My dad, a historian, travels all over the world speaking and lecturing on US history. A colleague of his recently contacted him asking if some German middle schoolers could email him with questions on the upcoming US Presidential elections. He said of course, remarking to me how sad it is that many of the college students in the US don't even know what kind of government Germany has, much less who runs in elections, wins and loses. Hard to imagine US middle schoolers emailing German professors with detailed, intelligent questions on their elections.
Whether it's a matter of being smarter or just paying more attention, Europe, and well - much of the world is way ahead of us.
I can recall a girl in my freshman class at UCSB who though Berlin was in Russia...I'm serious.
I don't want to get into a rant about the educational system b/c it'll exhaust me and unless you care, bore you.
But what is short and sweet to note is that paying attention to what goes on in other countries makes it easier and more interesting to pay attention to your own. The US is clutching to a faded name of "superpower," and our influence is felt all over the world, culturally and politically. Stepping outside of the mundane, media mogul driven heap of how we arrogantly and ignorantly look in the mirror - why not check out a few other viewpoints? Tis, after all, the digital age. It takes you just as long to get to BBC, and Al Jazeera English as it does CNN and FOX.
So hey, live a little and take your brain around the world for a spin :)
It's a conspiracy! I'm not gonna lie - I sometimes enjoy pondering conspiracy theories - toying with the notion of underlying secrets and intrigue. Some don't even warrant that phrase due to overwhelming evidence and fact. However, this is not one of those cases.
Remember Bachmann? Yeah - that Tea Party nut job who threw her name into the hat for President way back when. Yeah, she wants in to the spotlight again, this time with a conspiracy that long time aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood and is really a spy for the organization. Huma Abedin has been a close aide to Hillary Clinton since her days in the Senate, and the Senate was not quiet on their attacks against Bachmann and her letter. John McCain, no stranger to controversy or the Tea Party had this to say: "These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit, and they need to stop now." House speaker Boehner echoed that sentiment, "From everything I do know of [Huma Abedin], she has a sterling
character, and I think accusations like this being thrown around are
pretty dangerous." Dangerous and stupid, maybe, but not enough to get Bachmann to apologize. She stands by her motion for a probe into the White House questioning the influence of the Brotherhood. On Wednesday she released a statement, effectively telling everyone to go fuck themselves and she will not apologize, and "not be silent as this administration appeases our enemies instead of telling the truth about the threats our country faces".
Fear, fear, fear, fear!! Run, run, run, run!!! Wait, I have an idea. Bachmann - why don't you get your small-minded, big mouthed head the hell out of politics.
We've already got all the loony tunes we need.
Apocalypse: In that same vein of fear and controversy, I thought I'd introduce you to a new book I came across: The Last Myth - What the rise of Apocalyptic thinking tells us about America. In this book co-authors, Mel Gilles and Matthew Barrett Gross argue that the US's obsession with the Apocalypse, whether that be global warming, the NWO, Jesus, the A-bomb or October 2012, our constant worry about the impending end leads us down paths of extremes that ultimately fuck us over. For example, not dealing with issues as they pertain to the present, but only seeing them as inevitable - such as global warming. It's never too late to stop torturing our own bodies with waste, and yet because of the apocalyptic notion that it's all fucked anyway, we fight less for the here and now. Same thing goes for the apparent 3 million "preppers" in the US. These extremers believe that due to some rapidly approaching mayhem - war, famine, zombies, etc. - they need to keep basements fully stocked with spam and ammunition. Now as Gross says, there's nothing wrong with being prepared, but when you make all your decisions based on an unforeseen future, you skew your present to reflect a hypothesis that is often times unfounded, at least time line wise. Gross argues that if the Apocalypse didn't play such a major roll in America's thinking, we'd be more inclined to stay active in our country, both politically and socially, recognizing the present as now and the future as when we get to it.
The Syrian sink hole: A deadly blast on Wednesday killed over 180 people, including al-Assad's defense minister. There are conflicting reports as to whether it was a suicide bombing or remote controlled - government says the former, rebels say the latter.
