched into Afghanistan from India, and was routed. The Soviets occupied Afghanistan, but were driven out. Will the US leave more gracefully?
Afghanistan's neighbors use more subtle methods: cash bribes, safe refuges, training, and control through their intelligence services. They will outlast the crude Westerners, who think that power comes from more and better weapons. Effective weapons, as the Vietnamese and Iraqis demonstrated, can be stolen, or cobbled together from the wasteful and over-generous supplies of the invader.
Rome in its decline, abandoned its push east into Parthia: the East was too complicated. The US, also a declining empire, is baffled by the complex intricacies of the region. Which will come first: bankruptcy or defeat? Or will the US withdraw in time?
Americans in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq, contend with Iranian influence in the governments they support. Nuri al Maliki, Iraq's PM, has long-established ties with Iran, and has recently worked out a coalition agreement with the Sadrist party, supported by Iran. What is the US to do? Maliki was supposed to be our man, nurtured and financed by the US.
Now, we find out that Hamid Karzai, Afghan President, our client in Kabul, has a chief of staff, Umar Daudzai, who is not only pro-Iranian, but Iran's conduit for illicit cash in the millions of Euros a month. His mission, it seems, is to poison Afghan-American relations.
The plot thickens: Daudzai and his friends were members of Hezb-i-Islami, a brutal, militant Islamist group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who now lives in Iran, but has ties to the Taliban. Iran in the west, like Pakistan in the east, maintains ties and provides aid to the Taliban, as well as the government. The intelligence communities of both neighboring countries vie for influence among the Taliban, the President, and with his opponents in Afghan politics.
While Pakistan is our reluctant, or resistant ally, Iran is our rival for power in the region. Yet, both have interests in furthering Afghan stability as well as their own influence; chaos on their borders might provide opportunities to extend their power, but it also endangers their own governments.
Just as the US blundered into an age-old civil war in Iraq--between Shiite and Sunni--a game in which the Persians were deeply engaged, it has done something similar in Afghanistan. Except, the Afghan game is much more complicated. The civil war between the government we installed, and the Taliban, has been ongoing for generations, between Pathans and the peoples of the northern alliance: largely Tajik and Uzbek. Meanwhile, the nations to Afghanistan's east and west have been vying for power in Afghanistan for hundreds of years.
The British Empire marched into Afghanistan from India, and was routed. The Soviets occupied Afghanistan, but were driven out. Will the US leave more gracefully?
Afghanistan's neighbors use more subtle methods: cash bribes, safe refuges, training, and control through their intelligence services. They will outlast the crude Westerners, who think that power comes from more and better weapons. Effective weapons, as the Vietnamese and Iraqis demonstrated, can be stolen, or cobbled together from the wasteful and over-generous supplies of the invader.
Rome in its decline, abandoned its push east into Parthia: the East was too complicated. The US, also a declining empire, is baffled by the complex intricacies of the region. Which will come first: bankruptcy or defeat? Or will the US withdraw in time?
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
America's Legacy in Iraq
So, we've removed all but 50,000 of our troops from Iraq. That's the good news. The bad news: it's not over. The American legacy in Iraq is a shaky Shiite government. Nothing is resolved.
About the only improvement over Saddam Hussein, is that there is no dictator enforcing arbitrary power. Instead, there are warring factions, a caretaker government because of the dissension, bombings--more Iraqis are being killed now, than were killed by, or under Saddam Hussein--corruption and war-profiteering, and still less than half the services, like electricity and water, available during Saddam's despotic rule. The US destroyed Iraq's utilities in the first phase of the war but it never adequately rebuilt them.
American servicemen and women served extraordinarily well, given the awful conditions. But we should also remember: Americans were ordered to kill civilians, encouraged to humiliate and torture Iraqi prisoners, and did both.
I was struck by the TV commentariat's treatment of President Obama's speech, either deriding his remarks on the economic effects of the war, or completely ignoring them. Yet we have squandered almost a trillion dollars, lost 4,400 American lives, ruined the lives of 100,000's more through injuries, especially psychological ones, killed 100,000's of Iraqis, displaced millions--and what have we bought for all this?
The American oil companies are in a minority among the firms who won contracts to "service" Iraqi oil fields, so Americans didn't even get the oil. We didn't create a functioning democracy; we didn't create a prosperous, safe Iraq. There is also no guarantee that the Iraqi government will be our friend. The political consequence of America's temporary dominance is the empowerment of the Shiite majority, but its leaders are very closely tied to our greatest competitor in the Mideast: Iran.
