While all of the media attention has been focused on the Filibuster debate (to go or not to go) and on what the President may or may not discuss in his State of the Union address Tuesday night, there have been a number of significant stories that have slipped under the radar. These stories, at first glance, may appear to be unrelated, but I believe them to be fundamentally linked to the path Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove will attempt to take us down during this critical mid-term election year.
Big surprise: it has nothing to do with health care, and everything to do with Bush’s next front in the war on terror: Iran
The first story was one that we’ve heard before, but it’s one that bears repeating: that our armed forces are stretched thin and are at their breaking point:
[A] new report—paid for by the Pentagon—echoes the recent private grumblings of some top military brass that the rapid deployment of troops to Iraq is in danger of crippling the fighting force that the nation has steadily rebuilt since the shaky post-Vietnam Army of a generation ago. Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer and West Point graduate who wrote the 136-page report assessing the military’s Iraq strategy, warns that the Army cannot maintain its current pace of operations in Iraq without leaving permanent damage. Plans to trim U.S. troops there this year—now at 138,000, with hopes of reducing that to 100,000 by year’s end—is a tacit acknowledgment that the Army is stretched too thin, he maintains in a section he entitles “The Thin Green Line.” The service’s failure to achieve its recruiting goal in 2005—the first time it has missed it since 1999—and hefty bonuses for soldiers to reenlist are further evidence of the Army’s erosion, he writes.
The top U.S. officer in Iraq said Thursday that his forces, while strained, are not broken. “The forces are stretched,” Army General George Casey said. “I don’t think there’s any question of that. But the Army has been for the last several years going through a modernization strategy that will produce more units and more ready units.” Still, his boss, Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, flat-out declared Wednesday that Krepinevich’s study “is just not consistent with the facts.” But as the defense secretary spoke to reporters at the Pentagon, Democrats led by former defense secretary William Perry released a report making similar claims as Krepinevich’s. Today’s Army, the second report concludes, is under enormous strain with potentially “highly-corrosive and potentially long-term effects on the force.”
As I said, a familar story, one we’ve heard anecdotally from veterans of the Iraq war for some time now. In itself, not earthshaking news, but still extremely troubling. What is far more interesting, however, is the manner in which Defense Secretary Rumsfeld chose to respond to these gloomy reports:
(Much more below the fold . . .)
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday disputed reports suggesting that the U.S. military is stretched thin and close to a snapping point from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, asserting “the force is not broken.”
“This armed force is enormously capable,” Rumsfeld told reporters at a Pentagon briefing. “In addition, it’s battle hardened. It’s not a peacetime force that has been in barracks or garrisons.”
Note the choice of words used by Rummy. This is not just a denial, it’s a denial in force. The troops are not only not broken, they are “battle hardened.” They are not a lazy, lethargic “peacetime force” but a lean, mean fighting machine kind of force. Why those words? Why that characterization? This goes beyond the typical Rumsfeld dismissal of critics who see an over-extension of America’s military. Look at his other remarks:
Rumsfeld said reports suggesting that the U.S. military is close to the breaking point are “just not consistent with the facts.”
“It’s clear that those comments do not reflect the current situation. They are either out of date or just misdirected,” he said.
These are more in line with the typical Rumsfeld rejoinder: that critics don’t have all the information he does, that they are “out of touch” with the true situation, etc. Why did he feel the need to go further?
Two points: one I believe at these statements were not intended solely for domestic consumption, but were aimed at an entirely different audience: the Army itself. Rumsfeld wanted to make it clear that he expects the Army to fight another war if called upon, and no excuses or foot dragging will be permitted.
