(see `Gary Sick: A Dangerous Moderate?’ just below)
I think Gary Sick has the main lines of the current US policy down pretty well. The most important thing is the very notion of a `grand scheme’, that it exists and that the Bush Administration is capable of it. So just a few thoughts that come to mind.
1. Is an idiot like the president capable of any grand scheme?
He’s not a idiot although he certainly liked to project the dumb cowboy image – he probably learned that from Reagan who was more of an idiot, capable of not much more than reading other people’s scripts as he did much of his life. Bush’s studied stupidiity doesn’t hide the mind of a genius, but he is a strategic thinker, a man with a neo-conservative plan which he has been implementing step by step. Furthermore, he’s got a team – battle-hardened from literally decades of political struggle, much of it high-level insider heavy weight stuff. And they are not idiots. Ultra-conservative ideologues yes; warmongers, advocates of torture, responsible for crimes against humanity in Iraq among other places of course. But not idiots. The team is a bit frayed right now, it ‘s taken a hit or two, but it is still in tact. Some of the names are familiar (Eliot Abrams, Cheney, Rove, but there are many behind the scenes still there and less obvious – Hadley, Wurmser and the like).
So yes the Bush Administration is capable of a grand scheme.
Not only that, but every US president since Truman has had to somehow find a balance between the Arab oil producing countries on the one hand with their strategic assets and money to invest and Israel on the other – partner in the US security equation for the region. So those who blow off the idea of a grand plan are really showing their own innocence (or political stupidity) about the US approach to the region. The grand plan is not a conspiracy – simply an attempt to rationalize conflicting economic and political interests in the region. The more a person studies the US approach to the region the less one can use expressions like `pro-Arab’, `pro-Israeli ‘. Better formulations would be `pro-Exxon’, `pro-Halliburton,’ `pro-Citibank,’ `pro-Boeing’. These do not seem to be terms that Gary Sick uses (to my knowledge) but I believe they are more relevant.
2. The New Cold War..
Sick mentions the term, cites some sources. I agree (and have developed some ideas on that below). Certainly the focus of it is as Sick states very early on in his piece:
“The essence of the argument was that the United States would attempt to sue the threat of Iran and a Shia political emergence to mobilize Arab support and perhaps even a degree of tacit Arab-Israeli cooperation. The strategy would also intend to shift attention from the US catastrophe in Iraq”
Thus the new Cold War.
Chomsky wrote a piece on Alternet arguing along similar lines and using the expression of a new Cold War as well. Chomsky, who also recently outlilned his ideas on the US grand plan for the Middle East (if I remember right in a piece in `Z’ Magazine), argues outright that the US will not attack Iran, and although Sick in this piece does not seem to speculate much on this, he seems to have a similar view (that everything will be done short of an all out attack because of the influence Iran has in Iraq).
I hope that they are correct. Wallerstein in his bi-weekly commentaries tends to agree. Although Wallerstein and Chomsky approach the situation from more of a marxist perspective and Sick (it seems to me) less so, the three share a common assumption: that one can still find a rational explanation for the current US policies in the region. I hope that they are right and it is not my style to take cheap shots at these thinkers as some colleagues now find it almost an intellectual sport to do. My concern (or put more honestly – my paranoid fear) is that this Administration acts out of an ideological perspective and vision. I cannot rule out a possible major military attack on Iran before the end of Bush’s presidency. This is especially the case with half of the armada of the US Navy hovering off Iran’s coast or within easy striking distance.
The bottom line: I’d like to see Chomsky, Sick and Wallerstein (and others) give more convincing arguments as to why the Cold War will not become a hot war. …
ok enough for now. I still think Sick’s framework is pretty solid overall and deserves consideration.
Iran and US Jiu-Jitsu in the Middle East
Gary Sick: A Dangerous Moderate?
Note: Several years ago I attended a bizarre little event in a downtown Denver hotel. The invitation had come from a group I had never heard of calling themselves `Americans For Democracy in the Middle East’, an innocous enough name. The event featured one Rabbi Daniel Zucker of Long Beach New York. The attendance was rather sparse, no way to hide in the crowd and from what I could tell – admittedly an unscientific sampling – most in attendance came from two groups. One was the right wing of the state’s Republican Party and the other was from an Iranian opposition group that had once been Marxist but had for many years been hosted and headquartered in Iraq -Mojahedin el Khalq- and actually used by Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war against its own countrymen and women. The name of Colorado’s major political embarrassment to the national political scene, Tom Tancredo, came up alot. It turns out that Tancredo is one of the Mojahedin el Khalq’s key supporters in Congress. I wrote up that experience and published it in a special issue of the Colorado Progressive Jewish News (Vol 2. No 5).
On several occasions during Rabbi Zucker’s talk he took swipes at Gary Sick Columbia University Professor and expert on US-Iranian relations. I don’t remember the exact quotes, but Zucker’s critique was severe, that Sick was somehow a dangerous guy because he was a moderate calling for negotiations rather than confrontation with Iran. Zucker took a much harder and not especially surprising line. What follows is the analysis from `the dangerous moderate’ on the current US strategy toward Iran, including his analysis of the big arms deal that I have been following these past few days. It’s pretty good and in some aspects parallels points I’ve been trying to develop.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Iran and US Jiu-Jitsu in the Middle East
Op-Ed by Gary Sick
Gary Sick of Columbia University writes
About six months ago, I wrote . . . speculating on what I thought was an emerging US Middle East strategy. The essence of the argument was that the United States would attempt to use the threat of Iran and a Shia political emergence to mobilize Arab support and perhaps even a degree of tacit Arab-Israeli cooperation. The strategy would also intend to shift attention away from the US catastrophe in Iraq.
A[n] . . . attentive reader . . . wrote to me some weeks ago and asked how I (or the US, for that matter) could reconcile this tripartite strategy focused on Iran as the enemy with the decision to initiate direct talks with Iran. I thought it was a very good question, and I have been thinking about it.
I was finally moved to respond by the news this weekend that the US intends to sell $20 billion in new arms to the Arab states of the Gulf over the next decade, while increasing military aid to Israel by 25% (a total of $3 billion per year) and also raising aid to Egypt by a smaller but significant amount. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates are getting ready for a major Middle East trip to present this package and to attempt to forge a working consensus focused squarely on Iran as the major threat in the region. The level of the bribes may change in the course of discussions, but this is obviously intended as an offer that they cannot refuse.
[ . . . Robin Wright of the Washington Post also wrote an article today . . . that compared this development to US strategy during the cold war — see “U.S. vs. Iran: Cold War, Too” in Thread 15. See also “Is it a cold war?” By Aluf Benn in Haaretz, Thread 25.]
This strikes me as a marvelous example of political jiu jitsu. The United States made possible an emergent Iran by eliminating its Taliban rivals to the east and its Baathist rivals to the west and then installing a Shia government in Baghdad for the first time in history. Having inadvertently created a set of circumstances that insured an increase in Iranian strength and bargaining power, that seriously frightened US erstwhile Sunni allies in the region, and that undermined US strength and credibility, the US now proposes a new and improved regional political relationship to deal with the problem, and, incidentally, to distract attention from America’s plight in Iraq while reviving America’s position as the ultimate power in the region.
But there is a potentially huge flaw in this brilliant policy legerdemain. Iraq will just not go away, and the government of Nuri al-Maliki, a Shia partisan, is proving to be an intractable obstacle to sweeping the Iraqi debacle under the rug. The “surge” in US military forces may be intended to create at least the illusion of greater stability in Baghdad and thereby facilitate the start of a US withdrawal. It may also provide the basis for greater pressure on the Iraqi government to solve some of its most pressing political and economic disputes. But it seems to be a tactical maneuver that is unlikely to produce any long-term solutions.
Perhaps the same can be said about the talks with Iran. These talks serve several purposes. First, they provide periodic opportunities for the US to denounce Iran’s nefarious actions and thereby reinforce the Iran-focused strategy. They also serve to placate those in the UN Security Council and elsewhere who believe that the sanctions policy should be accompanied by direct diplomacy. They are a gesture in the direction of the Baker- Hamilton commission, which called for the creation of a regional forum to deal with Iraqi dilemma, and they provide evidence to American’s Sunni Arab allies that Washington is prepared to go some way to “tame” the Iranians. The talks may also serve the purposes of the hardliners around Dick Cheney who want to make them fail so they can point to the futility of talking to fanatics. But they also respond to direct requests by the Iraqi government to bring Iran into the security equation, and they provide a forum in which Iran, Iraq and the United States can all three meet around the same table.
It is unclear to me whether the US is serious about the talks, and perhaps Washington itself has not fully made up its mind. But I am more than a little surprised that Iran has shown a willingness to proceed with the talks, and even to make them a regular fixture, despite US disparaging comments and sermonizing at every possible opportunity. Iran’s response has been remarkably imperturbable. Is Tehran willing to accept US bluster addressed to its domestic constituents as a necessary evil in order to obtain a desirable outcome? Do they know something I don’t know?
The bottom line in any event is that neither the US nor Iran has walked away from the talks, although either of them could have done so at any point. That suggests a degree of seriousness that perhaps belies the hostile rhetoric.
