The Anti-Empire
Report
Some things
you need to know before the world ends
October 17, 2005
by William
Blum
Katrina and the good Americans
All the kindness, all the concern and generosity, the utmost empathy, taking
strangers into their homes, donating so much money and goods and time, helping
them find a roof over their heads, find a job, locate their loved ones ...
But it must be asked: Why is it that so many of these same people can show
so little concern for the many, many victims of US foreign policy -- the
bombed and the tortured, the maimed and the impoverished, the widows and
the orphans, the overthrown and the suppressed? How can these kind and generous
Americans take delight and pride in the "shock and awe" of the Pentagon military
machine? How can they exult in the machine's unstoppable power to smash through
brick and flesh? Unquestionably, many of them display more regard for their
dog than for any Iraqi or Afghan.
I think the main reason is that Americans are convinced,
or at least tell themselves, that the devastation and suffering of these
foreigners is the price that has to be paid for a higher cause. Residing
comfortably in Americans is a deeply-held belief that no matter what the
United States does abroad, no matter what horror may result, no matter how
bad it may look, the government of the United States means well. American
leaders may make mistakes, they may blunder, they may lie, they may even
on the odd occasion cause more harm than good, but they do mean well.
Their intentions are always honorable. Of that Americans are certain. They
genuinely wonder why the rest of the world can't see how benevolent and
self-sacrificing America has been. Even many people who take part in the
anti-war movement have a hard time shaking off some of this mindset; they
march to spur America -- the America they love and worship and trust -- back
onto the right track.
Another comparison worth pondering: Look at the US
government's preparation for the invasion of Iraq. For almost a full year
the bases were set up, the airfields laid out, the tanks moved into place,
the army hospitals readied for the wounded in Germany, the body bags inventoried,
hundreds of thousands of military and civilian personnel assigned their spots
and their duties, money being printed round the clock upon request, every
"t" crossed, every "i" dotted, little left to chance ... and look at the
preparation for a hurricane hitting New Orleans, which was beyond the "if"
stage, waiting only for the "when". The empire has its priorities.
War is Peace, Occupation is
Sovereignty
The town of Rawa in Northern Iraq is occupied. The United States has built
an Army outpost there to cut off the supply of foreign fighters purportedly
entering Iraq from Syria. The Americans engage in house searches, knocking
in doors, summary detentions, road blocks, air strikes, and other tactics
highly upsetting to the people of Rawa. Recently, the commander of the outpost,
Lt. Col. Mark Davis, addressed a crowd of 300 angry people. "We're not going
anywhere," he told the murmuring citizens. "Some of you are concerned about
the attack helicopters and mortar fire from the base," he said. "I will tell
you this: those are the sounds of peace."{1}
He could have said, making as much sense, that they were
the sounds of sovereignty. Iraq is a sovereign nation, Washington assures
us, particularly in these days of the constitutional referendum, although
the vote will do nothing to empower the Iraqis to relieve their daily misery,
serving only a public relations function for the United States; the votes,
it should be noted, were counted on an American military base; on the day
of the referendum, American warplanes and helicopters were busy killing some
70 people around the city of Ramadi.{2}
London also insists that Iraq is a sovereign nation.
Recently, hundreds of residents filled the streets in the southern city of
Basra, shouting and pumping their fists in the air to condemn British forces
for raiding a jail and freeing two British soldiers. Iraqi police had arrested
the Britons, who were dressed as civilians, for allegedly firing their guns
(at whom or what is not clear), and either trying to plant explosives or
having explosives in their vehicle. British troops then assembled several
armored vehicles, rammed them through the jailhouse wall, and freed the men,
as helicopter gunships hovered above.{3}
An intriguing side question: We have here British soldiers
dressed as civilians (at least one report said dressed as Arabs), driving
around in a car with explosives, firing guns ... Does this not feed into
the frequent speculation that coalition forces have been to some extent part
of the "insurgency"? The same insurgency that's used as an excuse by the
coalition to remain in Iraq?
Afghanistan is also sovereign we are told. In July a
statement by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization -- made up of Russia,
China, Kyrgyzstan and its Central Asian neighbors -- asked the United States
to specify a date of its troop withdrawal from Central Asian bases on the
ground that operations in Afghanistan were winding down. But in September
we could read in a Washington Post report from Afghanistan: "The Soviets
built a runway here more than 20 years ago to land fighter jets. The Americans,
having pretty much worn that one out with their jumbo cargo planes, are building
a new, longer strip meant to withstand the U.S. military's heaviest loads.
The construction, at the four-year mark in America's military presence in
Afghanistan, isn't stopping there. Plans call for expanded ramps for fighter
jets and helicopters, multiple ammunition storage bunkers and a six-story
control tower, for a total bill exceeding $96 million. An even more expensive
airfield renovation is underway in Iraq at the Balad air base, a hub for
U.S. military logistics, where for $124 million the Air Force is building
additional ramp space for cargo planes and helicopters. And farther south,
in Qatar, a state-of-the-art, 104,000-square-foot air operations center for
monitoring U.S. aircraft in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa is taking
shape in the form of a giant concrete bunker. The $500 million price tag
includes a set of support facilities that would be the envy of any air force.
"All in all, the U.S. military has more than $1.2 billion
in projects either underway or planned in the Central Command region -- an
expansion plan that U.S. commanders say is necessary both to sustain operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide for a long-term presence in the area."{4}
There are of course areas other than the military which
illustrate Washington's continuing exercise of sovereignty over Iraq, areas
such as those concerning multinational corporations. Sales of Iraqi assets
and laws and decrees concerning deregulation, privatization, corporate taxes,
etc. were promulgated early on by Washington's Coalition Provisional Authority
to make life easy for Halliburton and its partners in crime. These laws and
decrees still remain in force and were set up to be rather difficult to amend.
From all accounts, the new Iraqi constitution makes no mention of them.
And let us not forget: All Americans in Iraq, and all
their allies, military or civilian, have complete immunity from any Iraqi
law enforcement or judicial body, no matter what they do.
Clueless in Gaza
For some time now, the Pentagon has been fighting against the American Civil
Liberties Union, members of Congress, and others who are pushing for the
release of new photos and videos of prisoner "abuse" (otherwise known as
"torture") in the American gulag. The Pentagon has been trying to block release
of these materials because, they claim, it will inflame anti-American feelings
and inspire terrorist acts abroad. This clearly implies that so-called
anti-Americans come to their views as a result of American actions or behavior.
Yet, the official position of the Bush administration, repeated numerous
times and never rescinded, is that the motivation behind anti-American terrorism
is envy and/or hatred of American democracy, freedom, wealth, and secular
government, nothing to do with anything the United States does abroad, nothing
to do with US foreign policy.{5}
In a similar vein, Undersecretary of State for Public
Diplomacy Karen Hughes recently toured the Middle East for the stated purpose
of correcting the "mistaken" impressions people have of the United States,
which, she would have the world believe, are the root cause of anti-American
hatred and terrorism; it's all a matter of misunderstanding, image, and public
relations. At her confirmation hearing in July, Hughes said "The mission
of public diplomacy is to engage, inform, and help others understand our
policies, actions and values."{6} But what if the problem is that the Muslim
world, like the rest of the world, understands America only too well?
Predictably, this confidante of President Bush (this being her only qualification
for the position, just like Harriet Miers's only qualification for the Supreme
Court) uttered one inanity after another on her tour. Here she is in Turkey:
"to preserve the peace, sometimes my country believes war is necessary,"
and declaring that women are faring much better in Iraq than they did under
Saddam Hussein.{7} When her remarks were angrily challenged by Turkish women
in the audience, Hughes replied: "Obviously we have a public relations challenge
here ... as we do in different places throughout the world."{8} Right, Karen,
it's all just p.r., nothing of any substance to worry your banality-filled
little head about.
The Arab News ("The Middle East's Leading English Language
Daily") summed up Hughes's performance thusly: "Painfully clueless".{9} The
same could of course be said about Hughes's boss (whom Harriet Miers has
called the most brilliant man she has ever met).{10}
The Washington Post reported that: Hughes's "audiences,
especially in Egypt, often consisted of elites with long ties to the United
States, but many people she spoke with said the core reason for the poor
U.S. image remained U.S. policies, not how those policies were marketed or
presented."{11} Might she and her boss learn anything from this? Nah.
American foundations and
dissent
Political science professor Joan Roelofs has a new book out on this
long-neglected subject, "Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism".
Here's a sample:
"Although Ford and other foundations had undertaken
ameliorative measures, ‘malcontents' started to spring up everywhere
in the US during the 1960s. Foundation ideology attributed the radical protests
to defects in pluralism. The pluralist ideology holds that any interest is
free to organize and to obtain benefits from the system, through peaceful
processes of compromise.
"Disadvantaged groups, such as blacks, Chicanos, women,
children, and the poor, needed help in obtaining their rights. Grant money
would enable them to participate in the interest group process on an equal
basis with the more advantaged groups, and then they would no longer waste
their energies in futile disruptive actions. Note that according to foundation
ideology, the poor are just another minority group. Poverty, militarism,
racism, and environmental degradation are not byproducts of the economic
system or related to each other. They are merely defects to be corrected
through the pluralist political process."
More about the book can be found at:
http://www.sunypress.edu/details.asp?id=60705
A very interesting flowchart showing the flow of money
from foundations to progressive media and other organizations of the left
can be found at: http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/
For the latest information in this area send an email
to Bob Feldman at bob_jan@xensei.com
Clarification
In the last issue of this report I attributed a statement about "loving"
the American troops in Iraq to an ANSWER Coalition spokesperson. The statement
was actually made by Mahdi Bray, the Executive Director of the Muslim American
Society Freedom Foundation, which was an important member of the September
24 National Coalition and was made at an ANSWER press conference, but it
should be pointed out that neither Mahdi nor his organization is a member
of the ANSWER Steering Committee.
NOTES
{1} New York Times, October 3, 2005, p.6
{2} Reuters news agency, October 17, 2005
{3} Washington Post, September 20, 21; al-Jazeera TV, September 19, 2005
{4} Washington Post, September 17, 2005, p.18
{5} See my discussion of this question at: http://members.aol.com/essays6/myth.htm
{6} States News Service, July 22, 2005
{7} Washington Post, September 29, 2005, p.16
{8} Los Angeles Times, September 29, 2005, p.4
{9} Washington Post, October 7, 2005, p.21
{10} Copley News Service, October 10, 2005
{11} Washington Post, September 30, 2005, p.12
William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
<www.killinghope.org >
Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this
website.
To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email
to <bblum6@aol.com> with "add" in the subject line. I'd like your name
and city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city only in
case I'll be speaking in your area.
Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the
opposite.
Any part of this report may be disseminated without
permission. I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned.