Category Archives: Foreign policy

Look at the flowers…

The release this past week of the Senate’s “Study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program” has exposed the dark underbelly of intelligence gathering to the bright daylight of public opinion. This is a good thing (the exposure, not the torture). The release of this information and subsequent national soul-searching reflects the somewhat schizophrenic nature of the American soul (insofar as a country can have such a thing). We, as a nation, are able to strike out and destroy anything that might be harmful while simultaneously being filled with remorse for doing so. “Look at the flowers… look at the flowers” (Walking Dead reference).

So while it is heartening to see the justifiable outrage of those who have learned of the sadistic crimes committed in the name of their “safety”, it is equally discouraging to witness a vigorously jingoistic defense of these crimes. The most common defense offered is a plausibly reasonable one: it produced actionable intelligence that saved lives. You know, the greater good and all. Unfortunately for that narrative, according to the published report, that is not the case. At best the torture only confirmed information that had already been acquired elsewhere using non-torture means.  At worst, people were tortured to prove a negative. That is, the CIA didn’t think the detainees knew anything of value, but they tortured them anyway just to make sure. Let me repeat that so the enormity of that evil sinks in. They tortured people they thought were innocent and of no intelligence value.

The more reprehensible torture defense is the “I just don’t care” defense. This is most succinctly portrayed in a burgeoning Internet meme depicting a person falling from the World Trade Center with the text overlaid “This is why I don’t give a damn how we gathered information from terrorists.” Yes, 9/11 was an awful, horrific, tragic event, but it is a complete non sequitur to conclude that anything done in the name of preventing something similar or finding those responsible is justifiable. For example, the US could nuke every country on the face of the earth except ours – that would definitely prevent another 9/11 and kill the perpetrators – but that doesn’t make such an action “ok”. So if we rightly repudiate the notion of killing billions of innocents to punish the guilty, we should also repudiate the killing (or torture) of even one innocent. It’s not worth it. Why? Well ask yourself how you would feel about that proposition if you were the one innocent person. Not so gung ho now.

Did the CIA likely have some really bad people in custody? Yes. But they also (based on the report data) had a lot of totally innocent people as well. The reason we don’t (or shouldn’t) engage in torture is the same reason we have an innocent until proven guilty court system; it is not out of concern for the guilty, but rather concern for the innocent. This protects you and me from being thrown in prison or tortured on the mere word or hunch of somebody; “so you say Jane’s a witch (terrorist) do you? Well that’s all the information I need, let’s go kill her.”

Should the suspected terrorists have a trial? Yes, every last one in custody. Otherwise how can anyone know if they are actually terrorists? If there is proof, then there should be no problem getting a conviction. But, if you subscribe to the notion that we won’t always have concrete proof, that sometimes we just have to go on conjecture, hearsay, or hunches, then here’s hoping you never end up in a prison of a like-minded country.

ISIS IS US

Hunting conjures up war-like imagery: guns, knives, arrows, booby traps and of course camouflage. Hunting is necessarily an overtly violent affair. Farming on the other hand invokes a more pastoral and peaceful mindset. Sure, intellectually we know killing must occur on a farm, but it is clean and clinical, so that makes it civilized. But dead is dead. The means may be different, but the ends are the same.

No, this is not some vegan polemic. The point is that we too live on a farm otherwise known as the state. Our ancestors and we have inhabited the farm for so long we have contrived the comfortable illusion that orderly and civilized violence isn’t really violence at all. We have convinced ourselves that because we are a nation of laws, of rules and order, and that we engage in the very civilized process of democratic elections to collectively decide the rules of society, then that makes us better than barbaric invaders who hunt their surroundings and take what they want. But whether one is robbed at gunpoint or by way of a Form 1040 one is just as impoverished by the process (and resistance to the latter will end just as violently). This idea of democratic self-determination is nothing more than an illusion. It is a Potemkin village that we have unwittingly built that mollifies our passions and so permits our owners, the state bureaucracies, to extract from us the fruits of our labor in order to parasitically advance themselves.

 

violence is the fertilizer that ensures strong roots for the state

 

In recent weeks we have witnessed the birth of a new state: ISIS. ISIS is still in the “hunter” stage of state formation. They have not yet collected enough “citizens” to form a proper, modern, farming state like we have in the US (and other countries). Once the farm-state is established the overt violence fades from the foreground while intimidation and threats rise in the background. This hunter-state formation is a bloody, violent, disgusting affair no doubt. But it is one that all states pass through, as violence is the fertilizer that ensures strong roots for the state.

