To claim that "The hatred for the late Margaret Thatcher, former British prime minister, among a broad segment of the British public...," vastly overstates the case. Demonstrations "celebrating" her death have occurred, and, by the way, they have been reported by the US news media. Participants in these macabre demonstrations, however, hardly represent a "broad segment of the British public." Don't forget, it was a "broad segment of the British public" that elected her, and re-elected her, for three terms as Prime Minister. For the most part, those who are so vociferously cheering Thatcher's death remind me of the old Chinese saying about those who have their "cushy" positions taken away from them as having their "iron rice bowls broken." Before Thatcher, there were plenty of people in the public sector who thought they had a life-long sinecure guaranteed them. After Thatcher took office, they had their iron rice bowls broken, and they have been resentful ever since.
Margaret Thatcher’s policies were, by and large, good for Britain. Prior to Thatcher’s election, Britain had descended to the level of a Third World country. It had a GDP lower than Italy’s at the time. Inflation was running at over 20 percent. The bloated public sector (which was most of the economy; a private sector hardly existed!) was feather-bedded with far too many employees who were inefficient, creating a drag on the economy, like barnacles on the hull of a ship. Productivity was low. The British Miners’ Union held Britain in a stranglehold, and the British public was held hostage through Union demands and strikes. As a result, in the mid and late 1970s, Britain for a while went to a three-day work-week, there were power outages and brownouts, erratic heating, and garbage littered the streets. Meanwhile, the leader of the Miners’ Union, Arthur (“Red Arthur”) Scargill would take vacations on the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria and visit his friend, Bulgarian Communist leader Todor Zhivkov. (I was living in Sofia, Bulgaria at the time and noted his presence.)
When Thatcher assumed the position of Prime Minister, she privatized much of the inefficient and unproductive state sector and, as a result, it became more efficient and productive. GDP went up. She reined in the Miners’ Union that had been the source of so many of the problems facing the British, from forcing the three-day work-week to the power outages and lack of heating. Using monetary policy, Thatcher raised interest rates and reined in galloping inflation. And, of course, when Argentina invaded the British territory of the Falkland Islands, she sent the British fleet and forces to repel the invading Argentine forces, defeating them and reclaiming the Falklands. As a result of Thatcher’s policies, Britain became competitive again and assumed its place as a vibrant, respectable, medium-sized political and economic player on the world stage.
"By her yearning for the days of Empire, which motivated her to invade the Falklands...."
You have your history exactly backwards. The Falklands were and have been British all along. It was Argentina that invaded the Falklands in 1982. Britain, under Margaret Thatcher, correctly defended the Falklands (as any country would when its own territory is invaded), defeated the Argentine invaders, and reestablished the status quo ante.
On balance, Margaret Thatcher's policies were good for Britain. Prior to Thatcher's election, Britain was fast becoming a Third World country. It had a GDP lower than Italy's at the time. Productivity was low. The British Miners' Union held Britain in a stranglehold, and the British public was held hostage through Union demands and strikes. As a result, in the mid and late 1970s, Britain for a while went to a three-day work-week, there were power outages and brownouts, erratic heating, and garbage littered the streets. Meanwhile, the leader of the Miners' Union, Arthur ("Red Arthur") Scargill would take vacations on the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria and visit his friend, Bulgarian Communist leader Todor Zhivkov. (I was living in Sofia, Bulgaria at the time and noted his presence.)
When Thatcher assumed the position of Prime Minister, she privatized much of the inefficient and unproductive state sector and, as a result, it became more efficient and productive. GDP went up. She reined in the Miners' Union that had been the source of so many of the problems facing the British, from forcing the three-day work-week to the power outages and lack of heating. As a result of Thatcher's policies, Britain became competitive again and assumed its place as a vibrant, medium-sized political and economic player on the world stage.
Cheney, Super390? What has Cheney got to do with it? His consistent attempts to portray himself as morally superior to all those with whom he disagrees is hypocrisy in its own right, Cheney notwithstanding.
"To the vets — Seriously, and without the phony emoticons that accompany the phrase when breathlessly offered by Our Fellow Americans...."
Don't flatter yourself by suggesting that your gratitude to the vets is more sincere than that offered by other Americans, Mr. McPhee, even those Americans with whom you disagree. Your consistent attempts to elevate yourself above those with whom you disagree reeks of moral hypocrisy.
A. Any talk of "war" in Washington is about Iran, and it is made by certain members of Congress. But that is a very different observation than, "All the talk in Washington is about war on Iran." In fact, lately all the talk in Washington, far from being about war on Iran, has been about the North Korean threats and what they mean. (Full disclosure: I live in Washington, DC.)
B. Congress is not forcing the Executive to affirm that all options are on the table with regard to Iran. That would be the Executive's position regardless of Congress's desire. It is correct and prudent to maintain all options on the table at this stage of the game. That does not mean that the President is inclined toward war with Iran, but it is never a good idea to give up any option when dealing with a potential adversary, either across the negotiating table or on the battlefield. Perhaps if negotiations were to proceed in earnest.
Actually, all the talk in Washington is not about "war on Iran." There are those who throw such loose talk around, but serious leaders--the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and others with responsible portfolios--while concerned with stopping Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, are not running around with their hair on fire shouting "war!".
That US leaders have not taken a potential military strike off the table is standard doctrine. One does not tie one's hand behind one's back in advance of either negotiations or a potential strike. And I would not put much faith in Khamenei's statement that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons because they would be incompatible with Islamic law. Pakistan seems to have found nuclear weapons and Islamic law compatible indeed.
To the point about why the US does not talk about war with North Korea, the easy answer is North Korea holds both the US and South Korea hostage via their ability to wreak devastation on Seoul, which is located just 30 miles from the DMZ. It is not their nuclear capacity that prevents military action against them. North Korea does not have a nuclear delivery system yet. It is their conventional forces.
The North Koreans have the world's fourth largest military, and although it operates on outdated Soviet military doctrine, and the North's tanks, armored vehicles, and fighter planes are all 1950s and 1960s Soviet vintage, they could do plenty of damage before we could stop them. But it is the North's artillery, arrayed just beyond the DMZ in the North and trained on South Korea, that would initially devastate seoul before we could begin the counter-attack that would eventually defeat North Korea. The North has a total of 21,000 artillery pieces (not the 8,500 listed in the chart above), with 13,000 of them trained on Seoul. (Source: "The (Korean) Military Balance, 2011: UK, IISS, 2011.) In summary, by holding Seoul hostage, North Korea holds the US and South Korea hostage, in terms of a military strike against the North.
"Promise was that I
Should Israel from Philistian yoke deliver;
Ask for this great deliverer now, and find him
Eyeless in Gaza at the Mill with slaves"
In threading through your rant, Mr. McPhee, there are at least three relatively intelligible points that cry out for rebuttal.
A. My response was to Mr. Hiro's categorical statement: "None of these documents, however, refers to the single most important fact when it comes to corruption: that it’s Washington-based." Mr. Hiro was referring to Afghan corruption and implied that the cause was Washington. Afghanistan's culture of corruption was already in place, and had been long before the US involvement. We just provided wasted money and material that made the gains greater; we did not introduce corruption.
B. That there was waste, fraud, and abuse on the US side is undeniable, but that was not the theme of Mr. Hiro's piece. You really must learn to draw distinctions, Mr. McPhee, between the theme of an article and your own predilection to interpret it to fit your Narrative.
C. Finally, when you state, "YOU forced our fist into that Tarbaby. Keeping your own hands seemingly clean, of course…" (meaning me), you demonstrate that you have no idea at all what my take on Afghanistan was and is. If you had paid attention to my previous comments, you would have noted that I did not favor "counter-insurgency" and "nation-building" in the first place. On numerous occasions I have stated that I think it was a fool's errand. I support counter-terrorism efforts, but not "nation-building," because the circumstances in Afghanistan and the tools we brought to the effort were totally insufficient.
"None of these documents, however, refers to the single most important fact when it comes to corruption: that it’s Washington-based."
Wrong, as usual. Dilip Hiro (and Tomdispatch.com) would have one think that the influx of US goods, materiel, and personnel corrupted an otherwise morally pristine society. The article fails to draw a distinction between an already corrupt society that operated via greased palms and favors; and the fact that the influx of US goods, materiel, and personnel simply led to an increase in gains as a result of the corruption that already existed. In other words, the US presence did not initiate the corruption, it simply made the resulting gains greater.
You have hit on something in noting the default liberal and conservative positions, emphasizing personal rights (privacy) and personal responsibility (less government) respectively, McJulie. The perfect illustration of these respective positions, and the pernicious effect they can have on both individuals and society, was the movement in the 1970s to empty out the mental hospitals in the US.
The liberals were all for it because they thought that institutionalizing individuals violated their "rights," and some went so far as to suggest that the mentally ill were simply experiencing a "different reality" and shouldn't be committed as a result. the conservatives were all for it because they didn't want to pay "taxes" to keep the mentally ill institutionalized. The result has been with us ever since: Hundreds of homeless on the streets in every major city, many of them mentally ill, but they have their "privacy" and they don't cost anyone additional "taxes."
The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again. Or perhaps it was intended all along, and both liberals and conservatives got the result they wanted.
"Bill, got a definition of “US national interests” for us yet?"
The definition of "US national interests" at any given time covers a lot of ground, Mr. McPhee: political, economic, and national security-related. And how those interests are affected depends upon the situation at any given time. I regret to advise you that the definition of "US national interests" is not something that fits on a 3x5 index card.
"Or what about celebrating the 12th anniversary of Congress’s Authorization for Use of Military Force, the joint resolution that a panicked and cowed body passed on September 14, 2001? It wasn’t a declaration of war — there was no one to declare war on."
It did not have to be a declaration of war, Mr. Engelhardt. A Congressional authorization sufficed. In fact, there have only been five declarations of war since the Constitution went into effect. And your statement that there was no one to declare war on is entirely false. The authorization applied quite specifically to Al-Qaeda and its affiliated forces. They had declared war on the United States. Your transparent attempt to evade that fact does not enhance your credibility.
In fact, as usual with Tomdispatch.com, you make some valid points, but they are undercut by your hyperbolic notion that nothing the United States has done warrants approval. This is why Tomdispatch has so little credibility among serious observers of international affairs and national security. The valid points are overshadowed by the plethora of cited examples masquerading as the sum total, while ignoring examples that would diminish your Narrative. Particularly when discussing military matters and national security, Tomdispatch.com reads like an Encyclopedia of Misinformation.
Everything you cite, SAF, "allegations," "suspect," "thought to have been intentional targetings," drives home my point that there is absolutely no reason to assume, as the poster of the comment has, that "The US very definitely deliberately attacked journalists (especially al Jazeera) in Baghdad. And the US has ‘accidentally’ attacked journalists elsewhere." There is no evidence upon which to base such a categorical accusation.
"Very different from the deliberate murder of journalists in the hotel in Baghdad"
Careful with your verbiage here. That US forces deliberately fired on the Palestine Hotel is beyond doubt. To then jump to the conclusion that the intent was "the deliberate murder of journalists" is a leap into the dark. There have been varying accounts, from fire was coming from the hotel, to a photographer on the balcony appeared to US forces to be a "spotter" directing fire on the unit. That a huge mistake was made is undeniable. To state categorically that it was the deliberate murder of journalists "qua" journalists is simply to satisfy a preconceived opinion and justify one's own narrative.
"The US very definitely deliberately attacked journalists (especially al Jazeera) in Baghdad. And the US has ‘accidentally’ attacked journalists elsewhere."
Could you please cite the source for your statement that the US deliberately attacked journalists in Baghdad? And please cite where the US has deliberately (as implied in "accidentally") attacked journalists elsewhere.
The bombing campaign against German industry, the Ruhr damns, and other facilities, in fact, contributed to the allied victory. The decisive factor in the defeat of Germany, of course, was the Eastern Front when the Soviets turned the tide and began rolling back the Germans. But the destruction of German industry definitely had an effect.
Regarding MAD as being a matter of luck, I think if you read the accounts of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as other crises between the Soviets and the West, it becomes clear that both sides, we and the Soviets, recognized the danger and dialed back in order to avoid the unthinkable. I don't view it as luck. I think it was due to rational men sitting in the White House and the Kremlin.
In the war against Serbia, the NATO Alliance actually doing the work consisted of the US and the UK. It was not the equivalent of the entire Dallas Cowboys front line vs. Pee Wee Herman. More like the quarterback and end vs. Pee Wee Herman.
My point was not that "we can win wars by air power alone." It was to point out the fallacy in the author's piece where he claims that air power has never proven decisive or triumphant in war. Against Serbia, it did.
As Joe from Lowell noted above, Gary, this piece is the kind of shallow analysis of military history and military doctrine and activity that one gets from Tom Dispatch. Joe's description of the author's "Wikipedia overview" and your observation that the article is "little better than propaganda" sum it up perfectly.
"Using Tom Dispatch as a resource on questions of military operations is like using Jane’s Defense Quarterly as a resource on questions of anthropology."
