Making room for the Taliban

By Robert Grenier

The Afghan president and some Western powers are pushing for talks with the Taliban [AFP]

The Afghan president and some Western powers are pushing for talks with the Taliban [AFP]
On September 20, 2001, just nine days after the devastating attacks by al-Qaeda, George Bush, then US president, stood before both houses of the US congress, with Tony Blair, then British prime minister, to deliver an address to the American people and to the world.

That America would react in some way to the attacks was already clear. It was Bush's task to explain the principles which would guide those actions, and to rally international support for them.

With all that has happened since, it may be difficult to remember the emotional tenor of that moment. In the wake of the attacks, there had been a great international outpouring of support for the US.

It appeared that this was a moment of great international solidarity, and that out of this shock great and new things might be possible.

We remember the essence of what Bush said on that occasion, even if we no longer recall the words he used: that henceforth, there could be no middle ground between the terrorists and those who opposed them; that the US would no longer make any distinction between terrorists and those who sheltered them; and that the latter, if they refused to join with the "civilised" world, would share the fate of the former.

New beginning possible

Bush had some hard words for the Taliban in that address. And yet, beneath the surface of those words, there lurked the possibility of a new and different relationship with the Taliban.

Implicit in Bush's words was the promise of a new beginning for any government, including the Taliban's, if they would join the international coalition against "terrorism" and shift their policies accordingly.
This was the implicit bargain in my own discussions with senior Taliban leaders in those days. And yet, even then, there was a clear ambivalence in the US attitude.
Immediately after the president's September 20 address, Colin Powell, the former secretary of state, was careful to make clear that the US held out hope, however slim, for a new relationship with the Taliban.

At the same time, however, Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser, was reflecting much more closely the prevailing political attitude within the US.

Rice was making it clear that she could not foresee US support for a repressive Taliban government which imposed, among other perceived abuses, drastic social restraints on women.

The limits of US political acceptance of the Taliban were never tested at that time, as of course Mullah Omar and the rest of the Taliban leadership refused to turn over Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, or denounce the group.

Popular western revulsion at the Taliban, however, had long made any positive political dealings with the Taliban - beyond the issuance of ultimatums regarding bin Laden - virtually impossible, even before the 9/11 attacks. I know, because I advocated for such engagement, to no avail.

Later, after the apparent defeat of the Taliban in 2001, there was even less room within the US government for positive dealings with even relative Taliban moderates.

Minister arrested

When Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the former Taliban foreign minister, attempted to play an intermediary role between the US and Taliban elements in 2002, he was arrested and imprisoned for his pains.


The author says the Taliban has been closely integrated with al-Qaeda after 9/11 [AFP] It required many months of cajoling to induce the US department of defence to agree to Muttawakil's release as an encouragement to others, despite the Afghan government's stated interest in reaching out to such moderates.
Today, with the fortunes of the government of Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, and its Western allies at a much more difficult pass, and with the Taliban resurgent in much of the South and East, talk of political engagement with the Taliban is rife.

There are reported meetings between intermediaries and representatives of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the leader of Hezb-e-Islami, and discussion of means to reach out to the Taliban is a major feature of the international conference on Afghanistan in London.

Even US military leaders who are working assiduously to attack and "degrade" the Taliban admit that the movement is part of the Pashtun social fabric, and will have to be politically dealt with in some way.

It seems to me, nonetheless, that any sort of meaningful political engagement with senior leaders of the Taliban remains a long way off.

The clear thrust of current Western efforts to reach out to the Taliban is in the context of "reintegration", through which simple fighters and low-level commanders are induced to return to their communities in return for some form of government assistance.

'Reconciliation necessary'

The difficulties in this approach are manifest, relying as it must on the involvement of Kabul-appointed government structures, largely seen as corrupt and inept, to mediate and implement such programs.

In view of these difficulties, observers such as Muttawakil argue that a more formal political "reconciliation" with the Taliban leadership will be necessary. Yet it is hard to see how such a political process could be viable.

Relatively low-level discussions including marginal representation from the Karzai government notwithstanding, it seems clear that Taliban leaders, very much to include Mullah Omar, have little interest in negotiating with the Kabul regime, which they see essentially as a puppet.

