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.

HOW fucking stupid?

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

So an American friend on farcebook posted the following:

"So where are all the "Save the Gulf" concerts? Where are the TV benefits with celebrities and musicians giving heart felt speeches on the poorf ishermen, wildlife, beaches, loss of income and gulf economy? I find it rather strange how these people were so quick to help Haiti and other countries but sit on their backsides for this one. Repost if you agree!!!"

I didn't think it inappropriate to point out that Haiti is a failed state, as opposed to the largest economy in the world. Do you think I was being harsh?

Nup. Didn't think so.

The UK and the US have "actively undermined" international law in the way they fight terrorism

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

"Many governments, ignoring the lessons of history, have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses to terrorism that have undermined cherished values and violated human rights.

The result is a serious threat to the integrity of the international human rights legal framework."

Word.

democratic reform of the UN

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

I keep banging on about this. Its really very badly needed in light of this sort of thing:

"Ten of the 15 seats on the U.N. Security Council are held by rotating members serving two-year terms. We find that a country's U.S. aid increases by 59 percent and its U.N. aid by 8 percent when it rotates onto the council. This effect increases during years in which key diplomatic events take place (when members' votes should be especially valuable), and the timing of the effect closely tracks a country's election to, and exit from, the council. Finally, the U.N. results appear to be driven by UNICEF, an organization over which the United States has historically exerted great control."

(Journal of Political Economy)

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377 A, the "Uniting for Peace" resolution

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

The US has used its permanent position on the UN security council to veto every draft resolution that has criticised Israel. Every single one, pretty much. Including the ones condemning Israel for killing UN staff in its various wars (pdf). Likewise with all the ones that might threaten international condemnation of Israel's utter disregard for international law.

However, the resolution in the title allows the security council to be circumvented in the interests of peace if the security council cannot agree on a draft resolution. In specific the resolution declares that the General Assembly of the United Nations:

"Reaffirms the importance of the exercise by the Security Council of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and the duty of the permanent members to seek unanimity and to exercise restraint in the use of the veto," ...

"Recognises in particular that such failure does not deprive the General Assembly of its rights or relieve it of its responsibilities under the Charter in regard to the maintenance of international peace and security," ...

"Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

This endows the UNGA with the ability to call an "emergency special session" which can consider motions and draft resolutions that cannot be blocked by a veto of the five permanent members of the UNSC. This provides a mechanism to catalyse international action in cases such as the Gazan genocide, where the rule of law is clearly being broken, peace has been destroyed and global security is being threatened. I'm going to see who I can talk to about this.

the Battle for Bolivia

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

The US is up to its old imperialist tricks in Latin America. The continued push by Latin American countries to divest themselves of the malignant influence of America and its proxies suh as the World Bank has reached a new level of intensity as the Bolivian President, Evo Morales, has asked the US Ambassador to leave the country and accused him of promoting seperatism and inciting violent opposition. The country's right-wing minority, which politically dominates the Media Luna region, have been charged by Morales with mounting a 'civil coup' against the poor, 60% indigenous majority of the country. Morales recently won a two-thirds majority in a referensum to confirm his leadership and is attempting to push through sweeping progressive reforms including land redistribution and distribution of revenue from Bolivia's extensive gas reserves to the population. The violent right-wing minority, in line with the "Washington Consensus" dogma of free trade and elimination of government services in favour of tax breaks for wealthy foreign investors and corporations seem to be fighting to keep the country in the 19th century.

Naomi Klein's awesome history of US disaster capitalism, "The Shock Doctrine" is particularly essential reading to understand the history of US imperialism that is driving its violent, anti-democratic support of the right-wing factions.

perpetuating the US / UK global hegemony

Scary, scary stuff. And all happening with our government's approval.

what happens when the US outspends the rest of the world's defence budget?

A link from the CiF post I mentioned below reveals this little gem of information. Its always puzzled me how the Americans never object to the amounts of money their government spends on weapons and the military-industrial complex when they have no public health care and little decent public schooling. I suppose that's what having a shite education system does for the ruling elite; it keeps the populace ignorant of the wider world and amenable to simple emotional manipulation by dissemination of outright propaganda. That a Wikipedia article should exist describing this phenomenon and yet for the subject to not be a major point of contention in recent and past elections in the US is indiciative of the enormous success of this policy.

Educated people see through the bullshit, question what their government tells them, seek information from objective sources and generally don't vote for morons like Blair and Bush. Its that simple.

By this standard the number of intelligent people in the UK and US are pathetically low. Oh dear.


Back on the subject of weapons, I feel depressed that the US administration seems to be forcing its way into a new cold war against Russia and even Europe too, which the yanks seem to view with utter contempt for our (relatively) liberal, socialist politics and habitat of pointedly criticising the bullshit that gets churned out by the Whitehouse. The combination of fear of foreigners and a massive defence budget bode ill. Particularly as that nation still has no national policy in place for combatting climate change. Indeed, attempts to push through legislation at the local and state level are being thwarted by the central administration.

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.

Bush's imperial ambitions focus upon Cuba

A Znet article relates how the US is up to its old tricks under a Republican administration of funding "democracy efforts" (i.e. terrorism) in another state.

