| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
“We are not something to be bought and we are not to be sold. We are subject citizens, we want to be respected and we will contribute to a better future for our countries,” said Ramadan. A professor at Oxford University, Ramadan often underlines the importance of freedom and tells practicing European Muslims that they still have the option of making political, social and cultural decisions for themselves. On the issue of Islamophobia, Ramadan said: “Muslims should respect people’s fear by responding to their questions and should also resist the instrumentalization of fear in what I call emotional politics. Emotional politics uses this fear just to win the next election.” Ramadan was in İstanbul to speak at a conference held by the Women Entrepreneurs Association of Turkey (KAGİDER) Ramadan, who is regarded as the most influential Muslim thinker in Europe, gave an interview to Sunday’s Zaman on the highly controversial topics of modernism, Islam and secularism. You have an article called “Manifesto for a new ‘We’” which was published in The Independent. I would like you to explain what “We” means? I describe it as a manifesto for a new “We.” We live in pluralistic societies in the West, as well as in Muslim countries like Turkey. We are not even clear about what it means to be a pluralistic society. Instead of speaking about our differences, the principle at the beginning is to accept that these are pluralistic societies. We have no choice. The West now is full of pluralistic societies. Islam is a Western religion as well as a religion for Muslim-majority countries, and we are bound by the laws of the country, we speak the language of the country, we are loyal to the country and we have our objective. And this objective is that you and I, Muslims, non-Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Christians, Jews are to come together and do something to work together. So a new “We” is a vision for more contribution and to stop talking about integration. When we look at Europe, we see some problems occurring one after the other in countries such as Greece and Spain. It starts with an economic crisis and a social crisis and then transforms into hatred and the exclusion of foreigners. Is this really the case in Europe? The situation in Europe and in the West by and large is not very good. We have trends coming from far-right parties and populist parties targeting Muslims because they are undermining the homogeneity of the society, the culture and living together. I am Swiss by nationality, and in my country we voted against the minarets, we are talking about the burqa and headscarves. Any visible symbol of Islam is perceived as a danger, and the parties are building on that. At the same time, what is happening at the grassroots level is much better because you have Muslims settling down, working, contributing and doing their jobs. So I think that there is a state of tension within society because we are facing an identity crisis within the Muslim communities, who are asking “who are we?” and within the surrounding society. Now what we have to do is to be much more involved in society and not let far-right parties and populist parties set the political agenda. We should be much more involved in society to create a new “We.” We are citizens. We are not minorities and we are not the victims of a minority mentality. We should be involved in society; this is the best way in fact to react to the trends that we see today in Europe. Is Islamophobia still an issue in Europe? Yes, I would speak about racism against Muslims. Muslims are targeted if they wear a headscarf, if they have a Muslim name or if they appear to be like a Muslim. It is still difficult to get a job, to get a house, to be respected and the atmosphere is very difficult. So I would say yes, there is Islamophobia. Many people are really experiencing phobia, which means fear. Muslims should respect people’s fear by responding to their questions and should also resist the instrumentalization of fear in what I call emotional politics. Emotional politics uses this fear just to win the next election. The integration of Muslim immigrants and Europeans was considered a challenging issue in Europe. Today can we talk about the contribution of the third and fourth generations to European society rather than their integration into society? I would say that we have to differentiate between the discussion on Islam and Muslims in Europe, or European Muslims, with immigration, because immigration is an ongoing process. We keep speaking about immigration. Now we have millions of Europeans and we are reaching the fifth generation, not only the third one. Regarding the fifth generation in some countries such as France and the UK, we still speak about British citizens of immigrant backgrounds, of French citizens of immigrant backgrounds. These are now citizens and it means that for many people Islam is still a foreign religion and a religion of immigrants and we have to show now that it is not true. As you said, the success of integration is to stop talking about integration. It is now to speak about contribution and living together. Still, we will have immigration problems but they are not connected to Islam, they are connected to the fact that Europe cannot survive if there are no people coming from the outside. We need migrants and immigrants to help us in the economic field but we deny this. So there is an economic need and a cultural resistance. But this is another situation, it is another discussion. We have to distinguish between European Muslims living in the country as citizens and contributing and how to deal with the new immigrants who are coming in, and we have to deal with them on political, social and cultural grounds, of course. Do you find the dialogue between Muslim immigrants and Europeans sufficient? I speak about citizens talking to their governments. I think that at the local level it is much better than what we see. At the national level we have controversies like in the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Germany and Norway. So I would say it is not enough and we have to improve the dialogue, but if we look at the local level we can find that there are very interesting processes and trends. It is going to be a very long process. It will take at least two generations before we settle down. So we have to be patient, we have to work for the future and for the next generation, not for the next election. This is something to be made very clear. We are not something to be bought and we are not to be sold. We are subject citizens, we want to be respected and we will contribute to a better future for our countries. This is our loyalty to the country; we want the best for our countries. Can we say that the young Muslim immigrants are contributing more to European society? Not only the new generation, not only the third generation. We have to keep in mind and to remind people that the first generation contributed to the rebuilding of Europe after World War II. We have to say this, we have to say that mothers and fathers, even grandfathers and grandmothers, came and they contributed to society. They built France, Germany, Britain, Sweden and Belgium. These countries needed these people and they were even asking these people to come. I was with Jack Straw, the previous UK secretary of state for justice, who said, “We went there to bring them here.” So we brought them to Europe. The first generation contributed, the second generation contributed and the third generation is contributing in many fields -- within academia, on the