October 8th, 2006 at 10:09
Björn Hallberg
Macabre and significant yet strangely underreported. Could someone please drive a stake through his heart already.
Kissinger, according to Woodward’s book, apparently has convinced the Bush White House that any troop withdrawals from Iraq will start a wave of public pressure to pull out all U.S. forces from Iraq. He is probably right in this analysis. But Kissinger missed the main lesson of Vietnam and is now missing it in Iraq. As the U.S. generals in Iraq know, killing more Sunni insurgents and Shi’ite militiamen than the United States loses of its own troops will not win a war that is fundamentally political. As Lt. Gen. William Odom (ret.), former Director of the National Security Agency and opponent of the war, has noted, the Iraq situation will continue to deteriorate and the United States will eventually be forced to withdraw from Iraq. So withdrawing sooner, rather than later, according to Odom, will save U.S. lives and money and salvage what international prestige the United States has left. If Nixon and Kissinger had followed similar advice in Vietnam, the United States, its military, and its international standing would not have been tarnished by four additional years of war. And even worse than Vietnam, continued U.S. occupation of Iraq is fueling and worsening the Islamic terrorist threat to the United States, according to an estimate from Bush’s own intelligence agencies.
Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger came into office in 1969 vowing to get the United States out of Vietnam, while achieving “peace with honor.” Four years and 22,000 American casualties later, Nixon and Kissinger settled for a face-saving peace settlement that they could have obtained shortly after they took office. The final agreement merely provided a “decent interval” between U.S. troop withdrawal and the fall of the South Vietnamese regime to the communists.
Yet Kissinger’s version of these events is that by 1972, the United States had virtually won the Vietnam War, but Congress and the American people wimped out and snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. Although the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam in the Linebacker II air offensive of 1972 and threats of using nuclear weapons probably led the North Vietnamese to negotiate more seriously, Kissinger’s argument that the United States had “won” the war is a fantasy.
Kissinger will always be the same narcissistic sycophant. What is really mind-boggling through all of this is that people still take him seriously enough, to the point of reverence, to base policy decisions on his fantasies.
Oh, and for those that missed it, Kissinger also had a private audience with Pope Benedict XVI on September 29th. Really. No really.
October 6th, 2006 at 06:43
Björn Hallberg
The US is not so quick to render assistance though it seems. Because massacres aren’t really massacres if they’re carried out by the righteous sort of people apparently. It’s good to remember what sort of monsters the US is harbouring and protecting, especially in the midst of their tireless campaigns against democratically and progressive elected governments in the region. Many of whom are subject to a barrage of baseless or contrived accusations of domestic manhandling.
A Bolivian human rights delegation is visiting the United States this week to urge the US government to notify Bolivia’s ex-president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada and two of his former ministers to return to Bolivia immediately to stand trial in connection with the massacre of scores of protesters three years ago.
Sanchez de Lozada, Carlos Sanchez Berzain and Jorge Berindoague have all resided in the US since fleeing Bolivia in 2003 following a citizen’s uprising that removed them from power. The conflict arose following a decision by the Sanchez de Lozada government to export Bolivia’s natural gas through a port in Chile. When hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in protest, government forces responded with soldiers and tanks, killing 67 of the protesters and wounding more than 400.
Also, a stark reminder of what transpired during that period with regard to Bolivia, Water privatization and the American transnational Bechtel:
Bolivian Activist Oscar Olivera on Bechtel’s Privatization of Rainwater and Why Evo Morales Should Remember the Ongoing Struggle Over Water
September 29th, 2006 at 11:51
Björn Hallberg
Molly Ivins: Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)
With a smug stroke of his pen, President Bush is set to wipe out a safeguard against illegal imprisonment that has endured as a cornerstone of legal justice since the Magna Carta.
NYT Editorial: Rushing Off a Cliff
Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.
[...] Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.
They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
September 24th, 2006 at 17:26
Björn Hallberg
Someone is having trouble abiding by international law.
Maduro told CNN Espanol shortly after being released that he was confined to a small room and told to remove his clothes.
Maduro said that when he explained that he was the Venezuelan foreign minister and showed his diplomatic passport, he said he was threatened, pushed and yelled at by immigration and police officials.
“They were violating diplomatic conventions,” he said.
A measly apology followed. Hopefully Americans will soon feel the same kind of hands-on disrespect across the world. They sure are setting themselves up for that sort of backlash.
