RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: An Empire of Nothing at All? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6396"><span class="small">Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Wednesday, 16 May 2018 11:38

Engelhardt writes: "In reality, the costs of America's wars, still spreading in the Trump era, are incalculable."

US soldiers walk off a helicopter. (photo: Andrew Renneisen/Getty)
US soldiers walk off a helicopter. (photo: Andrew Renneisen/Getty)


An Empire of Nothing at All?

By Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch

16 May 18

 


Note to TomDispatch Readers: Today’s post is an excerpt from my newest book, A Nation Unmade by War, my personal portrait of our increasingly mad world. It’s just hitting the bookstores, so do support this site (and me) by picking up a copy. Pulitzer-Prize-winning historian John Dower says, “Since September 11th, no one has had a keener eye for American militarism, hypocrisy, and flat-out folly than Tom Engelhardt." For a donation of $100 ($125 if you live outside the U.S.), I’ll send you a signed, personalized copy of the book. Be the first on your block to get it! Check out our donation page for the details and my thanks in advance to all of you who help keep TomDispatch afloat in tough times.

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch


An Empire of Nothing at All?

[This essay is the introduction to Tom Engelhardt’s new book, A Nation Unmade by War, a Dispatch Book published by Haymarket Books.]

s I was putting the finishing touches on my new book, the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute published an estimate of the taxpayer dollars that will have gone into America’s war on terror from September 12, 2001, through fiscal year 2018. That figure: a cool $5.6 trillion (including the future costs of caring for our war vets). On average, that’s at least $23,386 per taxpayer.

Keep in mind that such figures, however eye-popping, are only the dollar costs of our wars. They don’t, for instance, include the psychic costs to the Americans mangled in one way or another in those never-ending conflicts. They don’t include the costs to this country’s infrastructure, which has been crumbling while taxpayer dollars flow copiously and in a remarkably -- in these years, almost uniquely -- bipartisan fashion into what’s still laughably called “national security.” That’s not, of course, what would make most of us more secure, but what would make them -- the denizens of the national security state -- ever more secure in Washington and elsewhere. We’re talking about the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. nuclear complex, and the rest of that state-within-a-state, including its many intelligence agencies and the warrior corporations that have, by now, been fused into that vast and vastly profitable interlocking structure.

In reality, the costs of America’s wars, still spreading in the Trump era, are incalculable. Just look at photos of the cities of Ramadi or Mosul in Iraq, Raqqa or Aleppo in Syria, Sirte in Libya, or Marawi in the southern Philippines, all in ruins in the wake of the conflicts Washington set off in the post–9/11 years, and try to put a price on them. Those views of mile upon mile of rubble, often without a building still standing untouched, should take anyone’s breath away. Some of those cities may never be fully rebuilt.

And how could you even begin to put a dollars-and-cents value on the larger human costs of those wars: the hundreds of thousands of dead? The tens of millions of people displaced in their own countries or sent as refugees fleeing across any border in sight? How could you factor in the way those masses of uprooted peoples of the Greater Middle East and Africa are unsettling other parts of the planet? Their presence (or more accurately a growing fear of it) has, for instance, helped fuel an expanding set of right-wing “populist” movements that threaten to tear Europe apart. And who could forget the role that those refugees -- or at least fantasy versions of them -- played in Donald Trump’s full-throated, successful pitch for the presidency? What, in the end, might be the cost of that?

Opening the Gates of Hell

America’s never-ending twenty-first-century conflicts were triggered by the decision of George W. Bush and his top officials to instantly define their response to attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center by a tiny group of jihadis as a “war”; then to proclaim it nothing short of a “Global War on Terror”; and finally to invade and occupy first Afghanistan and then Iraq, with dreams of dominating the Greater Middle East -- and ultimately the planet -- as no other imperial power had ever done.

Their overwrought geopolitical fantasies and their sense that the U.S. military was a force capable of accomplishing anything they willed it to do launched a process that would cost this world of ours in ways that no one will ever be able to calculate. Who, for instance, could begin to put a price on the futures of the children whose lives, in the aftermath of those decisions, would be twisted and shrunk in ways frightening even to imagine? Who could tote up what it means for so many millions of this planet’s young to be deprived of homes, parents, educations -- of anything, in fact, approximating the sort of stability that might lead to a future worth imagining?