In January, I spelled out what I saw as the “moving parts” of the new US strategy — a proposed division of labor among the various parties. Perhaps this is a good moment to review this check list:
United States:
— Drop any further talk about democratization in the Middle East [done];
— Use its influence in the United Nations Security Council to keep the pressure on Iran (and to a lesser extent Syria) with sanctions and coordinated international disapproval [done];
— Provide military cover for the Arab Gulf states as they take a more confrontational position vis a vis Iran (Patriot missiles, additional naval aircraft, etc.) [now greatly enhanced by the massive proposed arms deal, which of course produces some juicy profits for the US aerospace industry but also provides a framework for getting Israeli (and US congressional) acquiescence for selling some significant new military technology to the Arabs];
— Undertake a more vigorous diplomatic effort to find a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute, recognizing that even limited visible progress will provide diplomatic cover for the Arab states if they are to cooperate more closely with Israel [some considerable efforts to date, including calls for a new peace conference and other initiatives, though still far less than most observers would regard as satisfactory];
— In Lebanon, provide covert support for efforts to support the Siniora government and to thwart Hezbollah, probably in close cooperation with Israeli intelligence [being done?];
— Organize dissident movements in Iran, primarily among ethnic groups along the periphery or other targets of opportunity, to distract and potentially even destabilize the Tehran government [being done?];
In Iraq:
— keep attention focused on Iran, including raids and general harassment of its representatives [the 5 Iranians who were arrested in Irbil have now been in US custody for more than 6 months, during which time Iranian representatives have been permitted to meet them only once, near the six-month anniversary];
— keep U.S. forces in country to prevent the situation from descending into full scale civil war or a breakup of the country [done];
— consider engineering a more Sunni-friendly government, especially if Prime Minister Maliki is unwilling or unable to control the Shia militias [not yet];
In the Arab States (the six Gulf Cooperation Council states plus Jordan and Egypt or 6+2):
— Provide major funding and political support to the Siniora government in Lebanon and work to undercut Hezbollah’s influence and image [not clear to me];
— Attempt to woo (or threaten) Syria away from its alliance with Iran with promises of money and support of Syrian efforts to regain the Golan Heights [if so, the effort is totally subterranean as far as I can tell];
— Provide facilities and funding to assist the various U.S. initiatives above [not really; Saudi Arabia has brokered its own deal with Hamas against US and Israeli wishes, and it has done some direct diplomacy with Iran to try and find a more acceptable modus vivendi, which seemed to produce some positive results — in short, the Sunni Arabs have not been particularly active in holding to their end of the bargain as I see it];
— Attempt to bring down the price of oil, which will remove some political pressures on Washington and make life more difficult for Iran [again, no very persuasive cooperation from the Arab side].
Israel:
— Provide intelligence support to U.S. (and potentially Arab) anti-Hezbollah efforts in Lebanon [probably done];
— Keep international attention focused on the Iranian threat as a uniquely dangerous situation that may even demand Israeli military intervention [done in spades; please note that on the very day that word was leaked of the new US arms deal, the pro-Israeli website DEBKA announced that Iran was buying a huge number of long range attack aircraft and refueling aircraft from Russia (see Thread 18), thus hyping the threat — whether true or not — and providing an allegedly genuine threat rationale for the massive arms deal];
— Use long-standing Israeli contacts, especially with the Kurds in Iraq and Iran, to foment opposition to the Tehran government [being done? needless to say, nobody will make an announcement…];
— Be prepared to make sufficient concessions on the Palestinian issue and the Golan to provide at least the perception of significant forward motion toward a comprehensive settlement [not apparent to me, but that’s not my field and I may not catch the subtle shifts, if any].
I realize that I am not doing justice to many of the moving parts in this alleged strategy (and I sincerely hope that those with special expertise will amend or correct any of these comments). However, the existence of such a US strategy seems to me indisputable, and the biggest question marks about its success involve (1) Arab (read Saudi) policy idiosyncrasies and doubts that don’t fit with the American plan; (2) the internecine labyrinth of Iraqi politics and security; and perhaps (3) Iranian policy that has the capacity to surprise.
On one hand, Iran is performing according to plan, with Ahmadinejad continuing with his extravagant rhetoric and the Iranian security services holding American-Iranian scholars hostage in Evin prison and concocting TV KGB-style “confessions” that would be hilarious if they were not so grim in purpose and so painful for those involved.
But Iran also seems to have made a fundamental decision to talk to the US, and that is an interesting development that deserves to be acknowledged. This suggests that there are at least some power centers in Iran that are still operating on a pragmatic basis, at the same time that the security paranoia of the intelligence and “Justice” ministries has seemingly spiraled out of control.
Finally, much of the criticism of my earlier posting consisted of doubts that the Bush administration could possibly be capable of constructing such a complex strategy. I am aware of the total incompetence of this administration over much of the past five years or so in the Middle East, and I also read the polls saying that their confidence level with the American people (not to mention the rest of the world) is at a nadir. However, I am simply describing what I see, and I think it is important to take seriously the evidence in front of us. Perhaps my analysis is wrong, but I don’t believe this concatenation of actions by the Bush administration is simply random.
Gary Sick
note: this was taken from the following blog: http://icga.blogspot.com/
Kazerooni and Prince criticized/praised
What follows are two (of many) critical comments from friends and family about the `Speak Out’ piece that appeared in the Rocky Mountain News Sunday supplement to the Denver Post. The piece appears in full below on the July 29 (1)blog entry. The piece was cut some by the News staff. If you want to see the version sent to the paper, it is below on the July 18 blog.
1.
Rob.
I’m usually 100% with you down the line, but I have to take some exception on this one. Reading what your co-author and you wrote, I realize your target is the Democrats, and I would concur with not putting many eggs in that basket. However, your column can also generically be read as doom and gloom, that there is not any cause for optomism altogether.
As you and I recently discussed, and as you wrote in a previous column, there is a torpor about the current antiwar movement, however, that doesn’t change the fact of widespread antiwar sentiment. The latter could change one way or the other, but I remain cautiously optomistic that history is on our side, as it was with the Vietnam war, and that the antiwar sentiment will widen and deepen (sounds like old-fashioned historical materialism, which isn’t really what I’m trying to say).
If we can creatively keep focus on the war and its debilitating effects center stage, the political and economic costs will continue to rise until an eventual tipping point is reached.
That’s our job, as I see it, to stay in the streets, work the aisles, etc., not to be Pollyannas and promote any false optomism, but not to toss a wet blanket on the smoldering embers, either.
Jay Jurie, Sanford Florida
2.
Congratulations of getting your piece in the paper.
Your article doesn’t help my feeling of being totally depressed about the world though.
(from someone near and dear)
3
I’m afraid you are right. Every time I say something similar, I am dismissed as uber cynical or (which pisses me off more) still carrying a torch for the Army (I went into the Army when my choices were: Army, Canada forever–it was more than a decade later when Carter granted amnesty, or prison). There are no indications that the services have planned a withdrawal or even a pullback.
Withdrawing the huge amount of material and personnel, movement to port shipments, debarkation, convoy shipping, refurbishment and storage would require enormous logistics coordination. You could tell by the response to Clinton’s query about withdrawal plans that there are very well none. We are not planning a withdrawal. Plans are to use Iraq as a major US firebase in the area.
Anyway, it was an unpopular thing to say. People think that we can simply pull out and be done. Wrong. This international policy mess will haunt us for decades. Getting out will take years.
(from a friend I used to teach with)
4
The Project for a New American Century crowd, even in the 1990’s, gave premier value to the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq. They are the heart that pumps the blood through the vitals of the imperial enterprise, the capital A in the neo-con Agenda. They are so crucial to success of the whole bloody exercise that they are scarcely mentioned in the media lest a too overt awareness of them by the unwashed masses possibly threaten their existence. They are barely acknowledged in the halls of Congress for the same worrisome reason, both the media and Congress being as they are imperialist to the marrow.
I think the sentiments of pessimism expressed by Kazerooni & Prince in a recent op-ed piece are prescient and justified. Like the Roman legions in Gaul, the Americans are already dug deep and durably into the Iraqi dirt and no little credit goes to the ongoing zealous support of the Democratic Party.
Gene Fitzpatrick (note – this comment comes from the guestbook)
Prince responds
Although the piece was cut some by the good folks at the Rocky editorial page (they did call to let us know though) , the essence was there. What were we trying to do? Essentially deal with what we consider a number of illusions about the US Occupation of Iraq, specfically
1. that it will end soon.
2. that the Democrats in Congress are serious about withdrawal or that they do not support the main lines of the current US `war against the world’ –or as they put it, the war on terrorism.
We are aware that many democrats at the grass roots level oppose the war, understand its profoundly inhumane, immoral and politically cynical nature and are doing what they can to get the US out of that mess. We also have great respect for the different strands of the peace movement and know, that despite its narrow base (discussed below somewhere), that it has made a difference and the situation in the Middle East would even be worse than it is without the pressure of public opinion, both here and abroad bearing down.
That said, one cannot change the world, without understanding it in its most sober light. That was all we were attempting to do.
In response to my teacher friend…
Actually, Ibrahim and I both support getting the troops out of Iraq and dismantling all the US bases there as soon as possible. We just don’t see it happening. To the contrary, the US is digging in for the long haul. They might retreat to their mega-city bases and let Iraq disintegrate into three states or some other form of anarchy, but getting the troops out of Iraq and ending the occupation is a horse of another color. This means we need to reconsider how to reshape our peace movement so it can respond to the realities as they exist on the ground.
Gene Fitzpatrick does well to mention the Project For A New American Century and its blueprint for permanent bases in Iraq. Again people tend to be skeptical that there was some kind of blueprint and that if there was one, that it was implemented. Google the Project For A New American Century. Read the text, and you’ll see how closely it was followed. Talk about implementing a party line!
If you really want to have some fun and scare some people in power, especially those attached to the arms industry, just walk into a room and shout `peace’. The term makes some of them so nervous they prefer to refer to it as the `p’ word. And those precious few moments since the end of World War II when it appeared that peace and disarmament might seriously be on the agenda were moments of personal crisis for the arms industry. Afraid that peace might break out they either fabricated or greatly exagerated threats, from the Soviet Union during the Cold War, to Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and now Iran. It’s hard to sell weapons with out enemies, threats, real or imagined. A good source on the evolution of the arms industry’ stranglehold on US policy is found in James Carroll’s House of War.
This huge arms deal $63 billion in the sale or grants of US advanced weapons systems represents nothing short the fulfillment of a neo-con political wet dream. The goal of this arms bonanza is an attempt to build a strategic alliance against Iran which the US has been trying to craft for some time now. Iran provides the needed excuse for the `enemy image’ so necessary for the US to forge together the disparate elements of its political support base in the Middle East and to implement its policies of regional control of a good portion of the world’s energy resources. The arms sales and grants to its regional allies are a part of an attempt to indicate how serious the US is about overthrowing the government in Teheran one way or another and in trying to do it in such a fashion that it can garner the international support for the effort which has been missing up until now and with which Washington stands isolated. Just as the Cold War against the USSR was accompanied by massive military spending and arms sales, so it is with the emerging Cold War against Iran.
As US allies in the region, for different reasons, seemed reluctant to join in the fray, the US sweetened the pot through this mega-arms deal. It seems like nothing helps let by-gones be by-gones than some US jet fighter planes and satellite-guided missile systems. The Bush Administration wants to encourage the political and military participation of their allies in different parts of the plan (under strict US direction of course). And they want to encourage active participation and cooperation of the two key players – Saudi Arabia and Israel – that have never been especially happy campers with each other. While obviously in some ways adversaries, in other ways both countries have long been strategic US allies in the region and have played their supportive roles well for the most part. Much of the diplomatic maneuvering of the past few months has not been about peace making but putting together the different strands of this new anti-Shi’ite, anti-Hamas military alliance.
But the pay offs to Israel, Egypt and the Saudis had to be very generous this time to get everyone on board because the risks of supporting US military plans outright are greater than in the past. In the case of the Israelis, their annual military allowance has gone from $2.2 billion a year to over $3 billion plus promises of super sophisticated new weaponry they have been drooling for, combined with promises of US purchases of Israeli high tech military equipment. In exchange, Israel appears to have agreed to call of its dogs (so to speak) and lobbyists in the US Congress and to restrain them from opposing the Saudi arms deal too strenuously. Put more bluntly, the Israelis were bought outright. In the Saudi case, the US `permitted’ the Saudis (and other Arab players in the deal) to purchase more sophisticated military equipment than ever before. Fear not – they don’t have clue as to how to use it if history is any indication – but it makes the Saudis look more powerful than they actually are and appearances are both deceptive and important.
Of course the biggest winners of all are the US arms manufacturers who have an insured income of $63 billion + over the next ten years, thus assuring the fundamental place of military industries and technology as the center piece of the US economy for decades to come. Put another way – we can’t build cars for shit but no one can match us in cruise missiles and neutron bombs. And as all that military hardware sucks up more oil and gas than virtually any other segment of the economy, the energy industries also see dollar signs (or maybe euro signs) in their eyes for generations to come, under the protective umbrella of Bush Cheney or their future clones – Democratic or Republican. It doesn’t seem to matter.
An anti-Iranian front would require of the players to subdue tensions between the allies involved and come together as a political-military unit. The Israeli-Palestinian `peace process’ – as pathetic as has been for a long time – would be frozen that much longer. Israel need not fear being pressured to end its siege of Gaza or to stop building West Bank settlements or the wall. The attention of the region and the world, now focused on the US debacle in Iraq, would be diverted temporarily at least. The Saudis, now fearful of their own people, could attempt to unite them under the banner of anti-Shi’ism. US public opinion, hostile to Iran since the hostage crisis of 1979 could possibly be diverted into supporting military action and short of that at least partially neutralized. Anti-Israeli and anti-US sentiment, both at record highs from virtually every poll taken in the region could be diverted into an anti-Iranian jihad. At least that is the goal.
The Arms Sale Orgy II
Although it will take more time to analyze and digest the full scope and consequences of the recently announced deals to sell arms to six Arab countries and give weapons outright to Israel and Egypt, this announcement is sufficiently disturbing to merit a good deal of attention.
The spin is interesting, the usual obscenities.
It is being packaged to the public in pieces to soften its impact with everyone told what they want to hear. The Israelis are told they will be given weapons that assure them the technological edge at the same time that the Saudis are being offered satelite-guided weapons (smart bombs) for the first time. Addressing the rather obvious concern that the US is fueling that much further, a Middle East arms race, the State Dept and Bush Administration officials brush it off as not true, and but if it is, blaming it on Iran. While claiming to go to the Middle East to pursue diplomatic peace initiatives, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates are in essence nothing more than brokers for the arms industries and trying to tie down military commitments from the countries involved in exchange for a few high tech toys of death.
In the articles I have read – the NY Times (July 28) piece is typical – the deals are being crafted in the following manner: The proposed sale of weapons to Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is being announced as a `huge arms deal to Saudi Arabia’ rather than a huge arms deal to all six. News of the potential deal a few months ago suggested a $10 billion arms deal over a period of 10 years, now the figure being bantered around is $20 billion. But if a $20 billion sale of weaponry to Arab oil producing countries is `huge’, then what would be the appropriate adjective to describe the $30.4 billion promise of military aid to Israel and the $13 billion military aid package promised to Egypt?
So it is not a `hugh $20 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia’ but rather a `super-sized’ even hugher arms deal amounting to – as it has been revealed to date – to $63 billion of which US taxpayers who will shell out $43 billion to arm Israel and Egypt are actually paying more than double for the deal than the Arab oil producing countries. Combined, it is an enormous sum of money meant to keep arms manufacturers in business for the foreseeable future and to bind all of the players involved, both Israel and the Arabs, more closely to Washington politically and to its broader schemes for controlling the Middle East region, and through it the world’s energy supplies.
In some ways the deal means somewhat different things for the countries involved, all of which needs to be explored more thoroughly so what follows are essentially preliminary remarks.
For Israel, the deal essentially puts to rest any speculation that the U.S. is thinking of dropping it as a strategic partner. There have been the grumblings, weak as they might have been, that caused Abe Foxman and Alan Deshowitz to lose a few nights sleep – and then mobilize their forces that much more: the Mearsheimer Walter Report, Jimmy Carter’s book, rumors (which I admittedly could not substantiate)of a CIA report on Israel’s future circulating in the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee that suggested a bleak future long term both for Israel and for US-Israeli relations. Fear not: the main significance is to reassure Israel that its services are needed, with most of those services being of a military nature, for a very long time into the future. This should not be a surprise, a disappointment yes, but a surprise no. As far as whatever tensions exist in the relationship, the deeper meaning of the deal is that US still considers Israel is most stable strategic partner in the region `come rain or come shine’. The arms deal simply cements once again for the umpteeth time the importance of that partnership. Just think of it as a marriage not so much sealed with a kiss as with a new generation of smart bombs and the like.
The deal also bodes ill for Middle East peace making, that, long in a state of something approaching cryonic suspension. It’s simply not true that one can militarize the region – already a floating arsenal – and talk about `peace’ at the same time. To note that there is something disingenuous about such claims to the contrary should be obvious. Nor can one patiently stomach the hollow rhetoric that such sales enhance Israel’s security and should not be opposed as I suspect we’ll hear from some quarters. The arms deal is yet another indication of the Bush Administration’s support for Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, for the slicing up of the West Bank into at best bantustans and for the sanctions against Gaza which is causing the near collapse of what little remains of Palestinian civil society there. Sanctions against Gaza are based on the US sanctions against Iraq between 1991-2003 which is said to have lead to the death of more than a million Iraqi civilians. Any idea that the United States might consider pressuring Israel in to any kind of peace agreement based upon UN Resolutions 242 and 338 are essentially (from what I can tell from my vantage point here in the Rockies) dead in the water with this arms deal. Bye bye two state solution. In this arms deal Israel is basically being rewarded once again and encouraged to continue on the same path it is on. The lesson of last year’s war in Lebanon was not, that Israel should negotiate with its adversaries (which the US actually discouraged at the time) but to re-arm and go at it again.
For Saudi Arabia,… Although paying the bill for its weapons, this arms deal with the US is as important politically – indeed perhaps even more important – as militarily. As in the case of Israel, Saudi-US relations have been strained these past years. This arms deal embraced by both sides, suggests that despite 15 of 19 September 11 hijackers coming from Saudi Arabia that the Wahhabi-Saud alliance, othewise known as Saudi Arabia, has made its peace with what Khomeini used to refer to as `the great satan’. Nothing calms Saudi criticims of Western ways more effectively than the sweet gifts of satelite-based smart bombs or F-16s. It makes contacts with the unfaithful that much more bearable.
A few months before this arms deal was announced, a major scandal erupted in the British (and to a lesser degree the US) media concerning allegations that BAI – Britains largest militiary contractor – had engaged in bribing Saudi officials to buying British weaponry. The recent arms deal announcement helps put that scandal put in perspective.The FBI – yet to investigate Halliburton and Blackwater for allegations ofr corruption and outright war crimes in Iraq- leaks a high profile investigation of British military contractor’s relations with Saudi Arabia just at a time that the Bush Administration was negotiating with the Saudis over major weapons sales. The British deals with Saudi Arabia are temporarily compromised, the Saudis, who had first suggested $10 billion in arms sales from the US now double the offer, and Tony Blair, as a reward for not interferring with the US-Saudi arms deal gets the nod to become special envoy of the Quartet (US, EU, UN, Russia) to the Middle East. It had the sweet smell of an old game played by Arab oil producing countries to pit one arms industry against another to see the best deal it can come up with.
In this case, other factors were also at play. The Saudis were trying to soften the opposition to them in Congress (mostly AIPAC organized) by offering a big contract to US arms manufacturers. They’ve spent the past 60 years throwing their money around to gain political support, whether through buying Wahhabi mosques throughout the Moslem world, generously funding (and as a result in large measure also corrupting) the PLO. They tried to buy Clinton by making a major donation to the University of Arkansas for a Middle East Studies dept. etc etc.
The difference now is that the monarchy is even more frightened now than in the past. They can’t seem to stop the proliferation of little osama bin ladens from their ranks, a suggestion of a deeper malaise among the Saudi people toward the regime. The opposition was strong enough to push the monarchy to insist US military bases be moved from the kingdom to neighboring Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq. Don’t forget that in obliquely explaining the 9-11 attack – he never fully admitted doing it – Osama Bin Laden cited the presence of US military bases on Saudi soil as one of the three reasons (the other two being the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and what were then the punishing US initiated sanctions against Iraq which led to the death of upward of a million Iraqi civilians from 1991-2003)
Their credibility in the US, maintained through assiduously maintaining a low profile and doing whatever possible to keep Saudi Arabia out of the US media, has plummeted since 9-11. There have even been some discussions among the neo-cons of breaking Saudi Arabia up into 3 countries the way that it appears we are doing in Iraq. It is not about to happen but remains one of the maps in the drawer. Add to that the war in Iraq is a disaster for Saudi Arabia in a number of ways. They supported the US war, tacitly at least and some of the criticism for the failure of the occupation comes to their doorstep. As the war in Iraq deepens the danger of terrorists movements taking hold in Saudi Arabia gets more pronounced. A regime held together by an Islamic fundamentalists ideology (Wahhabism), represssion and oil profits has always been wobbly. The wobbly-ness factor appears to be growing. When in danger, the Saudis react as if the national leadership had been genetically programmed: they throw money at the problem. The fact that they are currently throwing SO MUCH money into this arms deal with the US (that they are worried might not make it through an AIPAC-dominated Congress) suggests the depth of their current anxiety.
So… We throw money and arms at Israel to reassure them. The Saudis throw money at us for arms seeking our reassurance. And Condoleezza Rice – with her phd from the University of Denver’s Graduate School of International Studies where I am currently employed – flits around the Middle East talking of peace while actually selling weapons. If they’re lucky in the countries she’s about to visit, she won’t play the piano.
Oh yes, have a nice day.
Don’t Get Optimistic About Ending The War
(note – this appeared in today’s Rocky Mountain News. On Sundays, the Rocky has a two page spread in Denver Post, in the `Perspective’ section. The original op ed appears on this blog on the July 18 issue).
By Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni And Rob Prince
July 29, 2007
It is unlikely, despite a substantial majority of Americans now opposing the war in Iraq, that the United States will soon be ending its occupation and leaving the country.
Remember the euphoric atmosphere that prevailed after it became clear that the Democrats had won control of both houses? The election results combined with the release of the Baker-Hamilton Report suggested that the United States might change course in Iraq. There were high hopes among many that the war in Iraq might soon end. Did people expect a miraculous transformation or some kind of political epiphany?
Call it cynicism or realism, but we were not particularly surprised that the situation in Iraq has only worsened since.
Our assessment then was that the United States had accomplished its goals in Iraq and was unlikely to make any fundamental changes.
While the Democrats did not start the war in Iraq, they went along with virtually every move toward war. Weren’t most Democrats involved, along with Republicans, in authorizing this unjust and illegal occupation of Iraq? Weren’t they a key part of a Congress that didn’t challenge the Bush administration’s bogus claims of evidence?
At the same time Democrats and Republicans throw harmless barbs at each other, 14 major U.S. military bases are being built in Iraq, four of which compare to medium-sized American cities. The United States might pull back some from Iraqi cities, but these bases, first called “enduring” to avoid the more apt term “permanent,” are not coming down anytime soon.
The superficial attempt earlier this year to force this administration to think of an exit strategy was to appear to be doing something, in other words, a public relations exercise. The Democratic Party is going through a crisis, a crisis of electability.
How to become electable has become the only goal for the Democrats, not as a means to serve the people but as an end in itself. This crisis has paralyzed the Democratic members of the House into doing nothing concrete at all to change the current American foreign policy and to remedy its ongoing tragic and violent consequences.
In the absence of a miracle and in the line of the current paralysis that has taken over the Democrats, what can we do to end the violence and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to prevent another one being started? It is highly unlikely that the upcoming Democratic convention in Denver will change this situation. Miracles don’t happen often in Denver.
The U.S. military is in Iraq to stay. Is there a reason for optimism? We do not believe so.
Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni is an imam for the Muslim community in Denver. Rob Prince teaches international studies at the University of Denver.
US Arms Sales Orgy…What’s It All About Alfie?
Well, the US auto industry has been dying for decades, but no one can beat our missile sytems and and new generations of US jet fighter and tanks systems. Many weapons systems ago I used to follow these technological deals and innovations in killing people rather closely. Of course they were all developed for defensive purposes only and in the pursuit of liberty and democracy undoubtedly. I knew my Cruise Missiles from SS-20s as well any self respecting American. And then I read about a new missile we’d developed that could travel a gazillion miles, do a 15 minute tap dance in the air, hang out up there somehow, make love with fellow missile and actually wait for a target to appear. It was at about that point that i said `himmmm…something is rotten Washington’ and completely lost interest in the evolution of 500 pound bunker buster bombs, the latest in tactical nuclear weaponry and all how to make cluster bombs look like toys because they’ll only kill little Arab kids.
Oh yes, the arms deal…There is nothing new about this. Although the scope is unprecedented, it’s been going on nearly 40 years, maybe longer. As the details of the literally gargantuan arms sales and military aid deals to Middle East countries become clearer, we’ll explore their implications. For now let us note that the New York Times emphasizes the proposed $20 billion sale of arms to Saudia Arabia (and 5 other Middle Eastern countries) but tends to down play the $30 billion arms aid package to Israel over the next 10 years. What is it that the Saudi royal family and the great American taxpayer have in common? Together we’re footing the bill.
Let us also watch how all this plays out in Congress with an eye on who plays the Senate more in contributions – AIPAC – which most have us have heard a great deal about or the arms merchants and Saudi lobby which generally have a bit lower profile. It will be such fun – all the moral hypocrisy, a few juicy and new tidbits about the nature of power and how to best lobby the US Senate etc. etc.
What’s The Deal?
A little history is in order. Many people tell it well, but no one surpasses my friend and fellow former Peace Corps volunteer-turned-economic -hit-man turned-human-being again, John Perkins. I missed John on recent stop over in Denver to peddlie his most recent book, which I expect I’ll read. In any case, Perkins lays out what I refer to as the deal as well as anyone and does it so well perhaps because he is one of the people who crafted it.
The deal concerned US policies towards the oil producing countries in the aftermath of the 1973 Middle East War. Hard as it is to believe – now hold your seats for this one – those Arab oil producing countries actually thought that the US was less than evenhanded toward Israel and the Arabs during the war, and that we – a country that has never and will never show any favoritism towards anyone since we’re so even handed – actually favored Israel in that war. Imagine. The Arab oil producing countries responded with an oil embargo that triggered a global recessions and long lines at the pump everywhere. Bad situation, which could only be addressed by the likes of one Henry Kissinger whose sister managed the apartment complex in Queeens, New York where my Aunt Mal, now 99, resided for decades.
John Does All the Work; Henry Gets All the Credit: It’s Not Fair!
Now in October of 1973, Henry Kissinger was a very, very busy man. Let’s not make too much of the fact that Henry was little more than an intellectual flunky for the Rockerfellers – and their man in the Nixon Administration. Nor should over-emphasize the fact that today he cannot visit many of the world’s country’s because he’s been indicted for war crimes. He’d just done his bit for Chase Manhattan and Kennicott Copper by orchestrating the overthrown of the Allende Government in Chile, was having a fine time encouraing the Indonesian military junta in their purge and physical elimination of a million or more Indonesian nationalists and leftists and was still very much directing the not-so-secret air war against VIetnam that would kill more than 3 million there.
So preoccupied, he really didn’t have time to put together some kind of deal with the Saudis. So he asked Perkins to do it. And Perkins, who in his day was a gifted technocrat who specialized in squeezing big contracts from Third World countries for US corporations – especially constructrion companies – obliged. Kissinger liked Perkins’ work, treating the latter more or less the way profs treat their graduate students the world round: Perkins did the work, Kissinger got the credit.
The deal as described in some detail in Confessions of An Economic Hitman was as follows:
For its part the USA would not invade Saudi Arabia and cease the oil fields. (Very generous of us by the way because every American president since Roosevelt – and many American citizens too boot considered that oil Ours (with a capital `o’!). Military options were seriously considerednot object to a rise in the price of crude oil. Even here it was a sweet deal as the added cost of gasoline would simply be passed on to the American consumer not fight the wave of nationalizations of oil resources then sweeping the world (starting with Iraq and Algeria)
In response, the Saudis (and in so doing setting the stage for the policies of virtually all oil producing countries from then until recently) agreed to reciprocate in kind. Specifically they would
agree to keep the supply of crude to the core countries of the world economy as stable as possible. Note: they have kept this promise – and have at different times, when other oil producing countries, increased production. A stable supply of oil to the world’s core countries has flowed ever since agreed to never again cut production and participate in an oil embargo. My hunch is that the threat of the possible consequences were made very clear to the Saud family agreed to re-cycle some – but here `some’ means a good percentage – back into the core countries through the purchase of arms, through huge construction contracts with Western companies for infrastructural development in Saudi Arabia (and other oil producing countries) and through a promise to invest in westen financial institutions (stock market, treasury bonds, rea estate).
The price of oil might have increased, but so did the profits of core country corporations (core countries = essentially, E. Asia, The EU, and North America in the main). The big winners were giant construction companies, military contractors and financial institutions. And the deal has held until this day and is one of the key bases for corporate profitability in an age of dramatic agro-industrial over production (and therefore lower profit rates)
This new arms deal is only the most recent episode of one of the most stable political relationships (the US-Saudi relationship) of modern history. Saudi Arabia has `kept the faith’. For having stuck to the deal through thick and thin for 35 years, the Saudi monarchy – a place where capital punishment is still metted out by cutting people’s heads off with swords, that still has no constitution and where women have been treated as badly as anywhere in the world – this Saudi monarchy – is has gotten its just reward; it is referred to in the US political lexicon as being `moderate’, Washington’s version kighthood in England.
more on what’s the deal as the details emerge.
1.
“You raised spiritualism to a new level”.
Someone actually said that to me and I found it a little unsettling.
No better way to undermine the ideas of a secularist with Marxist leanings than to praise him for `raising spiritualism’ to new heights. I think the man was sincere. What a low blow.
The remark came the past Sunday morning at a post service reception at Boulder’s First Unitarian Church. Iman Ibrahim Kazerooni and I had been invited to give the 45 minute sermon and we did so in our usual gentle fashion: the subject – the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.The event was well attended with perhaps 75 people in the audience, most of them, it appeared, members of the congregation. We each had about 20 minutes.
A friend in the audience explained: “Unitarians aren’t quite used to that” [“that” being what I would like to believe was a concrete, factual progressive political analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]. He went on to add “They’re used to a touchy-feely ,slightly new age service, but the talks were informative and the congregation liked getting your information and opinions…I thought the talk went well.” Yeah. it was ok.
It was our impression that despite our being both very gentle and unthreatening souls, that there was a certain nervousness in the room before our remarks and relief when our talks were over – as if, if they could survive a dose of Kazerooni and Prince, there’s nothing they couldn’t handle.
In the end we made a few points and asked the Unitarians to participate more actively in resolving the issue, that it’s not only an issue for Jews and Moslems, but for everyone.
Ibrahim emphasized the U.S. role as an essentially unfair broker that worked in close cooperation with the Israeli government on everything, including going to war. He cited the example of Condoleezza Rice in last summer’s war on Lebanon. Rice and the Bush Administration behind her, actually encouraged Israel to extend the war even when it appeared Israel was ready to declare a truce.
I spoke about the current Bush Administration call for a peace conference, without a specific date, place or agenda, excluding Hamas, with explicit limitations on Tony Blair not to enter into final status talks with any one. Blair’s mission is not about peace making. His mission is essentially to deepen the riff between Fateh and Hamas, if possible eliminating the latter as a player in the Palestinian movement, at the very least deepening the rift. The result of such a policy: the Palestinians will be too weak to negotiate in their own interest and will accept an imposed solution, a sham state offered up by the US and Israel and rammed down their throats. I’m not sure what’s spiritual about that message. Another framework is needed to get to peace.
2.
Unitarians are, from my experience, great listeners and usually intellectually engaging in discussion and debate. But more frequently than not, their interest stops there. They have a reputation, among certain circles in which I participate, of not combining their moral ardor with action. Not long ago a peace organizer in the mountains expressed her frustration. `They just … sit on their butts and talk’. I answered `yes, they’re Unitarians what do you expect?. They excel at both’. Another friend, someone close to me personally, actually quit the Unitarian Church over their failure to convert words into deeds. He’d had it. It is only lately, four years into the war in Iraq, does one see some of their ministers speaking at rallies, their congregational banners among the marchers. Welcome. Better late than never.
On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they have been, like many others in the religious community, generally quite silent, worried that if they come out of their political hibernation on the issue `someone’ will, as we used to say, cut their tootsie’s off. It’s not that they do not know the issue. They are as well educated, politically aware as any religious group. More probably, they are caught in a vice:, hesitant to criticize Israel and incur the criticism of the rabbis, but knowing in a general sense, the impact of the occupation on the lives of Palestinians. Most find themselves somewhere in the middle and not certain how to negotiate this dilemma, they do nothing most of the time.
And for good reason. Sticking your nose out to get a whiff of which way the wind is blowing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be challenging. Consider the following:
A few years back a group of Denver Unitarians at the church on Hampden and Colorado Blvd started a Middle East study group. It still exists and, in a very un-Unitarian style, they remain active, mostly doing educational events. A few of them, to their credit, have gotten involved in `Seeking Common Ground’; others have worked to bring different speakers to town. They spent almost a year trying to hash out a political platform. Not sure what happened to that. Then they started a series of educational programs on Sunday mornings at the church. Ibrahim and I have spoken there twice, once several years ago on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, – if I am not mistaken it was the first time we were on the same program together – more recently on why the U.S. shouldn’t bomb or attack Iran.
This educational program proved to be too much for the church authorities, although I am not sure to whom exactly I am referring. But I do know pressure was brought on the group to cease its activities at the church and for a while these friends were/ or seemed to have been persona non grata in their own church. After a few months, that inquisitionary decision was reversed, and the Middle East Study Group continues its activities. By the way, all the players in this little group are eminently moderate.
Prebyterians Try Harder.
The local Presbyterians briefly also tried their hand at evan-handedness.
Several years ago, Montview Presbyterian Church let its facilities be used for a conference sponsored by Friends of Sabeel. The sponsors of that conference received a rather nasty letter from the local Anti-Defamation League office asking them to withdraw political and financial support making the spurious charge that the organization is anti-Israeli and anti-semitic (although the ADL’s international reps meet regularly with Sabeel people in Jerusualem).
Personal pressure – often successful – was also put on several of Montview’s ministers to cancel the event, but that did not work. The conference itself was something of a watershed for the local peace movement on this subject and the members of the church I saw and met with thought it a fine, humane and moderate affair, which it was.
Then last summer the same church was a venue for an event critical of the Israeli war against Lebanon. It was well attended, a representative of Denver’s Jewish Community, Shaul Amir (also an Israeli) was given a chance to speak. This was the high point of Presbyterian activity on this issue (here in Denver anyway) after which they seem to have become somewhat more shy.
It’s not spiritualism so much that I’d like to take to a new level – but the active involvement of these religious communities – from their own understanding of the issue – in broadening the peace movement and helping resolve the conflict.
Bases, Bases Everywhere
The news that the House of Representatives had just voted 399 to 24 to bar permanent military bases in Iraq sounded too good to be true.
And indeed it was (too good to be true)…and it ain’t true….but it’s tricky
Here’s the deal….
The bill blocks the establishment of new bases, ie, bases not yet constructed, but it says nothing about dismantling those bases already built
It prohibits ONLY those bases whos purpose is for the permanent stationing of US troops, but there are ways for the Bush Administration to get around that. It can simply declare that the troops are temporary or rotating or anything `less than an official permanent deployment’ as Phyllis Bennis and Norman Solomon point out.
Finally the bill says nothing about decommissioning existing military bases in Iraq.
For a more detailed analysis of this latest peace mirage, read Norman Solomon’s article from Alternet. (click here for the text)
Israeli PR…How They Do It: Release 255, Arrest 300
A few days ago, to relieve pressure on Mahmoud Abbas and prop up Fateh a bit, the Israelis released 250 Palestinian prisoners from their jails. Much has been made of this gesture in the United States. The articles included stories that families of Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism had petitioned the government not to release these prisoners, but that the government had not capitulated. The prisoners were released. The projected image is of a wise government able to make humane decisions and difficult compromises in the name of peace. Even thinking about it, a tear comes to my eyes…those wonderful Israelis.
Why is it that I think there is something wrong with this picture?
Some of it has already been reported. As usual it is not so much outright lies as much as embellishment and de-emphasis that is at work here.
yes Israel released 255 Palestinian prisoners, some of whom had languished in prison for more than 30 years
however, although 255 sounds like a large number, it is a drop in the bucket as there are, by numerous accounts, more than 11,000 Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails at present
the release was done in such a way to cause greater tensions and divisivenesss among the Palestinians, and was essentially announced as such: only Fateh members and supporters were released. None from Hamas or Islamic Jihad were given freedom. this is a crude kind of skinner- like behavior modification. Pat Fateh on the head, kick Hamas in the teeth. Play one against the other to exhaust the movement as a whole and weaken that much further, a common Palestinian political approach to ending the occupation.
Another fact has come to light that only magnifies the cynicism of all this. In the two week period before the much vaunted prisoner release, Israel arrested 300 new Palestinian prisoners for a net gain for the Israeli prison system of 45. Further, most of those arrested were from Fateh that Israel claims to support. The figure of 300 arrests has been confirmed by Association of Palestinian Prisoners, by the Palestinian Statistics Bureau and by Fateh itself. Just another indication of how little substance the current peace initiative contains.
Thanks to Richard Wagman of the Union Juive Francaise pour la Paix (UJFP) in Paris for this last bit of information.
A few days ago, with family, Nancy and I saw Ron Howard’s Apollo 13 on dvd. Although Apollo 13 has been available for more than a decade, neither of us had been particularly interested in seeing the film and frankly, did not look forward to so doing. Although our daughter Molly’s critique (that the women were treated as insipid non-entities) was accurate, we both felt that in other ways, it turned out to be a much better film than either of us anticipated, very well done, riveting, Tom Hanks was his usual outstanding self and Kevin Bacon, for whom I’ve not had much use, challenged my prejudices. His acting was excellent. Such a film raises many questions, about the program, the bureaucracy of NASA, the probability of such technically complicated programs to go wrong somehow, the Cold War which pushed the space race, all valid.
But when the film was over, both Nancy and I, together more or less for 38 years and married almost 32 of them, had the same reaction which had nothing to do with those valid questions above. Why was it at the time, – the time being the third week of April, 1970 – that neither of us were at all interested in, nor did we follow that space shot? That carried over a quarter of a century to when the film was released. Neither of us had any interest, none whatsoever, in seeing Apollo 13 , and had it not been for my brother-in-law, we probably never would. (So you see, families are good for something!)
So what explained our lack of interest?
Both of us knew the answer.
Actually, it didn’t take us long at all to explain our lack of interest. We were quite busy in mid April 1970 doing other things, and convinced that `the revolution’ was not far off. If that sounds dumb, naive, hair-brained, the arrogance of youth, call it what you like – you wouldn’t be far off from the truth – all the same, we firmly believed it, and furthermore – I’d argue for all the political stupidity involved – and I am the first to admit, it was a lot – it was one of those moments, so rare for most of us – when I was a part of `something bigger’, even bigger than going to the moon: trying to end war in Viet Nam.
The war in Vietnam was still at its height with many Democrat Senators saying how we couldn’t get out and leave the country a mess. Nixon and Kissinger had expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos and the student movement was in full swing. Nancy Fey, then an innocent freshman and Rob Prince, then a not-so-innocent graduate student, were a part of it. In the relationship, Lyons Colorado with roots in Nebraska had met Queens New York, with roots in Brooklyn and we were trying to negotiate the differences…Still are.
Back to the war..
Thanks in large measure to the local SDS chapter in which such people as John Buttney, Bruce Goldberg, Roger Wade, John Lemmo, Bonnie Carroll all played key rolls, the university – University of Colorado at Boulder – we had become aware of the degree to which the institution was linked to military research. The reality of the powers that be, being linked in a military-industrial-financial complex, had come home. To reward Buttney for his insights into the nature of power, the state of Colorado has banned him from stepping foot on the CU-Boulder campus for life. I believe that the ban remains active to this day.
One Shining Moment
To protest those links, the student movement on the Boulder campus, whose leadership had passed from SDS to the Socialist Workers Party, decided to stage a sit in at the university administration building, one Regents Hall. 37 years later it’s still there, still Regents Hall, still the administration building. But for `one shining moment’ it was stormed by students who occupied it for about 6 hours as I recall. There were a lot of us, I believe as many as 800 or a 1000. We went in during the mid afternoon, announced it was a `sit in’ – the staff and administration promptly left, and there we were. We’d taken over. It was all so easy.
It was also sometime right around April 17 (I’m not sure of the date) around the time of the space launch.
Once inside Regents Hall, we protestors were faced with a dilemma, not unlike that faced by all those trying to seize state (or campus) power: What do we do now? And being young, angry (at the war) and having achieved our goal far more easily than we had imagined, we did the only sensible thing under the circumstances: we invited in two bands who played; we made some French-student like speeches of which John Hillson’s was easily the best and then tried to figure out what to do next. We’d perhaps proven our courage but also our lack of strategic vision.
While we were debating our next step on the inside, outside Regents Hall the atmosphere was a lot less `touchy-feely’ and celebratory. The governor, one John Love, and one of the key Regents, one Joseph Coors – had decided that things had gone too far and did the only thing they knew how to do under the circumstances: called out the National Guard, most of whom were no older than those of us inside the building. The Guard, bayonets drawn, surrounded the building and almost certainly were preparing to attack.
Realizing that our continued presence in Regents Hall would serve our cause only poorly, that there were no more bands to dance to and urged on by the articulate and actually very wise logic of one Jim Lauderdale (carpenter, folk singer who went on to run for governor of Colorado on the Socialist Workers Party ticket), we made our decision. All 800 or 1000 of us ended the occupation and left the building, doing so in a relatively orderly fashion. Our exit defused the situation entirely. We exited out into the night most of us simply walking through the lines of guardsmen – their rifles out, bayonets shining.
And that was that.
Love and Coors suffered from a severe case of political blue balls (as we used to call it). The impression came through that they really would have liked to have seen blood (mine and Nancy’s among others) flow. Years later we learned that, had we not left when we did, the Guard would have stormed the building within minutes and that they had been ordered to so by the governor. I have no doubt that the governor’s wish to crush our movement would have resulted in casualties and overwhelmingly on our side as none of us had arms of any kind and were in the main mostly pacifists.
Although we came quite close, there was no Kent State or Jackson State that year in Boulder. But after reconsidering all the facts at my disposal it’s pretty much an accident that I’m still alive.
Nancy and I lived to fight another round or two or seventeen with the powers that be. Something in me snapped that day forever and getting a phd in Anthropology took second place or maybe third or forth to ending the war, many wars ago. Unable to take out their wrath on Boulder students, Denver’s cops and the National Guard got pretty rough on our companeros demonstrating at the University of Denver and destroyed their `peace tent city’. Lovell, Swigert and Haise might have been wrestling with Apollo 13 up in the heavans. Down here on earth we were coming to grips with something bigger – that I still refer to simply as – US Imperialism.
Thanks Jim Lauderdale wherever you are.
July 23, 2007 (1)
Guest Blogger: Ira Chernus
Chernus on Dems Who Talk Withdrawal from Iraq But Can’t Bring Themselves To Dismantle the US Military Bases
Ira Chernus lives in Boulder and is a Professor of Religious Studies at the university there. He is regularly featured on the progressive website `Common Dreams’, has a radio spot on KGNU in Boulder (which I try to catch). He’s taken his share of hits from the mainstream Jewish Community including one experience many U.S. weapons systems ago, when a delegation of the Denver Jewish Mutawwa went to Boulder to ask his department head not to permit Chernus to teach Jewish History, a subject on which he has genuine expertise and on which he has written and lectured much. The chair rejected the request.
About a year ago, Chernus did radio spot which caught my interest. He argued convincingly that if the United States could be stopped in Iraq and forced to withdraw its military forces and end the occupation there, that the whole misguided `war on terrorism’ initiative – which is in essence a war for US regional (and global) domination – would lose one of its main building blocks. The logical conclusion: we (we = all the varied strands of the peace movement, be it on Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Iran or all those other places that have met or will soon meet what we might call `the F-16 Embrace’) should all join forces to end the occupation of Iraq. I thought that a pretty coherent analysis for 8:30 am in the morning and went on to lecture on the subject as if it were my own idea.
Chernus’ latest is a detailed analysis of why the Democrats are essentially disingenuous about their positions critical of the Iraq war, and that they seem to buckle at the knees whenever the question of closing down US military bases in Iraq is raised. I’ve been exploring the same theme in some of the blogs in the recent past (July 11, 13, 18). Just below you’ll find the first few paragraphs of Chernus’ piece. The piece is also posted to Common Dreams website.
__________________________
by Ira Chernus
Pity the poor Democratic candidates for president, caught between Iraq and a hard place. Every day, more and more voters decide that we must end the war and set a date to start withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Most who will vote in the Democratic primaries concluded long ago that we must leave Iraq, and they are unlikely to let anyone who disagrees with them have the party’s nomination in 2008.
But what does it mean to “leave Iraq”? Here’s where most of the Democratic candidates come smack up against that hard place. There is a longstanding bipartisan consensus in the foreign-policy establishment that the U.S. must control every strategically valuable region of the world — and none more so than the oil heartlands of the planet. That’s been a hard-and-fast rule of the elite for some six decades now. No matter how hard the task may be, they demand that presidents be rock-hard enough to get the job done.
So whatever “leave Iraq” might mean, no candidate of either party likely to enter the White House on January 20, 2009 can think it means letting Iraqis determine their own national policies or fate. The powers that be just wouldn’t stand for that. They see themselves as the guardians of world “order.” They feel a sacred obligation to maintain “stability” throughout the imperial domains, which now means most of planet Earth — regardless of what voters may think. The Democratic front-runners know that “order” and “stability” are code words for American hegemony. They also know that voters, especially Democratic ones, see the price of hegemony in Iraq and just don’t want to pay it anymore.
So the Democratic front-runners must promise voters that they will end the war — with not too many ideologically laden ifs, ands, or buts — while they assure the foreign-policy establishment that they will never abandon the drive for hegemony in the Middle East (or anywhere else). In other words, the candidates have to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.
No worries, it turns out. Fluency in doublespeak is a prime qualification for high political office. On Iraq, candidates Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson don’t meet that test. They tell anyone and everyone that they want “all” U.S. troops out of Iraq, but they register only 1-4% in the polls and are generally ignored in the media. The Democrats currently topping the polls, on the other hand, are proving themselves eminently qualified in doublespeak.
Clinton: “We got it right, mostly, during the Cold War”
Hillary Clinton declares forthrightly: “It is time to begin ending this war…. Start bringing home America’s troops…. within 90 days.” Troops home: It sounds clear enough. But she is always careful to avoid the crucial word all. A few months ago she told an interviewer: “We have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq…. What we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region.” A senior Pentagon officer who has briefed Clinton told NPR commentator Ted Koppel that Clinton expects U.S. troops to be in Iraq when she ends her second term in 2017.
Why all these troops? We have “very real strategic national interests in this region,” Clinton explains. “I will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region. They will also provide security for U.S. troops and personnel and train and equip Iraqi security services to keep order and promote stability.” There would be U.S. forces to protect the Kurds and “our efforts must also involve a regional recommitment to success in Afghanistan.” Perhaps that’s why Clinton has proposed “that we expand the Army by 80,000 troops, that we move faster to expand the Special Forces.”
Says her deputy campaign manager Bob Nash, “She’ll be as tough as any Republican on our enemies.” And on our friends, he might have added, if they don’t shape up. At the Take Back America conference in June the candidate drew boos when she declared that “the American military has done its job…. They gave the Iraqi government the chance to begin to demonstrate that it understood its responsibilities…. It is the Iraqi government which has failed.” It’s the old innocent-Americans-blame-the-foreigners ploy.
More importantly, it’s the old tough-Americans-reward-friends-who-help-America ploy. We should start withdrawing some troops, Clinton says, “to make it clear to the Iraqis that … we’re going to look out for American interests, for the region’s interests.” If the Iraqi government is not “striving for sustainable stability…. we’ll consider providing aid to provincial governments and reliable non-governmental organizations that are making progress.”
Clinton’s message to the Iraqi leaders is clear: You had your chance to join “the international community,” to get with the U.S. program, and to reap the same benefits as the leaders of other oil-rich nations — but you blew it. So, now you can fend for yourselves while we look for new, more capable allies in Iraq and keep who-knows-how-many troops there to “protect our interests” — and increase our global clout. The draw-down in Iraq, our signal that we’ve given up on the al-Maliki government, “will be a first step towards restoring Americans moral and strategic leadership in the world,” Clinton swears.
“America must be the world’s leader,” she declared last month. “We must widen the scope of our strength by leading strong alliances which can apply military force when required.” And, when necessary, cut off useless puppet governments that won’t let their strings be pulled often enough.
Hillary is speaking to at least three audiences: the voters at home, the foreign-policy elite, and a global elite she would have to deal with as president. Her recent fierce criticism of the way President Bush has handled Iraq, like her somewhat muddled antiwar rhetoric, is meant as a message of reassurance to voters, but also to our elite — and as a warning to foreigners: The next President Clinton will be tough on allies as well as foes, as tough as the old cold warriors. “We got it right, mostly, during the Cold War…. Nothing is more urgent than for us to begin again to rebuild a bipartisan consensus,” she said last year in a speech that cut right to the bottom line: “American foreign policy exists to maintain our security and serve our national interests.” That’s what the bipartisan consensus has always believed.
Obama and Edwards: Don’t Tread on Us
That seems to be what Barack Obama, another loyal member of the foreign-policy establishment, believes too. “The single most important job of any president is to protect the American people,” he affirmed in a major foreign-policy statement last April. But “the threats we face…. can no longer be contained by borders and boundaries…. The security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people.” That’s why the U.S. must be the “leader of the free world.” It’s hard to find much difference on foreign policy between Clinton and Obama, except that Barack is more likely to dress up the imperial march of U.S. interests in such old-fashioned Cold War flourishes.
That delights neoconservative guru Robert Kagan, who summed up Obama’s message succinctly: “His critique is not that we’ve meddled too much but that we haven’t meddled enough…. To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States.” To control everything and everyone, he wants “the strongest, best-equipped military in the world…. A 21st century military to stay on the offense.” That, he says, will take at least 92,000 more soldiers and Marines — precisely the number Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has recommended to President Bush.
Like Hillary, Barack would remove all “combat brigades” from Iraq, but keep U.S. troops there “for a more extended period of time” — even “redeploy additional troops to Northern Iraq” — to support the Kurds, train Iraqi forces, fight al Qaeda, “reassure allies in the Gulf,” “send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria,” and “prevent chaos in the wider region.” “Most importantly, some of these troops could be redeployed to Afghanistan…. to stop Afghanistan from backsliding toward instability.”
Barack also agrees with Hillary that the Iraqi government needs a good scolding “to pressure the Iraqi leadership to finally come to a political agreement between the warring factions that can create some sense of stability…. Only through this phased redeployment can we send a clear message to the Iraqi factions that the U.S. is not going to hold together this country indefinitely…. No more coddling, no more equivocation.”
But Obama offers a carrot as well as a stick to the Iraqis: “The redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the parties in Iraq reach an effective political arrangement that stabilizes the situation and they offer us a clear and compelling rationale for maintaining certain troop levels…. The United States would not be maintaining permanent military bases in Iraq.” What, however, does “permanent” mean when language is being used so subtly? It’s a question that needs an answer, but no one asks it — and no answer is volunteered.
John Edwards offers variations on the same themes. He wants a continuing U.S. troop presence “to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven.” But he goes further than either Obama or Clinton in spelling out that we “will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel.”
Around the world, Edwards would use military force for “deterring and responding to aggressors, making sure that weak and failing states do not threaten our interests, and … maintaining our strategic advantage against major competitor states that could do us harm and otherwise threaten our interests.” His distinctive touch is to stress coordinated military and civilian efforts for “stabilizing states with weak governments…. I would put stabilization first.” “Stabilization” is yet another establishment code word for insuring U.S. control, as Edwards certainly knows. His ultimate aim, he says, is to ensure that the U.S. will “lead and shape the world.”
Running for the Imperial Presidency
The top Democrats agree that we must leave significant numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq, not only for selfish reasons, but because we Americans are so altruistic. We want to prevent chaos and bring order and stabilization to that country — as if U.S. troops were not already creating chaos and instability there every day. But among the foreign policy elite, the U.S. is always a force for order, “helping” naturally chaotic foreigners achieve “stability.” For the elite, it’s axiomatic that the global “stability” that keeps us secure and prosperous is also a boon for the people we “stabilize.” For this to happen in Iraq, time must be bought with partial “withdrawal” plans. (It matters little how many foreigners we kill in the process, as long as U.S. casualties are reduced enough to appease public opinion at home.) This is not open to question; most of the time, it’s not something that even crosses anyone’s mind to question.
Well, perhaps it’s time we started asking such questions. A lost war should be the occasion for a great public debate on the policies and the geopolitical assumptions that led to the war. Americans blew that opportunity after the Vietnam War. Instead of a genuine debate, we had a few years of apathy, verging on amnesia, toward foreign affairs followed by the Reagan revolution, whose disastrous effects in matters foreign (and domestic) still plague us. Now, we have another precious — and preciously bought — opportunity to raise fundamental issues about foreign policy. But in the mainstream, all we are getting is a false substitute for real public debate.
With an election looming, the Democrats portray themselves as the polar opposite of the Republicans. They blame the Iraq fiasco entirely on Bush and the neocons, conveniently overlooking all the support Bush got from the Democratic elite before his military venture went sour. They talk as if the only issue that matters is whether or not we begin to withdraw some troops from Iraq sometime next year. The media report this debate in excruciating detail, with no larger context at all. So most Americans think this is the only debate there is, or could be.
