Booman wrote a little article recently called Reflections on the End of a War about the so-called “withdrawal of the troops” from Iraq. I so disagreed with it that it took me a whole day to put my thoughts in order. I present them below.

Long story short? Sure.

“The war” isn’t over. It’s just shifting its priorities and to some degree its tactics. It won’t be over until the United States stops basing its economy on militarily-supported economic imperialism, and that ain’t about to happen anytime soon. Not as long as the corporate-owned Permanent Government can continue to run the only two political parties, both of which are totally dedicated to continuing that policy.

Read on.

Booman…you really believe this stuff, don’t you?

You sound more and more like a mainstream pundit with each passing day.

What kind of stirrings are afoot, and what will remain of the political landscape of the Middle East that has now begun the same kind of breakup as we saw in Eastern Europe twenty-odd years ago?

What kinds of stirrings are afoot?

Yer kiddin’, right?

You’re not?

The ill will that the U.S., Great Britain (and the NATO powers in general) have earned in the Middle East for almost 100 years…much of it monstrously amplified since Bush I’s little Iraqi invasion and massacre rehearsal in 1991…will remain amongst the populace. Would it not remain in the U.S. had a foreign power invaded, murdered, tortured, looted and burned a fairly large portion…say several states…of our own region? Left those states broken on every level and then “left?”

Of course it would. Barring the success of ongoing covert ops meant to keep governments in power that secretly or otherwise favor the U.S., most of the population will go for whichever political parties most plainly oppose the recent murderers who occupied Iraq and are now very, very busy elsewhere in the region.


Unlike the Soviet Union, the U.S. hasn’t been destroyed as it has navigated, sometimes facilitating, sometimes thwarting, the relaxation of the political straightjacket it has imposed or tolerated in its semi-colonial possessions.

Not yet destroyed maybe, but badly damaged. And…” sometimes facilitating, sometimes thwarting?”  “…imposed or tolerated?” C’mon, Booman. Take a stand. Any “facilitation” whatsoever was done purely in self-interest (desperate self-interest after the old, bought-and-sold regimes began to crumble), and how can a nation “tolerate” a political system that it has totally fixed by the use of force, covert operations and massive amounts of money and weaponry. That’s like saying Al Capone “tolerated” his stranglehold on the city of Chicago during his reign. Did you not listen to that Noam Chomsky speech I posted recently in response to one of your anti-Ron Paul posts? If you’re going to quote the man at length when he agrees with you, at least spend some time finding out what else he believes. You don’t have to download it…I found a transcript. Read the damned thing.

Here’s a sample.

The U.S. and its allies will do anything they can to prevent authentic democracy in the Arab world. The reason is very simple. Across the region, an overwhelming majority of the population regards the United States as the main threat to their interests. In fact, opposition to U.S. policy is so high that a considerable majority think the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons. In Egypt, the most important country, that’s 80 percent. Similar figures elsewhere. There are some in the region who regard Iran as a threat — about 10 percent. Well, plainly, the U.S. and its allies are not going to want governments which are responsive to the will of the people. If that happens, not only will the U.S. not control the region, but it will be thrown out. So that’s obviously an intolerable result.


Now, there are some polls that are reported. So here’s one from the New York Times a couple days ago. I’ll quote it. It said, “The poll found that a majority of Egyptians want to annul the 1979 peace treaty with Israel that has been a cornerstone of Egyptian foreign policy and the region’s stability.” Actually, that’s not quite accurate. It’s been a cornerstone of the region’s instability, and that’s exactly why the Egyptian population wants to abandon it. The agreement essentially eliminated Egypt from the Israel-Arab conflict. That means eliminated the only deterrent to Israeli military action. And it freed up Israel to expand its operations — illegal operations — in the Occupied Territories and to attack its northern neighbor, to attack Lebanon. Shortly after, Israel attacked Lebanon, killed 20,000 people, destroyed southern Lebanon, tried to impose a client regime, didn’t quite make it. And that was understood. So the immediate reaction to the peace treaty in Israel was that there are things about it we don’t like — we’re going to have to abandon our settlements in the Sinai, in the Egyptian Sinai. But it has a good side, too, because now the only deterrent is gone; we can use force and violence to achieve our other goals. And that’s exactly what happened. And that’s exactly why the Egyptian population is opposed to it. They understand that, as does everyone in the region.