Either way, with targets of al-Assad's inner circle, many are hoping that this signals the beginning of the end for him and his regime. Fareed Zakaria made a good point in his CNN post, saying that we are often times too quick to celebrate things like this - the truth of the matter is, much like our overall foreign policy, we don't know that much about what's happening in Syria,
We don't know who the rebels are, how organized they are, if there's a central chain of command, or even what their agenda is, besides overthrowing al-Assad.
Beyond that, in reality, the rebels don't control any part of Syria - they cause a ruckus, sure, but that's certainly not the same as organized control of an area. Zakaria goes on to ask several questions about the rebels:
"is the opposition fighting together in a coordinated way? Who leads it?
Does the Syrian National Council — the main exile opposition group –
have any sway over these forces? Do the groups on the ground have any
sectarian flavor? Are they largely Kurdish or Sunni? What is the role of
the jihadi militant groups in the Syrian rebellion?"
These questions are spot on in terms of the role we, and any other nations, will play in Syria. It's not a promotion of inactivity, but having seen historically the wide gap between what lack of planning (Iraq, cough, cough, cough) and careful planning (WW2) can lead to, it'd be best to do a little recon - maybe figure out where Berlin is, so to speak, before we blast through there like an old Western.
Big Banks: Sound familiar? Yeah...currently four of Europe's largest banks are under investigation following a rate-fixing scandal. Crédit Agricole, HSBC, Deutsche Bank and Société Générale under the leadership of Barclays' traders, most notably Philippe Moryoussef, apparently set out to rig the regions benchmark interest rate. However, at this time, only Barclays' is under fire - having also tripped up on its blown attempt at fixing the London interbank offered rate (Libor) and the European equivalent, Euribor.
Unfortunately, any hope I have for justice on this front is tarnished by past experience. Considering how well the US banks fared after grave counts of fraud and corruption, a little slap on the wrist for billion-dollar corporations doesn't do a damn thing for the people at the bottom.
Hope springs eternal but I'm not expecting a few probes to pull the rug out from under corporate behemoths. That's something only we could do...
Showing posts with label muslim brotherhood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label muslim brotherhood. Show all posts
Friday, July 20, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Politics and Poetry: The Peace Keepers
Happy hump day all - as I perused the cacophony of news stories this morning, I began tracing a red thread through all of the military, police and other various "peace keeping" and "law enforcing" headlines. And now, I will share them with you. Enjoy...
"The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis."
"The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis."
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Politics and Poetry: Around the world
A weekend sampler platter from around the world - mind the sassy American fare and the Russian herring - could be cause for indigestion.
Rose Garden Rogue Reporter: Obama announced new immigration laws yesterday that would allow illegal immigrants who entered into the US as children, to stay as long as they meet certain criteria. Many conservatives, and well, Americans in general, are rolling their eyes at this election year "hand out." One such man is Neil Munro, a conservative blogger for the site the Daily Caller. Wearing a temporary press badge, he interrupted Obama while he spoke, asking: "What about American workers who are unemployed while you employ foreigners?" Obama didn't appreciate the interruption and made it blatantly clear, chastising the reporter before ignoring the question and waiting till the end of his statements to respond, saying how much these young immigrants contribute to our country, from building businesses to serving in the military. Once he answered that question, he quickly turned his back and walked away, taking no further questions.
Now, Munro claims that it was certainly not his intention to interrupt the President, that he was merely trying to get a question in at the last moment, knowing how seldom Obama takes questions at these events. He also, however, told CNN: "I have to ask the questions that you all won't."
Now that, I agree with. No one is asking questions here, at least not ones that matter. In a way, Munro's question is kind of a non-starter as well. Here's one I'd like to ask: "What happens if/when this law is overturned by subsequent administrations, as is often the case?" or "Why has it taken this long to come up with something you feel is so obvious - why now, in election year?"
I'd wager a bullshit response for both, but if a question is going to be aired to the nation, those are more valid, I think. Munro's question is a clearly aimed torpedo at the left with "fuck you, from the right" painted on the side. It's more of the same left/right banter and hectoring that always happens in an election year, a 8 or 9 month pissing contest that ends like a bad prom night: broken promises, faded dreams and a lingering hangover.
