Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
America is Performing Its Familiar Role of Propping Up a Dictator
Could there be a more accurate description of the Obama-Brown message of congratulations to the fraudulently elected Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan? First the Palestinians held fair elections in 2006, voted for Hamas and were brutally punished for it - they still are - and then the Iranians held fraudulent elections in June which put back the weird Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whom everyone outside Iran (and a lot inside) regard as a dictator. But now we have the venal, corrupt, sectarian Karzai in power after a poll far more ambitiously rigged than the Iranian version, and - yup, we love him dearly and accept his totally fraudulent election.
And now we are still trying to persuade his opponent to join a national unity government, an administration led by the man whose vote-stuffing was the very reason that same leader of the opposition - the good pseudo-Pashtun Abdullah Abdullah - refused to run in a second round of elections. And Karzai got his fawning congrats from the Obama-Brown twins. So that's OK then. Wagons Ho. For Westmoreland, read McChrystal. Send in the brave 40,000 to join the rest of the US cavalry as it fights its way west - or rather south-west - to the Khe Sanh of Afghanistan in Year Eight of the War on Terror.
The March of Folly was Barbara Tuchman's title for her book on governments - from Troy to Vietnam-era America - that followed policies contrary to their own interests. And well may we remember the Vietnam bit. As Patrick Bury, a veteran British soldier of our current Afghan adventure, pointed out yesterday, Vietnam is all too relevant.
Back in 1967, the Americans oversaw a "democratic" election in Vietnam which gave the presidency to the corrupt ex-General Nguyen Van Thieuman. In a fraudulent election which the Americans declared to be "generally fair" - he got 38 per cent of the vote - Thieu's opponents wouldn't run against him because the election was a farce.
In 1967, Washington needed the elections to give legitimacy to this revolting dictator - and thus provide credibility to its own military occupation of Vietnam in the war against Communism. As in Vietnam - where Saigon was a lonely kingdom of brutal power totally isolated from the rest of the country - Karzai is going to rule over an equally tiny island of corruption, protected by US mercenaries while the Americans perform their familiar role of propping up a dictator.
As ex-Lieutenant Bury sagely points out, the Afghan war is "campaigning on a par with the 19th-century British colonial army trying to manage the unwinnable... What was or is the strategy behind these long, bloody conflicts?" Well, in 1967, it was the possible communisation of Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. Now it is Pashtunistan, Baluchistan, Waziristan. For us, the vast ignorant "plebes", it's supposed to stop the Taliban/al-Qa'ida beasts from attacking our looming towers all over again, albeit that the 2001 murderers in question largely hailed from that friendly, moderate, brutal, oligarchical monarchical dictatorship called Saudi Arabia where - thank the good gods - they don't hold elections.
But it's part of a dreary pattern. US forces were participating in a civil war in Vietnam while claiming they were supporting democracy and the sovereignty of the country. In Lebanon in 1982, they claimed to be supporting the "democratically" elected President Amin Gemayel and took the Christian Maronite side in the civil war. And now, after Disneyworld elections, they are on the Karzai-government side against the Pashtun villagers of southern Afghanistan among whom the Taliban live. Where is the next My Lai? Journalists should avoid predictions. In this case I will not. Our Western mission in Afghanistan is going to end in utter disaster.
36 Comments so far
Show All"First the Palestinians held fair elections in 2006, voted for Hamas and were brutally punished for it"
Hamas was punished for backing out of the peace process and not honoring prior agreements. They punished it by cutting the PA off of aid, which was causing a meltdown in the Palestinian territories as the PA government had no funds. So Hamas turtled in Gaza and abducted an Israeli soldier to garner world sympathy for Palestinian prisoners. War followed.
Too much emphasis on the Palestian people, not enough on Hamas.
Hmm lemme guess who... a right-wing, racist imperialist or a paid Hasbara propagandist troll?
