PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> Sociopolitic: June 2006

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Patriotism, Legless soldiers and confident pronouncements


With the 4th of July just around the corner it seems appropriate that the public at large be treated to such uplifting images and information as the American media machine is serving up today. For starters, we have Bush's most recent photo op; he is taking a "slow jog" around a spongy track that circles the White House with crippled Army Staff Sgt. Chrisitan Bagge. Now, while I have the utmost respect for the courage shown by Sgt. Bagge for overcoming the terrible tradgedy of his maiming, it sickens me to see Bush use this man's courage and determination to prop up his plumeting approval ratings. The message is clear: we as Americans, and especially those men and women serving in the armed forces, need to show perseverance in this long and difficult war. If Sgt. Bagge can learn to jog with two prosthetic limbs then other soldier's can "stick it out" in Iraq. Further, it is also implied by association that Bush ( running alongside the man) too, is showing courage and perseverance in his refusal to be swayed by those calling for an end to the war in Iraq. Meanwhile, the number of U.S. fatalities has reached 2,527 (2,524 confirmed by DOD) and the number of innocent Iraqis losing their lives is in the tens of thousands. But not to fear, not to worry. We as a nation must "persevere," as Bush would say. We will not back down, because if will do the "terrorists" will win.

As ridiculous as these kinds of official proclamations sound in the face of the horrible loss of life, AOL news reports today that Americans are number 1 when it comes to "national pride." This is according to a patriotism survey of 34 countries conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. It is this kind of national pride and delusion that allows criminal wars to be perpetrated by the U.S. government against innocent peoples around the globe. It is no accident then that we are spoon fed the pictures of Bush jogging with a battle-scared soldier, the info on how patriotic we are as a people, and Condi Rice's statement upon her visit to Afghanistan that "we are not going to tire, we are not going to leave" (Associated Press, 6/28/06). It all fits together nicely like a jigsaw puzzle.

It is further no surprise that the U.S. puppet president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is a former employee of Unocal, as is the U.S. ambassador in Iraq Zalamy Khalilzad. The return of the flourishing drug trade (Afghanistan produces 90 % of the world's heroin supply) continues to support the efforts of the Taliban, who were allegedly created by the CIA and for some time protected Unocal's pipeline project designed to remove valuable natural gas resources from the region. In his book War and Globalisation, Michel Chossudovsky points out that "without U.S. support channeled through the Pakistani ISI, the Taliban would not have been able to form a government in 1996." David Ray Griffin tells us "when the Taliban, with financial support from Saudi Arabia and the CIA funneled through the ISI, conquered Kabul in 1996, Unocal was hopeful that it would provide enough stability to allow its pipelines to be built and protected." (The New Pearl Harbor, 2004) He also quotes P.Stobdan (Strategic Analysis, 8/99) who claims that Unocal reportedly provided some of the financial support for the Taliban.

In Iraq the primary motivation for the ongoing U.S. occupation also relates to natural resources, especially oil, although the imperative of establishing and maintaining a solid political and military presence in the Middle East is a key objective which relates to larger schemes and plans as well. In an article he contributed to the Jordan Times in August of 2005 professor Abbas J. Ali paraphrases the neoconservative thinkers Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol who reportedly assert in their book The War over Iraq, that America's presence there is about more than the Middle East and the war on terror. They claim "it is about what sort of role the United States intends to play in the world in the 21st century." Apparently these two argue that America must persistently exert military might in these areas that constitute a threat to its' interests, and that the "mission begins in Baghdad, but does not end there."

With what we know about the aspirations of the Project For a New American Century this shouldn't be surprising. Kristol is part of that group and is simply aspousing their philosophy of global domination. As for those Americans who might be waivering in their support of the current and planned future course of action by our country in Iraq and the world, a little propaganda, a little psychological pep-rally; as the most patriotic of days, the 4th of July, approaches; might serve to temporarily still their doubts and replace their fears with the warm, glowing feelings that usually accompany the multi-colored fireworks displays that will light up night skies across America in a little over a week.

Posted by Rogue Scoop at 11:51 AM | | Comments

Monday, June 05, 2006

Phony Diplomacy


This last week U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made news by "reversing" the U.S. position on engaging Iran in talks about their nuclear program. The move was hailed as a conquest of diplomacy by many and Rice was praised for her pragmatism and realism.

Why? What has she actually said, and what has the U.S. done that is any different? From The Guardian on June 1st, 2006 Rice was quoted thus: "We are agreed with our European partners on the essential elements of a package containing both benefits if Iran makes the right choices and costs if it does not." Further, she was quoted in the L.A. Times as saying : "Iran now faces a clear choice. This is the last excuse"(L.A. Times, 6/1/06). This does not sound like negotiating to me -- it sounds more like slightly veiled threats. The U.S. knows that Ahmadinejad and the Iranian leadership do not want to give up their nuclear program, (see my previous diary, Iran: What's Really Going On?) and it is easy to understand why. By saying that they will talk or negotiate with Iran about their uranium enrichment if and only if they agree to suspend such uranium enrichment, the U.S. is not negotiating and they are not engaging in diplomacy.

In reality the recent agreement by the U.S. to engage Iran at the bargaining table (presumably offering economic incentives) is nothing more than propaganda and posturing, and Tehran has correctly labelled it as such. In the mean time, while Russia and China have refused to support the leveling of sanctions against Iran, the European community continues to push for a compromise and at least ostensibly have taken the U.S. position that Iran should not possess a nuclear weapon. European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana will arrive in Tehran tonight to present a package of western incentives which reportedly includes aid to build a light-water reactor for nuclear energy in Iran.

The development of events in the Iran/U.S. saga is in some ways strikingly similar to the prelude to war that we witnessed in Iraq. Threats are made, sanctions are threatened and/or levelled and then finally, war is instigated. It seems clear that the U.S. is making token gestures of diplomacy under coercion from the international community. Behind the words lies the unspoken intention; the U.S. desires to control the Middle East and the oil there and this implies controlling Iran; which is perhaps the lynchpin to the whole region. If regime change is necessary, so be it. And if war is necessary to achieve regime change, so be it.

While some experts are stating the U.S. does not want war, I am not convinced. The U.S. , and particularly the Bush administration, has shown itself to be disingenuous in foreign policy as well as domestic affairs. They have their agenda and will be difficult to deter, but their stated agenda is very often not their actual agenda, and that seems to be the case in regards to Iran. It is becoming increasingly clear that nations such as China (especially), North Korea, South American countries such as Venezuela, and now Iran, refuse to be bullied by the United States. Furthermore, the international community, namely Europe and the EU while backing down to America, obviously see through their tactics. The so-called "diplomacy" they claim to want to engage in with Iran is nothing more than propaganda intended to appease the international community and give the impression at home that they have exhausted all options other than war. In short, it is transparent as phony diplomacy and nothing more than a farce.

Posted by Rogue Scoop at 10:16 AM | | Comments