I completely agree, Joe. To read this author's "Wikipedia" overview (I like that, Joe) of air power, one would never know that the bombing campaign against Germany actually did result in destruction of much industrial base, ball-bearing factories, and other sources power for the Nazi war machine. There is controversy and disagreement over the "area bombing" that hit civilians, but no reputable military historian denies the damage the air campaign did to the industrial, war-making base.
And the author clearly does not understand the nature of our missile doctrine and second-strike capability during the Cold War, and how it maintained the nuclear balance. He ludicrously refers to "an unimaginably powerful nuclear deterrent that essentially couldn’t be used," and apparently fails to understand that the very fact that it could be used is what ensured that it would not have to be used.
The United States and Great Britain were not coordinating our air campaign in Kosovo with the KLA on the ground, Joe. Moreover, what really brought the Serbs to the table was our air campaign in Serbia proper, including Belgrade. Every reputable military historian agrees that the NATO war against Serbia was decisively won by the air campaign. The use of air power in Libya was not anywhere near equivalent to the relentless sorties flown against Serbian forces, both in Serbia proper and in Kosovo.
"...air power has proven neither cheap nor surgical nor decisive nor in itself triumphant."
The 78-day war against Serbia (over Kosovo) in 1999 was conducted exclusively from the air, with the US flying 80 percent of the sorties and Britain most of the remaining 20 percent. It was definitely a case of air power proving both decisive and triumphant.
"SAC kept some of those bombers carrying thermonuclear weapons in the air 24/7 as a “deterrent” to a Soviet nuclear first strike (and as a constant first strike threat of our own)."
Much as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and the ability to mount a retaliatory strike were considered "nightmares," as you put it, they actually worked. The US and the Soviet Union maintained a balance, and both were rational enough to forgo their use. That is why you are able to say, regarding the US Air Force (apparently thinking it ironic), "Despite an unimaginably powerful nuclear deterrent that essentially couldn’t be used." That it couldn't be, and wasn't, used demonstrated its deterrent value.
Stay on topic, Mr. McPhee. The topic was the conversation among Erdogan, Netanyahu, and Obama, and that the Gaza blockade was not discussed. The topic was not me, or your fantasies about the "security apparatus," or Chile, or any of the other issues you raised extraneous to the topic. You really should rein in your emotions, Mr. McPhee, and try to maintain focus.
"About as “unintentional” as the U.S.S. Liberty incident."
I agree, Mark, except to call it an "incident" is to diminish the egregious act that it was. The Israeli assault on the USS Liberty was a direct, deliberate attack on a US naval vessel flying the American flag and with full US markings on the ship. Israeli planes overflew it and could not mistake it for anything but a US navel vessel. It was not an "incident." It was an unprovoked, deliberate attack on a US intelligence-gathering ship in international waters. That the Israelis were allowed to get away with it by simply paying compensation was shameful.
So, Mr. McPhee, is that your take on why Erdogan did not bring up the Gaza Blockade in his conversation with Netanyahu? Are you suggesting that Erdogan, to quote your phrase above, did not want to "break cover and simply do something right and decent and honest, because, obviously, after all, we must always allow the devious, the murderous, the money-grubbing, the apologists to just keep on doing what they do to “stabilize the world” in ways that we ordinary laboring fools cannot be trusted to know that they are always on the job about." Is that really what you think of Erdogan? You don't think he was putting Turkish interests front and center?
No, Allison, I am not saying that heads of state can deal with only one crisis at a time. What I am suggesting is that Erdogan, as well as Netanyahu and Obama, consider the Syrian crisis of more immediate concern, and they (even Erdogan) are not going to let Gaza complicate their approach to dealing with Syria and its danger to the region. Do you have a better explanation for why Erdogan did not bring up the Gaza blockade to Netanyahu?
"What is astonishing in all this is that no one is talking about the reason for which the Mavi Marmara was heading to Gaza and for which the Israeli commandos boarded it and shot it up."
My take on why even Erdogan did not bring up the Gaza blockade, Professor Cole, is that all three--Erdogan, Netanyahu, and Obama--realize that the most important and dangerous development is occurring in Syria. They all recognize that it is important not to allow anything--not even the Gaza blockade--to interfere with cooperation in containing the Syrian crisis, i.e., not letting it engulf the region in war and attempting as much as possible to prevent the Jihadists from eventually gaining control. Either or both of those possibilities becoming reality would be disastrous for the region.
"Fanatics on the Palestinian side would not include Fatah, and I would likely not lump in Hamas with the “fanatics”."
You are admitting, then, that according to your lights, the Hamas charter calling for the destruction of Israel, and the firing of rockets by Hamas, targeted indiscriminately against Israeli civilians, is the work of moderates. Strange indeed....
"Harry does NOT say “Israel is recognized as a Jewish state.” He notes that “a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine.” He then adds that the self-proclaimed Provisional New Rulers are the “de-facto government,” but says not a (to use a word he used a lot) DAMN thing about it being a “Jewish state.”
Only the most obtuse reader of the executive order would be unable to link the "Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine" with the "provisional government of the "new state of Israel."
For starters, those leaders of Hamas who refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, and who fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilian targets.
"Obama on this trip for the first time attached US approval or acquiescence to the idea of Israel as a Jewish state, which to my way of thinking is an incredibly irresponsible, wrong-headed thing for him to have done."
Where have you been, Susan? The United States recognized Israel as a "Jewish state" from the beginning. Obama's statement was nothing new.
On May 14, 1948, eleven minutes after Israel proclaimed its independence, President Truman signed an executive order granting de-facto recognition to Israel as a "Jewish state." I have quoted the executive order in full below.
"This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de-facto government of the new state of Israel."
If Obama had any "cojones" he would have made the statement about Palestinian rights to freedom and a state AND the illegality of settlements on the West Bank as he stood side-by-side with Netanyahu. It would have been no more a breach of protocol than Netanyahu showed Obama during their joint press conference in Washington.
Absolutely on the mark, Professor Cole. Had President Obama made it clear in Jerusalem that the Palestinians had a right to freedom in a state of their own, he would have accomplished something. He should have also made it crystal clear that the building of settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem is directly contrary to the long-stated US position and hinders any peace process.
Tibet has for centuries, to a greater or lesser degree, been under China's suzerainty. Contrary to popular opinion among the "Free Tibet" crowd, Tibet has never been recognized as an independent country. That does not excuse Chinese attempts to forcefully impose Han culture on Tibet. But it is simply wrong to suggest that in 1950 China invaded an independent country.
"I believe that Iran is America’s most natural ally in southwest Asia, and that within a few decades an American-Indian-Iranian alliance will be as important in world affairs as NATO was in the late 20th."
The Israelis would give you a run for your money on that one, Joe.
Regarding the future of a potential American-Indian-Iranian alliance being as important as NATO, I don't see it. NATO (at least until the great post Cold War expansion) consisted of like-minded nations that shared a common Western heritage, steeped in the Enlightenment, and thus had a common view of threats and dangers requiring joint action. (The one exception was Turkey, but Ataturk Westernized Turkey.) Iran and India do not share such a common heritage and outlook, and neither shares a common heritage and outlook with America. Any given crisis would be viewed very differently by each, as opposed to the view shared by the countries of NATO. Even NATO is now fragmented in its approach to crises. The Soviet threat was the real glue that cemented the alliance.
That Iran celebrates Nowruz today is no thanks to the Iranian Government. After the revolution in 1979, The theocratic government of Khomeini outlawed Nowruz as "un-Islamic." There were great protests by the people, and the government re-introduced Nowruz to calm the population. The Iranian people, as usual, were far more advanced than their government.
President Obama began his visit to Israel with even more than the usual obsequiousness American leaders display toward Israel. He referred to the "unbreakable bond" between America and Israel, which is normal and unremarkable. Then he noted that he was "confident in declaring that our alliance is eternal." Eternal? No alliance in history has been eternal. We don't even describe as "eternal" our alliances with Great Britain and Japan, countries with whom we share a lot more in terms of national interest than we do with Israel.
I have no idea what you mean by "beating on that same dead Horse," 1933John. I have never written in support of the Iraq War on this forum, and I did not in my comment above. Apparently you missed my statement that I would take the Iraq War as a given in order to critique the way it was bungled and mis-managed. There are enough comments in this thread, including yours, that make the case against the war in the first place. Rather than join the lemmings all saying the same thing, I wanted to approach it from a different angle, the execution of the war and, more important, the bungled occupation and reconstruction in its aftermath. This certainly does not constitute "beating on that same dead horse."
The Iraq War was so bungled and mis-managed from the beginning that I fear the greatest damage to the United States will be an extreme reluctance to commit to engaging an adversary in the future that really does pose a threat to the US and its vital interests. It will be a reprise of the "Vietnam Syndrome," and it may take a long time to get over it.
Of course, we know that the primary reason for the war, WMD, did not exist. But let's take the invasion of Iraq as a given. In my opinion, we made three huge mistakes.
A. We did not plan for a robust occupation authority and reconstruction. General Tommy Franks was, ludicrously, saying that we would be down to 30,000 troops by Christmas 2003. There was no provision for security and maintenance of basic services.
B. CPA Chief L. Paul Bremer III dismantled the Iraqi army, probably the worst decision of the whole ten-year campaign. Without an Iraqi army to maintain security and order, we were left to do the job, which we were ill-equipped to do in the first few years. (See A above.)
C. The Bush Administration used ideology, rather than core competency, in recruiting many of the cadre who were to work in the Green Zone. Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone" tells the story as well as any I have seen. Prospective recruits were asked their views on "Roe vs. Wade." Some were asked for whom they voted in 2000. Conservative think tanks were asked to submit candidates. So, for example, you might have a 24 year-old neophyte acting as an advisor in the Ministry of Finance who knew nothing about finance but was against "Roe vs. Wade."
The way we went into Iraq is a textbook case of exactly how not to engage in a war and its aftermath. The military certainly did its part in toppling Saddam Hussein in an exemplary fashion. It was the civilian leadership, and some top military officers like Franks, who bungled the aftermath and follow-up.
"Is the UN investigator charged with upholding international law supposed to ignore these realities?"
The reality he ignored and either deliberately or inadvertently sidestepped, is that the highest levels within the Pakistani military and ISI are the decision-makers in these matters. The normal organs of government in Pakistan, such as the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Interior, and Defense, make official statements for public consumption but are not making policy. And neither Emmerson nor you know what even they are saying to the US behind closed doors.
It is absolutely amazing how much Joe and I, both separately and together, command your attention, Mr. McPhee. Never in my life have I had someone hanging on my every word as you do. Is this a result of having too much time on your hands?
Mr. Emmerson's visit to Pakistan and his report on the drone strikes (and whether or not the Pakistanis have given their "consent") brings out two interesting issues.
First, Mr. Emmerson admits that he did not meet with key decision-makers in the drone program over the years: the Pakistani military and the InterServices Intelligence Agency (ISI). He met only with civilians in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Defense, and it is unclear if he met with higher level officials in those ministries. To base one's conclusion that the Pakistanis have not given their "consent" to the drone strikes over the years without talking to high level officials in the military and ISI is to either exhibit a high level of naivete or place a premium on wishful thinking over experience.
Second, his research found that the Taliban and other militants bear a significant onus for civilian deaths. His report states that Taliban and other militants demand food and shelter from families against their will, and militants who know they are being hunted park their cars next to homes of innocent civilians. According to Emmerson, both of these actions on the part of the Taliban and militants have resulted in strikes inadvertently killing innocent civilians.
"Are you kidding? Of course there is lack of understanding of Islam here."
Apparently there is a lack of understanding of Islam, on your part RBTL. The disparity between men and women in inheritance and testimony in Shar'ia court is a part of Shar'ia law. If you don't understand that about Islam, then surely there is a lack of understanding of Islam on your part.
"let’s take the easy one – equal inheritance. anyone who denies the inheritance law set out in the qur’aan has left the Islaamic faith. sons are to receive twice the amount that the daughters receive. your lack of understanding of Islaam is embarrassing."
There is no lack of understanding of Islam here. What is embarrassing is that certain elements of Islam continue to suppress women, such as their right to only half the inheritance of males. Such as a woman's testimony is only equal to half that of a male in a Shar'ia court. That is what is embarrassing in this day and age, that a religion still holds such retrograde tenets, and that believers continue to believe and act on them.
"the poor – and they are desperately poor – continue to grow in numbers with little hope they can break out of a decades-long rut. Good luck to Dilma but she has her work ahead. Lula was pretty much of a disaster and most of Brazil’s good economic fortune can be attributed to the reforms put in place by his predecessor, Henrique Cardosa."
You are correct that President Cardoso laid the groundwork for Brazil's growing economic prosperity. Lula, however, was not a disaster. Everyone thought Lula would roll back Brazil's market economy and discourage foreign investment, but he proved otherwise and basically continued the free market economy initiated by Cardoso.
