They cry peace, peace, but there is no peace -- not when American missiles are around to derail any talks that might hamper the profitable operations of the Washington war machine.
On Wednesday, missiles from an American drone destroyed a house in the Pakistani village of Damadola, killing at least 15 people, with women and children reportedly among the dead. The ostensible target was a gathering of Taliban fighters, who control the surrounding area in this border region with Afghanistan.
But the real target of the attack, no doubt, was the peace process now underway between the local militants and the new Pakistani government. As AP notes:
The explosions came as Pakistani authorities and Taliban militants exchanged dozens of prisoners in the latest step in a peace process that is stirring growing alarm in the West. NATO claims [that] militant incursions into Afghanistan have increased.
This is a familiar pattern of the worldwide Terror War launched by the Bush Administration. We saw it a few weeks ago in Somalia, when national unity talks between the government and insurgents were disrupted at a delicate stage by the "targeted assassination" of a rebel leader (and the usual assorted civilians) by U.S. missiles.
In the American imperium, subject nations are not permitted to work out their internal conflicts on their own -- especially if this involves a cessation of hostilities that leaves any group or faction disfavored by Washington still standing. Obliteration of the disobedient is the ultimate goal, as Hillary Clinton put it so well the other day. But the Terror War policy of disrupting peace talks has some short-term objectives as well. These include the continuation of the war profiteering that now greases the entire American system; and, perhaps above all, the ape-like show of dominance that gives such deep psychological satisfaction to the pathetic, stunted, needy wretches who control our politics and our political discourse.
What's going on in Lebanon? Nothing you haven't seen before -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Palestine and other places where "the United States is basically instigating and funding civil wars."
So says Professor As’ad AbuKhalil -- better known perhaps as the "Angry Arab," for his indispensable website of the same name. AbuKhalil was born and raised in Lebanon and has an intimate knowledge of troubled land's warring factions there -- and their external backers. Needless to say, the American media's framing of the current flare-up of violence in Lebanon is the usual sinister caricature of reality, with "bad guys" attacking "our friends" out of pure, malevolent, world-gobbling evil.
In fact, "our friends" in Lebanon are actually in league with our allegedly erstwhile friends Al Qaeda. The Hariri faction backed by the Bush Administration is drawing upon the most extremist Sunni armed factions in an attempt to counteract the power of Shiite Hezbollah. This is of course just a continuation of current American strategy in the region, as Sy Hersh outlined last year: giving arms and money to extremist Sunni groups allied with al Qaeda in order to ward off Shiite factions making trouble in our client regimes.
This in turn is part of a broader, more long-standing strategy, going back to 2004, as we noted in a recent report: a global program of arming and funding militias and other violent "non-state actors" to foment trouble where Washington wants trouble, and pressure recalcitrant regimes to bend to the imperial will.
And no, Washington is not "behind" every twist and turn in Middle East politics. But American interventions, direct and covert, are responsible for exacerbating and intensifying conflicts, enflaming sectarian and ethnic divides (or literally building giant concrete walls between them, as in Baghdad today), bolstering tyrannical and/or ineffectual, illegitimate leaders whose misrule provoke more strife, suffering and conflict.
In an interview this week on Democracy Now, AbuKhalil cuts through the corporate media cartoons to give a truer picture of the outbreak in Lebanon:
I think that people may remember, back in the 1980s, the United States government, for two years in the administration of Ronald Reagan, deployed troops from ’82 to ’84. And there was a civil war, and the United States was supporting the rightwing militias of Israel in Lebanon, and they used the discourse of supporting the central government of Lebanon.
Something similar is taking place right now in Lebanon, and this is very much similar to what’s happening in Sudan, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and Somalia. The United States is basically instigating, funding and arming civil wars in all those places. We hear a lot about this inability of the international community to tolerate armed militias. Of course, Hezbollah is an armed militia, but so are the pro-militias of the government. There’s a Los Angeles Times article today detailing the efforts by the United States and allies to create militias throughout the country. And the Washington Post indicated that this government of the United States spent $1.4 billion to prop up the administration of Siniora in Lebanon.
And basically, what happened in Lebanon in the last few days is a partial coup d’etat that was in response to a full coup d’etat that was engineered by the United States and Saudi Arabia and Israel from behind the scene back in 2005, capitalizing on the assassination of Rafik Hariri.
And things have gotten to this point because America basically is responsible, more than their clients in Lebanon. I mean, there were ideas of dialogue in Lebanon, and things were moving in that direction, and then, suddenly, lo and behold, the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States for the Near East, David Welch, shows up in Lebanon, and he basically wanted to stiffen the resolve of the clients and to basically prevent the possibility of dialogue. And then, Walid Jumblatt, one of the clients of the United States and Saudi Arabia and Lebanon today, escalated by deciding on taking the issue of disarming Hezbollah, which is supported at least by half of the Lebanese; and Lebanese parties, including clients of the United States, [had] agreed that the issues of disarming Hezbollah should be left for internal dialogue of the Lebanese themselves...
This [the current violence] is something that experts have warned the United Nations about. If you push things to that point, the other side is going to lash out, and they did lash out, even if one, like me, does not like the scenes of these militias and armed thugs running into the streets of Beirut and so on. But basically, we have to say that this is the doing of US foreign policy, and this is the true face of the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East.....
