Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts

2/7/11

Musings on Western Hypocrisy

punditman says...
Punditman has been busy these past few days, with, among other things, attending to some urgent family matters. Meanwhile, I am happy to see Peacenik has kept the site up-to-date. Let's hear it for Peacenik.

Punditman does not have much time to comment on the state of the world at the moment, but he will point out a few salient features of Western diplomacy and policy that have reared their hypocritical heads a little higher than usual this past little while. Namely, hypocrisy on human rights and the blatent double standard when it comes to the behaviour of "our side" versus "theirs."

Exhibit A: the terror bombing of the Moscow Domodedovo Airport. Remember that? It was all of two weeks ago, soon to be overshadowed by events in Egypt. But it was a major act of terror: at least 36 killed and 180 wounded. Wow, that's certainly newsworthy enough to have more than the tepid follow-up that Western media coverage affords it, meaning it will soon simply slip down the memory hole.

Punditman did read an article the next day in the Toronto Star that talked about how Russia needs to rethink its Caucasus policy to "come to grips with the roots of anger and frustration that have grown a crop of deadly extremists." Not only that, but the situation has become so fragmented politically that it’s not clear with whom Russia can negotiate. Funny, that has a familiar ring to it. Where has Punditman heard that before? Oh yes, in Punditman's head, that's where. Because we rarely hear any such sentiments in the mainstream media when it comes to Western foreign policy, in places like, oh, I dunno...Afghanistan? Or the whole Middle East for that matter. That's because we're on the side of the angels, and democracy, and human rights, and Israel, and all things bright and beautiful, just like we are in Egypt, which leads to Exhibit B: Have you ever seen such hypocritical drivel oozing from the cake holes of Western leaders? The Egytian eruption is a widespread popular revolt against a Western-backed dictatorship, and yet Stephen Harper and Barak Obama can't bring themselves to say without equivocation that we support the people, period. Not Mubarak ("I would not refer to him as a dictator," said Joe Biden), not a Mubarak successor groomed to support our interests, not some sort of "smooth transition," but the people. Smooth transition is code for putting into place the people we want, so they trot out all the unwarranted fears of the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. Human rights, eh?

Ditto for Israel's shameful reaction, best summed up by Anshel Pfeffer in Haaretz:
We (Israelis are) all suffering from Orientalism, not to say racism, if the sight of an entire people throwing off the yoke of tyranny and courageously demanding free elections fills us with fear rather than uplifting us, just because they’re Arabs.
Actually Noam Chomsky sums up these attitudes and the situation a  lot better than Punditman ever could. Check it out.

9/2/10

The Elephant in the Room: Just don't mention Foreign Policy!

punditman says...

Punditman has never been all that interested in trying to figure out the root causes of terrorism, specifically, “jihadism” or “Islamic terrorism.” Clearly, the reasons are historically based, complex, multifaceted, controversial and infinitely debatable. While the research and ideological infighting is interesting, Punditman recognizes the phenomenon as the obvious threat that it is and is therefore interested in supporting actions that don’t make it worse while opposing those that do—such as invading Muslim countries and killing Muslim kids. A simple and slipshod approach, perhaps, but no more feeble-minded or intellectually lazy than some of our esteemed mainstream commentators.  

In a recent Globe and Mail commentary, Margaret Wente attempts to tackle domestic terrorism, global jihad and Canadian foreign policy. Uh oh. Punditman always knows what is coming when she ventures outside her soapbox’s comfort zone: shallow analysis supporting the neo-con status quo.

She does not disappoint. As always, she makes a valid point or two. Wente notes that terrorism suspect Dr. Khurman Sher, one of the suspects arrested last week in Canada on terrorism charges is, "not a hate-filled product of poverty and disadvantage. He’s not even a second-class citizen...Instead, Dr. Sher’s the product of Canada’s uniquely successful multicultural meritocracy—a homegrown, ball-hockey-playing, fun-loving fellow who zipped through one of the toughest med schools in the country and made fun of religious Muslims on Canadian Idol. 

In other words, just a regular guy who happens to be Muslim—and a successful one too. But I beg to differ on one point: he must hate something. Wente continues,” The depressing truth is that radicalized Muslims in the West often work in medicine, engineering or computer science. According to terrorism expert Marc Sageman, they’re typically highly educated family men. They’re quite sane. And they may not even be particularly religious."

