Dean Acheson, the US Secretary of State, once said, “ Britain has lost an Empire and not yet found a role.” The Bush-Blair axis lays bare the dilemma faced by the British ruling elite after the end of the Second World War. The Empire collapsed and Britain’s status in the world was greatly reduced to that of a second rate power. The political elite including the top echelons of the Foreign Office formulated the strategy of playing the second fiddle to US global interests. The essence of the Special Relationship is for Britain to align itself politically as a junior partner in an orbit of power predominantly under American aegis as a way of preserving some great power status.
In his book Web of Deceit, Mark Curtis, a former research scholar at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, has written a searing indictment of British Foreign policy and ‘ rescues the historical and documentary record from a web of distortion and self-serving illusion’. “The Washington - London axis is not only special to the two elites; it has been a pillar of world order for over five decades” writes Curtis, “The two leading western powers have, since 1945, colluded to shape the global economy and much of international affairs to their interests. The US has clearly led the strategy, which in the early postwar years meant replacing British power with their own, notably in the middle-east;” Britain plays a secondary role in supporting brutal family regimes in the Gulf States which maintain the oil order to favour Western (US and British interests). In the United Nations, Britain serves US interests by voting for US in the Security Council resolutions. In Economic forums, Britain aggressively pursues economic liberalisation to aid US and British businesses.
Under the New Labour Government of Tony Blair the relationship has only deepened with the US in a number of ways. Blair is clearly an uncritical supporter of Bush’s illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the US-Britain relationship eerily resembles the client/satellite relationship of the erstwhile USSR and its allies. British Ministers and senior diplomats serve as US diplomats to push through the resolutions of its Big Brother at the UN. Sharp differences rose when US imposed tariffs on British steel in early 2002, which were swiftly patched up to pound defenseless countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan to submission. Tony Blair, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, is the newest US ambassador and he relishes his role as the top advisor for Bush. He is the chief propagandist for the Bush government and is a master of telling half-truths. For his domestic constituency, there is constant spin that his Faustian pact with the Neo-Liberal Bush administration is imbued with benevolence and high moral purpose.
Article comments
1 - Arch Conservative
David Monibot...ah the orginal moonbat.
May I make a suggestion to the author?
Why don't you go fuck yourself!
2 - crsridhar
#1 Arch Conservative
With British foreign policy fu***** humankind, it may not be a bad idea.
3 - tlj
What is this, you have a complex about America's failed and degenerate foreign policy? It is just wanking with words.
As Winston Churchill once said: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing...............after they've tried everything else."
[Personal attack deleted]
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
It strikes me that the main target of the article is the British policy of imperial exploitation. Before Winston Churchill was prime miniter, he was a Colonial Minster. It is to him that we owe the travesties known as Jordan and Iraq, artificial creations if there ever were ones.
Speaking as one who wasa born in and who spent a number of decades in the United States, I'll say that he is pretty much on the money in most of what he says. The average American overseas is a relatively decent fellow. American soldiers saving Europe from the Nazis did not need to rape everything in a skirt like the Russians did, and bought America a great deal of good will with their decent behavior.
But their government has squandered most of it. I can see where and why I would disagree with the author on a number of things, but he has not covered them in this article, so I see no reason to bring them up.
5 - cr sridhar
#3 tlj
I found your demented diatribe mildly amusing.I fell out my chair laughing when you quoted Churchill.Here is another quote for you-'I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas…I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes…..gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread lively terror…” Guess who said that tlj? Not Chemical Ali but your pal Winston Churchill.
6 - cr sridhar
#4 Ruvy
Thank you for your comments but as good friends we also differ.
There is growing dismay that the Anglo American axis does not exactly innure to the benefit of humankind.Number of respected scholars such as Blum(killing Hope),Chalmers Johnson(Blowback)and Mark Curtis(Web of Deceit) to name a few have carefully documented the horrific slaughters visited upon other nations. I would also dissent from your view that the Second World War was entirely won by US. What about Russia? It would extremely niave to ignore the sacrifices of ordinary Russian people( not Stalin) and they suffered the worst casualties in the war. Remember the Battle of Stalingard ? Ruvy, I am sure you will agree with me,selective memory of History is not the best way to move forward.
7 - giridhar
#i agree with the author that the benevolance and high moral purpose of british foreign policy is largely a segment of imgination.this is a collective fantasy of right wing fantics and neo facist skin heads.the neo colonial omslaught on third world nations ia a continuing threat.i fully endorse his views.
8 - Nancy
Good article & extremely informative, especially as I have zero knowledge in this arena. However, in detailing British torture methods against the Malay Chinese & Mau-Mau, I'm afraid you might be giving BushCo ideas. I do know something of the Mau-mau, and from what I understand & have read, they richly deserved whatever they were subjected to, as they were themselves pretty nasty with any prisoners of their own long before the British decided turnabout was fair play. Payback is hell, as the saying goes. (NOT Winston Churchill)
9 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Cr;
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying when I talked abut the behavior of American versus Russian soldiers on the front lines.
I do not mean to imply by any stretch of the imagination that the Red Army did not have a major role in defeating the Nazi state, nor do I imply that Russians did not make major and painful sacrifices in order to accomplish this defeat.
I know a number of Russians who fought in the Great Patriotic War, and I know a number of Russians who are the children of veterans in that war. One sixth of this country's population is Russian born or first generation Sabras with Russian parents.
What I said was that American soldiers, as opposed to their Russian counterparts, did not rape everything that was in a skirt, or seem to need to. American soldiers were well enough equipped that when they entered a territory, they generally did not need to steal, as did Russians. And Russians, proud as they are of Russia, (and don't anybody mistake this - they have intense pride in Russia) will admnit this.
The fact that Americans were richer by far than the Russians (or Englishmen or Frenchmen, for that matter) allowed them to be generous on a personal level to the liberated peoples of Europe where they occupied it. And this generosity bought America a great deal of gratitude and good will which their government squandered.
You mention horrific slaughters that the English and Americans visited upon Germany, Austria and Japan. This was intentional. WWII was fought as a total war, with the intent of administering a total defeat. It was clear to Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 that both Japan and Germany posed mortal threats to the United States and that part of the British Empire that had not yet been conquered.
I realize that residents of what was then the Empire of India might look upon all of this a little differently, suffering as they did a Colour Bar and other forms of discrimination of British rule. Jews in this country debated whether to support Britain or not as well. The Brits are not the most popular of people on the planet, and their Colonial Office has brought this unpopularity upon them. It is only because the governments of Nigeria and Ghana, to pick two examples off the top of my head, are so terribly corrupt that older Nigerians or Ghanaians might look back with any kindness towards the days of British rule there.
But in Britain and America, as well as Australia and New Zealand, the idea was to fight a total war to defeat a mortal threat.
If you want to argue that the Americans have not been the nicest of combatants in war, I will not disagree. But one should distinguish between American soldiers, who are reflective of a very decent people and generous people - and American leaders, who are by and large mere servants of the corporate interests they serve.
10 - Nancy
Amen & ditto, Ruvy: I have said again & again, US political leaders today do NOT represent the American people, and seldom have in the historic past.
11 - cr sridhar
# Ruvy,
Thank you for your email.
To clarify matters I did not refer to the WWII at all when taking about the horrific slaughters of other nations perpetrated by the Anglo-American axis.That tragic history is more recent. I was referring to the War on terror.In Iraq the sanctions(with US and Britain playing active role) resulted in one million deaths mostly children. The reaction of Madeleine Albright to the question whether the deaths of children were worth it was that the price was worth paying.The nation of Iraq was also ravaged by Gulf war1&2. The war on Afghanistan was another disaster.The extensive use of depleted uranium shells and cluster bombs by USA constitutes gross violations of civilised conventions of warfare. The targeting of civilian infrastructure constitutes war crimes.