social ground, in the arts, in music, in entertainment, in sports and in anything which has to do with culture as well. So, yes, of course, the contribution is huge. Considering the misunderstanding and even conflicts between Islam and the West, is it about the clash of cultures or perceptions? This is what I am saying. This is not a clash of civilizations; this is a clash of perceptions. So people perceive the other in an essentialist way. This is the West and this is Islam. Well this is wrong. There are lots of things that have come from Islam in the West, and there are lots of things from the West in Islam. So they intertwine, and I would say that this perception that there are two blocs and two entities that are striving and conflicting is wrong. It is much more our perceptions that are problematic. Do you find the Alliance of Civilizations [AoC] useful in terms of people understanding each other? It is always useful to have platforms where you have dialogue. Now you have to ask what the intentions are and where they lead us. The first thing is that while we were talking about the clash of civilizations before, people are now talking about dialogue and alliance, saying we have to work together, and that’s fine. I was involved in this and I was invited to a meeting of the Alliance of Civilizations two weeks ago in Cordoba. My point here is really beyond that. We have to remind ourselves that dialogue and alliances should not only be symbolic and far removed from the people. So if you talk to Muslims at the grassroots level today, Europeans and Westerners at the grassroots level, these people don’t even know what is happening. So these are specialists talking to each other that are far removed from the grass roots and it has no impact. I would say dialogue and alliances are fine but we have to ask the questions of “where” and “with whom.” Do you find Turkey to be a complex country on the basis of the idea that concepts such as modernism, secularism, Islam and women’s issues are still controversial subjects and are not likely to be settled? I think it is not going to settle for the next two generations. There may be more controversy in Turkey than in other countries, but still it is the same everywhere. Turkey is really at the crossroads of being involved in the EU, being involved in the West and being faithful to Islamic principles. This is exactly what we see within society. So how do you deal with this? By being faithful to tradition, to practices and to principles. There are tensions, and they are difficult to overcome. This is why, as you said, Turkey has not yet settled; but it is a necessary process, and my hope is for Turkey to lead or pave the way for Muslim-majority countries to show that it is possible to have democracy and transparency but still to remain faithful to Islam. It is possible not to impose anything on women, not to push people to remove the headscarf and to be able to be fully Muslim and completely modern. This is possible, and I think that Turkey is under pressure because some in Europe want Turkey to forget much more about their principles and some other Muslims are saying you are betraying and forgetting Islam. Sometimes, you know, when you are walking down the streets in İstanbul you can feel the tension between modernization and tradition and this is part of the Turkish identity today. You are facing the challenges of your time. Some people in Turkey support the French style of secularism, while others feel closer to the American style. What are your thoughts on the application of secularism on Turkey? I think that Turkey should find its own way. It is not going to follow the footsteps of the French or the American system. Now we need to put things into context. The secular system was imposed on this country in a way which was very very tough. So there are developments and steps that we have to take into account. There is no way for Turkey to go ahead and push forward to find new solutions in the future if it does not question the kind of secularism that it has. You cannot just come out and say that everything which is religious is wrong. That’s not going to work. I think that Turkey should, step-by-step and in a very patient way, find its own way to solve the problem. The rule of law? Yes. A secular system? Why not, if no one is prevented from practicing her or his religion according to his or her understanding? You are also saying that there is one Islam but many interpretations of Islam. Do you think that much of the responsibility falls not to the system in which we are living but to the individual herself to learn the original sources of Islam? There are two things. Any individual, whether that person is a man or a woman, needs to have a basic knowledge of Islam. This is a personal commitment and responsibility. I mean you have to do that. You have to know why you pray, how to pray, what the meanings of the five pillars of Islam are and what the meanings of the six pillars of faith are. All of this is basic knowledge. Now when it comes to interpreting theQuran, you can’t. It is not for everyone to do that. Worshipping is the way for everyone to be close to the spiritual text. Your heart is moved by what you are reading. When it comes to extracting rules, not everyone can do this. Is the Muslim world falling away from the original text and teachings of Islam? Oh yes, in many ways. As I said today, when we speak about women, when we speak about politics and corruption, we are forgetting many of the ethical teachings and lessons that are given by Islam. So, I think that we have cultural distortion coming from the Turkish and the Arab culture, the Asian culture and even the Western culture, and we also have reductionism, which is a very literal way of reading the text but not contextualizing the text. Once again, there are things which are immutable; they are not going to change in our religion. Not everyone can just read the Quran and interpret the very meaning of it. Scholars can do that. You say “Don’t just talk to the West, talk among yourselves.” There is a huge Muslims population but they are weak in power. Is this about their lack of confidence? Yes, I think that is completely right. I think what is missing for Muslims today is self-confidence. We don’t lack power. We have lots of power. The Muslim-majority countries have money and the petro-monarchies have money. Even if you look at what is happening in Turkey, there are lots of opportunities. So let us use these opportunities to do something which is more important with confidence, by being more assertive and in line with our principles and understandings. The psychological factor is so important. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ŞEYMA AKKOYUNLU İSTANBUL | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The new ‘We’ is a manifesto for today’s pluralistic societies
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Making room for the Taliban
 |
| 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.
Friday, June 25, 2010
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
| Karen Kwiatkowski | |
|---|---|
| Born September 24, 1960 | |
 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]
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Kill a Turk and Rest
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:
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.)
|
Friday, June 4, 2010
Lift the Siege of Gaza
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.
Copyright © 2010 Creators Syndicate
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
We are all Gazans now
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).