Quite sane. Not particularly religious (and darned if punditman didn't always think that docs, engineers and computer geeks should be required to take more ethics courses to avoid turning into bomb-making mad scientists).

What could possibly be making these Muslim men so secretly angry that they would want to kill their fellow Canadians? Well, for Wente, it has little to do with Canadian or Western foreign policy. Moreover, those that point to this elephant in the room are to be dismissed and dissed: "Some people have the answer. It’s our foreign policy, stupid! If only we stopped waging war in Afghanistan, kowtowing to the imperialist Americans and sucking up to Israel, then people wouldn’t get so riled up they’d want to blow up Parliament. “The solution is … to stop being in denial that there is no connection between the wars we wage and the terrorist mayhem that they trigger,” pronounced the Toronto Star’s Haroon Siddiqui (among others). In other words, it, too, is our fault." 

No, he never said terror plots are our fault; Siddiqui merely makes the same connection that many security experts make. For instance, in 9-11’s aftermath, the late Bill Christison, former Senior CIA officer, outlined six root causes of terrorism, all connected in some way to US foreign policy. It's a complex, interconnected world out there. But the more she delves into it, the more Wente gets downright befuddling. "The trouble is, lots of people hate our foreign policy. Some of them even go to Afghanistan to fight on the other side. These people are usually Muslims who’re convinced they’re engaged in a worldwide war of jihad. " 

Then Wente goes seriously off the rails. "And I suspect that our foreign policy has far less to do with inciting their murderous fantasies than does the seductive ideology of Islamism–widely available via the Internet and disseminated through radical Muslim groups at many of our finest universities. Far too many young Muslim Canadians, especially Pakistanis, are being whipped up into a frenzy to hate the very society that sustains them." 

That's an interesting "suspicion." But reporters should not "suspect." They should dig up facts. For example, last Thursday, RCMP Chief Supt. Serge Therriault, head of criminal operations for the capital region, explained at an Ottawa news conference that police were forced to arrest these latest terror suspects when they learned that funds were about to be transferred from Canada for weapons to attack western coalition forces in … wait for it … Afghanistan! Of all places. But forget about foreign policy or Afghanistan because Wente "suspects" otherwise. She then goes on to blame domestic Muslim communities for not doing enough to stop the brainwashing of their youth (presumably in mosques, universities and on the internet) but then cites one religious Muslim man in Toronto who runs programs aimed at deradicalizing Muslim youth. Fair enough.

But Punditman "suspects" that these latest terrorism suspects have seen pictures of dead Iraqi and Afghan children killed by Western bombs and they know of US army death squads and Predator drones that routinely kill innocent civilians. Punditman "suspects" that they know of the blind spot in our media when it comes to war crimes and a generally passive Western populace who acquiesce in the invasion and occupation of Muslim lands. Punditman does not know if these terror suspects are "religious" or not or if they are much interested in violently reestablishing the caliphate or have fantasies about instating Sharia law in Canada. Time may tell. But punditman does "suspect" that they want to lash out because violence begets violence. Unfortunately, Wente refuses to take off her blinders long enough to at least acknowledge this plain reality.

Instead, by attempting to debunk the Western foreign policy is a factor in terrorism argument, Wente ends up in  la la land. Her "logic" goes something like this: many Muslims hate our foreign policy but domestic terror plots have little to do with our foreign policy. Instead, seductive Islamism simply whips these well adjusted successful, assimilated Muslim men into a frenzy. So they hate us, because they are whipped into a frenzy to hate us. Punditman "suspects" this is what she was actually trying to say.

7/30/09

Three Good Reasons To Liquidate Our Empire

The rationality of this article resonates with Peacenik. It seems so obvious. It makes sense. But Canada's and America's foreign policy isn't driven by rationality. Canada is going to help pacify the Pashtuns? Then Canada is going to rebuild their infrastructure? (While Canada's infrastructure falls apart). Then Canada is going to insure civil liberties for women, and education for everyone? (While Canada's education system implodes). Is Canada going to insure that everyone in Afghanistan gets a swine flu vaccination? Probaby. Are Canada's, and America's, priorities all screwed up? Of course. Read Chalmers Johnson's historical summary of Afghanistan. What the fuck is Canada doing there? And why? Bring the troops home now.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM6_xZV2DlrabUCc4oimIVGpSr2hf2jHISVq_zqELzuNuyXTBq4hb9O2BVu9scmq2mU6FeunSDAj2ZT7oalIb2pUSCHW6wXHKPYXtA-sy1gaW5JjiTI2C72_40D2HovqcAMlE8ejzLghMQ/s400/afghanistan.jpg
Afghanistan

