Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Big Change Whether We Like It or Not; Only Washington Is Clueless
In every aspect of human existence, change is a constant. Yet change that actually matters occurs only rarely. Even then, except in retrospect, genuinely transformative change is difficult to identify. By attributing cosmic significance to every novelty and declaring every unexpected event a revolution, self-assigned interpreters of the contemporary scene -- politicians and pundits above all -- exacerbate the problem of distinguishing between the trivial and the non-trivial.
Did 9/11 “change everything”? For a brief period after September 2001, the answer to that question seemed self-evident: of course it did, with massive and irrevocable implications. A mere decade later, the verdict appears less clear. Today, the vast majority of Americans live their lives as if the events of 9/11 had never occurred. When it comes to leaving a mark on the American way of life, the likes of Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg have long since eclipsed Osama bin Laden. (Whether the legacies of Jobs and Zuckerberg will prove other than transitory also remains to be seen.)
Anyone claiming to divine the existence of genuinely Big Change Happening Now should, therefore, do so with a sense of modesty and circumspection, recognizing the possibility that unfolding events may reveal a different story.
All that said, the present moment is arguably one in which the international order is, in fact, undergoing a fundamental transformation. The “postwar world” brought into existence as a consequence of World War II is coming to an end. A major redistribution of global power is underway. Arrangements that once conferred immense prerogatives upon the United States, hugely benefiting the American people, are coming undone.
In Washington, meanwhile, a hidebound governing class pretends that none of this is happening, stubbornly insisting that it’s still 1945 with the so-called American Century destined to continue for several centuries more (reflecting, of course, God’s express intentions).
Here lies the most disturbing aspect of contemporary American politics, worse even than rampant dysfunction borne of petty partisanship or corruption expressed in the buying and selling of influence. Confronted with evidence of a radically changing environment, those holding (or aspiring to) positions of influence simply turn a blind eye, refusing even to begin to adjust to a new reality.
Big Change Happening Now
The Big Change happening before our very eyes is political, economic, and military. At least four converging vectors are involved.
First, the Collapse of the Freedom Agenda: In the wake of 9/11, the administration of George W. Bush set out to remake the Greater Middle East. This was the ultimate strategic objective of Bush’s “global war on terror.”
Intent on accomplishing across the Islamic world what he believed the United States had accomplished in Europe and the Pacific between 1941 and 1945, Bush sought to erect a new order conducive to U.S. interests -- one that would permit unhindered access to oil and other resources, dry up the sources of violent Islamic radicalism, and (not incidentally) allow Israel a free hand in the region. Key to the success of this effort would be the U.S. military, which President Bush (and many ordinary Americans) believed to be unstoppable and invincible -- able to beat anyone anywhere under any conditions.
Alas, once implemented, the Freedom Agenda almost immediately foundered in Iraq. The Bush administration had expected Operation Iraqi Freedom to be a short, tidy war with a decisively triumphant outcome. In the event, it turned out to be a long, dirty (and very costly) war yielding, at best, exceedingly ambiguous results.
Well before he left office in January 2009, President Bush himself had abandoned his Freedom Agenda, albeit without acknowledging its collapse and therefore without instructing Americans on the implications of that failure. One specific implication stands out: we now know that U.S. military power, however imposing, falls well short of enabling the United States to impose its will on the Greater Middle East. We can neither liberate nor dominate nor tame the Islamic world, a verdict from the Bush era that Barack Obama’s continuing misadventures in “AfPak” have only served to affirm.
Trying harder won’t produce a different result. Outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates caught the new reality best: “Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it.”
To be sure, Freedom Agenda dead-enders -- frequently found under K in your phone book -- continue to argue otherwise. Even now, for example, Kagans, Keanes, Krauthammers, and Kristols are insisting that “we won” the Iraq War -- or at least had done so until President Obama fecklessly flung away a victory so gloriously gained. Essential to their argument is that no one notice how they have progressively lowered the bar defining victory.
Back in 2003, they were touting Saddam Hussein’s overthrow as just the beginning of American domination of the Middle East. Today, with Saddam’s departure said to have “made the world a better place,” getting out of Baghdad with U.S. forces intact has become the operative definition of success, ostensibly vindicating the many thousands killed and maimed, millions of refugees displaced, and trillions of dollars expended.
Meanwhile, al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia remains in the field, conducting some 30 attacks per week against Iraqi security forces and civilians. This we are expected not to notice. Some victory.
Second, the Great Recession: In the history of the American political economy, the bursting of speculative bubbles forms a recurring theme. Wall Street shenanigans that leave the plain folk footing the bill are an oft-told tale. Recessions of one size or another occur at least once a decade.
Yet the economic downturn that began in 2008 stands apart, distinguished by its severity, duration, and resistance to even the most vigorous (or extravagant) remedial action. In this sense, rather than resembling any of the garden-variety economic slumps or panics of the past half-century, the Great Recession of our own day recalls the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Instead of being a transitory phenomenon, it seemingly signifies something transformational. The Great Recession may well have inaugurated a new era -- its length indeterminate but likely to stretch for many years -- of low growth, high unemployment, and shrinking opportunity. As incomes stagnate and more and more youngsters complete their education only to find no jobs waiting, members of the middle class are beginning to realize that the myth of America as a classless society is just that. In truth, the game is rigged to benefit the few at the expense of the many -- and in recent years, the fixing has become ever more shamelessly blatant.
This realization is rattling American politics. In just a handful of years, confidence in the Washington establishment has declined precipitously. Congress has become a laughingstock. The high hopes raised by President Obama’s election have long since dissipated, leaving disappointment and cynicism in their wake.
One result, on both the far right and the far left, has been to stoke the long-banked fires of American radicalism. The energy in American politics today lies with the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street, both expressing a deep-seated antipathy toward the old way of doing things. Populism is making one of its periodic appearances on the American scene.
Where this will lead remains, at present, unclear. But ours has long been a political system based on expectations of ever-increasing material abundance, promising more for everyone. Whether that system can successfully deal with the challenges of managing scarcity and distributing sacrifice ranks as an open question. This is especially true when those among us who have been making out like bandits profess so little willingness to share in any sacrifices that may be required.
