Unintended consequences? The Military Industrial Complex is seeing 10 X bonuses for the CEO's and stock holders for the next 5 years, and the International Private Bankers that fund perpetual war are also.
This is the greatest profit windfall they've seen in our life times!!! If one wasn't so sure everyone operated only for the best interests of the people of this planet, one would think this was a well carried out Business plan. Scott > Blowback Happens > Unintended Consequences in Libya > by GARY LEUPP >  âThis is the first time in American history when we > have used our military power to prop up and possibly put in power a > group of people we literally do not know.â >>âNicholas Burns, Bush-era undersecretary of state, writing in March >> 2011 about U.S. support for anti-Qaddafi forces in Libya >>âIt could be a very big surprise when Qaddafi leaves and we find out >> who we are really dealing with.â >>â Paul Sullivan, professor of political science at Georgetown >> University specializing in Libya, March 2011 > Well surprise, surprise, everybody! Especially you warmongers, > neocons, âliberal interventionists,â congressional cowards, and > slavish > press! Your efforts to shape and exploit the Arab Spring have stirred up > hornetsâ nests. > One should probably not call the various embassy attacks sparked by a > grotesque and hate-filled film, and the killing of four U.S. diplomats > in Libya, an instance of âthe chickens coming home to roost.â Not > because this isnât true, but because one doesnât want to meet the fate > of Ward Churchill, persecuted for observing that in relation to the 9/11 > attacks. Instead letâs quote the dry commentary of Rick Gladstone of > the New York Times: > âThe protests [throughout the Muslim world]â¦seemed to > highlight the unintended consequences of U.S. support of movements to > overthrow those autocrats [such as Qaddafi], which have empowered > Islamist groups that remain implacably hostile to the West.â > Well, as the kids say, duh⦠The CIA has a term for such âunintended > consequences:â blowback. > Gladstone cites Rob Malley, North Africa specialist with the > International Crisis Group: âWe have, throughout the Arab world, a > young, unemployed, alienated and radicalized group of people, mainly > men, who have found a vehicle to express themselvesâ¦[In various Arab > countries] the state has lost a lot of its capacity to govern > effectively. Paradoxically, that has made it more likely that events > like the video [attacking Islam and the Prophet Muhammad] will make > people take to the streets and act in the way they did.â > Malley might have added: âa vehicle to express themselves against the > U.S.â The toppling of tyrants has allowed the unemployed, alienated > Muslim > masses more freedom to express their outrage against those who support > Israel as it occupies Palestinian land, abuses and humiliates > Palestinians in myriad ways, and routinely invades and bombs its > neighbors. The new freedom allows them to decry U.S. support for fallen > and continuing tyrannies (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain). It permits them to > vent their anger against the murderous sanctions imposed on Iraq, > followed by a bloody war based on lies and cruel occupation. There is no > end of (thoroughly rational and justified) Arab reasons to resent U.S. > policies and behavior in the region. > But the fact that greater freedom has allowed expressions of outrage > is not really paradoxical at all. Isnât it consistent to hate both the > local oppressor now gone and those who armed him, signed trade deals > with him, and diplomatically supported him for years? > As for Gladstoneâs mention of âU.S. support of movements to overthrow > those autocratsâ⦠pleeeease! Support in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen was > late in coming, minimal, and > prompted by opportunism. The U.S. backed its dear friend Mubarak to near > the bitter end, when there was a choice to either keep backing himâand > risk an anti-U.S. explosion that could jeopardize the U.S.