"It seems clear that Taliban leaders have little interest in negotiating with the Kabul regime, which they see essentially as a puppet"

Given their growing strength and confidence, they are far more interested in dealing directly with the US to negotiate the terms of a US/Nato/Coalition withdrawal. This hardly suggests a desire on the part of the core Taliban to enter the Afghan political process.
Indeed, can one really imagine the Taliban leadership standing for election in Pashtun-dominated districts, or serving in parliament? They have made clear their religious opposition to such elections.

Instead, reconciliation with the Taliban would amount to acquiescence in the Taliban's political ascendancy and control in the areas where they are currently active. It is hard to imagine this as anything other than stage-setting for a renewed civil war with the Tajiks and other non-Pushtun minorities.

It is clear that in view of the growing costs, both human and monetary, of the US involvement in Afghanistan, US aspirations there have grown far more modest.

This was the clear thrust of the speech Barack Obama, the US president, gave at the West Point military academy on December 1, 2009.

Repressive policies

The atrophy of US policy goals in Afghanistan would seem to make political acceptance of the Taliban's socially repressive policies - which appear to be moderating in any case - more viable.

Nonetheless, denial of Afghanistan as a future safe haven for al-Qaeda and others intent on employing terrorist techniques internationally remains a core US objective.

While much is made of the relative moderation of Mullah Omar's recent statements in favour of a political focus on Afghanistan at the expense of global jihad, it is hard to see these statements - even if taken at face value - as representing anything other than a statement of tactical necessity, rather than of strategic orientation.

It makes all the sense in the world for the Taliban to focus now on its national goals in Afghanistan, and to seek peaceful relations with its neighbours.


The human and monetary cost of the war in Afghanistan is growing [AFP] But once having achieved a measure of uncontested political space in Afghanistan, even if the movement eschews the global jihad for its own account, it is hard to imagine the Taliban coldly refusing all aid to those whom it regards as good Muslims, who are themselves under threat from what it regards as impious regimes backed by foreigners.
Moreover, the current dynamic within the Taliban must be seen in the context of an ever-growing alignment between the Taliban and al-Qaeda, forged under the constant pressure being exerted against them and other like-minded groups in South Asia.

The Taliban has adopted the tactics of al-Qaeda and is far more closely integrated - operationally, ideologically and otherwise - with the Arab-dominated organisation than was ever the case before 9/11.

No political or religious organisation remains static, particularly under the pressure of turbulent events, and the Taliban is no exception.

Its leaders should be watched for signs of willingness to find genuine accommodation, both with other elements and communities in Afghanistan and with outside powers having serious interests at stake in the country.

As of now, however, the relative optimism of those who see the prospect of true political accommodation with the Taliban appears to me to be misplaced.

McChrystal Past, Present and Future?

by Karen Kwiatkowski

Recently by Karen Kwiatkowski: Gazan Survivalism

When I read Michael Hastings’ Rolling Stone article "The Runaway General," I expected to learn something, be reminded of something, and to chuckle. Hastings did not disappoint.

I learned that the recently resigned four-star general was West Point, Class of 1976. He had to wait for a really big counterinsurgency operation, and he would do so without being constructively prejudiced against the last good one. How he must have longed for his shot at Vietnam.

Turns out McChrystal was "The son of a general,…[and] also a ringleader of the campus dissidents – a dual role that taught him how to thrive in a rigid, top-down environment while thumbing his nose at authority every chance he got." Well, isn’t that special!

I wonder if Hastings has ever read Robert Timburg’s The Nightingale’s Song. Somehow I think not, but I’m sure he would enjoy it. That book tells of another spoiled rabble-rousing demerit-prone rule-breaker who never got kicked out of a federally funded military school, and unrelatedly I’m sure, was also the son of a famous flag officer. Similar to McChrystal, John McCain continued to make a career of being a "regular" guy despite lacking the credentials. A full psych workup would be required, of course, but I’m thinking that these special boys are plagued with a near-permanent inferiority syndrome combined dangerously with a passionate belief that the world is their oyster.