Second, his rather bellicose statements (not just a “No”, but a “Hell No!”) may have something to do with the next story that caught my eye last week, though the connection between them may, on the surface, appear counterintuitive. That story? It’s the revelation that our military commanders in Iraq are having high level negotiations with various Sunni leaders of the insurgency:
Feb. 6, 2006 issue – American officials in Iraq are in face-to-face talks with high-level Iraqi Sunni insurgents, NEWSWEEK has learned. Americans are sitting down with “senior members of the leadership” of the Iraqi insurgency, according to Americans and Iraqis with knowledge of the talks (who did not want to be identified when discussing a sensitive and ongoing matter). The talks are taking place at U.S. military bases in Anbar province, as well as in Jordan and Syria. “Now we have won over the Sunni political leadership,” says U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. “The next step is to win over the insurgents.” The groups include Baathist cells and religious Islamic factions, as well as former Special Republican Guards and intelligence agents, according to a U.S. official with knowledge of the talks. Iraq’s insurgent groups are reaching back. “We want things from the U.S. side, stopping misconduct by U.S. forces, preventing Iranian intervention,” said one prominent insurgent leader from a group called the Army of the Mujahedin, who refused to be named because of the delicacy of the discussions. “We can’t achieve that without actual meetings.” […]
They have much to discuss. For one, Americans and Iraqi insurgent groups share a common fear of undue Iranian influence in Iraq. “There is more concern about the domination by Iran of Iraq,” says a senior Western diplomat, “and that combination of us being open to them and the dynamics of struggle for domination of violence has come together to get them to want to reach an understanding with us.” Contacts between U.S. officials and insurgents have been criticized by Iraq’s ruling Shiite leaders, many of whom have longstanding ties to Iran and are deeply resented by Sunnis. “We haven’t given the green light to [talks] between the U.S. and insurgents,” says Vice President Adel Abdel Mehdi, of the Shiite party, called the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
This falls into the category of “extremely interesting.” Not that long ago we were getting reports of Shi’ite “death squads”, i.e., elements of the Iraqi Army and police that had been given training and assistance by the US and Britain, and then set loose against the Sunni population in which the insurgency was sheltered. So, why the sudden urge to negotiate with the Sunni insurgency? That would literally entail “switching sides” in what has become a civil war in all but name.<p)
The answer is presented right there in the article: Iran. Iran is quite happy to (a) see Americans fighting the Shi’ites traditional religious rivals in Iraq, (b) have those US forces tied down by and “stretched thin” by such a conflict, all while (c) obtaining influence over the Shi’a dominated Iraqi government through aid and other “assistance.” Despite the public “happy face” the Bush team puts on when describing the situation in Iraq, they have to be concerned that the elections ended with a Shi’a controlled government, one that has allied itself with Iran. They also know that their military options in the Middle East will continue to be limited so long as they must remain committed to suppressing the Sunni minority in Iraq.
Which leads me to the next dot to be connected in last week’s news cycle. Some of you may know that Iran has suffered a rash of recent plane crashes involving, interestingly enough, high ranking members of its military command structure. What you may not have known was that last week, Iranian officials accused the US, Britain and Israel of having a hand in causing those planes to crash:
Iran accused the United States, the United Kingdom and above all Israel of “playing a part in the latest two plane crashes which took place in the country.”
Iranian Interior Minister Mustafa Purmohammedi, in a speech he made at a seminar Wednesday, said they have information that these three countries played a role in these crashes.
Purmohammedi claimed “US, British and Israeli secret services want to cause insecurity in Iran” though declining to elaborate further his accusations. […]
Iran [also] made the accusation that “US and UK played a part” in the explosions in the town of Ahvaz where eight people died.
There have long been reports that the US and Britain have been engaged in a “secret war” inside Iran, involving terror attacks by the MEK, an acknowledged terrorist group bent on the overthrow of the Iranian regime, and now given shelter by US authorities inside Iraq. We’ve also seen reports that American and British special forces, and other intelligence assets have been deployed inside Iraq in preparation for a possible military strike. Refer to this diary for more details.
What’s new, is that Iran’s government is beginning to break its silence about these developments, and more openly accuse the US of being behind them. If you look at the earlier stories regarding the plane crashes, no mention was made of any foreign involvement as the cause of these aerial catastrophes. Now that negotiations with Europe and Russia regarding Iran’s nuclear program have fallen through, Iranian officials are clearly no longer willing to remain so circumspect in their public pronouncements.
