Sunday, September 22, 2013

How to Really Stop Terrorism


There seems to be a lot of confusion about how to go about stopping terrorism. Many people foolishly advocate a “Kill 'Em All, Let God Sort 'Em Out” attitude towards the Middle East and believe that violence is the answer. There is a large problem with the so-called solution of these war mongers, however. They do not understand the history of the region and their views are horribly short-sighted and counterproductive.

While I am by no means an expert on the Middle East, I've been reading a lot of books about US foreign policy the last several months, and the history of US involvement there, along with Middle Eastern history in general. I firmly believe I know what is driving many of these extremists and it's not mostly religion, as a few of my Skeptic Ink colleagues believe it is. How will I demonstrate this? By citing the very words of those responsible for the terrorist attacks and the mostly non-religious grievances the Arab world has against the US.

What Specific Grievances Does the Middle Eastern World Have Against the US?

I have covered this topic in relation to the drone war, but I have not discussed the long-lasting grievances that Muslims harbor due to US actions in the region for the last several decades.

Contrary to the US propaganda it is not a “hatred” of Western values or democracy or even freedom that causes much of the Muslim world to hate the US. As a matter of fact, the bulk of the Arab world want precisely that: democracy and freedom. In addition, contrary to many atheist bloggers religion is also not as much of a factor as is often claimed.

It is precisely the actions in the Middle East by Western powers that have so turned the Muslim world against the US. Such actions include: In Iran, in 1953, the CIA aided MI6 (Britain's Intelligence Service) in overthrowing the democratically-elected leader Mohammad Mosaddegh because he wanted to nationalize Iran's oil. Due to the US and Europe's interest in Middle Eastern oil (and nothing has changed since) these two governments did not like Iran pushing out US and European interests so they decided to overthrow Mosaddegh. In his place, the Shah, who was much more favorable to US and European oil interests, implemented a brutal dictatorship that committed many human rights violations, including torture. The Truman administration turned a blind eye to these atrocities. [1] To quote Fawaz A. Gerges, a professor of Middle Eastern Politics, on this issue:


American officials overlooked how Iranian opinion would view their intimate associations with the shah, especially (as his regime matured) his repressive policies and widespread violation of human rights. Iranians viewed America as an accomplice of their tormentor, as providing him with pivotal political and military support and bolstering his rule. Anti-American sentiment took hold of the Iranian imagination. [2]

An enormous factor that has enraged the Arab world against the US is the West's unwavering support of Israel. After the first World War Britain's control over Palestine became a heavy burden due to the opposition of the native Palestinians who wanted freedom and independence. Britain turned the problem over to the United Nations who convened a panel of eleven members to solve the issue. Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia discussed how to resolve the issue. Eight out of the eleven members eventually decided upon partitioning Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. The states that voted against the resolution (Iran, India, and Yugoslavia), as it turns out, correctly predicted that this solution would lead to much more violence. [3] The US began to actively support Israel during the Truman administration, who lobbied Congress to partition Palestine into Arab and Jewish territories. [4]

Anger towards the US in the Arab world intensified after the 1990 invasion of Iraq into Kuwait, and the ensuing international coalition, lead by the US, nicknamed Desert Storm, to expel Iraqi forces. Despite the outward appearance of good intentions by the US, the fact remains that the US used this war as a pretext to “consolidate American control of the oil fields by establishing permanent military bases in the Saudi kingdom.” [5]

Enter Osama bin Laden and the rise of Al Qaeda.

It was after the invasion of the US during Desert Storm that Al Qaeda began attacking US troops stationed in the Middle East and attacking US interests in the region. The first attack came on December 29, 1992 in Yemen when Al Qaeda detonated a bomb at the Gold Mohur hotel, where US troops had been staying. The troops had already left earlier prior to the explosion, but the blast killed two Australian tourists. It was the belief of bin Laden and other Arabs that “American actions in the Gulf War and afterward” were “part of a US conspiracy to establish military bases and dominate Muslim lands and siphon away their oil resources.” [6]

However, it was ten years earlier when the US first earned bin Laden's ire. This was the US's support of Israel's 1982 attack upon Lebanon that slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians. Bin laden explains his reasoning behind his ideological shift:

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. The bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorized and displaced I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood, and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high-rises demolished over their residents rockets raining down on our homes without mercy […] [7]

This excerpt is just a small part of a transcript of a speech given by bin Laden, explaining his motivations for his attacks upon the US. Here is the bulk of that transcript. Pay close attention to his reasons. Does religion crop up as a main reason, or is it the murder of thousands of innocent people at the hands of the US and their allies?