Although the hunting and farming state differ in form, their substance is identical. Consider the following: the US says to foreigners, “Do what we say or we will have no choice but to kill you.” Inevitably the US sends drones, missiles, planes, troops, mines, and bombs – all agents of death. Similarly, ISIS tells people “Do what we say or we will kill you.” Those that do not comply are beheaded or shot. But dead is dead. Does it matter if done by the sword or the drone? Or would it be uncontroversial if ISIS killed by lethal injection?

Now consider the people ISIS did not kill – those who capitulated to their demands. They chose to comply with “the law” rather than suffer the consequences. This preference for submission over death is the same glue that maintains order here as well. We have “laws” that are just as arbitrary as Sharia “law.” A law that pertains to anything other than murder, rape or theft is no law at all. It is a mere edict that masquerades as law because some believe the ends justify the means. And why are such pseudo-laws obeyed? Violence. Non-compliance with pseudo-laws here results in the same outcome resisters of ISIS encounter there: death. Consider what would happen if pseudo-law A were ignored (insert any law you find absurd). The individual doing so might be fined first. If they ignored the fine, they might then be prosecuted in a court of the state. If they ignored that illegitimate process the state would send its agents (police) to confiscate property or arrest the individual. If the individual passively resisted and did not comply with “lawful orders” to willingly submit to being jailed then the encounter would eventually escalate to drawn weapons. Further passive resistance ensures this would eventually escalate to an “officer involved” shooting of the non-compliant citizen.

If you ignore the “authority” of the state, if you refuse to believe it has no more authority over your life than does your neighbor, well, the state doesn’t take kindly to that. If we all were to engage in non-violent non-submission to authority, the true nature of the state would quickly become apparent and all would see it is the US pot that calls the ISIS kettle black.

P.S. And no, I don’t “hate America” – I hate bullies that initiate aggression or threats of aggression to get their way.

Middle Eastern Chess – Check!

So let me see if I have this straight. Even though there was zero evidence that Iraq was involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001 or that Al-Qaida had any operational presence in Iraq, the US invaded Iraq anyway. This resulted in nearly half a million dead Iraqi’s, close to a million Iraqi orphans and a death toll of US military personnel that more than doubled the carnage of September 11. The invasion was the light that brought on the moth-like focus of Al-Qaida to that region. Not content with that mess, the US unilaterally decided to depose Gadhafi, thereby creating a power vacuum in Libya that allowed Al-Qaida influenced forces to move in. The US then fomented instability in Syria by backing Al-Qaida linked rebels there in the hope that they might overthrow Assad. Now with the entire region destabilized, an Al-Qaida splinter group (ISIS – Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) managed to seize Mosul (Iraq’s second largest city) last week using money and equipment the US funneled to its destabilizing pawns in Libya and Syria. With the capture of Mosul they have further enriched their US equipment arsenal (left behind by the fleeing Iraqi army). This situation is so upside down that the US is actually receiving invitations from the Iranians for joint operations to battle ISIS in Iraq. Brilliant. How did we get here? For years the US supported a number of Middle Eastern dictators as long as they supported a Petrodollar based economy that ensured the free flow of cheap oil to the US. But when our pet dictators stopped behaving, the US tried to displace them with more malleable US-friendly social democracies. Unfortunately the exact opposite developed: US-hostile Islamic theocracies. They have a word for that: blowback.

Then again, US opposition to this shift in power (or the one presently underway in the Ukraine) is completely hypocritical. States may differ in ideology, but they all behave exactly the same. The current power shift merely exposes to public scrutiny the operations of the state normally hidden behind a wall of threats: violence by a select few who proclaim to speak for a majority in order that they may impose their will upon a wider population circumscribed by an arbitrary geopolitical boundary.