Which brings me to my last connection, the growing and continued drumbeat regarding the need to attack Iran coming from right wing pundits and broadcasters. There’s no need to provide a comprehensive survey. What I’d like to do is focus on what I consider the touchstone for ferreting out Bush Administration plans well before they are ever formally proposed: Fox News, and in particular, its most popular pundit Bill O’Reilly.
If one man could be considered emblematic as a spokeman for the dissemination of propaganda produced by the Bush administration, O’Reilly is that man. Here’s what he had to say about Iran back on January 10th:
O’REILLY: Here’s the important story of the day that no one will tell you about. The head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog program, Mohamed ElBaradei, has told the United Nations that Iran will begin uranium enrichment work, contradicting previous statements from the mullahs who run Iran. So look, it’s just a matter of time, ladies and gentlemen, before we have to bomb that country.
Not convinced? Here’s more from his website, regarding O’Reilly’s TV program on January 27th (scroll down):
Unresolved Problems Segment
The threat from Iran
Guest: Joseph Sirencione, Georgetown UniversityA majority of Americans favor military action against Iran if it pursues nuclear weapons. Foreign affairs observer Joseph Sirencione claimed Iran is years away from being a nuclear threat. “This is not a case where anyone is telling us there is an imminent threat. It is a threat, but at a very basic level, and negotiations are showing some promise. A military strike would probably accelerate their nuclear program in the long run because Iran would then go all-out.” The Factor agreed that a peaceful settlement is preferable, although the military option has to be on the table. “If Iran does not listen to reason, there is going to have to be a confrontation with that country. Israel is never going to allow Iran to have a nuclear device.”
I didn’t watch that segment, but O’Reilly’s conclusion after speaking to a guest expert (who clearly indicated that Iran was years away from making a bomb), is telling: “If Iran does not listen to reason, there is going to have to be a confrontation with that country.”
So, what does it all mean? Here’s my take. Bush (or Cheney and Rumsfeld — no difference really) desperately want a war with Iran. That’s long been a goal of theirs, as PNAC publications will bear out. However, they know that further military action will not be feasible if US public opinion continues to turn against the use of force in the Middle East. Thus they have to counter any suggestion that our military has been overextended as a result of the war in Iraq. In addition, they have to begin to create a public groundswell for such a war based on fear of Iran’s nuclear program, one that doesn’t appear to come solely from the White House (thus the use of O’Reilly and other organs of the Mighty Righty Wurlitzer).
Further, they have to know (because I’m sure some of their military planners have told them this) that any attack on Iran will require, at a minimum, a cease fire with the Iraqi insurgents. To attack Iran without first getting all our ducks lined up with the Sunnis in Iraq would be suicidal for our troops stationed there. By the way, this also explains the reports a few weeks ago that Cheney had solicited the deployment of Egyptian troops to Iraq to act as a “peacekeeping force” (essentially a buffer between the Sunni and Shi’ite populations and their various armed contingents). Such a deployment, while probably not a “deal breaker” would certainly free up more US forces for whatever attack against Iran may be in the works.
Once you take a look at everything that’s happening it really isn’t that hard to read which way the wind is blowing, is it? Expect to see some further mention of the “Iranian Menace” by Bush in the State of the Union address tomorrow night. It may not be much, but as we all know, even as little as 16 words can make a big difference.
excellent analysis Steven.
You are right that we cannot do anything in the Middle East, even provide a credible deterrent, until we can calm down the insurgency. We also have a common interest with the Sunnis in boosting their influence. And we checkmated right now on Teheran’s nuclear ambitions. We look impotent.
You are probably right that we have been giving Iran a little tit for tat, possibly picking off some of their generals or intelligence operatives in these attacks. This is part Cheney inspired lunacy, and part legitimate payback for what Iran has been doing in Iraq and more generally, what Iran has been doing since 1979.
this is not a parody.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11097877/
on all fronts at home and abroad. With the media and the Rovian propaganda machine. The Cabal of Fascists in the White House will stop at nothing in order to take over not the Middle East but the oilfields. This is what it has always been and always will be about. War for profit and control and power.
THIS is why we must win back the majority and IMPEACH all their asses to high Heaven!
