hard lessons in a global society

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One of the most obvious results of US exceptionalism and unilateralism has been the collapse of global cooperation as forums such as the UN are no longer seen to represent the weaker, developing countries but to be vehicles for legitamising US policy. The consequences of this permeate far and wide throughout global society and one of the saddest aspects of this is described in this article by MJ Robbins, who blogs for the Guardian as The Lay Scientist. 

The following paragraph struck me as highly pertinent in the wake of my recent post on human sustainable development and my point in the comments that cultural influences that promote fecundity as a desirable trait are, alongside US exceptionalism, one of the most malignantly sociopathic influences upon our species. 

"In a male-dominated culture with a strong tradition of polygamy (in the Islamic north at least), where children are seen as gifts from God, the power of men is measured by the size of their families, and different political, ethnic and religious groups compete to be the most populous, fertility is an especially sensitive issue."

Whilst America continues upon its historical course of imperial conquest, subjugation and exploitation there is little hope that genuinely benevolent campaigning organisations can make much impact in their attempts to confront and reform such appallingly destructive and regressive cultures. Oh, and they're not going to make much progress in Nigeria either. LOL

Shorter Gareth Porter: "US is a fundamentally aggressive and exceptionalist entity"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting article, this:

"In his latest book, Washington Rules, historian Andrew Bacevich points to this largely un-discussed aspect of recent U.S. wars. The “Washington rules” to which the title refers are the basic principles of U.S. global policy that have been required beliefs for entrance into the U.S. political elite ever since the United States became a superpower. The three rules are U.S. global military presence, global projection of U.S. military power and the use of that power in one conflict after another. 

Bacevich suggests that personal and institutional interests bind the U.S. political elite and national security bureaucrats to that system of global military dominance. The politicians and bureaucrats will continue to insist on those principles, he writes, because they “deliver profit, power and privilege to a long list of beneficiaries: elected and appointed officials, corporate executives and corporate lobbyists, admirals and generals, functionaries staffing the national security apparatus, media personalities and policy intellectuals from universities and research organizations.” 

That description of the problem provides a key to understanding the otherwise puzzling serial denial by the political elite on Iraq and Afghanistan. It won’t do much good for anti-war people to demand an end to the war in Afghanistan unless they are also demanding an end to the underlying system that has now produced quasi-permanent American war."

Well, quite. Although I'm not sure what's so "undiscussed" about it.

US Defence Secretary: "NATO troops do not know how to fight a guerrilla insurgency"

Yes, Robert Gates actually thinks that the resurgence of the Taleban is the fault of poorly trained NATO forces in the country. Several responses are competing to be laid down here:

1. Maybe if the US had devoted its entire military effort to Afghanistan instead of exploiting the moral vacuum to set off on a war of aggression against a nation wholly unconnected to the events of 11th September 2001 then maybe the Taleban wouldn't have been able to conduct its resurgence in the absence of sufficient military force to police the freshly occupied Nation.
   
2. The US has started so many war of agression, covertly or otherwise, and committed so many attrocities that prove fertile grounds for driving popular uprisdings against their forces that its unsurprising that their troops have plenty of experience in this field.
3. On that note they are actually one of the worst forces on the planet for engaging in attrocities; needless applications of blunt firepower with huge associated civilian casualties; widespread dehumanisation of civilians and other local populations ("gook syndrome"); frequent attempts to divide and conquer competing insurgencies with arms and support, including hard cash, drugs, weapons- pretty everything is up for grabs for those who want to temporarily switch side for profit or pleasure, thereby engendering massive contempt for the the occupier.
4. Who the fuck does Robert Gates think NATO's fighting? Weren't the Taleban trained and armed by the CIA? He's got some fucking cheek pulling this out of the bag whilst our body count continues to rise inexorably.
   
5. Gates' record:
1. Number of wars in which the US military has been beaten into little pieces of shit and had to call upon foreign support during Gates' time in service: 4 (Vietnam, Nicaragua,Iran, Iraq II).
   
2. Number of wars in which the US has been moderately successful: 2 (Grenada [wow- an island of 110,000 people- tough target!], Iraq I).
3. So his record sucks even more floppy horse cock than he does, which is a lot. Hardly a position from which to criticise others.
   

So, Rob old chap: Shut the fuck up and teach your own troops to respect other human beings and to use judicious and appropriate levels of force in their defence and maybe, just maybe, people wouldn't be so keen to bomb the shit out of you and your occupying forces.

More on NATO in Afghanistan from CiF.