We have to say that this level of intense tensions and conflict and animosity is the product of a deliberate American-Saudi policy of instigating a Sunni-Shiite conflict, the likes of which Lebanon has never seen. I mean, even somebody like myself who comes from a split background—my mother is Sunni, and my father is Shiite—I mean, we’ve never seen anything like this. Saudi media, with the full cooperation of the United States, have been for three years mobilizing the Lebanese opposition, because that’s the only thing they have....They have been [doing] serious propagandizing to [split] Sunnis from Shiites in order [to] create a militia that can stand up to Hezbollah.
Back at his website, AbuKhalil notes:
What is quite ironic is that Lebanese Forces' media (like LBC-TV) are gleefully airing calls for Jihad... by (Hariri- and Saudi-funded) Salafite groups in North Lebanon. Do they not know what those groups' views are of Christians? They even refer to Lebanese Christians as "crusaders". These are clones of Al-Qa`idah, but the Lebanese Forces seem to be embracing them.
And so in Lebanon -- as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia -- the policies of the Bush Administration have only produced more extremism, more terrorists, more violence.
Can we not discern a pattern here, a clear intention? The "War on Terror" produces terror; it's part of the "creative destruction" that the militarists used to boast about, when they dreamed that their crimes of aggression, torture and murder would lead future generations to "sing songs about us," in the immortal words of Michael Ledeen.
This quote is often attributed to Richard Perle, but it comes from Ledeen's call for "total war" in a speech at American Enterprise Institute on October 29, 2001. Ledeen followed this up with a piece on National Review Online in August 2002, when he mocked Brent Scowcroft's concern that an invasion of Iraq could turn the Middle East into a cauldron. Ledeen's response:
One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today.
Ledeen is no mere kibitzer on the rightwing gravy train. He is one of the architects and chief abettors of the cauldronization -- the slaughter and suffering -- we see across the Middle East today. As the Washington Post noted back in the glory days of 2003, when these bloodthirsty wretches were still strutting around beating their chests about their importance:
One [of Karl Rove's advisers] is Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, whose specialties include terrorism and the Middle East. His latest book, according to the official summary, asserts that "America must topple the regimes of the terror masters to eliminate the threat of terrorism."
The two met after Bush's election. "He said, 'Anytime you have a good idea, tell me,' " Ledeen said. Every month or six weeks, Ledeen will offer Rove "something you should be thinking about." More than once, Ledeen has seen his ideas, faxed to Rove, become official policy or rhetoric.
Nowadays, of course, Ledeen skulks around pretending he opposed the invasion of Iraq: the kind of astonishing lie one might have heard in a Nuremberg courtoom back in the day, and one easily refuted. (As is his current lie that he has always opposed an attack on Iran.) But he, Rove and all the other facilitators of the militarists bear a direct and substantial share of responsibility for the murder and chaos that continues to erupt across the tormented region.
UPDATE: And now Bush is proposing an even more direct U.S. military intervention in Lebanon. Speaking in Cairo -- on yet another one of his pointless trots* around the cauldron (maybe he wants another fancy sword -- or just some more good smoochin' -- from the Saudi king) -- Bush offered to help the Lebanese army "respond more effectively" to Hezbollah. He also took the opportunity to -- what else? -- blame Iran for everything happening in Lebanon, claiming that without the backing of the devilish Persians, Hezbollah -- which, as AbuKhalil noted, is supported by almost half of the Lebanese population -- would be "powerless."
So Bush will soon have yet another proxy war playground to while away his time before retiring to stick his snout in the same corporate trough that has so enriched his fellow war crminal, Tony Blair -- who has already made almost $20 million in corporate pork in less than a year after leaving office.
Who says crime -- especially war crime -- doesn't pay?
*Note. Some might think that Bush is touring the region to build support for an attack on Iran. But that kind of head-knocking and arm-twisting is left to Dick Cheney (who took an ominious swing through the cauldron not long ago). Junior is too witless for any hard-core dealing -- although no doubt he will bluster and bellow to his hosts about Iranian perfidy and "doin' God's will" and whatever else vomits up from his murder-rotted brain.
To divert from atrocity and anguish and political folly for a moment: over at the MySpace page, there are four new songs up, with more to come. These are demos, self-produced, rough-sketch possibilities for the second album, which, if all goes well, might be recorded this summer with Nick Kulukundis, the extraordinary producer, arranger and musician. There are also two songs from the first album with Nick, Wheel of Heaven (available through iTunes), still up on the page. Give 'em a listen if you take a notion.
Civilians are still streaming out of Baghdad's Sadr City, despite the announcement of a truce late last week designed to avert – or at least give the appearance of diverting – a major bloodbath from an all-out assault on the densely-populated area by U.S. forces and their local junior partners. Announced on Saturday, the deal was immediately eviscerated by U.S. forces, who bombed three neighborhoods in Sadr City that very afternoon, as dpa reports.
Oddly enough, when Iraqi government forces tried to enter disputed Sadr City quadrants the next day, they were attacked, the New York Times reports. The Times' intrepid correspondents, including the ever-reliable spin-funnel Michael Gordon, professed to be shocked – shocked! – at such rude behavior, which they presented as clear and unprovoked violations of the nascent truce. Naturally, they omitted any unseemly and unnecessary mention of the American bombing of the day before.
