[Peace-discuss] More from the estimable Bill Blum

[Brussel Morton K.]

Carl used a snippet of what follows. The whole piece is estimable, if  
long.
--mkb

The Anti-Empire Report
December 1st, 2008
by William Blum
www.killinghope.org

Vote First. Ask Questions Later.
Okay, let's get the obvious out of the way. It was historic. I choked  
up a number of times, tears came to my eyes, even though I didn't  
vote for him. I voted for Ralph Nader for the fourth time in a row.

During the past eight years when I've listened to news programs on  
the radio each day I've made sure to be within a few feet of the  
radio so I could quickly change the station when that preposterous  
man or one of his disciples came on; I'm not a masochist, I suffer  
fools very poorly, and I get bored easily. Sad to say, I'm already  
turning the radio off sometimes when Obama comes on. He doesn't say  
anything, or not enough, or not often enough. Platitudes, clichés,  
promises without substance, "hope and change", almost everything  
without sufficient substance, "change and hope", without specifics,  
designed not to offend. What exactly are the man's principles? He  
never questions the premises of the empire. Never questions the  
premises of the "War on Terror". I'm glad he won for two reasons  
only: John McCain and Sarah Palin, and I deeply resent the fact that  
the American system forces me to squeeze out a drop of pleasure from  
something so far removed from my ideals. Obama's votes came at least  
as much from people desperate for relief from neo-conservative  
suffocation as from people who genuinely believed in him. It's a form  
of extortion – Vote for Obama or you get more of the same. Those are  
your only choices.

Is there reason to be happy that the insufferably religious George W.  
is soon to be history? "I believe that Christ died for my sins and I  
am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance  
on a daily basis." That was said by someone named Barack Obama.1 The  
United States turns out religious fanatics like the Japanese turn out  
cars. Let's pray for an end to this.

As I've mentioned before, if you're one of those who would like to  
believe that Obama has to present center-right foreign policy views  
to be elected, but once he's in the White House we can forget that he  
misled us repeatedly and the true, progressive man of peace and  
international law and human rights will emerge ... keep in mind that  
as a US Senate candidate in 2004 he threatened missile strikes  
against Iran2, and winning that election apparently did not put him  
in touch with his inner peacenik. He's been threatening Iran ever since.

The world is in terrible shape. I don't think I have to elucidate on  
that remark. How nice, how marvelously nice it would be to have an  
American president who was infused with progressive values and  
political courage. Just imagine what could be done. Like a quick and  
complete exit from Iraq. You can paint the picture as well as I can.  
With his popularity Obama could get away with almost anything, but  
he'll probably continue to play it safe. Or what may be more precise,  
he'll continue to be himself; which, apparently, is a committed  
centrist. He's not really against the war. Not like you and I are.  
During Obama's first four years in the White House, the United States  
will not leave Iraq. I doubt that he'd allow a complete withdrawal  
even in a second term. Has he ever unequivocally called the war  
illegal and immoral? A crime against humanity? Why is he so close to  
Colin Powell? Does he not know of Powell's despicable role in the  
war? And retaining George W. Bush's Defense Secretary, Robert Gates,  
a man against whom it would not be difficult to draw up charges of  
war crimes? Will he also find a place for Rumsfeld? And Arizona  
Governor Janet Napolitano, a supporter of the war, to run the  
Homeland Security department? And General James Jones, a former NATO  
commander (sic), who wants to "win" in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who  
backed John McCain, as his National Security Adviser? Jones is on the  
Board of Directors of the Boeing Corporation and Chevron Oil. Out of  
what dark corner of Obama's soul does all this come?

As Noam Chomsky recently pointed out, the election of an indigenous  
person (Evo Morales) in Bolivia and a progressive person (Jean- 
Bertrand Aristide) in Haiti were more historic than the election of  
Barack Obama.

He's not really against torture either. Not like you and I are. No  
one will be punished for using or ordering torture. No one will be  
impeached because of torture. Michael Ratner, president of the Center  
for Constitutional Rights, says that prosecuting Bush officials is  
necessary to set future anti-torture policy. "The only way to prevent  
this from happening again is to make sure that those who were  
responsible for the torture program pay the price for it. I don't see  
how we regain our moral stature by allowing those who were intimately  
involved in the torture programs to simply walk off the stage and  
lead lives where they are not held accountable."3

As president, Obama cannot remain silent and do nothing; otherwise he  
will inherit the war crimes of Bush and Cheney and become a war  
criminal himself. Closing the Guantanamo hell-hole means nothing at  
all if the prisoners are simply moved to other torture dungeons. If  
Obama is truly against torture, why does he not declare that after  
closing Guantanamo the inmates will be tried in civilian courts in  
the US or resettled in countries where they clearly face no risk of  
torture? And simply affirm that his administration will faithfully  
abide by the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman  
or Degrading Treatment, of which the United States is a signatory,  
and which states: "The term 'torture' means any act by which severe  
pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally  
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a  
confession ... inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the  
consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other person  
acting in an official capacity."