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. The bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorized and displaced I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood, and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high-rises demolished over their residents rockets raining down on our homes without mercy […] [7]
This excerpt is just a small part of a transcript of a speech given by bin Laden, explaining his motivations for his attacks upon the US. Here is the bulk of that transcript. Pay close attention to his reasons. Does religion crop up as a main reason, or is it the murder of thousands of innocent people at the hands of the US and their allies?
People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan and deals with the war and its causes and results. Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we didn't strike -- for example -- Sweden. And we know that freedom haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19. May Allah have mercy upon them.

No we fight you because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our Nation and just as you lay waste to our Nation, so shall we lay waste to yours. No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure whereas thinking people when disaster strikes make it their priority to look for its causes in order to prevent it happening again. But I am amazed at you even though we are in the 4th year after the events of Sept 11th. Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and I shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken for you to consider. I say to you Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers, but after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. The bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorized and displaced I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood, and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high-rises demolished over their residents rockets raining down on our homes without mercy the situations was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but didn't respond. In those difficult moments, many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors. And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children. And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy while resistance is terrorism and intolerance. This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr. did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children -- also in Iraq -- as Bush Jr. did in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages. So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs. (emphasis mine)

All of these historical events have created much hostility towards the West in the minds of Arabs across the Middle East. It has been these events, and the continuing drone attacks in the Middle East, and the continuing establishment of military bases there, that continue to inspire hatred against the US.

Having laid out my case (a very strong one I believe) that the root cause of Arab hostilities is US foreign policy in the Middle East I cannot forget the role that religion does indeed play. One of the greatest roles is the fact that US forces have occupied Muslim lands and they see this as an insult to their religion. A poll from 2007 highlights these political and religious reasons.

[A]n average of 79 percent of respondents in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia agreed that the United States had sought to “weaken and divide the Islamic world”; a similar percentage believed that America wanted “control over the oil resources of the Middle East.” An average of 64 percent contended that Washington wanted to spread Christianity in Muslim lands. Three-fourths of the respondents in the four countries supported the goal of getting American troops and bases out of the region. [8]

I wanted to give an overview (which do not even take into account many other actions in the Middle East, including Obama's drone wars and Europe's virtual theft of Iranian oil in the early 1900's [9]) of the various grievances the Middle East has with the US and how many people in the region perceive US actions. This historical context must be understood if we are to offer reasonable and long-lasting solutions to these conflicts.

Possible Solutions to the Conflicts

Now that we understand the historical backdrop of the current events we can discuss possible political solutions to these conflicts. First, I've already covered elsewhere why a law enforcement approach is the best way to stop and detain those who may or have caused harm to innocent people. It is more effective at stopping the cycle of violence and it helps to prevent the harm of innocent bystanders. Second, by going after the root of these conflicts a long-lasting peace is much more likely to be struck and maintained. Once past grievances have been put aside, the cycle of violence can stop, and healing can begin, and a newer future for these countries can begin.

1. Urge the US to attempt to make amends for past and current misdeeds, such as the overthrowing of the democratically-elected Mosaddegh in Iran and support for other dictatorships in the region, such as Hosni Mubarak (before his ouster at the hands of the Egyptian revolution), Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi (prior to his overthrow and murder at the hands of the National Transitional Council forces), and the current Bahraini dictatorship, which hosts the US Navy's fifth fleet.

2. Stop the economic and military support of Israel. I believe it would be most fair to move all settlements back to the pre-1967 borders, per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which states:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force

Due to the US's large amounts of economic and military aid it should not be that difficult to force Israel's hand in the matter.

