[Peace-discuss] Gareth Porter interview
Jenifer Cartwright
jencart13 at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 3 14:07:18 CDT 2008
And then of course there's this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1191067.stm
--Jenifer
--- On Thu, 7/3/08, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Gareth Porter interview
To: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel at uiuc.edu>
Cc: peace-discuss at ucimc.org
Date: Thursday, July 3, 2008, 1:14 PM
The point is to give an accurate description of the Taliban. They arose as a
local defense in the Pashtun regions against the depredations of the forces
that
we sponsored and paid for. Today that's the general name for the national
resistance against the US invasion.
They are therefore part of the resistance in the Middle East to "U.S.
imperialistic policies throughout the world." --CGE
Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080703/364556df/attachment.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list