Though few may remember it, I’ve never forgotten the 2002 warning issued by Amr Moussa, then head of the Arab League. An invasion of Iraq would, he predicted that September, “open the gates of hell.” Two years later, in the wake of the actual invasion and the U.S. occupation of that country, he altered his comment slightly. “The gates of hell,” he said, “are open in Iraq.”

His assessment has proven unbearably prescient -- and one not only applicable to Iraq. Fourteen years after that invasion, we should all now be in some kind of mourning for a world that won’t ever be. It wasn’t just the US military that, in the spring of 2003, passed through those gates to hell. In our own way, we all did. Otherwise, Donald Trump wouldn’t have become president.

I don’t claim to be an expert on hell. I have no idea exactly what circle of it we’re now in, but I do know one thing: we are there.

The Infrastructure of a Garrison State

If I could bring my parents back from the dead right now, I know that this country in its present state would boggle their minds. They wouldn’t recognize it. If I were to tell them, for instance, that just three men -- Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffett -- now possess as much wealth as the bottom half of the US population, of 160 million Americans, they would never believe me.

How, for instance, could I begin to explain to them the ways in which, in these years, money flowed ever upward into the pockets of the immensely wealthy and then down again into what became one-percent elections that would finally ensconce a billionaire and his family in the White House? How would I explain to them that, while leading congressional Democrats and Republicans couldn’t say often enough that this country was uniquely greater than any that ever existed, none of them could find the funds -- some $5.6 trillion for starters -- necessary for our roads, dams, bridges, tunnels, and other crucial infrastructure? This on a planet where what the news likes to call “extreme weather” is increasingly wreaking havoc on that same infrastructure.

My parents wouldn’t have thought such things possible. Not in America. And somehow I’d have to explain to them that they had returned to a nation which, though few Americans realize it, has increasingly been unmade by war -- by the conflicts Washington’s war on terror triggered that have now morphed into the wars of so many and have, in the process, changed us.

Such conflicts on the global frontiers have a tendency to come home in ways that can be hard to track or pin down. After all, unlike those cities in the Greater Middle East, ours aren’t yet in ruins -- though some of them may be heading in that direction, even if in slow motion. This country is, at least theoretically, still near the height of its imperial power, still the wealthiest nation on the planet. And yet it should be clear enough by now that we’ve crippled not just other nations but ourselves in ways that I suspect -- though I’ve tried over these years to absorb and record them as best I could -- we can still barely see or grasp.

In my new book, A Nation Unmade by War, the focus is on a country increasingly unsettled and transformed by spreading wars to which most of its citizens were, at best, only half paying attention. Certainly, Trump’s election was a sign of how an American sense of decline had already come home to roost in the era of the rise of the national security state (and little else).

Though it’s not something normally said here, to my mind President Trump should be considered part of the costs of those wars come home. Without the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and what followed, I doubt he would have been imaginable as anything but the host of a reality TV show or the owner of a series of failed casinos. Nor would the garrison-state version of Washington he now occupies be conceivable, nor the generals of our disastrous wars whom he’s surrounded himself with, nor the growth of a surveillance state that would have staggered George Orwell.

The Makings of a Blowback Machine

It took Donald Trump -- give him credit where it’s due -- to make us begin to grasp that we were living in a different and devolving world. And none of this would have been imaginable if, in the aftermath of 9/11, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney & Co. hadn’t felt the urge to launch the wars that led us through those gates of hell. Their soaring geopolitical dreams of global domination proved to be nightmares of the first order. They imagined a planet unlike any in the previous half millennium of imperial history, in which a single power would basically dominate everything until the end of time. They imagined, that is, the sort of world that, in Hollywood, had been associated only with the most malign of evil characters.

And here was the result of their conceptual overreach: never, it could be argued, has a great power still in its imperial prime proven quite so incapable of applying its military and political might in a way that would advance its aims. It’s a strange fact of this century that the U.S. military has been deployed across vast swaths of the planet and somehow, again and again, has found itself overmatched by underwhelming enemy forces and incapable of producing any results other than destruction and further fragmentation. And all of this occurred at the moment when the planet most needed a new kind of knitting together, at the moment when humanity’s future was at stake in ways previously unimaginable, thanks to its still-increasing use of fossil fuels.

In the end, the last empire may prove to be an empire of nothing at all -- a grim possibility which has been a focus of TomDispatch, the website I’ve run since November 2002. Of course, when you write pieces every couple of weeks for years on end, it would be surprising if you didn’t repeat yourself. The real repetitiousness, however, wasn’t at TomDispatch. It was in Washington. The only thing our leaders and generals have seemed capable of doing, starting from the day after the 9/11 attacks, is more or less the same thing with the same dismal results, again and again.