The other debate about Iraq — the one that may matter more in the long run — is the one going on in the private chambers of the policymakers about what messages they should send, not so much to enemies as to allies. Bush, Cheney, and their supporters say the most important message is a reassuring one: “When the U.S. starts a fight, it stays in until it wins. You can count on us.” For key Democrats, including congressional leaders and major candidates for the imperial Presidency, the primary message is a warning: “U.S. support for friendly governments and factions is not an open-ended blank check. If you are not producing, we’ll find someone else who can.”
The two sides are hashing this one out in a sometimes strident, sometimes relatively chummy manner. The outcome will undoubtedly make a real difference, especially to the people of Iraq, but it’s still only a dispute about tactics, never about goals, which have been agreed upon in advance.
Yet it’s those long-range goals of the bipartisan consensus that add up to the seven-decade-old drive for imperial hegemony, which got us into Vietnam, Iraq, and wherever we fight the next large, disastrous war. It’s those goals that should be addressed. Someone has to question that drive. And what better moment to do it than now, in the midst of another failed war? Unfortunately, the leading Democratic candidates aren’t about to take up the task. I guess it must be up to us.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Email: chernus@colorado.edu
© 2007 Ira Chernus
Article printed from http://www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/23/2696
Blog Update
Note. I am admittedly a new and amateur `blogger’. The technical part of it is still mostly beyond me. If not for Kasina Entzi, my student, who helped set up the whole system, and then showed me how to use it, I would have been completely lost. I thank her – rather than God – every morning.
In any case, there is a way, through the `server’ (the company that `hosts’ the website) to check how many people have visited the site and how many have downloaded materials. Results so far since May 23 when all this started are:
5400 hits (people visiting)
950 (or so) downloads. (people who download something, some file from the site)
Not bad…suggests some kind of dialogue going on. I would think that a good third of them are probably from the ADL research dept. and kindred spirits and agencies (a guess); ok..i’ve always felt that sending email, having a website is something akin to standing nude in the center of Coors Field before a crowd of 55000 and such annoyances are among the many fringe benefits that come with blogging. i’d rather blog than moon the fans at Coors Field – although i momentarily reconsidered the day I read that the manager of the Rockies, Clint Hurdle (a man who has trouble with words bigger than one syllable) declared the team `a Christian’ baseball team. Screw Clint Hurdle. Those bums belong to all of us.
Which reminds me, Larry Tepper of Boulder not long ago mentioned a kind of software that Microsoft made for some agency of the Israeli government that could pretty much instantaneously track all the emails, websites, blogs, newspaper articles and op eds with criticisms of Israel. Forget the name of the program but it’s there. My friends who know alot about computers and the unsavory activities of federal and local police and spy agencies tell me that the entire internet is `mined’ for information daily by those skunks (claiming to protect us). They mine so much that they cannot possibily process it all, but it is saved for later possible processing.
Don’t let this discourage anyone. Let’s just don’t be schmucks about it.
Cockburn, Jay Jurie and the state of the Peace Movement
Some time ago, I wrote in this blog about the strange (to me anyhow) situation in the peace movement here, with 70%+ of the people of the United States clearly against the war in Iraq, wanting the US to pullout yesterday, but that this is not reflected in the strength of the peace movement itself, which seems small and narrow in general. (I looked for the exact comment I made but there is already so much stuff on this blog that I couldn’t find it).
Jay Jurie, who used to hail from Colorado and now teaches in Florida, and with whom I shared the high honor of having been arrested now 37 years ago for our anti-war activities on the CU-Boulder campus, wrote me a short note about how his take on the peace movement in Orlando Florida was similar. And we commisserated as to why.
Today I came across a piece that Alexander Cockburn wrote for the French monthly Le Monde Diplomatique (more on this publication in the near future). Entitled `The Unquiet Americans – Why So Few Protests Against the Hated Invasion?’ – it is one of the better pieces on the subject. He suggests that unlike the Vietnam days, that the peace movement is tamed, has lost its edge, has been outmaneuvered or coopted by spineless Democrats in Congress, there is no draft, most of the movement is over 55 years of age and for these and other reasons has yet to `find its way’. As is usually the case with Cockburn, he’s worth the read on this one. (Just click on `The Unquiet Americans’, – above – the article should come up.)
Most or all of this is accurate enough and is discussed from Florida to Colorado and beyond, if Jay Jurie and myself are any indication. I might put it all a little differently though.
What I notice is the narrowness of the social forces involved. Any burnt out over-the-hill Marxist worth his salt with a bad back and acid reflux condition will ask the same questions: where are labor, people of color, the churches, the spineless Democrats, etc? old questions perhaps…still valid, you betcha. Without being too didactic, it’s still a truism that social forces have something to do with social movements, hard as it is for some folks to get it. And when the social forces are not there it does say something about the breath or lack there of of the social movement.
Yes, there is a labor contingent against the war which is active in places like L.A. and Chicago, very much so, but nationally it doesn’t seem to amount to much yet from what I can tell, whatever the formal position.
Every year on Martin Luther King Jr”s birthday thousands of Denverites, many if not most of them Black, march in remembrance. Virtually every one of these demonstration since the war began has had a strong anti-war component both in the signs of demonstrators and in the speeches, but the rest of the year – other than from Black elected officials – one sees and hears little. It’s more or less the same with the Chicano community. The peace sentiment is there, but the activism?…
Anyhow, Cockburn does a pretty good job of explaining this sad state of affairs. There is something to be said about a really sober and depressing analysis which hits the nail on the head…which just goes to prove the old adage: we might not have power, but thanks to the likes of Cockburn, we’re well informed.
Blair: Still At It [Kissing Bush’s Behind] After All These Years…or `Waltzing To War’.
Mustering up all that false modesty of which he is capable (which is considerable), Tony Blair graciously accepted his new assignment from the Bush Administration as top envoy to the Middle East Quartet (the US, Russia, EU, UN) with the following earnest tear-jerker:
“It is imperative that we succeed and I am prepared to try to help in what ever way I can. And I think that in the end that is the most important attitude for me to carry into this job and I also think that there is a real will and desire if people can find the right way forward to get to that two-state solution that people want and, just imagine for a moment, if this process were moving forward again, just think how much hope there will be.
You’d think there was something quite serious going on here, but fear not.
The Bush Administration is hoping that a British face can more effectively deepen the already existing wedge between Fateh and Hamas to further weaken the Palestinian movement into accepting an imposed rump state settlement.
This is something less than peace making.
The Bush Administration quickly laid to reset any illusions that the US (or the world) is embarking on serious Israeli-Palestinian peace making. Consider the following:
• Blair’s mission is carefully restricted to “imposing reforms on the Palestinian government”. Well said, and accurate
• To clarify that, Washington has already announced Blair will make no effort to end Israel’s attacks on the Gaza Strip. (and that’s an order!)
• Blair is to do nothing to curb settlement growth in the West Bank
• He is avoid any attempt to to push through an agreement on a final-status peace deal.
• He is not to have any dealings with Hamas, (without which there can not be any genuine peace process.) Indeed his first announcement was to reiterate the Quartet would have no involvement with Hamas, the winners of last year’s Palestinian elections.
To dampen hopes even further, and to alley the fear of AIPAC and the like, the Bush Administration tried to make crystal clear that what Blair is trying to organize is not a peace conference, just a meeting between the parties to discuss the terms of some future peace conference. This is precisely how the Oslo Process bogged down and went nowhere. Such an approach continues with what is now a well worn tradition of the U.S. putting all the pressure on the Palestinians to make reforms, none on Israel.
In short, it is little more than a charade packaged to give a bit of hope to a world desperate to end the conflict and wanting to see some progress. Bush made a few hopeful remarks back in 2002 about the need for a Palestinian state and then more or less let Ariel Sharon run US foreign policy toward the conflict till his stroke. As Bush’s presidency comes to an end, he wants to offset his legacy of having involved the United States in what is arguable, the greatest debacle of US foreign policy history, the occupation of Iraq, with the appearance of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Something else is at work here, usually not spelled out: Saudi pressure on the US to make progress on this issue. Pressuring the Saudi’s to take such steps is a growing domestic opposition movement that takes the form of a new generation of `little Osamas ‘.
What would be a serious alternative to the current charade? Sarah Roy, a researcher at Harvard, provides alternative themes worth considering:
1. Announce support for a Hamas-Fateh dialogue to revive a unity government and quietly open diplomatic contacts with Hamas. (It doesn’t have to be quietly -rjp)
2. Commit serious diplomatic muscle to restarting substantive Palestinian-Israeli negotiations
3. In cooperation with its Quartet partners – the European Union, Russia and the United Nations – convene a peace conference informed by the US commitment to a two-state solution.
And precisely because these suggestions are reasonable, and would represent a profound change in direction of U.S. policy, they are unlikely to even be considered. And once again in the name of peace-making, the Bush Administration is creating the condition to waltz into yet another war.
(for a good – somewhat longer – piece on the current situation, minus insights on Blair’s butt-kissing subservience to Bush, see Tony Karon’s recent piece `Bush’s Palestinian Fantasy’.
Another one – as usual, the political version of fine wine – read Avneri’s `Trap of Fools’)
View from the Left Bank: Rob Prince's Blog 