Have you seen those disclaimers at the beginning of some movies, you know, the ones that read "Based on real events" or the more embellished "Inspired by real events"? Well, that's what your post looks like. It looks like it was "Inspired by real events". You've jumbled together a bunch of names and events, but none of it is actually true to reality.
Pay attention now, in 2006 Hamas won the elections that took place in both the West Bank and Gaza. International delegates, former president Jimmy Carter and other diplomats monitored the elections. After Hamas won, Israel imposed a siege on Gaza and the US refused to speak with Hamas. Then Israel launched a series of attacks to assassinate parliament members in the Palestinian legislative branch in Gaza. Some were abducted.
Then, in 2007, when that strategy didn't work, both the US and Israel decided to provide Fatah with more arms and more training so that Fatah, in turn, would remove Hamas from power by force. A day before this coup was to take place, a newspaper in Jordan leaked information about the imminent coup. Hamas then went on to remove all Fatah members from their governmental positions and expelled them from Gaza. The siege and assassinations continued, Hamas launched rockets and the rest, as they say, is history.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804?printable=true
Thank you for the accurate timeline, Mohawk.
Mohawk, you fail to mention the the International Community was set to recognize Hamas as a legitimate political organization and government if it abided by prior agreements. It refused, and aid conditional on those agreements was suspended. You keep forgetting that.
You also fail to mention the abduction of Gilad Shalit, which was a major trigger.
Mohawk, you fail to mention the the International Community was set to recognize Hamas as a legitimate political organization and government if it abided by prior agreements.
-----------------------
Can you provide a source for that claim? Just so we're clear here, your assertion is that in 2006, or later, the US and Israel were prepared to recognize Hamas as legitimate? Did you bother reading the article to which I linked?
The international community was always prepared to speak with Hamas and recognize it. Even today, Britain and France and all the Scandinavian nations are prepared to speak with Hamas. They have in fact encouraged Israel to do so. But, since the US is the "honest" broker in this conflict, and Israel is the one dictating to the US how to run the show, Hamas has remained isolated.
-----------------------------------------------------------
It refused, and aid conditional on those agreements was suspended. You keep forgetting that.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't KEEP forgetting that. If I did not include that in my post its because that "aid" was a token gesture and came with ridiculous strings attached.
Israel has always used the goalpost tactic to its advantage. When the PLO was negotiating with Israel in the early 1990s, one of the conditions Israel put on the table was the demand that Palestinians recognize it as a legitimate state.
Arafat obliged and declared his movement's recognition of Israel. Fast forward a few years, and the Palestinians were still living under occupation. Nothing changed. In fact, for the average Palestinian, the situation worsened. Then when Hamas offered to negotiate with Israel, Israel demanded they recognize it as a Jewish state. Had Hamas agreed to do so, it would have sealed the fate of Palestinian refugees the world over. Israel's law of return exclusively favors Jews. In other words, by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, the Palestinians would be giving up any future claim for land or property which refugees had left behind in Israel proper (1948). Meanwhile, Israel continues building colonies. So, what kind of message is that supposed to send to the Palestinians?
Incidentally, Israel is obliged by international law to allow UN humanitarian aid into Gaza seeing as collective punishment is illegal. These days, a dozen trucks or so make it across the border, when according to agreements with the UN, Israel was supposed to allow hundreds of trucks to cross. What's even more ludicrous is that each truck is charged an $800 "processing fee" when it crosses from Israel into Gaza. Business has never been better for Israel. I wonder if they can figure out how to smuggle Palestinian human organs after each F16 sortie over Gaza.
-------------------------------------------------------
You also fail to mention the abduction of Gilad Shalit, which was a major trigger.
-------------------------------------------------------
I don't fail to mention it. In fact, I left it out on purpose for two reasons.
First, he is a soldier. Israel kidnaps Palestinian civilians all the time.
Second, there are about 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons, many of whom never received a trial, and close to 300 are under the age of 14.