I recently finished reading an awesome book, called "David and Goliath: Washington's War Against Nicaragua", about the Nicaraguan revolution and counterrevolution, as funded by Reagan. This essentially involved dishing out millions upon millions of dollars in direct aid to the remnants of the ousted Somocista dictatorship as well as putting the considerable resources of the CIA at their behest. The US campaign to topple a democratically elected government (after the free and fair elections of 1984, to which the US- unlike other Western nations- sent no election monitors, but still felt informed enough to damn as grossly unfair) was characterised by appalling war crimes and tactics. Eg.

• The CIA encouraged the Contras to rape women and kill children- "a coordinated policy of the destabilisation program", according to former CIA Agent John Stockwell
• The CIA supplied the Contras with C4 explosive which was to be "packaged" in children's lunchboxes and in flashlights. The bombs were to be exploded in supermarkets, movie theatres and buses on New Year's Eve.
• The US Military conducted direct attacks on Nicaraguan territory- two US T-28 aircraft from a warship off the Nicaraguan Pacific coast attacked the town of Corinto, Nicaragua's principal commercial and petroleum port. Navy SEALS also attacked Corinto in an armoured speedboat, using rockets and machine guns they ignited a 1.6 million gallon diesel storage tank. A Contra counterrevolutionary group claimed responsibility for both attacks.
  
• When a power struggle broke out amongst their Contra vassals, the CIA hired a Libyan professional terrorist to plant a bomb at a press conference gathered at a Contra base in Northern Costa Rica which missed its target but killed eight and wounded another twenty eight.
  
• The CIA prescribed a policy of blackmail to the Contras to coerce peasants into cooperation with the counterrevolution. For example, forcing peasants to kill prisoners to seal their complicity.
• After the Nicaraguan government initiated a military draft the Contras began actively aiding draft dodgers to leave the country. They were then forced to enlist with the Contras instead. Those who refused were tortured and sometimes murdered.
  
• Women and children refugees from the conflict living in camps over the border in Honduras were frequently press-ganged into forced labour crews by the Contras. Men were forced to undergo military training by the CIA and other US agencies and were then made to fight for the Contras.
• The Contras frequently kidnapped entire Nicaraguan villages and marched them across the border to swell their human resources.
• Honduran soldiers dressed as Nicaraguans attacked Honduran border villages in a flagrant attempt to turn the Honduran population against the Sandinistas.
• The CIA frequently fabricated evidence and media stories to try and justify US intervention in the war and generate support for continued funding- so called "black propaganda".
• The US lobbied the Catholic Church to condemn the revolution and to advocate counterrevolution as a religious proscription. The Church was so intimately involved in internal resistance that one of its priests, Amado Pena, was caught on video by Nicaraguan State Security, together with a leading Contra, Pedro Ernesto Sanchez, discussing tactics to foment social disturbances resulting in civilian deaths:
  
• "Go to the market, we will be there. God wants these sons of bitches to stop messing with us. The most important thing is that there are deaths, I don't care how. We need to light the fuse here. After the first few deaths, the horror will begin."

So we see the US version of "democracy" that is being exported across the globe to this day to such places as Afghanistan, Iraq and now- it seems- Cuba.


"Low-intensity conflict is described as a strategy to counter terrorism. However, terrorism and repression are key components in its strategy of warfare against the poor. The United States terrorized civilians as part of its war effort in Vietnam. The methods of spreading terror ranged from indiscriminate bombings to targeted campaigns such as the Phoenix program through which more than 30,000 civilians thought to be sympathetic to the enemy were assassinated.

Low-intensity-conflict planners promote the use of terrorism in defense of perceived U.S. interests."

(From here; yes- I know its from a god-botherer but if you ignore the sky-pixie references the truth remains.)

Sorry, who are the terrorists again?

Media Lens vs George Monbiot

Although I worship George he is not without his faults, as the Media Lens posse have elucidated.

The Media Lens boys extensively detail sources who have reported that Iraqis are manufacturing their own IED devices, known as Explosively Formed Penetrators, or EFPs. The US claims that these are, in fact, being supplied by the Iranians is cast as the nonsense that it is (they, actually had substantial evidence that the technology was transferred from Hezbollah, NOT Iranian sources). The British Army knows that Shia militias are making their own and other iraqi machine shops have also been doing so for years. George didn't know this, apparently.

The closing paragraphs are particularly powerful:

"And so, while the media continue to capitalise on any excuse to promote a “clash of civilisations” between the West and “militant Islam”, it remains a remarkable fact that the ‘threats’ faced are mostly invented. Much of the actual violence against the West has been, and will continue to be, in retaliation for grave Western crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and elsewhere consuming literally millions of lives.

The simplest way for the West to bring its “war on terror” to a successful conclusion would be for it to stop waging war and to renounce terrorism."

US intelligence agencies confess: "Iran is not a nuclear threat"

Its funny, you know, because its the IAEA have been saying this for years but the US refused to acknowledge it and even concocted outright lies (surprise! surprise!) to create antipathy towards Iran. It looks like they've finally run out of ideas for scare stories.

US hypocrisy

"In most of the world, few can fail to see the cynicism. Washington rewards allies and clients that ignore the NPT rules entirely, while threatening war against Iran, which is not known to have violated the NPT, despite extreme provocation: The United States has occupied two of Iran’s neighbours and openly sought to overthrow the Iranian regime since it broke free of US control in 1979."

Nice one Noam.