The problem is not that the American people are not decent. I do agree with you that a lot of them are.Let me take an example of a bus out of control full of American people with the driver mowing down the pedestrians.The American passengers do not stop the bus nor the driver and are oblivious to the mayhem.Who are guilty? The driver certainly.But what about the passengers?
But as correctly pointed out by you the main target of my article is the foreign policy of Britain which is neither benevolent nor noble.
12 - Epicure
A masterly marshalling of the facts of the case. The verdict ought to be a foregone conclusion, except 'Who is the Judge, and who the Jury'?. Which begets another question, not rhetorical, 'Who is on such ground as to cast the first stone'? Nobody I'm afraid.
13 - Anand Menon
Dear Ruvy...
you mention that"What I said was that American soldiers, as opposed to their Russian counterparts, did not rape everything that was in a skirt, or seem to need to....."
This is what has been documented and what Sgt. MARTIN SMITH, USMC (Ret.)has to say on the matter.."The mounting revelations of war crimes in Iraq have ripped the mask of democracy and nation-building off of a fatigued and wearied Uncle Sam, revealing the true face of U.S. imperialism. At least thirty U.S. servicemen are being prosecuted or are under investigation for the murder of Iraqi civilians. Twenty-one year old Steven Green, who served in the 502nd Infantry Regiment, was charged with the gang rape and murder of a fourteen-year old Iraqi girl in Al-Mahmudiyah, south of Baghdad.The accused, with the assistance of five other soldiers, allegedly premeditated the attack and carried it out in broad daylight. After a drinking bout, the soldiers changed out of their uniforms and Green covered his face with a brown skivvy undershirt to avoid detection as they entered the woman's house to commit the crime. After the sexual assault, they murdered her and poured a flammable liquid over her body to destroy the evidence. Afterwards, Green shot the victim's parents and sister in the head, execution-style. The soldiers made a pact to never discuss the incident....."
So much for not skirt-chasing.
The underlying theme of Sridhar's article is terrrorism by the state....and by state we mean the entire apparatus which holds the reins of power.....which is usually an oligarchy....As Stephen Fleishmann put it.."I never thought I'd ever hear the United States of America called an "oligarchy". But now I have.My dictionary says an oligarchy is a form of government where most or all political power effectively rests with a small segment of the society. As Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia, puts it, "Oligarchies are often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy, often at some sort of expense to those governed." Does that sound like the administration of George W. Bush?......"
History has shown us that the state has always shown a propensity for violence.....Sridhar has called a spade a spade here ...so when Ruvy says..."I realize that residents of what was then the Empire of India might look upon all of this a little differently, suffering as they did a Colour Bar and other forms of discrimination of British rule...."....he might be being a bit patronising...
As George Monbiot said..."The more powerful a nation becomes, the more it asserts its victimhood. In contemporary British eyes, the greatest atrocities of the 18th and 19th centuries were those perpetrated on compatriots in the Black Hole of Calcutta or during the Indian mutiny and the siege of Khartoum. The extreme manifestations of the white man's burden, these events came to symbolise the barbarism and ingratitude of the savage races the British had sought to rescue from their darkness........"
".....If there is a characteristic which unites all human societies, past or present, it is surely an inordinate fondness for violence. Those who can force others to submit to their demands will do so until they meet a greater force.We tend, in the superficially peaceful communities of the rich world, to forget that violence is the underlying determinant of human relations, and that this violence, far from disappearing, has simply been distilled into a political system which both protects and threatens us.Though we may avert our eyes, our respect for the law rests upon our recognition of the state's capacity to compel us to submit by force of arms.This, though it arose from centuries of arbitrary power, is the social contract upon which those of us who live in nations with elected governments appear to have settled.......The state claims to protect us from external aggression and the violence of the powerful, and in return we surrender to it (unless we live in America) our weapons and our own capacity for violence.......The paradox of governance is that a state which is sufficiently powerful to protect the weak against the strong is also sufficiently powerful to crush the weak....Without protection, the weak are trampled by the strong.."
In the present scheme of things it clearly appears that Tony Blair who claims to represent Britain has chosen to become George Bush's lapdog and further the "common cause"...perhaps out of some misplaced messianic sense of destiny(maybe it's just business as usual).Many people say Bush is an idiot,he's losing the war in Iraq(EVER notice how everybody says War IN Iraq and not War ON Iraq?)As Gary Leupp remarked"...It is not enough to ask if the president is an idiot. We must ask why the Congress and mainstream media have cheered the idiocy on so long, and actively contributed to it. They're like the townspeople in Hans Christian Anderson's tale, praising the new clothes of the butt-naked king. But in the story, once the little boy calls out, "The emperor has no clothes!" the individuals in the crowd, having been frightened into thinking only idiots couldn't see the monarch's elegant new attire, come to their senses and realize they've been hoodwinked. The word's been out on the street for a long time that this president is an idiot---surrounded by shysters as cunning as the tailors in the Anderson tale......Instead the political class and the media have maintained a united front in support of the idiotic proposition that 9-11 justifies U.S.-forced regime change in any country that Washington decides to call "terrorist"....."
As General Douglas MacArthur, said...."Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -- kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."
And as Noam Chomsky said.."we can be reasonably confident that viewing the world through a bombsight will bring further misery and suffering, perhaps even in "apocalyptic terms".
State run terrorism often results in a huge mess...guess who has to do all the clearing up afterwards?.....like here in India the opposition/shadow cabinets don't seem to offer very much in terms of a viable difference in foreign policy....it would appear that politicians are the same colour everywhere....columnist Dave Lindorff said..."The Democrats in Congress are having trouble coming up with a position on the War in Iraq because they are so afraid of Republican charges that they are the "cut and run" party.It's a pathetic spectacle, and they should give it up. The way I see it "cut and run" is the slogan the Democrats should adopt as their own for the 2006 election year.Democrats: the party of cut and run.But I'm not talking about the war.The "cut" should be for cutting the defense budget. That gets us to the second part of the slogan: the “run” part. And here's where the real fun starts. For the last five years, we've had an administration that has proven it can't run anything. Look at the record: Bush has run the government into the ground, run the military into a ditch, run the nation's international reputation into the sewer, run our schools into crisis, run the budget off the rails, run away from his responsibility to protect the nation, and literally run away from taking the blame for any of his countless mistakes.How inspiring it would be--and what a blessed relief--to have a party that was committed to actually "running" the government for a change......"
....So for crying out loud stop ganging up on poor Sridhar willya?.....and that includes those moonbats and wankers who call themselves "arch conservative" and "tlj"(wonder if that stands for totally loud jack-ass)....and since Mr.tlj seems very keen on quoting Churchill...lets see if he can solve Mickey Z's stupid white man quiz...
Here's what he says...."The rules are simple. I provide a quote and you guess which Stupid White Man (or wannabe) is responsible."
QUOTE #1: "The destruction was mutual." (Explaining why the U.S. should not
apologize to Vietnam)
a) Richard Nixon
b) Ronald Reagan
c) Alexander Haig
d) Jimmy Carter
QUOTE #2: "A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living. Today's military rejects include tomorrow's hard-core unemployed."
a) Wesley Clark
b) John F. Kennedy
c) Norman Schwarzkopf
d) Colin Powell
QUOTE #3: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot...I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
a) Barbara Bush
b) Mother Teresa
c) Oprah Winfrey
d) Bill Gates
QUOTE #4: "Am I prepared to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have sufficient intelligence? You bet I am. I will never allow any other country to veto what we need to do and I will never allow any other institution to veto what we need to do to protect our nation."
a) George W. Bush
b) Donald Rumsfeld
c) Dick Cheney
d) John F. Kerry
QUOTE #5: "Which is more important in world history: The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few over-excited Islamicists or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" (Rationalizing the arming of the Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden, who have since been blamed for the attacks on 9/11.)
a) Paul Wolfowitz
b) Zbignew Brzezinski
c) George H.W. Bush
d) Ariel Sharon
QUOTE #6: "There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
a) Abraham Lincoln
b) Ann Coulter
c) David Duke
d) Rush Limbaugh
QUOTE #7: "Put down those sprouts and pick up a T-bone!"
a) Dr. Atkins
b) Michael Moore
c) Ted Nugent
d) Jeb Bush
QUOTE #8: "Freedom is about authority."
a) John Ashcroft
b) Tom Ridge
c) Rudy Giuliani
d) Al Gore
QUOTE #9: "Racism isn't holding blacks back, it's their own laziness!"
a) Bill O'Reilly
b) Bill Bennett
c) Bill Clinton
d) Bill Cosby
QUOTE #10: "There is nothing wrong with doing something that benefits all humanity, but that is, in a sense, a second-order effect."
a) Henry Kissinger
b) Jesse Jackson
c) Condoleezza Rice
d) Dan Rather
(Answers: 1-d, 2-b, 3-b, 4-d, 5-b, 6-a, 7-b, 8-c, 9-d, 10-c)
I leave you with the wondrous sight of tlj scratching his head trying to come up with some answers...:)))
Cheers
Anand Menon
14 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Anand,
You found one documented case of rape among American soldiers in Iraq. And from this you implied that the vast majority of American soldiers are rapists normally.
When Russian soldiers occupied a place, rape and pillage was assumed to be the appropriate behavior, and nobody bothered to investigate... From their point of view, there was nothing to investigate.
There is a world of difference from soldiers thoroughly investigated and imprisoned for raping someone in an occupied country, and the attitude that if you weren't raped, you should shut up and count your blessings.
"so when Ruvy says...'I realize that residents of what was then the Empire of India might look upon all of this a little differently, suffering as they did a Colour Bar and other forms of discrimination of British rule' ....he might be being a bit patronising..."
In WWII, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were white countries and all percieved each other to be equal. Residents of the Empire of India were not white and were not perceived as equal by the colonial government. That is a straight cold statement of fact. It is not patronizing to conclude that an individual expected to put his life on the line for a colonial occupier would view the interests of that colonial occupier differently than the resident of a free and independent country fighting in an alliance. It is a reasonable conclusion to draw.
15 - Dave Nalle
By all standards the Shah's regime topped the torture charts.
Are you clinically insane or did you just get carried away with your rhetoric?
Even by the standards of that more brutal era the Shah was a benevolent dictator. Yes, there were abuses of power, but he modernized the country, allowed a great many freedoms and his role was beneficial for the people as a whole. I've talked to a great many expatriats who left in recent years and they universally praise his regime in comparison with what came after.
The Shah was no worse than Peron or Pinochet or Franco or Tito or a score of other 2nd-string dictators of the era and enormously better than the hardcore dictators of that time like Idi Amin and Pol Pot.
Dave
16 - doubting thomas
Ruvy
your comment'You found one documented case of rape among American soldiers in Iraq' as not suggesting large scale incidents of rape should be balanced with the evidence of rape in Okinawa(Japan)where US has its military base.Here Ruvy you seem to be skating on thin ice.
The criticism of large scale rape comes from the ally of US, namely, Japan.
The conservative Japanese newspaper Nihon Keizai Shimbun which studied bookings at the Okinawan Prefectural Police Headquaters alleged that US service were implicated in 4716 crimes between 1972 and 1995 under General Myers command.
Dayton Daily News investigated one hundred thousand court-martial records going back to 1988 and found that 169 incidents charged were for sexual assaults. The incidents of rape could be under reported as there is natural reluctance on the part of rape victims to come forward as it is a humiliating experience under their culture.
Another disturbing aspect of the matter is that the military allowed number of sex offenders go scot free despite the convictions.The Nation magazine concluded that covering up sexual assault is Pentagon policy.
An organization called Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence was formed to protest against sexual violence.
I would agree with you to a limited extent that all US servicemen and American people cannot be tarred with the same brush.
17 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Doubting,
An occupation lasting several decades is one thing. A liberation is another. My comparison to the Russians does not address the issues of an occupation of a territory that is many thousands of miles from home, with little contact with women from one's own culture for decade after decade. While it is deplorable and wrong that American soldiers rape young Japanese women in Okinawa, it comes as no surprise considering the length of trhe occupation there.
IN WWII, American soldiers did not have to resort to rape and plunder as did Russians in liberating land from Nazis. Thus they generated good-will amongst most of the inhabitants there. An extended occupation, as occurred in Okinawa or as continues in Korea, creates all sorts of issues that a brief liberation does not.
We're comparing apples and oranges here.
18 - doubting thomas
# Dave Nalle
Ah yes Dave another spin on benevolent dictators friendly to US interests.
Digest this fact Dave-In 1975, Amnesty International observed "Shah's Iran had the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief.No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran."
Iran Analyst Barry concluded that the prisoners were subjected to horrendous torture, equal to the worst ever devised while the entire population was subjected to a constant all-pervasive terror.
Their history does not record whether the modernisation of Shah's regime was felt by the prisoners in the SAVAK torture cells.
Now Dave tell us who is clinically insane?
19 - doubting thomas
Ruvy
Operation Barbarossa was conducted against the Russian people with a viciousness unparalled in human history.Hitler instructed his Generals to conduct the invasion of Russia unmercifully and with unrelenting harshness. The Russian women were raped systematically and killed by the Germans. The Americans did not suffer such a fate as the Russians did.Hitler's battle did not touch American territory.
Russia and Hitler's Germany were locked in a deadly fight to finish.Compare the casulties of the Russians to that of the other allies and you will know what I mean.
The point is in the heat of the battle with the Germans such excesses do occur(as you point out) but which cannot be condoned.But the question is- is not rape by soldiers during peace time a more serious issue?
Are we comparing apples with oranges?
20 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
My background in Russian history is a bit deeper than yours, Doubting Thomas. The behavior I have ascribed to Russian soldiers was the norm in the Russian Civil War as well WWI. This goes beyond Operation Barbarossa.
As to the behavior of Russian occupation forces in Eastern Europe between 1945 and 1989, which would deal with the issue of rape during peacetime, I cannot make claims, having no data, either anectdotal or statistical.
21 - doubting thomas
Ruvy,
You appear to be skirting the issue.To restate the proposition: If the American people would have been treated with the same brutality as the Russians were by the Germans during WW2 would you expect the American soldiers to observe drawing room manners? The answer is probably no. In short the behaviour of American soldiers cannot be compared to that of the Russians as Americans and Russians experienced differentlevels of brutality at the hands of the Germans during WW2.Aren't you comparing apples to oranges?
22 - Anand Menon
Right Ruvy,
lets stick to some things on which we are in agreement
You said to Sridhar"If you want to argue that the Americans have not been the nicest of combatants in war, I will not disagree. But one should distinguish between American soldiers, who are reflective of a very decent people and generous people - and American leaders, who are by and large mere servants of the corporate interests they serve..."....
I agree with your statement,I also agree with Sridhar when he says..."I would agree with you to a limited extent that all US servicemen and American people cannot be tarred with the same brush."
I also want to add that standards of recruiting fresh troops in the U.S Army have fallen in the last few decades and especially in the last few years.Now we come to the question of why standards are lowered.Which brings us to the military leadership in question which has the power and authority to deal with such incidents but chooses to shove the issue under the carpet and ultimately the political leadership above that military command .Our discusions have digressed into rape,but what we are talking off is rape as a metaphor..... a rape of a people by a completely amoral leadership,a political leadership which serves corporate interests and which deludes itself into beleiving that it can pull of what it intended to do in the first place whatever the cost .When you have such a situation then standards will continue to be low. We have seen recruitment videos of riffraff literally picked off the streets and drafted into the U.S Army.It is an all too obvious fact that when standards are lowered/allowed to be lowered then things like rape happen.It would well do to remember that U.S troops are stretched to the limit in holding just one country, namely Iraq.As Peter Spiegel writes..."The Army, with an active-duty force of 504,000, has been stretched by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. About 400,000 have done at least one tour of combat duty, and more than a third of those have been deployed twice. Commanders have increasingly complained of the strain, saying last week that sustaining current levels will require more help from the National Guard and Reserve or an increase in the active-duty force...."Now why is the U.S stretched to the limit?Because it is not very popular there.And why is it not popular?.It is because of the policies followed by the very same political leadership.Which brings us back to the theme of the main article by Sridhar which is Western State Terrorism which alludes to those very same policies.Lets be clear here....we are talking about policies not peoples...Ruvy also writes.."While it is deplorable and wrong that American soldiers rape young Japanese women in Okinawa, it comes as no surprise considering the length of trhe occupation there....".....If one were to go by this piece of logic one would have to call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq....they have been there a bloody long time there haven't they?...Anyway...There are many things to admire about the Americans and many things also where they would have to bow their heads in shame if only,if only they had the humility,good sense and grace to admit they have made mistakes in the past and continue to do them in the present and may likely continue to commit such mistakes in the future .The objective of the article is not to blame the British or the Americans .It is to sound a warning.It is to say if only you guys could look at the larger picture.And what is that larger picture?When imperial governments invest their precious resources in waging a war on a people instead of investing that money in its own health,social structure/assets or education then things go downhill.....Some commentatorsin the U.S have already alluded to it by saying this is the beginning of the end of America....especially America the Empire....
Lets start with Noam Chomsky who writes..."the American 'system' as a whole is in real trouble - that it is heading in a direction that spells the end of its historic values [of] equality, liberty, and meaningful democracy." ..Chomsky also adds......."No one familiar with history should be surprised that the growing democratic deficit in the United States is accompanied by declaration of messianic missions to bring democracy to a suffering world. Declarations of noble intent by systems of power are rarely complete fabrication, and the same is true in this case. Under some conditions, forms of democracy are indeed acceptable. Abroad, as the leading scholar-advocate of "democracy promotion" concludes, we find a "strong line of continuity": democracy is acceptable if and only if it is consistent with strategic and economic interests (Thomas Carothers). ..."
Chalmers Johnson writes..."There is something absurd and inherently false about one country trying to impose its system of government or its economic institutions on another. Such an enterprise amounts to a dictionary definition of imperialism. When what's at issue is "democracy," you have the fallacy of using the end to justify the means (making war on those to be democratized), and in the process the leaders of the missionary country are invariably infected with the sins of hubris, racism, and arrogance. ..."
Brian Cloughley writes..."At the time when Bush began his war in March last year I ended an article titled 'One Law for America' by observing that "We have seen the future and it is terrifying, because international laws and agreements mean nothing to Bush and his officials. When useful, they are quoted. When inconvenient they are ignored. There is one law for America--and none, in the eyes of Bush, for those who dare disagree with him."
There has been no change since then. There is no fading, not the slightest reduction, in the Bush administration's obstinate and blinkered zeal for total control at home and saber-brandishing supremacy abroad.But sometimes one can have a deep belly-laugh at the mindset that created the One Law Doctrine, if only because its exponents are so obsessive that their self-deception has become as ludicrous as it is dangerous. Their posturing is not just illogical but decidedly funny, albeit it in a manner suited to the Theatre of the Absurd, in which mankind is held to inhabit a universe with which it is doomed forever to be out of synchrony. The playwright Eugene Ionesco mused that "I look and see pictures, creatures that move in a kind of timeless time and spaceless space emitting sounds that are a kind of language I no longer understand or ever register." And so it is with the inhabitants of Fortress Bush, for they do not, cannot, will not relate to real time, extant space, or meaningful language. They are doomed, in their own Theatre of the Absurd, forever to be out of synchrony with the universe."
Joe Bageant writes..."Supposedly, if you put live frogs in a kettle of cold water on the stove, then raise the temperature very slowly, the frogs will eventually boil to death without trying to escape. I don't know if that is true, but it does seem the perfect, if sometimes overused, analogy for what we see going on around us in America. My guess is that we frogs are about medium done for. Having never cooked frogs or lived in a fascist state, I am not a practiced judge of these things, but I'm quite sure the end result of either is in no way desirable for frogs or human beings...."
Niranjan Ramakrishnan writes..."All the same, history repeats itself, does it not? According to the famous quote, first as tragedy, then as farce.
George W. is pedantic in 3rd grade English. His knit eyebrows, narrowed eyes and smirking bring a frightening realization that he really thinks in the language he speaks.The Mahabharata asks a rhetorical question, "What is the final step in the ladder of success?" It answers, "Defeat".
At some point the chickens are going to come home to roost......at which point we should all shrug like Donald Rumsfeld and say"....stuff happens..."
Cheers
Anand
23 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
OK, gentlemen, let's cut to the chase here.
Wars are popular when the public clearly understands the motives, which more often than not means a war of self defense against a clear aggressor.
The attack on the World Trade Center, assuming that Americans are not being snowed altogether, was perpetrated by Al Qaeda, a Saudi based guerilla force that got training in Afghanistan from the United States but is devoted to the Wahhabi ideal of "Allah's way or the highway." The Saudi monarchy can sing about how Al Qaeda is a terror threat to it all it desires to do so. The blunt fact of the matter is that Al Qaeda and the Saudi monarchy are differnt wings of the same movement of Wahhabi dominance of the world...
The clear aggressor was Al Qaeda, a branch office of the Saudi monarchy.
So what is the logical response? On 11 September, 2001, the logical response of an Amdrican president who gives a damn about his country is to round up every damned Saudi of importance and toss him into the clinker while giving the key to Fido 'round his neck.
The next response is to announce that Islam is a religion of peace (even though at this point it isn't - yet) and to make clear that Moslems in the United States are not to be targetted.
The next step is to invade Saudi Arabia and occupy its oilfields and imprison its royal family - and all the princes across the provinces - and to invite King Abdallah II to return to Medina and resume his post of Sherif of Mecca and Medina, th post his great grandfather lost in the 1920's when the ibn Sauds drove him out of Mecca and Medina.
Result?
You have a popular war on your hands where people are looking to sign up and fight the good fight.
What is the next move? To cleanse Islam of the Wahhabi influence throught the world. Deprived of Saudi money the Wahhabi would be reduced to what they ought to be, starveling bastards unwilling to accept Islam on ITS terms, rather than the other way around.
But, as we all know, this was NOT the next move. Instead, because the Bush family is in the employ of the Saudis, instead of the American people, a war was pursued elsewhere, first Afghanistan, and then Iraq. Both looked good on their face, but the Americans could have unhorsed Saddam Hussein and left, with an American "governor-general" to get things in order.
So, now these wars are unpopular and the United States needs to scrape the bottom of its barrel to get kids to sign up and put their lives on the line.
That is what has happened. So that explains the decline in the quality of Americn soldiers.
I'm talking here as an American ex-pat who is unlikely to return the land of his birth. I feel bad over this - but there is nothing that I could have done to change it. I have other fish to fry.
Shabbat Shalom
from Hill of Frankincense in the mountains north of Jerusalem, the Eternal capital of the Jewish People
24 - Silver Surfer
If I didn't know any better Socrates, I might have believed all this nonsense because you've packaged it so nicely and made it sound like you know what you're talking about.
But when you are talking about the indiscretions of the British security agencies and keep calling the international branch M16, like the American-made rifle, I start to wonder where you got your info and how you could possibly know it's correct when you can't even get that right.
It's MI6, old boy, as in CIA. An I, not a 1. But you didn't know that, did you. Regurgitate it all from some communist bollocks sheet somewhere did we?
And mate, you probably should let everyone know that the poor Chinese workers were a murderous bunch of misguided communist insurgents funded and armed by the Chinese and in some cases through Indonesia, both of which were intent on causing more destabilisation in the region.
That Malaya, now the Islamic state of Malaysia, is one of the most stable countries in the region, and has one of Asia's highest standards of living, probably just shows that the British course of action in defeating the insurgency was probably the right one - especially for the Malays.
Another Vietnam wasn't really going to be a good thing, now was it?