-brokered > peace agreement with Israelâor urge him to step down in deference to > U.S. interests. Only them came the U.S. presidentâs predictable > flattering words for the mass movement. > Only when it became clear that more uprisings were in the offing did > the imperialists (including among others the French, British, and > Italians) discover some sudden empathy with the Arab street. The Arab > Spring had to be co-opted. How better to do that than to hone in on a > regime in Libya which, while in fact intimately aligned in some ways > with imperialist objectives, could be easily vilified and toppled with > the NATO bombers posturing as âfriends of the peopleâ? > Many in the corporate media are expressing puzzlement about whythese > people, these Arabs, who ought to be grateful to the U.S., feel such > (âanti-Americanâ) outrage. Thus Richard Engels in a report on NBC News > pronounces it âironicâ that after âU.S. diplomats⦠helped to give > these > demonstrators, these protesters, a voiceâ are venting such inexplicable > range and attacking U.S. embassies. > Unfortunately the people of this country are not generally aware of > how monstrously the U.S. government has behaved throughout the Middle > East. So such expressions of injury and indignation probably resonate. > Surely many are thinking: Those ungrateful wretches! > Thereâs a widespread perception that yes, âweâ have made > âmistakes,â > âlike all countries.â But not (yet) a general perception that the U.S. > is an imperialist power driven by geopolitical considerations rooted in > the competitive need to secure markets, raw materials, and military > bases to maintain and expand the informal empire. Not an understanding > that the âmistakesâ are really always in their time calculated crimes > that âweâ (ordinary citizens of this country) have nothing to do with. > Not an understanding that U.S. imperialism inflicts real suffering on > real people, on a massive scale, routinely. > In the real world, the U.S. has always helped deny a voice > to the Arab masses, by rejecting the results of free elections, coddling > the most repressive regimes, training torture squads, providing police > tear-gas canisters clearly labeled âMade in USA.â Just this morning > (Sept. 16) I read in the New York Times that âThe Egyptian > government, responding to administration pressure, cracked down on > protesters in Cairo on Saturday.â Reminds me of how George W. Bush > ordered Pakistani president Musharraf to forbid anti-U.S. demonstrations > in his country after 9/11. So much for âfree speech.â > You invade Afghanistan, clueless about the culture, to topple a > regime you do not understandâsince you with your simple âfor us or > against usâ mentality refuse to âdistinguishâ it from the (really > very > different) al-Qaeda. (Recall G. W. Bushâs declaration on 9/11, âWe > will > make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and > those who harbor them.â) You proudly boast âWe donât do nuanceâ > and in > fact make no distinction between boys and adults, or those with al-Qaeda > connections and those with none. You torture innocent and guilty alike > with electric shock, water boarding, sleep deprivation, freezing cold, > sexual humiliation, attack dogs⦠> Long after al-Qaeda is gone from Afghanistan you randomly invade and > ransack homes in the middle of the night, subjecting home-secluded women > to foreignersâ gaze, humiliating their husbands and fathers. You attack > wedding parties with drone-fired missiles. You disgust the Afghan > troops youâre supposed to train by your constant profanity that offends > their religious sensibilities. You revolt them by publicly urinating. > Indeed you urinate on corpses, taking photos. > You burn Quârans. You go berserk and methodically shoot down 16 men, > women and children to avenge one of your fallen comrades. And then > youâre shocked at how unappreciative the Afghans are as their > parliamentarians protest your killings. Youâre shocked at the rising > instance of âgreen-on-blueâ (now officially called âinsiderâ) > killings, over 50 so far this year. Youâre shocked by the fact that, a > decade after the invasion, the massive army youâre > supposed to train canât do anything by itself because the illiterate > kids arenât in it from conviction but for a paycheck in a desperately > poor country. And it seems the more closely they work with you, the more > they come to despise you. You wonder why the Taliban, defeated so > decisively within weeks of the October 2001 invasion, have been able to > regroup and bog you down, denying you the victory you once thought was > so obvious and clear. > Youâre perhaps shocked by the fact that the Iraqis refused to allow > U.S. troops to remain on their soil beyond 2011, despite the Obama > administrationâs repeated efforts to retain bases and U.S. forces in the > country. Why donât they welcome a 60-70 year presence, like Germany, > Japan or Korea? > Youâre surely shocked by Libyans, who received so much help in their > civil war (culminating in the capture, videotaped knife-rape, and murder > of Qaddafi), repaying âusâ for that help with the savage attack on the > Benghazi consulate. But didnât sober voices note early last year that > Benghazi was a hub of radical