Our good friend Alan Bock, a senior editorial writer and former editorial page editor for the Orange County Register. and a regular columnist for Antiwar.com, has entered a hospice: he has been ill with cancer for some time.
Our prayers go out to him and his wife Jenn.
As President Obama prepares to make a major address on the tumultuous changes spreading throughout the Middle East, a new survey finds that the rise of pro-democracy movements has not led to an improvement in America’s image in the region. Instead, in key Arab nations and in other predominantly Muslim countries, views of the U.S. remain negative, as they have been for nearly a decade. Indeed, in Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan, views are even more negative than they were one year ago.
This shouldn’t be a surprise. Here are millions of people standing up against their tyrannical governments, and the major force blocking their success in all but a few cases is vigorous U.S. support for authoritarianism. “And in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon and Pakistan,” the report specifies, “most say their own governments cooperate too much with the U.S.”
About a year ago, in a Brookings Institution poll of opinion in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates, results were quite similar. It showed that Arab populations view the U.S. as the greatest threat to their region, and when asked what policy changes would most improve their opinion of the U.S., the top four responses were an Israel-Palestine peace agreement, withdrawal from Iraq, stopping aid to Israel, and withdrawal from the Arabian Peninsula.
To boot, Reuters reported yesterday that “Almost 90 percent of men polled in contested districts in southern Afghanistan believe foreign military operations are bad for them, according to research by the International Council on Security and Development, or ICOS.” The air of confusion and consternation at this is even more noticeable in the Reuters report than in the Pew report. “Despite battlefield gains against insurgents,” it says, “the U.S. is failing to win over Afghans.” Translation: despite the reign of constant horror, abuse, and embarrassment the U.S. has unleashed on this virtually defenseless country, they still refuse to admire us!
Tim Lynch at the Cato Institute on the recent Supreme Court ruling on warrantless breaking and entering by the police:
Awful ruling handed down by the Supreme Court this morning in a case called Kentucky v. King [pdf]. The case concerns the power to break into a person’s home without the occupant’s consent and without a warrant… Today’s ruling expands the exceptions to situations where the police suspect that the occupants of a house may be destroying contraband such as marijuana, cocaine, or other narcotics.
…The lower courts have generally frowned on what they describe as exigencies manufactured by police conduct, but the Supreme Court has now overturned those lower court precedents by a 8-1 vote. In dissent, Justice Ginsburg asked the right question: “How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?”
This exemplifies what the great Randolph Bourne said, that “war is the health of the state.” Our increasingly militaristic foreign policy slowly bred a militarism here at home, and these slowly breed a rescission of basic individual rights, like those embedded in the Amendment IV of the United States Constitution.
The Washington Post reported yesterday that high level negotiations have been picking up between the Obama administration and the Taliban.
The administration has accelerated direct talks with the Taliban, initiated several months ago, that U.S. officials say they hope will enable President Obama to report progress toward a settlement of the Afghanistan war when he announces troop withdrawals in July.
A senior Afghan official said a U.S. representative attended at least three meetings in Qatar and Germany, one as recently as “eight or nine days ago,” with a Taliban official considered close to Mohammad Omar, the group’s leader.
Underlying these negotiations is the sad irony that any success will be determined by “provid[ing] what the Taliban considers an acceptable share of political power in Afghanistan.” Obama’s surge in Afghanistan rested on a foundation of ridding Afghanistan of such extremists as the Taliban and upholding the puppet government of Hamid Karzai. Now, after all this fighting and wasted blood and treasure, they want to cede some control to the Taliban. This is a fine thing insofar as it leads to an end to the war, but if that will be the final result of these negotiations, why couldn’t they have taken place years ago?
Another factor to consider is what Paul Pillar at the National Interest writes about negotiations:
U.S. policymakers seem to realize that negotiation will have to be part of any reasonably respectable conclusion to the U.S. military expedition in Afghanistan. They have repeatedly said as much. But even many who accept that reality insert a caveat about timing. Negotiations, yes, they say—but only after further coalition military operations have softened up the Taliban, so the Taliban will be more pliable in the subsequent bargaining.
…We usually view it as highly asymmetric. We see military setbacks to our side as the occasion for redoubling our effort to turn the war in our favor, but see military setbacks to the adversary as a reason he ought to be suing for peace. We believe we ought to persevere until we have achieved a clear military advantage, but we do not expect the adversary to persevere with a similar objective in mind.
These talks can only be successful if the aim of both parties is to end the war, not to appear as the victor, to play politics, or to save face.
The Huffington Post reports:
[Connecticut Representative Chris] Murphy also revealed a comment made to him by one of the Republican lawmakers on the trip, who admitted that there is pressure to publicly avoid any criticism of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan so as not to appear unpatriotic.
…According to Murphy, this Republican lawmaker said that “even if he opposed the war, it wasn’t right for him to openly talk about that, [and] if you criticize the war, that you’re putting troops in jeopardy.”
Voters expect informed, sober analysis on the nation’s greatest problems from these people and instead they make policies based on conformity and groupthink. That someone would personally oppose the war, yet continue to conform and support this deadly endeavor should make any voter cringe.
Samuel Johnson was right in 1774: patriotism is “the last refuge of the scoundrel.”
News of the Israeli navy firing shots at another Gaza aid ship today has prompted reminiscence of the deadly and illegal attack on the flotilla aid ship to Gaza back almost a year ago now. The ship was carrying sewage pipes to solve what is apparently an ongoing problem in Gaza for many people living without proper sewage systems, threatening health and environment. Properly functioning sewage is apparently a luxury Gazans aren’t allowed to have, among many others.
This comes after George Mitchell’s resignation as well as the shooting and killing of unarmed Palestinian protestors just yesterday. The White House has released a statement on yesterday’s attacks with the ringing praise and support we’ve all come to expect. Given the fact that, as the Washington Post reports, “Israeli military officials have confirmed that preparations are under way to stop any new flotilla,” we can expect the requisite praise and support for this action too. It should, of course, always be reiterated that any Israeli military action against Palestinians is in fact a U.S.-Israeli action against Palestinians. The money, weapons, and political support that allows such Israeli actions comes directly from America.
Mitchell resigned “amid growing frustration over the impasse in peace talks.” He surely felt the negotiations were intractable. Well, of course they were. He had to operate within a very rigid constraint: unreserved, unwavering support for Israel and virtually everything she does. There is no viable settlement with that prerequisite.
A glimmer of hope to those less cynical among us is an expected UN Security Council Resolution for a Palestinian state existing within the pre-1967 borders in September. That deal has been accepted unanimously by the Arab League and even by Hamas. Israel has rejected it. George Mitchell lent credence to it, but he is no longer in the picture. The last resolution which gave a glimmer of hope – to call for the end of settlements – the Obama administration vetoed, so make of that what you will.
Obstinacy and aggression has been the protocol for U.S. policy in Israel-Palestine. September shall prove that position ongoing policy, or a fleeting fad.
