Tag Archives: foreign policy

Back to the future.

I sometimes forget how Bill Clinton turned my parents into hawks. In these troubled times, it’s worth remembering the degree to which people’s political affiliation determines their worldview. If George W. Bush dropped bombs on Serbia, mom and dad would have been against it, but Bill Clinton … he must have had a reason.

We’re seeing some of the same effect with Obama. His new policy on Iraq and Syria differs from George W. Bush’s Iraq policy mostly in its implementation. Bush trumpeted his intention to go in strong, drop a bunch of bombs, “shock and awe” them. Obama is incrementalist – we’ll do A but not B, then a week later, we’re doing B and C with promises (soon broken) that we won’t move on to D. Ultimately this ends up with regime change, as it did in Libya with disastrous results. What’s the difference? Psychology. Obama knows marketing. He knows that we’ll only eat one or two of those big cookies, but a boat load of those little ones.

Taliban: the next generationThe media, as always, is in the tank for this war. On the morning after bombing began in Syria, the first voice you heard on NPR’s 6:00 a.m. newscast was that of a retired general who had “crafted” America’s bombing campaign during the Gulf War – a man who thought we weren’t bombing Syria hard enough. That’s NPR, no surprise, but don’t expect any better from the liberal media. Rachel Maddow, while a war skeptic, gave a thumbnail recent history of the Iraqi Kurds and the Gulf War that might have been torn out of a Bush campaign media release. Our only role in that saga, according to this telling, was liberating freedom-loving Kuwait and helping the Kurds preserve evidence of Saddam’s pogrom against them.

Maddow left out the small detail that the U.S. helped Saddam to the hilt throughout the 1980s, including during the campaign against the Kurds, then looked the other way when Saddam attacked them again after the Gulf War (until Bush I was shamed into establishing a no-fly zone in northern Iraq). I suppose I should excuse this level of ignorance due to her relative youth – she probably doesn’t remember the events very clearly. I sure as hell do. It was the genesis of the conflict we are entering now, just as our Afghan war was the birth of Al Qaeda.

We go through this cycle of attack repeatedly, and the results are always the same – a bigger mess, more people hating us, more misery in the region. The fact that people like Maddow, who should know better, don’t understand that makes it that much harder to stop this from happening yet again.

luv u,

jp

Persistent truths.

As I write this post, the parliament in Crimea has just voted to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, to which it belonged until the mid 1950s. The Russian parliament, in turn, is considering legislation to enable it to accept new provinces, an ominous turn to Where's America in this picture?be sure. There is a referendum on Crimean secession scheduled for later this month, and the new Ukrainian government is crying foul. So … are we on the brink of a new Crimean War? Charge of the Light Brigade, anyone?

The “Putin is Crazy” narrative is dominating the news cycle here in the United States. I can hear it right now, on the evening news. Even supposed activist liberal shows like Rachel Maddow are playing this as a crisis for which Russia is solely responsible, and strong evidence of Putin’s departure from reality. He’s living in another world, the German premier suggests, and that claim is being hammered home, day after day, on every network, every news channel, every media outlet. One would think no one had ever occupied a square mile of foreign territory before. (Ummm …. Afghanistan? Guam?)

I hate to be the lone dissenting voice on anything, but this thing is obviously spinning out of control, and the potential consequences are enormous. Despite his autocratic tendencies, Putin is not hard to figure out, friends. He doesn’t want another Syria as his next door neighbor. With the ouster of Yanukovych, he sees the potential for civil conflict, possible failure of the central government, etc. Putin sees the United States and Europe as having stoked the opposition, and in all frankness, it’s probably true that we did. We regularly support political movements in other countries to an extent that we would consider unacceptable should another country attempt the same on us. Now we openly support the revolution in Ukraine.

Is is about supporting democracy? Well, that’s certainly not a prerequisite for U.S. support. See Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc., etc. In all honesty, I think it would be a really good idea to work towards a diplomatic solution with greater energy. There is a tendency to fall into old cold war habits – a fact that reveals the bankruptcy of our obsession with communism back in the day. It’s really just about great power competition, and that should be considered illegitimate, particularly when so many lives are at stake.

Between us, we still have thousands of nuclear weapons. This is not something to fool around with.

luv u,

jp

Crapucopea.

Not sure what to concentrate on this week for my rant, so I’ll break it up into bits.

Ukraine drama. I have heard endless reports on NPR and NBC about the Russian flag being raised above the Crimean capital and how much this is becoming like the bad old days of the Cold War. Much, too, has been made of Russian military exercises near the border of Ukraine, termed by the media as “provocative” – a word they no doubt borrowed from McCain or some other favored pol. Just rewind to their last reports about Korea and our planned military exercises there – did they use the same modifier? Didn’t think so. Not provocative in any wayThat potentially catastrophic confrontation-in-waiting apparently can withstand mock-invasions of North Korea and simulated bombing runs without being “provocative”. So, why are the Russian exercises any worse? If there’s a return to Cold War mentality, it’s on the part of our corporate media. (Most of our politicians have never left that particular ideological space.)

Arizona anti-gay bill. This notion of religious freedom, based on the dodgy concept of “who would Jesus refuse to serve,” is obviously based on a very skewed interpretation of Christian values – namely, tolerate no one different from you. That Jan Brewer vetoed it is no surprise. Why did it take her several days? Because the attention of the nation was on her for that stretch of time, and she was happy to bask in it – an art form the senior senator from her state has perfected over his decades in office.

Jobs and health. I’ve heard a number of reports about the CBO estimate of potential job losses related to the Affordable Care Act. These are mainly attributed to people who work specifically for a job related health care benefit choosing to opt out of the workforce. One economist / commentator I heard this morning suggested this might be a drag on the economy. But what, after all, is the economy? Is it metrics on productivity … or is it how well individuals are doing? When someone leaves a job they really don’t want, doesn’t that open a position for someone else? Should we really be chaining people to work and holding them hostage for the sake of health insurance coverage?

I think not.

luv u,

jp

Austerity rules.

Just a few things I want to comment on this week, not at any great length. Bear with me, please.

Human Rights. In what appeared to be an effort to elicit Vietnam’s cooperation in the looming Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) “free trade agreement” – really an investors’ rights agreement – Secretary of State John Kerry recently paid a visit to Hanoi to discuss new maritime security cooperation measures, against the backdrop of China’s recent declaration of a kind of demilitarized zone in the South China Sea. None of this is surprising, but what kind of made my jaw hang open was the reporting around the visit. The main hook was that Kerry had been part of America’s expeditionary force in South Vietnam during the war, and he toured some of his old haunts in the south. NPR (not to single them out – everyone else did this, too), practically in a single breath, made reference to this trip down memory lane, then referred to problems with Vietnam’s human rights record, which Washington complains about.

Kerry greets a survivor.Really? Just a little bit of context might be nice. What was Kerry doing there in the 1960s again? Vacationing? No. Oh, that’s right – he was part of a massive invasion force that was grinding Vietnam – particularly southern Vietnam – to a bloody pulp, leaving probably 2 million dead and three countries destroyed; a massive crime that we have never been held accountable for. I think it’s a little premature to lecture Hanoi on human rights, frankly.

Work release. The Fed will be dialing back their “quantitative easing” policy in the coming year. I have mixed feelings about this, frankly. The central bank has been the only organ of American power – public or private – seemingly willing to invest in this economy. Much of that investment has been in vain, as the banks the Fed lends to have been extremely reluctant to lend that money out. Corporations are sitting on their money, not hiring at any great clip. And of course, at every level of government, it’s cut, cut, cut; thousands of public sector jobs eliminated. Austerity rules, once again.

I have this nagging feeling that American capital is unwilling to invest in American workers – that they feel it’s a bad risk, and so they seek richer pastures elsewhere, where workers rights are even less protected the meager safeguards we enjoy here. What we need is some public investment entity to pick up the slack. We need to commit ourselves to full employment – if someone is willing and able to work, and the private sector has nothing to offer them, let the government provide them with work. They, in turn, will spend that money in their local economy, supporting private sector jobs and growth. At the same time we need to stop incentivizing corporate off-shoring of jobs (see the TPP, above).

Austerity isn’t inevitable. It’s a choice, a bad one, and we have to reject it if we want a better life.

luv u,

jp

What law?

This will be a quickie – I’m kind of pressed this week, for a variety of reasons.

It’s always astonishing to me to watch how issues in foreign affairs are reported in our nation’s mainstream media. This week there was a major network interview with the new president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani. This was broadly characterized as part of a “charm offensive” that will include his appearance at the U.N. Any discussion of Iran is couched in the context of what is uncritically reported as their drive toward building nuclear weapons or a “nuclear weapons capability,” which the U.S., Israel, and some European allies oppose. We have imposed very punishing economic sanctions, which cause tremendous misery amongst the Iranian population, and we and the Israeli government regularly threaten Iran with military aggression. So the reporting on the “charm offensive” is a bit like trash-talking the victim after kicking them in the gut (and promising worse down the road).

I think if we’ve learned anything over the last thirty-five years it’s that the United States does not want any detente with the Iranian government, no matter how accommodating they become. We saw this with the Khatami government, which was very moderate and reformist and yet ended up on the “Axis of Evil” shortlist. Frankly, our leaders much prefer it when Iran elects presidents like Amedinejad, who are conveniently cartoon-like, racist, and easy to demonize. It’s the Rouhani’s who give them a belly ache.

Try for a moment to imagine a scenario in which we stop confronting Iran. There are two compelling reasons why it is unlikely to happen, so long as we remain an empire. First, it would put us squarely on the wrong side of Saudi Arabia in the great ongoing war against the Shi’ia. Second, it would further compel Israel to make peace, to deal, and that cuts against more than 35 years of stalemate strategy in which we have been a primary participant.

So, peace with Iran? Don’t hold your breath. It will only happen if we insist upon it … and you can’t do that without breathing deeply.

luv u,

jp

Fitting the problem.

Barack Obama is a decidedly small-bore president. This is by no means a revelation to anyone. I voted for the guy in 2008 because the notion of a McCain presidency (and a Palin vice-presidency) scared the bejesus out of me, and rightfully so. (I remain convinced that denying him the presidency saved us about 14 wars.) I voted for him again in 2012 to deny the Republicans the joy of having all three branches of government. But that’s about all I’ve gotten out of it. He’s a very cautious man, a very conventional man, and not at all inclined to take bold steps. 

Not a big, bold idea guySure, he’s Simon the Likeable. I think of it as the liberal equivalent of conservatives seeing W. Bush as someone they would like to have a beer with. Obama has an appealing persona to people like me, mostly because he’s the first president in my lifetime that shares our experience. Of course, those considerations are an empty category, politically speaking. It doesn’t matter at all whether or not I “like” this man I don’t know. What matters is how he handles driving the enormous killing machine that is the American Presidency.

And from what I’ve seen, he’s not much better than his immediate predecessors. It’s that incrementalism – the big speech followed by the tiny half-step. Like this week, as Egypt’s military crushed the Muslim Brotherhood protesters, Obama stepped up to the mic in Martha’s Vineyard and duly intoned his concern, then canceled joint military exercises with the Egyptian generals. Kind of a puny response. For one thing, the Egyptian military is getting plenty of exercise now … shooting and rounding up their own people … with arms provided by us. That last part is the problem. If you want to have an impact on the generals’ planning, pull back on the free guns. Don’t just call off bombing the desert for the thirty-seventh time.

The presidency has a life of its own, it seems – some stuff stays the same no matter who occupies the oval office. One such item is our enduring relationship with the military in nations – like Egypt – with weak (or non-existent) civilian governments. So… how do we shift that? Any ideas?

luv u,

jp

Big foot.

We made history this week, once again. In a small way, at least, but no insignificant. We apparently (and I have no proof, but it seems likely) convinced our European allies France, Spain, and Portugal to deny flyover permission to the plane carrying Evo Morales, president of Bolivia. In other words, we diverted an aircraft carrying a head of state to something other than its intended destination, not because of an emergency, but because we suspected that whistleblower Edward Snowden had somehow been secreted aboard the flight in an effort to offer him asylum. That was not the case, of course. Not that it would have been ample justification for diverting the Bolivian equivalent of Air Force One, but then … since when does the U.S. need justification to do anything to a nation as powerless as Bolivia?

New low: Dissing Evo MoralesThe reaction from South America has not been positive, as one might expect. Leaders from Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, and other countries have gathered in solidarity with Morales (who is now back home). This will likely be viewed by Washington as the usual suspects railing against American imperialism, blah blah blah. I’m sure Juan Ferarro will be on NPR tomorrow talking about how over the top their reaction is. But let’s consider this: why would we provoke such a negative reaction so gratuitously? What the fuck is the Obama Administration playing at here?

I have to admit, Obama’s foreign policy credibility has been seriously on the line this week. First, revelations about spying on our European “partners” – they’re completely pissed off at us. Then managing to instill hatred on both sides of the Egyptian divide. And now, manufacturing a major diplomatic row with South America over dead zero. (Ironically, John McCain and Lindsey Graham are hopping from devastated capital to devastated capital in the Middle East, mostly complaining about the only sensible thing Obama has done in foreign affairs – namely, not listen to those two about Syria.) Playing bigfoot with Evo Morales, though, is just plain low. Bolivia has taken enough shit from us. We are way out of line on that score.

So, happy fourth of July. As always, patriotism is about working toward something better than what we have. That option is still wide open, friends.

luv u,

jp

Old wine, new bottle.

The Bush administration is over (for the most part), right? Well, not so fast. Yes, they started two disastrous wars, killing enough people to make Milosevic and Suharto blush. Yes, they shook the empire to its foundations, so much so that they spent the last two years of their tenure under the watchful eye of an imperial overseer (Robert Gates). Yes, their ludicrously ham-fisted foreign policy – coupled with monumental domestic blunders – resulted in the near-total collapse of the American economy, bringing on the first proper depression since the 1930s. But none of that means they shouldn’t be put back in charge again, right?

I think I felt the earth tremble just then. Yeah, nobody wants that … really. And yet there is a very real possibility that many of the same people who ran Bush’s foreign policy – including the most extreme of the neoconservative cadre – could have their sweaty, blood-stained hands back on the levers of imperial power this coming January. The cabal advising Mitt Romney is basically a reunion tour of the nasty little group that started the Iraq war. Ari Berman ticked through their ranks in The Nation this past week. Heading up that group is John Bolton, who could very well end up Secretary of State, but he also has an ear cocked towards Dan Senor (Bush’s former coalition provisional authority spokesperson), Eric Edelman, Cofer Black, Robert Kagan, and many other once and continuing fans of the horrendous Iraq enterprise.

Did they learn anything from their disasters? Not really. The Iraq war is still a good thing, in their estimation. But more than that – it’s important to bear one thing in mind about this crew. They are basically successors to the Reagan team on foreign policy, like Reagan: the next generation (or de-generation). They’ve been back in power once since then, and it was, if anything, worse than Reagan. Every time they come back, they are worse than before. If you thought W’s eight years were hellish, just wait.

Don’t say you’re only concerned with economics. My friend, this is economics.  The Afghan and Iraq wars blew massive holes in the federal budget and are still bleeding us dry ten years later. Romney wants to keep the Afghan deployment going and would undoubtedly get us stuck somewhere else as well. Moreover, he is planning something like a 20% increase in Pentagon spending. That will mean bleeding domestic programs even further, which will take the air out of the U.S. economy (as austerity always does – see last week.)

Elections have consequences. 1980, 2000, and 2004 showed us that. Keep that in mind as you ponder the value of your franchise (and I don’t mean the fast-food restaurants you own).

luv u,

jp

What’s up with Doc.

As is typical for me, I’m going to roll through a couple of topics. Who knows where we’ll land, eh?

Haiti redux. Jean Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier returned to Haiti last week, a fact treated as something of a curiosity by the mainstream media. Sure, they referenced the fact that he killed thousands during his 15-year tenure, picking up the club left by his departed “president for life” father (who was himself removed from office via the only constitutional means available to such a leader). But they didn’t examine the circumstances of Baby Doc’s arrival very deeply at all. All Things Considered did a piece on it Thursday night, and they basically navigated around any suggestion of political maneuvering. (They also managed to avoid mentioning the fact that Lavalas, the largest party in Haiti, was excluded from participating in the recent election.)

The most plausible explanation for his return was suggested by Kim Ives of Haiti Liberté on Democracy Now! this past Wednesday. With his return, pressure is being put on René Preval to allow the U.S./French – favored Duvalierist candidate to participate in the run-off for the now disputed Presidential race. Baby Doc is there to rally his supporters, in case Preval hasn’t been getting the message. In as much as there has been talk of sending Preval into exile, I have to think he’s feeling more than a bit pressed. Ives points out that, after having been supine before the demands of the U.S., France, and Canada, Preval is facing deportation over his first disagreement with the international community overlords he has so faithfully served. This is independence?

What’s just as sick is the fact that the 2004 coup, supported wholeheartedly by the United States and France, has been dropped into the memory hole as far as the mainstream media is concerned. The All Things Considered piece, for instance, simply said that Aristide left on an American plane in 2004. True… but hardly “all things considered”. The invented story about his choosing to go into exile has stuck. If these reporters and editors had any integrity, they would provide the crucial context that a.) the country is being ruled by those congenial to the 2004 coup, and b.) the only legitimate mass-based political party in Haiti is banned because it is not sufficiently subservient to the interests of the United States and its allies. Honestly…. if Baby Doc can come back to Haiti and Aristide cannot, there is a political reason for that.

Okay, that’s one topic. And that’s all I’ve got. In all honesty, this irks the hell out of me, so it’s just as well.

luv u,

jp