Uri Friedman, Defense One: America is facing a dangerous enemy. We just can’t agree who it is.
Among those who believe the U.S. is engaged in an ideological struggle, there is division on the question of which ideology represents the greatest threat to America: ISIS-style radical Islam or Russian-style autocracy.
Maybe the idea of the US being engaged in an ideological struggle is meant to force some domestic policies on Americans unrelated to the international political conflicts they use as justification.
The emphasis on radical Islamic terrorism certainly is being used to undermine what we used to call “integration” and now is called “diversity” undergirded with an ideology of “multiculturalism”.
The emphasis on Russian-style autocracy is being used to force down progressives of the Sanders mold who believe that government can have a beneficial role to play in the economy, especially in the provision of infrastructure. Also the secret and militarized state we have been living in for 70 years and intensely for the past 16 years has taken us away from democratic governance, human rights, and justice–those hopes that we had fifty years ago.
Both efforts are aimed at the “ideas” of “the enemy within”.
Both gloss over some very significant details about the historical relationships between US diplomacy and foreign policy and the origins of the conflicts.
Both are essentially for internal political consumption and electoral politics. Both avoid realistic discussions about policy and demand affirmation of “patriotism”.
Both are silly in that “clapping harder” doesn’t deal with the real challenges in the growth of low-cost asymmetric warfare in the past two decades nor does it deal with the failure of the US electoral process to deliver a government supportive of the constitution. If you want to look at a source for the first, it is the Reagan administration and succeeding administrations’ arming of factions in other people wars. It is the provision of cheaper and cheaper means of effective battle. Thank DARPA.
Cynics would say that part of the unofficial job of military leadership is to preserve the reason for being of militaries. Never allow agreements that will completely end the institution of war. After the scare with the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam, the US military has gone above and beyond on this, don’t you think?
As for the failure of the electoral system, it was not Putin and Russian oligarchs but our own homegrown oligarchs acting through secret slushfunds called political action committees that bid up elected officials so much that parties lost discipline. And they could buy the politicians directly. Each party now has its coterie of oligarchs, who are most interested in shutting other people out. Most recently the Democrat coterie associated with Haim Saban showed itself and its power in enforcing the first ideological assertion: no Muslims can be trusted. That turned an insignificant election of a party functionary into a high-stakes ideological fight.
The Koch Brothers have used the American Legislative Exchange Council to seed the rapid-fire legislative and gerrymandering turnover after a surprise election victory — Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Kansas — who’s next? — into massive, insane and quick changes. Ending public union power in Wisconsin; saddling minority communities in Michigan with appointed emergency managers; restoring discrimination through NC HB-2–those moves were planned out by the oligarchs like Kochs for shrinking government’s role and DeVos for culture wars against minorities and those outside of strict binomial gender roles, orientation, identity, or symbolic typing. And then there is the rising expense of privatization of infrastructure and creation of yet new oligarchs.
But we are to “Look over there!” in order to avoid looking to closely here. And looking at the campaign consultants for Democrats in recent elections who either do not know how to win elections or have some post-political expectations for losing the right elections. Unemployment apparently is not one of those post-political expectations.
To all of those well-paid Democratic consultants in DC: Heckuva a job guys and gals. I’ve never witnessed so determined an effort at destroying a political party. I would say, “Too bad it was your own” except I’m beginning to question that. Who exactly is your loyalty to?
Glenn
Much more in the piece and next up for me is Masha Gessen’s Russia: The Conspiracy Trap. (Greenwald quotes Gessen and Booman quotes Mensch it tres telling.)
Also highly recommended is Robert Parry’s Official Washington Tips Into Madness Not for the first time, but competent journalists never go there.
Very good. I’ve been most concerned recently of how herding people with foreign policy seeks to herd people out of their domestic policy interest.
That was a habitual tack of the Blue Dog era that now that the Blue Dogs have been exposed as hollow has become a repeating Democratic trope of No, We Can’t.
From Gessen’s piece:
But there’s more and should be read in its entirety.
One meanwhile thing that has occurred to me and is being left out of the Russiaphobia articles is that George W — freaking — Bush is being promoted by liberals/Democrats as a good guy. Disgusting.