The poverty level in Brazil has been considerably reduced. World Bank data for poverty in Brazil shows the poverty level at 45 percent in 1990, 30.8 percent in 2005, and 21.4 percent in 2009. That is a huge reduction in the poverty level in a relatively short period of time, and it can all be attributed to Brazil's growing market economy and government policies geared toward assisting the poor.
Congratulations, you are living in Chile, a country that got its economics right long ago and has been a beacon that other Latin American countries should follow. I lived in Santiago for three years, and while all is not perfect in Chile, Its free-market policies, welcoming attitude toward foreign direct investment, and export-oriented economy have been, and continue to be, a breath of fresh air. Chile has prospered, while many other Latin American countries have adopted, at one time or another, nationalization of banks, expropriation of foreign business, and import substitution.
The unsurprising result of countries with those policies is lack of investment, inflation, shortages of everything from food to consumer goods, and a flight of capital to Miami banks. Chile has avoided that scenario, and Mexico, Peru, Colombia, and Brazil have largely followed Chile's example. They have thrown off the ideological shackles that have hindered Latin American development for so long.
"What’s the point you and Bill are tag-teaming here? That the State Internal Intelligence people can tell St. Peter that they “registered skepticism” at the time? Did any of them go out on any kind of Bradley Manning limb, and make a woeful noise unto the MSM and Congress and the Joint Chiefs and the Web?"
No tag-teaming by us, Mr. McPhee. I would say you are the tagger. I suppose we should be flattered by the amount of attention you pay us, even though we have our separate, individual take on issues.
As for the State Department's Bureau for Intelligence and Research going out on a "Bradley Manning limb," of course they didn't. They have too much integrity to violate the trust placed in them by virtue of their position.
You are correct, Joe. The State Department's Bureau for Intelligence and Research (INR) has a sterling reputation for intelligence analysis. INR did not hop on board the WMD bandwagon and registered skepticism from the beginning.
"I don’t know the legal definition of treason, but this clearly illegal Iraq invasion, started on lies, certainly fits most peoples understanding of the word."
No the Iraq War does not "fit most people's understanding" of the definition of treason, at least not those with a reasonable IQ level. The Iraq War had nothing to do with "treason."
Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution.
Tom Donilon never said that Obama was making the key decisions during the raid. He never said it, and it would defy logic to suggest that Obama would be making key tactical decisions regarding the conduct of the raid itself, as you suggest Donilan said. The decision to execute the raid was made by President Obama on April 29 (following the final NSC meeting April 28). The Seal team had already been training, first with a mock-up Abottabad compound at Fort Bragg, and then in Nevada, primarily to test the limits of the choppers. By the time the President made the decision to execute, Admiral McRaven and the Seal team were already in Afghanistan, after practicing the raid many times over.
But to the issue at hand, Donilon never said that "Obama was the key decision-maker DURING the raid." Either you are trying to manipulate the facts to fit your already-stated canard that, "…Donilon can mix in spin and lies," or you have obtained your misinformation from a dubious source.
"Women are rather tired of having to get “hysterical” to be taken seriously."
None of the women I know of who reached high positions, from Secretaries of State to corporate CEOs, to university presidents, obtained their positions by thinking they had to get "hysterical" to be taken seriously. In fact your embrace of the strategy of getting "hysterical" to be taken seriously has the opposite effect.
As for "attacking my style of stating facts," as you put it, we have already discussed the off-putting "style." Regarding "facts," the old adage still applies: You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
"The US military spends about 2-3% of their war funds on “Information Operations,” which are efforts to mislead and propagandize the US Conress. See, e.g., Lindsey Graham."
You are wrong here. Information Operations (IO) are not directed at the American Congress and public. Information Operations are directed at the public and military in countries in which the military is engaged. They are a form of psychological warfare with the goal of exposing enemy propaganda and attempting to get opinion on our side. To say that they are directed at the US Congress demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of what IO are all about.
Professor David Schanzer's piece is a measured, well-documented, thoughtful article on the need for balance between the US Government's obvious requirement for secrecy at some level and society's right to know at another. There will always be tension between those two elements.
Your shameful diatribe against Professor Schanzer's piece would warrant serious consideration if you had managed to keep it at an adult level. Unfortunately, you have simply provided us with a tantrum and a rant.
"...Donilon can mix in spin and lies, whatever makes his team look good."
You have suggested that Tom Donilan has lied. Please provide a specific leak from Donilan or the NSC that you can document as a lie. When you accuse someone of lying, you had better be able to back it up. To casually toss out such accusations without offering a shred of evidence is to mark one as a blowhard.
"Joe and Bill and others, having developed some stock of skills at it, are invested in the Game the way it is, no doubt convinced that it’s the Right or maybe the Only Way, or at least personally beneficial or consistent with their world view."
Invested in the Game the way it is? Mr. McPhee, you have no idea what my views are on a multitude of issues. You may not agree with me on certain points I have made on this forum, but it is a measure of your arrogance and ignorance that you make the claim that you know my thinking on every issue. Stop flattering yourself.
"Of course, the actions of one senator do not represent US foreign policy, but it does give an idea of sentiments in Washington."
The actions of Dana Rohrabacher do not even represent the sentiments of the Senate, much less those of the US Government. You completely misread Washington if you think his approach to Baluchistan represents Washington thinking. I repeat, there is US interest in seeing Pakistan dismembered. To think otherwise is to join the ranks of the conspiracy theorists.
"The biggest threat to the pipeline is likely to be Baluch separatism, with terrorists blowing up the pipeline. Such separatists are likely to be supported by the US."
Would you please provide evidence for your contention that Baluchi separatists would "likely be supported by the US"? The US has never supported separatist movements in Pakistan. An elementary understanding of the dynamics at work in the region reveals why; any breakup of Pakistan makes securing US interests in the region much more difficult. And the US is not going to support "blowing up the pipeline" as part of its Iran sanctions regime. Blowing up a pipeline that can be easily repaired is a pinprick; the US wants to cast the net wider via sanctions.
In December 2001, under the Bonn Agreement, Hamid Karzai was named Chairman of the interim Transitional Administration. The Loya Jirga of 13 June 2002, appointed Karzai Interim President of the Afghan Transitional Administration. In the October 2004 election, Karzai won 21 of the 34 provinces, becoming Afghanistan's elected president.
It is always wise to study a bit of history before flying off on rants that have no bearing on the topic at hand.
"Of course there is someone in the US Government who is somehow engaged with the Taliban. If not, then it would be fair to conclude that our State Department was wholly incompetent."
It is, of course, possible that we are talking to the Taliban via a back-channel of some sort. Nevertheless, your categorical statement that someone in the US Government is engaged with the Taliban appears to be based on your own wishful thinking, and the apparent hope that just talking to someone in the Taliban could prove fruitful.
There is no reason to believe that just "talking to the Taliban" would push anything forward. There are many variables that would have to be considered before engaging the Taliban. First and foremost, the Taliban leadership (and I do mean those in a position to make decisions) would have to be behind such talks. It would make no sense to talk to someone who had no authority. Second, we would have to be convinced that such talks were not merely designed by the Taliban as stalling tactics. Third, as flaky a leader as he is, we would have to be careful that talks with the Taliban would not even further undermine our relationship with Karzai. The State Department is more than competent enough to recognize that these conditions must be met before engaging with the Taliban.
It would be interesting to get a psychiatrist's diagnosis of the pathological condition (clinical psychosis!) that is afflicting Karzai. From the beginning, he clearly has been mentally unstable.
"You might not remember this but in the old days (1215-2002) such behavior was frowned upon and instead we insisted on a quaint mechanism called a “trial” to weigh the evidence and determine whether or not the claim had merit."
I assume you are referring to the targeted killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki and others in Yemen and the FATA of Pakistan. They are Unlawful Enemy Combatants planning and executing attacks against the United States. They have declared war against the US, and they operate in areas that are inaccessable to the US for capture. They are no different than a German fighting against the US in World War II, for example, who also happened to hold US citizenship, except under the Geneva Conventions the German was a Lawful Enemy Combatant, while members of Al-Qaeda and affiliated forces are Unlawful Enemy Combatants. In both cases they are Enemy Combatants, not criminals knocking off Seven-Eleven convenience stores, and there is no requirement to read them their "Miranda Rights" if the only alternative to capture is to kill them.
There is a huge difference between targeting a Hellfire on an American citizen in, say, Yemen, who is an operational leader of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) planning attacks on the US; and targeting a Hellfire on an American citizen "on U.S. soil who is not flying a plane into a building, who is not robbing a bank, who is not pointing a bazooka at the Pentagon, but who is simply sitting quietly at a cafe, peaceably enjoying breakfast." Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and their ilk obviously are incapable of making such distinctions.
No doubt, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and the rest of their crowd are convinced that the United Nations is trying to take over the US as well. They, no doubt, have "friends of friends" who have actually "seen" the Black Helicopters that are the instruments of control. Oh, and let's not forget the "Chemtrails" (chemical trails) that jets leave behind them while flying. We ordinary folk always thought they were Contrails (condensation trails), but the extreme right-wing lunatics have corrected our misperception: They are actually chemicals spread to cause drought, and to induce population control as a result, among other things.
It is really a source of wonder how the extreme Right and the extreme Left both meet on issues when it comes to their belief that the US Government is the source of all our problems.
I am well aware of the Bengal famine of 1943-1944. (by 1945, the British had begun relief efforts in earnest.) Anywhere from two to three million Bengalis perished. It certainly is a blot on Churchill's record that he did not act. But it was nowhere near the murderous policies of Stalin against his own people. Stalin himself stated that ten million kulaks died of famine and executions during his program of forced collectivization during the 1930s. And Hundreds of thousands died in his Gulags, and as a result of his campaigns to liquidate his perceived enemies by execution, and during the Great Terror of 1937-38.
To suggest that Churchill was the "murderous bastard" and Stalin was the saintly humanitarian is laughable. It also demonstrates a preference for bumper-sticker shibboleths over a substantive grasp of history.
"So do we see capital flight from Mexico? Au contraire! We see capital flocking to Mexico in huge quantities; especially US capital."
Thank you for making my point. The difference between Mexico and Venezuela is Mexico has not expropriated foreign businesses and it welcomes foreign direct investment. Venezuela, on the 0ther hand, has expropriated businesses and its rules do not favor foreign direct investment. Thus, foreign direct investment flows to Mexico, but it does not go to Venezuela.
"Stalin was willing to work with the murdering bastard Churchill to defeat Hitler."
You, of course, have that exactly backwards. It was Churchill (and Roosevelt) who were willing to work with the murdering bastard Stalin in order to defeat Hitler.
"That’s was their rhetoric, however in reality they were just competing for resources."
No, the US was not just competing for resources. The Cold War was genuinely about ideological differences. And stopping Soviet imperialism was a laudable goal. It was a question of stopping the Soviets from assisting (imposing, in some cases) a communist system that demanded obedience to the state and absolute conformity from its subjects. There have been many books and articles on this subject, but I recommend a recently published one by Anne Applebaum entitled "Iron Curtain." It goes into great detail how the Soviets achieved their goals, starting, naturally, with a country's security organs and secret police. That continued throughout the Cold War in the Third World.
To address the topic of this post, "Venezuela and the Middle East After Chavez," what happens in Venezuela will depend on what the army eventually does. Chavez was a typical throwback to Latin American Leftists of yesteryear, who wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they did not have the United States to use as an excuse to explain their own political and economic immaturity (a result of their blinkered ideological stance). Chavez no doubt would have agreed with the over-the-top description, posted above, of the United States as the "linchpin/mainstay of a gargantuan international imperialism and hegemony." Such bloated hyperbole suggests a sophomore first discovering Antonio Gramsci while reading in his dorm room.
Chavez nationalized banks and other industries and scared away foreign investment. His policies have led to high inflation, many wealthy Venezolanos transferring their wealth out of Venezuela into banks in Miami, and shortages of everything from food to durable goods. If Venezuela did not have oil, Chavez would have run the country into the ground long ago. Nikolas Maduro Chavez's hand-picked successor (who will no doubt win the upcoming election, which will be rigged in his favor), will be worse than Chavez, as he is nothing but a "yes man" who lacks the charisma that Chavez possessed. Nevertheless, in the long run everything will depend on what the army does.
Chavez's death will have no impact whatsoever on the Middle East, just as his fawning embrace of Ghaddafi, Assad, and Akhmadinejad had no impact when he lived (although I'm sure he flattered himself by thinking it did).
"If aid had ended the war quickly, there would be fewer of them."
In my opinion, no amount of aid we or anyone else could have given the rebels would have "ended the war quickly." Assad has a pretty tough military with lots of equipment, and he would have outgunned any rebel armaments at many points in this ongoing battle. That's not to say he will prevail; I don't think he will. But the Jabha al-Nusra and other Salafist elements would have been in the fray anyway, and in my opinion, their superior fighting ability and organizational skills would have still made them a major player. This civil war would have continued without a quick end with or without additional aid to the rebels.