But, as we have learned over the years, Shalit and his comrades are God's Chosen people and as such each one of them equals 10,000 Palestinians in the eyes of Israelis and their supporters. Ironically, Shalit immigrated from France to Israel just a few years prior. Then he joined the Israeli army and went target practicing on the native Palestinians whose land has been stolen. This is the kind of chutzpah that should be entered in the Guinness Book of World Records. Once released, perhaps its best if Shalit went back to France, don't you think?
While I thank you for clarifying your message and being hoenst, my point still stands. Fisk's assertion is intellectually dishonest as omitting my three points create a faulty timeline.
the true reason for the wars in iraq and afganistan is simply that the dictators were no longer "ours". At least we don't have to worry about "volunteers" for the armed services in America anymore - not w/ 10.2%(actually 20%+) unemployment.
And wanting a peaceful, truly democratic USA that doesn't install and prop up the most brutal dictators in the world probably makes me one of those "Hate America 1st" idealists.
"Picture a bright blue ball just spinning, spinning free
It's dizzying, the possibilities."
Excellent reference by Mr. Fisk of Barbara Tuchman's classic work The March of Folly which remains topical to this day. Ms. Tuchman's observations on that chapter in her book which deals with Vietnam can certainly be applied to the debacle in the Middle East today when she wrote that:
"Ignorance was not a factor in the American endeavor in Vietnam pursued through five successive presidencies, although it was to become an excuse." The United States surely knew that the Afghans kicked out the British and the Soviets but yet the Big Fool said to push on.
She noted "That we would inherit the disease felt for any white intrusion was not contemplated." Is Obama somehow not aware that the Afghans resent Western foreigners occupying their soil?
Ms. Tuchman pointed out that "once a policy has been adopted and implemented, all subsequent activity becomes an effort to justify it." Perhaps Obama feels, like the first George Bush, that the United States can supposedly kick the "Vietnam syndrome." If so, it would indeed be folly for Obama and other political leaders not to acknowledge the disaster of Vietnam and especially the fact that the Afghans, like the Vietnamese, will also continue fighting until the Western invaders are finally driven from their homeland.
Good points
"Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, and big fool said to push on..."
Similar story, same song, different decade.
So blinded by glory, they must live in a bubble.
Disaster is so very close, why do they so love the darkness?
"She noted 'That we would inherit the disease felt for any white intrusion was not contemplated.' Is Obama somehow not aware that the Afghans resent Western foreigners occupying their soil?"
but 0 ain't white.
so what? An imperialist is an imperialist. Besides Obama is half Kenyan and half Irish-American I believe is a bit more accurate.
my implication was that 0 might feel himself exempt from the quoted warning.
I see what you mean, No worries, I doubt he reads progressive materials or authors like Fisk. I doubt he read Galeano either (the copy that Chavez gave him)
exactly.
what does it matter that he is half black or anything?
there are tyrants everywhere - in africa, in asia, in south america, in europe --
and there are TYRANNOUS SYSTEMS - such as capitalism with its tyranny of "wealth" and wealth DISPARITY.
obama is merely the EMPEROR of the WORST tyrannous system on earth and the most hypocritical of them all.
Teddy
Did you actually bother to read all of what I had written? As I attempted to point out, apparently to no avail, the irony is that we have a person of color [Obama] dropping 500 lb. and 2000 lb. bombs on other people of color. To use the word irony again, you yourself said, as I thought I implied, that Obama is a hypocrite. That is why it matters, and should matter, that we have, ironically, a person of color in the White House slaughtering other people of color in a third world country. I do not know how much more I can break this down so that you can understand the point that I was making.
VDB
But even if one acknowledges that Obama is half white and half black, one can at least wonder at the irony of a man of color dropping 500 lb. and 2000 lb. bombs on other people of color. But as Socialist noted, to an imperialist like Obama, it apparently does not matter that Western troops are once again attempting to force their militant domain over another third world country like Afghanistan.
MASS MEDIA HITS THE CENTER ---- FISK HITS THE ENDS
For mainstream media news is all about our guts, and how best to
stress our guts, with their news being only about the bloody effects
of the problem. Surely a smoke screen, a blinding of the mind
by burning of the emotions.
Whereas Fisk wastes none of our valuable time and emotional
capital on the unbearable effects of things like war that so unnerve
us, but so perfectly hits the root cause as needed and then hits
with a solution that best motivates toward organized action.
Why I was in Central Square this morning, with a flag-drapped coffin... Tally hoo! ...The adventures of imperialism abound, up the next turn, next box canyon...
(sigh)
---TaxiMan
Poetic prose, Mr. Fisk. Bless you.
Fisk never fails me, I consider him to be the one of the very best journalists in the entire English-speaking world. He calls it like he sees it with no sugar-coating.
"The threat from Iran is minuscule. If Iran had nuclear weapons and delivery systems and prepared to use them, the country would be vaporized" These two sentence alone makes a mockery of the entire Iran policy and rhetoric.
Having an election in Afghanistan, as Fisk has noted, is absurd on its face. The country has the lowest life-expectancy in the world, one of the poorest and most violent, no central govt. control, a deeply corrupt "govt." in Kabul, under occupation by foreign powers.
Afghanistan does not fit any formal definitions of Nation-State to begin with and its borders are an arbitrary creation of Sir Mortimer Durand during the previous English-speaking imperial adventures.
Robert Fisk is my favorite journalist. The best thing about him is that he doesn't allow any outside pressure to affect his work or his integrity. He's definitely a rare breed in this day and age.
The 'chessboard' perception of power continually reminds me of Fantasia with micky mouse toying with 'magic' and creating exponentially self-creating brooms that are eventually all that exist.
Also an installation piece by Jaune Quick to See Smith. An image of US flag about 16'x 20'with news items and ads pasted in such a way that you had to get real close to see them. Upper corners each with a 16" round black speaker, and at the bottom a disconnected electrical cord.
Tke a look at JQTS Smith's work online.
I'll add another note on guess's post regarding Hamas, etcetera; that post being BOGUS bs.
And I'll add that mohawk's post was better reading than Robert Fisk's article was. Unlike some or many readers at CD, I'm not a fan of his articles or writing, but occasionally do find a worthwhile one. Mohawk didn't say anything I haven't read enough or plenty, before, but it's a certainly fine refresher or reminder.
Why thank you. I always wanted to be a journalist. I suppose it's never too late to start anew.
One important reality that neither Robert Fisk nor any of the reader posts, so far, have stated is that the U.S. President does NOT [decide] U.S. foreign policy and U.S. "national interests", as well as "national security"; and voters are at fault in this, very much.
Why the voters, too? They, of the majority of citizens eligible to vote and do, for plenty don't vote and another plenty are unethically disenfranchised, plus electoral fraud of (from what I've read) a number of other kinds; well, they elect candidates from only two parties, the Dem. and Repub., and both have ROTTEN leaderships and work for the real rulers of the government of the USA, the oligarchy of corporatists, the most powerful ones. If Dem. Party voters were not guilty, then one thing they would have definitely done would have been to mass up in strong union against the illegitimate, unconstitutional, treasonous, ... expulsions of Dennis Kucinich from the debates between Dem. Party presidential candidates last year; but these voters, though perhaps not his supporters, treated this with irresponsible SILENCE and picking so-called, falsely called "lesser evil" candidates. The very least responsible Dem. Party voters would have done was to demand that the Dem. Party leadership stop its treasonous allowance of this diabolical expulsion of Dennis Kucinich. They chose evils, instead.
Anyway, the real rulers are not [many], but they are very powerfully influential and it's for them that the U.S. military leadership, the especially corrupt members of that "leadership", the CIA ops branch or division (whatever it's called), the U.S. NED (even if it isn't really part of the government), USAID, and more. CFR is involved, but as only one of the many parties or elements in all of this oligarchy of corporatists, or corporatocracy, as some people refer to this.
Some serious writers have provided good descriptions of this ruling oligarchy and its corporatocracy, the above being a rather quick explanation, lacking important additional information.