Third, the Arab Spring: As with the floundering American economy, so with Middle Eastern politics: predicting the future is a proposition fraught with risk. Yet without pretending to forecast outcomes -- Will Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya embrace democracy? Can Islamic movements coexist with secularized modernity? -- this much can be safely said: the ongoing Arab upheaval is sweeping from that region of the world the last vestiges of Western imperialism.
Europeans created the modern Middle East with a single purpose in mind: to serve European interests. With the waning of European power in the wake of World War II, the United States -- gingerly at first, but by the 1980s without noticeable inhibition -- stepped in to fill the void. What had previously been largely a British sphere now became largely an American one, with the ever-accelerating tempo of U.S. military activism testifying to that fact.
Although Washington abjured the overt colonialism once practiced in London, its policies did not differ materially from those that Europeans had pursued. The idea was to keep a lid on, exclude mischief-makers, and at the same time extract from the Middle East whatever it had on offer. The preferred American MO was to align with authoritarian regimes, offering arms, security guarantees, and other blandishments in return for promises of behavior consistent with Washington’s preferences. Concern for the wellbeing of peoples living in the region (Israelis excepted) never figured as more than an afterthought.
What events of the past year have made evident is this: that lid is now off and there is little the United States (or anyone else) can do to reinstall it. A great exercise in Arab self-determination has begun. Arabs (and, arguably, non-Arabs in the broader Muslim world as well) will decide their own future in their own way. What they decide may be wise or foolish. Regardless, the United States and other Western nations will have little alternative but to accept the outcome and deal with the consequences, whatever they happen to be.
A Washington inhabited by people certain that decisions made in the White House determine the course of history will insist otherwise, of course. Democrats credit Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech with inspiring Arabs to throw off their chains. Even more laughably, Republicans credit George W. Bush’s “liberation” of Iraq for installing democracy in the region and supposedly moving Tunisians, Egyptians, and others to follow suit. To put it mildly, evidence to support such claims simply does not exist. One might as well attribute the Arab uprising to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Those expecting Egyptians to erect statues of Obama or Bush in Cairo’s Tahrir Square are likely to have a long wait.
Fourth, Beleaguered Europe’s Quest for a Lifeline: To a considerable extent, the story of the twentieth-century -- at least the commonly-told Western version of that story -- is one of Europe screwing up and America coming to the rescue. The really big screw-ups were, of course, the two world wars. In 1917 and again after December 1941, the United States sent large armies to deal with those who had disturbed the peace. After the first war, the Americans left. After the second, they stayed, not only providing soldiers to safeguard Western Europe, but also rejuvenating the shattered economies of the European democracies.
Even with the passing of a half-century, the Marshall Plan stands out as a singular example of enlightened statecraft -- and also as a testimonial to America’s unsurpassed economic capacity following World War II. Saving continents in dire distress was a job that only the United States could accomplish.
That was then. Today, Europe has once again screwed up, although fortunately this time there is no need for foreign armies to sort out the mess. The crisis of the moment is an economic one, due entirely to European recklessness and irresponsibility (not qualitatively different from the behavior underlying the American economic crisis).
Will Uncle Sam once again ride to the rescue? Not a chance. Beset with the problems that come with old age, Uncle Sam can’t even mount up. To whom, then, can Europe turn for assistance? Recent headlines tell the story:
- “Cash-Strapped Europe Looks to China For Help”
- “Europe Begs China for Bailout”
- “EU takes begging bowl to Beijing”
- “Is China the Bailout Saviour in the European Debt Crisis?”
The crucial issue here isn’t whether Beijing will actually pull Europe’s bacon out of the fire. Rather it’s the shifting expectations underlying the moment. After all, hasn’t the role of European savior already been assigned? Isn’t it supposed to be Washington’s in perpetuity? Apparently not.
Back to the Future
In the words of the old Buffalo Springfield song: “Something’s happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.”
American politicians stubbornly beg to differ, of course, content to recite vapid but reassuring clichés about American global leadership, American exceptionalism, and that never-ending American Century. Everything, they would have us believe, will remain just as it has been -- providing the electorate installs the right person in the Oval Office.
“To those nations who continue to resist the unstoppable march of human, political and economic freedom,” declares Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, “we will make clear that they are on the wrong side of history, by ensuring that America’s light shines bright in every corner of the globe, representing a beacon of hope and inspiration.”
“This is America's moment,” insists Mitt Romney. “We should embrace the challenge, not shrink from it, not crawl into an isolationist shell, not wave the white flag of surrender, nor give in to those who assert America's time has passed…. I will not surrender America's role in the world.” With an unsurprising absence of originality, the title of Romney’s campaign “white paper” on national security is An American Century.
Governor Rick Perry’s campaign web site offers this important insight: “Rick Perry believes in American exceptionalism, and rejects the notion our president should apologize for our country but instead believes allies and adversaries alike must know that America seeks peace from a position of strength.”
For his part, Newt Gingrich wants it known that “America is still the last, best hope of mankind on earth.”
The other Republican candidates (Ron Paul always excepted) draw from the same shallow and stagnant pool of ideas. To judge by what we might call the C. Wright Mills standard of leadership -- “men without lively imagination are needed to execute policies without imagination devised by an elite without imagination” -- all are eminently qualified for the presidency. Nothing is wrong with America or the world, they would have us believe, that can’t be fixed by ousting Barack Obama from office, thereby restoring the rightful order of things.
“Is America Over?” That question adorns the cover of the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, premier organ of the foreign policy establishment. As is typically the case with that establishment, Foreign Affairs is posing the wrong question, one designed chiefly to elicit a misleading, if broadly reassuring answer.
Proclaim it from the rooftops: No, America is not “over.” Yet a growing accumulation of evidence suggests that America today is not the America of 1945. Nor does the international order of the present moment bear more than a passing resemblance to that which existed in the heyday of American power. Everyone else on the planet understands this. Perhaps it’s finally time for Americans -- starting with American politicians -- to do so as well. Should they refuse, a painful comeuppance awaits.
73 Comments so far
Show AllGuess we all had better support the Democrats, then. Am I correctly understanding the author's theme here?
Those Republicans sound pretty scary.