Those are three outstanding cites you give. Glennwald sums it up superbly as does Parry.
The Gessen piece is a semi surprise — I’ve heard her numerous times on local Pacifica Radio w/Ian Masters (hardline anti-Putin broadcaster from the center-left) always bashing Putin and not much nuance to her hatred. But this offering goes beyond Putin to the mindless anti-Russkie hysteria currently sweeping DemLand. Very needed corrective from a certified non-stooge of the Kremlin.
And so helpful that all 3 pieces have helpful cites within — contrast with the lengthy hit piece recently at The New Yorker, another Just Trust Us offering from the anti_Russia crowd.
I skipped The New Yorker piece based on who was recommending it. Figured if it were high quality it would soon enough be cited by reputable writers and then I’d read it.
John Steppling’s Have You Now or Have You Ever Been a Secret Agent of Vladimir Putin is another good one. A playwright who offers a literary perspective.
Hit Job? You call the New Yorker piece a hit job? Ok. Robert Parry (who I like btw) cites his own damn self six fucking times in the linked article. Six. Not outside sources or anything like that. Himself. Six times. “Here I have an opinion, to support my opinion are six articles that I have written.”
Pretty sure citing myself half a dozen times in a research paper would have flunked me out of freshman english.
Hey, if there’s any reporter out there who’s earned the right to cite himself, it’s Bob Parry. Iran-Contra reporting early, October Surprise, the Nixon 68 subterfuge of the Paris Peace talks and the Watergate break in rationale. He was almost alone for a long time on these stories. But as he notes to contrast with today, he had actual evidence to report.
October Surprise is still relegated to the looney CT bin by the MSM. But will that still be the case 15-20 years from now, especially when the Reagan/Poppy apologists have mostly died off?
Remnick by contrast just doesn’t wander much off the well-trod paths the MSM have blazed. And in the FP area generally, he strikes me as a bit of a liberal interventionist. Iraq War. Libya. Probably wants a US-imposed no-fly zone for Syria too.
Get back to me on Remnick when he stops following the flock.
Dubya made one remark that made sense: that a free press is an essential part of a democratic polity. OF COURSE liberals agreed with that. For crying out loud….
Do try to keep up to date. Also featured on Ellen, a high profile “liberal.”
I prefer you not to respond to my comments with your snide and/or nitpicking comments (often ignorant as well). I prefer not to respond to your responses — in case you haven’t noticed or are under the mistaken impression that I’ve done so to allow you to have the last word — because it’s not worth my time or effort. I only did so in this instance to inform you of that and not let you erroneous comment stand and mislead other readers.
I see you’ve returned to status quo ante, Marie3.
I made reference to Vince Foster yesterday.
The analogy fits.
Thank you for the cites: which I agree with completely.
From Glenn:
If I knew it back in January 1994 (with killer fourteen hour work days in ’92-94 I blew off what little bits of the DC Clinton scandal obsessions that flitted into my consciousness), I’d forgotten that the original special prosecutor assignment included the suicide of Vince Foster. CT folks always milk suicides.
Assuming that CT stands for conspiracy theory, what about all the stuff I read, including from you, about the “deep state”? Care to define specifically what you mean by that term? And do you think others writing here and using that term (AG and oui come immediately to mind) share your definition? Frankly I see “deep state” as a pretty lazy framing. As far as I can tell, “deep state” simply functions as code, whereby all those who believe in this concept nod knowingly and deride those who–can you believe it?–are skeptical of the concept.
I’m also troubled by the rather random musings about this death and that death and what, if anything, they may have to do with Trump and Russia. Weird stuff, coincidences, but meaningful? I don’t know. Sometimes weird stuff is meaningful, as witnessed by the recent craziness in Malaysia with the murder of Mr. Kim. Doesn’t mean it necessarily is, of course.
One last time — to correct the record.
News flash: people die. Sometimes conveniently for others. Sometime inconveniently. That alone doesn’t make a death suspicious. The “musings” of Aranov’s death are as irresponsible as those that “mused” about Vince Foster’s suicide. Mr. Kim probably wasn’t murdered.
