Author: Chad Nelson

The Financial Times recently reported that Nobel Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama has conducted ten times more drone strikes than his predecessor George W. Bush. As far as we can tell, that number is somewhere in the ballpark of 500 strikes and spans a wide array of countries including Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya. We can’t know for sure exactly how many drone attacks have taken place, who is conducting them, how many people have been killed by them, or how many other countries have been victim.

It’s important to Obama that the extent of his drone wars remain secret. His peaceful veneer would quickly disintegrate if we had an accurate Obama-death-toll. Drone wars have been kept so secret, in fact, that Obama’s former Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, revealed that he was instructed not to acknowledge or discuss their existence. A handful of investigative journalist groups like The Long War Journal have been left conducting important but difficult guess work about Obama’s drone wars, as if putting together a large puzzle one small piece at a time.

All the while, the American public is left clueless as to the activities being conducted in their name. Obama proclaims that “a decade of war is over,” while behind the scenes he expands the scope of the War on Terror. As a result of our being kept largely ignorant of our government’s actions, we are all the more astounded when the consequences of such wars come to fruition.

Continue reading “Obama’s Legacy Will Not Be One of Peace”

Democratic presidential candidate Lincoln Chafee is making waves with his odd foreign policy proposals – he’s put forth a daring plan to “Wage Peace”. The plan is daring only because it’s so rare for an American presidential candidate to make unconditional peace the cornerstone of his foreign policy.

On Rhode Island Public Radio this week, one local politico said that Chafee’s desire to wage peace “sounds nice – but one wonders how long we can maintain that position.” In other words, war is inescapable for whoever is elected President. It’s terrifying that this has become the default political position in the United States.

Chafee has gone so far as to say he would look to return Americans’ civil liberties, ban drones, bring Edward Snowden home, and end capital punishment (yes, this too is part of peace). Chafee’s platform went one step too far, however, when he said he’d consider talking to ISIS. This last idea is supposedly the one that proves everyone’s longstanding suspicion that Chafee is a few cards short of a full deck.

If talking to ISIS is a crazy idea, throw me in the insane asylum. Chafee’s suggestion that he’d explore “rapprochement” should give Americans hope that at least one public official, somewhere, is not seeking to become the next Murderer-in-Chief. Instead of blindly continuing his predecessors’ failed War on Terror, Chafee would make diplomacy America’s first option.

Continue reading “Waging Peace By Talking to ISIS”

With the second anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing approaching, NPR is running a series called “The Road Ahead”. In its daily segments, NPR examines how everyday lives have been affected by the horrific event two years ago. One unfortunate but seemingly inevitable part of that road entails law enforcement’s stepped-up abuse of its citizens. As with all acts of terrorism, law enforcement has not let this crisis go to waste. The dreadful acts of two lone-wolf brothers at the 2013 Boston Marathon have provided the momentum needed for law enforcement to foist ever increasing violations of privacy upon its subjects. It is a pill that will be swallowed by Bostonians, at least initially, without much protest given the nature of the police state’s justification.

This year’s marathon attendees will see some 3,500 police officers and National Guardsmen monitoring their every move. Attendees will also be subject to security checkpoints, searches, and bomb-sniffing dogs. Many of the officers patrolling the marathon will be in plain clothes, an even more devious invasion of privacy. With bag searches being law enforcement’s stated focus, they prove themselves one step behind the next Tsarnaev, who will merely adapt to their plans.

In a recent interview with HBO’s John Oliver, Edward Snowden stated a painful truth about security. The only way to be one hundred percent secure, Snowden said, is to be in jail. Leaving aside the quality of security one experiences in prison, it is a comment worthy of serious contemplation. Each day people face mixed possibilities of risk and reward. The law enforcement community’s way to deal with risk involves no nuance. Its draconian brand of risk reduction comes down firmly on the side of destroying individual liberties.

Continue reading “The Boston Marathon Two Years Later – A Policeman’s Delight”

As a proponent of free and open information, I was initially reluctant to call for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s return to Israel. Despite my dislike of Netanyahu and Israeli foreign policy generally, his scheduled Congressional address, on its face, does little more than add an additional perspective to America’s foreign policy debate. More debate and discussion is usually welcome, because too often American foreign policy is conducted behind closed doors with the dubious claims of politicians going unchecked. Only after war is underway do tidbits begin to leak to the public about the intelligence which supposedly made war necessary. If Iran is in Barack Obama’s or Congress’s crosshairs, one part of me says: Let Netanyahu’s puppetmastery be a matter of public record.

With that said, Americans already know what Netanyahu’s U.S. tour is about: more war. And that is why they largely oppose it. Americans don’t need Netanyahu in Washington to explain his position – they’re already well aware. A fair number in Congress toe the Israeli line, adopting Netanyahu’s murderous ideology wholesale. It is an ideology that sees diplomacy as a last resort, and has a loud voice in Congress thanks to the efforts of AIPAC – the Israeli propaganda machine operating in Washington. One need only look at their work to learn what Israeli warmongers want.

So while more discussion and new information are normally welcomed, Netanyahu’s antics give us neither. His Congressional hosts will use his address to bolster their calls for the continued American war state, one which is waged as much by the Israeli state as the American one. Yes, Israeli foreign policy is regarded throughout the rest of the world as an extension of American foreign policy, and rightfully so. Stolen taxpayer loot funds Israel to the tune of several billion dollars per year. For a small country, Israel is not only armed to the teeth, but is also able to simultaneously lock down an entire Palestinian population. This is what American foreign aid, paid for by you, spent by Washington, achieves.

