Excursions into the mundane and revealing

April 3, 2008

Filed under: missile defense,US foreign policy — ashujo @ 7:32 pm

NO END TO MADNESS

Now it seems that NATO has also jumped onto the bandwagon of missile defense. I have no doubt that considerable weight was thrown around by American officials to achieve this goal. Looks like George Bush is doing an admirable job to cram as many misdeeds as possible in his last few months of tenure.

This surely cannot bode well for US security. No matter how many people write about it and rail against it, America is still living in the Cold War era. I have yet to understand exactly who is going to attack the US with missiles. North Korea? Iran? No matter how much the administration tries to convince the world, both these countries are not suicidal enough to risk annihilation by trying to attack the US or its European allies with such weapons.

In fact they are of course much cleverer than that. Low-level nuclear proliferation and terrorism has always been the most effective way they can damage US interests. If they really wanted to seriously affect US interests- and it’s not a foregone conclusion that they wish to- these countries would help terrorists smuggle in dirty bombs or similar weapons through the still largely unguarded US borders. And in fact the much-dreaded dirty bomb attack, when it comes (and several analysts chillingly think it is only a matter of time), will probably be found to not be connected to any one of these states. Then only will the citizens of this nation realise how George Bush was misleading them for the last seven years under the pretense of false security.

Much is made of how he has kept the country safe since 9/11 and how there’s been no terrorist attack on US soil. Maybe he has. But first of all it is all too easy to forget at what cost this has been achieved; while terrorists have not actually attacked the US since 9/11 many more have been created, forged by interventions in the Middle East and imbibed with hatred of the US, who could attack the country in the future. More importantly, we can be sure of one thing; if even a small nuclear attack occurs in a US city of any significant size in the next decade, the effects will be so horrible and so long-lasting that all the orange alerts and patriot acts of the last seven years will become a footnote to a footnote in American history.

The US continues to intervene and play games abroad and neglect its interests and borders in its own backyard. In spite of this being pointed out by a number of senior analysts, the administration is still making sure it roils the waters in foreign lands by waging invasive wars, spreading “democracy”, and putting missile defense shields against non-existent targets.

As they say, those who forget history will be condemned to relive it…again and again. What have the citizens of this great country done to deserve such a dangerous and gloomy future?

February 24, 2008

Filed under: Iran,US foreign policy — ashujo @ 8:14 pm

SIMPLY BE READY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES

Yesterday I attended an illuminating talk about Iran by former New York Times columnist Stephen Kinzer and Iranian academic Fatemeh Keshavarz. They essentially stressed the point which people like Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer have been making, that many Americans see Iran-US relations as beginning with the hostage crisis of 1979 and everything after that being Iran’s fault.

It’s pretty clear that the US is almost as responsible for the current state of Iran as Iran itself. It’s also pretty clear that increasing ignorance among Americans of the history of US foreign policy is going to lead them down a disastrous path. Keshavarz also indicated how Iran is much more progressive compared to Arab countries, and how any kind of belligerent action by the US against Iran is going to trample whatever goodwill the US still has among common citizens of Iran. As for Ahmadinejad, he is something akin to a court jester who thrives on rhetoric, and who is despised by many Iranians.

Clearly, George Bush attacking Iran in any way may be the worst thing to happen to the US in the last one hundred years, whose repercussions will be deadly and far-reaching.

But when I was discussing US involvement in Iran over the last 50 years, mainly for the oil, a friend quipped, “But of course, the US is going to be looking at its self-interests. Why blame it for doing that?”

There are two answers to this questions. Firstly, even if we accept the thesis that every country always does what is necessary for its self-interest, in the case of American involvement in the Middle East, Bush and even earlier Presidents have actually jeopardized American interests and national security. The effect of pursuing oil in the Middle East for self-interest is that the US has become utterly dependent on this politically unstable, frequently America-hating group of countries.

