LETTERS
September 9, 2002
East Meets West
Hello David,One also has to wonder what the Afghan soldiers who accompany the Americans are thinking. Is it just a job? Did any of them sign up in a moment of idealism and national pride? I also wonder why it is so important whether someone is an Al Qaeda supporter or not. If there was a stronger central government, or weaker warlords, being an Al Qaeda supporter would just be another political belief. Maybe even old fashioned and passe.
I also was struck by a previous article of yours on your China trip. You were wondering what it was that led the conversation around to criticizing the Chinese. I lived in Afghanistan for 2 years in the '60s, as a twelve year old and again as a seventeen year old, and I noticed the same thing happening then. I pretty much agree that it has a lot to do with us being tribal and hierarchical and all that. I also think that it's a defense for not being able to understand and join in the society around you. Sort of like saying "What's math good for anyway?" That being said, however, a little bit of this can quickly get to be too much, especially coming from rich Americans.
On Iraq and the Mid-East, my latest bet on a good explanation is in Brian Whitaker's article in The Guardian. He argues that chaos is part of the plan, an Israeli plan from 1996 calling for revolution and conquest in the mid-east. It is also good for oil companies and the U.S. government's desire to control the oil.
J
Hey J, Good points. I think the question of why it is so important to be an Al Qaeda supporter is, as you imply, senseless. Who could be expected to be a "supporter" of the tyrranical, murderous Americans in the Middle East? Who wouldn't be sympathetic to someone who strikes blows against the empire? This business of going after supporters is just part of the ongoing campaign of terror and domination. It's the same as Israel is doing in Palestine, bombing neighborhoods because someone who actively opposes them lives there. Killing lots of people is just part of maintaining control over a population you are occupying. Tearing apart their social fabric is also part of the plan, not just collateral damage.
Did you see the quote from Jean Paul Sartre that I posted a couple of days ago. It was brutally frank about how it is done with colonialism, going back to the French and the British.
I think you are also right about people criticizing partly out of a bitter sense of not being able to participate. That is definitely an element in that kind of behavior. DC
Hello David,
I thought that the modern form of colonialism was through hopeless debt. I had also thought that the Karsai government was purposely being given only enough power to sign oil pipeline contracts. And you'd hardly think that the Afghan society needed to be disrupted any more. If our leaders feel that further senseless slaughter and special forces raids are neccessary to dominate a country, then they must be after a whole new level of domination.
I guess that they are here too, what with Ascroft's special camps, prisoners held incommunicato, first amendment zones, antrax, terror alerts, the 9/11 investigators being investigated by the FBI, etc. We're in Freeper Heaven.
I have a hard time imagining how far these people really want to go. The 'Skittles' article is both shocking and revelatory to me in that it shows the the close, almost interlocking ties between members of this administration and Israel. I was thinking of Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Cheney serving in think tanks devoted to the idea that the occupied territories are a part of Israel.
There is a link, beneath the article, to an enlarged version of the 'clear break' policy. It talks about applying the Gingrich Revolution to Israel's state owned industries. You've got to wonder about that, however, when the results in this country have still been massive subsidies to industry, along with deregulation for crooks, tax breaks for the wealthy, gutting of social programs, and incredible debt as in both Texas and the US Gov'ts.. As if planning to foment revolution and redraw the map of the middle east with a pre-emptive war isn't bad enough, knowing that it came from the same great minds that brought us the Gingrich Revolution ought to make it even further suspect.
I don't think that this is the total explanation to things, but I've been pretty unaware, and every little bit helps. And, as long as I'm bending your ear, I'll just mention Francis Boyle's latest article in Counterpuch.
What struck me was that since the 1973 oil boycott, it has been a continually and openly stated policy that we would seize Arab lands to prevent an oil price disruption. Another point he made was that Norman Schwarzkopf was ordered to draw up invasion plans for Iraq a full 18 months before the Gulf War and 12 months before Iraq invaded Kuwaite. When you add this to the fact that we encouraged and aided Saddam in the 8 year war with Iran, and that we encouraged Kuwaite to provoke Iraq with oil stealing, demanding immediate repayment of debts accrued during the war while simultaneously flooding the market with oil so as to make it much harder for Iraq to repay those debts, and that we suckered him into invading Kuwaite by giving him a green light in this atmosphere. Well, it boggles my mind and makes my sentences run on.
Our government is criminal to play these killer games with people. We could just as easily promote an atmosphere of progress and openness. Many Israelis would be content to live peacefully with an independent Palestine, and the arab states would also like to live peacefully in the same conditions. There is plenty to do and lots of talent in the arab world, so why do our leaders insist upon war. Life and oil are both destined to end. So, what a stinking legacy this is to leave behind when we could be concentrating on cooperation and alternative energy sources.
J
-- By David Cogswell