The U.S. military and the national security state that those wars emboldened have become, in effect -- and with a bow to the late Chalmers Johnson (a TomDispatch stalwart and a man who knew the gates of hell when he saw them) -- a staggeringly well-funded blowback machine. In all these years, while three administrations pursued the spreading war on terror, America’s conflicts in distant lands were largely afterthoughts to its citizenry. Despite the largest demonstrations in history aimed at stopping a war before it began, once the invasion of Iraq occurred, the protests died out and, ever since, Americans have generally ignored their country’s wars, even as the blowback began. Someday, they will have no choice but to pay attention.



Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com. His sixth and latest book, just published, is A Nation Unmade by War (Dispatch Books).

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands, and Nick Turse's Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The President* Is Tap Dancing on the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Wednesday, 16 May 2018 08:37

Pierce writes: "Over the weekend, you may recall, the president* leaped onto the electric Twitter machine to announce that the United States would be helping Chinese communications giant ZTE find relief from his own trade policies."

President Trump. (photo: Getty)
President Trump. (photo: Getty)


The President* Is Tap Dancing on the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

16 May 18


How stupid do they think we are?

n Monday, there was a hilarious moment at the daily White House press briefing that did not involve Sarah Huckabee Sanders. The administration*’s second-string prevaricator, Raj Shah, came out and he was asked about the latest example of how this presidency* is such a marvelous environment for coincidence.

Over the weekend, you may recall, the president* leaped onto the electric Twitter machine to announce that the United States would be helping Chinese communications giant ZTE find relief from his own trade policies. Casual observers noted that the Trump Organization is involved in a huge project in Indonesia—golf courses, resorts, etc.—that is backed with $500 million from China. This came up at the Monday briefing, as did the obvious fact that the project pretty much does yet another tap-dance on the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

Noah Bierman of the Los Angeles Times was particularly curious on this score, and on how this project squares with the president*’s promise not to engage in any new foreign enterprises while he was in office. This was the answer Shah gave him.

“I’ll have to refer you to the Trump Organization.”

Bierman followed up. Here was the next answer.

“You’re asking about a private organization’s dealings that may have to do with a foreign government. It’s not something I can speak to.”

This stinks to high heaven. William of Ockham is very clean-shaven this morning, and there’s no fun in following the money if it isn’t even going to bother to hide.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Can Palestinians Be Killed? Can Israelis Kill Them? Or Do They Only "Die"? Print
Tuesday, 15 May 2018 13:52

Cole writes: "Social media is being scathing about the diction chosen by the New York Times, CNN and even the Guardian to speak of the some 55 peacefully protesting Palestinians whom Israeli snipers cold-bloodedly shot dead on Monday."

Palestinians protesting in Gaza. (photo: Ma'an News Agency)
Palestinians protesting in Gaza. (photo: Ma'an News Agency)


Can Palestinians Be Killed? Can Israelis Kill Them? Or Do They Only "Die"?

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

15 May 18

 

ocial media is being scathing about the diction chosen by the New York Times, CNN and even the Guardian to speak of the some 55 peacefully protesting Palestinians whom Israeli snipers cold-bloodedly shot dead on Monday and the some 2700 whom they wounded, half of those with live fire. The headlines or lead paragraphs spoke of Palestinians “dying,” as though they had mysteriously and unexpectedly contracted the unusual disease of bullet penetration. (The NYT cleaned up its act on Tuesday in the wake of the criticisms; people do what they think they can get away with; but this isn’t a new problem with its word manipulations when it comes to Israel).

I just heard CNN International, which is usually more adult than the American version, say that “clashes” resulted in “deaths,” “many of them” caused by Israeli fire. So there were no clashes. All the Palestinians died on their side of the Israeli prison fence. No Israelis were injured. And all of the injuries were caused by Israeli fire, whether live or rubber bullets (they can be lethal) or drones dropping teargas cannisters. “Many of them” were children or journalists.

Why is it so hard to admit that the Israeli army, and Israeli squatter settlers, routinely kill Palestinians? (If you follow daily news from the West Bank, there is a low intensity conflict there with serious incidents every day.) The current neofascist Israeli government even has adopted a doctrine that Palestinians may be killed at will even when they pose no danger to anyone, if they aren’t doing what Israelis tell them to do.