In fact nothing is really changing in any of these regions. The flags, slogans and draperies of the capital building may change, but the core violation of the right of the individual to live their life as they, and not others, see fit remains. So even though we may personally object to the precepts of Sharia law, are we objecting to the law itself, or are we objecting to its apparent imposition on the people? Would such objections evaporate if 51% of the people there desired Sharia law? Does majority opinion legitimize such laws? Before you answer that, consider this: ISIS is slowly fostering such communal consent via the oldest political trick in the book – bribery. ISIS is taking a page from the placate-the-people-playbook of modern social democracies. In both Syria and Iraq they have organized “dawa”, i.e. social welfare programs for the local populace (food, fuel, medicine) . And just as honeybees are calmed with smoke, so too are people calmed by the ephemeral gifts of those in power. ISIS is run not by warriors, but politicians with guns. Every politician knows that if you give the people something, they will give you their consent (vote) in return – in this case the price is not literal votes but implied consent to Sharia law. So, if you are for “freedom” and “democracy” and assuming you aren’t a total hypocrite then you should be ok with this extension of majoritarian communal consent. After all, democracy is nothing if not the concept that when some people freely make a choice, it is ok to impose that choice on everyone. But, if you realize democracy is the wool the state pulls over your eyes to fool you into believing you have control, then you will also recognize that majority opinion is as legitimate in determining how we should live our lives as a coin toss.

No Country for Assad’s Men

On August 31 President Obama revealed to the world that when it comes to executive decision-making he has apparently taken a page from the book used by President Bush. Just as Bush justified interventionism in the economy by proclaiming that he must “abandon free market principles to save the free market” so too does Obama likewise make the oxymoronic case that in order to maintain peace we must go to war.

Our “leaders” are only as powerful as the support we give them; upon its withdrawal they are as but infants.

So, it is off to war in Syria then. The reasoning Mr. Obama laid out was one part demagoguery, two parts fear mongering. He opened with the age-old politician’s ploy of invoking “the children”. He thusly reminds us of the deaths of several hundred children in the recent Syrian gas attacks. However this example is somewhat hypocritical considering the US government has killed at least a hundred children with its overseas drone strikes alone, to say nothing of the children “gassed to death by their own government” at Waco Texas in 1993. Say what you will of the leaders at Waco, certainly their children did not deserve to be burned alive by their own government.

He then segues into the same tired justification trotted out for all preemptive wars: the risk of what “might” come to pass. If we do nothing, then: it might make a mockery of prohibitions on chemical weapons, it might endanger our allies, it might lead to more chemical weapons. Might, might, might. Here’s a “might” for you Mr. President. If we keep our nose out of other country’s business then they “might” just figure out how to solve their own problems, without our help. The losing side “might” not blame us for their loss, in which case the US “might” not once again become the target of homicidal rage.

Secure in his reasoning, he smugly asserts that he is confident the US can hold the Syrian government accountable for their actions. Since a necessary condition for being accountable to some other entity is being subservient to said entity, then clearly this President (and his predecessors) views all other countries as being subservient to US authority. The United States, in their minds, is not so much a country as it is a global empire. And an empire must keep its quarrelsome protectorates in line. In the American Empire all countries, companies and individuals are accountable to the King or his Court, err, I mean the President or Congress. Let us hope China never decides they need to hold the US government accountable for its actions by bombing US civilians into the Stone Age.

But then, there was a glimmer of hope. Mr. Obama graciously acknowledged that even though he’s sure he is King and can do whatever he desires, he’s a nice guy after all and does have that annoying Nobel Peace Prize to live up to. So, he’s going to make us a deal. He shall deign to permit Congress to debate and vote on whether we should bomb Syria. How quaint – he’s going to actually follow the Constitution for once (which clearly states war may only be authorized by Congress (Article 1, Section 8)). I wonder how he’ll proceed if the vote doesn’t go his way. If that comes to pass then we will once and for all discover whether we have elected a President or a Führer.

Ok, enough bellyaching about what we shouldn’t do. What should we do? A humanitarian evacuation. Send our naval fleet to retrieve every civilian in Syria who wishes to escape the crossfire of a civil war and immigrate to the US or any other country that will permit them entry. Without a population to support them both the rebels and the Assad government will crumble from within. Our “leaders” are only as powerful as the support we give them; upon its withdrawal they are as but infants.

Breaking Bad

I’m old enough that I now find most entertainment to be fairly derivative and predictable. However the TV series “Breaking Bad” is a welcome exception. If you are not familiar with it but enjoy solidly unpredictable drama you owe it to yourself to look into it. The August 12 episode’s ending left the audience in a state of numbed denial [spoiler alert: stop here if you have not seen the episode yet]. The main characters have just clandestinely robbed a train of a key chemical needed to prepare crystal meth when a young boy on a motorbike happens them upon. Without a word one of them pulls out a gun and simply dispatches the boy as blithely as one would a troublesome fly. Why? Because the boy might say something which could lead to their arrest.

