Sam PF's Journal
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
Below are the 7 most recent journal entries recorded in the "Sam PF" journal:
|
11:59 pm
[Link] |
Every problem a nail
Yet more craziness and slaughter in Iraq, as forces of Nouri al-Maliki's government continue their assault on the Mehdi army militia in Basra. This attack has been loudly praised by George Bush, and US and UK planes have chimed in with air attacks.
Things have been pretty horrendous in Basra, controlled by rival Shia militias (including the Badr brigade, which is the militia of al-Maliki's Dawa party.), and their rule has not been pretty, especially for women. But so this is the way to solve it? Start an all-out civil war (on top of the various other civil wars still raging in Iraq) in an attempt to destroy the official 'bad guys'?
Juan Cole is probably the best available regular commentary in English on what's going on in Iraq. He reckons (amongst others) that this move is linked to forthcoming provincial elections in Iraq in October, in which al-Maliki and the US are distinctly afraid that Muqtada al-Sadr's party, of which the Mehdi is the militia, will win in the Shia provinces. The Sadrists are strongly against the US presence in Iraq, and have at times been engaged in direct armed resistance against US and UK forces, though currently they are on ceasefire. (Not that the other Shiite parties are that thrilled about the occupation, and Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the spiritual leader of many Shia, including Maliki's party, has been a strong critic of the US presence. But US forces are what keep the government in power, so they go along.) So, destroy the militia, destroy the party may be the thinking. Whether it works is another matter, as the Sadrists are rather popular amongst the Shia, and the US - not so much.
So, Maliki, with the hand up his back moving his mouth barely hidden, vows to fight the Sadrists to the death. Attempts at negotiations are stifled. Basra - and now many other areas of southern Iraq - is turned into a warzone, the US and UK drop righteous bombs which only ever kill "militants" (except that Iraqi sources, including police and medical, have an annoying habit of revealing that actually they were civilians), and the humanitarian situation - never good, with the chronic failure of the 'rebuilding' project in Iraq to provide basic services - deteriorates further.
Thing is, it's not just Iraq. It's the same pattern in every conflict at the moment where the US see their interests as at stake. In Afghanistan, the heavy-handed military approach to dealing with the Taliban insurgency, where Coalition forces appear to be killing more civilians than the Taliban. President Hamid Karzai occasionally makes protests for form's sake, but he's not the one calling the shots. Talk to the Hand.
Then there's Somalia. Without a government since 1991, it was largely controlled by various warlords [1], although there was a theoretical Transitional Government that controlled only the town of Baidoa. In 2006, an Islamist group, the Union of Islamic Courts, captured a large chunk of territory, including the capital Mogadishu, temporarily ending the warlords' rule.
Now these were probably not an entirely nice bunch, but maybe that might have been an opportunity for, say, some sort of negotiations between the UIC and the Transitional Government? Maybe there'd have even been a vague chance of uniting the country? But noooo, the US decides (without any actual evidence) that the UIC are linked to Al-Qaida, and instead back an invasion by Ethiopia. The Ethiopians force the UIC out of Mogadishu in short order, but then comes the inevitable insurgency, plus the warlords return to Mogadishu, as always no-one is particularly keen on foreign occupation (and Somalia and Ethiopia have something of a history) and now aid agencies say that a humanitarian catastrophe is impending. Another triumph of US policy!
Then there's Palestine. Leaving aside the US's ongoing unconditional support for Israel, there's their role in the intra-Palestinian conflict between Fatah and Hamas. which has been, of course, to stoke it up as much as possible. Ever since Hamas unexpectedly won the 2006 elections, they have been doing their darndest to overturn that result, leading an international boycott of the PA, plunging the Palestinians into even deeper poverty, and opposing all attempts at dialogue between the parties, continuing to boycott the unity government that was set up early in 2007.
Then of course there was the Hamas coup in Gaza, since when that territory has been kept under siege. As I said at the time, there was a lot to suggest this was pretty much the inevitable outcome of US policy of playing the two sides against each other. But recently there's been evidence that their role was even more direct than this, with Vanity Fair claiming to have leaked documents showing that the US was arming Fatah forces under Mohammed Dahlan, their strongman in Gaza, and was seeking to orchestrate a coup against Hamas - a policy which of course went horribly wrong with Hamas winning the battle instead.