I am skeptical of the hand-wringing about the US stepping in with too little, too late as a cause of the prominence of Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabha al-Nusra and other militants within the Syrian opposition. I suspect they would have come to the fore in the opposition even if we had provided small arms and other materiel earlier. These Al-Qaeda affiliated organizations would have taken full advantage of the situation, regardless of our actions. They are tough fighters, well-organized, and very likely would have gotten access to any arms we provided the opposition. In summary, they may be bastards, but they are tough, well-organized, and they know how to lead.
"You are largely correct, however Israel has not always got what it has wanted."
I think I indicated that in my statement, "It is not as if we actually act on every Israeli whim; we don’t."
Regarding Pollard, that the Israelis and their US minions even push for his release is a disgrace. And I'm not sure that at some point in the future we won't grant their request and release him to live in Israel.
What you refer to as the "USS Liberty incident" was no "incident" at all. It was a deliberate Israeli attack on a US warship. There was no mistaking that the Liberty was a US ship. Its flag and US naval markings were clearly visible to Israeli warplanes that flew right over the ship. That the Israelis paid compensation was an effort to close the case, and it succeeded. Read James Bamford's piece (as well as others') on the attack on the Liberty. Bamford is no conspiracy theorist; he knows of what he speaks.
"Herewith, may I submit this one sentence summary;
It’s all about the bucks, i.e. National Interest."
No, national interest is not always "about the bucks." There are numerous examples that disprove that simplistic notion. Nevertheless, even if it were, it certainly would not be realized by the United States via its current relationship with Israel. If one considers where the real US national interest lies in the Near East, Israel for the most part is a headache and a hindrance. If only our politicians would reach that conclusion.
It is axiomatic that in international relations each nation considers its national interest paramount. That does not mean it is a zero-sum game. Often, circumstances require compromise to best meet those national interests. This has been true whether we consider the "Concert of Europe" from 1815 (the Congress of Vienna), in which states allied to prevent one state (France or the German Confederation) from controlling the continent, until 1914 and the outbreak of World War I (at which point the Concert had broken down); or the Cold War, in which both the United States and the Soviet Union (in spite of their nuclear arsenals and opposing ideologies) acted rationally and, in doing so, prevented a potential nuclear holocaust. But compromise or not, every state's goal is, and always has been, the advancement and protection of its national interest.
The one exception to the above has been, and continues to be, the case of the United States' relationship with Israel. It boggles the mind to hear American political leaders, whether the President or Members of Congress, whether Republicans or Democrats, fall all over themselves swearing their fealty to the US-Israeli relationship. How many times has one heard that there is "no daylight" between the US and Israel.
And yet, If one considers the United States' national interest to be paramount (as I do) in our foreign relations, this slavish devotion to assuaging Israel's every concern makes no sense. It is not as if we actually act on every Israeli whim; we don't. And we have always made it clear that we are against continued West Bank settlements (although we have never really put pressure on Israel to retreat). But we have backed Israel on so many issues, from voting against UN resolutions that criticize Israel to continuing to provide aid and forgive loans (turning them into grants), without any reciprocity on Israel's part. Israel thumbs its nose at the US over West Bank settlements. Israel attacked the USS Liberty in 1967, killing 34 sailors and wounding some 170 others, without suffering any penalty. Israel ran a US spy (Jonathan Pollard) against the US in the '80s who was sentenced to life in prison, and now wants us to release him. Israel's policies and relationship with the US make it difficult for the US to have a reasonable relationship with Arab states (at least those Arab states that share our interests).
The current US-Israeli relationship is an obstacle to the US pursuing its true national interests. It is folly to think that the US and Israel's national interests are the same, or even complementary. The true US national interest (as opposed to that ginned up by AIPAC) often diverges widely from Israel's. This unfortunate situation is not likely to change any time soon. Nevertheless, it doesn't hurt to give the President, the Executive, and the Congress an occasional lesson in the difference between the myth and the reality inherent in this unhealthy relationship.
"it is interesting that he knows, KNOWS, what is in the group mind of Those Chinese who just naturally want to Take Over The Far East"
It appears that you are incapable of understanding the subtleties of power and influence. It is not that the Chinese want to "take over the Far East." But they do want to deny the US the ability to exercise our influence as a Pacific power in order to be able to exercise their influence, particularly in Southeast Asia, without having to contend with the US in the region. If you had the perception of a rapier, rather than that of a meat cleaver, you might pick up on these nuances.
The Chinese aspirations are to eventually have the capability to deny the US access within the "first island chain," and whether they develop carriers (nuclear or otherwise) or submarines (which they are already developing) to accomplish that, they will do it. Again, it does not depend on our budget and plans. That's not to say they will be successful in denying us access, but their goal is to reach that level of capability.
"Pentagon showmanship and theatrics resulted in the removal of one carrier strike force from the shores of Iran"
It was indeed showmanship and theatrics, as there is enough fat that can be cut in the Defense Department while still maintaining a robust strike capability. Should it be necessary, that second carrier strike group will be redeployed to the Persian Gulf. In fact, this is typical of the Obama Administration. Obama and his minions have been saying the sky is falling. Note Education Secretary Arne Duncan mouthing the outright falsehood that teachers in West Virginia were being laid off, even before the sequester took effect! It was found to be totally baseless. Such actions undermine their credibility.
"Now the Chinese can suspend their crash nuclear carrier program."
Not a chance. The Chinese military and naval build-up is not subject to the vicissitudes of the US defense budget. The Chinese want to develop the capability to eventually deny the US access to waters within the "first island chain" (i.e., Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the South China Sea (at least the part they claim). Their strategy of "Anti-Access/Area Denial" capability is just that, a capability they are trying to develop. It does not mean they will put it into effect, but they want to have the capability should they determine the situation requires it to go operational. Of course, we are developing "Air-Sea Battle" plans to counter it, as we should.
"Would you say that one key to understanding the “Religious Right” in the Arab and Muslim world is that it was largely “created” as a response to western imperialism and colonialism?"
And the centuries of imperialism and colonialism in the Arab World by the Turkish Ottoman empire?
The Arabs and all other Muslim subjects of the Ottomans were victims of an Islamic—not Western—empire’s bureaucracy, regulations, corruption, and consequent failure to modernize, leaving them ill-equipped to meet the Western challenge when it did come.
Compared to the centuries of Ottoman imperialism in the Arab World, that of the British and French was a drop in the bucket: Influence in Egypt beginning in 1882, and mandates in Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, and Lebanon beginning in 1921, lasting approximately 37 years.
"...carte blanche for the Bills of the world to “light them up,” in the modern phrase…"
I suppose I should be flattered by your frequent references to me when responding to others' comments. That I would have such an impact on you is an unexpected element in these exchanges.
"Which part of “Afghanistan” had and has that “major role,” again? Just what did “it” do that even starts to justify what “the US” did, has done and is doing there"
Re-read my comment above, Mr. McPhee. You will find that the answer to your question, cited above, is in my original comment.
"Unless you believe the Iranians have no right to elect their government, America betrayed its supposed democratic principles in returning the Shah to power."
I fail to see where your statement challenges mine: "After World War II the Soviet Union was occupying a swath of northern Iran and would no doubt have remained there had the U.S. not applied pressure on Stalin to retreat. It was due to U.S. pressure that the Soviets backed off their occupation and departed Iran."
If you think my above statement (about the U.S. applying pressure on Stalin to quit the occupation of northern Iran) to be incorrect, then please advise your reading of that event. As to America returning the Shah to power, I made no comment about that unfortunate event and am wondering what relevance your criticism has to my comment.
"In fact, I will go so far as to suggest that this factually weak, self-gongratulatory psuedo-history our culture has created leads precisely to the factually weak, self-congratulatory, and morally bereft content of the comment above."
The above quote is interesting, coming from one who makes categorical statements about America's role in the world during the Cold War without providing any context or evidence to back up his black-and-white view of events. If you were to really apply yourself to the study of the dynamics at play during the Cold War you would find a much more nuanced set of events driving American foreign policy. That's not to say American foreign policy was always correct, but it is to say it was not always the evil force you seem to believe it was.
"But you, I, and the people who made it know full well that the people who go to see it will consider it to be history."
Just as many of the conspiratorially-minded considered Stone's "JFK" to be history, although its theme of a conspiracy among the military, CIA, and top levels of the national security establishment to assassinate Kennedy was a fable.
"You say that Stone’s work is jaundiced and inaccurate. Tell us one thing that is inaccurate."
There are many. But you asked for one. Stone's contention that the Japanese were ready to surrender in the summer of 1945, before the atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is wildly inaccurate. The Japanese made it clear that they might agree to a cessation of hostilities only if they kept the architecture of the emperor, they could keep their conquests in China, that there would be no allied occupation of Japan, and any war crimes tribunals would be conducted by the Japanese, not the allies.
Barring the above, the Japanese War Cabinet was adamant in continuing the fight, expecting that the allies would invade the Japanese home islands. You won't get any of that from Stone because it would upset his Narrative of the U.S. missing an opportunity to make peace in the Pacific.
"You probably still believe Lyndon Johnson’s version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident… and that it justifies the million Vietnamese who died as a result. Oh yeah, and the Spanish blew up the Maine."
Don't be so presumptuous and arrogant as to suggest you know what I believe or don't believe. Stick to your own opinions; don't purport to know mine on every subject.
"Because it’s not like mainstream apolitical Americans aren’t being continually bombarded with nationalistic and even racist bias about our history that Stone needs to offset, right?"
Wrong. The job of a historian is not to "offset" anything. The job of a historian is to present history as accurately as possible, using valid primary and secondary sources.
"Like “Zero Dark Thirty” this film tries to cast the CIA in a most positive light."
Within the context of the film, that is the extraction of the six American Embassy officials from Iran, the CIA indeed acted in a positive light. The only thing that warrants as much or more acclaim would be the actions of the Canadian Ambassador in hiding and protecting the six American diplomats. For that act alone, the Canadians deserve our everlasting gratitude.
"We bombed and invaded Afghanistan because it hosted al Qaida, but had no role in 9/11."
By hosting Al-Qaeda and offering it terrorist training facilities, the Afghan government was as complicit in the attacks against the United States as if it had planned them itself. It certainly did have a major role in the September 11 terrorist attacks. to suggest otherwise is pure sophistry.
"That is the tragedy of the post WW!! era and the Cold War strategy. Instead of taking up the banner of national revolution and democracy in former colonies, the US handed them over to Soviet support, throwing away the good will it garnered among great and poor nations alike after WW11."
You have a point, but in the case of Iran (which was never a colony) this is not entirely true. After World War II the Soviet Union was occupying a swath of northern Iran and would no doubt have remained there had the U.S. not applied pressure on Stalin to retreat. It was due to U.S. pressure that the Soviets backed off their occupation and departed Iran.
"As such, it’s counterpointed well by Oliver Stone’s Untold History series"
Oliver Stone's "Untold History" series is definitely slanted toward Stone's jaundiced view of American history. It omits anything that would undercut Stone's idea of American history being one long march of perfidy, deception, and aggression, while piling on extraneous material that purports to support it. Stone is in the same category as Michael Moore, which does not say much for his portrayal of history.
The difference between "Argo" and Stone's "Untold History" series is "Argo" does not purport to be history; it aspires to be nothing more than what it is, a film based on historical events, and it readily admits to using artistic license, just as did the film "Zero Dark Thirty." Stone, on the other hand, holds to the conceit that his series is historically accurate. A fanciful conceit indeed.
"there is no doubt...that this is armed American aggression and slaughter of third world people."
Where on earth are you getting your information? Are you seriously stating as a categorical fact that opposition to the Assad regime is "armed American aggression and slaughter of third world people"? Did you not hear that Obama's previous national security team favored arming the opposition, but Obama vetoed the idea? And even if America did provide arms to the opposition, why would you think it would be "armed American aggression"? The Russians provide arms to the Assad regime. Do you consider Assad's slaughter of his own Syrian people "armed Russian aggression" because the Russians provided the arms?
Nevertheless, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know something that we do not. Please provide evidence that America is committing "armed aggression" in Syria. Please provide evidence that Americans are on the ground in Syria slaughtering "third world people." Please provide evidence that American arms are in the hands of the opposition slaughtering "third world people." In other words, you have made a categorical statement accusing the United States of an act of aggression in Syria. Back it up with evidence.
To claim that "The hatred for the late Margaret Thatcher, former British prime minister, among a broad segment of the British public...," vastly overstates the case. Demonstrations "celebrating" her death have occurred, and, by the way, they have been reported by the US news media. Participants in these macabre demonstrations, however, hardly represent a "broad segment of the British public." Don't forget, it was a "broad segment of the British public" that elected her, and re-elected her, for three terms as Prime Minister. For the most part, those who are so vociferously cheering Thatcher's death remind me of the old Chinese saying about those who have their "cushy" positions taken away from them as having their "iron rice bowls broken." Before Thatcher, there were plenty of people in the public sector who thought they had a life-long sinecure guaranteed them. After Thatcher took office, they had their iron rice bowls broken, and they have been resentful ever since.