Today may not be comparable to 1945, howver today is comparable to 1932 except we have a Democratic President who is more right wing than Republican Hoover was in 1932 and we have a Democratic Party than would never let a reincarnated Roosevelt get to first base in the primaries.
You must have missed this (below). (Also his mention of Obama's "misadventures" in AfPak.) Congress - not just Republicans - is a laughingstock. Clearly, the "Washington establishment" means Dems as well as Repubs.
"This realization is rattling American politics. In just a handful of years, confidence in the Washington establishment has declined precipitously. Congress has become a laughingstock. The high hopes raised by President Obama’s election have long since dissipated, leaving disappointment and cynicism in their wake.
One result, on both the far right and the far left, has been to stoke the long-banked fires of American radicalism. The energy in American politics today lies with the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street, both expressing a deep-seated antipathy toward the old way of doing things. Populism is making one of its periodic appearances on the American scene."
See Obedient Servant's post.
When he mentions radical challenges to the political establishment coming from the left as well as from the right, what else can it mean other than that he is including Democrats as part of the establishment that is blind to change? Is anyone expecting Republicans to do anything but blast OWS with all they've got?
There is a hypersensitivity displayed by many posters here to any hint that articles fail to be evenhanded in condemning Democrats as well as Republicans that comes close to sounding like partisan Republican rhetoric. I have not voted for a Dem presidential candidate for decades. But the puerility and inanity of the current Republican prez candidates, their corruption makes them stand out in bold colors as examples of the decay of the body politic in this country. Bacevich did, as I pointed out, include criticisms of Obama and perhaps he should also have included quotes from him. But I just don't read this article as having a partisan Democratic bias.
I disagree.
There are several themes that are being promoted that represent a "foot in the door," so to speak. They are not what they pretend to be. They are attempts at trapping people and framing them so that they, and the entire resistance movement, can more easily be discredited and maligned.
I just heard one perfect example of this while listening to "Left" radio (what a joke that is.) Hartman spends the whole hour on the question "should OWS be violent, or non-violent?" I call bullshit on that discussion. The goal there is to get people to back down and go back to working within the system, as Hartman so often overtly advocates, or else to be branded as "advocating violence." This is no laughing matter, since that will be used to gain public support for violent crackdowns by the authorities.
Similarly, the "Republicans are really crazy and scary" theme is a way to herd people back into partisan electoral politics, and to then accuse any who resist that as being "against democracy" or "for violence" and so to discredit them.
"But what are your demands??" is another trap. If that question is answered, the movement gets pigeon-holed. If it is not answered, OWS can be portrayed as meaningless and purposeless, which then leads to all of the bullshit about "they are just malcontents" which again will then be used to gain public support for a violent crackdown.
"But who are your leaders?" is another such trap.
"They are Communists!!" is another effective way to discredit people and cripple the movement. For some reason, despite the ugly history of persecution, murders, detentions, and black-listing of suspected Communists and the chilling impact that had on previous social justice movements, pointing out this tactic is controversial with some posters here at CD.
All of these traps are presented as though they were innocent, sincere and legitimate questions - Hartman so claimed that today - and the people asking them say they are on our side.
This propaganda is so pervasive and so insidious that I hardly think it would be possible to be "overly sensitive" to it.
I am not a fan of Andrew Bacevich, and while I think his analysis is fairly accurate, it hardly goes far enough.
Foremost, Bacevich believes the LIE that Bush was interested in planting democracy in the Middle East. Americans LOVE that branding of each military adventure. If, instead, one understands that beyond oil, the purpose of war is more war, continuous war so as to justify the obscene budgets allocated to the MIC and weapons' contractors, then the prism is viewed in quite a different (in my view, more accurate) manner. It asks for a very different defintion of "winning" said war. In fact the premise itself masks the truer motives at work.
Second, Bacevich left the most critical feature out of his calculus: That of vanishing natural resources, inclusive of cheap oil AND clean water, added to fish, harvest cycles, and so forth. The EARTH is the thing that's changing, and the preponderance of climate events, quakes taking place quite often lately (added to other weather/climate/geological events) is costing BILLIONS and making systems of life far less secure or reliable.
Third, Bacevich never speaks of the way the U.S. miilitary acts as the fist in the glove, the item that allows American (now global) corporations to prosper. (This is shades of the Friedman admonition: "That there could be no McDonalds without MacDonnell Douglas.") Part of this search for profit, as most on CD know, has involved exporting labor to foreign lands. Therefore the infrastructure of jobs and factories here in the homeland has largely been left denuded.
Any real discussion about what's driving massive transformation needs to take these 3 key factors into account. Bacevich still views life largely through the military prism that has shaped his career... and vision. It's a vision that's too narrow and misses a lot!
Siouxrose -- You raise some very good points.
Bacevich knows that Bush's invasions of the Middle East had little to with installing Democracy:
"Bush sought to erect a new order conducive to U.S. interests -- one that would permit unhindered access to oil and other resources, dry up the sources of violent Islamic radicalism, and (not incidentally) allow Israel a free hand in the region."
However, by calling it "The Freedom Agenda" he adds a certain credibility to the supposedly lofty goals of the Bush/Cheney war plans. That seems like a mistake to use their false and deceptive language to describe the policy.
More importantly, at least in my view, Bacevich makes no mention of declining natural resources -- particularly petroleum -- and the extraordinary impact that global climate chaos and collapsing ecosystems will have on the human condition.
The dominance of the Amerikan global empire is already in decline. Yet this is an empire built on cheap oil.
Imagine how precipitous this may become once the U.S. is hammered simultaneously by both peak oil and climate chaos. If there is any major nation that seems incapable of preparing rationally for either, the U.S., led by a corrupt, greedy, and ideologically deranged ruling class, fits the bill.
At a time when the planet desperately needs enlightened leadership to face the end of the age of oil AND runaway anthropogenic climate change, the U.S. is intent on leading the world over the edge of a cliff.
Thank you, Randy G, as I often find your posts full of insights.
You said:
"Imagine how precipitous this may become once the U.S. is hammered simultaneously by both peak oil and climate chaos."