The fighting is Sadr City is concentrated along a demarcation line, Al Quds Street (Jerusalem Street), between areas loyal to nationalist cleric Motqada al-Sadr and areas now under the control of the violent sectarian factions backed by both the United States and Iran; i.e., the Iraqi "government." In addition to bombing residential areas and leading Iraqi government troops in attacks, American forces are also erecting a massive concrete wall, 12 feet high, along three miles of Al Quds street, in attempt to seal off the recalcitrant neighborhoods. Of course, it was considered poor form – or rather, an international outrage – when the Soviets did this kind of thing in Berlin; but in our brave new world, it is now an accepted, even celebrated policy. (Just like torture, concentration camps, aggressive war, warrantless surveilance, etc.) During the past 17 months, throughout the vaunted "surge," U.S. forces have been building ghettos all over Baghdad and elsewhere in the country, often turning over these enclaves to the tender mercies of "former" insurgents and terrorists who, now in the pay of Washington, rule them as private fiefdoms. This, you understand, is what is now known as "liberation."
Civilians still living in the slowly closing concrete trap say they are almost as fearful of a genuine truce as continued warfare. That's because a real truce would allow the violent sectarians empowered by Bush to operate with murderous impunity in their neighborhoods, replacing al-Sadr's draconian militia with something even worse, as McClatchy Papers reports:
Inside Abdul Hassan's home, furnished with colorful rugs and flimsy mattresses, Sakran and his wife hoped for calm after weeks of bombardment and gun battles, but they feared the worst is yet to come. "We just want peace," Sakran's wife, Suham Bresam, said, her eyes heavy from sleepless nights. "This agreement happened and I was up all night from the gunshots and strikes."
Her home was in the middle of the fight on the edge of the district where U.S. forces are holed up in abandoned buildings and the Iraqi Army has set up checkpoints, and she hadn't left it in weeks. A nearly completed wall built by the U.S. military isolates the area, and her modest dwelling is scarred by bullets and shrapnel…
Nowhere in Sadr City is safe from an air strike, Bresam said, but Abdul Hassan's home was safer than her own. At home, the Iraqi Army shoots erratically after a roadside bomb blast hit civilians, and when the Mahdi Army shoots rockets at U.S. aircraft, missiles rain on people's homes.
"It's just the civilians who get hurt," she said....
Before the battle began in late March, the area was peaceful…but they lived in an atmosphere of intimidation. When women were beaten by the Mahdi Army in her neighborhood or Sunnis killed, they objected quietly and never challenged the militia....
But they also fear the Iraqi Army. Videos captured on cell phones are being sent as messages from person to person. Abdul Hassan pulled out his phone to show a public hanging of three men. They stood on police trucks with nooses around their necks as a crowd of people looked on and then the trucks were driven away and the men were hung. Another showed men shot by the Iraqi Security Forces and then burned. In the background Iraqi soldiers spoke.
"Don't say in the name of God the most compassionate the most merciful. They are animals," one soldier said....
Abdul Hassan said the videos were shot in the southern cities of Karbala and Nassiriyah, and he worried that the same would happen in Sadr City if the Iraqi Army had free reign.
"We haven't seen a solution that will give us peace," he said. "We don't want it to be like Karbala or Nassiriyah. We don't want people executed in the streets."
But there will be no peace in Sadr City. The "surge" will continue along the Al Quds line. Bombs will keep falling from American planes, missiles from drone-craft operated by button-pushers bunkered in Nevada will continue to rain death on houses and apartment blocks, and the extremists embraced by George Bush will keep hanging and shooting people in the streets.
II. Meanwhile, civilians in Mosul are likewise fleeing or hunkering down in the face of a major assault by U.S. and Iraqi forces. Patrick Cockburn of the Independent reports that one of Iraq's largest cities has been turned into a "ghost town," as likewise fleeing or hunkering down in the face of an attack by U.S. and Iraqi forces. The latter have launched the attack because, they say, the city has been under the control of "al Qaeda in Iraq" for many months.
That's right; as Juan Cole notes, one of Iraq's largest cities has been in the hands of what is supposed to be America's deadliest enemies in Iraq – even while Americans has been bombarded with propaganda about the "success" of the surge. This is the same city, by the way, that is routinely trumpted as a "success story" in the glittering career of General David Petraeus, architect of the "successful" surge. Petraeus was in control of Mosul during the first months of the war, when he was regularly touted – by Michael Gordon of the NYT, among others – for his remarkable "counterinsurgency techniques" and peerless "nation-building skills." So "successful" were Petraeus' efforts that the current assault to dislodge "al Qaeda in Iraq" is a carbon-copy of a similar operation launched earlier this year, as Cole reports:
Reading news about Iraq is like watching Bill Murray's 'Groundhog Day' in which you have to live through the same day over and over again. So the US and Iraqi governments have announced a new campaign against Sunni radicals in Ninevah province, especially Mosul. Take a look at this article, published late last January: "Thousands of Iraqi army soldiers reached the northern city of Mosul on Sunday in preparation for what the government said would be a major offensive there against Al-Qaeda in Iraq, along with other Sunni militants."