Further, in Iraq, majority rule does not mean democracy: it could mean majority tyranny. Iraq's leaders don't seem to understand that a minority should participate, and have rights. They didn't learn politics from Americans; they learned from the Baath Party, which dominated on behalf of the Sunnis, the minority favored by Saddam and Iraqi governments before him. The US invasion enabled a revolution favoring Iran's mullahs.
Obama restated his commitment to the Afghan war, but our effect upon Afghanistan, may be even worse than in Iraq. Afghanistan's government is more corrupt and dysfunctional; we can't avoid civilian casualties and resulting anger. We drive Afghans into the arms of the Taliban and strengthen al Qaeda--no matter how many leaders we kill with drones. Al Qaeda has already spread to Pakistan, a nuclear state, as well as Somalia and Yemen. US popular anger at all Muslims (expressed in the "ground zero mosque" controversy) will simply strengthen both even further.
Perhaps, Muslim extremists are comparable to Rome's barbarians, but we will bankrupt ourselves before they could ever take over--as the barbarians did in 476.
About the only improvement over Saddam Hussein, is that there is no dictator enforcing arbitrary power. Instead, there are warring factions, a caretaker government because of the dissension, bombings--more Iraqis are being killed now, than were killed by, or under Saddam Hussein--corruption and war-profiteering, and still less than half the services, like electricity and water, available during Saddam's despotic rule. The US destroyed Iraq's utilities in the first phase of the war but it never adequately rebuilt them.
American servicemen and women served extraordinarily well, given the awful conditions. But we should also remember: Americans were ordered to kill civilians, encouraged to humiliate and torture Iraqi prisoners, and did both.
I was struck by the TV commentariat's treatment of President Obama's speech, either deriding his remarks on the economic effects of the war, or completely ignoring them. Yet we have squandered almost a trillion dollars, lost 4,400 American lives, ruined the lives of 100,000's more through injuries, especially psychological ones, killed 100,000's of Iraqis, displaced millions--and what have we bought for all this?
The American oil companies are in a minority among the firms who won contracts to "service" Iraqi oil fields, so Americans didn't even get the oil. We didn't create a functioning democracy; we didn't create a prosperous, safe Iraq. There is also no guarantee that the Iraqi government will be our friend. The political consequence of America's temporary dominance is the empowerment of the Shiite majority, but its leaders are very closely tied to our greatest competitor in the Mideast: Iran.
Further, in Iraq, majority rule does not mean democracy: it could mean majority tyranny. Iraq's leaders don't seem to understand that a minority should participate, and have rights. They didn't learn politics from Americans; they learned from the Baath Party, which dominated on behalf of the Sunnis, the minority favored by Saddam and Iraqi governments before him. The US invasion enabled a revolution favoring Iran's mullahs.
Obama restated his commitment to the Afghan war, but our effect upon Afghanistan, may be even worse than in Iraq. Afghanistan's government is more corrupt and dysfunctional; we can't avoid civilian casualties and resulting anger. We drive Afghans into the arms of the Taliban and strengthen al Qaeda--no matter how many leaders we kill with drones. Al Qaeda has already spread to Pakistan, a nuclear state, as well as Somalia and Yemen. US popular anger at all Muslims (expressed in the "ground zero mosque" controversy) will simply strengthen both even further.
Perhaps, Muslim extremists are comparable to Rome's barbarians, but we will bankrupt ourselves before they could ever take over--as the barbarians did in 476.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Israel Is Always Right
I've been having a "dialogue" with an old friend of mine, who accepts everything the Israeli government claims, about the flotilla assault, the Gaza blockade, etc.
He accused me of never having to worry about my personal security, while many of his Jewish forebears were wiped out in the Holocaust. That's why he knows: you've got to be "realistic." War is war. International law is rarely honored, and besides, some Turkish so-called peace activists were actually militants. One of those killed had a black belt in Tae Kwondo: he was a deadly weapon--until the IDF shot him.
Personal safety? I pointed out that my son had been working on Times Square until only months before the attempted suicide bombing. I forgot to mention that he'd also been within 20 blocks of ground zero on 911, so I did perceive threats to me and mine.
But why were the militants--the 911 bombers, the Times Square bomber--eager to volunteer? Why are Americans and Europeans volunteering? There is a perceived grievance that al Qaeda exploits: Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. What Israel does in Gaza and the West Bank does affect our security.
