As Jim points out, I posted on the sticky political thread extracts from the Project for the New American Century’s white paper, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” and the Bush Administration’s “National Security Strategy” that clearly state in their own words what their intentions in the Middle East are. These documents outline their plans for global hegemony and military preeminence in order to force corporate democracy on countries that resist doing so. If Bush had gone before congress and the nation with these documents and asked for war powers based on advancing the goals outlined there – we wouldn’t be at war right now and over 100,000 people would still be alive today.
The Iraq effect? Bush may have had it right
By Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON ? Something remarkable is happening in the Middle East - a grass-roots movement against autocracy without any significant “Great Satan” anti-American component.
In Beirut, the crowds that massed in the streets and forced the resignation of the Syrian-controlled government were demonstrating for kifaya (change) and freedom from the Syrian military that has occupied their country for more than a quarter of a century.
The passionate protest had apparently been triggered by the assassination of the popular former prime minister, Rafik Hariri - an assassination that the Lebanese assume was engineered by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
In Egypt, too, the streets have been alive with the sound of kifaya . Apparently seeking to divert the movement for change, President Hosni Mubarak announced last weekend a change in the election law to permit competitive elections. But his likeliest challenger, Ayman Nour, is in jail for allegedly forging election documents. And this week there were demonstrations in the streets of Cairo in his support.
In the past the United States would have avoided criticizing Mr. Mubarak, a key figure in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. But now Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has openly rebuked Mubarak and canceled a scheduled visit to Cairo.
In London this week, Secretary Rice said, “Events in Lebanon are moving in a very important direction.”
The movements for democratic change in Egypt and Lebanon have happened since the successful Iraqi election on Jan. 30. And one can speculate on whether Iraq has served as a beacon for democratic change in the Middle East.
During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said that “a liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region.”
He may have had it right.
? Daniel Schorr is the senior news analyst at National Public Radio.
Miss Rice may have said that events in The Lebanon are moving in an important direction , but I bet she doesn’t know which direction that is !
The transformation in the vital region spoken of by the awful Bush may well turn out to be the establishment by the newly dominant Shia electorates all across the region of states governed by extremist versions of sharia law, and the status of women going back to pre-mediaeval subservience.
I should say the risk is 50/50 at the moment.
How would you interpret it then, Jim? What do words like “hegemony” and “military preeminence” etc. mean to you? Please enlighten us.
I wouldn’t consider everything from NPR as “liberal.”
And that’s exactly what Daniel Schorr’s doing – speculating. There have been people struggling for democracy in Egypt and elsewhere long before Bush was pretending to be in the National Guard. For anyone to suggest that Bush is suddenly inspiring everyone to give it a try is disrespectful to those people. I heard an Egyptian being interviewed on the radio who was insulted that anyone would give Bush credit for the advances they have accomplished towards democracy,. The Bush Administration is desperate to justify the disaster that Iraq represents, but it is now and will be the people in those countries that deserve credit – not Bush.
‘These documents outline their plans for global hegemony and military preeminence in order to force corporate democracy on countries that resist doing so.’
I see nothing in the documents you mention about ‘corporate
democracy,’ a term I’ve never seen before; don’t know what
it means.
To answer your questions:
‘military pre-eminence’ means the ability to beat anybody in
the world.
‘hegemony’ means leadership or dominance, especially
that of one state of another. It comes from the greek
hegemonia–leadership. Used in this way, if one country
leads others, as the USA ultimately led the allies in the
effort to defeat Germany in WWII, it has ‘hegemony’ over
them. I didn’t find the word ‘hegemony’ in the documents,
by the way.
Military pre-eminence may entail the ability to have
hegemony, though it doesn’t imply hegemony itself.
All the commentators I read seem to think that the Lebanon is pulling in four directions.
Who is to say which faction will prevail, if any ?
The only thing the Shias and the Sunnis have in common is the wish to see the back of the occupying army.If it were to clear off there would not be too much left for the natives to squabble about. Apart from running the country ( which they would at least be doing themselves, unlike now ).
The success of the shia muslims has created a block with Iran which looks like encouraging their fellows in adjoining countries to join with them in creating a whole region governed by sharia law.