Every time, every situation, the US policy is the same. Pick an ally, decide who the bad guys are, and pursue a military solution to wipe the bad guys out, and never mind how many innocent people suffer in the process. Pretty much every case where the US's baleful influence is felt, the result is humanitarian catastrophe. You think they might have noticed by now that it doesn't work? Except at one level it does work. Doesn't solve the problem, but it does succeed in dividing and ruling, preventing any unity amongst the subject population that might oppose US interests.
One final case where things may be going a little bit differently - Pakistan. There, the US had President Musharraf as their friendly dictator, pursuing the usual strategy against Taliban insurgents in the North-West Frontier Province. Rather horribly ineffectually, and with the usual dire consequences. But in February, parliamentary elections led to the overwhelming defeat of Musharraf's allies, and a governing coalition that has left the President isolated. And now the new government, unbeholden to the US, wants to try a different approach, with more talk and less killing. No, not suddenly becoming pacifist, and yes the insurgents they're dealing with are an extremely unpleasant bunch, but now that the Pakistanis are free(r) to choose their own approach, they've decided that maybe there's a better way than fighting until every last enemy is dead, no matter the cost. Good luck to them.
I hope, hope to God that things might be a little different with a new Administration - not that evil began with Bush and every past US government was pure as the driven, but there does seem to be a strong current in US opinion that is heartily sick of perpetual war, which might just find a voice in a Democrat Whitehouse. McCain, who gets far too easy a ride in the British press, let alone the American, quite clearly represents more, even more of the same - if anything, "no more Mr. Nice Guy", and I shudder to think what the future holds if he wins.
[1]Except for the self-declared republic of Somaliland in the North, which I gather is fairly peaceful, although it is not recognised by the UN, and the region of Puntland which is likewise de-facto self-governing
Tags: iraq, palestine, peace, politics, us politics, war
|
|
11:28 pm
[Link] |
Miscellaneous stuff
Well, I'm all packed, and I've made sure I don't have anything on me that could connect me to that scoundrel Sam Perlo-Freeman, so pretty much all ready to go. Just about time for another quick update!
Interesting week. Was at a Palestine Solidarity Campaign meeting in Bristol last night in fact - a Palestinian film-maker was there, Osama Qashoo, showing a short film called My beautiful olive tree, about the importance of said trees to the Palestinians, and footage of protests against the demolition of olive trees to make way for the wall. Also discussion of trying to get a twinning arrangement going between a school in Bristol and one in Tulkaram.
This evening, there was a vigil outside Easton Mosque, about 15 minutes cycle-ride from me - it's been firebombed twice since 7/7, and there have been a lot of attacks on Muslims, so it was a sort of communal solidarity thing, organised by various anti-war and lefty groups in the area. Pretty good turnout.
Couple of actual good news (from my pov) articles I think I'll post. First, the news that lone-wolf Christian peace campaigner Brian Haw has won his case in the High court to continue the anti-war protest he's maintained in Parliament Square since the invasion of Afghanistan. He's there 24/7, with a forest of placards, haranguing our Honorable representatives as they pass. Well, it seems the poor little lambs didn't like the horrible man being nasty to them, so they passed a law to get rid of him. Specifically, banning protests in Parliament Square - even of a single person - that didn't have prior police permission. Then, our beloved Home Secretary Charles Clarke sneakily extended it to any protest within half a mile of Parliament Square, which includes opposite Downing Street.
Only problem was, the idiots forgot to make the law retroactive. So Brian Haw successfully argued that as his protest started before the law was passed, it wasn't covered. So now the government'll be in the extraordinary position of having to pass a second law specifically aimed at a single individual! Or maybe they'll desist for sheer embarrasment.
They interviewed Haw on 5 Live. The presenter was extremely patronising and showed severe ignorance about what's going on in Iraq. Brian Haw strikes me as being like the Old Testament Prophets. Mad as a box of frogs, but knows when something terribly wrong is happening in his country, and is not going to shut up about it.
The second good news story is one that considerably restores my faith in the good sense of the American people. Apparently, the US Army and Marines are experiencing an unprecedented recruitment crisis. Young people are not signing up. Many people who do sign up are leaving after six months. Thousands have gone AWOL. Opinion surveys show young people much less willing to join up, and much fewer parents supporting the idea of their children joining the military. The reason, of course, being Iraq. According to the survey, potential recruits increasingly don't believe in the war, and have seen all the images of Abu Ghraib and so forth, and don't want to be a part of that.
It may be that the American Empire will fail because too many young Americans have too much sense to be willing to kill and die for it.
Ah well, just an hour to go till my coach. Better finish getting ready.
Tags: iraq, palestine, politics, uk politics, us politics, war
|
|
11:12 am
[Link] |
On a more positive note
So Bush has won, and will be in the Whitehouse for four more years.
That is indescribably bad.
But. Democracy didn't start on election day, and it doesn't end there.
Bush will pursue policies that are extremely damaging to ordinary Americans, and to the world.
But Kerry would have pursued most of the same policies. Not as bad in various ways, and the difference in morale it would have meant for both progressive and regressive forces is vast - but a Kerry Presidency would not have suddenly meant hugs and fluffy bunnies the world over.
If you want to see a more just and peaceful world, if you are not one of the rich and powerful and wish to defend your own economic interests and civil liberties, if these things matter to you, then you have to fight for them. True under Bush, true under Kerry.
The fight just got that much harder.
Perhaps of most immediate concern outside the US, a Bush Presidency, in my opinion, will represent a serious danger to world peace. It is highly likely that the newly triumphant Neocons will seek to start another war before long.
Well, we fucking nearly stopped the last one. And now, though temporarily demoralised, we're that much more prepared, and world opinion is that much more united in loathing of Bush. And 48% of American voters are pretty much with us too. We can stop the next one. In Britain at least, I don't believe Blair can get away with following Bush into another war.
So dust down those Feb. 15 placards, cross out the Q and write in an N, and be ready for a long haul.
The fight's not over. It's just beginning.
Current Mood:  angry
Tags: politics, us politics
|
11:11 am
[Link] |
Fuck
Pretty much says it all.
Current Mood:  crushed
Tags: politics, us politics
|
|
03:01 pm
[Link] |
Watching from the cliffside
There's a very dramatic and poignant scene in Thucydides' History of the Pelopponesian War (one of many), towards the conclusion of the Athenians' ill-fated adventure in Sicily; they have failed to capture Syracuse, and are basically in a bad way, facing utter defeat, and have decided they want out. To do this, their fleet makes one last desperate bid to break the blockade established by their Syracusan and Spartan enemies, to allow them to escape and go home.
So there's this massive naval battle in the bay where the Athenian fleet is holed up, while all the Athenian land troops line up along the cliff-sides above watching, cheering when their side gains the upper hand, groaning when they are losing, but totally unable to influence the outcome of a contest that is so crucial to their fate.
Which is rather like the position of the rest of the world watching the US elections unfold. (See, there was a point to all that story!) The policies adopted by the US will have massive consequences for the security, freedom and prosperity of the entire world.
Like the great majority of the world's peoples (And, by the look of things, about half of American voters), I view the prospect of four more years of George Bush, with his warmongering, assaults on human rights, and rejection of any moves to tackle global climate change, with unmitigated horror. Kerry is not much better in my books, but the difference between a Bush Administration re-eected, rejuvenated, vindicated and rewarded for its act of naked aggression in Iraq, and a Kerry administration elected at least in part as a result of a rejection and punishment of this war, is incalculable. The stated policy differences are small, but I think it may not be exaggerating to say that Bush is considerably more likely to bring about the Apocalypse than Kerry. (Indeed, it seems that a good proportion of Bush's core vote is hoping for precisely that.) There are also some very significant differences in domestic policy, which of course largely affect only Americans. (Though the attacks on civil liberties pursued by Ashcroft and co. could make it more difficult for Americans to oppose the worst excesses of a future Bush Administration, which would affect the rest of the world.)
It is traditional to say on these occasions, "Whatever you do, go out and vote". I have some sympathy with this view, but I'm not sure I totally go along with it. For example, in Germany 1932, I would consider it wholly inappropriate to say "Whoever you vote for, make sure you vote." I am not quite comparing Bush to Hitler. But the point is that you can't exhort people simply to vote without some reference to who they might be voting for.
So I am rather tempted to say to my American readers, If you are intending to vote for Kerry, or Nader, or Cobb, or any of the other minor candidates, then make sure you go out and vote, exercise your democratic prerogative! But if you are intending to vote for Bush, then for the love of God, stay at home, drink beer, watch TV, play video games, surf the web, whatever. Voting? Pah! Overrated!
So, we watch and wait. All looking nail-bitingly close. I for one shall be up all night. If Kerry wins I'll get through my 9.30 seminar on adrenaline, trickier if it goes the other way. Of course, we may not know by then. Overall I am cautiously optimistic. (If by "cautious" we mean "scared shitless".) The latest state-by-state polling (see http://www.electoral-vote.com) shows Kerry ahead in the college, though the big swing states are too close to call. What fuels my optimism is that it looks like a very high turn-out, there's been a lot of effort to register young, ethnic minority voters, etc. who will strongly break for Kerry. These are not counted as 'likely voters' by most of the polls, so aren't included. Still, it is frighteningly close.
My last grounds for hope is that the Americans have something of a track record of getting rid of unelected tyrants called George. It's kind of what you're known for.
Do it, America!
Current Mood:  anxious
Tags: politics, us politics
|
|
11:28 pm
[Link] |
Scary
Probably most if not all of my flist has already seen this, but in case you haven't, anyone who remotely cares about their own freedom of speech, especially if they live in the US, should read this.
I think "Fuck" is about the only coherent comment I can make on this.
Current Mood:  scared
Tags: politics, us politics
|
|
05:16 pm
[Link] |
Lies and the lying liars who tell them
This is quite mindboggling, even to me. It relates to a poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, which basically shows that the majority of Bush supporters base their support on demonstrably false beliefs about the Iraq war.
I mean, this is not especially unusual, in the sense that there's a great deal of information out there that doesn't get covered in the mainstream media, but which a minority of people who are into these issues know about from reading alternative sources.
But this is about stuff that is covered in the mass media. As major news items. That you, sort of, couldn't miss unless you were living on Mars and therefore probably hadn't heard that there was a war on in Iraq anyway.
For example, 72% of Bush supporters still believe that Iraq had WMD or at least major WMD programmes, despite the fact that the US's own Iraq Survey Group has said this is not the case. What is even more mind-boggling is that 58% of Bush supporters believe that the Iraq Survey Group (Duelfer) Report said that Iraq had WMD or WMD programmes. When in fact it said the opposite. And received pretty widespread coverage.
Likewise, 75% of Bush supporters believe Iraq was providing substantial support for Al Qaeda, 63% believe evidence of this has been found, and 55% believe that the US's 9/11 commission concluded this was the case, when in fact it concluded the opposite.
I mean, if someone said "Yeah, well I know that here hasn't been hard evidence found, but no smoke without fire, Saddam and Al Qaeda are both evil, they both hate America, so of course they were working together", I might disagree with them, I might fault their logic, I might argue that this is a pretty flimsy reason to go to war, but in the end that's their opinion. But to actually believe that a highly-publicised official report says the opposite of what it actually did say - that's not a matter of opinion, that's just straightforwardly, factually, wrong!
Bush supporters also believe that the majority of the rest of the world is favourable to the Iraq war or neutral, and that the rest of the world likewise supports the re-election of Bush or is neutral, despite strong polling evidence to the contrary.
Kerry supporters, on the other hand, overwhelmingly believe the opposite, in other words, they believe factually correct propositions.
The killer thing is what Bush and Kerry supporters agree on - that if Iraq did not have WMD, and if they were not supporting AL Qaeda, then invading Iraq was wrong. In other words, it is very likely that an awful lot of Bush supporters are basing their vote on ignorance of widely-publicised facts.
It is highly tempting to conclude that Bush supporters are simply stupid or perverse, but of course the other available explanation is the shocking level of information provided by the US mass media, and especially the Republican station of choice, Fox News. I must admit I base this assessment of the US media on heresay, as I do not watch Fox News and only occasionally CNN, but this is what I am frequently told, and it would explain the wide prevalence of faulty information amongst a large section of the US public.
What is clear is that someone is feeding Americans an extremely blatant and effective package of misinformation.
Well, nothing new there, I guess. But perhaps more stunningly blatant than usual.
Current Mood: flabergasted
Tags: politics, us politics
|
|