Ninevah governor Duraid Kashmula admitted to Al-Hayat that Mosul "has come to dominated by the leaders of al-Qaeda as a result of the delay in the military operation in the city."
What??! Mosul is Iraq's second largest city at 1.7 million, and it is under the control of "al-Qaeda"? How long has this been the case? All this time? While the US press was reveling in the "calm" in the country?
Mosul was also taken over by insurgents in 2004 – while U.S. forces were destroying Fallujah. It has long been flashpoint for terrorist attacks, reprisals and strife throughout the war. And now, for the second time in less than a year, it is being subjected to a major attack to wrest it away from insurgents. This is the kind of "success" that has fuelled Petraeus' meteoric rise to his current perch in command of the entire "Central Command" of the Terror War.
But what is happening in Mosul today? Patrick Cockburn has the story:
Mosul looks like a city of the dead. American and Iraqi troops have launched an attack aimed at crushing the last bastion of al- Qa'ida in Iraq and in doing so have turned the country's northern capital into a ghost town.
Soldiers shoot at any civilian vehicle on the streets in defiance of a strict curfew. Two men, a woman and child in one car which failed to stop were shot dead yesterday by US troops, who issued a statement saying the men were armed and one made "threatening movements"....
I had been to Mosul down this road half a dozen times since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and on each occasion the military escort necessary to reach the city safely has grown bigger....
That's Petraeus' legacy of "success" in action!
There is no doubt that security in Mosul has been deteriorating over the last six months. Mr Goran, who in effect runs the city, said that 90 people were killed in Mosul last September compared to 213 dead this March, including 58 soldiers and policemen. The number of roadside bombs had risen from 175 to 269 over the same period.
The official theory for this is that al-Qa'ida in Iraq, which has only a limited connection with Osama bin Laden and is largely home grown, has been driven out of its bastions in Anbar and Diyala provinces and Sunni districts of Baghdad. It has retreated to Mosul, the largest Sunni Arab city and the third largest in Iraq.
This is probably over-simple. Attacks on US troops in Anbar province have restarted and in Sunni districts of west Baghdad al-Qa'ida appears to be lying low rather than being eliminated. In many cases in Baghdad al-Sahwa, the supposedly anti-al-Qa'ida awakening councils paid by the Americans, in practice have cosy arrangements with al-Qa'ida.
I was in Mosul on the day it was surrendered by Saddam Hussein's forces in 2003. Scenes of joy were succeeded within the space of a few hours by looting and gun battles between Arabs and Kurds. Five years later Mosul, one of the great cities of the world, looks ruinous and under siege. Every alley way is blocked by barricades and the only new building is in the form of concrete blast walls. The fact that the government has to empty the streets of Mosul of its people to establish peace for a few days shows how far the city is from genuine peace.
How far from peace…. There will be no peace in that tormented land now, because the ones who started the war, and keep it going, see no profit in peace – unless, as we've said before, it is the peace of the grave, with all resistance to their will, their interests, their agenda crushed utterly. There is no middle way for the war-and-dominion machine that bestrides our system. There is only the "obliteration" of resistance – or else, as in Vietnam, ignominous retreat after years of pointless death and ruin. But what do they care? In the words of Suham Bresam: "It's just the civilians who get hurt."
Arthur Silber needs your help. It's as simple as that. One of the most insightful, original, informed and meaningful voices in our political discourse today, Silber must scrape by from month to month on the jagged edge of circumstance, battling ill health with notable courage, surviving on nothing but what his blog can bring in. This is a shameful reflection of how our society regards wisdom and truth: as something to be cut off, unsupported, crushed if possible, and if not -- as in the case of Silber's indomitable spirit -- then marginalized, battered, made to suffer.
In recent weeks, Silber has roared back from a particularly vicious bout that laid him low to write a remarkable string of essays, full of the learning, passion, perception -- and wicked wit -- that is a trademark of his work. Some particularly choice example can be found here: Let the Victims Speak; Why America May Go to Hell; and Cultivate Your Sense of Wonder.
In the latter piece, Silber combines older and new material to speak eloquently about the vision that drives his work:
If I had to select just a single word to express my deepest feeling about the world, and about humankind, it would be that one: wonder. I consider it a measure of how unevolved we are that so many people appear to be capable of that feeling only when they contemplate an imaginary, supernatural plane. It is hardly surprising that our world holds so much unnecessary suffering, when so many people are willing and eager to condemn it to second-rate status in favor of one they've made up out of whole cloth...
I think it highly probable that our circumstances will continue to get significantly worse, although this deterioration may come quickly or comparatively slowly. You may live the rest of your life without seeing the worst of what will happen, or even anything close to the worst -- or you may not. There is no way to know, and the variables are close to infinite. But I say again: it does not have to be this way. Extraordinary events have transpired in history before, and they might again. We need a miracle, but not one delivered to us from a supernatural realm: we require a miracle that we create.
It can happen. Hold on to your sense of wonder; if you do not have a sufficiently strong one, then develop it. For me, it is the most precious resource in the world....
Live in the sense of wonder, and in the world of joy. Take it, feel it and pass it on. That's sometimes all you can do -- for someone, somewhere, one day. It's everything.
I now add that, when you engage in this process, you yourself live ecstatically -- today.
Can we afford to let such a voice fall silent? If you have anything at all to spare, get on over to Silber's site and give what support you can.
Willing Executioners: America's Bipartisan Atrocity Deepens in Somalia Mr. Abdi, what about the bbc article you posted above? It is irrelevant to the subject. Why are you trying so hard to portray Somali conflict just internal clanish war! I am Somali myself, and I don't belong to either clan you mentioned, but I despis...
Outside Agitators: Another Missile Attack Aimed at Peace Talks Thomas married into the multi-billionaire Bucksbaum clan, owners of about 60 million square feet of shopping malls. Thomas lives better than the average reporter, in Bethesda, in "a palatial 11,400-square-foot house, currently valued at $9.3 million...
Serving the System: Disillusion, Deception and the Obama Campaign Honestly, why even bother with pwogwessives like fd? He's obviously carved a comfy niche for himself in the corporate DNC and can manage to maintain the delusion that Obama is some kind of pwoggie savior. Nice work if you can get it...
There's no ...
Falling Cedars: Fomenting War in Lebanon -- and Beyond mistah Charlie: check the podcasts; I did an interview with Howard Zinn a few weeks back to discuss 'A peopel's History of American Empire'
Jimmythem: youa make-a me laugh: like you, i like bikes and weed, and liberals make me feel weird and uncomfo...
Falling Cedars: Fomenting War in Lebanon -- and Beyond The U.S. has had a remarkably consistent policy in the Middle East for nearly 40 years, selling arms to as many factions as possible, and pitting them against each other whenever it can. The "war on terror" just makes this foreign policy more obvious...
Falling Cedars: Fomenting War in Lebanon -- and Beyond Um. Chris?
You should check your permit.
In most counties, shootin' trolls in a barrel is not exactly above boards...
HA!
oh, that was made to order.
Love,
Scott
Fire Alarm: Feeding the Flames at Traitor's Gate I am in the militia in my state, and the militia is not what the mainstream media make us out to be. However this thing plays out, you and your loved ones will stand a better chance of coming out the other end by getting plugged in to the militia ne...
Falling Cedars: Fomenting War in Lebanon -- and Beyond I'm glad I stopped by here today, because I need diagnosis: I'm a motorcyclist who smokes wacky weed and likes shiny black boots. Creepy liberal hippies are people who smoke wacky weed, but evil Nazi faggots like shiny black boots. Both hippies AND N...
Worried Just a Bit? Bush Launches Economic 'Shock and Awe' on Iran
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
In recent days, we've been noting stories indicating a definite "surge" in the Bush Administration's drive toward war with Iran. First, the Saudi government revealed one day after a visit from Dick Cheney its urgent plans to deal with "radiations hazards" stemming an attack on Iran's nuclear power facilities. Then General David Petraeus declared that Iran was responsible for a major attack on Baghdad's Green Zone, and the main driver of violence in Iraq generally, laying out, once more, a clear (if mendacious) casus belli for striking at Iran.
Now financial analyst John McGlynn reveals that the Administration has quietly launched a "shock and awe" attack on the Iranian economy, using little-known and little-understood financial weapons provided by the Patriot Act to begin "the complete financial and economic destruction of Iran," as McGlynn puts it, with the ultimate goal of turning the nation into "another Gaza or Iraq under the economic sanctions of the 1990s, with devastating impact on the economy and society."
McGlynn's article, in Japan Focus, is long and complex necessarily so, in order to detail the intricate punitive mechanisms involved, and their earlier test run against North Korea in 2005. You should read the article in full, but to put it briefly, last week the U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), set in motion a process that could make any bank or financial institution in the world that does business with Iran subject to an economic death sentence: complete exclusion from the U.S. financial system. McGlynn, speaking plainly and with no addition, calls the move "a declaration of war on Iran."
The move is part of a steady escalation that has seen Washington move from urging sanctions against any firm or bank connected to Iran's nuclear program to its current, highly belligerent stance: seeking to strangle all financial investment or dealing with Iran, nuclear-related or not. As McGlynn notes:
During a daily press meeting with reporters on March 19, the State Departments spokesperson was asked about a deal recently signed between Switzerland and Iran to supply Iranian natural gas to Europe. After condemning the deal, the spokesperson explained that the US is opposed to any investing in Iran, not only in its petroleum or natural gas area but in any sector of its economy.
All of this, McGlynn says, is an extension of the "Shock and Awe" doctrine formulated by Harlan Ullman and James Wade for the National Defense University in 1995. The strategy became famous after the Pentagon adopted it for the military invasion of Iraq but as McGlynn points out, the doctrine has always had an economic side too. In fact, the authors believed that the economic ruin visited upon a target nation might be more effective than bombs and bullets largely because they are more invisible, more politically palatable than big-bang extravaganzas. McGlynn notes:
But Shock and Awes authors (apparently with something like Vietnam or the 1993-1994 Somalia fiasco in mind) also envisioned that [i]n certain circumstances, the costs of having to resort to lethal force may be too politically expensive in terms of local support as well as support in the U.S. and internationally." Consequently, they wrote:
"Economic sanctions are likely to continue to be a preferable political alternative or a necessary political prelude to an offensive military step In a world in which nonlethal sanctions are a political imperative, we will continue to need the ability to shut down all commerce into and out of any country from shipping, air, rail, and roads. We ought to be able to do this in a much more thorough, decisive, and shocking way than we have in the past Weapons that shock and awe, stun and paralyze, but do not kill in significant numbers may be the only ones that are politically acceptable in the future."
It was only a matter of finding a sanctions strategy systematic enough to make this more obscure portion of the Shock and Awe doctrine operational. What Ullman and Wade could not have imagined was that Washington's global planners would use extraterritorial legal powers and its financial clout to coerce the global banking industry into accepting US foreign policy diktat.
McGlynn notes that even the Chinese Iran's biggest trading partner is feeling the heat from the Patriot Act's "nuclear option" of banishment from the U.S. financial system:
In December 2007 ArabianBusiness.com reported that Chinese banks were starting to decline to open letters of credit for Iranian traders. Asadollah Asgaroladi, head of the Iran-China chamber of commerce, was quoted as saying that Chinas banks did not explain the refusal but if this trend continues it will harm the two countries' economic cooperation and trade exchange." In February, ArabianBusiness.com found that China's cutbacks in its banking business with Iran was affecting a joint automobile production arrangement.
Now the screws are growing even tighter. And the effects will be devastating not to the leaders of Iran, of course, but, as with the genocidal sanctions against Iraq, to Iran's general population a population, as we noted recently, made up overwhelmingly of young people and children: almost 70 percent of Iranians are under 30. As McGlynn puts it:
If the US succeeds, an international quarantine on Iran's banks would disrupt Irans financial linkages with the world by blocking its ability to process cross-border payments for goods and services exported and imported. Without those linkages, Iran is unlikely to be able to engage in global trade and commerce. As 30% of Irans GDP in 2005 was imports of goods and services and 20% was non-oil exports, a large chunk of Iran's economy would shrivel up. The repercussions will be painful and extend well beyond lost business and profits. For example, treating curable illnesses will become difficult. According to an Iranian health ministry official, Iran produces 95% of its own medicines but most pharmaceutical-related raw materials are imported.
The American people are told nothing about this, of course. The presidential candidates will say nothing about it or about any of the other flashing danger signals as we careen toward another murderous catastrophe. The "progressive" movement, now consumed with the minutiae of the squabble between Clinton and Obama both of whom have repeatedly declared their bellicosity toward Iran, and their fierce insistence that all options, including the use of nuclear weapons, remain "on the table" will no doubt continue its long inaction and avoidance of the subject, as Arthur Silber notes so powerfully here, while also providing active, practical steps that could be taken to head off another war -- something no one else is bothering to do.
We'll let Silber have the last word here:
So what is your choice? Do the world -- and your life, and the lives of those you love -- mean so little to you, that you will risk losing them all? Is that what you want? Do you still choose to do nothing?
Don't be silly. And inchoate calls to "do sumpin" about the Fourth Reich are silly.
Do fookin' what? Do what? In genuine, political terms, even a million people marching on Washington means nothing -- Million Man (or Mom) Marches are pre-digested pablum for the press.
The only thing that will shake the current mad regime is massive civil disobedience, the kind that shuts down entire cities for days on end. Open-ended refusal to let anything proceed.
No work, no shopping, no traffic permitted.
When you can actually cause that kind of overwhelming disruption to the police and the economy you will slow down this juggernaut. When you can call out an Orange Revolution in America, where people don't go home until the government falls, you will effect change.
Anything less will be mere 9 to 5 protest. People will drive home afterwards in their SUV's. It will get on the evening news, and nothing more will come of it.
You, me, and you over there -- we are Oskar Schindlers now, looking to save as many people as we can, but well aware that this thing the American people voted for, elected repeatedly since 1972, praised, cheered, and to this day have no serious objection to -- will goddamn well roll right on to its logical conclusion of America uber alles or bust.
The Republic is long expired, and the Empire is going to go out with a very big bang by trying to avoid going out with an economic whimper.
This is what the voting mass of Americans asked for, accepted, swallowed, absorbed, and allows right now -- the Fourth Reich. This is the overwhelming American choice, and we few who would stop it are as effectively walled out of the public conversation as we are from the halls of power.
This is the Oo-rah Nation, hellbent on our Manifest Destiny to rule the planet, and we will rage on until other nations stop us.
We won't stop us. Ain't no brakes on this thing, people.
These are the nightmare years, before the shit begins in a serious way.
Chris, I read your blog regularly, as I do Arthur's, and always find them thought-provoking. What I do find frustrating, both here and at Arthur's, is:
So what is your choice? Do the world -- and your life, and the lives of those you love -- mean so little to you, that you will risk losing them all? Is that what you want? Do you still choose to do nothing? Do you?
I don't think that most progressives "choose to do nothing". I think many of us are overwhelmed by the forces that we oppose. But Arthur's language suggests that we're all sitting around and actively "choosing to do nothing."
My wife and I have tried to raise moral children. We spend money where it does good and withhold money where it doesn't. I regularly have Letters to the Editor published that cause wingnuts to call my house and froth at me. Am I doing enough? Am I doing something? Am I doing nothing?
I just find it passing strange that you link to an article that you (and myself as well) find to be highly complex, then close your post with Arthur's hands-on-the-hip-and-tapping-toe "Do you?!@" statement.
I'd voice this over at Arthur's as well but.......... alas, no comments. That's a damn shame, too, because the comment section of his blog could be amazing.
To echo both Antifa and Sipsey, there is little short of a massive revolt of millions, which we are highly unlikely to see, that can undo plans. I remember the day 10 million people globally came out to oppose Bush prior to the Iraq invasion, and a friend honestly thought that would give pause to the neocons, and I said "Ha, even 20 times that number would mean nothing to them."
But as David Rovics has said in a recent blog (http://songwritersnotebook.blogspot.com/ 2008/03/if-i-cant-dance.html) on the limited visions of the peace movement, there is a sad lack of creativity, energy, spontaneity and fun in the peace movement right now, and that makes the problems of insignificance all the worse.
I can't speak for Arthur Silber, but I think you will find that much of his exhortations -- and criticisms for inaction -- are directed at those of ostensibly progressive bent who have very large public platforms which they could leverage to bring these issues to a larger public. Consider the massive "blogswarm" about Chris Matthews' misogynistic rants about Hillary Clinton, which produced a rare on-air apology from the blowhard, and also garnered much media attention. Consider the amount of energy and passion that went into this operation over some talking head on TV with a miniscule audience in a nation of 300 million people. Where have we seen anything like this kind of effort -- again, by those with large platforms, connections, organizations, etc. -- given to trying to raise public consciousness of the drive for war with Iran, and the reality and context behind it?
I'm certainly not taking aim at ordinary people trying to live their lives as best they can. Everyone does whatever they feel they must do, or can do, and everyone must answer those questions you ask according to their own conscience. But in many of his pieces on this theme, Arthur talks very specifically about his suggestions for practical action, and notes that these plans must rely on progressive blogs, organizations, and individuals willing to use their influence, time, energy -- and in cases, their money -- to drive these awareness campaigns.
In any case, I can't agree with your rather belittling image of Silber tapping his foot, hands on hip, etc. Don't you think some anger in the face of what could be a monstrous, murderous atrocity is merited? And don't you think that this anger is a serious, substantive, reasonable response to the situation? So why trivialize it in such a manner, even if you don't agree with it?
I'm not taking issue with you personally so much as with the attitude implied, wittingly or unwittingly, by that image, something you see all over the "progressive" blogosphere: the attitude that says anything that couldn't be said on NPR must necessarily be trivial, unserious, "shrill," a hissy fit, etc. I've been caricatured by that very same image myself many times -- including during the long run-up to the Iraq invasion, when my columns about the impending aggression, and the reality and context surrounding it, were denounced and dismissed as, yes, hissy fits, petulant, childish foot-stampings, shrillness (and much worse besides.) But was my anger -- and that of many others -- unjustified or silly in that case, worthy to be mocked?
I think we are in a very similar situation now, so I don't see why Silber's passionate desire to avoid unspeakable human suffering -- and his frustration at how this looming disaster is ignored or downplayed by those who have the platforms to do something about it -- is trivial or worthy to be mocked.
My "hands on hip, foot tapping" image may not have been my finest moment; no offense intended. And obviously I'm over here writing about Silber because I can't do it over there. Maybe there something about his style that pushes my buttons; it sure seems personal sometimes. If I've missed his posts that contain a call to concrete action, that's my bad.
"Don't you think some anger in the face of what could be a monstrous, murderous atrocity is merited? "
Absolutely. Absolutely. I'm angry as hell. Dick Cheney's "So?" comment of last week made want to punch holes in the walls.
I just got off the phone with local talk radio. My co-workers listen to this show and come in the next day, wholly uninformed and spouting off. Just now, the host was.... well, lying on the air. I called, armed with facts and passion, and was ridiculed and cut off, then treated to a series of calls about what a "nut" I am.
I couldn't win; the game is rigged. The game is rigged all the way from this local station up to Sean Hannity.
I want to fight. I'm just not sure how to do it effectivey, and it's incredibly frustrating. Some of that frustration came out in my earlier comment. Again, I didn't mean to offend.
Amen, Mr Floyd. Amen to the principal essay, and to your comment just posted.
I grow tired and bored with these people who say that journalists are doing nothing but sitting back and complaining. I grow so exasperated because these fake-critics fail to recognize that written exhortations born of complaint and frustration are what political essayists do! That is the contribution of the political essayist -- the written message, the act of putting the frustration and desire for change into words.
Not everyone can be the Kalashnikov-toting revolutionary guerrilla.
And I would notice one important thing, relevant to a few of this thread's entries -- those of Sipsey and Antifa, specifically -- I haven't seen what Sipsey and Antifa contend they are doing that is so much more valuable or effective than the written exhortations and thoughts of Mr Floyd and Mr Silber.
Pot, meet kettle. Notice kettle is as black as you.
And I will close with another exhortation, this one a paraphrase of Friedrich Nietzsche regarding the mealymouthed and hollow critics of his written works.
When book and reader collide, and reader finds book lacking, it is usually not the book's fault.
i'm worried.... and there's something else i saw yesterday that has me even more freaked out. and that's the carrier situation.
fallon announced his retirement on march 11. on march 13, the uss lincoln departed for the ME. but here's the thing - the uss truman is there now (since mid/end of dec) and not scheduled to leave until july.
looks like a naval escalation to me - one that, i think, fallon had previously prevented. i don't like what i see when i connect the dots.
maybe there is an explanation, maybe i'm misunderstanding the carrier info. but no one i know has given me a possible non-worrisome explanation... in fact, i haven't seen anything on this at all. just me trying to get the info out.
