F**k 'Em All!

So saith my soulmate, upon hearing that we might intervene militarily, again, on one side of an ancient Muslim sectarian dispute.

The Syrian civil war is increasingly a war between Shia, including Alawites, and the Sunni majority. The Sunni powers, the Saudis and the Emirates, are supporting the rebels, including al Qaeda affiliates; the Shiite powers, Iran and Hezbollah, and behind them, Russia, are supporting Assad's Alawite-dominated government.

So, since Russia is heavily arming Syria and Hezbollah, shouldn't the US jump in to support the rebels, along with its long-time 'democratic friends,' the Sunni-dominated monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf? Shiite-controlled Iraq, on which the US squandered almost a trillion dollars, is permitting passage of Russian and Iranian weaponry to Assad and Hezbollah.

So, the US should do it again, in Syria, not just offer small arms? It should go in with massive equipment and training for the rebels, or more, even though prominent numbers of the rebels claim sympathy with, or allegiance to, al Qaeda?

The US helped create al Qaeda, back when Americans were seeking allies to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The US supported and trained Osama bin Laden. Don't Americans ever learn? The US's second adventure in Afghanistan turned out so well that a majority of the US House of Representatives (including conservative Republicans) just demanded the US leave Afghanistan by the end of 2013!

Not only has hot-head McCain insisted America intervene in Syria, on the rebel side, but he was publicly seconded by Bill Clinton, who warned Obama would be a "wuss," if he didn't act forcefully on Syria.

It's true the Syrian rebellion started out as a peaceful, secular protest demanding democracy, and the Assad regime attempted violent suppression. Assad had no compunction attacking Syrian civilians with his military: in 1982, his father, Hafez, murdered at least 10,000 Syrians in Hama, alone. But this time, Sunnis rallied and the protest turned into a rebellion, fueled by money and arms from the Sunni Persian Gulf oil monarchies. Hence, Syrians now fight both civil war and sectarian war.

The US will support the Sunni side, along with al Qaeda, why?

Sunni and Shia have been battling since 661 CE (1,352 years), over who should succeed the Prophet. Why should the US have anything to do with either? Especially, why, since it has already failed twice in its Mideast interventions--Iraq and Afghanistan--and the outcome of its third, Libya, is still uncertain.

The US loses, if it intervenes. As horrendous as the carnage in Syria, the US would make it worse. But Empire is so seductive, especially to the Defense industry. Americans could be bankrupted as the Romans were, but unlike Huns, or Germanic barbarians, US 'enemies' do not threaten America's existence, only each others'.

Let them kill each other until they're exhausted--they will anyway. Or see reason. Let the UN pick up the pieces.

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.

9-11 Commemorative Blindness

Osama won--in the West. He drove the idiots in power to do just what he'd hoped: alienate Muslims world-wide with our cowboy-frat-boy military aggression--and at-home persecution.

Think about it: we spend hours on TV and radio talking about what 9-11 meant; about the pain it caused the survivors; about what we were doing on that day, or the day before or the day after. And it's true: the death of almost 3,000 at ground zero was a wrenching experience for many times that number. So, what did Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld do about it? Attacked Afghanistan, which is not where the attackers came from, nor where they trained, but only where their spiritual/financial leaders had gained sanctuary before the fact. And then they (we?) attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11 (but has oil).

We lost 3,000 in one day, but how many did we kill in Baghdad's "shock and awe?" (Virtually all were civilians). Well over 100,000 lost their lives in Iraq over the course of that war, initiated by the American invasion, although estimates range up to a million. Further, Wikileaks has documented 24,498 fatalities in Afghanistan, including at least 4,000 civilians.

Now, think of all the Afghan and Iraqi stories of what happened to their loved ones and when, and what they were doing on that day, and the day before and the day after, and asking why me, Allah?. Now, consider that Afghanistan has a population estimated to be 29.8 million by the World Bank, while it estimated Iraq's population at 31.5 million. US population in 2000 was 281,421,906.

I won't bother to reduce the fatalities of each to a percentage of their respective populations, but obviously, our 9-11 hit was tiny compared to the devastation the US has wrought on others, ostensibly because they had something to do with 9-11. In fact, Iraq had nothing to do with it: none of the hijackers were Iraqi, none trained there. Saddam had kept al Qaeda out of Iraq, because it was a danger to his power.

All but one of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so why didn't we attack the Saudis? Because, Saudis were Bush family friends? Because the oil was already in US hands (more or less)?

Osama won by instigating the US (and the UK) to wade into the Middle East maelstrom with guns blazing; he drove the American cowboy into aggressive-defense, which has not only nearly bankrupted us (like the USSR), but has cost us most of our liberties, as well.

If Reagan had a hand in bankrupting the USSR and driving it out of business, then Osama bin Laden could claim something similar: the American Empire is near collapse, aided by his ministrations vis a vis 9-11, other attacks sponsored by al Qaeda and his proclamations against us.

But we spend years deciding on the order of names of the fallen at ground zero!

Nowhere Near Enough

Thirty-three thousand over more than two years; ten thousand this year. When you consider the numbers of troops involved (about 100,000) that Obama proposes is certainly not a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan--and yet it's more than the "military wanted."

More than "the military wanted." Do you get it? Barack Obama is not Commander in Chief: David Petraeus is. He set out the "options," and the only gesture made towards popular opinion, especially towards Obama's 2008 supporters, is that Barack chooses the "option" that draws down the troops a little faster than the military would like. Maybe even that takes courage, given how dominant the military has become. The President was elected on a groundswell of get-us-out sentiment vis a vis Iraq, and secondarily, Afghanistan. Obama's main focus re Afghanistan was about stopping al Qaeda.

In his speech, Obama made no implied criticism of spending $2 billion a week on sustaining the Afghan war and the corrupt government we put into power there. Yet, he proposes only a 10% cut in the number of troops, even if Obama said the right things about rebuilding America, instead of some foreign country. We'll still be spending about $1.8 billion per week on this senseless war. Meanwhile, honeyed demands rise for cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, to pay for the deficits incurred by our imperial overreach.

What do we get out of the Afghan war? Are we safer? Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan not Afghanistan, The Afghan government is almost mythically corrupt. Our man, President Karzai, keeps on making noises about not wanting us there: if he honestly said what he wanted--continued American presence so that he could continue to rip us off--Afghans and Americans would both be dismayed. Karzai is dependent on our largesse, not just because it enriches him, but because it gives him extraordinary means to pay off his followers.

The economy of Afghanistan appears to be largely dependent upon American/NATO aid and opium sales, and it's still one of the poorest nations on the planet.

More and more Americans are agreeing that we shouldn't be going into debt to "develop" or pacify Afghanistan, when we don't have enough money for our own schools, or our retirees.

Obama's decision is clearly too little, too slow and too obeisant to his military overlords, who don't mind if they impoverish and then bankrupt the rest of us.

Would even Ron Paul, or Russ Feingold do any better if either were President? Or would the military overawe them, too? It seems likely, but then neither would be able to get elected, anyway.

What has been emerging since Reagan, at least, is a military that is NOT really subject to civilian control--although it still keeps up appearances. While the generals don't interfere with domestic policy, they have gained a stranglehold on military policy/foreign policy. They will drive the American empire either to Armageddon, or more likely, to bankruptcy.

Osama bin Laden Wasn't Killed?

I know people who think the bin Laden assassination was a hoax, otherwise, they argue, why did the Seals ditch the body at sea?

The answer is probably two-fold: it was the Navy Seals, after all, which provided the muscle for the operation. But probably more importantly, a burial at sea, while it can be scrupulously correct in Islamic ritual--reportedly it was--also disposed of the body without thereby creating a martyr's shrine.

That's important on the Indian subcontinent: veneration of a martyr's grave, that becomes a shrine for a saint, in Islam, or an altar to a local god, in Hinduism, has a long and bloody history. Better, people have no specific place for pilgrimage--except the mansion in Abbotabad; that can't be avoided.

In the fifth century, people speculated that Attila didn't die, because he was buried in a secret grave beneath the river Tisza. All the captives who worked to divert the river, and to dig the grave, were summarily executed. Attila as Told to His Scribes on this site.

We've read or heard stories of Jesus's resurrection, or, in the case of Kazantzakis, succumbing to the temptation not to be crucified, and going on, living his life anonymously, somewhere else. There is also Elizabeth Cunningham's Passion of Mary Magdalen, in which Jesus rises again: Cunningham claims: "Maeve put the erection back into the resurrection."

Wait for it: Osama bin Laden will rise again.

What about the legality of the President ordering the assassination of someone who has publicly declared himself an enemy, and boasts that he's attacked us? It's probably stretching the elastic limits of Presidential authority as Commander in Chief, but unfortunately, there are precedents, at least since Wilson, and certainly since Kennedy. JFK apparently approved plots to assassinate Fidel Castro. His own assassination might very well have been blow-back. Lee Harvey Oswald had earlier defected to the USSR and later defended the Cuban Revolution.

The unreal world of government covert action and anti-government terror is a game that supposedly grown people play. Presidents are advised that they must, that it's their responsibility to Protect and Defend, that these super-secret operations are absolutely necessary.

And so, President Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, acted as judge, jury and Commander of the executioner.

If Obama had ordered bin Laden's capture, instead of murder, bin Laden's trial might have become a cause célèbre worldwide, and al Qaeda would have exploited it--to recruit more suicide bombers. Any dispassionate coverage of the trial would have infuriated true believers.

I suspect there is another, simpler reason why bin Laden was killed in the raid: Navy Seals, especially special units like the one which carried out the raid in Abbotabad, are probably trained to kill, not to capture.

Anyway, enough people, including Republican Congressmen, saw the gruesome photos of bin Laden, that we can be sure: he's dead.

So, the Wicked Witch is Dead?

Let's notice: Osama bin Laden was not killed in a conventional military operation, and no conventional American or NATO forces are in Pakistan, nor was it a drone attack.

Many opposing war in Afghanistan have advocated tactics like the assault on Abbotabad. I have. It was a military maneuver, to be sure, but it was the kind of action that police forces also do: swooping in on helicopters to take a criminal head of a crime family, which is really what Osama was. Further, the intelligence, while more sophisticated than most police forces, was similar to good detective work.

Meanwhile, we've spent over $1.5 trillion on two wars to "destroy" the terrorists, but covert operations and police work have been the most effective. The question therefore arises: why are 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan?

Why don't we boost our Special Operations forces, and our CIA covert ops, use the kind of surveillance that pinpointed bin Laden's hiding place, and withdraw our troops from a fruitless Afghan war? Even Karzai wants us to go, and there are indications that some Taliban are willing to negotiate: they know they can't win, but we can't either.

Our goal in Afghanistan was to "destroy al Qaeda," but most of its operatives are elsewhere, and we got its honcho in Pakistan, not with full-scale military action, but with covert police action.

AQ is "hiding in plain sight" in Pakistan, in Yemen, and probably in other places. Covert action like the assault in Abbotabad makes sense against a movement like the formless, territory-less al Qaeda.

The Taliban is not the same thing: it's confined to Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan, and is largely a Pashtun movement, aiming at Pashtun control of Afghanistan, or southern Afghanistan and the western tribal areas in Pakistan. It does not threaten the US--unless we're in Afghanistan.

The problem is: the US military doesn't want to forego an expensive war, or a foothold in central Asia. Further, we have clients there who don't want us to leave: they make billions on us. There's also a pipeline route.

Osama bin Laden has already accomplished a good part of his agenda: to bankrupt the world's superpower, and to terrorize us into doing away with a significant part of our freedoms: a beacon for Muslims as well as other peoples.

Our military in Afghanistan results in many civilian casualties, even if more of them are at the hands of the Taliban. Even our reluctant client, President Karzai, says we should leave. Further, our counter-productive actions drive Afghans into the arms of the Taliban--young men whose family-members are killed in poorly targeted attacks on their compounds, or on mistaken bombing raids, or when fathers are summarily hauled off to prison at Bagram.

But will an Empire withdraw before it's defeated? Osama's assassination would give us the excuse.

The Politics of Diversion

What's amazing is how well it works, especially when people are desperate and angry for completely different reasons. Diversion means, that you, as political opinion-maker, invent something to rile the boobs, so that they don't blame you when you steal them blind.

It worked in the segregated South: just keep those N--s down and we'll be all right--me on my plantation, you in your shack. It worked with Commies; it worked with gays; it worked with Latinos. And now it works with Muslims. Diversion is like three-card Monte, where the player hides the high card in plain sight, and draws the bettor with his diversionary hand.

Don't pay any attention to losing your unemployment: scream and shout about those Mooslim terrorists. Don't even think that my vote against extending unemployment insurance had anything to do with you: just gotta stop those Mooslims. Lost your house? Rail at those Mooslims, not at me, although I voted to protect the banks--against you.

This uproar about the Muslim-sponsored community center, two blocks away and invisible from the still-unfinished "Ground Zero" site, jostling a strip club on the same block, this is diversionary politics at its most pernicious. Republicans like Newt Gingrich, and blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, blat vicious idiocy about Muslims, while these same "patriots" urge American troops to "win the hearts and minds" of--Muslims!--in Afghanistan, Iraq and the whole Middle East.

Do these people have a brain in their heads? What they have is an extraordinary amount of short-sighted political opportunism. Do they not think about consequences? What happens if they win the elections and want to promote their dirty little wars? They'll find they've made them inordinately worse and more dangerous for Americans.

Of course, Osama bin Laden is going to take advantage. He gets well-publicized "proof" that the US is conducting a crusade against Islam. All Muslims, even Muslim-Americans, he'll helpfully point out, should join al Qaeda and strike a blow against the anti-Muslim American Empire. Even American leaders, like Minority Leader Boehner, bray full-throated against Islam. And those who claimed they are Islam's friends, stand silent, or writhe in ambiguous retreat.

The most disturbing aspect of this whole manufactured controversy is the spinelessness of people who know better, especially Obama. After an eloquent defense of freedom of worship, before Muslims celebrating Eid at the White House, Obama backed away from defending the Muslim community center. Senate leader, Reid, whimpered that maybe it should be built someplace else.

The only way to combat this political fraud is to hammer real issues: jobs and the economy, and reveal what these gangsters voted for: greater misery, and inaction--and keeping taxes low for the wealthy.

Except for Mayor Bloomberg, "the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity--What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"