It is good to remind ourselves the source of that metaphor – Shakespeare’s minor character Pilot, a "braggart ensign" who, when denied a loan, tells Falstaff no matter, he’d get what he wanted with his sword.

I also learned about McChrystal’s fundamental dislike of a peer flag officer and the U.S. Ambassador to our very own Afghanistan. I had not read Eikenberry’s November 2009 policy cables on the flaws and likely outcomes of our Afghanistan policy and "investment strategy" when they were published in the New York Times earlier this year. When I did read them, they were refreshing only because they contain some valid observations – that just about every American who watches the news already fundamentally understands.

In diplomatic language, we find that the U.S. Ambassador believed as early as November 2009 (and probably much earlier) that Afghanistan had been cooked down by the Bush and Obama regimes into a bubbling fetid pit of American despair. Our Afghanistan recipe exceeds the Vietnam Conflict in terms of time and money, is a cesspool of waste and wasted lives, ours and theirs, and Al Qaeda doesn’t even live there anymore. Karzai is a puppet and a crook, rivaled in corruption only by his drug-dealing brother. As Hastings puts it, "Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the fifth-poorest country on earth has failed to win over the civilian population, whose attitude toward U.S. troops ranges from intensely wary to openly hostile."

Well, if nothing else, being "intensely wary to openly hostile" puts the Afghans in good company. This succinctly describes the attitude of a large percentage of Americans towards our government today. Curiously and I believe laudably, it also describes McChrystal’s attitude towards his military and civilian counterparts and bureaucratic superiors. It’s refreshing to know we share something with the people and livelihoods we are murdering, looting, lecturing and trying to "fix." Don’t take my word for it – just ask people on the Gulf Coast these days.

I was reminded of a few things as well. One was the rash use of macho profanity and the obscene as part of military camaraderie. There’s something special about the military seen as soldiers for Jesus doing the last great crusade by the Christian right giving the Constitution and every parable of Jesus a middle finger and a great big f**k you! Well, at least McChrystal is just doing that to Afghanistan, Iraq a few years before, the U.S. State Department, and Washington politicians. According to the article, his wife of 33 years rarely sees him, in the interests of national security and public service. I guess that’s something.

Speaking of the State Department, I was reminded too of Hillary Clinton, back in the day when she had such problems with the men in the military. Today, according to Hastings, Hillary is one of McCrystal’s political sponsors. She had his back, was making sure he got "what he wanted." Who can know the heart of a woman? But it’s is easy to understand the heart of an imperialist – and throughout history they have always been thrilled by the bold murderous generals who tell them "Yes We Can!"

I was also reminded that McChrystal eats only one meal a day. My gut reaction to hearing this cultish bit (again!) is that each of my five dogs also eat only one meal a day. On that basis alone, I certainly wouldn’t send them to conquer Afghanistan. However, I do have a Border collie. Perhaps, after McChrystal is fired, my dog Bandit could consult with General Petraeus. Eikenberry and the other "defeatists" certainly have the right idea. It’s simple. Get the f**k out of Afghanistan. Of course, I’m pretty sure Bandit doesn’t use profanity.

Finally, I was reminded that the people, like Hastings, who study the personalities and the formal policies of American empire are different people than those who study the fundamental economics and philosophy of that empire. In a sense, Hastings is classically liberal – considering individual logic, and freedom to choose and to act as existent in both national policy and within the leaders and actors, even the people, of that national bureaucracy. This is commendable, of course, and makes Hastings something of an optimist, saying as he did today on CNN that he did not imagine McChrystal would be fired over the piece but that he had hoped to create a new window for American discussion of the war in Afghanistan.

Hastings – and all of us who hope for change – would do well to explore classical liberal traditions a bit further, examining the same enlightenment ideas that inspired Marx (and from which he drew the wrong conclusion about the nature of class conflict). As Sheldon Richman writes in his short essay introducing Libertarian Class Analysis,

Thus it is crucial to see that the thinkers from whom Marx apparently learned about class analysis put in the productive class all who create utility through voluntary exchange. The "capitalist" (meaning in this context the owner of capital goods who is unconnected to the state) belongs in the industrious class along with workers.

Who were the exploiters? All who lived forcibly off of the industrious classes.

Eikenberry’s November missive (classified "Secret" and intended for diplomatic channels only) mentioned funding and resource wastage repeatedly – but as McChrystal no doubt recognized – his criticisms are but the jealous complaints of a tax feeder on his share, couched in strategic analysis. Hastings points out the extreme difference in finances between the military and the diplomatic bureaucracies, and the journalist inadvertently reveals a great deal of how this parasitical class works in his podcast with Antiwar’s ScottHorton this week.

The day-to-day drama of the parasitic exploiting class – Obama and Petraeus, Clinton and McChrystal,Enron and Unocal, Lockheed-Martin and Northrop-Grumman, FOX versus CNN versus MSNBC in their three-legged sack race to put out the status quo story – is really not important. As we have been assured repeatedly by top Senators and talking heads and the White House, the status quo for the exploiting class that benefits immensely from the Afghanistan occupation (and sorry, I forgot to mention many stately and elegant drug money laundering establishments in Europe, Asia and America) will not be changed by the retirement of McChrystal. Move along, there’s nothing to see here.

In reading "The Runaway General" I learned a few things, I was reminded of a few things, and Hastings provided me with at least one chuckle. It occurs to me that perhaps now, after decades of wasting his talents trying to create a world shaped by his imagination, Stan McChrystal can now go back to his first love – writing fiction.

June 25, 2010

LRC columnist Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. [send her mail], a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, writes defense issues with a libertarian perspective Liberty and Power and The Beacon. To receive automatic announcements of new articles, click here or join her Facebook page.

Copyright © 2010 Karen Kwiatkowski

Karen Kwiatkowski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Karen Kwiatkowski
Born September 24, 1960 (age 49)
Kwiatkowski during an interview in Honor Betrayed
Allegiance	United States of America
Service/branch	United States Air Force
Years of service	1978–2003
Rank	Lieutenant Colonel
Unit	Near East/South Asia and Special Plans
Other work	A Case Study of the Implementation of the Reagan Doctrine.

Karen U. Kwiatkowski (born 24 September 1960) is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonelwhose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency. Since retiring, she has become a noted critic of the U.S. government's involvement inIraq. Kwiatkowski is primarily known for her insider essays which denounce a corrupting political influence on the course of military intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski has an MA in Government from Harvard University and an MS in Science Management from the University of Alaska. She has a PhD in World Politics from The Catholic University of America; her thesis was on overt and covert war in Angola, A Case Study of the Implementation of the Reagan Doctrine. She has also published two books about U.S. policy towards Africa: African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (US Army Peacekeeping Institute, 2000) andExpeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (Air University Press, 2001).^[1]