3. Remove all military bases and service members from the Middle East.

4. Pay reparations to Iraq, Iran, Palestine, and every other Middle Eastern country the US has harmed due to its foreign policy decisions (invasions, economic sanctions, sabotage (the Stuxnet virus that the Obama administration released upon Iran's nuclear facilities come to mind), etc.). [10]

5. Help prop up the economies of many Middle Eastern countries that have been damaged by US sanctions, US interventions, and terrorist activities. Raising up the economies will starve the radical Muslim population of the support they gain by the destitute living conditions and US actions. In this way, radical groups will be marginalized, rather than strengthened, as is happening now with the US's current policy decisions in the region. To quote Jeremy Scahill on the issue,

But, as happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, this strategy appear[s] to fuel the movements that created those “bad guys” in the first place. “If you use the drone, and the selected killings, and do nothing else on the other side, then you get rid of individuals. But the root causes are still there,” observed the former Somali foreign minister, Ismail Mahmoud “Buubaa” Hurre. “The root causes are not security. The root causes are political and economic.” [11]

Conclusion

I've laid out the motivations of the radical Muslim groups and have shown that violence will not solve the core issues. What needs to happen is a stop to the cycle of violence and a true reconciliation. Only by following many of the above guidelines and resolving long-standing grievances can the tension and hostilities finally end.



1. Understanding Iran: Everything You Need to Know, From Persia to the Islamic Republic, From Cyrus to Ahmadinejad, by William R. Polk, Palgrave-Macmillan, 2011; 111-115

2. Obama and the Middle East: The End of America's Moment?, by Fawaz A. Gerges, Palgrave-Macmillan, 2013; 40

3. Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S., by Trita Parsi, Yale University Press, 2007; 19-20

4. Obama and the Middle East; 31

5. Understanding Iran; 62

6. Obama and the Middle East; 63

7. The Washington Post: “Transcript: Translation of Bin Laden's Videotaped Message” November 1, 2004 - accessed 9-11-13

8. Obama and the Middle East; 7

9. Understanding Iran; 95

10. The New York Times: “Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran” June 1, 2012 - accessed 9-13-13

11. Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, by Jeremy Scahill, Nation Books, 2013; 494

12 comments:

  1. Hi, AA-

    A fine column. But it is sort of ironic that you advocate a "law enforcement" approach when you don't even believe in law enforcement, of a public nature. Are we as individuals to donate to whatever freelance Blackwater-type group is engaged in doing this "law enforcement", in the international arena?

    And then there is the issue of law enforcement where there are no laws. The geneva conventions and the like to not recognize or deal with non-uniformed, unlawful combatants. They have been routinely executed in past wars.

    But those are minor points. The overall idea is correct, that the middle easterners are in an "honor" culture par excellence, and are highly sensitive to their weakness, in economic, geopolitical, military, and cultural terms. I think the idea of making reparations is ridiculous, but we can do a great deal more to be helpful to underdeveloped countries as you note. And we definitely need to lean harder on Israel to accede to a better solution with the palestinians- they are immoral in that regard, and create a perpetual irritant.

    But withdrawing our military forces? I think you make the mistake of taking Bin Laden as the democratic mouthpiece of the whole middle east, which as far as I recall, he was not and is not. There are many who welcome the US umbrella, which has kept the peace in many places around the world, including Europe, Latin America, and Asia. I for one think we could do something more productive in Syria than letting it fall into the hands of Al Qaeda, which is the current trend.

    The international area is truly one where anarchy reigns, and power, not law, is the coin of the realm. Terror is one form of power, but a very poor one from many perspectives- one that almost no one wants to see triumphant. The Arab world has been positively taking up the ideas of democracy and better governance, and the US has been playing a somewhat positive role in that process, at least recently (Egypt, Libya, Algeria). It is clear we are not opposed to democracy as we used to be. But what about the democracy of Iran? Is it democratic? Is it not a miserable excuse for theocracy? We made a grievous error there, but so did the Iranians themselves, falling for the Ayatollah et al. So we should let bygones be bygones, and keep doing what little we can to nudge democracy and economic & cultural development forward, as gingerly as possible. And I think that is what Obama has been doing, with the exception of Israel, where he has been pusillanimous.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Burk,

    Long time no see. Regarding law enforcement, I could just as easily cite the thousands of times the government-run monopoly police agencies have murdered or needlessly detained innocent people. And governments have done what to help put a stop to this continuous abuse? Given the government's tendency to turn into virtual dictatorships (even democracies, as the US is proving now), governments are clearly not the answer. There must be another way of organizing a society that makes this less likely, which is my focus. No laws??? When have I said there would be no laws??? The Middle East isn't an anarchy. I think it best to ignore the rest your comments about my alleged views since you still don't seem to understand them. I'm guessing by now that you must be severely afflicted with cognitive dissonance, since we've discussed my views on a number of occasions, so it cannot be a matter of mere ignorance.

    Leaving those misrepresentations aside, my focus was on terrorism and judging from my reading the above reasons are some of the main causes. Even if the US accomplished all of the above (which I know it will likely never happen) there would still be some violence in the Middle East, but I don't believe the US should play “police man” and get embroiled in every conflict in the world.

    I disagree with your assessment that the US is “not opposed to democracy as we used to be.” The US has almost never been a proponent of democracy, whether at home or abroad. The reason the US supports these Middle Eastern dictatorships is precisely because there won't be any democracies for the people. The US wants people in charge in the Middle East who will essentially be the US's sock puppet and go along with whatever plans the US has for the region. If the US allows true democracies to flourish, they lose their control over the Middle East (and its resources) because they cannot control the populations through their dictatorships, who will likely do what is in their best interests, and not the US's.

    I do agree that the situation in the Middle East is complicated and there isn't a one-size fits all solution, but I think the above would go along way in helping to put a stop to some of the violence, particularly terrorist-related violence against the US.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sheesh- never a proponent of democracy? An odd sentiment coming from someone who lives here. What other country would you prefer to live in? Anyhow, what is the status of Iraq right now? A democracy. What is the status of Afghanistan right now? A democracy. They are far, far from the perfection we have achieved(!), but their popular will is the coin of the realm, insofar as that can be expressed via ballots. In Iraq, the Sunni are out and the Shia in, purely through the working of democracy. In Afghanistan, ballots certainly don't work the way we think they are supposed to, but that is hardly our fault- they have a patriarchal, tribal culture which is how it works, however much we say different.

    As far as other countries go, like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the like.. we didn't set them up, and it isn't our fault that we deal with whoever is there in power. Would you prefer that we dismantle them, which would be by force? Obviously not. Would you prefer that we not deal with them, which means that we not get their products and political friendship? Doesn't sound like you are a deep student of history here. I certainly agree that we could be a little more arms' length and fair-minded, but most of the problems you cite are not current ones, they are long-past.

    Take Egypt, for instance. Which way have we been pressuring there, and what effect has our influence had? We put up with the Morsi government, and would have kept doing so. I do not believe that we actively encouraged the coup or its rather extreme aftermath. It would be interesting to hear otherwise, but I am not privy to those details. My belief is that, as in the other Arab spring countries, we consistently have advocated for democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. OK- here is a somewhat unpretty picture of recent US influence in Egypt. I think that some of that money was poorly spent. But in most instances, this funding is just what it says it is.. pro-democracy funding for various civil society groups.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sheesh- never a proponent of democracy? An odd sentiment coming from someone who lives here. What other country would you prefer to live in? Anyhow, what is the status of Iraq right now? A democracy. What is the status of Afghanistan right now? A democracy.

    First, I said, almost never. However, what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan is precisely what I said the US often did. They took out leaders in the region who were less attentive to US interests and installed people who were. I wouldn't call those a democracy. Isn't a democracy a place where the people decide who is to be in power, and not another government? And I find your definition of “democracy” to be strange... Iraq is a good example.

    As far as other countries go, like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the like.. we didn't set them up, and it isn't our fault that we deal with whoever is there in power.; OK- here is a somewhat unpretty picture of recent US influence in Egypt.

    Second, I find your excuses odd when the US deals with brutal dictatorships like Bahrain. You claim the US supports democracy, but you then downplay the fact that the US supports a dictatorship! And Bahrain is by far not the only example. Even your link proves my point. The article said, “The State Department's programme, dubbed by US officials as a 'democracy assistance' initiative, is part of a wider Obama administration effort to try to stop the retreat of pro-Washington secularists, and to win back influence in Arab Spring countries that saw the rise of Islamists, who largely oppose US interests in the Middle East.” The US is doing in Egypt what it has always done. It doesn't care about the will of the people – hell, they ousted the peoples' elected president! - they care about their own interests. Just because the US propaganda machine calls something democratic doesn't mean it is.