Margaret Thatcher’s policies were, by and large, good for Britain. Prior to Thatcher’s election, Britain had descended to the level of a Third World country. It had a GDP lower than Italy’s at the time. Inflation was running at over 20 percent. The bloated public sector (which was most of the economy; a private sector hardly existed!) was feather-bedded with far too many employees who were inefficient, creating a drag on the economy, like barnacles on the hull of a ship. Productivity was low. The British Miners’ Union held Britain in a stranglehold, and the British public was held hostage through Union demands and strikes. As a result, in the mid and late 1970s, Britain for a while went to a three-day work-week, there were power outages and brownouts, erratic heating, and garbage littered the streets. Meanwhile, the leader of the Miners’ Union, Arthur (“Red Arthur”) Scargill would take vacations on the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria and visit his friend, Bulgarian Communist leader Todor Zhivkov. (I was living in Sofia, Bulgaria at the time and noted his presence.)
When Thatcher assumed the position of Prime Minister, she privatized much of the inefficient and unproductive state sector and, as a result, it became more efficient and productive. GDP went up. She reined in the Miners’ Union that had been the source of so many of the problems facing the British, from forcing the three-day work-week to the power outages and lack of heating. Using monetary policy, Thatcher raised interest rates and reined in galloping inflation. And, of course, when Argentina invaded the British territory of the Falkland Islands, she sent the British fleet and forces to repel the invading Argentine forces, defeating them and reclaiming the Falklands. As a result of Thatcher’s policies, Britain became competitive again and assumed its place as a vibrant, respectable, medium-sized political and economic player on the world stage.
"By her yearning for the days of Empire, which motivated her to invade the Falklands...."
You have your history exactly backwards. The Falklands were and have been British all along. It was Argentina that invaded the Falklands in 1982. Britain, under Margaret Thatcher, correctly defended the Falklands (as any country would when its own territory is invaded), defeated the Argentine invaders, and reestablished the status quo ante.
On balance, Margaret Thatcher's policies were good for Britain. Prior to Thatcher's election, Britain was fast becoming a Third World country. It had a GDP lower than Italy's at the time. Productivity was low. The British Miners' Union held Britain in a stranglehold, and the British public was held hostage through Union demands and strikes. As a result, in the mid and late 1970s, Britain for a while went to a three-day work-week, there were power outages and brownouts, erratic heating, and garbage littered the streets. Meanwhile, the leader of the Miners' Union, Arthur ("Red Arthur") Scargill would take vacations on the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria and visit his friend, Bulgarian Communist leader Todor Zhivkov. (I was living in Sofia, Bulgaria at the time and noted his presence.)
When Thatcher assumed the position of Prime Minister, she privatized much of the inefficient and unproductive state sector and, as a result, it became more efficient and productive. GDP went up. She reined in the Miners' Union that had been the source of so many of the problems facing the British, from forcing the three-day work-week to the power outages and lack of heating. As a result of Thatcher's policies, Britain became competitive again and assumed its place as a vibrant, medium-sized political and economic player on the world stage.
Cheney, Super390? What has Cheney got to do with it? His consistent attempts to portray himself as morally superior to all those with whom he disagrees is hypocrisy in its own right, Cheney notwithstanding.
"McPhee writes as a combat vet from Vietnam."
Many of us write as vets, RBTL. Most of us just don't trumpet the fact.
"To the vets — Seriously, and without the phony emoticons that accompany the phrase when breathlessly offered by Our Fellow Americans...."
Don't flatter yourself by suggesting that your gratitude to the vets is more sincere than that offered by other Americans, Mr. McPhee, even those Americans with whom you disagree. Your consistent attempts to elevate yourself above those with whom you disagree reeks of moral hypocrisy.
Two points, Professor Cole.
A. Any talk of "war" in Washington is about Iran, and it is made by certain members of Congress. But that is a very different observation than, "All the talk in Washington is about war on Iran." In fact, lately all the talk in Washington, far from being about war on Iran, has been about the North Korean threats and what they mean. (Full disclosure: I live in Washington, DC.)
B. Congress is not forcing the Executive to affirm that all options are on the table with regard to Iran. That would be the Executive's position regardless of Congress's desire. It is correct and prudent to maintain all options on the table at this stage of the game. That does not mean that the President is inclined toward war with Iran, but it is never a good idea to give up any option when dealing with a potential adversary, either across the negotiating table or on the battlefield. Perhaps if negotiations were to proceed in earnest.
Actually, all the talk in Washington is not about "war on Iran." There are those who throw such loose talk around, but serious leaders--the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and others with responsible portfolios--while concerned with stopping Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, are not running around with their hair on fire shouting "war!".
That US leaders have not taken a potential military strike off the table is standard doctrine. One does not tie one's hand behind one's back in advance of either negotiations or a potential strike. And I would not put much faith in Khamenei's statement that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons because they would be incompatible with Islamic law. Pakistan seems to have found nuclear weapons and Islamic law compatible indeed.
To the point about why the US does not talk about war with North Korea, the easy answer is North Korea holds both the US and South Korea hostage via their ability to wreak devastation on Seoul, which is located just 30 miles from the DMZ. It is not their nuclear capacity that prevents military action against them. North Korea does not have a nuclear delivery system yet. It is their conventional forces.
The North Koreans have the world's fourth largest military, and although it operates on outdated Soviet military doctrine, and the North's tanks, armored vehicles, and fighter planes are all 1950s and 1960s Soviet vintage, they could do plenty of damage before we could stop them. But it is the North's artillery, arrayed just beyond the DMZ in the North and trained on South Korea, that would initially devastate seoul before we could begin the counter-attack that would eventually defeat North Korea. The North has a total of 21,000 artillery pieces (not the 8,500 listed in the chart above), with 13,000 of them trained on Seoul. (Source: "The (Korean) Military Balance, 2011: UK, IISS, 2011.) In summary, by holding Seoul hostage, North Korea holds the US and South Korea hostage, in terms of a military strike against the North.
"Promise was that I
Should Israel from Philistian yoke deliver;
Ask for this great deliverer now, and find him
Eyeless in Gaza at the Mill with slaves"
From John Milton's "Samson Agonistes"
In threading through your rant, Mr. McPhee, there are at least three relatively intelligible points that cry out for rebuttal.
A. My response was to Mr. Hiro's categorical statement: "None of these documents, however, refers to the single most important fact when it comes to corruption: that it’s Washington-based." Mr. Hiro was referring to Afghan corruption and implied that the cause was Washington. Afghanistan's culture of corruption was already in place, and had been long before the US involvement. We just provided wasted money and material that made the gains greater; we did not introduce corruption.
B. That there was waste, fraud, and abuse on the US side is undeniable, but that was not the theme of Mr. Hiro's piece. You really must learn to draw distinctions, Mr. McPhee, between the theme of an article and your own predilection to interpret it to fit your Narrative.
C. Finally, when you state, "YOU forced our fist into that Tarbaby. Keeping your own hands seemingly clean, of course…" (meaning me), you demonstrate that you have no idea at all what my take on Afghanistan was and is. If you had paid attention to my previous comments, you would have noted that I did not favor "counter-insurgency" and "nation-building" in the first place. On numerous occasions I have stated that I think it was a fool's errand. I support counter-terrorism efforts, but not "nation-building," because the circumstances in Afghanistan and the tools we brought to the effort were totally insufficient.
"None of these documents, however, refers to the single most important fact when it comes to corruption: that it’s Washington-based."
Wrong, as usual. Dilip Hiro (and Tomdispatch.com) would have one think that the influx of US goods, materiel, and personnel corrupted an otherwise morally pristine society. The article fails to draw a distinction between an already corrupt society that operated via greased palms and favors; and the fact that the influx of US goods, materiel, and personnel simply led to an increase in gains as a result of the corruption that already existed. In other words, the US presence did not initiate the corruption, it simply made the resulting gains greater.
You have hit on something in noting the default liberal and conservative positions, emphasizing personal rights (privacy) and personal responsibility (less government) respectively, McJulie. The perfect illustration of these respective positions, and the pernicious effect they can have on both individuals and society, was the movement in the 1970s to empty out the mental hospitals in the US.
The liberals were all for it because they thought that institutionalizing individuals violated their "rights," and some went so far as to suggest that the mentally ill were simply experiencing a "different reality" and shouldn't be committed as a result. the conservatives were all for it because they didn't want to pay "taxes" to keep the mentally ill institutionalized. The result has been with us ever since: Hundreds of homeless on the streets in every major city, many of them mentally ill, but they have their "privacy" and they don't cost anyone additional "taxes."
The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again. Or perhaps it was intended all along, and both liberals and conservatives got the result they wanted.
"Bill, got a definition of “US national interests” for us yet?"
The definition of "US national interests" at any given time covers a lot of ground, Mr. McPhee: political, economic, and national security-related. And how those interests are affected depends upon the situation at any given time. I regret to advise you that the definition of "US national interests" is not something that fits on a 3x5 index card.
"“Al-Qaeda and its affiliated forces” = anyone we happen to point a gun at over there."
The above-cited statement could have come right out of Tomdispatch.com as further evidence of misinformation.
"Or what about celebrating the 12th anniversary of Congress’s Authorization for Use of Military Force, the joint resolution that a panicked and cowed body passed on September 14, 2001? It wasn’t a declaration of war — there was no one to declare war on."
It did not have to be a declaration of war, Mr. Engelhardt. A Congressional authorization sufficed. In fact, there have only been five declarations of war since the Constitution went into effect. And your statement that there was no one to declare war on is entirely false. The authorization applied quite specifically to Al-Qaeda and its affiliated forces. They had declared war on the United States. Your transparent attempt to evade that fact does not enhance your credibility.
In fact, as usual with Tomdispatch.com, you make some valid points, but they are undercut by your hyperbolic notion that nothing the United States has done warrants approval. This is why Tomdispatch has so little credibility among serious observers of international affairs and national security. The valid points are overshadowed by the plethora of cited examples masquerading as the sum total, while ignoring examples that would diminish your Narrative. Particularly when discussing military matters and national security, Tomdispatch.com reads like an Encyclopedia of Misinformation.
Everything you cite, SAF, "allegations," "suspect," "thought to have been intentional targetings," drives home my point that there is absolutely no reason to assume, as the poster of the comment has, that "The US very definitely deliberately attacked journalists (especially al Jazeera) in Baghdad. And the US has ‘accidentally’ attacked journalists elsewhere." There is no evidence upon which to base such a categorical accusation.
"Very different from the deliberate murder of journalists in the hotel in Baghdad"
Careful with your verbiage here. That US forces deliberately fired on the Palestine Hotel is beyond doubt. To then jump to the conclusion that the intent was "the deliberate murder of journalists" is a leap into the dark. There have been varying accounts, from fire was coming from the hotel, to a photographer on the balcony appeared to US forces to be a "spotter" directing fire on the unit. That a huge mistake was made is undeniable. To state categorically that it was the deliberate murder of journalists "qua" journalists is simply to satisfy a preconceived opinion and justify one's own narrative.
"The US very definitely deliberately attacked journalists (especially al Jazeera) in Baghdad. And the US has ‘accidentally’ attacked journalists elsewhere."
Could you please cite the source for your statement that the US deliberately attacked journalists in Baghdad? And please cite where the US has deliberately (as implied in "accidentally") attacked journalists elsewhere.
The bombing campaign against German industry, the Ruhr damns, and other facilities, in fact, contributed to the allied victory. The decisive factor in the defeat of Germany, of course, was the Eastern Front when the Soviets turned the tide and began rolling back the Germans. But the destruction of German industry definitely had an effect.
Regarding MAD as being a matter of luck, I think if you read the accounts of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as other crises between the Soviets and the West, it becomes clear that both sides, we and the Soviets, recognized the danger and dialed back in order to avoid the unthinkable. I don't view it as luck. I think it was due to rational men sitting in the White House and the Kremlin.
In the war against Serbia, the NATO Alliance actually doing the work consisted of the US and the UK. It was not the equivalent of the entire Dallas Cowboys front line vs. Pee Wee Herman. More like the quarterback and end vs. Pee Wee Herman.
My point was not that "we can win wars by air power alone." It was to point out the fallacy in the author's piece where he claims that air power has never proven decisive or triumphant in war. Against Serbia, it did.
As Joe from Lowell noted above, Gary, this piece is the kind of shallow analysis of military history and military doctrine and activity that one gets from Tom Dispatch. Joe's description of the author's "Wikipedia overview" and your observation that the article is "little better than propaganda" sum it up perfectly.
"Using Tom Dispatch as a resource on questions of military operations is like using Jane’s Defense Quarterly as a resource on questions of anthropology."
I completely agree, Joe. To read this author's "Wikipedia" overview (I like that, Joe) of air power, one would never know that the bombing campaign against Germany actually did result in destruction of much industrial base, ball-bearing factories, and other sources power for the Nazi war machine. There is controversy and disagreement over the "area bombing" that hit civilians, but no reputable military historian denies the damage the air campaign did to the industrial, war-making base.