But we don't get this from "journalists", the corporate media, most "alternative" media, and from apparently most people who post comments at CD.
These repeated omissions and faulting only the President (and Congress, or some members of it) are the Wrong approach. Sure, Obama, as with prior Presidents, is guilty, but he is (and they were) not the real [decider(s)].
Voters need to be [responsible] and make sure to elect only true political candidates, instead of mostly frauds, charlatans, incompetent characters, etcetera. It's necessary to clean the U.S. politics, as well as military leadership, and more, OUT; to get rid of all of the rotten people occupying the highest positions in these offices. Voters need to correct the government with ethically correct and sane voting, and until this is done, then voters who are guilty for electing and re-electing evil will remain party to or complicit with the evil oligarchy corrupting and corrupting the government.
Such irresponsible voting is viewable as treasonous.
Expecting the 'voters' to decide on a rational and just foreign policy is like expecting pigs to fly. It's completely absurd. Why would you even think it? Answer: because you have completely absorbed the 'democracy' propaganda. You're an ideologue, you've been told 1,000,000 times that 'democracy' is the ideal and best form of government, and, you actually believe it. LOL. You're a complete dupe, incapable of looking at the world and coming to any opinion whatever that you haven't been programmed to believe. I don't even think people like you should even be ALLOWED to vote.
OK, so the above is a little overboard, but .... sad to say, I think it's accurate. Expecting anything from the masses is just idiotic.
Here's the funny part - I think that, to the extent that I've thought about it, always believed that the masses were idiots. Just look at the crowds at the baseball/football/basketball games, and the miniscule numbers of tea baggers or anti-war protestors, or any such group that is based on something other than sublimated aggression.
But, while I believed it, it didn't crystallize until on a lark I read Mein Kampf.... I'll pause while you gasp, swear, and turn off the channel ... Hitler writes about the current state of German politics and his plans, and he is very explicit in identifying the role of the masses, he is a believer in the Aryan masses and identifies with their plight, grim at the time, but he realistically regards them as idiots that are easily led by propaganda. And, he explicitly recognizes the role that propaganda must play in any effort to launch and sustain any political movement. As an 'intellectual' I was not surprised to see that Hitler was also contemptuous of intellectuals and their political effectiveness, which he regarded, accurately as it turns out in Germany's case, as nil. Hilter's analysis .... everything depends on a strong and charismatic leader. This is probably correct?
While we're on the subject .. two quotes ...
"As I listened to Gottfried Feder's first lecture about the 'breaking of interest slavery,' I knew at once that this was a theoretical truth which would inevitably be of immense importance for the future of the German people. The sharp separation of stock exchange capital from the national economy offered the possibility of opposing the internationalization of the German economy without at the same time menacing the foundations of an independent national self-maintenance by a struggle against all capital. The development of Germany was much too clear in my eyes for me not to know that the hardest battle would have to be fought, not against hostile nations, but against international capital. In Feder's lecture I sensed a powerful slogan for this coming struggle."
"The fight against international finance and loan capital became the most important point in the program of the German nation's struggle for its economic independence and freedom."
Fisk writes:"Our Western mission in Afghanistan is going to end in utter disaster."
"OUR" mission!
He still has traces of out-dated tribal affiliations (as does Chomsky).
He may even harbour some feelings of guilt or shame.
Sad.
I did not choose the colour of my skin, nor the country of my birth, and need neither to know who I am.
Sure, you didn't ask to be born, so nothing is your fault.
It doesn't matter how your parents made a living, you never asked for food, healthcare, a home, education, clothes, possessions...
If the economy in which you exist is based on military and economic exploitation of 80% of the planet, hey, you never asked for an evil, wealthy country.
Just go on with your happy, guiltfree life, benefiting from the evil of others. Those people dying in Afghanistan and Pakistan have nothing to do with YOU.
We condemned Iran for its rigged election but applaud Afghanistan for its. HMMMMM!