It is because the West categorizes Palestinians as dinosaurs, not mammals. They are the last colonial subjects, not citizens. They have no state. There is no contemporary category for them. They are unique. People compare them to West Saharans or Kurds but they are not actually like them. Kurds and Saharans have passports and citizenship in a state. They are subnationalists who want a different citizenship and a different passport, one that does not yet exist. That aspiration is different entirely from being stateless. Palestinians cannot easily travel. They only have a laissez-passer and receiving governments are afraid they will stay. They are all inmates. They often cannot own property, as in Lebanon, or their property is insecure, under constant threat of Israeli expropriation or destruction. Their lives are made of silly putty.

Palestine is the last colony, a relic of the early twentieth century when Britain bestrode the globe as an imperial behemoth, ruling India, Malaya, Nigeria– colonies that went on to become independent countries and among the more important countries in the world. Not so the British Mandate of Palestine.

Colonial subjects were always invisible to the metropolitan press. They were supposed to be like Victorian children, seen but not heard, and were to produce profits for imperial Capital. When it reported on an investigation into the infamous Jallianwalla Bagh massacre in Amritsar of 1919 by order of Col. Reginald Dyer, The Aberdeen Journal entitled its article “Amritsar Riot.” It was a protest and not a riot, and what was remarkable about it was not the disturbance caused by the colonial subjects but the British massacre of them. Crowds had gathered to protest the exile of two nationalist leaders. Dyer had forbidden public rallies or protests, just as the Israeli army has forbidden Palestinians to protest near the prison fence at Gaza. It is not clear that the Indians had heard about the prohibition, but even if they had, they were not going to be deterred from rallying. Dyer had them shot down by live fire, for ten minutes straight, killing according to the British 379 and wounding 1200 (Indian historians have arrived at much higher figures).

Just as the Scottish press focused attention not on the British soldiers who committed the massacre but on the colonial subjects who acted out and “rioted,” so today’s European and American press sees the Palestinians of Gaza as engaged in “clashes” even though they must be shadow boxing, since they have not laid a hand on anyone.

British imperial policy thought nothing of moving people around if they were inconvenient. When the British conquered Iraq away from the Ottoman Empire in the course of WW I, they immediately started dreaming of settling it with millions of Panjabis. They felt they had too many Panjabis in British India and did not understand demography very well, and so wanted to deal with the problem by massive population displacement. If you think Iraq has challenges in finding a national narrative to accommodate Shiites, Sunni Arabs, Christians, Kurds and Turkmen, imagine if it also had millions of Sikhs, Hindus and Panjabi Muslims. As it turned out, the British found it impossible to rule Iraq except by bombing the bejesus out of it daily, to the point where the Royal Air Force officers who mounted these aerial campaigns against villagers who wouldn’t give up their arms worried that the British public would find out about these unsavory proceedings. Britain gave up and granted Iraq partial independence in 1932, though they continued to meddle there until 1958. “Bomber Harris” of Iraq fame went on to plan out the Dresden firebombing during WW II.

When slavery ended, the nineteenth-century British had needed agricultural labor in tropical climates where malaria and yellow fever made it impossible for most Europeans to survive, they tricked large numbers of Bengali and Oudh peasant workers into signing indentured labor contracts for a nearby island in the Bay of Bengal. Imagine the peasants’ surprise to find themselves in Fiji in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, or in Trinidad or Guyana in the New World, from which most of them found it difficult ever to return. The British bequeathed Fiji a long term problem of ethnic division such that politics is now a fight between Polynesian Fijians and South Asians. I hope the plantation profits were good for London.

The tragedy in Palestine involves complex moving parts. Instead of insisting on Ashkenazi Jews’ rightful place in post-war Europe, especially in Germany and Poland (yes, I am breaking Polish law), the Europeans, including Britain, were happy to dump the Holocaust survivors in the Levant, where they could be turned into compradors against rising Afro-Asian nationalisms. Mauled by Central European virulent racist nationalism, some Jews replied with Betar, Likud and other Jewish supremacist organizations modeled on the mass politics of the interwar period and accepting many of its premises about racial hierarchies and the desirability of belligerency. The British colonial authorities abruptly withdrew, allowing the Jews they had brought to Palestine for imperial purposes to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. 70% of the Palestinian families in Gaza are refugees from what is now southern Israel, trapped in the Gaza Strip and denuded of property, dignity and prospects.