The NYT has a article up — ‘Deep State’? Until Now, It Was a Foreign Concept
An appropriate response:
See my diary of Febr. 23, 2017 where I extensively covered Keith Gessen and his outstanding writing.
○ US Gov. and Democratization of Eastern Europe and Russia
I too was struck by the opinion expressed here @BooMan – [h/t] The “Stupid”
This may seem shallow, but so it goes. I took a dislike to Glenn Greenwald a long time ago because he was always quick with the ad hominem attacks on commenters who disagreed with him. Guess I never got past that, and not sure I should, actually.
He is isn’t a nice guy, and his obvious disdain for anyone who dares question him makes him hard to take.
That does not mean he isn’t right in this instance.
Shall we categorize journalists and writers by: nice, semi-nice (in accordance with the political affiliation of the writer/journalist and the subject), and mean?
Reminds me of William Buckley, gesticulating with his pen, to whine, “Ohh, Gore Vidal was mean to me.” Buckley was a polite and mean SOB to all but those of his own kind. Whereas, Vidal was only mean to fools which includes all Republicans and most Democrats.
If the categories are limited to nice or mean, then Bob Woodward would be nice and Carl Bernstein would be mean. Which one is the better, more reliable, reporter? (Stylistically, there’s no competition between the two.)
What a stupid criteria — nice or mean — to use in assessing a reporter’s body of work.
This has a different meaning in social media.
He overreacts to questions, and makes ludicrous arguments as a result.
It effects both his work and his credibility.
For example?
This has a different meaning in social media.
What the hell does that mean? Social media is a cesspool of porn, selfies (tens of millions desperately seeking their fifteen minutes of fame (and fortune an update to McLuhan)), expletives, bullying, and trading in conspiracy theories and fake news. Oh, and “likes” and “followers.”
My opinion of the quality of Greenwald’s work is based solely on what he’s written. Charisma is a huge factor in TV appearances. Those with it can spout the most insane and ridiculous things and get a pass by more in the audience than those that are like-minded.
Perhaps I’m naive, but I don’t accept that 45.7% of the US population would vote for a charisma challenged version of Sarah Palin. (Combine Fiorina’s charisma with Palin’s word salad for a visual image of that.) Not that it would be down as low as rationally it should be (1-2%); so, it would still be scarily high.
In his exchanges he makes ridiculous arguments.
Woodward never answered anyone on twitter. If he had, and responded the way GG, he would be tougher to take seriously.
What you say in written form effects your credibility.
You sure you’re not describing Trump?
Guess you and I have different standards for intemperate and “ridiculous arguments.” Since the election and Billmon signing off, I’ve been reading most of Greenwald’s tweets (before then only occasionally) and he rarely uses that format to construct arguments. He puts them in his longer pieces (blessedly not as long-winded and without all the lawyerly precision of his early pieces when he started in 2005). His tweets are quick hit observations, opinions, and reading recommendations (including those of his and others at The Intercept).
My observation from his early work is that he’s an incredibly fast thinker and writer. Not uncommon among top level litigation attorneys. Not perfect, but better than most and really fast.
I found Chris Hitchens obsession with and loathing for Muslims and cheerleading for ME wars deplorable. However, outside of that topic, he was still credible and worth reading. (He’s wasn’t a nice guy either.) His fellow anti-Muslim traveler, Sullivan, is dull and boring.
You haven’t provided an example and simply repeated your opinion which for me is like someone saying, “X is a terrible movie” before admitting that she/he hadn’t seen the movie but did catch a random clip from it. If more honest would say, “A, B, C say that X is a terrible movie, and I’ll take their word for it.” Nothing wrong with that — none of us have an unlimited amount of time — but it’s the opinion of others and not that of the speaker. It’s exactly why liberals/Democrats expected a huge Clinton win — they followed liberal/Democratic opinions instead of looking at source or primary information. No different than Booman laughing about Trump’s presser and when I (reluctantly and at his urging) viewed it myself, saw a completely different presser than what he’d described.
I describe an impression: I have no example – it isn’t important enough to me to look for one. I broadened my explanation as to why what he says on social media is relevant, which I think you thought was incorrect.