    Doesn't sound like you are a deep student of history here. I certainly agree that we could be a little more arms' length and fair-minded, but most of the problems you cite are not current ones, they are long-past.

    It is because I read so much about history that I know what has taken place over the last several decades. It's a real shame that most Americans aren't familiar with many of these episodes in American history. Or, if they are, they downplay them, as you do. You might be interested to read this. As the link discussing Egypt demonstrates, it's “business as usual” for the US and their actions abroad. They're doing what they've always done since the creation of the Monroe Doctrine, which they've used as an excuse to invade nearly every country in the world in order to further their interests as well as that of US corporations.

    The many news stories about NSA surveillance, the shredding of the Constitution, the brutal crackdown on peaceful protests, ala Occupy Wall Street, etc. that are occurring at this very moment in this supposed “democracy” should make people stand up and take notice. And please, don't bother responding with, “You're an anarchist and you're upset the Constitution is being shredded?” Yes. As I've said, I do not oppose law. What I oppose is that law is misused and stupid laws are forced on people without their consent. Laws are the underpinning of society. Society could not function without them, so of of course I'm all for law.

    But one thing is for sure, the US is not for democratic rule. If it were, it would listen to the will of the people at home more often who want a change in policies. But again, it's “business as usual.”

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi, AA-

    I'll stipulate that the US is not simply a selfless do-good actor on the world stage. We have interests as well as principles, and our policies and actions further each goal. So when democracy promotion serves our interests, as it often does, I think we are honest enough in promoting it. When they are in oppposition, we often let democracy die, as in Egypt at the moment, wherever that is headed.

    Your link on Iraq was completely beside the point of whether Iraq is now in essence a democracy. No one said it was perfect, or peaceful, and nor is the US. Iraq is hardly the only corrupt country in the world, under or not under US sponsorship.

    I would ask you what your implied principle of supporting jihadists and islamists in the middle east in the lip service of democracy would accomplish. They would not institute actual democracies, as one can tell by the way things were going in Egypt (and Gaza). There is an enormous danger of jumping from the frying pan of authoritarianism and corrupt democracy into the fire of theocracy, as seen in Iran, and Afghanistan under the Taliban. Apart from our own interests, this does not serve their own populations. So we have to be realistic about what true democracy really takes, which includes civil institutions, some ground rules of political forebearance, etc. These ingredients are not always present.

    Example Bahrain.. we do not "support" Bahrain. We deal with them, and would prefer a democracy there to a monarchy. But we don't run the country- never have. I am not sure what you mean by "supporting". We need to deal with friends all over the world. We would not get very far if we took a purist stance of shooting ourselves in the feet by not dealing with existing governments to pursue mutual interests. Certainly there is a tension between this realism and pure promotion of democracy. It played out most acutely in the case of China. What has all our harping on civil rights and democracy accomplished there? Very little. Our position is clear, and we do what we can, which is not much.

    Taking the broad view, let's look at the list you link to by Mr Blum, of world-wide interventions. China- should we have supported the communists instead of the nationalists? That would have promoted democracy! It turns out that Taiwan is now a democracy, and PRC is not. Indeed, the majority of the countries mentioned on this list are now democracies, with the exceptions of PRC, Vietnam, and Cuba, each one a place were our intervention was unsuccessful instead of successful! In historical view, I would say that is an excellent track record, showing that our ideals are now, if not always in the past, in the right place.

    Turning to the NSA, constitution shredding, occupy, etc.. these are internal matters, up to our democratically elected representatives to deal with or ignore, as they see fit. Much of this is secret, necessarily or unnecessarily, but your vote is what tells, indirectly, your representative and thus the people responsible, what to do about it. It certainly makes me uncomfortable, though we have given corporations far more access to our personal lives, without seeming to get too upset about it. I think you give the government far too much credit for its sinister ways and intentions, when looking in the mirror would yield quite a bit more culpability.

    it is good to hear you are all for laws. Which doesn't quite square with anarchism as I understand it, But then I don't know very much about the field. Laws require enforcement, judiciary, checks and balances, taxes.. eventually you get the whole ball of wax of the state.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So when democracy promotion serves our interests, as it often does, I think we are honest enough in promoting it. When they are in oppposition, we often let democracy die, as in Egypt at the moment, wherever that is headed.