That is why Palestinians in Gaza are rallying at the fence and insisting that the world will not be allowed to forget two million stateless persons trapped and under blockade in an Israeli concentration camp.

And that is why the neo-imperial powers, who find this clamor of colonial subjects distasteful, erase them from the story, having them “die” or “be killed” in the passive mood.

Whenever you read of someone killed in the passive mood, you may be assured that a cover-up is being conducted by the murderers and their accomplices.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Trump's Failure in Jerusalem Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=43297"><span class="small">The New York Times Editorial Board</span></a>   
Tuesday, 15 May 2018 12:26

Excerpt: "On Monday President Trump delivered the embassy as a gift without concession or condition to the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, and as a blow to the Palestinians."

A mass attempt by Palestinians to cross the border fence separating Israel from Gaza turned deadly Monday as Israeli soldiers responded with rifle fire. (photo: Mohammed Saber/EPA)
A mass attempt by Palestinians to cross the border fence separating Israel from Gaza turned deadly Monday as Israeli soldiers responded with rifle fire. (photo: Mohammed Saber/EPA)


Trump's Failure in Jerusalem

By The New York Times Editorial Board

15 May 18

 

he day the United States opened its embassy in Jerusalem is a day the world has longed for, because of what it was supposed to represent: the end of a seemingly endless conflict, a blood-soaked tragedy with justice and cruelty on both sides. Israelis and Palestinians have envisioned a capital in Jerusalem, and for generations the Americans, the honest brokers in seeking peace, withheld recognition of either side’s claims, pending a treaty that through hard compromise would resolve all competing demands.

But on Monday President Trump delivered the embassy as a gift without concession or condition to the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, and as a blow to the Palestinians. The world did not witness a new dawn of peace and security for two peoples who have dreamed of both for so long. Instead, it watched as Israeli soldiers shot and killed scores of Palestinian protesters, and wounded thousands more, along Israel’s boundary with the Gaza Strip.

Unilateral action, rather than negotiation and compromise, has served the purposes of successive right-wing Israeli governments. They have steadily expanded Jewish settlements in the West Bank, on land Palestinians expected to be part of any Palestinian state.


READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
I Detest the Stench of Corruption Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=40776"><span class="small">Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Tuesday, 15 May 2018 08:25

Rather writes: "As a citizen, I detest the stench of corruption. As a journalist, I know corruption makes for very fertile investigative reporting. And as a student of history, I have learned that corruption often lays waste to the powerful."

Dan Rather. (photo: Christopher Patey)
Dan Rather. (photo: Christopher Patey)


I Detest the Stench of Corruption

By Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page

15 May 18

 

o man who is corrupt, no man who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty by the community." - Theodore Roosevelt

As a citizen, I detest the stench of corruption. As a journalist, I know corruption makes for very fertile investigative reporting. And as a student of history, I have learned that corruption often lays waste to the powerful.

That is why I am stunned by what is taking place today. Over the course of my life I have never seen a level of corruption in the United States equal to that emanating from the Trump Administration. It is the ultimate threat to effective governance. It is morally repugnant and a repudiation of the very ideals of our democracy. It is the rot of power for sale.

Of all the current dangers to the norms of our democracy, and there are many, I worry most that we will become a nation that shrugs off corruption as business as usual. This is not to say that we haven't had corruption in the past. But one thing that has marked this country from others is that, especially at the highest levels of government, our corruption (and our tolerance for it) has been comparatively very low.

The corruption that has already been proven is staggering. But with the latest revelations around slush funds, the money passing through Trump properties, this bizarre story of a "dirty ops" campaign against Obama Administration officials, the daily Pruitt perfidy (and so, so, so much more) one has a sense that we are seeing but the tip of the corruption iceberg. I have long felt that one reason why our global competitors and adversaries like China and Russia would falter was that the corruption that pulsates through their political systems is ultimately destabilizing. And now we are following down that same dangerous path.

I hear many on air and on line invoke President Trump's promise to "drain the swamp" to mark his rank hypocrisy. But I suggest that those who care about this issue drop the "swamp" metaphor as a reference. It is too cute, too passive, and too esoteric for what is going on. This is about hardworking, law-abiding Americans being played for suckers. This is about the very idea of honest government becoming just another partisan divide. There are already many worrisome signs that this mindset is seeping into the candidacies of those seeking lower office.

In the end, however, I trust the American people will not sit idly by and allow the fleecing of their country to take place without a reckoning at the ballot box, and likely in the halls of justice.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 Next > End >>

Page 1252 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN