Is Syria Like Kossovo?

The Obama Administration is discussing whether Clinton's air war over Kossovo could be a model for the kind of intervention the US might make against the Syrian government, if it got NATO approval--the chance for UN approval is nil. Intervention may now be considered necessary, because Obama was dumb enough to state, months ago, that Syrian use of chemical weapons would be "crossing a red line," and he would be forced to act accordingly.

It may be true that the Syrian government started a larger scale gas attack in part because evidence of an earlier, smaller attack had so far only resulted in words: our promise of supplying weapons and ammunition to the opposition still hasn't happened.

So, of course we have to "act," right? We're the USA and we're the good guys. Actually, public opinion, while malleable in crisis, is in no mood for another foreign adventure.

Before Obama considers an air war, or any kind of Syrian intervention, he should consider what kind of conflict he'd be trying to "fix." The Assad regime is horrid: autocratic, brutal, discriminatory, and perfectly willing to massacre large numbers of its citizens, especially Sunnis.

But the opposition is fragmented. About all they have in common is their determination to get rid of Assad and minority Alawite dominance. While there are secular democrats in the opposition, the large majority is divided: some are moderate Sunnis, driven by war to support ethnic cleansing of Alawites and Christians. Then there are the Islamic militants: al Nusra Front the best known, is highly effective militarily, probably equipped by Qatar, affiliated with al Qaeda and is made up of nihilist religious zealots. There are others, and some are Iraqis, the same al Qaeda zealots who tried to murder the Shia in the Sunni parts of Iraq.

So, whom, exactly would our air war promote? If it's the militant side of the opposition, then Syria could become an al Qaeda haven, even the foundation for the new Islamic Caliphate. Or, it could become a Sunni authoritarian "democracy," in which non-Sunni flee for their lives, or hole up in enclaves, balkanizing the country. Or it could end up as a civil war between moderate and extremist Sunnis, if our bombing polishes off the Assad regime.

Better if the US and Europe refrain from any intervention: Muslims have to handle this themselves, anyway. The best: simply walk away. If Arabs want to sell oil, we can buy it, or go solar, without causing death and destruction from the air.

But our Roman Senators might lose billions! The US would save hundreds of billions, maybe trillions. Does the empire belong to corporate overlords, or does our country belong to us? Are we a democracy, or a military/corporate dictatorship?

When the Roman Empire faced a similar decision, it bankrupted itself attempting to maintain control, like this, of conflicts beyond its power. Are we going to go there?

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.

Not Just Conservative Libertarians

Rand Paul's filibuster may have uncovered an issue that resonates with more than his core conservative base. It's the overweening reach of the executive branch, especially the President's use of drones, and his claim that he has the power to kill citizens if he determines--without proof--they are "enemy combatants" involved in terrorism against the US. This is a real danger: any President unchecked could become like a King or dictator, with no limits to his power.

Paul's protest is consistent with the conservative-libertarian view that government must be limited. Progressives, like Democratic Senator, Ron Wyden, who supported Paul's filibuster, could make common cause on the issue of war powers, but not on the government's role in the domestic economy.

Conservatives and progressives might collaborate on cutting back the overreach of imperial powers, and ultimately, on reducing, or withdrawing support from the United States as empire.

Back in the Interwar Period, this impulse was first labeled isolationism; then it was short-sighted. The rising powers of Togo's Japan, and Hitler's Germany had to be stopped: they were determined to dominate everyone. Their hegemony could have created a terrifying world. The dominance of the US after WWII was relatively benign in comparison.

However, US super-power status has been fraying for years, and although the US is still by far the most powerful militarily, and largest economically, trends are against its maintaining preeminence for long. First of all, as Vietnam and then Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated, military might is limited: it cannot impose American control over an unruly world, despite the US spending more on its military than all other major powers combined. Often, our "adversaries" have been able, like a judo master, to use our strength against us.

In Vietnam, the Viet Cong gained a goodly proportion of its arms from a vibrant black market, because of the flood of weaponry sent by the US. In Afghanistan, we created our own enemies: the Taliban and al Qaeda, when intervening against the Soviet takeover. In Iraq, we destroyed a relatively stable dictatorship, a sometime ally (Saddam worked with the CIA until invading Kuwait). Instead, we created an unstable "democracy" naturally allied with Iran.

In addition to the limits to military power, there is America's relative economic decline, caused by the dramatic rise of the BRIC nations, especially China, and by our trade debt. The US will not have the largest economy for long, and will not be able to afford the luxury of its huge military establishment. This is especially true as the US Dollar's reserve status weakens and we have to pay our debts with dollars earned!

It's likely we're seeing the beginning of the decline of the American Empire. I hope we can manage it more benignly than did the Romans, Spanish, or Soviets. So, Rand Paul has a point.

Maybe we can become like Monty Python's post-imperial Britain. We could have more fun!

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.

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?"