Continue reading “Go Home, Netanyahu”

Watching Fox News’s recent coverage of the ISIS Twitter-hack left me shaking my head in disbelief, as usual. The latest act alleged to have been carried out by ISIS is the group’s takeover of several Twitter accounts belonging to the wives of U.S. military servicemen. Among the threatening tweets issued by ISIS through the hacked accounts were comments like: “You think you’re safe but you’re not”, “IS is already here”, and “We’re watching you” (issued specifically to Michelle Obama).

The ISIS tweet receiving the least attention from American media outlets appears to be the one with the most substance: “While your president and your husband are killing our brothers in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan we’re coming for you.” In fact, it is the only ISIS tweet in this series containing any content other than ambiguous threats. Despicable as it is to those of us who abhor violence, the comment is extremely revealing and worthy of the close attention of American foreign policymakers. Yet, it got no treatment whatsoever by government decision makers or the American media. They preferred to speculate whether ISIS really might be around the corner.

The tweet is crucial in that it reveals one of ISIS’s main motivations – their desire to repel American military operations now taking place in virtually every Arab country. It is just one in a long line of declaratory statements made by the various Islamic factions fighting the American military, in which they attempt to explain their rationale.

Former CIA chief of the bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer, said about bin Laden: “[he] is remarkably eager for Americans to know why he doesn’t like us, what he intends to do about it and then following up and doing something about it in terms of military actions.” Bin Laden laid out his motivations directly to the American public in a letter. In the letter, he cited, among other reasons for fighting, the U.S. government’s continuing support of Israel’s ethnic cleansing in Palestine, the U.S. government’s wars in Muslim lands like Somalia and Iraq, and the U.S. government’s repression of Muslims via puppet regimes scattered throughout the Middle East. Notice a recurring theme here? Bin Laden’s grievances were with the U.S. government.

Yes, bin Laden does attribute some responsibility for these acts to U.S. taxpayers, who he says make their government’s actions possible. Yet this should not come as a shocking or even disturbing revelation. In any government war, the enemy’s source of funding is a primary target. For this very reason, the U.S. government has made it a crime to provide financial support to those it deems terrorists or terrorist organizations. So it should come as no surprise that al Qaeda or ISIS would play by the same rules of war, in which they declare the U.S. government’s piggybank (the taxpayer) fair game. Disturbing, yes. Surprising, no.

There is no denying that the American way of life also motivates ISIS, al Qaeda, and their brethren. In the bin Laden letter, he also goes on to cite a western culture that is repugnant to his perverted brand of Islam as a motivating factor. Unfortunately, in an effort to avoid blame, the U.S. government and its mouthpiece media present only this factor. It is absolutely taboo to mention the murder and mayhem committed by the U.S. government in Muslim lands as a possible contributing factor. As Scheuer said, trying to do so is like “yelling into a closet. The American people, God bless ‘em, are just so?badly educated and unaware of how duplicitous their leaders are..”

For the last twelve years, NBC’s Brian Williams has been publicly recounting a story about being aboard a U.S. Army helicopter in Iraq. Williams was covering the Iraq War on the first day of the American invasion, traveling with the Army’s 159th Aviation Regiment. According to Williams, his helicopter was struck by an Iraqi RPG forcing it to make a dangerous emergency landing. Williams has told the story in multiple venues, each time relating the harrowing story of what it feels like to come under enemy assault and to fear possible death. The problem with Williams’ story is that it’s not factually correct.

It’s true Williams was aboard an Army helicopter on that first day of the American invasion, just not the one that took RPG fire. After apologizing for misremembering the incident, Williams admitted that while he was part of the four-part unit, one of which took Iraqi fire, his wasn’t the one that took a direct hit. His was behind the one hit. As the story evolves, other Army personnel have said that Williams was in an entirely separate helicopter unit traveling in the other direction. The pilot of Williams’ helicopter has said it did take fire, but only from Iraqi AK-47s. With the details still being sorted out, one thing is clear—Brian Williams is no longer deserving of the public valor heaped upon him for his supposed war heroics.

The problem with labeling Brian Williams, or any other journalist or solider who comes under attack during war a hero, is that it glamorizes war’s senseless violence. War between feuding governments is insidious and deserving only of scorn. Invading forces who are attacked or injured during a war as mad as George W. Bush’s Iraqi excursion are no more deserving of the gallantry attributed to them than the loser of a drunken barroom brawl.

Here in America, unfortunately, we live in a perverted reality tunnel within which this senseless violence must be celebrated at all costs, regardless of your views of the war itself. Bravery, courage, and honor still manage to apply to those foolish enough to volunteer in even the dumbest and bloodiest of wars. Injured soldiers and war correspondents receive parades, medals, and endless public praise, no matter the circumstances that led to their injury.

American war culture is a sickness. By making heroes of those who come under return-attack during an aggressive war, we ignore the incredible destruction they bring about in the process. Ron Paul got into hot water in the wake of Chris Kyle’s death when he tweeted about Kyle that “those who live by the sword die by the sword.” It’s a saying all the more applicable to active duty troops. For one should hardly expect anything less than serious injury or death when he or she ventures out to deliver the same fate to a foreign people.

By celebrating the wartime acts of the individuals involved, even where the war itself is almost wholly lacking in public support, the American public reveal themselves as pawns of the warmongers. Backlash against the warmongers becomes all the more difficult where the warmonger can deflect all criticism as “harmful to the troops”. Let’s face it, there’s nothing inherently good about traveling abroad to kill people for your government. Remove this trump card from the politicians’ pockets and they’ll have a much tougher sell the next time they decide to engage in such global terror.