I'm with Munro on wanting to ask questions regardless of whether the President is ready for them or not. Propriety be damned. This nation needs more action and less pomp and circumstance.
Just a red herring: US intelligence (wait, don't stop reading yet) believes that Russia has deployed a ship with weapons and troops en route to Syria. According to who's who, the ship has been sent to protect Russia's naval base as the situation in Syria continues to plummet into utter disaster and mayhem. The worry is that Russia has other plans for the troops and weapons once in Syria. This news comes after flying fur between Secretary of State Clinton and Russian officials over Russia shipping attack helicopters to the fascist regime. Russia claims that the helicopters are not new and are simply part of an outstanding contract between Syria and Russia. The director of the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation in New York, a Kremlin-backed, non-governmental organization (which means a government backed, non-government backed organization) argues that Russia is opposed to sending troops to Syria, understanding that it would prompt other countries into responding with force, something Russia doesn't want to get in the middle of. Never a dull moment, eh? Here's my problem with this - the two issues are not mutually exclusive. Let's say you send the troops to protect that base, vital to Middle Eastern operations for Russia. OK - let's say that Syria takes that as a threat, or even if they don't, introducing large weapons and troops into that kind of situation doesn't speak of tea parties and sit down conversations. If and when the base is attacked by Syrian forces, Russian forces with fight back. And then, there you have it. They weren't meant to start shit in Syria, but oops, that gun I have just kind of did what it was meant to and here we are now - civil war turned outright international war. Now, I'm not a big fan of our ambiguously spineless stance on Syria but I don't want 18 year olds sent to Syria when they should be at home interrupting Obama in the Rose Garden. The UN has already pulled its observers, there to check on Kofi Annan's peace plan (sorry, but that was a joke from the start). Children are being used as human shields, doctors killed for aiding the wounded. If you're going to show force, show force. Don't send in UN observers, and don't tease a rabid animal with 'protecting your naval base.' Do something or don't. Half assing it does no one any favors, least of all, the dying civilians on the inside.
A mile in our shoes: Egypt will vote this weekend between "the lesser of two evils," a Mubarak man or an Islamist brother. It seems that their democracy is faltering before it has a chance to stand - somewhat like ours, only that ours is crumbling from a self made pedestal. Either way, the lesser of two evils argument is a well known one. Many Egyptians feel that they're back at square one, in fighting and disillusionment rampant as the imminent hand over of military to civilian rule draws nearer. The fear is that the military will not relinquish power, thus forcing a violent end to the attempted democratic proceedings. As polling began Saturday, a third option arose that seemed quite the popular choice: boycott. Still, Egyptians are showing up to vote, one man explaining his choice as "the best of the worst."
Another issue is that polling takes place with no parliament or constitution in place, just the military. The new president has no clear cut role or description, only that he will answer to the military leaders until a constitution is drafted and parliament elected, two things that have no set deadline as of now.
Unrest simmers, but the streets remained relatively quiet in comparison to a year ago. I, for one, hope that unrest doesn't fizzle into apathetic acceptance. Though both our nations can relate to choosing between two steaming piles, at least they seem to be concerned about that predicament.
Democratia
Rose Garden Rogue Reporter: Obama announced new immigration laws yesterday that would allow illegal immigrants who entered into the US as children, to stay as long as they meet certain criteria. Many conservatives, and well, Americans in general, are rolling their eyes at this election year "hand out." One such man is Neil Munro, a conservative blogger for the site the Daily Caller. Wearing a temporary press badge, he interrupted Obama while he spoke, asking: "What about American workers who are unemployed while you employ foreigners?" Obama didn't appreciate the interruption and made it blatantly clear, chastising the reporter before ignoring the question and waiting till the end of his statements to respond, saying how much these young immigrants contribute to our country, from building businesses to serving in the military. Once he answered that question, he quickly turned his back and walked away, taking no further questions.
Now, Munro claims that it was certainly not his intention to interrupt the President, that he was merely trying to get a question in at the last moment, knowing how seldom Obama takes questions at these events. He also, however, told CNN: "I have to ask the questions that you all won't."
Now that, I agree with. No one is asking questions here, at least not ones that matter. In a way, Munro's question is kind of a non-starter as well. Here's one I'd like to ask: "What happens if/when this law is overturned by subsequent administrations, as is often the case?" or "Why has it taken this long to come up with something you feel is so obvious - why now, in election year?"
I'd wager a bullshit response for both, but if a question is going to be aired to the nation, those are more valid, I think. Munro's question is a clearly aimed torpedo at the left with "fuck you, from the right" painted on the side. It's more of the same left/right banter and hectoring that always happens in an election year, a 8 or 9 month pissing contest that ends like a bad prom night: broken promises, faded dreams and a lingering hangover.
I'm with Munro on wanting to ask questions regardless of whether the President is ready for them or not. Propriety be damned. This nation needs more action and less pomp and circumstance.
Just a red herring: US intelligence (wait, don't stop reading yet) believes that Russia has deployed a ship with weapons and troops en route to Syria. According to who's who, the ship has been sent to protect Russia's naval base as the situation in Syria continues to plummet into utter disaster and mayhem. The worry is that Russia has other plans for the troops and weapons once in Syria. This news comes after flying fur between Secretary of State Clinton and Russian officials over Russia shipping attack helicopters to the fascist regime. Russia claims that the helicopters are not new and are simply part of an outstanding contract between Syria and Russia. The director of the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation in New York, a Kremlin-backed, non-governmental organization (which means a government backed, non-government backed organization) argues that Russia is opposed to sending troops to Syria, understanding that it would prompt other countries into responding with force, something Russia doesn't want to get in the middle of. Never a dull moment, eh? Here's my problem with this - the two issues are not mutually exclusive. Let's say you send the troops to protect that base, vital to Middle Eastern operations for Russia. OK - let's say that Syria takes that as a threat, or even if they don't, introducing large weapons and troops into that kind of situation doesn't speak of tea parties and sit down conversations. If and when the base is attacked by Syrian forces, Russian forces with fight back. And then, there you have it. They weren't meant to start shit in Syria, but oops, that gun I have just kind of did what it was meant to and here we are now - civil war turned outright international war. Now, I'm not a big fan of our ambiguously spineless stance on Syria but I don't want 18 year olds sent to Syria when they should be at home interrupting Obama in the Rose Garden. The UN has already pulled its observers, there to check on Kofi Annan's peace plan (sorry, but that was a joke from the start). Children are being used as human shields, doctors killed for aiding the wounded. If you're going to show force, show force. Don't send in UN observers, and don't tease a rabid animal with 'protecting your naval base.' Do something or don't. Half assing it does no one any favors, least of all, the dying civilians on the inside.
A mile in our shoes: Egypt will vote this weekend between "the lesser of two evils," a Mubarak man or an Islamist brother. It seems that their democracy is faltering before it has a chance to stand - somewhat like ours, only that ours is crumbling from a self made pedestal. Either way, the lesser of two evils argument is a well known one. Many Egyptians feel that they're back at square one, in fighting and disillusionment rampant as the imminent hand over of military to civilian rule draws nearer. The fear is that the military will not relinquish power, thus forcing a violent end to the attempted democratic proceedings. As polling began Saturday, a third option arose that seemed quite the popular choice: boycott. Still, Egyptians are showing up to vote, one man explaining his choice as "the best of the worst."
Another issue is that polling takes place with no parliament or constitution in place, just the military. The new president has no clear cut role or description, only that he will answer to the military leaders until a constitution is drafted and parliament elected, two things that have no set deadline as of now.
Unrest simmers, but the streets remained relatively quiet in comparison to a year ago. I, for one, hope that unrest doesn't fizzle into apathetic acceptance. Though both our nations can relate to choosing between two steaming piles, at least they seem to be concerned about that predicament.
Democratia
I won’t go where you are leading
Your two faces are deceiving.
