Login
Newsletter
Donate
Blogads
Blog Roll
Arthur Silber
Angry Arab
Antiwar.com
A Tiny Revolution
Baltimore Chronicle
Buzzflash
Magnificent Valor
The Distant Ocean
Glenn Greenwald
Horton/Harper's
Informed Comment
Vast Left
TomDispatch
Truthdig
Welcome to the Sideshow
Winter Patriot
Andy Worthington
Alicublog
Counterpunch
Mark Crispin Miller
Dennis Perrin
Booman Tribune
Crooks and Liars
ConsortiumNews
The Cyanide Hole
Eschaton
John Gorenfeld
Jesus' General
Black Agenda Report
Arvin Hill
IRIN News
LRB Blog
Toward Freedom
The Raw Story
Sadly, No!
The Smirking Chimp
This Modern World
James Wolcott
William Bowles
European Tribune
NYR Blog
Limited Inc.
Iraq Vets Against the War
Bob Harris
Bright Terrible Spirit
| Hard Rain Keeps Falling: Talking Peace in Prague, Dropping Bombs in Pakistan |
|
|
|
| Written by Chris Floyd |
| Tuesday, 07 April 2009 11:26 |
|
"I saw a newborn baby with wild wolves all around it." -- Bob Dylan While the usual gaggle of sycophants and media hive-minders -- along with some ordinarily perspicacious analysts -- tell us that Barack Obama literally changed the course of human history by disgorging a great load of thrice-chewed cud about nuclear disarmament in Prague this week, the high-tech drone war the great hero of peace is waging inside the sovereign territory of America's ally, Pakistan, is helping drive tens of thousands of people from their homes and killing civilians almost daily. I. Obama's Prague speech was a bold, creative, world-shaking, epochal address whose full import will only be understood many years hence by future historians, declared no less than Juan Cole. But the good professor seems to have mislaid his laser pointer -- the sharp-focused beam that just a week ago skewered Obama for his outright lies and Cheneyesque manipulations in announcing his "comprehensive strategy" to escalate and expand the "Af-Pak War". Indeed, just two days before Obama's pseudo-epiphany in Prague, Cole was accurately delineating the folly and falsehoods permeating Obama's Afghanistan policies. Yet like so many, Cole seemed dazzled by Obama's nuclear boilerplate, hailing the president as "among the more creative and bold leaders the world has seen in the past half-century." (Admittedly, that is a mighty low bar.) Cole even found some reason to hope that that Obama would follow the logic of his disarmament rhetoric and somehow force Israel to give up its arsenal of nuclear weapons. But there was nothing in Obama's speech that had not been said dozens if not hundreds of times before by American presidents from both parties, going back decades: We pledge "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." Nuclear proliferation must be stopped. Rogue states can't have nuclear bombs. We will work with the Russians to reduce our stockpiles. What president has ever said otherwise? Has there ever been a U.S. president since the atomic evisceration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who has not made an impassioned plea to rid the world of these terrible weapons? And of course, the brute fact is that the United States is bound by solemn treaty to work toward the reduction and eventual elimination of its nuclear arsenal. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obliges the government of the United States "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures" to bring about complete nuclear disarmament in the world. Obama's "bold," "new" vision is, quite simply, part of his job description; or rather, a legal requirement for his office. But what celebrants dazzled by Obama's assertion that he is "committed" (that great weasel-word of the high and mighty) to doing what he is obligated to do failed to notice -- or at least failed to highlight -- were Obama's other well-worn bromides in the speech: the ones where he makes the ritual declaration of America's continuing readiness to whip out the nukes at a moment's notice -- and to carry on with the decades-long, ever-expanding boondoggle of the "missile defense shield." As The Times reports: Mr Obama said: “Make no mistake: as long as these weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defence to our allies.” In other words, as long as any other nation has nuclear weapons, the United States will keep its own nukes primed and ready and rarin' to go. And of course, as long as the United States retains its weapons, then other nations will also keep their arsenals, in the never-to-be-discounted event that they might become an "adversary" of the United States or one of its allies. This neat little dynamic means that we will never see "the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons" -- no matter how many world-shaking, epoch-making speeches are delivered in the shadow of Kafka's Castle. The "missile shield" is of course another spur to nuclear proliferation, as the United States steadily rings the globes with an advanced weapons system that can just as easily be used for offensive operations as for its putative "defense" function. Come to think of it, it is actually only effective as an offensive system, because, despite decades of war pork and rigged tests, the missile "shield" is singularly unable to shoot down incoming missiles. Again, if some nuclear-armed nation was installing such a system on your frontier, you might want to hang on to your own nukes too -- or get some if you didn't have any yet. Epochal epiphanies and kairotic events should be made of sterner stuff. That old hard rain is still looming on the horizon. II. Gordon added after a pause: "It has often happened in history that a lofty ideal has degenerated into crude materialism. Thus Greece gave way to Rome, and the Russian Enlightenment has become the Russian Revolution. There is a great difference between the two periods. Blok says somewhere: "We, the children of Russia's terrible years." Blok meant this in a metaphorical, figurative sense. The children were not children, but the sons, the heirs, the intelligentsia, and the terrors were not terrible but sent from above, apocalyptic; that's quite different. Now the metaphorical has become literal, children are children and the terrors are terrible, and there you have the difference." -- Boris Pasternak, Doctor Zhivago
The targets -- we are told -- are "militants" of various stripes, but of course the robot drones -- often controlled by "pilots" safely ensconced on military bases thousands of miles away, often in the leafy suburbs of the Homeland itself -- cannot climb down out of the sky, walk through the ruins, and identify the dead. Pakistanis on the ground can see the bodies, however; they are the ones pulling out the viscera-smeared corpses of women and children -- and innocent men as well; contrary to the near-universal belief among America's bipartisan Terror Warriors, every adult male of Muslim background is not a terrorist, and their deaths by drone do not automatically constitute a successful "kill" of a militant. American drone attacks on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan are causing a massive humanitarian emergency, Pakistani officials claimed after a new attack yesterday killed 13 people.
Baksha Zeb lost everything when his village, Anayat Kalay in Bajaur, was demolished by Pakistani forces. His eight-year-old son is a kidney patient needing dialysis and he has been left with no means to pay. “Our houses have been flattened, our cattle killed and our farms and crops destroyed,” he complained. “There is not a single structure in my village still standing. There is no way we can go back.”
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Comments (0)
![]() Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|