Islamist activity and that the largest > number of foreign al-Qaeda militants in Iraq had journeyed there from > Libya? > * * * > Thereâs a mounting awareness that the U.S. is controlled by, and > governed in the interests of, the 1%. Hence the appeal of the Occupy > movements. But these were inspired by the âArab Spring,â by movements > challenging not just Presidents Bin Ali, Mubarak, Saleh etc. but that > very same 1% that determines U.S. foreign policy. Fundamentally, the > attacks on symbols of U.S. global powerâU.S. imperialismâare not > attacks on the people of this country but attacks on the regime that has > provoked resistance from Tunis to New York, Cairo to Seattle. > In March 2003, following an anti-government demonstration in Tahrir > Square in Cairo including 12-hour occupation of the square, a > participating student blogged, âMany Iâve met, young and old, had > the > same comment, coming from an old song written by Salah Jahin. They told > me, El sharei lenaâthe street is ours. Even one young woman > commented: âI never understood what that meant, now I do.â The street > was ours, and were not finished yet, the days ahead are crucial, we can > make Tahrir Intifada our own Seattle, and out of it comes a movement the > can challenge those rulers and there falling regimes.â > Our own Seattle! This was a reference to the often violent > protests involving tens of thousands during the World Trade Organization > meeting in 1999. Righteous riots inspiring other riots in very > different environments but with a globalizing human culture. > What about the issue of âclash of civilizationsâ? What of Islamic > fundamentalist fanaticism? Of course itâs there, fed by ignorance of > history, science, political theory, etc. (rather like Christian > fundamentalist fanaticism). Arab regimesâ lack of attention to education > is in fact scandalous; literacy in Egypt is lower than in Laos, Burundi or > Nepal. Itâs fed too by the perceived assault of western culture, and the > psychological refuge religion can provide. > But even in the protests, peaceful as well as violent, throughout the > Muslim world in the last few days, itâs doubtful that indignation over > an asinine, comically poor-quality movie trailer was the only or even > principal energizing factor. Surely there is the sense that those > humiliating the Arab masses politically, economically, and militarily > are rubbing salt into the wounds by insulting the Islamic religion > central to so many peopleâs identity. Since many do not realizeâin > their countries where governments have always controlled the media, that > the > U.S. government played no role in producing the âmovieâ or posting it > onlineâitâs natural (however foolish) for them to assume that Obama > bears responsibility. > But just as it was entirely predictable that when the U.S. toppled > the Taliban (whom however cruel and narrow-minded, maintained peace in > Afghanistan during their rule) the country would descend back into chaos > as warlords recovered control of their baronies and a weak Pashtun was > appointed as president; and just as it was predictable that when the > U.S. toppled the secular, modernizing regime of Saddam Hussein Iraq > would descend into sectarian conflict; so it was predictable too that > having âliberatedâ Libya the U.S. would face blowback. > The blowback isnât the direct affect of U.S.-NATO forces killing over 70 > Libyan civilians, including at least 29 women (New York Times and Human > Rights Watch) in 2011. Those who torched the Benghazi > consulate, who are delighted by the fall of Qaddafi, may not be > concerned with those figures. But it is an effect of the > U.S.-NATO decision to topple a regime and (as Burns put it) âput in > power a group of people we literally do not know.â > The Libyan central government under Mohammed Magarief (a trusted U.S. ally > who lived from 1980 to 2011 in the U.S.) is very weak. The country is > controlled by tribal-based militias about which Washington knows > little. Such is the karma of U.S. imperialism. > GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts > University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of > Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the > Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality > in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and > Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama > and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached > at: gle...@granite.tufts.edu > > http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/17/unintended-consequences-in-libya/ > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