I notice you referenced “Joseph Sirencione, Georgetown University” making comments about Iran being 5 or more years away from a nuclear device. Similar comments were made on Mother Jones Radio by Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. I am wondering about the name similiarites and will check it out myself but wanted to make you aware too.
Actually that was a quote that came from O’Reilly’s website. No surprise they screwed up Mr. Cirincione’s name.
The correct name is Joseph Cirincione and he holds positions at Georgetown & The Carnegie Endowment for Internation Peace where he is Director for Non-Proliferation. I found him to be very credible in his appearance on the Mother Jones Radio program on Sunday 29 January 2006 carried on Air America Radio. Mother Jones Radio
If you do a bit of googling, you’ll see Steven D’s analysis below is pretty good. Last year the White House, CIA, and/or Pentagon was wide open and planting stories with the media about infiltrating Iran and creating unrest within the civilian population as well as providing financial support for various anti-government factions there in an effort to destabilize the government (pre-election) and ultimately bring down the Teheran government itself.
And surprise, surprise. Next thing we hear/read is that “terrorists” are exploding bombs in different parts of Iran (both pre- and post-election), killing civilians, and yet later there are reports of suicide bombers running amok inside Iran. More recently we have this convenient rash of airplane accidents taking out top military leaders.
There is no doubt in my mind that the U.S. has unleashed another of its insidious black ops and is, in fact, behind all these unlikely “coincidences.”
Good on you, Steven.
Graham Greene’s excellent novel, “The Quiet American”, about American skullduggery in Vietnam at the time of the French defeat there, lays out the general pattern of how these Ops are set up and how they proceed.
If ever there was a story that best illuminated the devastating results of unintended consequences, that showed the horrors possible from even ostensibly “well-intentioned” motives, this is it. This is why extremist ideologues who are mezmerized by their own beliefs are so dangerous, and always need to be prevented from gaining power.
The fairly recent film of the same name is quite good also.
Regardless of what anyone is saying, the decisionmakers and policy setters in the bush regime will not permit the level of violence to decrease in Iraq under any circumstances.
They want war to grow and spread to engulf the entire region and will do anything to bring that about, including sabotaging any efforts that might be successful in bringing Iraqi factions together to coperate on resolving the problems they face.
Zalmay Khalilzad is an agent of PNAC. Despite the rhetoric, his primary role is to insure peace doesn’t breakout by accident and threaten the longer term agenda of his fellow neocon lunatics.
Also, Bush SOTU will be a Fear-based exhortation because fear is the only functionng weapon they have.
He can’t cite facts because the truth exposes his regime’s fraud and lies at every level. He can’t cite accomplishments where things have improved because there are no examples of improvement as a resultofa single olicy implemented by BushCo.
He can’t cite progress in the spread of Democracy as a vehicle against terrorism because of the 5 electoral failures; Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Herzbollah in Lebanon, Ahmadinejad in Iran, the Shiite Iran-centric theocrats in Iraq, and Hamas in Palestine. Each and every one of these electoral debacles makes the region prone to ore violence, not less.
Fear is the only weapon available to BushCo, and, because ofthe insanity of their own agenda, Bush will be focusing specifically on “nuclear fear”, because cheney and his pals are determined to use a nuke against someone before they’re out of office.
Let’s assume that the Iranian threat is real. (clearly not an assumption that all Americans will accept as accurate.)
If the threat is real, and the Iranians do begin making serious progress towards getting nuclear bombs and a delivery system, then someone (probably the U.S. or Israel) will have to take military action.
But the American public is tired of being lied to by our government. No one outside of extreme right-wing wacko’s and people on the Republican payroll believe anything they say now. Anyone want to bet that the viewership of the STOU speech tomorrow night won’t break the 38,000,000 Bush got in 2005?
After we left Viet Nam in 73 the American public had the same sense of disgust. So Nixon successfully Vietnamized the war and pulled our troops out, promising support if the North Vietnamese attacked directly.
Which they did, two years later. And we did nothing about it. Congress let the South Vietnamese go down the tubes and refused to provide the support that might have stopped the North Vietnamese attack. The reason was American disgust at the entire war.