I think there's a 3rd insidious factor to add to that equation, that of the mean-spirited media meme that increasingly puts the onus on individuals to take care of themselves. Recently we learned that the Grover Norquist dream of reducing government services to the point they could be drowned in a bathtub (leaving out the "necessity" of retaining the bloated MIC with its 800+ bases set 'round the globe, and/or the equal "need" to bail out the bankster caste) means that the budget for NOA (National Weather Services) will be cut! The EPA will probably get cut, and likely FEMA and first response teams to disaster.
A planned reduction in funds to these agencies JUST WHEN the upping of the ante on Gaia's Revenge gets underway is indicative of gross malfeasance along with depraved indifference to human life. It reminds me of the way no research/coverage is given to the PRESENT state of the Gulf of Mexico, as if all that toxic Cor-exit and oil just disappeared, and also seen in how little word is heard about radiation levels streaming over from Japan.
When people hear nothing they presume everything is O.K. We could say that the U.S. government is about as wise and ethical as the 3 monkeys... given its pursuit of the "see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil" clause set in place of sound governance and any genuine protection of citizens entrusted to its safe-keeping.
YOY.
The line standing out is "one that would permit unhindered access to oil and other resources, dry up the sources of violent Islamic radicalism, and (not incidentally) allow Israel a free hand in the region".
Violent Islamic radicalism is not what should be feared. It is really not that great an issue in the great scheme of things.
What is much more dangerous to everyone is the violence of the United States of America and its willingness to spread the same across the globe. No nation is a greater purveyor of violence and no nation is more willing to use it and that the USA used it against Iraq shows me the goal is spreading of the same and not preventing it.
Peak oil/everything and Climate Change are what make today's crisis critically different than 1932's Great Depression. Regardless of Europe's current problems they use
3 times less oil per capita than the US. The reason is primarily because of the
US auto addiction which consumes almost 70% of our oil consumption of 18 million barrels per day and creates almost 38% of direct greenhouse emissions.
The best way to save oil and greenhouse emissions is to turn to Green Transit
(ie rail, light rail, buses, shuttles, bikeways and walking) as was done during WWII.
Instead over 150 public transit systems have been cut since 2008 or suffered major
fare increases. Despite the usual lip service from the Obama Administration instead
of spending $7.5 Billion on Green transit operating subsidies they chose to provide
cash breaks for cash for clunkers. As they are now subsidizing expensive electric cars which only reduce direct greenhouse emissions by 34% while continuing the huge costs of maintaining miles upon miles of asphalt, ambulances, 30,000 annual deaths, traffic courts, hundreds of thousands of casualties from auto addiction.
When our tax dollars bailed out the Auto behemoths who built and sustained this
auto addicted transit, Obama never told GM, etc that they should see themselves in
the TRANSPORTATION business NOT the AUTO business.
So now they have gone right back to selling ignorant Americans more SUVs and trucks...
The two major things which have to be faced is the end of the Wars which consumed
5.5 billion gallons of fuel in 2010, and Auto Addiction...
orbit7er, great post! Well said!
let me paraphrase your comment somewhat: I am not a fan of Andrew Bacevich, and while I think his analysis is fairly IN-accurate
you know for a guy who is supposed to be so smart mr b shows an appalling lack of knowledge about how the current fiscal situation came into being - driven as it is by the outright theft of the economy by the bankster terrorists, the white shoe boys
all this bullshit about exceptionalism on the part of amerika is just that - bullshit
the only thing exceptional about amerika is the ruthlessness which which they kill the peasants around the world - starting of course with the genocide of the fist nations here in the americas
another exceptional accomplishment of the amerikan corporations has been to turn what was - before their arrival - a continent of unsurpassed beauty and resource into the hyper-militarized, drug addled toxic cesspool it is today
that took some doing alright
and then we exported that destruction to the world
mr b fails to mention the offshoring of the economy - amerika can never recover because amerika has no industry - we don't make things anymore other than
weapons
mr b says the iraq afghanistan adventure is a failure - he is wrong again - corporate amerika has its bases along the proposed pipelines and can attack china and russia in a matter of minutes
mission accomplished
if you think that the devalued amerikan dollars or the dead servicemen dumped into landfills bothers cheney or bush or dynecorp at all then you are out of your mind
a small price to pay they would say
mr b wastes his time on parsing the republicans inanities - good luck with that mr b - even they don't believe any of that shit
lastly mr b says amerikans are living now as if 9/11 never happened - wtf!!!!!!! guess he hasn't had his crotch groped at the airport or been pulled over by the tsa driving down 195
i guess he doesn't follow the homeland security crap much - or fema for that matter
its like it never happened...................
"the only thing exceptional about amerika is the ruthlessness which which they kill the peasants around the world..."
Other nations have killed and otherwise preyed on large numbers of peasants around the world, but the US leadership has been exceptional through the years in the extent to which they have claimed it was for the peasants' own good, even surpassing the British in that regard.
Well, Med, I can't say I disagree... your prose is a bit more naked and raw than mine, but I think in this case, we're seeing and responding to the same outrages. Well done.
Agree, agree, and agree.
“Foremost, Bacevich believes the LIE that Bush was interested in planting democracy in the Middle East. Americans LOVE that branding of each military adventure.”
You must have missed this:
“Intent on accomplishing across the Islamic world what he believed the United States had accomplished in Europe and the Pacific between 1941 and 1945, Bush sought to erect a new order conducive to U.S. interests -- one that would permit unhindered access to oil and other resources, dry up the sources of violent Islamic radicalism, and (not incidentally) allow Israel a free hand in the region. Key to the success of this effort would be the U.S. military, which President Bush (and many ordinary Americans) believed to be unstoppable and invincible -- able to beat anyone anywhere under any conditions.”
You correctly point out the elephant in the room Bacevich leaves out: the ongoing and ever worsening global environmental catastrophe.
“Third, Bacevich never speaks of the way the U.S. miilitary acts as the fist in the glove, the item that allows American (now global) corporations to prosper.”
He doesn’t mention corporations per se, but “a new order conducive to U.S. interests -- one that would permit unhindered access to oil and other resources” clearly refers to corporate interests.
Ah, the old "it's about oil" canard. So laughably false, it becomes obvious that the people pushing it have a Zionist agenda. Our access to oil now is MORE precarious than before the invasion. Foreign oil companies, according to Chomsky, have more access to Iraq than domestic ones; recently, Iraq started kicking Exxon in the teeth.