I think I may have had an exchange with him by I honestly don’t remember why I have that impression.
It’s just my opinion about him – take it FWIW.
I’ll relate this anecdote again. Shortly after starting the job I’m still in, X was assigned to work with me. After telling me this, my supervisor advised me, “X has never made a mistake in his life, and if you don’t believe me, ask him yourself.”
Allow me to condense that. You admire writers who behave viciously to others and you then adopt that approach in your own writing.
I don’t read many tweets as I’m not registered and the format doesn’t suit me. And I wouldn’t want to judge too harshly w/o being shown evidence of how Glenn behaves in the social media, but I’d imagine it’s rather bland grub compared to the heavyweight all-out slugfest of Buckley v Vidal 1968, leading to lawsuits, or Vidal v Mailer 1970 over the former’s rather vicious association of Mailer with Charlie Manson (his controversial “3-M Boys” article) leading to the two lads nearly coming to blows later on Dick Cavett.
As for posters’ style quirks here, we’re all a little different, enjoyable or annoying, succinct or verbose, punchers and counterpunchers. Some offer substance and interesting takes, a few others offer little more than sarcasm and snark. A few others still seem to wallow mostly in ad homs. I would save your criticism for those in the latter negative categories.
Well, Vidal probably led the league wrt getting into nasty skirmishes with public intellectuals of his time. Mailer and Buckley most famously. Vidal was always a bit of a misanthrope and contrarian, but rather clever and brilliant at it.
Buckley actually did make friends with a few libs back then — JK Galbraith was a good friend. Although the latter once remarked to the effect “Bill is so gracious and welcoming in private. And he is also mean spirited.”
As for Woodstein, who both belong squarely in the reporter not intellectual category, neither would have amounted to much if not for that lucky break with Deep Throat. And except for Bernstein’s rather stunning CIA and the Media story from 1977, a breakthrough for which he deserves full credit, neither have done much in the past 40 years.
But your first point is a good one. No one out there is perfect or is going to check all the positive boxes on our lists, either professionally or personally.
Perhaps a few posters here would do well to ease off reading the comments on the social media and just stick with assessing things and forming judgments based on the reporters’ main work elsewhere, their entire raison d’être. Viewed that way, Greenwald scores very high marks in my book; Jeremy Scahill (another kinda tough personality) also ranks high. They break important stories not covered in the MSM, present solid analysis, and most importantly have actual evidence to show.
Galbraith said it better than I did.
I don’t think Vidal was a misanthrope, but his life was complex.
Bernstein, unlike Woodward, can write. He came of age at the end of old school journalism. Working class reporters that learned their craft on the job and not at an elite college that turns out hacks. Like Pete Hamill. Felt probably wouldn’t have talked to Bernstein (not his kind), but he was solidly chipping away at it well enough that he would have made a name for himself without Felt and Woodward. Not as a big of a name, but that may have better served him in the long run.
Agree with your last point.
Worthy of scroll: Jason Leopold
Begin with:
keep reading through 32/
The Guardian — Mark Levin: the talkshow host behind the baseless Obama wiretap rumor The title alone suggests that it’s not worth reading because:
NYT Blames Trump For Reading Its Reports. Whether Trump got it from the NYT of Levin got it from the NYT or both of them got it from some other report that took it from the NYT doesn’t matter. The original source was the NYT. b often writes stuff worth reading — unlike the comments in the threads there that have devolved and now rival Zero Hedge threads filled with asinine, ignorant and CT babble.
Trump&Co may have that carney barker thing down better than anyone else, but they’re pikers at disinformation. Step one — get it in the NYT and/or WaPo. (Senior officials say or anonymous official speaking off the record.)
Step two — that depends on the content of step one.
Tarheel…
You write:
Yeah.
Well…
Mr. Friedman is suffering from the same two-dimensional thinking as are almost the whole of the rest of the commentators: (And their devoted (
b)readers.)There is clearly a third dangerous enemy.
Let us call it “The Surveillance State” for want of a better label.
This is what is “the greatest threat to America.”
Greater than the just-past-caveman-level ISIS terror with its beheadings, sex slaves and imagined paradises.
