[Peace-discuss] Antiwar.com Blog

Wed Aug 17 13:06:44 CDT 2011

Antiwar.com BlogI find this post very confusing and do not know what to make of it.    First, there is this, which I take to be a warning of some sort but which contains a link to www.antiwar.com/blog: 
      MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "www.antiwar.com" claiming to be Antiwar.com Blog. 

      Second, it is followed by a series of articles or posts.

      I am left unclear as to what is what.  Are the articles the real ones from Antiwar.com Blog or are they fraudulent ones from www.antiwar.com?  Whose mail scanner has detected a possible fraud?

From: C. G. Estabrook 
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 12:18 AM
To: Peace-discuss List 
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Antiwar.com Blog

      MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "www.antiwar.com" claiming to be Antiwar.com Blog 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  a.. How The War Is Spun: Mass Killings Mean ‘Progress’ 
  b.. The Cherry-Picking Fantasy Land of Elliot Abrams 
  c.. Coalition Tries to Undermine Afghan Traditional Governance 
  d.. Latin America Beware: The Imperial Pretext Is Changing 
  e.. Addicted to Militarism, Despite Repeated Failures 
      How The War Is Spun: Mass Killings Mean ‘Progress’ 

      Posted: 16 Aug 2011 12:50 PM PDT

      That’s the title of Kevin Baron’s piece at Stars and Stripes, which explains how propaganda is wrapped around the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan to make them seem as if they’re on the losing end.

        Politico’s Morning Defense shared an email Monday that is pure military public affairs gold. How do you interpret a suicide bombing assassination attempt north of Kabul that killed at least 20 people into an obvious sign the war was going as planned?

        An International Security Assistance Force spokesman emailed MD’s Chuck Hoskinson a response claiming the attack was “a resounding failure” because: 1) the target, a provincial governor survived, 2) the Afghan security forces reacted “autonomously” and 3) the attack did not target U.S. forces.

        The ISAF spokesman explained those points are important to make because they are “crucial to undermining the Taliban’s attempt to obtain a propaganda victory from their failed attack.”

        Judge for yourself who won the victory, propaganda or otherwise. According to The Washington Post, the attack occurred in a relatively secure Parwan province, north of Kabul. A car bomb blew up an entrance to the governor’s compound, five insurgents breached the facility and a two-hour gunfight commenced where five explosions “shook the building.” ISAF reported at least six IEDs in addition to the car bomb were detonated.

        In far worse carnage, bombings in at least 17 Iraqi cities on Monday killed more than 60 people in “bloodbath” scenes of scattered human flesh.

        Stars and Stripes’ Erik Slavin, in Iraq, reports U.S. servicemembers were not attackedand Iraqi forces had to call for American assistance just once.

        U.S. Forces Iraq spokesman Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan, in the Pentagon Monday, said the attacks show Iraq remains dangerous but do not threaten the government and the insurgency remains an unpopular shadow of its former self.

      This is notable, but of course just barely scratches the surface. I’ve written variously about systematic bias throughout the media, which is particularly potent when it comes to war. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans still develop their opinions about American foreign policy, and these wars in particular, from “news anchors” and pundits on the major networks. This results in systematic misunderstandings about U.S. foreign policy and obviously needs to change.

      The Cherry-Picking Fantasy Land of Elliot Abrams 

      Posted: 16 Aug 2011 11:47 AM PDT

      At the blog for the Council on Foreign Relations, Elliot Abrams concludes that people who think illegal settlement construction hinders the Israeli-Palestinian peace process are not living “in the real world.”

      Abrams has argued before, amazingly, that settlements in the West Bank are “not a critical issue” (to which I responded). In this latest fantasy land post, Abrams pushes back against the condemnations for the newest set of approvals for 277 new homes in the West Bank city of Ariel. He argues that because these are new units within an already existing settlement, it’s all good.

        The new units are to be constructed in the center of  the town, it was also announced. This is a significant fact, for construction of new units at the edges of the town would mean that the security perimeter would need to be extended to protect the new housing and the people in it. But this will not happen, and Ariel will expand in population but not in land area.  It is not, in the usual Palestinian Authority parlance, “taking more Palestinian land.”