No, our foreign policy is controlled by AIPAC, and the only goal for them is Zionism.
The world needs to dissolve Israel and force Zionists to pay reparations to those they have harmed worldwide.
Well, sorry, but is is about oil, specificly about control of OPEC. Please feel free to review the history of relations between the US Empire and OPEC since the latter's inception and count how many of its members the Empire controls directly or sought to control and the amounts of oil extraction involved. Remember, Big Oil doesn't care about whether the USA gets enough oil or not; it cares about its profits. And since Big Oil has controlled the US Empire since 1900 roughly, it ought to be easy to see why the Empire has sought to control OPEC.
CD Moderator has cut GoingGreen's idiotic remark and my retort, which is why this thread no longer appears as it once did.
The US government would not care about Israel, or anything else in that part of the world were there not oil there. The US government gives massive support to Arab regimes that toe the line with US corporate interests. That support for corrupt pro-US regimes in the area predates the existence of Israel. How about US support for and advancement of British imperialism over the last 100+ years? I think that is a factor, don't you? What does Zionism have to do with the genocide against native peoples on this continent? What does Zionism have to do with decades of belligerent militarism against Latin America?
No, the "Jewish conspiracy" - so popular among Europeans for so long - simply does not explain away everything.
You Zionists are amazing. You're right - there is no "Jewish conspiracy". AIPAC controls us openly in front of our faces. Who should I believe - you or my lying eyes?
When had access and control of oil before our invasion. Our access to oil is now MORE precarious than before. The "...Arab regimes that toe the line with US corporate interests" are weakening because of our presence. Look at Saudi Arabia.
It's posts like yours that reinforces that there is no compromise with Zionism. Israel must be de-countrified and Zionists forced to pay reparations worldwide.
Thank you, Big Brother & Two Americas... you both provide sane, logical, and excellent responses to those who have narrow agendas of their own.
You're right about your post: "This is such ludicrous bullshit on so many levels it's hard to know where to start laughing at it."
First off, I never gave a pass to the US.
Secondly, Israel can (and must) be dissolved, which doesn't mean the US is dissolved as a necessary condition. Eventually, Zionism will so weaken the US that the world will turn against it.
And you say, "And please explain how exactly it happened that the Zionists were so able to completely "trick" the "naive" sweet lambs of the US government, & take complete control of their foreign policy?" Give it a break. This must be the laughable part you referred to.
The one key factor that affects all 3 factors you give is that 1% are raping the 99%. When the 99% start making the decisions, the other 3 issues will be addressed.
2 Americas -- No, you are not understanding Bacevich's theme at all. You owe it to yourself (and Bacevich) to read a little more carefully.
He disparages the Republican pygmies by name (with the exception of Ron Paul) because they are the clowns hoping to replace the current Whitehouse 'giant'.
In the title "Only Washington is Clueless" would you venture a wild guess as to which preeminent leader he is suggesting is clueless?
He makes a few explicit references to Obama and none of them are glowing:
"We can neither liberate nor dominate nor tame the Islamic world, a verdict from the Bush era that Barack Obama’s continuing misadventures in “AfPak” have only served to affirm."
Or --
"The high hopes raised by President Obama’s election have long since dissipated, leaving disappointment and cynicism in their wake."
Or --
"Those expecting Egyptians to erect statues of Obama or Bush in Cairo’s Tahrir Square are likely to have a long wait."
Bacevich's essay has nothing to do with Democrat versus Republican -- he is arguing that the entire political class running Washington is bankrupt and incapable of acknowledging the flow of world history.
There are certainly debatable points raised by the essay but for some reason you have seized on one that is not even proffered by the author.
FWIW, I agree with Two Americas, Ephraim, and others who take issue with the skewed references to Republican politicians in the concluding "Back to the Future" section of this uneven analysis.
The topic paragraph sets the theme:
"American politicians stubbornly beg to differ, of course, content to recite vapid but reassuring clichés about American global leadership, American exceptionalism, and that never-ending American Century. Everything, they would have us believe, will remain just as it has been -- providing the electorate installs the right person in the Oval Office."
But the text goes on to focus exclusively on Republican contenders for the Oval Office Throne as exemplars of this stubborn dishonesty or delusion.
I think it begs the question to claim that a fair reading of the article justifies the closing emphasis on Republican contenders as appropriate and balanced-- that, as you argue, Bacevich has clearly criticized or indicted Democrats and Obama earlier in the article, and is simply logically and lucidly turning to prominent Republicans to complete the critique.
You're entitled to perceive it that way, but Bacevich's introductory paragraph doesn't clarify the point; indeed, consciously or not, it refers to "American politicians" and "they", not only challengers to the incumbent president.
I think it's too generous to assert that Bacevich clearly meant to express an even-handed indictment of both parties, although he indeed directs criticisms at representatives of both.
Coincidentally, here's a relevant part of a comment written yesterday concerning the unfortunate penchant for highlighting Republican madness or badness; it's a couple of tweaks away from being exactly on point, but it's close enough:
_________________
... it's either naïve or disingenous to assert that the endless variations of articles trashing the Evil Republicans aren't necessarily supporting the Democratic Party or its prominent Elected Misrepresentatives. The usual protest-- that the author doesn't say a word in praise of [or, alternatively, contains limited criticisms of] Democrats, Obama, etc. is specious at best.
By framing an analysis around "evil Republicans" in the first place, the pundit is implicitly, or subliminally, asserting that the fault, defect, or pathology in question is merely a Republican problem. Since the analysis takes for granted that the partisan politics model is operative, and concentrates exclusively on one party's alleged shortcomings, it creates an inescapable logical implication that the unnamed other party is superior.
Otherwise, the pundit would address the bi-partisan, or trans-partisan aspects of the matter under review in the first place.
In these articles, the Democratic Party is the dog that doesn't bark in the night.
_________________
Put another way, to the extent that this or any other "essay has nothing to do with Democrat versus Republican ", it behooves the author to avoid constructions that sound just that dissonant note. The question of who needs to be more careful is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.
You are mistaken.
The "Republicans" are clearly offered in this last section as examples of how unable even the "opposition" is to grasp what Bacevich is asserting is the true point.
Their positioning in the article is because of their perceived positioning in D.C. by the anticipated readership.
You are all just pulling one of your regular editorialist rebellions against the idea that someone can have a thesis other than "the two institutional parties are working together to be the problem" in an article.
The thesis of this article is "big changes happening, normal D.C. crap not noticing".
The idea of Bacevich as a Blue Party shill is just laughable.
The fact that the man has never been a Blue Partisan might be relevant here.
If relevancy outside of the echo-chamber thesis mattered, that is. ;)
Bacevich is certainly disappointed in Obama, and other Democrats, if that is what you mean by "the man has never been a Blue Partisan."
Excerpts from an interview of Bacevich by Guernica magazine.
Guernica: Let’s turn to Obama. You voted for him, you’ve called him the smartest politician to come down the pike in a while, yet you’ve been increasingly critical of his escalation of the Afghanistan war, even though during the campaign he said Afghanistan was the war worth fighting.
Andrew Bacevich: Perhaps I’m cynical about politics. But I interpreted his campaign rhetoric about Afghanistan as an effort to insulate him from the charge of being a national security wimp. His decision to escalate was certainly not a decision that his supporters were clamoring for. My speculation is that facing a wide array of challenges in his first year, and recognizing that he had only a limited number of chips to play, the president chose not to take on the national security consensus. I fear that having done that, he has squandered the only real opportunity he will have to change the way Washington works with regard to national security. Because whether he recognizes it or not, in escalating and prolonging the Afghanistan war, the president did, in effect, embrace the Washington rules. There is very little evidence in his speeches and in his appointment of senior officials that he has any intention of pursuing serious national security reform.
Guernica: You’ve suggested that he was doomed from the start in that sense, because of the people he surrounded himself with.
Andrew Bacevich: The first clue that he wasn’t going to change the way Washington works in this regard came in the form of his initial appointments: re-appointing the Republican secretary of defense, appointing a retired four-star marine to be his national security advisor, a retired four-star naval admiral to be the director of national intelligence—though that appointment didn’t work out. Even the appointment of Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state. She is by any measure a very hawkish Democrat. So Obama certainly did not attempt to surround himself with unorthodox thinkers. These appointments were an early indication that the hopes I had invested in his candidacy were not going to be borne out.
Guernica: Does he deserve credit for getting us out of Iraq?
Andrew Bacevich: Very much so. Though I’m not sure that if McCain had been elected events would have taken a very different course. Most Americans had a belly full of Iraq and as conditions have achieved whatever precarious level of stability that they have, they’ve provided an opportunity for us to bow out. Whether or not the president will get the last 50,000 out remains an open question. I believe he wants to. But there will be people in the Republican Party who will argue for a long-term military presence there. Will the Iraqi political class settle its differences and govern? Will the Iraqi security forces be able to hold their own against an insurgency which is still very much a threat to Iraq’s internal security? Those are open questions.
http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/2062/bacevich_10_1_10/
A few more comments in response to your post, if I may.
Bacevich is ambivalent about the Democrats, and disappointed in them. But that is true for most Democratic party supporters. That, after all, is the foundation of the "lesser of two evils" arguments. Those controlling the discussion among progressives, liberals and Dem party supporters are masters at straddling the fence, at simultaneously posing as opponent to those in power while protecting, defending and promoting those in power. The "lesser of two evils" argument is the way they pull that off.
Similarly, there is a "hard-hitting" article here by Ehrenreich that is critical of Obama. But as the election approaches, if past history is any guide, she will no doubt be an aggressive promoter of the "lesser of two evils" argument. along with the rest of the DSA and as far as that goes, the CPUSA (?!)
You asked for some "relevancy outside of the echo-chamber thesis." How am I doing?
Obama just has a different angle. Republicans speak Republicanese, simple minded, 3rd grade level, religious overtones. Democrats speak Democratese, more subtle, nuanced, but when translated fully, both mean the same thing: We can fool most of you on any good or bad day of the week. Sure, Mr. Bacevich could have employed some pithy quotes from Obama, just for added spice:
"in America there are no barriers to success - no matter what color you are, no matter where you're from, no matter how much money you have." (What, you didn't know this, clueless Americans?)
"I'm introducing an American Dream agenda - to put some wind at the backs of working people, to lower the cost of getting ahead, and to protect and extend opportunity for the middle class." (With this statement, I would say the wind he's letting is not "at the backs" of working people but rather into their faces.)
"Throughout the region [Middle East] many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from those ideas." (So what reasons keep Americans unable to find a job, considering we don't have a closed economy, and considering quote #1 above?)
Amazing. Bacevich presents a pretty decent summary of the rotten state we're now in, but clearly blames the worst of what might follow on those nefarious Republicans. Only they stubbornly cling to American exceptionalism and the standard cliches of American Century double talk. He has nothing at all to say about the Democrats' full support of EXACTLY the same agenda.
So this is an early missive in a tediously unending train that will stretch from here to next November that our only hope is returning Obama to the White House, however "disappointed" and "cynical" we may be over his serial betrayals and sell-outs to the Right, since with the Republicans we face an even worse future. Always the same theme with these liberal pundits. The possibility of third parties doesn't exist, who we elect determines everything, popular uprisings are "important" and momentarily interesting, but ultimately all we can rationally hope for or expect is More of the Same Forever. Vote Democratic or watch everything go straight to hell.
This is the subtext of thousands of articles to come, on CD and everywhere else. Let's hope OWS buries this self-defeating meme alive once and for all. Don't let it get absorbed or in any way co-opted by the Democrats. Will Bacevich and scores of like-minded others ever break out of their liberal cages?
"He has nothing at all to say about the Democrats' full support of EXACTLY the same agenda."
Yes, of course, but I would go further. I postulate that the two major corporate parties collude extensively in order to block any challenge to the military/corporate agenda. They do it all by psyops and studied manipulation. Sometimes that means losing an election. Big deal.
The two-parties are far more loyal to each other than they are to We the People. As we know, Obama went into the WH with extremely high approval ratings. Rather than use that enormous social/political capital to reinforce and grow approval, Democ-rats, instead, leveled the playing field by angering both the right wing and their base! (F-ing retards!) Now, it is entirely possible for a Republican to take the lead. That would have been unfathomable just 3 years ago. Heck of job Duops!