Greater than the just-this-side-of-a-totally-failed-state Russian autocracy.
A totally secret, totally powerful, 24 hour/7 days a week/365 days a year surveillance of the minds and utterings of every motherfucker on the planet!!! (Sans the very few who use no digital communications whatsoever, who are themselves suspect for want of evidence.)
Hitler would be rolling on the floor near orgasm at the prospect of such a weapon…a weapon which is now very close to being totally perfected by the state of multinational digital information gathering, storage and analysis.
The “Russian” dossier?
Hell…we all got dossiers.
What we eat.
What we think.
Our lusts.
Our fears.
Our burdens.
Our beliefs.
Aliens got ’em.
Alien to the very core beliefs, the deepest hopes of human beings for eons past.
To Serve Man?
No.
To control man.
Why?
How?
William Burroughs knew.
From “Ah Pook Is Here”
Burroughs submits questions to a mysterious oracle named “Control.”
WTFU!!!
AG
Exactly!
○ 4th Dimension – The Rise of Corporate Kleptocracy 1984/2016
The downward trend into the abyss is not “silliness” …
See my above post, Oui.
Nothing “silly” about it…especially if you are one of the likely cullees.
ASG
My emphasis, contra Friedman, is the herding of domestic policy not national security.
So tell me the domestic agenda of the surveillance state. My best guess is to ensure the perpetuation of suppression of the suppression of an active left-wing in US politics that denies the increase of equal justice, progressive tax policy, and ample infrastructure. Also, support of white supremacy actions against popular movements who seek violent suppression of minority rights.
There is room to discuss what parts of the secret state that support domestic suppression of authentic democratic power in US governing. I suspect the “deep state” is fragmented but involves a part of the intelligence community that does have an agenda of its own separate hidden in the very compartmentalization that is supposed to fragment state power and ensure executive control.
But it’s secret. I could be wrong.
So tell me the domestic agenda of the surveillance state.
Do you think its changed in the past fifty years? Or that in the past seventy years there’s ever been a solid line between the two? Come on — you read The Devil’s Chessboard. What the Dulles Bros did abroad, Congress and the FBI did at home. They established a culture in Congress and USG agencies and cultures, once embedded, live on for generations.
Did you see Larry Wilkerson’s interview?
“Well, I’m certainly not one, Paul, to defend HMS Trump and that whole entourage of people, but I will paint you a hypothetical here. There are a number of events that have occurred in the last 96 hours or so that lead me to believe that maybe even the Democratic party, whatever element of it, approached John Brennan at the CIA, maybe even the former president of the United States. And John Brennan, not wanting his fingerprints to be on anything, went to his colleague in London GCHQ, MI6 and essentially said, “Give me anything you’ve got.” And he got something and he turned it over to the DNC or to someone like that. And what he got was GHCQ MI6’s tapes of conversations of the Trump administration perhaps, even the President himself. It’s really kind of strange, at least to me, they let the head of that organization go, fired him about the same time this was brewing up. So I’m not one to defend Trump, but in this case he might be right. It’s just that it wasn’t the FBI. Comey’s right, he wasn’t wire-tapping anybody, it was John Brennan, at the CIA. And you say, “What would be John Brennan’s motivation?” Well, clearly he wanted to remain Director of the CIA for Hillary Clinton when she was elected President of the United States, which he had every reason to believe, as did lots of us, that she would be.
…
When you have your entire intelligence community more interested in its own survival and its own power, and therefore, playing in politics to the degree that we have it doing so today, you’ve got a real problem. And I’m not talking about the people beavering away in the trenches who are trying their best to do a good job, I’m talking about these leaders, these people at the top and the second tier level, who are participating in this political game in a way that they should not be, but they’ve been doing for some time and now they’ve brought it to a crescendo.”
(http://therealnews.com/t2/story:18593:Empire-in-Decay%3A-Federal-Government-Falling-Apart-as-Spying-
Allegations-Fly)
I never know what to make of Wilkerson and whatever he says. He’s been described as a gadfly; so, he knows people that know things and people talk. He does seem to want to be honest and share what he knows that won’t compromise his sources and national security. Yet, after his editing and reworking, it never seem to amount to much or just looks odd. Or maybe like all of us, he’s trying to put the pieces together and so far the picture is incoherent.