The block is not going to forget the horrors of repeated US onslaughts for a long time.
For generations they have been antipathetic to the British, but have always called Americans dogs,or rather sons of dogs- the Beni el Kalb.
Personally I don’t see a grand Shiite alliance,
despite dire predictions from some quarters,
Sistani in Iraq seems an Iraqi foremost.
And that adds up, because as an Iraqi, the
Shiites will be the majority; why then place
themselves under Persian domination?
However if Iraq is to hang together,
the Kurds and the Sunnis have to
hang with it, along with secular Shiites,
(Allawi was one). So I think (but certainly don’t
know) that the move to Sharia isn’t going
to happen in Iraq.
God willing the Lebanese have learned something
from experience–but I expect the USA will
bend heaven and earth to keep Lebanon together,
which ultimately may mean giving so much
money to a united Lebananon that nobody
would dream of profiting from civil war.
I agree, of course, that there are real risks in
shifting to democracy, but change is risky.
We shall see.
Meanwhile Sharon has apparently ignored Bush’s
strong statement yesterday that he expects Israel not to
let settlements grow. Crunch.
I’m not going to re-post the RAD and NSS again on this thread too, Jim, but if you can’t see what it’s obviously saying I don’t know what to tell you except that you’re either in denial, or you only see what you want to see.
My impression, FWIW, is that you’re not in control of your ego
and you get personal under pressure. 4 below.
For all my faults, I’m about as fair and kindly a correspondent
as you’re likely to find. I would ordinarily not respond, and we did have
this conversation earlier, so I owe you something.
Best wishes, Jim
jGilder wrote:
izzarina wrote:
Quite frankly, when you have reduced the whole conversation to a battle such as this, I don’t even read anymore, which in a way defeats the purpose of your posting your “truths”, for I’m sure I’m not the only one who isn’t reading.
So what do you suggest then? In these discussions I would provide evidence to back up my assertion only to be insulted and have the source of my evidence attacked without substantiation. Then, most times, the point of my evidence is left behind as people continue attacking me and my sources – even when I try to direct attention back to the point. Am I not supposed to defend myself, and why are my attempts at defending myself perceived as “attacks”? Please give me an idea of how you might go about handling this sort of situation.
OK, here are some simple rules to follow, which is not to
say it’s easy.
Always be courteous and cordial. Write on the presumption
that you are having a discussion with an intelligent, fair minded person.
If a response to you is part substantial, part personal attack,
ignore the personal attack and respond to the substantial
part according to 1, above. Ignore swipes.
If somebody is getting definitely personal, don’t respond
at all. Idiocy unanswered looks like what it is.
At the point that you stop defending a position
but begin defending yourself, you will look like
a moron–that’s simply the way of the internet,
no matter how justified you really are. You just
make the other person look good.
If there is somebody here who routinely gets
personal, ignore them entirely–until there is good
reason to think they’ve gotten over it. If there
is somebody who starts off alright but gets
personal under pressure of straightforward,
reasonably cordial arguement, best not to
respond at all. If there are people who
have an ego problem, or who ultimately
are willing to say anything, ignore them
entirely.
When you blow it or make a mistake,
apologize without reservation.
Nobody is perfect in this regard, of course;
however it’s good to keep in mind that
dumb posts tend to fall of their own weight.
Sometimes silence is the most forceful rejoinder.
If you are routinely getting into spats,
the solution is to handle yourself
more skillfully. The first 40 years
are the hardest.
Ayatolla Sistani would seem to be a shi’ite first.
Second he is an Iranian, having been born and brought up in Mashhad, an Iranian city.
Indeed his name seems to indicate his family origins - the Iranian province of Sistan.
On the Israel front Bush has already been seen to connive in Israel’s latest move to annex more Palastinian land.
Back in Iraq there would seem to be huge pressure on the elected representatives to write sharia law into the new constitution, and a lot of pressure on the streets on the female population to revert to sharia observances whether they want to or not.
I don’t know what being ‘a Shi’ite first’ amounts to, still
it’s plain he’s a major player behind the scenes,
and following him he seems concerned that Iraq will
hang together. For instance Sistani is the major
Shiite voice appealing to Shiites not to respond to
(horrific) attacks on Shiite worshipers by Sunnis.
I suppose that he doesn’t strongly oppose
what the new government is doing, and the government is
plaiinly trying to accomodate Kurds and bring
in Sunnis. Counting his sustained actions, I think Sistani wants
a unified and democratic Iraq.
I suppose a principal
question about Sharia is how destructive it would
be to that goal, who would or wouldn’t object
strenuously, if it would be seriously divisive. If a large
minority of the population
would shout bloody murder, well I don’t think
it will happen. But I need to learn more.
I’m sure there are forces in Iraq
that want it; as we know there are forces in Iraq
that want just about everything.
I have a faith in the common sense
of the majority of Iraqis and their interest in a real and democratic nation.
Which is the best I can say given my
ignorance. These are issues that will be
sorted out pretty soon, in any case, as the relation to
Islam will be part of the constitution. So we shall see.
I don’t know why you say that Bush has already connived
in Israel’s move to annex more Palestinian land.
If you would be more forthcoming we could talk about
it better. If you mean his statement last year that some
Israeli West Bank settlements might well remain in
a final settlement, I think that was an horrific mistake,
as I said at the time.
Why did he say it? It may have been said
as part of his election campaign. Note that Kerry said it too.
There are strongly Zionist people in Bush’s admin
and he may actually believe it. Possibly it had something
to do with helping Sharon withdraw from Gaza. The Bush admin began
backtracking on the statement almost immediately,
but of course Sharon isn’t about to forget it.
More recently Bush has been saying the right things,
e.g. there needs to be a contiguous Palestinian state,
he expects Israel to stop settlement growth, in
compliance with the peace plan (this pointedly
two days ago).
Here is the issue where, IMO, our plans rise or fall,
for if there is no just solution for the Palestinians, and
things revert to violence (as they will), it would have
an extraordinarily destructive effect on our other efforts.
Radical elements will be empowered, new democracies
may fail, or, if they succeed, turn on Israel (and us)
with the will of the majority of the people.
I think it’s plainly in our interest to get a real solution
in Palestine, I’m sure we know it, to do it we will have
to stand up to Israel,
that’ s politically dangerous but Bush can’t be re-elected,
events on the ground may take on their own momentum,
but as to whether we will actually do it, frankly,
I haven’t the foggiest, am not very hopeful, and view this with deep
concern.
P. S. The Wikipedia entry on ‘Sharia’ is worth reading, IMO,
for anybody interested in a crash course.
More about the US plan for military domination of the world:
(Below is an exerpt from an article about an article on the subject.)
Andrew J. Bacevich has written a book on militarism, American-style, of surpassing interest. Just published, “The New American Militarism, How Americans Are Seduced by War” would be critical reading no matter who wrote it. But coming from Bacevich, a West Point graduate, Vietnam veteran, former contributor to such magazines as the Weekly Standard and the National Review, and former Bush Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin, it has special resonance.
Bacevich, a self-professed conservative, has clearly been a man on a journey. He writes that he still situates himself “culturally on the right. And I continue to view the remedies proffered by mainstream liberalism with skepticism. But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the present Bush administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering foreign policy, a disregard for the Constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values. On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives who define the problem.”
At the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The skepticism about arms and armies that pervaded the American experiment from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamored with military might.
The ensuing affair had and continues to have a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue. Few in power have openly considered whether valuing military power for its own sake or cultivating permanent global military superiority might be at odds with American principles. Indeed, one striking aspect of America’s drift toward militarism has been the absence of dissent offered by any political figure of genuine stature.
I don’t think it will do, really, to re-publish books on the thread ! A reference would be sufficient for people to ignore.
It is nice to see the Syrians complying with the United Nations resolution requiring them to leave the land they have been improperly occupying. Can we hope that the Israelis will note the example and do the same ?
I have decided to apply sanctions , and shall buy NO Israeli flutes until they are out of the West Bank ! So there !
Keep it. -+
Unless we want to go back to political postings in the forums… which would be fine with me. But Dale would have conniptions. At least Dale cares about poverty, hunger, and oppression in the world outside of music. Most other WL posters could give a rat’s ass about the rest of the world.