And the author clearly does not understand the nature of our missile doctrine and second-strike capability during the Cold War, and how it maintained the nuclear balance. He ludicrously refers to "an unimaginably powerful nuclear deterrent that essentially couldn’t be used," and apparently fails to understand that the very fact that it could be used is what ensured that it would not have to be used.
The United States and Great Britain were not coordinating our air campaign in Kosovo with the KLA on the ground, Joe. Moreover, what really brought the Serbs to the table was our air campaign in Serbia proper, including Belgrade. Every reputable military historian agrees that the NATO war against Serbia was decisively won by the air campaign. The use of air power in Libya was not anywhere near equivalent to the relentless sorties flown against Serbian forces, both in Serbia proper and in Kosovo.
"...air power has proven neither cheap nor surgical nor decisive nor in itself triumphant."
The 78-day war against Serbia (over Kosovo) in 1999 was conducted exclusively from the air, with the US flying 80 percent of the sorties and Britain most of the remaining 20 percent. It was definitely a case of air power proving both decisive and triumphant.
"SAC kept some of those bombers carrying thermonuclear weapons in the air 24/7 as a “deterrent” to a Soviet nuclear first strike (and as a constant first strike threat of our own)."
Much as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and the ability to mount a retaliatory strike were considered "nightmares," as you put it, they actually worked. The US and the Soviet Union maintained a balance, and both were rational enough to forgo their use. That is why you are able to say, regarding the US Air Force (apparently thinking it ironic), "Despite an unimaginably powerful nuclear deterrent that essentially couldn’t be used." That it couldn't be, and wasn't, used demonstrated its deterrent value.
Stay on topic, Mr. McPhee. The topic was the conversation among Erdogan, Netanyahu, and Obama, and that the Gaza blockade was not discussed. The topic was not me, or your fantasies about the "security apparatus," or Chile, or any of the other issues you raised extraneous to the topic. You really should rein in your emotions, Mr. McPhee, and try to maintain focus.
"About as “unintentional” as the U.S.S. Liberty incident."
I agree, Mark, except to call it an "incident" is to diminish the egregious act that it was. The Israeli assault on the USS Liberty was a direct, deliberate attack on a US naval vessel flying the American flag and with full US markings on the ship. Israeli planes overflew it and could not mistake it for anything but a US navel vessel. It was not an "incident." It was an unprovoked, deliberate attack on a US intelligence-gathering ship in international waters. That the Israelis were allowed to get away with it by simply paying compensation was shameful.
So, Mr. McPhee, is that your take on why Erdogan did not bring up the Gaza Blockade in his conversation with Netanyahu? Are you suggesting that Erdogan, to quote your phrase above, did not want to "break cover and simply do something right and decent and honest, because, obviously, after all, we must always allow the devious, the murderous, the money-grubbing, the apologists to just keep on doing what they do to “stabilize the world” in ways that we ordinary laboring fools cannot be trusted to know that they are always on the job about." Is that really what you think of Erdogan? You don't think he was putting Turkish interests front and center?
No, Allison, I am not saying that heads of state can deal with only one crisis at a time. What I am suggesting is that Erdogan, as well as Netanyahu and Obama, consider the Syrian crisis of more immediate concern, and they (even Erdogan) are not going to let Gaza complicate their approach to dealing with Syria and its danger to the region. Do you have a better explanation for why Erdogan did not bring up the Gaza blockade to Netanyahu?
"What is astonishing in all this is that no one is talking about the reason for which the Mavi Marmara was heading to Gaza and for which the Israeli commandos boarded it and shot it up."
My take on why even Erdogan did not bring up the Gaza blockade, Professor Cole, is that all three--Erdogan, Netanyahu, and Obama--realize that the most important and dangerous development is occurring in Syria. They all recognize that it is important not to allow anything--not even the Gaza blockade--to interfere with cooperation in containing the Syrian crisis, i.e., not letting it engulf the region in war and attempting as much as possible to prevent the Jihadists from eventually gaining control. Either or both of those possibilities becoming reality would be disastrous for the region.
"Fanatics on the Palestinian side would not include Fatah, and I would likely not lump in Hamas with the “fanatics”."
You are admitting, then, that according to your lights, the Hamas charter calling for the destruction of Israel, and the firing of rockets by Hamas, targeted indiscriminately against Israeli civilians, is the work of moderates. Strange indeed....
"Harry does NOT say “Israel is recognized as a Jewish state.” He notes that “a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine.” He then adds that the self-proclaimed Provisional New Rulers are the “de-facto government,” but says not a (to use a word he used a lot) DAMN thing about it being a “Jewish state.”
Only the most obtuse reader of the executive order would be unable to link the "Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine" with the "provisional government of the "new state of Israel."
"who are the fanatics on the Palestinian side?"
For starters, those leaders of Hamas who refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, and who fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilian targets.
"Obama on this trip for the first time attached US approval or acquiescence to the idea of Israel as a Jewish state, which to my way of thinking is an incredibly irresponsible, wrong-headed thing for him to have done."
Where have you been, Susan? The United States recognized Israel as a "Jewish state" from the beginning. Obama's statement was nothing new.
On May 14, 1948, eleven minutes after Israel proclaimed its independence, President Truman signed an executive order granting de-facto recognition to Israel as a "Jewish state." I have quoted the executive order in full below.
"This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de-facto government of the new state of Israel."
Signed: Harry S. Truman
Approved: May 14, 1948
If Obama had any "cojones" he would have made the statement about Palestinian rights to freedom and a state AND the illegality of settlements on the West Bank as he stood side-by-side with Netanyahu. It would have been no more a breach of protocol than Netanyahu showed Obama during their joint press conference in Washington.
Absolutely on the mark, Professor Cole. Had President Obama made it clear in Jerusalem that the Palestinians had a right to freedom in a state of their own, he would have accomplished something. He should have also made it crystal clear that the building of settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem is directly contrary to the long-stated US position and hinders any peace process.
Tibet has for centuries, to a greater or lesser degree, been under China's suzerainty. Contrary to popular opinion among the "Free Tibet" crowd, Tibet has never been recognized as an independent country. That does not excuse Chinese attempts to forcefully impose Han culture on Tibet. But it is simply wrong to suggest that in 1950 China invaded an independent country.
"I believe that Iran is America’s most natural ally in southwest Asia, and that within a few decades an American-Indian-Iranian alliance will be as important in world affairs as NATO was in the late 20th."
The Israelis would give you a run for your money on that one, Joe.
Regarding the future of a potential American-Indian-Iranian alliance being as important as NATO, I don't see it. NATO (at least until the great post Cold War expansion) consisted of like-minded nations that shared a common Western heritage, steeped in the Enlightenment, and thus had a common view of threats and dangers requiring joint action. (The one exception was Turkey, but Ataturk Westernized Turkey.) Iran and India do not share such a common heritage and outlook, and neither shares a common heritage and outlook with America. Any given crisis would be viewed very differently by each, as opposed to the view shared by the countries of NATO. Even NATO is now fragmented in its approach to crises. The Soviet threat was the real glue that cemented the alliance.
That Iran celebrates Nowruz today is no thanks to the Iranian Government. After the revolution in 1979, The theocratic government of Khomeini outlawed Nowruz as "un-Islamic." There were great protests by the people, and the government re-introduced Nowruz to calm the population. The Iranian people, as usual, were far more advanced than their government.
President Obama began his visit to Israel with even more than the usual obsequiousness American leaders display toward Israel. He referred to the "unbreakable bond" between America and Israel, which is normal and unremarkable. Then he noted that he was "confident in declaring that our alliance is eternal." Eternal? No alliance in history has been eternal. We don't even describe as "eternal" our alliances with Great Britain and Japan, countries with whom we share a lot more in terms of national interest than we do with Israel.
I have no idea what you mean by "beating on that same dead Horse," 1933John. I have never written in support of the Iraq War on this forum, and I did not in my comment above. Apparently you missed my statement that I would take the Iraq War as a given in order to critique the way it was bungled and mis-managed. There are enough comments in this thread, including yours, that make the case against the war in the first place. Rather than join the lemmings all saying the same thing, I wanted to approach it from a different angle, the execution of the war and, more important, the bungled occupation and reconstruction in its aftermath. This certainly does not constitute "beating on that same dead horse."
Any point you might have made was lost amidst all the background "white noise," Mr. McPhee.
The Iraq War was so bungled and mis-managed from the beginning that I fear the greatest damage to the United States will be an extreme reluctance to commit to engaging an adversary in the future that really does pose a threat to the US and its vital interests. It will be a reprise of the "Vietnam Syndrome," and it may take a long time to get over it.
Of course, we know that the primary reason for the war, WMD, did not exist. But let's take the invasion of Iraq as a given. In my opinion, we made three huge mistakes.
A. We did not plan for a robust occupation authority and reconstruction. General Tommy Franks was, ludicrously, saying that we would be down to 30,000 troops by Christmas 2003. There was no provision for security and maintenance of basic services.
B. CPA Chief L. Paul Bremer III dismantled the Iraqi army, probably the worst decision of the whole ten-year campaign. Without an Iraqi army to maintain security and order, we were left to do the job, which we were ill-equipped to do in the first few years. (See A above.)
C. The Bush Administration used ideology, rather than core competency, in recruiting many of the cadre who were to work in the Green Zone. Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone" tells the story as well as any I have seen. Prospective recruits were asked their views on "Roe vs. Wade." Some were asked for whom they voted in 2000. Conservative think tanks were asked to submit candidates. So, for example, you might have a 24 year-old neophyte acting as an advisor in the Ministry of Finance who knew nothing about finance but was against "Roe vs. Wade."
The way we went into Iraq is a textbook case of exactly how not to engage in a war and its aftermath. The military certainly did its part in toppling Saddam Hussein in an exemplary fashion. It was the civilian leadership, and some top military officers like Franks, who bungled the aftermath and follow-up.
"Is the UN investigator charged with upholding international law supposed to ignore these realities?"
The reality he ignored and either deliberately or inadvertently sidestepped, is that the highest levels within the Pakistani military and ISI are the decision-makers in these matters. The normal organs of government in Pakistan, such as the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Interior, and Defense, make official statements for public consumption but are not making policy. And neither Emmerson nor you know what even they are saying to the US behind closed doors.
It is absolutely amazing how much Joe and I, both separately and together, command your attention, Mr. McPhee. Never in my life have I had someone hanging on my every word as you do. Is this a result of having too much time on your hands?
Mr. Emmerson's visit to Pakistan and his report on the drone strikes (and whether or not the Pakistanis have given their "consent") brings out two interesting issues.
First, Mr. Emmerson admits that he did not meet with key decision-makers in the drone program over the years: the Pakistani military and the InterServices Intelligence Agency (ISI). He met only with civilians in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Defense, and it is unclear if he met with higher level officials in those ministries. To base one's conclusion that the Pakistanis have not given their "consent" to the drone strikes over the years without talking to high level officials in the military and ISI is to either exhibit a high level of naivete or place a premium on wishful thinking over experience.
Second, his research found that the Taliban and other militants bear a significant onus for civilian deaths. His report states that Taliban and other militants demand food and shelter from families against their will, and militants who know they are being hunted park their cars next to homes of innocent civilians. According to Emmerson, both of these actions on the part of the Taliban and militants have resulted in strikes inadvertently killing innocent civilians.
Agree totally, Farhang.
"Are you kidding? Of course there is lack of understanding of Islam here."
Apparently there is a lack of understanding of Islam, on your part RBTL. The disparity between men and women in inheritance and testimony in Shar'ia court is a part of Shar'ia law. If you don't understand that about Islam, then surely there is a lack of understanding of Islam on your part.
"let’s take the easy one – equal inheritance. anyone who denies the inheritance law set out in the qur’aan has left the Islaamic faith. sons are to receive twice the amount that the daughters receive. your lack of understanding of Islaam is embarrassing."
There is no lack of understanding of Islam here. What is embarrassing is that certain elements of Islam continue to suppress women, such as their right to only half the inheritance of males. Such as a woman's testimony is only equal to half that of a male in a Shar'ia court. That is what is embarrassing in this day and age, that a religion still holds such retrograde tenets, and that believers continue to believe and act on them.
"the poor – and they are desperately poor – continue to grow in numbers with little hope they can break out of a decades-long rut. Good luck to Dilma but she has her work ahead. Lula was pretty much of a disaster and most of Brazil’s good economic fortune can be attributed to the reforms put in place by his predecessor, Henrique Cardosa."
You are correct that President Cardoso laid the groundwork for Brazil's growing economic prosperity. Lula, however, was not a disaster. Everyone thought Lula would roll back Brazil's market economy and discourage foreign investment, but he proved otherwise and basically continued the free market economy initiated by Cardoso.
The poverty level in Brazil has been considerably reduced. World Bank data for poverty in Brazil shows the poverty level at 45 percent in 1990, 30.8 percent in 2005, and 21.4 percent in 2009. That is a huge reduction in the poverty level in a relatively short period of time, and it can all be attributed to Brazil's growing market economy and government policies geared toward assisting the poor.