Kill a Turk and Rest

By Uri Avnery ON THE high seas, outside territorial waters, the ship was stopped by the navy. The commandos stormed it. Hundreds of people on the deck resisted, the soldiers used force. Some of the passengers were killed, scores injured. The ship was brought into harbor, the passengers were taken off by force. The world saw them walking on the quay, men and women, young and old, all of them worn out, one after another, each being marched between two soldiers… The ship was called “Exodus 1947”. It left France in the hope of breaking the British blockade, which was imposed to prevent ships loaded with Holocaust survivors from reaching the shores of Palestine. If it had been allowed to reach the country, the illegal immigrants would have come ashore and the British would have sent them to detention camps in Cyprus, as they had done before. Nobody would have taken any notice of the episode for more than two days. But the person in charge was Ernest Bevin, a Labour Party leader, an arrogant, rude and power-loving British minister. He was not about to let a bunch of Jews dictate to him. He decided to teach them a lesson the entire world would witness. “This is a provocation!” he exclaimed, and of course he was right. The main aim was indeed to create a provocation, in order to draw the eyes of the world to the British blockade. What followed is well known: the episode dragged on and on, one stupidity led to another, the whole world sympathized with the passengers. But the British did not give in and paid the price. A heavy price. Many believe that the “Exodus” incident was the turning point in the struggle for the creation of the State of Israel. Britain collapsed under the weight of international condemnation and decided to give up its mandate over Palestine. There were, of course, many more weighty reasons for this decision, but the “Exodus” proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back. I AM not the only one who was reminded of this episode this week. Actually, it was almost impossible not to be reminded of it, especially for those of us who lived in Palestine at the time and witnessed it. There are, of course, important differences. Then the passengers were Holocaust survivors, this time they were peace activists from all over the world. But then and now the world saw heavily armed soldiers brutally attack unarmed passengers, who resist with everything that comes to hand, sticks and bare hands. Then and now it happened on the high seas – 40 km from the shore then, 65 km now. In retrospect, the British behavior throughout the affair seems incredibly stupid. But Bevin was no fool, and the British officers who commanded the action were not nincompoops. After all, they had just finished a World War on the winning side. If they behaved with complete folly from beginning to end, it was the result of arrogance, insensitivity and boundless contempt for world public opinion. Ehud Barak is the Israeli Bevin. He is not a fool, either, nor are our top brass. But they are responsible for a chain of acts of folly, the disastrous implications of which are hard to assess. Former minister and present commentator Yossi Sarid called the ministerial “committee of seven”, which decides on security matters, “seven idiots” – and I must protest. It is an insult to idiots. THE PREPARATIONS for the flotilla went on for more than a year. Hundreds of e-mail messages went back and forth. I myself received many dozens. There was no secret. Everything was out in the open. There was a lot of time for all our political and military institutions to prepare for the approach of the ships. The politician consulted. The soldiers trained. The diplomats reported. The intelligence people did their job. Nothing helped. All the decisions were wrong from the first moment to this moment. And it’s not yet the end. The idea of a flotilla as a means to break the blockade borders on genius. It placed the Israeli government on the horns of a dilemma – the choice between several alternatives, all of them bad. Every general hopes to get his opponent into such a situation. The alternatives were: To let the flotilla reach Gaza without hindrance. The cabinet secretary supported this option. That would have led to the end of the blockade, because after this flotilla more and larger ones would have come. To stop the ships in territorial waters, inspect their cargo and make sure they were not carrying weapons or “terrorists”, then let them continue on their way. That would have aroused some vague protests in the world but upheld the principle of a blockade. To capture them on the high seas and bring them to Ashdod, risking a face-to-face battle with activists on board. As our governments have always done, when faced with the choice between several bad alternatives, the Netanyahu government chose the worst. Anyone who followed the preparations as reported in the media could have foreseen that they would lead to people being killed and injured. One does not storm a Turkish ship and expect cute little girls to present one with flowers. The Turks are not known as people who give in easily. The orders given to the forces and made public included the three fateful words: “at any cost”. Every soldier knows what these three terrible words mean. Moreover, on the list of objectives, the consideration for the passengers appeared only in third place, after safeguarding the safety of the soldiers and fulfilling the task. If Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, the Chief of Staff and the commander of the navy did not understand that this would lead to killing and wounding people, then it must be concluded - even by those who were reluctant to consider this until now – that they are grossly incompetent. They must be told, in the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell to Parliament: “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!” THIS EVENT points again to one of the most serious aspects of the situation: we live in a bubble, in a kind of mental ghetto, which cuts us off and prevents us from seeing another reality, the one perceived by the rest of the world. A psychiatrist might judge this to be the symptom of a severe mental problem. The propaganda of the government and the army tells a simple story: our heroic soldiers, determined and sensitive, the elite of the elite, descended on the ship in order “to talk” and were attacked by a wild and violent crowd. Official spokesmen repeated again and again the word “lynching”. On the first day, almost all the Israeli media accepted this. After all, it is clear that we, the Jews, are the victims. Always. That applies to Jewish soldiers, too. True, we storm a foreign ship at sea, but turn at once into victims who have no choice but to defend ourselves against violent and incited anti-Semites. It is impossible not to be reminded of the classic Jewish joke about the Jewish mother in Russia taking leave of her son, who has been called up to serve the Czar in the war against Turkey. “Don’t overexert yourself’” she implores him, “Kill a Turk and rest. Kill another Turk and rest again…” “But mother,” the son interrupts, “What if the Turk kills me?” “You?” exclaims the mother, “But why? What have you done to him?” To any normal person, this may sound crazy. Heavily armed soldiers of an elite commando unit board a ship on the high seas in the middle of the night, from the sea and from the air – and they are the victims? But there is a grain of truth there: they are the victims of arrogant and incompetent commanders, irresponsible politicians and the media fed by them. And, actually, of the Israeli public, since most of the people voted for this government or for the opposition, which is no different. The “Exodus” affair was repeated, but with a change of roles. Now we are the British. Somewhere, a new Leon Uris is planning to write his next book, “Exodus 2010”. A new Otto Preminger is planning a film that will become a blockbuster. A new Paul Newman will star in it – after all, there is no shortage of talented Turkish actors. MORE THAN 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson declared that every nation must act with a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. Israeli leaders have never accepted the wisdom of this maxim. They adhere to the dictum of David Ben-Gurion: “It is not important what the Gentiles say, it is important what the Jews do.” Perhaps he assumed that the Jews would not act foolishly. Making enemies of the Turks is more than foolish. For decades, Turkey has been our closest ally in the region, much more close than is generally known. Turkey could play, in the future, an important role as a mediator between Israel and the Arab-Muslim world, between Israel and Syria, and, yes, even between Israel and Iran. Perhaps we have succeeded now in uniting the Turkish people against us – and some say that this is the only matter on which the Turks are now united. This is Chapter 2 of “Cast Lead”. Then we aroused most countries in the world against us, shocked our few friends and gladdened our enemies. Now we have done it again, and perhaps with even greater success. World public opinion is turning against us. This is a slow process. It resembles the accumulation of water behind a dam. The water rises slowly, quietly, and the change is hardly noticeable. But when it reaches a critical level, the dam bursts and the disaster is upon us. We are steadily approaching this point. “Kill a Turk and rest,” the mother says in the joke. Our government does not even rest. It seems that they will not stop until they have made enemies of the last of our friends. (Parts of this article were published in Ma’ariv, Israel’s second largest newspaper.) http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1275739480

Lift the Siege of Gaza

by Patrick J. Buchanan


In June 1948, our wartime ally imposed a blockade on Berlin, cutting off and condemning to death or Stalinist domination 2 million Germans, most of whom, not long before, had cheered Adolf Hitler.
Harry Truman responded with the Berlin airlift, in perhaps the most magnanimous act of the Cold War.
For nine months, U.S. pilots flew into Tempelhof, carrying everything from candy to coal, saving a city and earning the eternal gratitude of the people of Berlin, and admiration everywhere that moral courage is admired.
That was an America that lived its values.
And today, President Obama should end his and his country's shameful silence over the inhumane blockade of Gaza that is denying 1.5 million beleaguered people the basic necessities of a decent life.
Time to start acting like America again.
That bloody debacle in the Eastern Mediterranean last Sunday was an inevitable result of Israel doing what it always seems to do: going beyond what is essential to her security, to impose collective punishment upon any and all it regards as hostile to Israel.
Israel claims, and film confirms, that its commandos rappelling down onto the Turkish ship were attacked with sticks and metal rods. One was tossed off a deck, another tossed overboard into a lifeboat.
But that 2 a.m. boarding of an unarmed ship with an unarmed crew, carrying no munitions or weapons, 65 miles at sea, was an act of piracy. What the Israeli commandos got is what any armed hijacker should expect who tries to steal a car from a driver who keeps a tire iron under the front seat.
And the response of these highly trained naval commandos to the resistance they encountered? They shot and killed nine passengers, and wounded many more.
But we have a blockade of Gaza, say the Israelis, and this flotilla was a provocation. Indeed, it was. And Selma was a provocation. The marchers at Edmund Pettus Bridge were disobeying orders of the governor of Alabama and state police not to march.
Yet, today, liberal Democrats who regard Martin Luther King as a moral hero for championing nonviolent civil disobedience to protest injustice are cheering not the unarmed passengers trying to break the Gaza blockade, but the Israelis enforcing the blockade.
Where were these fellows when "Bull" Connor really needed them?
Comes the retort: Israel is a friend and ally, and we stand with our friends.
But is not Turkey a friend and ally of 50 years, whose soldiers died alongside ours in Korea and who accepted Jupiter missiles targeted on Russia, even before the Cuban missile crisis? Was it not Turkey whose citizens were wounded and killed in the bloody debacle?
Why are we not at least even-handed between our friends?
On the trip to Israel where he was blindsided by news that Israel would build 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, Joe Biden told Shimon Peres, "There is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel's security."
And that is the problem.
America is a superpower with interests in an Arab world of 300 million and an Islamic world of 1.5 billion – interests Israel treats with indifference if not contempt when it comes to doing what she regards as necessary for her security.

While Israel had a right to build a wall to protect her people from terror attack, did she have a right to build it on Palestinian land?
While Israel had a right to go after Hezbollah when her soldiers were shot on the border and several kidnapped, did Israel have a right to conduct a five-week bombing campaign that smashed Lebanon, killing hundreds of civilians and creating upward of a million refugees?
While Israel had a right to go into Gaza to stop the firing of crude rockets on Sderot, did she have a right to smash utilities and public buildings and kill 1,400 people, most of them civilians?
Is whatever Israel decides to do in the name of her security fine with us, because there is "absolutely no space" between our interests and hers, our values and Israel's values?
Even with Winston Churchill's Britain, there was "space" between us on strategic goals and national policies.
Israel has a right to secure Gaza to deny Hamas access to weapons, especially rockets that could reach Israel. But that does not justify denying 1.5 million people what they need to live in decency.
According to The Washington Post, "80 percent of the population (of Gaza) depends on charity. Hospitals, schools, electricity systems and sewage treatment facilities are all in deep disrepair."
With our silence, we support this. And we wonder why they hate us.
Obama should tell the Israelis that Joe got it wrong. There is space between us. The Gaza siege must end. And America will herself be sending aid, but will also support Israel's right to inspect trucks and ships to see to it no weapons get through to Gaza.
Let's start behaving like who we once were.

Patrick J. Buchanan [send him mail] is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and A Republic Not An Empire. His latest book is Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. See his website.
Copyright © 2010 Creators Syndicate

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan138.html

We are all Gazans now

By Pepe Escobar

Just imagine if these were Iranian commandos attacking a multinational, six-boat aid flotilla in international waters. The United States, the European Union and Israel would instantly make sure to shock and awe Iran to kingdom come.

Instead, it was Israeli commandos who perpetrated this bit of gunboat diplomacy - or "self-defense" - in the dark hours of the early morning, in international waters, some 130 kilometers off the coast of Gaza.

And what if they were Somali pirates? Oh no, these are Israeli pirates fighting shady, "terrorist" Muslims ... It doesn't matter that Arab, Turkish, European, developing-world public opinion and governments are fuming. So what? Israel always gets away
with - as Turkey is stressing - "murder" (or "state terrorism", according to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan).

Footage from the deck of the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara - played across the world, but not much on US networks - is unmistakable. Fully body-armored and weaponized Israeli commandos have approached the flotilla on high-speed marine dinghies, deployed stun grenades and tear gas and shot everything in sight - a military helicopter is hovering over the flotilla. At a certain point the commander of the Marmara is heard, in English: "Please stop all resistance. They are using live ammunition."

Ah, the "resistance" ... Debka, essentially an Israeli intelligence digital spin machine, described the peace flotilla occupants as armed with "firebombs, stun grenades, broken glass, slingshots, iron bars, axes and knives". Were the commandos only carrying paintballs and pistols?

So there you have it - Monty Python once again (tragically) remixed for the 21st century. The best-trained special forces in the world just wanted to "talk" and were attacked by a bunch of knife-wielding terrorists in a Turkish boat carrying tons of aid - medicine, building materials, school equipment, food, water purifiers, toys - for the 1.5 million Gazans who have been slowly dying under an Israeli blockade for the past three years, ever since they democratically elected a government by Hamas.

Debka even laments that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) - "famous for its innovative electronic warfare capabilities" - did not bother to jam the signals and images coming from the flotilla, so the whole world wouldn't see a thing. They also lament the attack was in international waters; "the blockade zone is 20 nautical miles deep from Gaza. An Israeli raid at that limit would have been easier to justify". Obviously, they ignore the fact that Israel has no legal international claim to the (illegally occupied) Gaza coast.