    At least you're honest enough to admit this. Good start.

    Your link on Iraq was completely beside the point of whether Iraq is now in essence a democracy. No one said it was perfect, or peaceful, and nor is the US. Iraq is hardly the only corrupt country in the world, under or not under US sponsorship.

    If you would have read the article, there is no democracy there, at least nothing that could meaningfully be called one. This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of those living there after the US destroyed their country.

    Example Bahrain.. we do not "support" Bahrain. We deal with them, and would prefer a democracy there to a monarchy. But we don't run the country- never have. I am not sure what you mean by "supporting". We need to deal with friends all over the world. We would not get very far if we took a purist stance of shooting ourselves in the feet by not dealing with existing governments to pursue mutual interests

    This is what I mean about your lack of knowledge of world events. Despite the Bahraini government being a dictatorship which uses mass violence and force against its population, the US continues to send both weapons the government uses to suppress the popular uprisings, but also monetary assistance. So, yes, I think that very much qualifies as “support.”

    Taking the broad view, let's look at the list you link to by Mr Blum, of world-wide interventions. China- should we have supported the communists instead of the nationalists? That would have promoted democracy! It turns out that Taiwan is now a democracy, and PRC is not. Indeed, the majority of the countries mentioned on this list are now democracies, with the exceptions of PRC, Vietnam, and Cuba, each one a place were our intervention was unsuccessful instead of successful! In historical view, I would say that is an excellent track record, showing that our ideals are now, if not always in the past, in the right place.

    The people of China in the 1940's-1950's wanted a communist government because in the Nationalist-controlled areas freedom had been suppressed. This actually aided in the popularity of the Communists. Of course, rather than allowing the Chinese to elect who they wanted to lead them, the US comes in and aids the Nationalists. Ergo, the US stiffed democracy from taking place: the will of the people dictating what direction their country ought to go. Unfortunately, the Chinese couldn't predict what would happen, but not all Communist countries have been as oppressive as Mao's, such as in Latin America. Though, Chiang Kai-Shek, the leader the US supported, wasn't much better since he lead a dictatorship. Not that this bothered the US leadership at the time, since he was anti-Communist enough for their tastes. Putting aside for the moment the fact that we have the advantage of hindsight, the US still stifled the peoples' will and that is undemocratic to the core.

    I find it odd how you equate bombing, killing, and the support of dictatorships an example of an “excellent track record.” Either way, democracy did not come by way of the brutality inflicted upon them by the US, but by the people themselves. Iraq and Afghanistan ought to be recent lessons in that fact.

    Many of the people the US governments supported were tyrants. No better if not worse than the Communists. But this just leads back to my point. The US's foreign policies in these regions had more to do with expanding US corporations' business interests overseas than democracy.

    Cont.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Turning to the NSA, constitution shredding, occupy, etc.. these are internal matters, up to our democratically elected representatives to deal with or ignore, as they see fit. Much of this is secret, necessarily or unnecessarily, but your vote is what tells, indirectly, your representative and thus the people responsible, what to do about it. It certainly makes me uncomfortable, though we have given corporations far more access to our personal lives, without seeming to get too upset about it. I think you give the government far too much credit for its sinister ways and intentions, when looking in the mirror would yield quite a bit more culpability.

    I agree that many people grant too much access to private information by private companies. But I think you're missing the point. When dealing with companies, for the most part, we decide what to give to them. On the other hand, the government is snooping in on personal communications and activities that not even private companies would have access to in many cases. Plus, the US government is blatantly breaking their own wiretap and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Stored Communications Act, not to mention the Constitution and other countries' sovereignty, but that's another subject.

    You say you're “uncomfortable” with knowing that the government is peering into every aspect of all of our lives, but you also seem as if you've taken an approach that could be summed up as, “Well, yes I don't like that I'm being monitored 24/7 but it's the government and they must have good reasons to violate the law and my privacy.” If this is your view I would very much hope you'd reconsider. I think this is a good time to point out something that you seem to be missing. It's the fact that despite huge public outcry (Occupy, the demands to stop the spy program, etc.) is the government doing anything meaningful about them? No. A majority are defending them and the programs no doubt will continue, in direct violation of the peoples' will (not to mention all laws). Does that sound like a democracy to you? The US is fast slipping into a state of fascism and I do not care where it is headed.

    it is good to hear you are all for laws. Which doesn't quite square with anarchism as I understand it, But then I don't know very much about the field. Laws require enforcement, judiciary, checks and balances, taxes.. eventually you get the whole ball of wax of the state.

    Actually, laws and anarchism are entirely compatible, as I've tried to get across to your for quite some time... But as you admit, I think you ought to read up on the subject more so if you're going to criticize it, at least know what you're criticizing. I think that's a fair assessment, don't you think? If you'd like I can suggest a few books. And to be fair, are there any books you'd recommend? I'm on a huge reading kick right now so I'm devouring a lot of material.

    ReplyDelete
  9. For your reading, I would recommend anything by Mancur Olsen, a classic theorist of collective action. And in economic terms, anything by Douglass North, on institutions.

    I appreciate what you are saying, and it is fair to say that here in the US, our democracy is highly imperfect, in that the 1% have 90% of the influence. It is a huge problem. But fascism? Hardly. You don't seem to appreciate the sheer incompetence and bumbling that obviates all the paranoid scenarios you entertain. Our enormous security state can not even get itself funded on a regular basis via the congress, which (the house at least) is currently in the hands of a bunch of clowns. It can not find wanted people with much more efficiency than it could fifty years ago, I would bet. And it does not run the propaganda.. that is in the hands of FOX news. A real fascist state is something quite different altogether, and your reading of history should make that clear.

    Though the Bush administration was heading in that direction, admittedly. But the surveillance state we have, such as it is, is not currently used to punish political enemies, dehumanize minorities further than the regular political process does, destroy opposing political parties, or draft all resources into militaristic campaigns. The only point I would agree on is that some constitutional strictures have definitely been evaded (search and seizure). But this is part and parcel of the general atmosphere of non-accountability that has grown up in Washington, seen in the non-prosecution of financial crimes as well. We certainly have work to do, but fascism it ain't.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for the recommendations. I think a few good books that have been influential for me are Chalmers Johnson's “Blowback series” (Blowback (2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis (2006)); books by Noam Chomsky and William Blum.

    If you look at the definition of fascism I think what has been occurring has some very strong parallels: There has been a strong emphasis on militarism the last several years, those in power are obviously hostile to liberal democracy since most citizens' rights that would be considered standard in such a society have pretty much fallen by the way side. Examples include freedom of speech, the right of protest, privacy, and related to freedom of speech is that those in power are very threatened by mere critics of their policiesand consider such people “threats.” In addition, the tremendous power that the office of the president now has is probably more than at any time in history. Obama is breaking laws left and right, imprisoning people who embarrass the government, etc. with no accountability. Sadly, a majority in Congress seems to have bought this narrative, that the president can pretty much do what he wants. And of course, the US government hates any form of socialism and has tried to wipe out all traces of it. Even those governments that have successful socialist economies, such as Latin America, the US has pursued with economic sanctions.

    I will concede the point that the description isn't 100% accurate but I think it does fit many of the current administration's actions.

    Yes, this government is certainly not very bright, but that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. They've proven that with the lengths they will go to stifle criticism, silent dissenters, and throw anyone in jail (whistles blowers) who dare expose government wrong-doing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi, AA-

    Let me make two points. One is a historical precedent. I may read some of the Chalmers Johnson work. But I think you are both a little over-exercised. One of the biggest empires the world has ever seen was.. Britain. And did they fall into fascism? Even during the historical epoch when (real) fascism was all the rage? No, they did not. They actually transitioned increasingly from monarchy towards democracy even while maintaining, and then gradually (reluctantly) winding down, this enormous empire, which was far more costly and invasive, and direct, that the sort-of empire the US has today.

