Tag Archives: Rachel Maddow

Political Rants

An unhealthy dose of imperial fetishism

As I’ve mentioned more times than I should have, I have had very low expectations for the Biden foreign policy since the beginning. By “the beginning”, I mean well before his election, when you couldn’t find foreign policy positions on his campaign web site for love or money. Biden’s fifty-year track record on foreign affairs is not a particularly good one. I remember him saying he was “ashamed” of Reagan’s “constructive engagement” policy towards apartheid South Africa back in the 1980s. Um …. that’s about it.

These past two weeks have done little to change my mind on this. The drone assassination of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al Qaeda leader, prompted a lot of fist-pumping on the part of mainstream Democrats and some never-Trump Republicans. A similar amount of jingoism accompanied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, as well. I’m not certain what the expected takeaway is for either of these decisions, but it the point was to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the current Democratic leadership is well vested into America’s imperial enterprise, they certainly succeeded.

A child of bad policy

Ayman al-Zawahiri was a terrible person, there’s no question. I think, though, as we are the one global super-power, it’s probably a good idea to consider how our policy may have contributed to his no-goodness. Al-Zawahiri started down the road to al Qaeda when he was imprisoned by the Mubarak regime, where he and his fellow prisoners from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood were tortured, killed, and otherwise abused. Egypt, I will remind you, has long been a major recipient of U.S. aid, far beyond what nearly every other nation has received from us. If Egypt’s notoriously brutal prison system contributed to al-Zawahiri’s radicalism (which it most certainly did), we bear considerable responsibility for that.

Secondly, there likely wouldn’t have been an al-Qaeda for him to join up with if it hadn’t been for (1) the Afghan CIA operation during the 1980s, and (2) the first gulf war in 1990-91, when U.S. troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia for the first time, remaining there long after Iraq was driven from Kuwait. Again, these were policy choices, not forces of nature. Without multiple interventions in the middle east and southwest Asia, America might not have been such a big, attractive target for these people. Can’t be sure, but …. might have been worth a try.

Worst of the worst?

Then there’s the question of how many lives were lost at the hands of al-Zawahiri. I would argue far too many. As Rachel Maddow pointed out on her show last week, he had a long history of planning terrorist actions, including being one of the masterminds of the September 11 attacks, the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, and so on. So, thousands of live lost. Not a nice person, right?

Now, there should be some reckoning as to how that record stacks up to the record of his pursuers. All killing is intrinsically bad, so I’m not suggesting that the rapacious policies of the United States somehow lessen the severity and the cravenness of al-Zawahiri’s attacks. But if it’s bad when he does it, then it’s bad when others do it as well, right? And if others do a lot more killing than he did, well … that makes them particularly bad, right?

Let’s just stick to the wars that followed 9/11. How many people died as a result of our actions? Was it less or more than the number of al-Zawahiri’s victims? In all honesty, America’s victims through this period run in the high six-figures to perhaps seven figures. Several countries were destroyed essentially beyond recovery. Fist pump, anyone?

Unfair comparisons

Okay, I know …. it’s really not fair to compare nation states like the U.S. to non-state actors like al Qaeda or individuals like al-Zawahiri. Nation states have international obligations, responsibilities, and should at least formally be accountable to their populations. Terror networks are kind of a law unto themselves, though international law does bear on them. But honestly …. shouldn’t we expect more out of our own government then that they should be responsible for hundreds or even thousands of times the number of deaths caused by our most ruthless enemies?

Seems like kind of a low bar.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.
Political Rants

An atrocity by any other name

It kind of feels like we crossed a line this past week. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy called a massacre on the outskirts of Kviv a “genocide.” U.S. media outlets and cable television shows have picked up the term and run with it. The first I heard doing this was MSNBC’s Alicia Menendez, ordinarily progressive daughter of the bellicose New Jersey senator Bob Menendez, but it was really all over the place.

The Rachel Maddow show has, in her absence, played a lead role in platforming voices advocating deeper U.S. involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. Her guest host has brought on one member of the Ukrainian parliament multiple times, giving her the opportunity to advocate for no-fly zones, shame the U.S. for not taking this more seriously, etc. I can understand the minister’s frustration, but seriously – this type of intervention simply cannot happen. And yet day after day I see the corporate media laying out the predicate for a wider war.

Opting for the “G” word

The act of calling what we’ve seen in Ukraine a “genocide” is inappropriate and, frankly, irresponsible. The legal definition of the term is fairly broad, but we should focus on the intent behind its use. This is part and parcel of the effort to invoke the “humanitarian intervention” impulse on the part of the NATO powers, particularly the United States. I touched on this a couple of weeks ago, and it seems to be a central component of the war-party’s argument.