The convention affirms that: "No exceptional circumstances  
whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal  
political stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as  
a justification of torture."

Instead, Obama has appointed former CIA official John O. Brennan as  
an adviser on intelligence matters and co-leader of his intelligence  
transition team. Brennan has called "rendition" – the kidnap-and- 
torture program carried out under the Clinton and Bush  
administrations – a "vital tool", and praised the CIA's  
interrogation techniques for providing "lifesaving" intelligence.4

Obama may prove to be as big a disappointment as Nelson Mandela, who  
did painfully little to improve the lot of the masses of South Africa  
while turning the country over to the international forces of  
globalization. I make this comparison not because both men are black,  
but because both produced such great expectations in their home  
country and throughout the world. Mandela was freed from prison on  
the assumption of the Apartheid leaders that he would become  
president and pacify the restless black population while ruling as a  
non-radical, free-market centrist without undue threat to white  
privilege. It's perhaps significant that in his autobiography he  
declines to blame the CIA for his capture in 1962 even though the  
evidence to support this is compelling.5 It appears that Barack Obama  
made a similar impression upon the American power elite who vetted  
him in many fundraising and other meetings and smoothed the way for  
his highly unlikely ascendancy from obscure state senator to the  
presidency in four years. The financial support from the corporate  
world to sell "Brand Obama" was extraordinary.

Another comparison might be with Tony Blair. The Tories could never  
have brought in university fees or endless brutal wars, but New  
Labour did. The Republicans would have had a very difficult time  
bringing back the draft, but I can see Obama reinstating it,  
accompanied by a suitable slogan, some variation of "Yes, we can!".

I do hope I'm wrong, about his past and about how he'll rule as  
president. I hope I'm very wrong.

Many people are calling for progressives to intensely lobby the Obama  
administration, to exert pressure to bring out the "good Obama",  
force him to commit himself, hold him accountable. The bold reforms  
of Roosevelt's New Deal were spurred by widespread labor strikes and  
other militant actions soon after the honeymoon period was over. At  
the moment I have nothing better to offer than that. God help us.

The future as we used to know it has ceased to exist. And other happy  
thoughts.
Reading the accounts of the terrorist horror in Mumbai has left me as  
pessimistic as a dinosaur contemplating the future of his  
grandchildren. How could they do that? ... destroying all those  
lives, people they didn't even know, people enjoying themselves on  
vacation ... whatever could be their motivation? Well, they did sort  
of know some of their victims; they knew they were Indians, or  
Americans, or British, or Zionists, or some other kind of infidel; so  
it wasn't completely mindless, not totally random. Does that help to  
understand? Can it ease the weltschmerz? You can even make use of it.  
The next time you encounter a defender of American foreign policy,  
someone insisting that something like Mumbai justifies Washington's  
rhetorical and military attacks against Islam, you might want to  
point out that the United States does the same on a regular basis.  
For seven years in Afghanistan, almost six in Iraq, to give only the  
two most obvious examples ... breaking down doors and machine-gunning  
strangers, infidels, traumatizing children for life, firing missiles  
into occupied houses, exploding bombs all over the place, pausing to  
torture ... every few days dropping bombs on Pakistan or Afghanistan,  
and still Iraq, claiming they've killed members of al-Qaeda, just as  
bad as Zionists, bombing wedding parties, one after another, 20 or 30  
or 70 killed, all terrorists of course, often including top al-Qaeda  
leaders, the number one or number two man, so we're told; so not  
completely mindless, not totally random; the survivors say it was a  
wedding party, their brother or their nephew or their friend, mostly  
women and children dead; the US military pays people to tell them  
where so-and-so number-one bad guy is going to be; and the US  
military believes what they're told, so Bombs Away! ... Does any of  
that depress you like Mumbai? Sometimes they bomb Syria instead, or  
kill people in Iran or Somalia, all bad guys ... "US helicopter-borne  
troops have carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border,  
killing eight people including a woman, Syrian authorities say"  
reports the BBC.6 ... "The United States military since 2004 has used  
broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously  
undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria,  
Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials. ...  
The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda  
terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate  
to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United  
States," the New York Times informs us.7 So it's all nice and legal,  
not an attack upon civilization by a bunch of escaped mental  
patients. Maybe the Mumbai terrorists also have a piece of paper,  
from some authority, saying that it's okay what they did. ... I'm  
feeling better already.

The mythology of the War on Terrorism
On November 8, three men were executed by the government of Indonesia  
for terrorist attacks on two night clubs in Bali in 2002 that took  
the lives of 202 people, more than half of whom were Australians,  
Britons and Americans. The Associated Press8 reported that "the three  
men never expressed remorse, saying the suicide bombings were meant  
to punish the United States and its Western allies for alleged  
atrocities in Afghanistan and elsewhere."

During the recent US election campaign, John McCain and his followers  
repeated a sentiment that has become a commonplace – that the War on  
Terrorism has been a success because there hasn't been a terrorist  
attack against the United States since September 11, 2001; as if  
terrorists killing Americans is acceptable if it's done abroad. Since  
the first American strike on Afghanistan in October 2001 there have  
been literally scores of terrorist attacks against American  
institutions in the Middle East, South Asia and the Pacific, more  
than a dozen in Pakistan alone: military, civilian, Christian, and  
other targets associated with the United States. The year following  
the Bali bombings saw the heavy bombing of the US-managed Marriott  
Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, the site of diplomatic receptions and  
4th of July celebrations held by the American Embassy. The Marriott  
Hotel in Pakistan was the scene of a major terrorist bombing just two  
months ago. All of these attacks have been in addition to the  
thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan against US occupation, which  
Washington officially labels an integral part of the War on  
Terrorism. Yet American lovers of military force insist that the War  
on Terrorism has kept the United States safe.

Even the claim that the War on Terrorism has kept Americans safe at  
home is questionable. There was no terrorist attack in the United  
States during the 6 1/2 years prior to the one in September 2001; not  
since the April 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma  
City. It would thus appear that the absence of terrorist attacks in  
the United States is the norm.

An even more insidious myth of the War on Terrorism has been the  
notion that terrorist acts against the United States can be  
explained, largely, if not entirely, by irrational hatred or envy of  
American social, economic, or religious values, and not by what the  
United States does to the world; i.e., US foreign policy. Many  
Americans are mightily reluctant to abandon this idea. Without it the  
whole paradigm – that we are the innocent good guys and they are the  
crazy, fanatic, bloodthirsty bastards who cannot be talked to but  
only bombed, tortured and killed – falls apart. Statements like the  
one above from the Bali bombers blaming American policies for their  
actions are numerous, coming routinely from Osama bin Laden and those  
under him.9

Terrorism is an act of political propaganda, a bloody form of making  
the world hear one's outrage against a perceived oppressor, graffiti  
written on the wall in some grim, desolate alley. It follows that if  
the perpetrators of a terrorist act declare what their motivation  
was, their statement should carry credibility, no matter what one  
thinks of their cause or the method used to achieve it.

Just put down that stereotype and no one gets hurt.
Sarah Palin and her American supporters resent what they see as the  
East Coast elite, the intellectuals, the cultural snobs, the  
politically correct, the pacifists and peaceniks, the agnostics and  
atheists, the environmentalists, the fanatic animal protectors, the  
food police, the health gestapo, the socialists, and other such  
leftist and liberal types who think of themselves as morally superior  
to Joe Sixpack, Joe the Plumber, National Rifle Association devotées,  
rednecks, and all the Bush supporters who have relished the idea of  
having a president no smarter than themselves. It's stereotyping gone  
wild. So in the interest of bringing some balance and historical  
perspective to the issue, allow me to remind you of some forgotten,  
or never known, factoids which confound the stereotypes.

Josef Stalin studied for the priesthood.
Adolf Hitler once hoped to become a Catholic priest or monk; he was a  
vegetarian and was anti-smoking.
Hermann Goering, while his Luftwaffe rained death upon Europe, kept a  
sign in his office that read: "He who tortures animals wounds the  
feelings of the German people."
Adolf Eichmann was cultured, read deeply, played the violin.
Benito Mussolini also played the violin.
Some Nazi concentration camp commanders listened to Mozart to drown  
out the cries of the inmates.
Charles Manson was a staunch anti-vivisectionist.
Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader, charged with war crimes,  
genocide, and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal  
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, had been a psychiatrist  
specializing in depression; the author of a published book of poetry  
as well as children's books, often with themes of nature; and a  
practitioner of alternative medicine.
I'm not really certain to what use you might put this information to  
advance toward our cherished national goal of becoming a civilized  
society, but I feel a need to disseminate it. If you know of any  
other examples of the same type, I'd appreciate your sending them to me.

The examples above are all of "bad guys" doing "good" things. There  
are of course many more instances of "good guys" doing "bad" things.

Notes
Washington Post, August 17, 2008↩
Chicago Tribune, September 25, 2004 ↩
Associated Press, November 17, 2008 ↩
New York Times, October 3, 2008 ↩
Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom (1994) p.278; William Blum,  
Rogue State, chapter 23, "How the CIA sent Nelson Mandela to prison  
for 28 years" ↩
BBC, October 26, 2008 ↩
New York Times, November 9, 2008 ↩
Associated Press, November 9, 2008 ↩
See my article at: http://www.killinghope.org/superogue/terintro.htm ↩
–

William Blum is the author of:

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at  
www.killinghope.org

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to  
bblum6 at aol.com with "add" in the subject line. I'd like your name and  
city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city only in  
case I'll be speaking in your area.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081204/3796dcb2/attachment.htm