After the shock of witnessing the senseless onscreen (albeit fictional) death of a young innocent wore off I came to realize why this scene was so disturbing: this type of violence occurs routinely. The boy’s death is iconic of the reprehensible loss of civilian life in wars. In “traditional” wars civilians usually know where the front line is and can avoid it. Today that is impossible. The wars on “terror” and drugs occur on a global battlefield from which there is no escape. Innocence is no defense: you are just one street address typo away from no-knock raid carried out by machine gun festooned goons.

Apropos to the “preventive” murder depicted, the US repeatedly goes to war upon the same principal of “potential threat neutralization” (Spain-1898, Korea-1950, Vietnam-1965, Iraq-2003). Unsurprisingly the neocons and chicken hawks are now rattling their swords to do the same to other countries (Iran, Syria). We as a nation are engaging in the same onscreen behavior as the thieves in “Breaking Bad”: shooting first for fear of what might happen. This behavior is reprehensible at the individual level and at the national level. The moral validity of actions does not change based on the numbers that simultaneously engage in those actions.

The moral validity of actions does not change based on the numbers that simultaneously engage in those actions.

For parents there is no greater fear than contemplating the untimely death of your child. So consider what kind of a country would inflict on foreign parents our most horrid nightmare. The US has killed both directly (drone strikes) and indirectly (sanctions) hundreds of thousands of children through the cold indifference of our leaders. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright in a 1996 interview with 60 Minutes stated that “we think the price is worth it” when asked if the confirmed deaths of half a million Iraqi children due to UN sanctions was “worth it” in relation to the goals of those sanctions. The Bush administration fares no better: he (and Congress) restarted the Iraq war (of which even low estimates are 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties and authorized the use of torture. Likewise Obama has failed to live up to his 2009 Nobel Peace Price. He acts as a remote executioner via the deployment of the “judge, jury, and executioner” drone strikes that have killed countless civilians who are written off as “collateral damage.” Ah, yes, the ends always justify the means. Wake up America. We have “broken bad” and are now the “bad guys.” Would we tolerate Chinese drone strikes of Americans because China deemed them to be a potential “threat” ?

In terms of this country’s meddling, interventionist, blow-back prone foreign policy it doesn’t matter whether Obama or Romney wins; they will both continue our current wars and will have no qualms about starting new ones. If you are tired of the endless wars (drug and terror) and have no more desire for the blood of innocents to be on your hands by way of voting for the “lesser of two evils” (“hmmm… who should I vote for, Hitler or Stalin…”) then consider the alternative that the media is so afraid you might hear about they won’t even include him in national polls: Libertarian Party candidate for president Gary Johnson. 

Mind Your Own Business

Ron Paul is frequently accused of having an “isolationist” foreign policy. The media and the other republican candidates giddily overuse that word (perhaps because it has 5 syllables and they think it makes them sound erudite)…but in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya (The Princess Bride),

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Ron Paul’s foreign policy is one of non-interventionism, not isolationism.Isolationism means that a country cuts off diplomatic ties, closes its borders,and invokes high tariffs. That is not what Ron Paul is advocating at all.