Whip me, beat me with your faith.
Freedom tastes of chains and death.
Bottom line’s your holy scroll
Greed soaked tyrants find a home
Liberty, justice take the stage
Figure heads in your crusade.
Schizophrenic hypocrites
How dare you kill in our name
Democratically insane
We all lose while you few gain
Here we go
Follow me...follow me...follow me
Divide et impera
Democratia fide est
God Bless America
Defend Freedom
Divide et impera
Democratia fide est
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Two faced
Well, the news is just a-bustlin' this week isn't it?
I'm sure we're all very excited that the stop gap bill has now grown up to be a real bill. And we're stoked that we have to raise the debt ceiling otherwise we're gonna default on government payouts. I'm personally also very excited that NATO has promised to keep fucking around in Libya until Qaddafi dies, quits or escapes, as Qaddafi ramps up his attacks on civilians and it's impossible to tell from the sky who the fuck is who. Not to mention American Idol was on last night, Coachella just started and there's a new YouTube video of a dog running into a wall.
So, it's no surprise that something like American funded revolutions would slip under the radar.
Yes indeed, the anti-activist, Muslim fearing, establishment supporting US of A is behind much of the training and funding of the revolutionary groups responsible for spawning the Arab Spring, particularly in Egypt. An interesting concept considering Mubarak and friends received $1.5 billion worth of US economic and military aid, annually.
Hmmm...I wonder if we could cut that from our crippled budget? No, no, much better to cut the budget that supports the crippled - sorry, got confused for a second.
Evidence of training leaders of opposition movements such as the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and the Yemeni activist, Entsar Qadhi has seeped through the intelligence cracks. It actually began years ago, with training sessions worldwide. Several activists attended a program in New York in 2008, sponsored by the likes of Facebook, Google and the State Department.
The real funding for these programs however, came from you and me: The International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and the non profit human rights org, Freedom House, all government sponsored. The Republican and Democratic institute were spawned by Congress, and financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, an NGO based on promoting democracy and freedom around the world - a little arrogant, but from my research, I can't find anything overly fishy or corrupt about their dealings. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets most of its income from the US government, however, it only gets about $10 million. Together, these groups have trained many of the political activists, even setting up programs in the lions den - such as a sessions held in Yemen focused on using social networking to spread their message and assemble like minded youth.
Many activists are very thankful for their training and attribute much of the success of their revolutions to the instruction they received. Of course, the US organizations behind the training insist that they never meant for it to amass to a revolution. Stephen McInerney, the executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy said, “We didn’t fund them to start protests, but we did help support their development of skills and networking.” That's kind of the same thing. You don't teach someone how to shoot an arrow and not expect them to ever hit something.
The Project on Middle East Democracy describes its tenets such that: democracy is an inalienable right and it is the duty of the US to support democracy worldwide. "To be true to its basic principles, America must consistently and credibly support democracy abroad." OK - arrogant pricks. However, the last tenet back pedals a bit, ensuring that their necks aren't stretched too far over the line of fake diplomacy: "The U.S. can and will help but, ultimately, stable and secure democracies in the Middle East can only be built from within." Hmmmm, then doesn't that mean that outward forces have no fucking business forcing it upon people? Iraq is of course the classic example.
And to be honest, as asked in an NPR peace, "is democracy in the Middle East a good idea?" These cherubic young students waving American flags aren't necessarily in line to the throne - er, presidential seat. The Middle East is a hot bed for extremist activity and with good reason. Under these US supported regimes, many extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood were quieted by force. Now that the Arab Spring is upon us, whose to say that the winds of freedom won't kick up some extremist dust that will settle in the hearts and minds of protesters. I mean, in reality - it's not hard to draw up a list of our trespasses in the Middle East, even if we have engaged in peaceful training sessions, gleefully poking and friending activists on Facebook between talks with Mubarak on military posts.
As Flynt Leverett, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and former director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council said, "The legacy of 20th century colonialism in the Middle East, oil concessions and all the rest, mean that it is not popular for regional regimes to cooperate with hegemonic power. While there is no evidence that democracy reduces the incidence of terrorism, there is ample evidence — from places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia — that holding more open elections in these and other societies would produce governments that are more anti-American than incumbent regimes."
Interesting, so basically - we're supporting a movement that could further damage our already shit stained reputation in the Middle East. Wait - people in the Middle East don't like us? But, but - we're so cool!
Bashem Fathy, a driving force behind the Egyptian uprisings had this to say about the double edged sword:
“While we appreciated the training we received through the NGOs sponsored by the U.S. government, and it did help us in our struggles, we are also aware that the same government also trained the state security investigative service, which was responsible for the harassment and jailing of many of us.”
Hmmmm, tricky. So, the question remains - why the fuck do we bother? If the comments of Leverett and Fathy are any indication, we're not making many new friends here. Extremists love a revolution, and they will find their way up to the podium, with a list of grievances with our name on it.
A revolution is a mental shock to a nation - the people are open to ideas that support their original ideologies for protest: freedom. And freedom won't be portrayed as Uncle Sam calling the shots. We supported these revolutions, we egged them on, we've been trying to tidal wave through the Middle East since at least 2005 when these programs first started. We knew exactly what they would lead to - we wanted them to. No way in hell are we gonna allow all that hard work to go to waste with self governing democracies, particularly if that means we don't get to economically and militarily ricochet around their country like an inflatable bounce house.
Bottom line: democracy is not a divination we can crusade around the world, "saving" poor lost souls with. What is this, the 12th fucking century? The CIA could wrap itself in Lion Heart's clothes and you'd scarcely know the difference. Our religion is democracy, one we ironically don't follow very well on our own. But I guess the most corrupt priests are the ones most vehemently religious...When you pit religion against religion (Islam being theirs), you will never win. Religion is not logic based, and neither is our incessant invasions of countries, whether that be with tactics or tanks. It's about power, always has been. We crave power, and our two faced dealings in the Middle East have satisfied our addictive need, but at what cost? And we haven't even gotten warmed up yet.
The Arab Spring is in full swing - what happens when the fall and winter come around. Will we get the cold shoulder from the freedom loving masses we so philanthropically helped? Call me a cynic, but I don't see parades in our honor.
Arrogance is dangerous, made even more lethal when attached to a faith.
God help US.
I'm sure we're all very excited that the stop gap bill has now grown up to be a real bill. And we're stoked that we have to raise the debt ceiling otherwise we're gonna default on government payouts. I'm personally also very excited that NATO has promised to keep fucking around in Libya until Qaddafi dies, quits or escapes, as Qaddafi ramps up his attacks on civilians and it's impossible to tell from the sky who the fuck is who. Not to mention American Idol was on last night, Coachella just started and there's a new YouTube video of a dog running into a wall.
So, it's no surprise that something like American funded revolutions would slip under the radar.
Yes indeed, the anti-activist, Muslim fearing, establishment supporting US of A is behind much of the training and funding of the revolutionary groups responsible for spawning the Arab Spring, particularly in Egypt. An interesting concept considering Mubarak and friends received $1.5 billion worth of US economic and military aid, annually.
Hmmm...I wonder if we could cut that from our crippled budget? No, no, much better to cut the budget that supports the crippled - sorry, got confused for a second.
Evidence of training leaders of opposition movements such as the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and the Yemeni activist, Entsar Qadhi has seeped through the intelligence cracks. It actually began years ago, with training sessions worldwide. Several activists attended a program in New York in 2008, sponsored by the likes of Facebook, Google and the State Department.
The real funding for these programs however, came from you and me: The International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and the non profit human rights org, Freedom House, all government sponsored. The Republican and Democratic institute were spawned by Congress, and financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, an NGO based on promoting democracy and freedom around the world - a little arrogant, but from my research, I can't find anything overly fishy or corrupt about their dealings. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets most of its income from the US government, however, it only gets about $10 million. Together, these groups have trained many of the political activists, even setting up programs in the lions den - such as a sessions held in Yemen focused on using social networking to spread their message and assemble like minded youth.