The American public was so disgusted at having been lied to by our own government for so long that they would not support supplies to South Viet Nam.
I see that same level of disgust in the polls on Iraq today. I’m not sure what it would take for me to believe that the Iranians were building a nuclear weapon, but I can guarantee that nothing a Republican says will meet that level of proof. The same is true for the Israeli government (think AICPA.) They’ve cried wolf for too long.
nuclear weapons they are said to have.
Then someone (probably Iran or Pakistan) will have to take military action.
If I was evaluating the nuke stuff, here’s how I see the rankings.
What country is most likely to use a nuclear weapon against a perceived opponent? (Most likely first, then descending order).
I don’t see either N. Korea or Iran as likely users of nukes unless they are attacked by same.
Other then the U.S., who is threatening Iran’s very existence?
By analogy, you also make a good case for the Kurds to develop (or buy) the bomb. Relatively small but oil-rich independent area in Northern Iraq, relatives in nearby Iran and Turkey severely oppressed for their ethnicity, distinct culture with long history (Salidin was a Kurd.) Turks, Iranians, and Iraqis opposed to the very existence of their nation.
Show me the threat to Iran that resembles the threat to Israel which I describe in All they want it their land back. Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has set as a national goal the destruction of Israel. This is not reaction to the “threat” presented to Iran by Israel.
Israel apparently had their nukes on the runway in 1973 as the Egyptian armored forces were attacking across Sinai, but didn’t use them. Would Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad show such restraint?
Whatever the “justification” the “sovereign nation” of Iran may have for developing nukes, the international nuclear anti-proliferation movement is much more important.
they have a terrific opportunity to lead by example.
My point is that while in the US it is accepted to the level of a religious doctrine that self-defense, or obtaining or possessing weapons is a privilege that only US can bestow, and that US has the divine right to bomb any nation it chooses, this view has simply not caught on in the rest of the world.
It does not matter the reasons for the Americans’ belief, or how strongly they believe it. The chances that it will become the prevailing view in Iran, or anywhere else, are not good.
Despite having been engaged pretty consistently in activities against the US war against Vietnam during the late ’60s and early ’70s, most reluctantly I have to say that it was not so much public disgust that led to the terminantion of support for the war but rather socieltal selfishness combined with the electoral calculus of self-serving politicians whose primary allegiance was then, (and is now), to their own electoral ambition.
Don’t get me wrong. Plenty of us were highly motivated by principle. But, it was economics and a sense of pesky annoyance; a subtle disturbance in the emotional security of our lifestyle, (helped along by the distinctly “unlovable” nature of Nixon and Henry the K and the rest of the odious goons in his regime), that caused the country to pretty much “shrug off” the Vietnam connection so unceremoniously.
Certainly there were no obvious epiphanies of conscience within the government or the media. It was selfishness and boredom that finished off that mess.
And, now, 30years later, we still, as a society, demonstrate that we learned no enduring lessons from that debacle. If anything we’ve grown more selfish as a society, more convinced, (absurdly, irrationally), of our “exceptionalism”.
In 1962 as a student at Texas A&M I was assigned a paper to justify the U.S. involvement in the War in Viet Nam. <u>My best result was to point out that the U.S. Army and Marines Corps were rapidly losing veterans who had actually faced real combat and that Viet Nam was a good training ground for real combat veterans.</u> Yes, I was a sophomore and a member of the Corps of Cadets. But note the date. I was more in the WW II – Korea generation than in the Anti-War generation. I also intended to be career military. The politics leadging to Viet Nam did not make sence to me even then, but I still intended to be professional military. I found no economic justification for the war in Viet Nam. The general Domino Theory seemed unsupportable, though Siam was in trouble and the Chinese were certainly making inroads into Indonesia. I got as “C” on the paper, and probably was given a kindness grade that didn’t fail me.
I didn’t realize it then, but the Domino Theory was a reflection of American right-wing fear more than it was an explanation of political reality.