As I have been saying here for a decade: When Democrats finally get the coveted majority in both chambers and they take the White House, too, - voila! - We will - at last! - see them standing stark naked in the light. Yuk. Do you like what you see? Are you dizzy and sick to your stomach after the last carnival ride? My advice: vote for a candidate you KNOW has progressive bona fides - I'm writing in Nader - but forget the American Kabuki Carnival. Concentrate on OWS and digging in your heels. Don't give the Democrats a penny of your money. They have plenty, I assure you. Take a look at Open Secrets for proof.
It is a pleasure to read cogent analysis.
American politicians (particularly those from the right of the political spectrum), as well as the vast majority of the US population (less than 20% of Americans have ever held a passport in their lifetime) have traditionally been slow on the uptake when it comes to changes -- especially if it happens outside US borders or even their region of the country. To add to their unknowing embarrassment, globalization has both sped up the various processes of change and made them more apparent should one bother to step outside whatever bubble they choose to inhabit.
As to the matter of the United States not being the power that it was in 1945, or even 1995 -- that is readily apparent to anyone who travels beyond America's borders with their eyes slightly open. One of the lasting legacies of the Bush Error, as well as the blatantly pro-corporatist last two years of President Bubba's (Clinton) reign has been the indisputable fact of the diminution of American power. Instead, the world political map is akin to the pre-WW1 period (though without the Euro-centric basis), where a multitude of powers of varying strengths and weaknesses play political poker...and one's friends and allies changes according to the hand being played. To be a decent player of this sort of thing requires a political savvy and maturity that the current American political class (especially the majority of the current crop of GOP Presidential candidates) has historically lacked and does not look to be acquiring any time soon.
The debate about victory or whatnot in Iraq always seems to be based on whatever the writer decides the war was about and what victory should look like.
I say again, if you look at the words written into law by the US Congress, P.L. 107-243 (aka the sorta-declaration of war against Iraq)
you can easily see the 2 goals of the USA, according to its government if not this and other pundits.
- no one notice how they have progressively lowered the bar defining victory. -
The 'bar' for victory is right there in the sorta-declaration of war.
1. Stop Iraq from being a continuing threat to the USA.
2. Get Iraq to obey UN Security Council resolutions (you know, the laws that Israel flouts every day without official US notice).
The Iraq war was a meaningless and costly victory for the USA since its war goals were already met before the invasion happened. The occupation of Iraq has not been a success, either.
We all know the invasion was for other reasons, but as far as war goals go, the words of scribes mean nothing compared to the words concreted into law by our feckless lizard-brained Congress (except. Rep. Barbara Lee).
"The debate about victory or whatnot in Iraq always seems to be based on whatever the writer decides the war was about and what victory should look like."
Exactly. That's why I skipped the last 3/4ths of this article and went straight to the comments section, where you and others here nailed it.
In general, a good article, but some of it is preposterous. For example:
"this much can be safely said: the ongoing Arab upheaval is sweeping from that region of the world the last vestiges of Western imperialism"
Really?
Is he referring to the so called revolution in Egypt where one old man lost his job and the dictatorship remains to this day firmly in the hands of the military?
Is he referring to the former sovereign nation of Libya, just now destroyed and re-colonized by the US and the Europeans?
Is he referring to the many middle east dictatorships that are US puppets who we help brutally suppress dissent?
Since the Arab Spring began, it is difficult to see much in the way of real change. If anything, it has given the west an opportunity to turn the clock back a hundred years for the Arabs.
I have a real problem swallowing the "Freedom Agenda" term. Bacevich should know better. Call it what it was....pure, naked, aggression.
Amen.
Similarly, the author should quit curtseying around Obama. O has never shown signs of any intentions of liberating or even taming anyone in "Afpak," or Aghanistan, or Pakistan, or Syria, or Iraq, or Yemen, or Somalia, or Libya, or Colombia, or Haiti, or Iran, or Honduras, or Egypt, or Palestine, or Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain, or Mexico, or Wisconsin, or Oakland--let alone Wall Street, let me interject.
Obama's massive betrayals have generated more than fatigue and cynicism. Sometimes the most useful part of a long drunk is the hangover, and accurate appraisal of betrayal does not equal cynicism. Plenty of people seduced by O's award-winning marketing compaign have awakened to their cold tile mornings. And many of those have pitched their tents in public assembly with OWS.
In all this there is less cynicism than awakening, less deciding between Republicrat or Demoplican and more holding to account the lot of them and their funnymoney puppetmasters.
Further, of course we don't know what will accrue from OWS actions. I can't read Bacevich's mind, of course, so I cannot really know what he imagines the significance of that is. Most likely this is a gesture of measured disdain, a phrase cobbled from previous readings and usable when one has some sympathy with a cause and some dissonance with the actions engaged to support it. But not knowing an outcome is a pretty universal consequence of any social action's existence in the present.
One does not have to go far to find examples; every complex action is included, as are a lot that we usually pass off as simple. Let us take the example of Obama's candidacy in 2008. How many people who supported him intended to support Massey Energy; Bechtel, Westinghouse, and GE; Goldman-Sachs; pharmaceutical expansion; torture and kidnapping, remote-control video-game and robotic murder, fiat murder, dragontooth bombs with their ongoing killing and maiming primarily of children; chemical, biological, and so-called "depleted" uranium radioactive assaults against civilian populations; chemical, biological, and radioactive experimentation with American soldiers in and near combat?
I have gone on, but most of you here should know on reflection that I have not listed the half of it. There is no "safe option" that voters can know will serve them in 2012, no "safe option" that involves support of US government, no "safe option" in general. What the Democratic elect in general has done since 2008 would not pass for ethical among feral dogs, and the Republicans do actually show signs -- at every opportunity! -- of still being even worse.
All blessings upon OWS: we still do not know what might be the outcome of protest. That'll do me for hope and change for present.
BARDAMU: Great post; and you write quite well, too.
Hey Siouxrose FYI: CD comments is back with inability to post pomes due to failure of simple line break function. There was a way to program the writing to get around this (/something/???)then I was able to post poetry again for a while without it, but I've forgotten how now that the necessity to do that seems to be back... any ideas?