September 23rd, 2006 at 13:01
Björn Hallberg
It’s hard not to be impressed by Hugo Chavez’s antics in the UN General Assembly this past week. While he didn’t levy the most effective criticism, and while direct criticism of Bush is always running the risk of deflecting deeper and more systematic criticism of the US, the quip was nevertheless hilarious and there is always something really appealing about Chavez’s lack of decorum as it were. As opposed to say the US putting on its crocodile smile, boasting and speaking softly while raping and plundering.
As for discrediting the UN by “name-calling”, I recall the US pulling a few of those as well over the years, religious and otherwise. And how could one discredit a system that America infiltrated, broke already in the early 1950s and has since then dominated for its own selfish gain? And to hear John Bolton criticize someone for lambasting the UN is a bit much given what the same has said about the UN in the past. Plus, it’s hard to demand a measure of respect for the US government when the same is deeply disrespectful of Venezuelan officials, funding anti-democratic organizations and organizing coups d’état. Questioning Chavez’s polemic, bluntness is a clear expression of cultural racism in itself. To even suggest that people need to conform to a certain form of discourse, and indeed polemics, is a fantastic display of hegemony.
All in all a tough week for US dominance. Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Morales, Mugabe — even Lula — had something to say about US policies around the world. As one brought a symbolic copy of Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival, another brought a symbolic coca leaf to the debate. And as much as the US and Britain like to assert that the influence of their critics is limited, the Assembly was clearly of another opinion. It has been a while since the Empire faced such determined antagonists and one would be lying if one didn’t admit that it was all very exhilarating.
September 21st, 2006 at 15:59
Björn Hallberg
America does a bang-up job of appropriating war crimes, doing the civilized, responsible thing — as long as the war crimes in question are long past, far away and don’t directly involve Americans. And adding to the definition, it of course helps if the appropriation can produce some sort of blunt rhetorical device to deflect contemporary criticism and literally blackmail foreign powers (see for instance The Holocaust Industry for a brilliant account by Norman Finkelstein on the topic of a similar appropriation).
The latest appropriation is the seemingly altruistic House of Representatives resolution 759 which demands that Japan apologize for the sexual slavery (the use of what is euphemistically called “comfort women”) that went on since 1932 until the end of the Second World War. Hard to argue when taken at face value. But digging just beneath the surface brings up troubling issues. Like the precedence of Holocaust appropriation for instance and questions over the actual motives, not to mention why anyone even cares what the American Congress has to say about anything.
First and foremost it is a mind-boggling concept really with America continually issuing arrogant resolutions for the rest of the world while sitting on a considerable pile of corpses and war crimes of its own. A pile that keeps getting bigger and that isn’t situated in the 1930s by the way. And while we’re at it, digging up ancestral guilt, why not also consider the effect America had on Japan’s development in the late 1800s and the means, ideology to take up an imperialistic policy in the region.
The timing is impeccable given the political happenings in Japan. Is it a genuine (as genuine as it can get with the U.S. at the helm) attempt to set things right or a cynical ploy to assert American dominance and effectively blackmail Japan? And if so, would that indicate that Shinzo Abe is indeed genuine when talking about restoring Japan’s independence (and not for instance pondering a rewrite of pacifist tenets because America wants a more active military ally)? It could be debated whether Japan taking a right-wing turn would be a price worth paying if it also (as unlikely as it is) meant cutting the Trans-Pacific connection.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:15
Björn Hallberg
In what is starting to resemble an “anti-U.S.” manifesto Non-Aligned nations come together, offering a blistering criticism and a greater unity.
Washington’s biggest enemies, from communist Cuba to North Korea, called on developing nations on Saturday to challenge U.S. dominance through a revived Non-Aligned Movement labelled a Cold War relic by critics.
More than 50 heads of state and leaders from over 100 Third World countries, among them Iran and Venezuela, rejected U.S. use of the “axis of evil” label and supported Tehran’s right to nuclear technology for peaceful use.
“American imperialism is in decline. A new, bi-polar world is emerging,” Venezuela’s leftist President Hugo Chavez said.
Well, seeing as the U.S. kept all its “relics”, including its foreign bases and NATO, this seems perfectly reasonable. Though a pipe dream at the moment, the Non-Aligned Movement could do a lot of damage to the American Empire project in the long run.
HOWEVER, the article skews history and the current agenda. Take the use of “relic” for instance. It does inevitably bring to mind U.S. cold war relics as noted. You’d think that would hold scathing criticism somewhere, but it gets the U.S. off the hook since it assumes the cold war was necessary and that everything the U.S. did — the countless millions it killed, the 50 or so states it invaded and the 30 or so progressive movements it crushed — well, according to this view they all happened because of the cold war. Not because the U.S. is / was a monstrous empire, much like its Soviet counterpart, and one that needed to be brought down, but because of circumstances. You know, one of those situational explanations that never fly in the individualistic temple that is America in any other context but foreign policy.
And it goes without saying that if one does not appreciate the callousness of the U.S. during the cold war, and its effect on the world, one can not appreciate why people would distrust the U.S. across the board and as such anti-US rhetoric becomes an empty shell of “banter”. It sure is easy to throw off meaningful criticism when you sit at the top of the hegemony, weaving the very fabric of reality and the limits of sanctioned discourse.
September 15th, 2006 at 16:39
Björn Hallberg
But at the same time has the tenacity to point the finger at Chavez for alleged meddling. Now that seems a bit hypocritical. As the Sandinistas stand poised for a comeback and what could be a fair chance to realize the social reform that they were once prevented by means of state-sponsored terrorism, the U.S. finds the development “undemocratic.” Because democracy apparently is when you’re dancing to the American tune and implementing economic policy that makes you country safe for American business first and foremost.
The US ambassador to Nicaragua has issued a vigorous warning to this small Central American country’s electors against supporting Daniel Ortega, the veteran leftwing Sandinista leader and the frontrunner in November’s presidential election.
Also, in an even more mind-boggling display of callousness, FT while noting the U.S. subterfuge the last time Ortega was elected only sees the American involvement in Nicaragua as “a long and – in many cases – unfortunate history.” Now that is one way of putting it. Overthrowing a progressive, democratically elected government is “unfortunate” (mainly because people criticised it). When the same political structure do a comeback years later, not via terror but via the ballot, it’s undemocratic.
September 15th, 2006 at 15:30
Björn Hallberg
U.S. caught with pants down, lying about Iran. What a shocker.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has written a scathing letter to a congressional committee saying part of its case against Iran is “outrageous and dishonest.”
The report came a day before an Iranian opposition figure accused Iran of using lasers to enrich uranium in its bid to develop a nuclear weapon.
Tehran has repeatedly said that its nuclear program is solely for energy production.
The International Atomic Energy Agency wrote the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, lambasting it for claiming that the Islamic republic “is currently enriching uranium to weapons grade.”
Iran is far from that capability, the IAEA said.
And guess who is behind the massive distortion field? None other than Ali Reza Jafarzadeh of Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) infamy. Currently “independent” expert on Iran for Fox News since his last job went up in flames when the NCRI got listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department. He is also head of the bogus Strategic Policy Consulting Inc, biding his time while slandering Iran, dreaming of the Shah and waiting for his pound of flesh from the subjection of the nation.
An regarding the alleged cover-up …
The subcommittee’s report also insinuates that the IAEA may be in cahoots with Tehran in covering up Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The IAEA shot back that the claim was “an outrageous and dishonest suggestion,” but Rogers stood by it Thursday.
“The Iranians said take him off the program, and they said OK. You can’t have Iran getting to pick who is their inspectors,” Rogers said.
Now that is quite the conspiracy theory. Hope you’re as open-minded when it comes to 9/11. No?
This is just a guess of course but when another U.N. agency was doing inspections of Iraq once upon a time, the U.S. actively subverted the process by infiltrating every branch of that organization with spies. Spies that would later gain access to some of the most secret facilities (and that most of the time had nothing whatsoever to do with NBC weapons) with the expressed purpose to gather sensitive information on a sovereign nation and / or gather data that could be used for political murder and regime change. That is the sole reason why Iraq was being “difficult”. It goes without saying that there is a good chance the U.S. has done exactly the same thing again since it is a classic win-win situation. Even if they’re discovered and kicked out, it will still look like Iran is to blame for hiding something.
September 14th, 2006 at 14:26
Björn Hallberg
Too bad for the American empire builders who wanted to cut a swath across Eastern Europe and Asia, encompassing former USSR republics and isolating Russia. At least for now their plans seem to have ground to a halt. Without Ukraine onboard there is really no point in pursuing this course of action as the containment would clearly fail.
Yet, with the contradictory promise of “enlargement of [Ukraine's] cooperation with NATO” and accession to the World Trade Organisation one could suspect that the agenda remains the same and has just become less overt.
Next Posts
Previous Posts
Contact
Lifestream
