[Peace-discuss] Gareth Porter interview
Morton K. Brussel
brussel at uiuc.edu
Thu Jul 3 11:26:36 CDT 2008
I hope you're not championing the Taliban, a religiously ignorant and
fanatic force, who have profited from the chaos and destruction that
the U.S has caused/abetted in Afghanistan. That they are fighting the
U.S./NATO occupation is only because they wish to reestablish
themselves in Afghanistan (and Pakistan). They would happily
collaborate with the U.S. if they believed they could advance their
fundamentalist cause. They are not good news for those against U.S.
imperialistic policies throughout the world. --mkb
On Jul 3, 2008, at 10:28 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> It seems to me that that's exactly what they were when, in the
> mid-1990s, they brought a harsh order to Afghanistan. "The Taliban
> initially had enormous goodwill from Afghans weary of the
> corruption, brutality and incessant fighting of Mujahideen
> warlords" -- who had been constituted fifteen years before by
> President Carter's CIA, in its most expensive program to date, in
> order to "give the USSR its own Vietnam," as Carter National
> Security Advisor Brzezinski said.
>
> After the US invasion in 2001 and their overthrow, the Taliban
> reconstituted themselves as the leaders of the national resistance
> against the foreign invaders, the warlords, and other comprador
> elements, like the Karzai government. On that basis they seemed to
> have expanded their appeal even beyond their Pashtun base (the
> Pashtuns being probably more than 40% of the population) to become
> an Afghan liberation movement.
>
> In destroying secular nationalist movements in the Middle East and
> financing religious ones (like Hamas) -- Carter's CIA recruited
> blood-thirsty religious fanatics to oppose "godless Communism" --
> the US followed a wide-ranging but single-minded policy that in the
> 1950s saw Catholics recruited in Vietnam to oppose the Viet Minh
> and on the campus of Notre Dame University to join the CIA (cf.
> Agee, Inside the Company). But with the Taliban they reaped the
> whirlwind.
>
> The British journalist Jason Burke, who wrote what is probably the
> best book on Al-Qaeda, has just published "On the Road to Kandahar:
> Travels Through Conflict in the Islamic World," on "Islamic
> militancy, its root causes its evolution and likely future." It
> may be the best account currently available in English. --CGE
>
> Sarah Tedrow-Azizi wrote:
>> I would hardly put the Taliban in the same catagory as those "engaged
>> in wars of local defense and national liberation."
>> On 7/2/08, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the reference, Stuart.
>>>
>>> Of course the U.S. needs a fantasy Third Reich in the Middle East
>>> as an
>>> excuse for its military descent on the region (and also to
>>> justify its cost
>>> to the US public), because it can't admit the real nature of the
>>> enemy whom
>>> it's ranged against: people in the Middle East who want the US to
>>> get out of
>>> their country and stop taking their resources.
>>>
>>> We call them terrorists, insurgents, militants, Al-Qaeda, Taliban
>>> and the
>>> like, but they're engaged in wars of local defense and national
>>> liberation
>>> (cf. anti-imperial struggles from the 18th century up to anti-
>>> colonial
>>> struggles in the 20th). The US encouraged religious
>>> identification in the
>>> region a generation ago to undercut secular nationalism (Nasser,
>>> Arafat) and
>>> succeeded too well: now religious identification is an organizing
>>> principle
>>> for resistance to US plans.
>>>
>>> Given the bed-rock US policy -- control of Mideast energy -- the
>>> only
>>> alternative to permanent US war is the neocon fantasy of a region of
>>> obedient client states -- which admittedly Iran and Egypt have
>>> recently
>>> been, after attempts at national liberation (Iran by coup in the
>>> Eisenhower
>>> administration, Egypt by purchase in the Carter administration).
>>>
>>> What the US can't stand in current conditions is for peace to
>>> break out.
>>> --CGE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stuart Levy wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 06:39:50PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You wouldn't like to summarize his argument, would you, Mort?