Since the war in Kosovo back in the nineties, every drive toward intervention has been at some point associated with a claim of humanitarian necessity. It was deployed in the case of Afghanistan, certainly in Iraq, in Libya. It is an attempt to build the case for war on a foundation of moral outrage, inspiring a will to do something – anything – that will stop the killing. And because we’re Americans, the notion of “doing something” always amounts to military action.

Lies are helpful, but not necessary

Of course, what we’re seeing in Ukraine is horrendous, inexcusable. There is no question but that the Russian military is in disarray, and it is taking it out on the Ukrainians. I’m sure some of their wanton killing is fueled by the high casualty rate they have suffered since the start of the invasion. Many thousands of their fellow soldiers have died, much of their senior leadership has been killed, and they are apparently taking revenge on defenseless people.

It’s good that this war is being covered so thoroughly. This should happen with every war, especially those – like Yemen – that we are directly responsible for. But the fact is, we are being propagandized by our corporate media. That propaganda is not built on lies – it is built on the awful truth of what’s going on over there. The coverage, however, seeks to heighten the outrage, to drill the horror into us again and again, and to offer suggestions as to what we as a nation can do to stop it. It is a full-court press, make no mistake, and it is working to a large extent.

Keep calm, carry on

How do we counter this onslaught? By not losing our heads. By encouraging everyone within earshot to temper their outrage with some understanding of the stakes involved in global war. We simply do not have the luxury of treating Russia like it is Serbia; the risk to humanity is too great. We have approached the brink of destruction before, in the early 1960s, the late 70s, the early 80s, and we got lucky. Let’s not press our luck.

Ultimately, war will not solve this crisis. Indeed, resort to war will only make the crisis worse. We need to be more creative and constructive than that.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.
Political Rants

Ten in Georgia.

It would be hard to overstate the sheer joy being felt by our corporate media over the last couple of weeks. It reminds me of those times when there’s three major stories and a hurricane. They are never so happy as when the news machine is firing on all cylinders, and that is certainly what’s happening now – impeachment hearings, international upheaval, Democratic debates. Lots and lots of content, and very little effort needed to push it out.

So here I am, sitting in front of the television on debate night, watching the long wind-up led by erstwhile nightly news anchor Brian Williams, basking in the lights, moderating a conversation between failed Senate re-elect candidate Claire McCaskill, former Howard Schultz vendor Steve Schmidt, perennial talk show host Joy Ann Reid, and Chris Hayes, smartest man on TV.

The ten candidates include a billionaire who basically bought his way onto this stage. Cautionary comments from Schmidt and McCaskill counseling centrism. Hoo boy.

First question from Rachel Maddow to Warren, about impeachment. She gives a strong, sharp answer. Klobuchar nervously harkens back to Walter Mondale. Bernie starts with focus on poor and working people – thank you, senator. Birthday Joe stumbles into his first response … hoo boy.

Still too big by half.

Cory Booker’s criticism of Warren’s wealth tax is as vacuous as Buttigieg’s criticism of Medicare for All. Biden thinks 160 million people are happy with their health insurance.  I suspect he’s including me in that count, and if so, he fucking bonkers.

Gabbard vs. Harris is, frankly, irritating. They are both deeply problematic people.

The billionaire speaks! He’s pushing power down to the American people. The other rich guy compliments him. Tom Steyer wants to build millions of new housing units. Sounds good, but … how? Amy Klobuchar, who happily votes for $750B military budgets, thinks we can’t afford more than 3 months of paid parental leave. Priorities, right?

Climate change question! But it’s put to Tulsi. Let’s start that one with someone who, I don’t know, might be president. Tom Steyer gets the second whack at it. Really? Pissing match between him and fellow white guy Biden. Bernie leaps in, like Lester (ask your jazz fan mother).

Harris defends confrontation with North Korea. Joe doubles down on that, and gets the stand off between Russia and NATO backwards. I’m no fan of Putin, but NATO expansion is a legitimate concern for any Russian government, given their history of being invaded from the west.

Kudos to Booker for raising the war in Yemen. Double kudos to Bernie for his comments on Israel-Palestine and Saudi. He’s way out ahead on that. Commercials. Someone has to pay for that expensive stage set, including, apparently, a California based anti-immigration group.

Joe responds to a question about #metoo and resorts to an unfortunate metaphor for his fight against partner violence. “Keep punching at it” is a poor choice of words.

Finally an immigration question! That’s what happens when Castro and Beto aren’t invited.

Halfway decent (and congenial) conversation on abortion rights, though I wish to hell they would raise the judiciary in this context.

That’s about it. Cue commercial.

luv u,

jp