Few parallels are as striking in recent American history as the Red scare and the threat of terror, both of which have been used to justify the evisceration of our liberties under the guise of protecting us. We don't have any McCarthy today but we do have terror watch lists and general paranoia that terrorists are out to get us. Now the Russians did commit any acts of genocide, but at least they weren't directed at Jews, which makes communism far less of a threat to democracies in the opinions of the neo-cons.
Few politicians can withstand the temptation to drink from the intoxicating stew of paranoia, mass hysteria, and patriotism available in the wake of major events like 9/11. If Norm Solomon's How Presidents keep spinning us to death is accurate, all Presidents have spun any military mission to make the US (and their Presidencies) look mightier, and stronger. The destruction of the initial threat caused by the war is probably nothing more a secondary benefit to interventions compared to the "wag the dog" effect. Of course the American public can't tolerate defeat, so war-making is politically risky business. This is proving to be the case in the long drawn out occupation of Iraq, and could make Afghanistan a massive liability for political incumbents.
Losing the peace
How much of the Georgian war was programmed in Washington? In my last blog post, I'd linked several articles that attributed the invasion to Georgian bellicosity. Their President Saakashvili is a Harvard graduate who's been called by critics everything from a high-class ganster to a fraud, but never stupid. So why go up against Russia?
It's impossible not to consider a neo-con plot. One hallmark of a neo-con war plan is perception management; they'd surely be delighted if world opinion would shift against Russia. By coalescing United Nations votes behind anti-Russian hysteria, neo-con plans for world domination would be solidified. Also, ongoing Russian military action will make condemnation of any anti-US resolutions in the UN that much harder, at least for the near future while an attack against Iran is considered. By turning Russia into something of a pariah state, neo-cons can reestablish undisputed US primacy for a little bit longer.
Turkey has rubbed shoulders with the Russians since the event. Turkey is a vital strategic partner in NATO, who's already had strained relations with the US over the prospect of a Kurdish state in Iraq, and launched large-scaled punitive raids into Kurdish territory in northern Iraq.
Oddly, several EU nations opposed to the Iraq War, famously called Old Europe by Dick Cheney, have embraced Georgian membership in NATO. Chancellor Merkel of Germany appears open to Georgian membership in NATO.
NATO casualties should show the alliance just how dangerous the indefinite occupation of Afghanistan can be, but instead the French leadership wants to look strong against the threat of terror. We saw a similar intent among American politicians post-9/11, when resistance to the Iraq war was equated with weaknesses in the face of America's enemies.
How could the French buy into the idea of escalation, or not begin to question NATO's open-ended, nation-building mission there? The populations of the occupying nations are generally opposed to the war. In a Western society growing increasingly numb from sensory overload, maybe a 9/11- style event is the only war to excite support for French military intervention in Afghanistan.
Fresh off a visit to Kabul in the aftermath of the deaths, French President Sarkozy is electing to escalate the French military presence there. Like Iraq, a surge might be necessary, though the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, wants the troops for a more sustainable length of time. Seeking an endless surge, of course military commanders don't want to see it end, which the term "surge" implies. See Anna Mulrine's "Pentagon Plans to Send More Than 12,000 Additional Troops to Afghanistan" on usnews.com.
It's very possible that NATO troops could be victimized alongside the poor Afghans, who've been routinely killed by US bombings. This could drive a wedge between NATO members that anti-Russian solidarity over Georgia might not be able to surmount.
However, an accidental strike killing four Canadian troops in Afghanistan in April, 2002, did nothing to discourage ongoing Canadian participation in the occupation. Despite an effort to punish the two American pilots involved, friendly fire incidents have continued to occur.
Militarists--on both sides in the conflict--might not regret more soldier deaths, as this could stimulate nationalistic fervor in the nations participating in the occupation. For Afghans, more "peacekeepers" simply creates more targets, and aggravates the scope of the reaction as more bombs fall, invariably killing more Afghan civilians.
Have you ever tried to kill a gnat with a hammer? This is exactly what our leaders claim is the best way to tackle terrorism. French and European politicians are susceptible to the same nationalist forces that would drag those countries into war.
Results produced by our foreign military adventures don't seem to matter. With the Taliban regime quickly defeated, Iraq made an ideal target to quench the American public's desire for vengeance. A militarized solution was chosen in response to what is essentially a criminal problem--terrorism--not because it solves the problem, but because it presents the appearance that progress is being made. An illusion that something is being done relieves domestic political pressures in the short-term even if the reasons for the terrorism--the Palestinian-Israeli conflict--persist.
In the rowdy 9/11 atmosphere, a public thirsty for revenge was eager to lash out--against whom they were told were the perpetrators of 9/11. The results of the terror war so far have been dubious, which raises the question of just how effective an occupation can be, and whether efforts to rebuild Afghanistan in the image of a modern, secular state can be successful.
Few politicians can withstand the temptation to drink from the intoxicating stew of paranoia, mass hysteria, and patriotism available in the wake of major events like 9/11. If Norm Solomon's How Presidents keep spinning us to death is accurate, all Presidents have spun any military mission to make the US (and their Presidencies) look mightier, and stronger. The destruction of the initial threat caused by the war is probably nothing more a secondary benefit to interventions compared to the "wag the dog" effect. Of course the American public can't tolerate defeat, so war-making is politically risky business. This is proving to be the case in the long drawn out occupation of Iraq, and could make Afghanistan a massive liability for political incumbents.
Losing the peace
How much of the Georgian war was programmed in Washington? In my last blog post, I'd linked several articles that attributed the invasion to Georgian bellicosity. Their President Saakashvili is a Harvard graduate who's been called by critics everything from a high-class ganster to a fraud, but never stupid. So why go up against Russia?
Turkey has rubbed shoulders with the Russians since the event. Turkey is a vital strategic partner in NATO, who's already had strained relations with the US over the prospect of a Kurdish state in Iraq, and launched large-scaled punitive raids into Kurdish territory in northern Iraq.
Oddly, several EU nations opposed to the Iraq War, famously called Old Europe by Dick Cheney, have embraced Georgian membership in NATO. Chancellor Merkel of Germany appears open to Georgian membership in NATO.
NATO casualties should show the alliance just how dangerous the indefinite occupation of Afghanistan can be, but instead the French leadership wants to look strong against the threat of terror. We saw a similar intent among American politicians post-9/11, when resistance to the Iraq war was equated with weaknesses in the face of America's enemies.
How could the French buy into the idea of escalation, or not begin to question NATO's open-ended, nation-building mission there? The populations of the occupying nations are generally opposed to the war. In a Western society growing increasingly numb from sensory overload, maybe a 9/11- style event is the only war to excite support for French military intervention in Afghanistan.
Fresh off a visit to Kabul in the aftermath of the deaths, French President Sarkozy is electing to escalate the French military presence there. Like Iraq, a surge might be necessary, though the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, wants the troops for a more sustainable length of time. Seeking an endless surge, of course military commanders don't want to see it end, which the term "surge" implies. See Anna Mulrine's "Pentagon Plans to Send More Than 12,000 Additional Troops to Afghanistan" on usnews.com.
It's very possible that NATO troops could be victimized alongside the poor Afghans, who've been routinely killed by US bombings. This could drive a wedge between NATO members that anti-Russian solidarity over Georgia might not be able to surmount.
However, an accidental strike killing four Canadian troops in Afghanistan in April, 2002, did nothing to discourage ongoing Canadian participation in the occupation. Despite an effort to punish the two American pilots involved, friendly fire incidents have continued to occur.
Militarists--on both sides in the conflict--might not regret more soldier deaths, as this could stimulate nationalistic fervor in the nations participating in the occupation. For Afghans, more "peacekeepers" simply creates more targets, and aggravates the scope of the reaction as more bombs fall, invariably killing more Afghan civilians.
Have you ever tried to kill a gnat with a hammer? This is exactly what our leaders claim is the best way to tackle terrorism. French and European politicians are susceptible to the same nationalist forces that would drag those countries into war.
Results produced by our foreign military adventures don't seem to matter. With the Taliban regime quickly defeated, Iraq made an ideal target to quench the American public's desire for vengeance. A militarized solution was chosen in response to what is essentially a criminal problem--terrorism--not because it solves the problem, but because it presents the appearance that progress is being made. An illusion that something is being done relieves domestic political pressures in the short-term even if the reasons for the terrorism--the Palestinian-Israeli conflict--persist.
In the rowdy 9/11 atmosphere, a public thirsty for revenge was eager to lash out--against whom they were told were the perpetrators of 9/11. The results of the terror war so far have been dubious, which raises the question of just how effective an occupation can be, and whether efforts to rebuild Afghanistan in the image of a modern, secular state can be successful.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