    So the equation that Johnson attempts to make of empire-> inexorably to fascism and Roman-style imperium, is falsified by history, at least in the case to which we have the closest cultural relationship.

    Secondly, and more broadly, I think your suspicions are somewhat misplaced. The primary power in the US today is the rich and the corporations. They run FOX news, they have one party fully in their pocket and the other, partly. They are running a class war, trying to unwind all the progressive accomplishments of the last century such as bank regulation, social insurance, labor power, progressive taxation. These are enormously important policies that fight against the natural order of things, which is that the rich get richer, and get more powerful, which makes them richer, etc... It is the ultimate non-virtuous cycle, which I think is what ultimately destroyed Rome, both its republic and its existence.

    What the means is that the democratic state is the only mechanism we have to roll back this natural progression of capitalism / free market power / inequality, which without regulation and amelioration will make us, if not fascist, then a banana republic. So for all the defects of the democratic (or quasi-) state, it is the key that I personally have to defend rational (and pro-people) public policies like the progressive income tax, the minimum wage, the social insurance policies like obamacare and social security which create civilized conditions for the culture at large, and many other goods which otherwise, in a corporatized world, would never be created, immiserating millions.

    So when I hear you rail against the state, in overblown terms, I see a 5th columnist on the side of corporations, which are far from exemplars of the free market. They are sucking at the government teat themselves, even as they work to disenfranchise and ruin the poor and the middle class. They have a legal racket of enriching themselves (the CEOs and similar executives) by basically embezzling their corporation's wealth, due to the inherently defective governance of the shareholder and corporate board systems. The financial crisis showed in stark detail the trillions that the broader society lost to this predatory class. We need a countervailing power, and that is the state.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Burk,

    Actually, I think the US has a greater likeness to the Roman Empire than Britain, since it was that form of government that most inspired the founders. Which is ironic, given that it was also Rome that succumbed to a military dictatorship. Despite Rome's checks and balances it devolved into a dictatorship and that is where I fear the US is now headed. As of now, the president has sole discretion to wage wars, imprison even citizens indefinitely as just two of the most extreme examples. Similarly, Rome's senate became complaisant about the powers that the leaders grabbed on to, and it seems the US is at that point as well. The senate hasn't done much of anything to stop these abuses. More often than not they continue to support these gross violations. At this point, I believe a revolution might be the only way back. But only time will tell. You may also be right that these checks might wind these abuses back, but I'm not very optimistic at this point.

    Yes, Britain did relinquish its empire, but not only after many battles in its attempt to keep it. But, in the end, the people rose up and fought against it. And the same thing may happen here... and maybe not. Though, I am pleased to see the massive up swell of protests against the near war with Syria, which seems to be a dramatic shift against empire, unlike the flag waving that took place during the second Iraq war.

    I agree that these corporations are using state power to to their own ends, and I hate it just as much as you and every one else. My point has always been that it is the state that engenders this stark inequality. The state is the enabler of these kinds of actions, almost uniformly throughout history. I think it's important to remember who are the people in power: rich people. Who are the people who run the corporations: rich people. All these people stick together, and while a lot of people don't like the term “class warfare,” based upon all I know about history and what I see happening now, I can't help but think that's what's taking place. One group is using the power of the state to suppress another group.
    With the ever revolving door between corporations and government the state will only exist to feed the wealthy and powerful. The question then becomes, what do we do to reverse this? You advocate using the very power that's being used to suppress us and our freedoms, but who controls the power? The wealthy. So, why would the wealthy give up these advantages to favor a group that they don't seem to care much about, meaning the common people? This is why I believe a new revolution may be the only path toward real change. The next question becomes, how to best formulate a society that is fair towards all groups and all people. That's a tough one and I'm not sure about that answer anymore.

    I've often wondered, should a new revolution take place, and should a new state form, who will control it? And will the exact same thing happen again at some point? Given historical precedents I think it's a sure thing. So how can be stop this from happening? Unless revolutions are the only way to reset the system, so to speak. Maybe that's just the way things have to be? But my thought has always been to try to devise a way to avoid violence if at all possible. But again, maybe that's just not realistic.

    That's my thought process on the matter.

    ReplyDelete

This blog is no longer active and is not accepting any new comments. Thanks.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.