Bob, I can write to the site administrator to ask? Although at least 5 people have tried to tell me how to set paragraphs in the lead articles which carry some kind of format anomaly, until someone SHOWS ME on MY computer, it's like reading Chinese. So I am not the one to ask about glitches with computer formats... I HATE the stuff. But I LOVE your poems! A few others have posted some on C.D, but in my view, no one else's talent comes anywhere close to yours.
Savoring the images you convey is right up there (for me) with a good piece of dark chocolate and/or a decent glass of red wine. Too bad CD doesn't have some kind of "coffee house" meeting a few times a year. Then someone like you could get up and RECITE the poem... I have a feeling Phil Rockstroh would resonate with your powerful use of images. He's got that gift, too.
Sorry I could not be of technical assistance...
You can format posts in html. Start the post with < html > and then insert < br > where you want a line break, and insert < br > twice where you want a paragraph break. Close your post with < /html > (leaving out the spaces, as I explain below).
Don't hesitate to ask any other questions you may have, or to let me know if that doesn't work for you or if I didn't explain it well.
Note: I put a space before and after each bracket to disable the html commands so they will display.
" Today the vast number of Americans live their lives as if the events of 911 had never occurred ". That could also be said of the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK.
Apathy and political ignorance is a great tool for fascism. Nazi Germany proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The vast number of American sheeple are now the good Germans !
Bacevich's observation is correct:
"Here lies the most disturbing aspect of contemporary American politics, worse even than rampant dysfunction borne of petty partisanship or corruption expressed in the buying and selling of influence. Confronted with evidence of a radically changing environment, those holding (or aspiring to) positions of influence simply turn a blind eye, refusing even to begin to adjust to a new reality."
"Washington" refuses to see:
"... the international order is, in fact, undergoing a fundamental transformation. The “postwar world” brought into existence as a consequence of World War II is coming to an end. A major redistribution of global power is underway. Arrangements that once conferred immense prerogatives upon the United States, hugely benefiting the American people, are coming undone."
Without saying, Bacevich is demonstrating the decline of the Babaric US Empire, but says little about what that means. Perhaps he says little because he is loathe to predict the future, although he does announce that change of some sort will occur. And since Bacevich is nowhere near being a "radical" or even a "progressive" historian, we get a somewhat shallow, tepid analysis. If he were either, he would say the planet's people are revolting against the tyranny of our times--Neoliberalism, of which the neocons are a sect--and since Neoliberaalism is the basic philosophy driving the Hydra based in DC and New York, London, Paris and Berlin, the revolt directly challenges US and European Imperial power. I'd like to think he understands that, but as far as I know he's yet to admit such.
Bacevich says outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates summed up the "new reality" of American decline best in this quote: "Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia, or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined', as General MacArthur so delicately put it." The key operative qualifying word which merits emphasis here is "big."
At the height of the Korean War, Douglas MacArthur semi-privately advocated nuking Chinese staging areas in Manchuria. MacArthur, Truman, and later President Eisenhower all knew it was (literally) insane to seriously consider invading and occupying mainland China. Later, JFK repeatedly used this famous admonition from General MacArthur to rebuff orchestrated political pressure from hawks in the CIA and Pentagon who urged sending major US ground forces into Vietnam. It was Lyndon Johnson who eventually succumbed to the craziness, and plunged the nation chest deep into the quagmire.
Most ordinary Americans (although not the DC political elites) learned the tragic lessons of Vietnam about the practical, real world limits of US militarism. Ironically, the Powell doctrine was abandoned with Colin Powell serving as Secretary of State under George W. Bush. "Limited" land invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya, rather than using "a big American land army" gradually were deemed realistic, feasible policy options.
Retired military professionals like Andrew Bacevich (philosophically, a moderate Republican) perform a valuable public service by speaking candidly about the isolation of the mainstream politicians of both major parties from changing international realities. I wish Robert Gates had said what he said, but left the weasle word "big" entirely out of the equation.
Bill from Saginaw
_____________________________________
I'll spare you all from my "beautiful prose and brilliant analysis", because the conclusion is so obvious, I feel like I'm living in a surreal world:
___________________________________
Democrats and Republicans SUCK. The DUOPOLY is a sinister and corrupt regime. Merely the consideration of voting for a candidate from either party is the height of masochism. Providing one ounce of any action or behavior that serves to legitimize either mainstream political party, or favor one over the other in ANY way, is the definition of insanity. If anyone can't see that by now, a boatload of artful, insightful, and verbose elucidations on the topic are not worth the time and energy required to achieve the likely pittance of increased understanding gained by the audience. Indeed, those who don't by now smell the rot at the core of the "lesser of two evilism" meme that permeates our political culture, in all its subtle and not so subtle forms, needs far more than exposure to a stream of comprehensive and cogent revelations on the topic. They need special attention, like finding the best shrink that they can get, and one that specializes in "denial", "repression", "reaction formation", and "displacement" would be a good place to start. Hopefully grassroots social and/or political movements can help as well, which is a more effective place for most of us on these threads to spend our time, because the movement will have to be massive in order for the "lesser of two evilism" to ultimately suffer its rightful demise.
It is not so much that some people "don't by now smell the rot at the core of the 'lesser of two evilism' meme that permeates our political culture," rather the people who are pushing that know exactly what it is they are pushing, and they are doing it as a way to oppose the resistance movement in a dishonest way.
Many people in the general public I meet repeat the "lesser of two evils" arguments. That is because they have not heard any alternative to that thinking, any other analysis. They certainly will not hear any alternative on so-called "Left" or "progressive" radio, let alone on NPR or the MSM. But people reading and posting here have no such excuse.
For that matter I've not heard an alternative from you. In fact I've never heard a sensible alternative.
As I understand it, we're supposed to avoid voting for the lesser of two evils by not voting - or perhaps by voting for the Green Party candidate. What would this do?
Sure it is possible for a third party to win, just as it is possible (and about as likely) that if I flap my arms really hard I might learn to fly. In the real world, it's just not going to happen. And if it did, the person elected would probably turn out to be a disappointment, just as Obama did.
The real alternatives when it comes to our general elections is to choose between the lessor of two evils or the worse of two evils. It's not a hard choice.