We're such a suffering lot
No one excels in post-Orwellian, war-is-peace newspeak as Israel. Not only the Israeli commandos are being spun as the victims; the world is being subjected to a complete Israeli-orchestrated news blackout. Nobody really knows how many civilians were killed (nine, 19,20? Mostly Turkish? Maybe two Algerians? Any Americans or Europeans?) Nobody really knows if they were carrying "weapons". Nobody really knows at what point the commandos freaked out (eyewitnesses tell of people being killed in their sleep).

All the several hundred passengers on the flotilla - Muslims, Christians, diplomats, non-governmental organization officials, journalists - have been de facto kidnapped by Israel. Nobody knows where they are being held. Radio static rules. Only myriad Israeli "spokespeople" control the word.

Such as IDF spokeswoman Avital Liebovitch, stressing how lucky were the commandos to "have those guns" to defend themselves (they are being hailed in Israel as "brave heroes").

So here's how Israeli newspeak goes. Weapons-smuggling Hamas "terrorists" dupe fake international "demonstrators" into becoming human shields and start a firefight with Israeli commandos. Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon, for instance, has described the flotilla as an al-Qaeda-linked "armada of hate and violence". Looks like Hamas and al-Qaeda are now in the business of smuggling cement, orange juice and Chinese dolls.

It doesn't matter in all this that the World Health Organization, in a fresh report, has stressed how Gaza - because of the illegal Israeli blockade the flotilla was trying to break - is mired in absolute poverty, unemployment, lack of medicine and medical equipment, and is being literally starved to death; no less than 10% of Gazans, mostly children, are physically stunted from malnutrition. The Israeli commandos were defending the illegal Israeli blockade in Gaza.

Progressive Jews, wherever they live, are the first to admit that most of Israel nowadays is extreme right-wing, paranoid, and convinced they are victims of a global propaganda war. Thus the eternal recurrence message - conveniently enveloped by US tax dollars - to the whole world. Shut up. We are the victims - we are always the victims. If you don't believe it, you are an anti-Semite.

The fool on the hill
Fortunately for Israel, there's always the original land of the free, home of the brave. Only in the US large sections of the population are capable of clamoring for punishing sanctions to be imposed on Iran and North Korea while being blind to the slow-motion genocide going on in the Israeli gulag.

And only one place in the whole world is capable of buying the narrative of Israel as "victims" of a humanitarian aid flotilla: the US Congress. The US State Department, in an official note, practically condemned the humanitarians. As for US President Barack Obama, so far he has been as mute (embarrassed?) as during the first weeks of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; the White House only expressed "deep regret", without condemning Israel.

The White House's Israeli-in-charge, Rahm Emanuel, had invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington for an amenable kiss-and-makeup get-together this Tuesday. On Monday, Netanyahu canceled the trip. Word in Washington is that Obama would pass a sponge over non-stop expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the appalling condition of the Gaza gulag as a whole in exchange for crucial extra cash from pro-Israel donors to the Democratic party, essential for winning the November legislative elections in the US. The Democrats are going to get the cash anyway - they just need to be mildly "concerned" about the ocean massacre, and that's it.

Once again poor Obama - perhaps against his will - is left emasculated, like a mere Banana Republic satrap, while Netanyahu is allowed to merrily groan a remixed version of The Village People's Macho, Macho Man. As the humanitarian flotilla was sailing under Turkish, Greek and Irish flags, the Israeli commandos in fact attacked a microcosm of the real, flesh-and-blood "international community" - with Netanyahu harboring no doubts he'll once again get away with it.

So how does it feel, Mr President, to be the fool on the hill?

And how does it feel for the rest of us, the real, flesh-and-blood international community - apart from manifesting immense outrage (as did the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) plus Turkey, France and Spain)? A distinct possibility - already considered in quite a few latitudes - is to boycott all things Israeli, or impose sanctions. To really hurt their economy. To totally isolate them diplomatically. If for a majority of Israelis the whole world is their enemy - governments, organizations, non-governmental organizations, aid agencies, public opinion - why not return the compliment?

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF02Ak02.html