The second and more chilling effect is that this hatred of the US because of its continued presence has led to and will continue to lead to a rapid rise in terrorist activity against the US. I have just ordered Michael Scheuer’s “Marching toward Hell” in which he basically says that only when there is a devastating terrorist attack in the US in the next couple of years leading to the loss of thousands of American lives- and Scheuer portentously thinks this is almost certain, especially because of the way US leaders have engaged in conflicts abroad at the cost of neglecting border security at home- will Americans realise how Bush had been misleading them about national security for the last several years since 9/11.

Secondly, and I always say this to people with whom I get into arguments, it’s fine if you really want to pursue your self-interests. But then, just be prepared for the consequences. That’s all. Many Americans live in a weird world of expectations in which they want it both ways, to enjoy their standard of living and to engage with the world in such a manner that all their interests will be satisfied, and also to hope that everyone will be their friend and won’t harbor any resentment towards them. The only thing I say is, fine, if Americans want to linger in the Middle East to satisfy their self-interest, so be it. But then they should not complain about increased American hatred and possible increased terrorist attacks against the US.

Interestingly I also have a similar argument with some extreme Republicans who don’t want any taxation at all; in their world-view where every person is on his own and nobody cares if inequality massively rises, they simply should be ready for an increased possibility of a French-revolution style uprising where poor people have had enough. I doubt if these same Republicans who grumble about taxation will agree to such a predictable consequence.

In any case, sadly, not only are many Americans unaware of these consequences, but their leaders are not only unprepared for them, but they keep increasing their probability.

Suggested reading:
All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror- Stephen Kinzer
Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq- Michael Scheuer

February 22, 2007

CHOMSKY VS BUCKLEY One of the best documentaries …

Filed under: Buckley,Chomsky,US foreign policy — ashujo @ 6:01 pm

CHOMSKY VS BUCKLEY

One of the best documentaries I have seen is “Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media”, and I had promptly bought the DVD when I first saw the film in the library. But somehow, I missed one of the special features on the disc, which I first watched a few months back- a 1969 debate between Chomsky and William F. Buckley, the star conservative pundit of American television. I want to say he is the Bill O’Reilly of yesteryears, but that would be a grave insult to him; Buckley is orders of magnitude more intelligent, charming, and smooth-talking than O’Reilly. O’Reilly is a bonafide nutcase in contrast.

The video clip is immense entertainment; notice how cleverly the smooth-talker Buckley tries to wiggle his way out of inconvenient points, how he resorts to charming sophistry to repeatedly throw Chomsky off track and tries to catch him in contradictions. In spite of these very clever efforts, in the end, Chomksy pristinely beats every one of his arguments and proves more than a match for him. As usual, Chomsky’s casual and quiet sarcasm are priceless, and his arguments are spot on.

While I was thinking where I could find a link to this clip, I missed the obvious place- these days you really can find almost anything on Youtube.

Watch

Filed under: Buckley,Chomsky,US foreign policy — ashujo @ 6:01 pm

CHOMSKY VS BUCKLEY

One of the best documentaries I have seen is “Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media”, and I had promptly bought the DVD when I first saw the film in the library. But somehow, I missed one of the special features on the disc, which I first watched a few months back- a 1969 debate between Chomsky and William F. Buckley, the star conservative pundit of American television. I want to say he is the Bill O’Reilly of yesteryears, but that would be a grave insult to him; Buckley is orders of magnitude more intelligent, charming, and smooth-talking than O’Reilly. O’Reilly is a bonafide nutcase in contrast.

The video clip is immense entertainment; notice how cleverly the smooth-talker Buckley tries to wiggle his way out of inconvenient points, how he resorts to charming sophistry to repeatedly throw Chomsky off track and tries to catch him in contradictions. In spite of these very clever efforts, in the end, Chomksy pristinely beats every one of his arguments and proves more than a match for him. As usual, Chomsky’s casual and quiet sarcasm are priceless, and his arguments are spot on.

While I was thinking where I could find a link to this clip, I missed the obvious place- these days you really can find almost anything on Youtube.

Watch

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.