On the other hand, the Times wasn’t lying when they said that it led to the region’s stability. And the reason is because of the meaning of the word “stability” as a technical meaning. Stability is — it’s kind of like democracy. Stability means conformity to our interests. So, for example, when Iran tries to expand its influence in Afghanistan and Iraq, neighboring countries, that’s called “destabilizing.” It’s part of the threat of Iran. It’s destabilizing the region. On the other hand, when the U.S. invades those countries, occupies them, half destroys them, that’s to achieve stability. And that is very common, even to the point where it’s possible to write — former editor of Foreign Affairs — that when the U.S. overthrew the democratic government in Chile and instituted a vicious dictatorship, that was because the U.S. had to destabilize Chile to achieve stability. That’s in one sentence, and nobody noticed it, because that’s correct, if you understand the meaning of the word “stability.” Yeah, you overthrow a parliamentary government, you install a dictatorship, you invade a country and kill 20,000 people, you invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people — that’s all bringing about stability. Instability is when anyone gets in the way.


The real deal. While the president and his supporters mouth off about “humanitarian concerns.” What a crock of shit.

More Booman:

…the inspiration for [these revolutions] is rooted in the founding principles of our country, including self-determination, human rights, and representative democracy?

Bullshit. The “inspiration” for this movement is…and remains…to remove the demagogues who have recently had their asses handed to them in the region. The people are not reading Tom Paine or Thomas Jefferson, they’re just tired of being shat upon. The only thing that relates to “our country” in this movement is the not so curious fact that the U.S. has offered active and/or tacit acceptance of the movements after it became plain that there was no way to stop them.

Even our international role has been upheld, however unevenly. Iraq will willingly maintain military and diplomatic ties with the United States. The same is probably true in Egypt. Libyans literally owe their freedom to the intervention of the West, and will probably build strong ties to Europe.

Wanna bet? “Iraq will willingly maintain military and diplomatic ties with the United States?” I guess it depends on your definition of the word “willingly.” And of course, which part of the population is doing the willing.

Yet, we have left Iraq not entirely on our own terms, and certainly with a lingering sense of shame and an earned degree of resentment and outright hostility.

Well, at least y’got that right.

Even so, the best aspirations of American ideals are on the rise in the Middle East, as though the people there have learned the value and correctness of our creed just well enough to turn them against us and demand the same rights for themselves that we take for granted.

“…the value and correctness of our creed,” eh Booman? Pray tell…what creed is that, exactly? Islam has its own creed(s), and they are what is driving much of the so-called Arab Spring movement.

Lissen up. If the U.S. or its surrogates lose control of the elections in these countries, the political parties that win will be anti-U.S. Islamist parties, just as is presently happening in Egypt.

Egypt’s Islamists claim sweep of second round vote
CAIRO | Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:43pm EST
(Reuters) – Egypt’s two leading Islamist parties said on Sunday their separate party lists secured about three-quarters of votes cast in the second round of a parliamentary election, extending their lead in the three-stage vote

A source from the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) said it was on track to win about 40 percent of votes for party lists, based on results from most districts.
A spokesman for the ultra-conservative Salafi al-Nour Party said its list received about 35 percent of votes.

Every time the U.S.-trained and armed military busts people’s asses in the street, U.S. stock goes down in these countries. Wake the fuck up. It’s not “our example” that they are emulating any more than they “hate us for our wealth.” Those are both just two sides of the same counterfeit American domestic propaganda coin…the Dem side and the Ratpub side.

That the exercise of those rights can be an inconvenience or worse for our elites makes this moment unusually poignant. The death of Vaclev Havel reminds us of the fall of the USSR, which should also remind us to be humble in times such as these. Yet, our best ideals are made of sturdier stuff than those of the Soviets. Or, let us hope.

Yes. Let us indeed “hope.” In the face of a two-headed PermaGov political monster about to impose two versions of the same economic imperialist line on our ruling bodies once again, let us hope.

Let us hope that we can survive.

That’s about all of the hope I have left, myself. I watch with bated breath as the good people of Iowa struggle against the massive hype to understand why so many of them are still so attracted to Ron Paul’s candidacy even in the face of concerted media efforts to make sure that he does not win there. And after he does…or at least makes a strong showing…I will watch further as those same forces marshal every weapon at their command to stop him in New Hampshire.

You’ve seen the movies where the tragically honest boxer refuses to throw a fight, right? The controllers always end up beating the shit out of him, although in true Hollywood propaganda/fairy tale fashion he usually prevails in the end. In real life? Not the most common ending.

It’ll be Romney…with a side helping of Condoleezza Rice, maybe…against Obama…w/a helping of Hillary as VP also a continuing possibility no matter how many “denials” we hear from her and the White House.

And the two-headed, single-minded War Party will continue in power, bickering over tactics but not the basic strategy of economic imperialism.

You OK with that?

I’m not.

Bet on it.