"I am in the global south, Chile"
Congratulations, you are living in Chile, a country that got its economics right long ago and has been a beacon that other Latin American countries should follow. I lived in Santiago for three years, and while all is not perfect in Chile, Its free-market policies, welcoming attitude toward foreign direct investment, and export-oriented economy have been, and continue to be, a breath of fresh air. Chile has prospered, while many other Latin American countries have adopted, at one time or another, nationalization of banks, expropriation of foreign business, and import substitution.
The unsurprising result of countries with those policies is lack of investment, inflation, shortages of everything from food to consumer goods, and a flight of capital to Miami banks. Chile has avoided that scenario, and Mexico, Peru, Colombia, and Brazil have largely followed Chile's example. They have thrown off the ideological shackles that have hindered Latin American development for so long.
"What’s the point you and Bill are tag-teaming here? That the State Internal Intelligence people can tell St. Peter that they “registered skepticism” at the time? Did any of them go out on any kind of Bradley Manning limb, and make a woeful noise unto the MSM and Congress and the Joint Chiefs and the Web?"
No tag-teaming by us, Mr. McPhee. I would say you are the tagger. I suppose we should be flattered by the amount of attention you pay us, even though we have our separate, individual take on issues.
As for the State Department's Bureau for Intelligence and Research going out on a "Bradley Manning limb," of course they didn't. They have too much integrity to violate the trust placed in them by virtue of their position.
Too bad you did not summarize your piece above. Someone might have actually read it. As it is, one falls asleep after the first six paragraphs.
You are correct, Joe. The State Department's Bureau for Intelligence and Research (INR) has a sterling reputation for intelligence analysis. INR did not hop on board the WMD bandwagon and registered skepticism from the beginning.
"I don’t know the legal definition of treason, but this clearly illegal Iraq invasion, started on lies, certainly fits most peoples understanding of the word."
No the Iraq War does not "fit most people's understanding" of the definition of treason, at least not those with a reasonable IQ level. The Iraq War had nothing to do with "treason."
Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution.
Brian,
Tom Donilon never said that Obama was making the key decisions during the raid. He never said it, and it would defy logic to suggest that Obama would be making key tactical decisions regarding the conduct of the raid itself, as you suggest Donilan said. The decision to execute the raid was made by President Obama on April 29 (following the final NSC meeting April 28). The Seal team had already been training, first with a mock-up Abottabad compound at Fort Bragg, and then in Nevada, primarily to test the limits of the choppers. By the time the President made the decision to execute, Admiral McRaven and the Seal team were already in Afghanistan, after practicing the raid many times over.
But to the issue at hand, Donilon never said that "Obama was the key decision-maker DURING the raid." Either you are trying to manipulate the facts to fit your already-stated canard that, "…Donilon can mix in spin and lies," or you have obtained your misinformation from a dubious source.
"Women are rather tired of having to get “hysterical” to be taken seriously."
None of the women I know of who reached high positions, from Secretaries of State to corporate CEOs, to university presidents, obtained their positions by thinking they had to get "hysterical" to be taken seriously. In fact your embrace of the strategy of getting "hysterical" to be taken seriously has the opposite effect.
As for "attacking my style of stating facts," as you put it, we have already discussed the off-putting "style." Regarding "facts," the old adage still applies: You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
"I agree with everyone else here that you sound like an apologist for the gov’t."
Speak for yourself. You don't agree "with everyone else here," because everyone else does not agree with you.
"The US military spends about 2-3% of their war funds on “Information Operations,” which are efforts to mislead and propagandize the US Conress. See, e.g., Lindsey Graham."
You are wrong here. Information Operations (IO) are not directed at the American Congress and public. Information Operations are directed at the public and military in countries in which the military is engaged. They are a form of psychological warfare with the goal of exposing enemy propaganda and attempting to get opinion on our side. To say that they are directed at the US Congress demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of what IO are all about.
Professor David Schanzer's piece is a measured, well-documented, thoughtful article on the need for balance between the US Government's obvious requirement for secrecy at some level and society's right to know at another. There will always be tension between those two elements.
Your shameful diatribe against Professor Schanzer's piece would warrant serious consideration if you had managed to keep it at an adult level. Unfortunately, you have simply provided us with a tantrum and a rant.
"...Donilon can mix in spin and lies, whatever makes his team look good."
You have suggested that Tom Donilan has lied. Please provide a specific leak from Donilan or the NSC that you can document as a lie. When you accuse someone of lying, you had better be able to back it up. To casually toss out such accusations without offering a shred of evidence is to mark one as a blowhard.
"Joe and Bill and others, having developed some stock of skills at it, are invested in the Game the way it is, no doubt convinced that it’s the Right or maybe the Only Way, or at least personally beneficial or consistent with their world view."
Invested in the Game the way it is? Mr. McPhee, you have no idea what my views are on a multitude of issues. You may not agree with me on certain points I have made on this forum, but it is a measure of your arrogance and ignorance that you make the claim that you know my thinking on every issue. Stop flattering yourself.
To correct my typo: "I repeat, there is NO US interest in seeing Pakistan dismembered
"Of course, the actions of one senator do not represent US foreign policy, but it does give an idea of sentiments in Washington."
The actions of Dana Rohrabacher do not even represent the sentiments of the Senate, much less those of the US Government. You completely misread Washington if you think his approach to Baluchistan represents Washington thinking. I repeat, there is US interest in seeing Pakistan dismembered. To think otherwise is to join the ranks of the conspiracy theorists.
"The biggest threat to the pipeline is likely to be Baluch separatism, with terrorists blowing up the pipeline. Such separatists are likely to be supported by the US."
Would you please provide evidence for your contention that Baluchi separatists would "likely be supported by the US"? The US has never supported separatist movements in Pakistan. An elementary understanding of the dynamics at work in the region reveals why; any breakup of Pakistan makes securing US interests in the region much more difficult. And the US is not going to support "blowing up the pipeline" as part of its Iran sanctions regime. Blowing up a pipeline that can be easily repaired is a pinprick; the US wants to cast the net wider via sanctions.
In December 2001, under the Bonn Agreement, Hamid Karzai was named Chairman of the interim Transitional Administration. The Loya Jirga of 13 June 2002, appointed Karzai Interim President of the Afghan Transitional Administration. In the October 2004 election, Karzai won 21 of the 34 provinces, becoming Afghanistan's elected president.
It is always wise to study a bit of history before flying off on rants that have no bearing on the topic at hand.
"Gee, then why did “we”, ah, “support” him?"
Elementary as it may seem to most of us, you don't always get to choose the leader you support.
"Of course there is someone in the US Government who is somehow engaged with the Taliban. If not, then it would be fair to conclude that our State Department was wholly incompetent."
It is, of course, possible that we are talking to the Taliban via a back-channel of some sort. Nevertheless, your categorical statement that someone in the US Government is engaged with the Taliban appears to be based on your own wishful thinking, and the apparent hope that just talking to someone in the Taliban could prove fruitful.
There is no reason to believe that just "talking to the Taliban" would push anything forward. There are many variables that would have to be considered before engaging the Taliban. First and foremost, the Taliban leadership (and I do mean those in a position to make decisions) would have to be behind such talks. It would make no sense to talk to someone who had no authority. Second, we would have to be convinced that such talks were not merely designed by the Taliban as stalling tactics. Third, as flaky a leader as he is, we would have to be careful that talks with the Taliban would not even further undermine our relationship with Karzai. The State Department is more than competent enough to recognize that these conditions must be met before engaging with the Taliban.
It would be interesting to get a psychiatrist's diagnosis of the pathological condition (clinical psychosis!) that is afflicting Karzai. From the beginning, he clearly has been mentally unstable.
"In other words, there are as many Christians in Pakistan as in the whole country of Albania..."
Not surprising, as Albania is a Muslim majority country like Pakistan, although Albania is officially neutral regarding religion.
"Timothy McVeigh got a trial."
Timothy McVeigh was in the United States and easily captured.
"You might not remember this but in the old days (1215-2002) such behavior was frowned upon and instead we insisted on a quaint mechanism called a “trial” to weigh the evidence and determine whether or not the claim had merit."
I assume you are referring to the targeted killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki and others in Yemen and the FATA of Pakistan. They are Unlawful Enemy Combatants planning and executing attacks against the United States. They have declared war against the US, and they operate in areas that are inaccessable to the US for capture. They are no different than a German fighting against the US in World War II, for example, who also happened to hold US citizenship, except under the Geneva Conventions the German was a Lawful Enemy Combatant, while members of Al-Qaeda and affiliated forces are Unlawful Enemy Combatants. In both cases they are Enemy Combatants, not criminals knocking off Seven-Eleven convenience stores, and there is no requirement to read them their "Miranda Rights" if the only alternative to capture is to kill them.
There is a huge difference between targeting a Hellfire on an American citizen in, say, Yemen, who is an operational leader of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) planning attacks on the US; and targeting a Hellfire on an American citizen "on U.S. soil who is not flying a plane into a building, who is not robbing a bank, who is not pointing a bazooka at the Pentagon, but who is simply sitting quietly at a cafe, peaceably enjoying breakfast." Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and their ilk obviously are incapable of making such distinctions.
No doubt, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and the rest of their crowd are convinced that the United Nations is trying to take over the US as well. They, no doubt, have "friends of friends" who have actually "seen" the Black Helicopters that are the instruments of control. Oh, and let's not forget the "Chemtrails" (chemical trails) that jets leave behind them while flying. We ordinary folk always thought they were Contrails (condensation trails), but the extreme right-wing lunatics have corrected our misperception: They are actually chemicals spread to cause drought, and to induce population control as a result, among other things.
It is really a source of wonder how the extreme Right and the extreme Left both meet on issues when it comes to their belief that the US Government is the source of all our problems.
"look up: Churchill, Bengali Holocaust 1943-1945"
I am well aware of the Bengal famine of 1943-1944. (by 1945, the British had begun relief efforts in earnest.) Anywhere from two to three million Bengalis perished. It certainly is a blot on Churchill's record that he did not act. But it was nowhere near the murderous policies of Stalin against his own people. Stalin himself stated that ten million kulaks died of famine and executions during his program of forced collectivization during the 1930s. And Hundreds of thousands died in his Gulags, and as a result of his campaigns to liquidate his perceived enemies by execution, and during the Great Terror of 1937-38.
To suggest that Churchill was the "murderous bastard" and Stalin was the saintly humanitarian is laughable. It also demonstrates a preference for bumper-sticker shibboleths over a substantive grasp of history.
"So do we see capital flight from Mexico? Au contraire! We see capital flocking to Mexico in huge quantities; especially US capital."
Thank you for making my point. The difference between Mexico and Venezuela is Mexico has not expropriated foreign businesses and it welcomes foreign direct investment. Venezuela, on the 0ther hand, has expropriated businesses and its rules do not favor foreign direct investment. Thus, foreign direct investment flows to Mexico, but it does not go to Venezuela.
"Stalin was willing to work with the murdering bastard Churchill to defeat Hitler."
You, of course, have that exactly backwards. It was Churchill (and Roosevelt) who were willing to work with the murdering bastard Stalin in order to defeat Hitler.
"That’s was their rhetoric, however in reality they were just competing for resources."
No, the US was not just competing for resources. The Cold War was genuinely about ideological differences. And stopping Soviet imperialism was a laudable goal. It was a question of stopping the Soviets from assisting (imposing, in some cases) a communist system that demanded obedience to the state and absolute conformity from its subjects. There have been many books and articles on this subject, but I recommend a recently published one by Anne Applebaum entitled "Iron Curtain." It goes into great detail how the Soviets achieved their goals, starting, naturally, with a country's security organs and secret police. That continued throughout the Cold War in the Third World.
To address the topic of this post, "Venezuela and the Middle East After Chavez," what happens in Venezuela will depend on what the army eventually does. Chavez was a typical throwback to Latin American Leftists of yesteryear, who wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they did not have the United States to use as an excuse to explain their own political and economic immaturity (a result of their blinkered ideological stance). Chavez no doubt would have agreed with the over-the-top description, posted above, of the United States as the "linchpin/mainstay of a gargantuan international imperialism and hegemony." Such bloated hyperbole suggests a sophomore first discovering Antonio Gramsci while reading in his dorm room.
Chavez nationalized banks and other industries and scared away foreign investment. His policies have led to high inflation, many wealthy Venezolanos transferring their wealth out of Venezuela into banks in Miami, and shortages of everything from food to durable goods. If Venezuela did not have oil, Chavez would have run the country into the ground long ago. Nikolas Maduro Chavez's hand-picked successor (who will no doubt win the upcoming election, which will be rigged in his favor), will be worse than Chavez, as he is nothing but a "yes man" who lacks the charisma that Chavez possessed. Nevertheless, in the long run everything will depend on what the army does.
Chavez's death will have no impact whatsoever on the Middle East, just as his fawning embrace of Ghaddafi, Assad, and Akhmadinejad had no impact when he lived (although I'm sure he flattered himself by thinking it did).
"If aid had ended the war quickly, there would be fewer of them."
In my opinion, no amount of aid we or anyone else could have given the rebels would have "ended the war quickly." Assad has a pretty tough military with lots of equipment, and he would have outgunned any rebel armaments at many points in this ongoing battle. That's not to say he will prevail; I don't think he will. But the Jabha al-Nusra and other Salafist elements would have been in the fray anyway, and in my opinion, their superior fighting ability and organizational skills would have still made them a major player. This civil war would have continued without a quick end with or without additional aid to the rebels.
I am skeptical of the hand-wringing about the US stepping in with too little, too late as a cause of the prominence of Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabha al-Nusra and other militants within the Syrian opposition. I suspect they would have come to the fore in the opposition even if we had provided small arms and other materiel earlier. These Al-Qaeda affiliated organizations would have taken full advantage of the situation, regardless of our actions. They are tough fighters, well-organized, and very likely would have gotten access to any arms we provided the opposition. In summary, they may be bastards, but they are tough, well-organized, and they know how to lead.
"You are largely correct, however Israel has not always got what it has wanted."
I think I indicated that in my statement, "It is not as if we actually act on every Israeli whim; we don’t."
Regarding Pollard, that the Israelis and their US minions even push for his release is a disgrace. And I'm not sure that at some point in the future we won't grant their request and release him to live in Israel.
What you refer to as the "USS Liberty incident" was no "incident" at all. It was a deliberate Israeli attack on a US warship. There was no mistaking that the Liberty was a US ship. Its flag and US naval markings were clearly visible to Israeli warplanes that flew right over the ship. That the Israelis paid compensation was an effort to close the case, and it succeeded. Read James Bamford's piece (as well as others') on the attack on the Liberty. Bamford is no conspiracy theorist; he knows of what he speaks.
"Herewith, may I submit this one sentence summary;
It’s all about the bucks, i.e. National Interest."
No, national interest is not always "about the bucks." There are numerous examples that disprove that simplistic notion. Nevertheless, even if it were, it certainly would not be realized by the United States via its current relationship with Israel. If one considers where the real US national interest lies in the Near East, Israel for the most part is a headache and a hindrance. If only our politicians would reach that conclusion.
It is axiomatic that in international relations each nation considers its national interest paramount. That does not mean it is a zero-sum game. Often, circumstances require compromise to best meet those national interests. This has been true whether we consider the "Concert of Europe" from 1815 (the Congress of Vienna), in which states allied to prevent one state (France or the German Confederation) from controlling the continent, until 1914 and the outbreak of World War I (at which point the Concert had broken down); or the Cold War, in which both the United States and the Soviet Union (in spite of their nuclear arsenals and opposing ideologies) acted rationally and, in doing so, prevented a potential nuclear holocaust. But compromise or not, every state's goal is, and always has been, the advancement and protection of its national interest.
The one exception to the above has been, and continues to be, the case of the United States' relationship with Israel. It boggles the mind to hear American political leaders, whether the President or Members of Congress, whether Republicans or Democrats, fall all over themselves swearing their fealty to the US-Israeli relationship. How many times has one heard that there is "no daylight" between the US and Israel.
And yet, If one considers the United States' national interest to be paramount (as I do) in our foreign relations, this slavish devotion to assuaging Israel's every concern makes no sense. It is not as if we actually act on every Israeli whim; we don't. And we have always made it clear that we are against continued West Bank settlements (although we have never really put pressure on Israel to retreat). But we have backed Israel on so many issues, from voting against UN resolutions that criticize Israel to continuing to provide aid and forgive loans (turning them into grants), without any reciprocity on Israel's part. Israel thumbs its nose at the US over West Bank settlements. Israel attacked the USS Liberty in 1967, killing 34 sailors and wounding some 170 others, without suffering any penalty. Israel ran a US spy (Jonathan Pollard) against the US in the '80s who was sentenced to life in prison, and now wants us to release him. Israel's policies and relationship with the US make it difficult for the US to have a reasonable relationship with Arab states (at least those Arab states that share our interests).
The current US-Israeli relationship is an obstacle to the US pursuing its true national interests. It is folly to think that the US and Israel's national interests are the same, or even complementary. The true US national interest (as opposed to that ginned up by AIPAC) often diverges widely from Israel's. This unfortunate situation is not likely to change any time soon. Nevertheless, it doesn't hurt to give the President, the Executive, and the Congress an occasional lesson in the difference between the myth and the reality inherent in this unhealthy relationship.
"it is interesting that he knows, KNOWS, what is in the group mind of Those Chinese who just naturally want to Take Over The Far East"
It appears that you are incapable of understanding the subtleties of power and influence. It is not that the Chinese want to "take over the Far East." But they do want to deny the US the ability to exercise our influence as a Pacific power in order to be able to exercise their influence, particularly in Southeast Asia, without having to contend with the US in the region. If you had the perception of a rapier, rather than that of a meat cleaver, you might pick up on these nuances.
The Chinese aspirations are to eventually have the capability to deny the US access within the "first island chain," and whether they develop carriers (nuclear or otherwise) or submarines (which they are already developing) to accomplish that, they will do it. Again, it does not depend on our budget and plans. That's not to say they will be successful in denying us access, but their goal is to reach that level of capability.
"Pentagon showmanship and theatrics resulted in the removal of one carrier strike force from the shores of Iran"
It was indeed showmanship and theatrics, as there is enough fat that can be cut in the Defense Department while still maintaining a robust strike capability. Should it be necessary, that second carrier strike group will be redeployed to the Persian Gulf. In fact, this is typical of the Obama Administration. Obama and his minions have been saying the sky is falling. Note Education Secretary Arne Duncan mouthing the outright falsehood that teachers in West Virginia were being laid off, even before the sequester took effect! It was found to be totally baseless. Such actions undermine their credibility.
"Now the Chinese can suspend their crash nuclear carrier program."
Not a chance. The Chinese military and naval build-up is not subject to the vicissitudes of the US defense budget. The Chinese want to develop the capability to eventually deny the US access to waters within the "first island chain" (i.e., Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the South China Sea (at least the part they claim). Their strategy of "Anti-Access/Area Denial" capability is just that, a capability they are trying to develop. It does not mean they will put it into effect, but they want to have the capability should they determine the situation requires it to go operational. Of course, we are developing "Air-Sea Battle" plans to counter it, as we should.
"Would you say that one key to understanding the “Religious Right” in the Arab and Muslim world is that it was largely “created” as a response to western imperialism and colonialism?"
And the centuries of imperialism and colonialism in the Arab World by the Turkish Ottoman empire?
The Arabs and all other Muslim subjects of the Ottomans were victims of an Islamic—not Western—empire’s bureaucracy, regulations, corruption, and consequent failure to modernize, leaving them ill-equipped to meet the Western challenge when it did come.
Compared to the centuries of Ottoman imperialism in the Arab World, that of the British and French was a drop in the bucket: Influence in Egypt beginning in 1882, and mandates in Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, and Lebanon beginning in 1921, lasting approximately 37 years.
"...carte blanche for the Bills of the world to “light them up,” in the modern phrase…"
I suppose I should be flattered by your frequent references to me when responding to others' comments. That I would have such an impact on you is an unexpected element in these exchanges.
"Using "Artistic License" is a nice term that I should remember to describe “B rated” movies."
...and Oliver Stone productions masquerading as history.
"Which part of “Afghanistan” had and has that “major role,” again? Just what did “it” do that even starts to justify what “the US” did, has done and is doing there"
Re-read my comment above, Mr. McPhee. You will find that the answer to your question, cited above, is in my original comment.
"Unless you believe the Iranians have no right to elect their government, America betrayed its supposed democratic principles in returning the Shah to power."
I fail to see where your statement challenges mine: "After World War II the Soviet Union was occupying a swath of northern Iran and would no doubt have remained there had the U.S. not applied pressure on Stalin to retreat. It was due to U.S. pressure that the Soviets backed off their occupation and departed Iran."
If you think my above statement (about the U.S. applying pressure on Stalin to quit the occupation of northern Iran) to be incorrect, then please advise your reading of that event. As to America returning the Shah to power, I made no comment about that unfortunate event and am wondering what relevance your criticism has to my comment.
"In fact, I will go so far as to suggest that this factually weak, self-gongratulatory psuedo-history our culture has created leads precisely to the factually weak, self-congratulatory, and morally bereft content of the comment above."
The above quote is interesting, coming from one who makes categorical statements about America's role in the world during the Cold War without providing any context or evidence to back up his black-and-white view of events. If you were to really apply yourself to the study of the dynamics at play during the Cold War you would find a much more nuanced set of events driving American foreign policy. That's not to say American foreign policy was always correct, but it is to say it was not always the evil force you seem to believe it was.
"But you, I, and the people who made it know full well that the people who go to see it will consider it to be history."
Just as many of the conspiratorially-minded considered Stone's "JFK" to be history, although its theme of a conspiracy among the military, CIA, and top levels of the national security establishment to assassinate Kennedy was a fable.
"You say that Stone’s work is jaundiced and inaccurate. Tell us one thing that is inaccurate."
There are many. But you asked for one. Stone's contention that the Japanese were ready to surrender in the summer of 1945, before the atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is wildly inaccurate. The Japanese made it clear that they might agree to a cessation of hostilities only if they kept the architecture of the emperor, they could keep their conquests in China, that there would be no allied occupation of Japan, and any war crimes tribunals would be conducted by the Japanese, not the allies.
Barring the above, the Japanese War Cabinet was adamant in continuing the fight, expecting that the allies would invade the Japanese home islands. You won't get any of that from Stone because it would upset his Narrative of the U.S. missing an opportunity to make peace in the Pacific.
"You probably still believe Lyndon Johnson’s version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident… and that it justifies the million Vietnamese who died as a result. Oh yeah, and the Spanish blew up the Maine."
Don't be so presumptuous and arrogant as to suggest you know what I believe or don't believe. Stick to your own opinions; don't purport to know mine on every subject.
"Because it’s not like mainstream apolitical Americans aren’t being continually bombarded with nationalistic and even racist bias about our history that Stone needs to offset, right?"
Wrong. The job of a historian is not to "offset" anything. The job of a historian is to present history as accurately as possible, using valid primary and secondary sources.
"Like “Zero Dark Thirty” this film tries to cast the CIA in a most positive light."
Within the context of the film, that is the extraction of the six American Embassy officials from Iran, the CIA indeed acted in a positive light. The only thing that warrants as much or more acclaim would be the actions of the Canadian Ambassador in hiding and protecting the six American diplomats. For that act alone, the Canadians deserve our everlasting gratitude.
"We bombed and invaded Afghanistan because it hosted al Qaida, but had no role in 9/11."
By hosting Al-Qaeda and offering it terrorist training facilities, the Afghan government was as complicit in the attacks against the United States as if it had planned them itself. It certainly did have a major role in the September 11 terrorist attacks. to suggest otherwise is pure sophistry.
"That is the tragedy of the post WW!! era and the Cold War strategy. Instead of taking up the banner of national revolution and democracy in former colonies, the US handed them over to Soviet support, throwing away the good will it garnered among great and poor nations alike after WW11."
You have a point, but in the case of Iran (which was never a colony) this is not entirely true. After World War II the Soviet Union was occupying a swath of northern Iran and would no doubt have remained there had the U.S. not applied pressure on Stalin to retreat. It was due to U.S. pressure that the Soviets backed off their occupation and departed Iran.
"As such, it’s counterpointed well by Oliver Stone’s Untold History series"
Oliver Stone's "Untold History" series is definitely slanted toward Stone's jaundiced view of American history. It omits anything that would undercut Stone's idea of American history being one long march of perfidy, deception, and aggression, while piling on extraneous material that purports to support it. Stone is in the same category as Michael Moore, which does not say much for his portrayal of history.
The difference between "Argo" and Stone's "Untold History" series is "Argo" does not purport to be history; it aspires to be nothing more than what it is, a film based on historical events, and it readily admits to using artistic license, just as did the film "Zero Dark Thirty." Stone, on the other hand, holds to the conceit that his series is historically accurate. A fanciful conceit indeed.
"there is no doubt...that this is armed American aggression and slaughter of third world people."
Where on earth are you getting your information? Are you seriously stating as a categorical fact that opposition to the Assad regime is "armed American aggression and slaughter of third world people"? Did you not hear that Obama's previous national security team favored arming the opposition, but Obama vetoed the idea? And even if America did provide arms to the opposition, why would you think it would be "armed American aggression"? The Russians provide arms to the Assad regime. Do you consider Assad's slaughter of his own Syrian people "armed Russian aggression" because the Russians provided the arms?
Nevertheless, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know something that we do not. Please provide evidence that America is committing "armed aggression" in Syria. Please provide evidence that Americans are on the ground in Syria slaughtering "third world people." Please provide evidence that American arms are in the hands of the opposition slaughtering "third world people." In other words, you have made a categorical statement accusing the United States of an act of aggression in Syria. Back it up with evidence.