Later I had the same reaction as you to Nixon. I had seen tapes of the “Checkers Speech” and found him disgusting. I didn’t even like his dog. Never changed that attitude, but I felt that the nasty guy could get us out of Viet Nam in 1968, so (to my eternal shame) I voted absentee from Germany for Nixon in 1968. Humphrey seemed to emotional to be effective and I saw nothing to counter Nixpon’s “Secret Plan” to get us out of Viet Nam. Reading the Stars and Stripes in Germany, I had no clue who Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey was. Never told my father that I had voted for Nixon. He’d have disapproved, but never said anything. Today I would tell my transgender son/daughter not to be so stupid as to vote Republican. (No danger. She has better sense.)
At the same time, the issue of going to Viet Nam was a career decision, and my then wife was panicked that I would get killed. I got out of the military instead. Should have gone. Would have had the divorce nine years earlier together with a great deal more professional satisfaction.
Since I was born in 1942, I am not a baby boomer. I am still amazed at how different my attitudes are from those of baby boomers. My sister, born in 1946, was one of the first.
Needless to say, I don’t think that individuals make many decisions as pure individuals. The decisions they make are largely representative of the age-cohort they grew up with. I was tail end of the Depression – WW II – 1950’s cohort rather early baby boomers. And I detested and still don’t like Elvis Presly. My sister was early baby-boomer, and loved that guy. He said nothing to me, and a lot to her.
I lean back to the WW II generation. What we promise we deliver. I am still shocked at our abandonment of the South Vietnamese, and the similar abandonment of the northern Iraqi Kurds by the CIA still chews at my craw.
I really don’t think that there is a bit of boredoom in those decisions. The decision was that “My supporters won’t go with me if I support them, so I’ll go with my supporters and not with my promises.” Selfishness? Yes. Boredom? Not a bit. Just lack of integrity. How much do you spend in an effort to extract the losers you promised to support after the battle is lost? Because you spend both financially and in political capital. It really costs you personally in a political sense.
Not all battles you choose to fight are won. How do you treat the losers you sent out there to fight for you who did not succeed? In my mind, that is the measure of who you are as a person.
I still find the abandonment of the South Vietnamese and especially the Montangards in Viet Nam, the Kurds in Northern Iraq and the Iraqi Southern Marsh Arabs in Iraq to be disgusting failiures for America. They stain our honor.
The decisions to cut our losses and get out of a losing battle I can understand. The decisions made to abandon our allies in the process I cannot.
If that was simply selfishness and boredom, it remains utterly incomprehensible to me.
I take your point about “boredom” being the wrong characteristic for me to use in describing the reasons for the US abandonment of the effort, however flawed, in Vietnam, and as far as “honorability” goes, I’m with you that our government then, as now, has dishonored ted ;our own country to an appalling degree.
I’m reminded though that our “betrayal” of the Vietnamese started long before our abandonment of the S. Vietnamese to the aggressions of the N,. Vietnamese forces, aggressionslargely stimulated by our incursion into that country in the first place.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe it was Ho Chi Minh and many of his pals in the North who worked forus against the Japanese during WWII and to whom we, (our government), madea pledge that we would not support or encourage the reinstitution of French colonial hegemony over that country after the war was over. We did renege on that and in the end promoted aand supported an incredibly corrupt and vicious autocratic regime in the south that was not only actively antagonistic to the ancient religious traditions of the country but was also quite firmly impoverishing the countryside as it accrued more wealth and power to itself.
Now arguably even this doesn’t necessarily “excuse” the violence that followed, but it doesn explain it, and if I were to be fair, I’d have to say that it was this earlier beytrayal of the Vietnamese that was ultimately more detrimental to them than the later “abandonment”.
As to what i previously, and erroneously,described as boredom, I want to try that again. Rather than boredom, I think people just, in the end, got tired of thinking about it, (the war, the discomfort of it). I think the vast majority simply wanted it to slide off their mental radar screens into obscurity, because no one wanted to feel even the slightest bit of responsibility for the mess we’d created. an “out of sight, out of mind” sort of calculus took hold I think, in much the same way it is happening now with regard to the invasion of Iraq. Intuitively people are realizing it was a mistake to do what we did, but precious few are willing to acnowledge personal responsibility for suporting the lunatics who implemented this insane anhd destructive assault. You remarked in your comment about the “everlasting shame” you came to feel for voting for the sick bastard Nixon, but you are ararity in your abiloity to acknowledge that. Most people, sadly, are extremely resistant to acknowledging such mistakes. This isa big part of why the maniacal Bush regime still has so many supporters today. Many many people simply are in denial, not able to admit their judgment was so far off and that the’d been duped so badly by such a bunch of megalomaniacs.
One of the articles cited in the comments to “Are we already at war” (cited above), Richard Sale’s “Cat and mouse game over Iran” talks about the MEK covert operations, which operate not only out of Iraq, but also from the southwestern Pakistani province of Baluchistan:
While one expects war-mongering language from the likes of Bill O’Reilly et al, it’s incredibly discouraging to hear so many liberals adding to the Wurlitzer by parroting the vocabulary of demonization.
Operation Iranian Freedom. That would be like not supporting the troops. Or the war on terror.
Great phrase “…parroting the vocabulary of demonization”.
Too many of us are still in the grip of that denial that prevents us from acknowledging that we, (our governments, and by extension, our own silence in the face of our governments actions) have contributed to conditions that indicate those who oppose us have considerable legitimacy for doing so.
There are very few indeed who are honest enough and willing to admit that by our own actions and aggressions we deserve to be opposed.
Andof course, this is one thing BushCo will fight like anything to prevent from occuring to the average citizen. War requires that the enemy be demonized in order that people willingly relinquish their humanity which in turn is a pre-requisite for any aggressive war.
is that if I dehumanize you, in reality, it does not make you a bit less human. The same cannot be said, however, of me.
And what makes it doubly tragic for Americans, they are dehumanizing people with thousands of years of culture, of history, people who have seen invaders, cocky little empires, come and go, and still they remain, with their thousands of years of culture and history.
US, on the other hand, is a flash in the pan of history, a people who consider a building that has stood for a century to be “old,” they put up markers outside it. Theirs is a history of a couple of centuries, based on genocide, suckled on slavery, doomed to perish before it is weaned.
I think that the US, despite the terrible things done in it’s name early on, (as has been the case with all aspiring empires thrpughout history), had a couple of chances to be much much more than what it has turned out to be.
After the civil war there was an opportunity for true human equality and prosperity to be elevated to being the central endeavor, the central legacy of achievment the US could have adopted. But, the greed and lust for power ofa few quickly squashed that. After WW2 a similar opportunity presented itself. The US could have led the world in evolving a planetwide system of cooperation in the name of the common good for all. Here again, however, while the talent and capacity for such an undertaking might have been there, the greed of a few prevented it.
I think the American Empire, such as it is/was, entered it’s formal, and irreversible death throes right around the time of the murder of JFK. I say this without any sentimental excess regarding Kennedy himself. I have no idea if he might have been a wise and enlightened leader or not. The fact that he was murdered, and that Martin Luther King was murdered in that same general period, a period where there was so much happening, so many profound changes being undertaken, it is the period itself who’s effectiveness was under assault by the darker elements of empire, and this is where the death sentence for American Empire was written.
As someone born and raised in the US, I have to say I’m grateful for many things here. But I am also very grateful for the fact that somehow I was never really contaminated with the fevered nationalism or the hubristic notions of exceptionalism that so often lead human beings to act against their fellow men.
I would defend the country against aggressors, but I would defend against the aggressions of Cheney and his neocons or dobson and his evangelical fascists with the same vigor as I would defend against crazed murderers and crooks from any other place in the world. The villains that threaten are not defined by their geographic origin.
“…parroting the vocabulary of demonization”
By all means, STEAL IT! & please, use it (or somesuch) at every appropriate moment . . .
Steven, great article as usual.
I also note that Iran had several of its border police kidnapped (and now released). At first it seemed like a western Afghanistan group had done it but the last reports I saw said the kidnappers came in from Pakistan.
I’m not saying the kidnappers were working for some western gov’t et al, but it shows just how untamed Iran’s borders are not just on the Khuzestan side.
Pax