Many activists are very thankful for their training and attribute much of the success of their revolutions to the instruction they received. Of course, the US organizations behind the training insist that they never meant for it to amass to a revolution. Stephen McInerney, the executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy said, “We didn’t fund them to start protests, but we did help support their development of skills and networking.” That's kind of the same thing. You don't teach someone how to shoot an arrow and not expect them to ever hit something.
The Project on Middle East Democracy describes its tenets such that: democracy is an inalienable right and it is the duty of the US to support democracy worldwide. "To be true to its basic principles, America must consistently and credibly support democracy abroad." OK - arrogant pricks. However, the last tenet back pedals a bit, ensuring that their necks aren't stretched too far over the line of fake diplomacy: "The U.S. can and will help but, ultimately, stable and secure democracies in the Middle East can only be built from within." Hmmmm, then doesn't that mean that outward forces have no fucking business forcing it upon people? Iraq is of course the classic example.
And to be honest, as asked in an NPR peace, "is democracy in the Middle East a good idea?" These cherubic young students waving American flags aren't necessarily in line to the throne - er, presidential seat. The Middle East is a hot bed for extremist activity and with good reason. Under these US supported regimes, many extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood were quieted by force. Now that the Arab Spring is upon us, whose to say that the winds of freedom won't kick up some extremist dust that will settle in the hearts and minds of protesters. I mean, in reality - it's not hard to draw up a list of our trespasses in the Middle East, even if we have engaged in peaceful training sessions, gleefully poking and friending activists on Facebook between talks with Mubarak on military posts.
As Flynt Leverett, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and former director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council said, "The legacy of 20th century colonialism in the Middle East, oil concessions and all the rest, mean that it is not popular for regional regimes to cooperate with hegemonic power. While there is no evidence that democracy reduces the incidence of terrorism, there is ample evidence — from places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia — that holding more open elections in these and other societies would produce governments that are more anti-American than incumbent regimes."
Interesting, so basically - we're supporting a movement that could further damage our already shit stained reputation in the Middle East. Wait - people in the Middle East don't like us? But, but - we're so cool!
Bashem Fathy, a driving force behind the Egyptian uprisings had this to say about the double edged sword:
“While we appreciated the training we received through the NGOs sponsored by the U.S. government, and it did help us in our struggles, we are also aware that the same government also trained the state security investigative service, which was responsible for the harassment and jailing of many of us.”
Hmmmm, tricky. So, the question remains - why the fuck do we bother? If the comments of Leverett and Fathy are any indication, we're not making many new friends here. Extremists love a revolution, and they will find their way up to the podium, with a list of grievances with our name on it.
A revolution is a mental shock to a nation - the people are open to ideas that support their original ideologies for protest: freedom. And freedom won't be portrayed as Uncle Sam calling the shots. We supported these revolutions, we egged them on, we've been trying to tidal wave through the Middle East since at least 2005 when these programs first started. We knew exactly what they would lead to - we wanted them to. No way in hell are we gonna allow all that hard work to go to waste with self governing democracies, particularly if that means we don't get to economically and militarily ricochet around their country like an inflatable bounce house.
Bottom line: democracy is not a divination we can crusade around the world, "saving" poor lost souls with. What is this, the 12th fucking century? The CIA could wrap itself in Lion Heart's clothes and you'd scarcely know the difference. Our religion is democracy, one we ironically don't follow very well on our own. But I guess the most corrupt priests are the ones most vehemently religious...When you pit religion against religion (Islam being theirs), you will never win. Religion is not logic based, and neither is our incessant invasions of countries, whether that be with tactics or tanks. It's about power, always has been. We crave power, and our two faced dealings in the Middle East have satisfied our addictive need, but at what cost? And we haven't even gotten warmed up yet.
The Arab Spring is in full swing - what happens when the fall and winter come around. Will we get the cold shoulder from the freedom loving masses we so philanthropically helped? Call me a cynic, but I don't see parades in our honor.
Arrogance is dangerous, made even more lethal when attached to a faith.
God help US.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)