demonstratr

President Bush had two interesting meetings today: one with with the Baker Commission and the other with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.  (There was also the visit to the ceremony dedicating the new Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in the Washington Mall but as anyone who listens to Kanye West knows - George Bush doesn’t really care about black people.)  The Baker Commission is the group led by former Secretary of State James Baker (a veteran of the Nixon era and a close friend of George 1) which is charged with rethinking US strategy in Iraq.  According to NPR, Bush said he was “looking forward to interesting ideas.” (Find it here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6481730).  Apparently, he remains unable to hear the majority of Americans who support immediate US withdrawal…  This comes after the Democrats announced their intentions over the weekend to push for “phased re-deployment.”  “Phased re-deployment” is politician-speak for withdrawal.  However, as I’ve said before, any withdrawal that is combined with an increase in US airstrikes is unacceptable. 

In truth, there are two options that are really on the table: 1) let other regional powers (Iran and Syria in particular) exercise more institutional and financial influence in such a way as to produce a stable settlement between the Sunnis and Shiites and a single federal government capable of actually running the country or 2) divide Iraq into three separate countries and guard their borders so as to prevent violence.  Probably, Baker and his team will push strongly for the first option and, if the Democrats really do demand major troop withdrawal, Bush may not have any other choice.  The second option has major problems anyway since it will probably leave most Sunnis hopelessly impoverished and will require the displacement of large numbers of people from cities of mixed ethnicity.  It remains to be seen what Iran, Syria, and whoever else is invovled will have to say about all this.  Probably, Iran will be happy to oblige Washington since this will mostlikely lead to a loosening of pressure concerning their nuclear capacity (which may or may not be part of a weapons program.)

This brings me to the second meeting.  President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met today to discuss Iran’s current nuclear capabilities (which are non-existent) and the potential threat to Israel.  According to the New York Times, “Officials in Israel have expressed increasing fear that Mr. Bush will stop pushing Iran as hard to cease its nuclear program as he comes under pressure from European allies and at home to seek Tehran’s help in Iraq.”  (Find it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/washington/14prexycnd.html?hp&ex=1163480400&en=b1880e032d3ddfed&ei=5094&partner=homepage.)  Olmert went so far as to claim that Iran poses a threat to the world.  This is an interesting claim since Israel has recently received increasing international criticism for  devastating attacks on the Palestinian controlled Gaza Strip.  On November 8, the IDF fired missiles into a town called Beit Hanoun killing 19 civilians (7 children) and today they killed another Palestinian teenager in an missile strike.  The UN Security Council voted in favor of a condemnation of these attacks today but the resolution was vetoed by the United States.  According to Al-Jazeera, “John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, described the text as ‘unbalanced’ and ‘biased against Israel and politically motivated’.”  As we all know, John Bolton is the freaking paragon of balanced, unbiased, and politically neutral policy making in the UN.  Apparently, everyone but the US thinks that Israel is a more serious threat to world security.  This threat will only increase as Israel finds itself in an ever more compromising position due to failed US foreign policy.  Its also interesting to note in regard to Olmert’s remarks about Iran that the Internation Red Cross has recently urged all nations to end the use of cluster bombs (of course only a very few including the US and Israel actually use them) in response to Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon over the summer.  (Find out about this here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/090500-02.htm.)  Add to this a report in today’s Boston Globe fingering the US as the top arms dealer to already nations already in the midst of conflict (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111306T.shtml) and it becomes obvious who the real threats to international peace are.

159 people were found dead in Iraq on Sunday and 3 more US troops were reported dead.      

It’s been a long time since I wrote anything - almost a month.  Sorry about that.  During election time it’s hard not to sound like a pundit and I would prefer not to say anything rather than to spew the trash that passes for “news” on CNN, etc. 

Anyway, there are a lot of important and interesting things to talk about now.  The first thing to say is: DON’T BE CONFUSED - Dems are not doves.  For the Democratic Party (at least officially), the war in Iraq was imprudent, illconceived, and poorly carried off.  It was not, however, immoral.  It is as important now as it was before this midterm turnaround to be pro-peace and against this war.  Another thing that we must remain aware of is: just because they say “troop withdrawal,” it doesn’t mean they’re truly going to WITHDRAW THE TROOPS.  Indeed, the US military’s version of “troop withdrawal” could prove much worse for Iraqis than the status quo.  As in Vietnam, the US will probably step up the air campaign as part of relieving the burden on the ground.  And, as anyone with any sense knows, “precision guided weapons” aren’t exactly precise.  We must work toward a peaceful, just, and equitable end to the violence in Iraq.  We cannot, however, purchase the lives of a few American soldiers at the price of thousands of Iraqi lives.  Therefore, we must be clear in our demands - COMPLETE US WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ.  This will be a long fight (it could be a decade or more before this war ends), but we can win. 

On another note, all the above-mentioned tactics become even more predictable when you consider Bush’s choice to replace Rumsfeld.  Bush has tapped Robert Gates to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as the Defense Secretary (more aptly Secretary of War-Mongering or Head of the Dept. of Slaugher).  According to Robert Parry from Consortuim News, “The 63-year-old Gates has long faced accusations of collaborating with Islamic extremists in Iran, arming Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq, and politicizing U.S. intelligence to conform with the desires of policymakers - three key areas that relate to his future job.”  (You can find this and other material on Gates at http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110906A.shtml.)  Not only this, but Gates is also known to have been a key member in the Iran Contra affair.  (For more on this there was an excellent interview on DemocracyNow! this morning.  You can see this at www.democracynow.org.)  This is particularly timely as Daniel Ortega, against whom the US-funded Contras were fighting in Nicaragua, has just been elected as the President in Nicaragua.  All this was, of course, against US wishes (indeed our noble warriors for the cause of democracy threatened to cut off all aid to Nicaragua if Ortega won and they are alleged to have engaged in even more controversial electioneering.)  I can’t imagine why Hugo Chavez doesn’t love FREEDOM…  The American people may lack a sense of history but the American government does not.  Robert Gates is being brought in to aid George W. Bush and his imperialist cronies (as he has countless times) in their attempt to subjugate the Middle East and South and Central America.  Without much work - I’m sure - one could link him directly to the Nixon administration and their ”peace with honor.”

Just so you know, 21 US soldiers have died in the first 8 days of fighting in November.  

While it is something I’ve commented on before and something of which any Marxist is keenly aware, I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the inability of people to distinguish between the practical/ financial/military goals that drive foreign policy (US or otherwise) and the moral/national/racial talk that underwrites such policy in the minds of ordinary people.  Once, not too long ago, I remarked to someone that governments do not act for moral reasons.  The actions of a government are always undertaken as a means to securing and sustaining its own power and wealth (which is to say the power or wealth of the ruling group).  The suggestion was balked at. 

Somehow, people really believe that the US always manages to be on the right side of every issue.  As they see it, we’re genetically or racially predisposed to do the right thing.  “At heart,” they say, “we’re really good people.”  And then, there are the bad people - ‘the axis of evil.’  These people are genetically or racially predisposed to do the wrong thing.  “I just don’t understand Muhammed’s willingness to kill himself and other innocent people.  They just don’t value life the way we do.  I’m glad Johnny Hero is over there killing the bad guys by the truck-load - and if he kills or tortures a few innocents by accident, well that’s part of war.”

Today, Dennis Kucinich held a hearing on the march to war with Iran.  Soon enough, there will be airstrikes and these may or may not be “strategic.”  Why is the US trying to start a war with Iran?  Well, among other things, the Iranians are one of the strongest threats to American/Israeli hegemony in the region.  A nuclear warhead would definitely even the playing-field.  But, it should be kept in mind that the Iranians DO NOT HAVE a nuclear weapon.  In fact, they’re not even close.  Further, the belief that the Iranians would be more likely to proliferate than other currently existing nuclear powers is part of the same moralistic/racist/nationalist rhetoric mentioned earlier.  “Can’t trust an Arab with a nuke!”  (Nevermind that they’re Persian.) So, the issue about nuclear weapons capacity is a smoke-screen.  The real issue is securing American economic and strategic interests.  The same is true of North Korea (as I talked about in the last entry).  For an interesting, chilling, and super-domestic example, check today’s Ky Kernel opinions page: www.kykernel.com.

If we’re to judge by an Op-Ed piece in yesterday’s New York Times, many of our elected leaders are actually motivated by this idiocy.  In the piece (which can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17stein.html?em&ex=1161316800&en=748252ff880c73b9&ei=5087%0A), columnist Jeff Stein reveals that many on the Hill don’t know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.  According to Stein, Jo Ann Davis, a Republican congresswoman from Virginia (who sits on an intelligence subcomittee no less), had the following to say: “It’s a difference in their fundamental religious beliefs. The Sunni are more radical than the Shia. Or vice versa. But I think it’s the Sunnis who’re more radical than the Shia.”  First of all, she clearly has no damn clue about what it means to be either a Sunni or Shia.  (If you don’t know either here’s the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Shi%27a-Sunni_relations.) But also, imagine if I said that Baptists are more “radical” than Methodists.  The very terms of her false understanding of the religion are filled with the moralistic/racist/nationalistic rhetoric.  And, she’s a policy maker!  

Oh for the days of Realpolitik!

Foreign (and domestic…) policy is about securing the financial and military interests of the ruling class in a nation (whether or not they know it).  All the other stuff - moral crusades, national or racial character, etc. - is propaganda.  To me, this doesn’t even sound like an insight - it’s just common sense.  What astounds me, is the number of people who don’t have the good sense to recognize the propaganda.

 Brandon

After North Korea tested a nuclear weapon Sunday night, the media has taken it upon itself to reiterate a series of common prejudices not unlike those used to foment the War in Iraq.  Among these one might list the ideas that 1) Kim Jong-il is unstable or insane, 2) the North Koreans are acting out of a desire to proliferate, 3) the North Koreans are among the most likely possessors of nuclear weapons to sale them to sale them to terrorists.  These prejudices are accepted uncritically by the mainstream US media and they hamper the ability of Americans - politicians and ordinary folks alike - to deal rationally with the fact of a nuclear North Korea. 

Kim -Jong-il may have any number of personal eccentricites.  It is a mistake, however, to consider him insane.  There are a number of rational considerations that have probably led to this decision on the part of the North Koreans.  First and foremost, the US has demonstrated a willingness to invade those listed on Bush’s ”axis of evil” for arbitrary and invented reasons.  Further, while much of the world has condemned this invasion all along, no one did much to stop the US from destroying Iraq.  By demonstrating that it possesses nuclear weaponry, North Korea has affectively made it impossible for the US or its allies to attempt an invasion.  For a Korean, the possibility of a US invasion does not seem outlandish.  We have had forces posted on the boarder since the 1950’s.

As for the suggestions that the North Koreans are acting out of a desire to proliferate or to sale these weapons to terrorists, this is a mistake not only because it is more likely that they are acting for strategic reasons, but also because any such action would result in a war that North Korea could not win.  Any attempt to aid in an attack on the United States would have devastating consquences for the North Koreans.  It is, remember, the US that invented the idea of mutually assured destruction - nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union could be avoided by assuring that the world would be completely destroyed in the event that either side attacked.  It’s much more likely that the North Koreans are being honest when they say that they are attempting to deter a potential US assault - there has after all been some talk of invading the other member of the “axis of evil,” Iran.      

Of course, I think it’s a bad thing that anyone have a nuclear weapon.  The true path to preventing such proliferation, however, is not warfare, sanctions, or talks.  Rather, the true path to ending the proliferation of nuclear weaponry is full disarmament.  Only when there is no strategic advantage to be had, will nations quell their nuclear ambitions.  The world’s two largest proliferators are the United States and Russia.  Not coincidentally, they also have the two largest nuclear stockpiles.  Only when the United States and Russia begin to take disarmament seriously, we will be abel to hope for a world that is free of the nuclear threat.