      Right, they’re just increasing the population of previously stolen Palestinian land. Not only is this virtually a distinction without a difference, but it pretends dishonestly that “expanding in population but not in land area” is typical for West Bank settlement construction. Abrams leaves out the 4,300 new units Israel approved last week for construction in Palestinian East Jerusalem (which Abrams calls “Israel’s capital”). These thousands were in addition to the 930 new homes approved for construction around the same area just days earlier. Abrams is intentionally white-washing the fact that Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes has skyrocketed this year with 356 structures demolished and 700 people displaced in the first six months 2011. These were not instances where new units were built in the center of existing settlements, but rather where innocent Palestinian people were expelled from their homes so that they could be demolished and given to Israeli settlers. Like, for example, the incident at the end of July where the Israeli government sued a group of poor Bedouin Palestinians in the Negev desert for over $500,000, the claimed costs of demolishing their village each time they rebuilt it. Israeli authorities destroyed, and the Bedouin rebuilt, the homes in al-Araqib more than 20 times.

      Abrams leaves out those nasty little details so he can keep his imaginary framework for the entire conflict nice and neatly undisturbed. And then of course he chimes in with this little number:

        It is not reasonable to view it as a violation of international law and a threat to a peace agreement every time bricks and studs and drywall show up at the center of an Israeli settlement in the West Bank.

      Except that it is. They are a violation of international law according to the consensus view of the international community. The Geneva Conventions clearly states that forcible transfers and deportations people in occupied lands is prohibited, as is the transfer of “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Not to mention that numerous international agreements, as well as the International Court of Justice, have declared the settlements illegal. Heck, even Israel sometimes admits certain settlements to be illegal.

      Not Elliot Abrams though. He’s a bit too far down the rabbit hole…

      Coalition Tries to Undermine Afghan Traditional Governance 

      Posted: 16 Aug 2011 09:45 AM PDT

      The Associated Press headline pushes the occupation line that the “coalition” is trying to “build” a cadre of leaders, but a perusal of the text makes clear that Kabul and its Western masters are actively demolishing age-old local governance traditions in a probably futile attempt to establish a European-style central state.

      The piece begins describing a failed, underattended shura in far-southern Helmand province, organized by Kabul carpetbaggers. Why did only seven men show up? Gee, could it be this:

      “The army commander had invited locals to the small fortified camp, but sometimes those invitations were extended during gunfights when soldiers and U.S. Marines were using private Afghan homes and farmers’ poppy fields for cover.”

      *door smash*

      “We’re using your house as a shield against gunfire from your neighbors. Obey us or die. Also, wanna go to a cool party next week? It’ll be about how great it will be to have a Ministry of Sport.”

      The article describes the various problems suffered by the few local elders who have decided to jump on the government bandwagon. One of them is that constant fighting and threats of assassination make it, hm, difficult? to extend authority. Also, reports AP matter of factly, “Some are corrupt.” Nowhere is it noted that if one side of the fight withdrew, the other side would have nothing — or at least a lot less — to fight. After all, local insurgents didn’t pick this war. It came to them.

      To illustrate the utter stupidity of trying to surreptitiously form a state in a tribal area, one of the elders who did show up to the shura said he obtained permission — from the Taliban. That’s pretty cocksure for an insurgency we’re often told is on the wane.

      Don’t we already have many guides as to the success rate of slamming Eurostates onto tribal societies with ancient and viable alternative modes of governance? Somalia is an ongoing nightmare of violence, due in large part to the neverending attempts to smash its traditional law-based society and bring back the sort of state that brutalized Somalis for decades. Even Pakistan has never been able to truly tame its tribal areas. It’s the same in many other cases.

      But how are America’s partners, the Brits, helping demonstrate the fabulousness of Western-style secular government?

      Oh they’re building a million-dollar mosque. 

      Which NATO blew up.

      Latin America Beware: The Imperial Pretext Is Changing 

      Posted: 16 Aug 2011 08:17 AM PDT

      During the Cold War, the pretext for reigning terror down upon the masses in Central and South America through U.S. imperialism was the creeping communist threat. This was used as a justification for our 1954 overthrow of Guatemala’s democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz, implementing a systematic campaign of political assassinations, arming murderous right-wing militias there for decades, etc. Of course, the same commie justification held for the CIA-orchestrated coup to oust the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile and installing the repressive dictatorship of General Pinochet. The elusive Soviet threat was also the pretext for Reagan’s terror war in Nicaragua and El Salvador. You get the picture.

      After the wall fell, the pretext became the drug war and terrorism. Bush I invaded Panama with the justification of capturing a minor thug Manuel Noriega (previously on CIA payroll), violent militias were continually funded to fight the drug war (like now), Clinton and Plan Colombia which continues to now, Bush II attempted a coup against Hugo Chavez because apparently he was ‘against us’ as opposed to ‘with us,’ etc.

      Apparently the pretext for U.S. domination of Latin America is set to change yet again. Amy Myers Jaffe’s piece in Foreign Policy doesn’t mention anything about U.S. intervention, but she intelligently predicts that the energy “center of the world” so to speak will shift to the Americas, instead of staying in the Middle East.

        For half a century, the global energy supply’s center of gravity has been the Middle East. This fact has had self-evidently enormous implications for the world we live in — and it’s about to change.

        By the 2020s, the capital of energy will likely have shifted back to the Western Hemisphere, where it was prior to the ascendancy of Middle Eastern megasuppliers such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in the 1960s.

      She writes the “reasons for this shift are partly technological and partly political,” but oil and natural gas are likely to frame the geopolitical understanding of the Americas in the coming years. That will attract the attention of the U.S. who has been trying to exploit and command the whole region since 1823 with the Monroe Doctrine. If she’s right, and if Latin America’s recent moves towards strong independence movements doesn’t continue to resist the weight of U.S. pressure, we may be looking at a whole new pretext for a whole new set of ugly wars and interventions south of the border.

      Addicted to Militarism, Despite Repeated Failures 

      Posted: 16 Aug 2011 07:00 AM PDT

      Richard Falk has an insightful and somewhat dispiriting piece at al Jazeera called “Why the Afghanistan War Won’t End Soon.” He writes about the prescience of the so-called ‘Vietnam Syndrome’ (once referred to as “sickly inhibitions against the use of military force”), and about the systematic tendency for America, as the planet’s military superpower, to aggressively apply military solutions to non-military problems. I was reminded of the opportunity to avoid unnecessary war after 9/11 by treating the attacks as a criminal act instead of an act of war (how many lives and dollars would have been saved, how many laws never broken…). But Falk focuses on conflicts like Afghanistan, say, which have available solutions towards ending war but which are treated to the Petraeus counter-insurgency magic described by Falk as “gradually expanding the war by means of a surge of troops combined with a ten-fold increase in drone attacks” with little regard for civilian casualties. Why the insistence on applying ineffective and destructive militarist solutions when they are not applicable?

        Why do intelligent people persist in doing stupid things? If we had a completely convincing answer to this question we would have a far clearer understanding of the dysfunctional underbelly of US/NATO foreign policy.

        To get such clarity, we probably need to delve into the collective unconscious of the warmakers, but even without such Freudian probes, there are some obvious dark forces at work in the West. For Europe especially, but also the United States, there is a definite nostalgia for the colonial period when military intervention was efficiently triumphal and conspicuously rewarded with prestige, markets, and resources. There lingers in the West a sense that there must be a way to restore those happy days of global ascendancy despite the formal elimination of colonial rule. Closely connected with this residual imperialism, given some credibility by way of economic globalisation in the 1990s, is the parallel adherence to the realist belief that it is military power that continues to shape world history.

        What follows from this search for explanations is what might be described as ‘militarism,’ here defined as the compulsive or addictive reliance on hard power for conflict resolution that is not altered by repeated experiences of failure.

        [...] Whether American militarism is better regarded as insanity or addiction is not so significant, but that its compulsiveness discourages a proper diagnosis and cure is a distressing reality. It has led to a succession of prolonged bloody confrontations that bring misery and encourage extremism.

      Add to these explanations the fact that the last decade has seen a truly unique expansion of military capacity and defense industry booms, all of the most readily available (and profitable) tools are military in nature. So no wonder that is the most popular and proximate diagnosis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110817/bc5218cf/attachment-0001.html>