by Chalmers Johnson

However ambitious President Barack Obama's domestic plans, one unacknowledged issue has the potential to destroy any reform efforts he might launch. Think of it as the 800-pound gorilla in the American living room: our longstanding reliance on imperialism and militarism in our relations with other countries and the vast, potentially ruinous global empire of bases that goes with it. The failure to begin to deal with our bloated military establishment and the profligate use of it in missions for which it is hopelessly inappropriate will, sooner rather than later, condemn the United States to a devastating trio of consequences: imperial overstretch, perpetual war, and insolvency, leading to a likely collapse similar to that of the former Soviet Union.

According to the 2008 official Pentagon inventory of our military bases around the world, our empire consists of 865 facilities in more than 40 countries and overseas U.S. territories. We deploy over 190,000 troops in 46 countries and territories. In just one such country, Japan, at the end of March 2008, we still had 99,295 people connected to U.S. military forces living and working there -- 49,364 members of our armed services, 45,753 dependent family members, and 4,178 civilian employees. Some 13,975 of these were crowded into the small island of Okinawa, the largest concentration of foreign troops anywhere in Japan.

Read on...

3/30/09

Obama's Domino Theory

by Juan Cole

President Barack Obama may or may not be doing the right thing in Afghanistan, but the rationale he gave for it on Friday is almost certainly wrong. Obama has presented us with a 21st century version of the domino theory. The U.S. is not, contrary to what the president said, mainly fighting "al-Qaida" in Afghanistan. In blaming everything on al-Qaida, Obama broke with his pledge of straight talk to the public and fell back on Bush-style boogeymen and implausible conspiracy theories.

Obama realizes that after seven years, Afghanistan war fatigue has begun to set in with the American people. Some 51 percent of Americans now oppose the Afghanistan war, and 64 percent of Democrats do. The president is therefore escalating in the teeth of substantial domestic opposition, especially from his own party, as voters worry about spending billions more dollars abroad while the U.S. economy is in serious trouble.

He acknowledged that we deserve a "straightforward answer" as to why the U.S. and NATO are still fighting there. "So let me be clear," he said, "Al-Qaida and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan." But his characterization of what is going on now in Afghanistan, almost eight years after 9/11, was simply not true, and was, indeed, positively misleading. "And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban," he said, "or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can."

Read on...

Peacenik would rather be writing about the total meltdown of Wall Street that may be happening as Peacenik types this. Peacenik likes Obama. But Peacenik thinks Obama is totally screwing up trying to fix the financial crisis. It can't be fixed. And Peacenik thinks Obama is well on the way to screwing up his foreign policy. He's back to talking about those bad boogymen hiding in caves. A domino theory forchrissakes. The frigging speech about Afghanistan could have been given by George Bush. The growing recognition that it is all a house of cards, finance policy, foreign policy, social policy, makes it harder and harder for Obama to keep insulting the public's limited intelligence. Trouble, big trouble is brewing. Optimists are saying to watch out this fall. Peacenik says watch out....today.

3/16/09

Time to Quit Afghanistan

by Eric Margolis

It's taken far too long for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to finally admit the war in Afghanistan cannot be won. Better late than never. Kudos to Harper for facing facts and telling Canadians the truth.

If the war can't be won, why risk lives of Canadian troops for nothing? Why stay in harm's way a day longer when the writing is on the wall in Afghanistan? President Barack Obama, who is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, ought to be asking himself the same questions.

We must think hard about waging an increasingly bloody war against lightly-armed mountain tribesmen who face the 24/7 lethal fury of the U.S. air force's heavy bombers, strike aircraft, helicopter and AC-130 Spectre gunships, killer drones and heavy artillery. Do we really want a test of wills against men who have the courage to endure cluster bombs with thousands of sharp fragments, white phosphorus that burns through flesh to the bone, fuel/air explosives that burst the lungs and tear apart bodies? Will Canada's use of Soviet helicopters and Israeli drones win Afghan hearts and minds?

Has anyone articulated a coherent reason why Canada is still in Afghanistan? Is Don Cherry running Canada's foreign policy? Is Canada in Afghanistan because of Hockey Propaganda Night in Canada? Margolis makes a pretty clear case for why it is time to leave Afghanistan. Peacenik says bring the troops home now.