Antifa is sadly correct. Historically, empires collapse from corruption within, and not from external opposition. The U.S. is going through the typical death throes of a collapsing empire, historically speaking, and inflicting a huge deal of damage with its tantrums on the way down.
Little discussion is given as to how survivors of the U.S.A.'s collapse might reorganize their communities and society. Life in Russia following the collapse of the USSR as described [url]http://www.energybulletin.net/23259.html]described by Dmitri Orlov is considerably different that that described [url]http://ferfal.blogspot.com/]described in Argentina by FerFAL (although the situation in Argentina is not one of a collapsed empire, but one following a collapsed currency).
Antifa is sadly correct. Historically, empires collapse from corruption within, and not from external opposition.
I can agree that such is correct. But I wonder why Antifa opened his/her post with a criticism of Mr Floyd's essay. What was gained by that? What point was made, or what point was perhaps not made, but intended?
It's a bit overgeneral to suggest that the actions of the imploding empire's citizens are not worthwhile, and to suggest that only the agents of empire can cause the fall of that empire. One of the things that leads to implosion is the failure of the empire's citizens to support the empire's goals and workings.
I haven't seen what Sipsey and Antifa contend they are doing that is so much more valuable or effective than the written exhortations and thoughts of Mr Floyd and Mr Silber.
I didn't say that. Not at all. Read the comment.
My bone is with the "So: you've decided to do nothing, correct?" tone of Silber's writing. Again, maybe there's just something in his style that pushes my buttons. But it's the implication that I (that's Me) Have Chosen To Do Nothing that I was commenting on.
Of course opposition to a corrupt empire's destructive actions is desirable and justifiable, and antifa is correct in that that mass civil disobedience as described would speed the empire's collapse, despite the crackdown by DHS and subsequent grand opening of U.S. internment camps that would no doubt follow.
My take was that antifa's "don't be silly" criticism was directed at the "rapture" comment.
The US has another motivation for its economic shock and awe campaign on Iran: it was about a month or so ago that Iran inaugurated its oil bourse on the Island of Kish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...Oil_Bourse
Somewhere in between writing letters to the editor and a armed revolt are the ideas laid out by Stan Goff - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Goff - in his 35 Point Plan for Practical Action.
The US has another motivation for its economic shock and awe campaign on Iran: it was about a month or so ago that Iran inaugurated its oil bourse on the Island of Kish.
Well there it is, then. I'd lost track of the bourse's status after it failed to open o time back in 2006. But I always did think that we went to war in Iraq not for the oil per se, but to keep oil trading in dollars.
My comment, "Don't be silly," was in response to reading Chris and Arthur, whom are my absolute two favorite authors on the internets.
I consider it silly to call upon unnamed persons to "do something" about the fascist and corporatist rulers guiding our American Empire through its death struggles, making money on the way up and on the way down all the while.
They own the press, the three branches of government, and the public myth of America as the Great Exception to law, morals, ethics.
Americans who have seen beyond the public myth, and do not live or operate any longer within the collective psychosis of "America right or wrong" are too few in number, and too effectively walled out of the public conversation spaces to cause effective change even with oodles of the full page ads Arthur has suggested we fund.
Besides, the American public is not -- not -- interested in during itself of its psychosis.
What does the public believe will become of our current economic crisis? "Oh, the Fed will fix that."
What does the public believe will become of Peak Oil? "Oh, high tech will solve that."
What does the public believe will become of the wreck the neo-cons and Bush have made of our government? "Oh, hope will find a way!"
Jesus Haitch Christ! Bush and Cheney have this nation within ten days of a shuttered police state. All that's needed is a stateside terrorist attack, and everything and everyone will be coming and going only with explicit permission of the authorities.
We are beyond the stage where protesting -- an any form -- and then going home to dinner will do anything but get your name on The List.
We are at the point where stopping the nation in its tracks, and not going home under any circumstances short of throwing the current government out on its ear will do.
Calling for anything short of an Orange Revolution is silly.
Should a stateside terror attack appear in the nuclear form that Bush and Cheney have been threatening us with for years, the nuke missing from Barksdale AFB will be the #1 suspect, not some foreign terror agent, unless its one of those "terrorist cats" "al qaeda" is recruiting: http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...nny23.html
What to do? The brainstorming of alternative approaches by Goff and Arthur Silber is appreciated. Indeed, as Arthur point out, if the "leading liberal bloggers...could mobilize their readers to put enormous pressure on the Democratic members of Congress" something might change. Then I recall stuff like the Daily KOS-CIA connection... http://www.thehollywoodliberal...onnection/
Antifa -- Sorry then, I misunderstood how and why you made that comment. I agree with the way you have described things in the post just above... but I'd say that it wasn't just Bush-Cheney and the "neocons" who have wrecked things, it was also the Congressional Democrats and Republicans generally, with only the very rare exception of Cynthia McKinney, who got railroaded out of her seat in 2006 by her state's own Democratic Party as repayment for her stubborn refusal to kowtow to Bush-Cheney. Make no mistake, the Democrats of the Congress we