>>>>> In my
>>> dotage I find it hard to listen to these things, and it seems
>>> there's no
>>> transcript available...
>>>> The page Mort pointed to does have a link to Gareth Porter's
>>>> pretty readable article though, as well as the 45-minute interview.
>>>> Note especially the last paragraph I'm quoting here: that the
>>>> analysts
>>>> he's talking about are pressing for a (US) attack on Iran --
>>>> *not* because
>>>> Iran is strong, dangerous, irrational, and liable to marshal its
>>>> own and
>>>> other forces to retaliate if attacked -- but because, they say,
>>>> Iran
>>>> is relatively weak, knows that it's weak, would do little in
>>>> response,
>>>> and so attacking it wouldn't be such a risky venture.
>>>>
>>>> So the public story is that Iran is the new powerful Third Reich,
>>>> liable to destabilize the world, while their private analysis calls
>>>> for attacking Iran *because* it's vulnerable now. "A nuclear-
>>>> armed Iran
>>>> could dangerously alter the strategic balance in the region,"
>>>> write the
>>> WINEP
>>>> authors, "handcuffing Israel's room to maneuver on the Palestinian
>>>> and Lebanese fronts…."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=13072
>>>>
>>>> Anti-Iran Arguments Belie Fearmongering
>>>> New arguments by analysts close to Israeli thinking in favor
>>>> of U.S.
>>> strikes
>>>> against Iran cite evidence of Iranian military weakness in
>>>> relation to
>>> the U.S.
>>>> and Israel and even raise doubts that Iran is rushing to
>>>> obtain such
>>> weapons at
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>> The new arguments contradict Israel's official argument that
>>>> it faces
>>> an
>>>> "existential threat" from an Islamic extremist Iranian regime
>>> determined to get
>>>> nuclear weapons. They suggest that Israel, which already has
>>>> as many as
>>> 200
>>>> nuclear weapons, views Iran from the position of the dominant
>>>> power in
>>> the
>>>> region rather than as the weaker state in the relationship.
>>>>
>>>> The existence of a sharp imbalance of power in favor of
>>>> Israel and the
>>> United
>>>> States is the main premise of a recent analysis by Patrick
>>>> Clawson and
>>> Michael
>>>> Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
>>>> (WINEP)
>>> suggesting
>>>> that a U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is feasible.
>>>> Chuck
>>> Freilich, a
>>>> senior fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center on
>>>> Science and
>>>> International Affairs, has also urged war against Iran on
>>>> such a power
>>>> imbalance.
>>>>
>>>> All three have close ties to the Israeli government. WINEP
>>>> has long
>>> promoted
>>>> policies favored by Israel, and its founding director, Martin
>>>> Indyk,
>>> was
>>>> previously research director of the leading pro-Israel lobby,
>>>> the
>>> American
>>>> Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Freilich is a former
>>>> Israeli
>>> deputy
>>>> national security adviser.
>>>>
>>>> These analysts, all of whom are pushing for a U.S., rather
>>>> than an
>>> Israeli
>>>> attack, argue that Iran's power to retaliate for a U.S.
>>>> attack on its
>>> nuclear
>>>> facilities is quite limited. Equally significant, they also
>>>> emphasize
>>> that Iran
>>>> is a rational actor that would have to count the high costs of
>>> retaliation.
>>>> That conclusion stands in sharp contrast to the official
>>>> Israeli line
>>> that Iran
>>>> cannot be deterred because of its allegedly apocalyptic Islamic
>>> viewpoint on
>>>> war with Israel.
>>>>
>>>> [... and lots more, but much less than 45 minutes worth...]
>>>>
>>>>> Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A very illuminating interview with Gareth Porter about the Iran
>>> situation, the Israeli lobby, and related topics.
>>>>>> (You'll have to click the appropriate link.)
>>>>>> http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/07/01/gareth-porter-30/
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list