That said, he introduced a piece that I haven’t seen elsewhere. The CCHQ Director, Robert Hannigan. Resigned 1/23/17 (subject to being replaced which appears yet to be done). Hannigan is 52 years old and only been in the position since 2014. Brennan is a decade older, was CIA Director since 2013, and was trying to hold onto that job in a Clinton administration.
This is all compounded by the latest Wikileak publication. Is this sort of like a retreating army blowing up the bridge behind them?
It was a rhetorical imperative.
It has not changed since Mitchell Palmer and the days when Foster Dulles’s uncle was the fixer for the well-heeled.
That’s better. Was concerned that the stupid pill dispenser had worked its way up to you.
You write:
Oh…I think that it is much broader than that!
I think that computer projections of the near future are telling the controllers that…with the rapid developments in robotics plus the ongoing rise in world population…there is a rapidly approaching crisis point where the U.S. (let alone the rest of the world) simply will not be able to deal with overpopulation combined with rising unemployment. Not on the level that we already laughingly call “The American Dream,” for sure.
It’s already happening, Tarheel. The cultures in this country that…by the use of skin color and other racial markers…were quite purposely kept on the lower end of the financial spectrum by the controllers in order to maintain a working class that could be forced to do the dirty work on the society…have already outgrown their necessity and their usefulness in terms of numbers.There are fewer shit jobs being performed by human beings and many, many more people…including recent immigrants…competing to do them.
Lenny Bruce covered this problem in one sentence 50 years ago, talking about so-called “liberal” dreams of an egalitarian society. “But…but…who’ll clean the shithouse!!!???” he asked.
This is an increasingly valid question. Think about it. Combine these factors… too many people forced to live on the shithouse-cleaner level of society, a booming industry in robotic shithouse cleaners (and above) who work for free 24 hours a day requiring only occasional maintenance, the trappings of the already dead American Dream being sold 24/7 on the media and what do you get?
You get trouble with a capital T and that stands…today, at least…for Trump!!!
And he is the likely more benevolent side of the equation…again, so far. He just wants to stem the flow of immigrants, throw the more rebellious shithouse cleaners in jaii, (at a profit, of course), and scare the rest of the lower classes into accepting their lot. This is not going to work, especially when those who still have some grasp on their own American Dream realize that they are next as robotics replace more…mental-level…work.
Next up? And it won’t be Trump…he’s not smart enough to go that far, although Bannon and others in the administration…Roger Stone, too…certainly are, are as many people in the intelligence world. Bet on it. Next up? Someone openly advocating some form of culling of the herd.
You watch.
Sooner than anyone expects.
Hitler was a prophet.
A prophet of doom, but a prophet nevertheless.
Watch.
AG
Now part of a standalone post:
A Hard Look At the REAL Globalism/Neoliberalism/Multinationalism
Please comment there.
Thank you…
AG
“So tell me the domestic agenda of the surveillance state.”
For those therein employed to continue their employment.
Now part of a standalone post:
A Hard Look At the REAL Globalism/Neoliberalism/Multinationalism
Please comment there.
Thank you…
AG
Democracy Now! – Radical Civil Rights Lawyer Lynne Stewart Dies at 77
Glenn
Dictators and fascist regimes lock up uncompromising civil rights attorneys — oh, wait …
It is interesting that just 20 days before Lynne Stewart’s death, NYT had an article kind of implying that she had exaggerated the seriousness of her disease in getting compassionate release.
At least, that was my inference from the article:
“Three years after she was granted a “compassionate release” from federal prison in her own terrorism case after doctors had said that Ms. Stewart, ill with cancer, would not survive beyond 18 months, she has endured, remaining unmellowed, especially about Mr. Abdel Rahman.”
Useful reference – The Ever-Growing List of ADMITTED False Flag Attacks
If “they” didn’t do this crap, false flag would never have entered the public lexicon to prey on the weak-minded that see false flags anywhere it serves their particular orientation or position which in turn can be mocked and discredit those who perceive the existence of an authentic false flag.