Non-interventionism simply means we mind our own business. It means closing hundreds of foreign military bases. If the prospect of closing these bases is held as being “isolationist” then apparently Canada, China, and India are all “isolationist” as they lack foreign military bases. Is it really a threat to national security to close our bases in Germany, bases that are a relic of a war that ended 67 years ago and that exist in a country that poses no threat to us? What is the point? Are we afraid that if we close those bases suddenly Russia will invade Germany? Give me a break. Closing bases doesn’t mean we forego operational readiness. Water covers 70% of the planet, so a strong ocean presence will ensure that we are capable of responding to any threat.
Our foreign policy in the Middle East is a tragic comedy. It is the consequence of unpredictable outcomes that results from operating under the delusion that we are in control. For example, in 1953 the US openly overthrew (operation Ajax) the elected prime minster (Mosaddegh)of Iran, which allowed the Shah to assume power. These actions fomented anti-American sentiment, which culminated in blowback in 1978 with the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, then opportunistically invaded Iran in 1980 owing to the disarray caused by the nascent revolution in Iran. We didn’t like Iran anymore so we backed our ally Iraq and supplied Hussein with weapons. Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1980. We didn’t like Russia so we supplied the Mujahedeen, led in part by Osama bin Laden, with weapons.Then Iraq invaded Kuwait using the weapons we supplied them with during their war with Iran. That invasion led to US military bases on Saudi Arabian soil.bin Laden despised the bases so he became our enemy. His attacks during the1990s climaxed on September 11, 2001. 9/11 was the culmination of blowback from our foreign policy for the prior 50 years.
Simply recounting these events does not mean that we“deserved” the attacks or that they were “justified”. It merely explains how our interventionist actions got us from Point A to Point B. If I keep poking my brother in the eye until he hits me upside the head with a baseball bat I certainly do not deserve such an extreme reaction, however I’m not totally blameless and innocent. Actions have consequences and they often are not the ones you expect. If non-interventionism had been US policy then the Iran hostage crisis would not have occurred and Iraq would not have invaded Iran or Kuwait. So, there would have been no US-Iraq wars and no US military bases in Saudi Arabia. Without those bases bin Laden would have taken no interest in us.
Imagine if China openly interfered in our elections and installed a puppet communist regime. Imagine then if China established a military base in the US ? Do you not think we Americans would resent this greatly?Of course we would, so why should we expect any different when we do the same to other countries? The path to peace is to mind our own business, maintain a deterring military force, and promote free trade to all countries (sanctions are an act of war). The “selfish” motives of capitalism will ensure peace. Why?Invading and killing your customers is bad for business. 

Worldwide Police State

The Dec 16, 2011 passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was a dark day in American history. In short it (a) expands the “battlefield” of the “war on terror” to the entire planet and (b) it permits the indefinite detention of a suspect (including US citizens) without any appeal rights. Although this Act has been authorized annually for the last 48 years, this is the first year that it has codified questionable implicit powers. The implicit nature of those powers has always been debatable but that’s not the issue. The issue is that the explicit powers granted basically gut the 4th , 7th and 8th Amendments for any covered person who is “determined to be a member of…a…force that acts in coordination with…al-Qaeda” (Sec 1032(2)(a)). There is a provision in Section 1031 exempting US citizens. But, as they say, the devil is in the details. Only citizens “arrested in the United States” are exempt. If you’re travelling, then all bets are off. Furthermore, that exemption does not apply to Section 1032. Section 1032 “requires” indefinite detainment only for non-US citizens. US citizens meeting the definition of “covered person” for the purposes of Section 1032 may be detained “without trial until the end of the hostilities” in the sole and arbitrary discretion of the Executive branch.

 

People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. Benjamin Franklin

 

One problem is that the definition of “covered persons” is open to interpretation. What is a “force”? Perhaps it is an anti-war political movement? Perhaps speech in support of closing military bases and ceasing hostilities in foreign lands could be considered as acting in coordination with al-Qaeda? If you think that’s a stretch think again. History shows that those who believe in the mantra of “the ends justify the means” are willing to justify the most horrific crimes. One recent example of twisted interpretations: would you consider someone that minted silver coins and sold them as being a domestic terrorist? As absurd as that sounds the US government does, as exemplified in the case of Bernard von NotHaus earlier this year. An attorney for the government stated that “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country.” If minting coins is terrorism then there is no limit to what the government can arbitrarily slap that label on. And if you don’t think you have anything to worry about because you’re not a terrorist then think again. What would happen if you were mistakenly arrested under the authority of this act and indefinitely detained? Even though you are innocent you have no right to a hearing to prove your innocence. A secret “determination” of your guilt is grounds enough to lock you up. Mistakes happen. This act only works in a world where government is clairvoyant and infallible. And here are a few things that can get you on the potential terrorist watch list: more than 7 days of food in your house, buying flashlights, paying in cash at hotels, texting privately in public, own precious metals or owning guns and ammo (all are public FBI/DOJ/DHS info).

This act starts the slippery slope toward a total police state. Don’t like something, simple, just call it “terrorism” and then lock up offenders without trial for the rest of their lives. And I do mean “the rest of their lives” because the “war on terror” will never end. Real terrorism can never end because it is simply a symptom of our species’ propensity toward violence. You might as well declare war on aggression, jealousy or selfish behavior.

But perhaps what is most frightening is how overwhelmingly it passed (93-7 Senate and 283-135 House). It’s nice to see that Democrats and Republicans can agree on one thing: trampling our rights. As Benjamin Franklin said, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”