That's why, I told him, Israel's occupation, its siege of Gaza, and its Bantustan-like control over the West Bank was going to blow up in Israel's face. America won't (can't afford to) indefinitely support Israel, especially when it is a real obstacle to peace and a liability to the US.
Would Israel survive without US support? Probably, but cut loose, it would have a terrifying potential to become a rogue nuclear-armed state. Israel has been urging the US to attack Iran for years. If Israel attacked, instead, it could draw the US into a new war, along with the rest of the Middle East.
Yet, only Israel believes strongly that Iran is not only developing nuclear weapons, but would use them to destroy Israel. Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear war-heads, more than enough to obliterate Iran if it were foolhardy enough to attempt attack, but a nuke or two would protect Iran from Israel--or the US. It's not clear, from nuclear negotiations and available intelligence, whether Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, or only medical nuclear isotopes (concentrated to 38% vs 99%) and bluster. It pays politically.
There is bluster and threats on all sides.
How do people get so paranoid? For my friend, war-is-hell and the Holocaust justify whatever Israel does. What Israel did in 1947-8 and since, justifies many Muslim militants, and so it goes. There are a lot of paranoid people in the world. Paranoia can become self-fulfilling, especially if two or more play the same game.
They're playing it all over the world.
The US qua empire is no longer able to stop these games, even when it's a participant: we have an emerging Post-American World. When the US buys into the games, it makes the world increasingly unsafe for everyone.
He accused me of never having to worry about my personal security, while many of his Jewish forebears were wiped out in the Holocaust. That's why he knows: you've got to be "realistic." War is war. International law is rarely honored, and besides, some Turkish so-called peace activists were actually militants. One of those killed had a black belt in Tae Kwondo: he was a deadly weapon--until the IDF shot him.
Personal safety? I pointed out that my son had been working on Times Square until only months before the attempted suicide bombing. I forgot to mention that he'd also been within 20 blocks of ground zero on 911, so I did perceive threats to me and mine.
But why were the militants--the 911 bombers, the Times Square bomber--eager to volunteer? Why are Americans and Europeans volunteering? There is a perceived grievance that al Qaeda exploits: Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. What Israel does in Gaza and the West Bank does affect our security.
That's why, I told him, Israel's occupation, its siege of Gaza, and its Bantustan-like control over the West Bank was going to blow up in Israel's face. America won't (can't afford to) indefinitely support Israel, especially when it is a real obstacle to peace and a liability to the US.
Would Israel survive without US support? Probably, but cut loose, it would have a terrifying potential to become a rogue nuclear-armed state. Israel has been urging the US to attack Iran for years. If Israel attacked, instead, it could draw the US into a new war, along with the rest of the Middle East.
Yet, only Israel believes strongly that Iran is not only developing nuclear weapons, but would use them to destroy Israel. Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear war-heads, more than enough to obliterate Iran if it were foolhardy enough to attempt attack, but a nuke or two would protect Iran from Israel--or the US. It's not clear, from nuclear negotiations and available intelligence, whether Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, or only medical nuclear isotopes (concentrated to 38% vs 99%) and bluster. It pays politically.
There is bluster and threats on all sides.
How do people get so paranoid? For my friend, war-is-hell and the Holocaust justify whatever Israel does. What Israel did in 1947-8 and since, justifies many Muslim militants, and so it goes. There are a lot of paranoid people in the world. Paranoia can become self-fulfilling, especially if two or more play the same game.
They're playing it all over the world.
The US qua empire is no longer able to stop these games, even when it's a participant: we have an emerging Post-American World. When the US buys into the games, it makes the world increasingly unsafe for everyone.
Monday, March 8, 2010
What If Nothing Works?
What if the Democrats pass healthcare reform and we find that the back room deals have made it meaningless?
What if Iraq explodes into renewed civil war, and the US stands powerless to stop it? Our guy Maliki was the one who signed on to banning Sunni and secular candidates.
What if Iran announces it will build a bomb, and enough companies and countries are willing to buck or veto sanctions that Iran can't be stopped?
What if Obama and Democrats are unable to re-stimulate job growth, and we are stuck at near 10% unemployment?
What if the Republicans are unwilling to cooperate, and unwilling to lead if and when they regain power in Congress?
What if Afghanistan after Marjah is simply more of the same: a corrupt government takes over in daylight, and the Taliban comes back in at night?
Does President Obama lie awake wondering what to do about all these problems?
Last night, as I imitated Harry Reid, it occurred to me: why did Democrats elect such a wimp as their Senate leader? With his soft-high voice, who would ever listen to him; who would ever change their vote hearing his limp-wristed entreaties?
I yearn for a Senate leader like LBJ. He could twist arms, make deals, and carry out a Democratic agenda even in the face of a (moderate) Republican President. And then ram through civil rights legislation and Medicare when he was President.
Unfortunately, Harry Reid symbolizes Congressional Democrats, so it's no wonder that Congress is held in contempt by huge majorities of Americans. On the one side: timorous Democrats, afraid even to vote for what they believe in--think of Harry's soft high voice. On the other: Republicans who refuse to compromise and insist on playing victim to the big bad Democrats: think of John Boehner, whose voice is made for accusation and flippant denial.
Polarization is worse now than it was when Obama first started to campaign against it. The US Congress will drive the US into "failed state" status, unless it mends its ways, unless party discipline overcomes petty ambition and un-petty corruption.
Ironically, the peace president faces bipartisan support only on the wars. So long as Obama plays the generals' game, he'll get enough Republican votes to offset liberal, anti-war Democrats. No wonder he resists calls by Kucinich and Feingold to buck this rare consensus by adopting time-certain withdrawal plans for Afghanistan!
The US as failed state, except as bully-boy for global corporations. That is what it looks like--and the emerging nations will take over, like the Barbarians. They'll do business with whomever, ignoring global warming--they didn't cause it--until we--and they--are burned to a cinder.
It doesn't have to be this way. All that's needed is a little courage to act like commonsense human beings facing perennial disasters, instead of grasping idiots.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Declare War: Win Elections
KSM, Tea Parties and Iran
Republicans and Tea Partiers are outraged that Khalid Sheik Mohammed would be tried in a civilian court. Saying he would be a danger, and we'd be "giving" him rights we had fought for is ludicrous.
The Bush administration prosecuted about 300 terrorists in civilian courts. Further, courts for over a generation have safeguarded whatever "secrets" the state may have used in order to gain conviction. In addition, the Supreme Court found the military commissions unconstitutional; their reconstitution has been difficult.
Those 300 terrorists were dealt with more harshly in the courts than the terrorists who went through military commissions, from which some were released to places like Yemen!
The tea party conspiracists, at the same time, seem to believe that the Obama administration is setting up machinery to make mass incarcerations of tea partiers. The same rumors went the rounds during Bush II--about concentration camps under construction for leftists--now the right has paranoia, instead, and is paranoid about Northcom, the US command set up in the US for domestic disasters--like hurricanes and earthquakes!
Health care reform, these same crazies say, is a conspiracy for a government takeover, even though Obama, Pelosi and Reid have cut smelly deals with almost, but not all, of the corporate participants in the health care industry (Pharma, the AMA, hospitals). I wish it were a government takeover; instead, it creates a new, subsidized market for health insurance companies!
The right-wing lunacy has a megaphone far outweighing any shouting on the left: corporate media are perfectly happy to help bring down an administration that is even slightly anti-corporate. That's why we've heard a lot more about Tea Party and Republican outrage than about the outrage on the left: on Afghanistan, Guantanamo, health care compromises, Obama's unwillingness to investigate past war crimes, his continued use of extraordinary "wartime" powers.
So, now we have the "41st" vote held by Brown, who closely aligns himself with the lunatics! Krugman in an op-ed in the NY Times, concluded, "We are doomed!"
If the party of No prevails in the 2010 elections, we will be; it offers no real solutions and is not interested in governing, only in posturing in order to win power. On the other hand, the Democrats still have no spine: Schumer caved on the KSM trial, for example.
Sarah Palin, in effect, recommends that Obama "declare war" on Iran, if he wants to win re-election--against her or other Republicans. Perhaps she's suggesting that Republicans use that threat as their campaign theme?
Given the GOP's lack of ideas, and unwillingness to deal with any real problem, this pronouncement of hers may prove prescient: look for it as the Republican meme in 2012.
Is this the Empire's death rattle? It sure looks like it: instability, ungovernability, overreach and bankruptcy.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Iran's Nuclear "Ambitions?"
Nuclear "Ambitions" and Radiation
I'm being treated with radiation (I have an early cancer), and the radiation comes from highly concentrated uranium (about 20%), used to create treatment isotopes.
You have heard of Iran's nuclear "ambitions:" it's been bruited all over the news since Ahmadinejad announced Iran would begin further enriching some uranium--to 19.7%. Iran is a member of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty), is inspected by the IAEA, and openly declared what it was doing.
The announcement does not remotely imply that Iran is determined to develop a bomb. Weapons-grade uranium is enriched to above 95%; medical grade is enriched to 19.7%. To reach 95%, Iran would have to build huge complexes--visible from the air.
Radioactive isotopes are used to treat cancer. Iran buys isotopes from abroad, but why shouldn't it produce its own? Japan and South Korea do, Brazil does, Argentina did; none of these are nuclear powers. It's true that all the nuclear powers (including Israel) also produce radioactive isotopes with enriched uranium, but there is a faulty logic to the assumption that this latest action proves that Iran is bound and determined to produce the Bomb.
It does nothing of the kind: granted that all possessors of nuclear weapons produce radioactive isotopes, but not all producers of radioactive isotopes are nuclear powers.
What is telling, however, is that Clinton and Obama are using this non-issue to jab at Iran's leadership and make them sweat (through "targeted sanctions"). It is also telling that China doesn't want to go along with sanctions: she needs Iranian oil, but she also doesn't see Iran as a threat.
Who does? Israel for years has been trying to drum up support for bombing Iran's nuclear plants. The US, even under Bush, had to restrain her. It's the primary reason why Iran has begun to put its nuclear facilities underground.
Why does Ahmadinejad and his government appear so intransigent?
I would be too, if I were abiding by the rules, wanted to modernize my country and was told 'No, No' by the international community. No nation under IAEA's inspection regime has surreptitiously become a nuclear power. We'd know if Iran were really trying to produce nuclear bombs: it would kick out the inspectors first--before it tried.
The other reason for intransigence is that it plays well domestically in Iran: it's not about an effort to build nuclear bombs. Ahmadinejad is posing for his nationalist constituency.
Why does the US push for sanctions, then? Perhaps the most important reasons are: to restrain Israel (see, we're doing something!) and to appear tough back home: if you can scare people, they'll support you! They'll also support huge defense budgets: no one will talk about cutting those now.
Iran, a poor nation of 70 million, is threatening the American Colossus?
Get real.
I'm being treated with radiation (I have an early cancer), and the radiation comes from highly concentrated uranium (about 20%), used to create treatment isotopes.
You have heard of Iran's nuclear "ambitions:" it's been bruited all over the news since Ahmadinejad announced Iran would begin further enriching some uranium--to 19.7%. Iran is a member of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty), is inspected by the IAEA, and openly declared what it was doing.
The announcement does not remotely imply that Iran is determined to develop a bomb. Weapons-grade uranium is enriched to above 95%; medical grade is enriched to 19.7%. To reach 95%, Iran would have to build huge complexes--visible from the air.
Radioactive isotopes are used to treat cancer. Iran buys isotopes from abroad, but why shouldn't it produce its own? Japan and South Korea do, Brazil does, Argentina did; none of these are nuclear powers. It's true that all the nuclear powers (including Israel) also produce radioactive isotopes with enriched uranium, but there is a faulty logic to the assumption that this latest action proves that Iran is bound and determined to produce the Bomb.
It does nothing of the kind: granted that all possessors of nuclear weapons produce radioactive isotopes, but not all producers of radioactive isotopes are nuclear powers.
What is telling, however, is that Clinton and Obama are using this non-issue to jab at Iran's leadership and make them sweat (through "targeted sanctions"). It is also telling that China doesn't want to go along with sanctions: she needs Iranian oil, but she also doesn't see Iran as a threat.
Who does? Israel for years has been trying to drum up support for bombing Iran's nuclear plants. The US, even under Bush, had to restrain her. It's the primary reason why Iran has begun to put its nuclear facilities underground.
Why does Ahmadinejad and his government appear so intransigent?
I would be too, if I were abiding by the rules, wanted to modernize my country and was told 'No, No' by the international community. No nation under IAEA's inspection regime has surreptitiously become a nuclear power. We'd know if Iran were really trying to produce nuclear bombs: it would kick out the inspectors first--before it tried.
The other reason for intransigence is that it plays well domestically in Iran: it's not about an effort to build nuclear bombs. Ahmadinejad is posing for his nationalist constituency.
Why does the US push for sanctions, then? Perhaps the most important reasons are: to restrain Israel (see, we're doing something!) and to appear tough back home: if you can scare people, they'll support you! They'll also support huge defense budgets: no one will talk about cutting those now.
Iran, a poor nation of 70 million, is threatening the American Colossus?
Get real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)