RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Everyone Loves Bernie Sanders. Except, It Seems, the Democratic Party Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29990"><span class="small">Trevor Timm, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Saturday, 18 March 2017 08:47

Timm writes: "If you look at the numbers, Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America - and it's not even close. Yet bizarrely, the Democratic party - out of power across the country and increasingly irrelevant - still refuses to embrace him and his message. It's increasingly clear they do so at their own peril."

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont talks to supporters during a rally at the University of Washington, in Seattle. (photo: Joshua Trujillo/Seattlepi.com)
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont talks to supporters during a rally at the University of Washington, in Seattle. (photo: Joshua Trujillo/Seattlepi.com)


Everyone Loves Bernie Sanders. Except, It Seems, the Democratic Party

By Trevor Timm, Guardian UK

18 March 17

 

A new poll found he is the most popular politician in America. But instead of embracing his message, establishment Democrats continue to resist him

f you look at the numbers, Sanders is the most popular politician in America – and it’s not even close. Yet bizarrely, the Democratic party – out of power across the country and increasingly irrelevant – still refuses to embrace him and his message. It’s increasingly clear they do so at their own peril.

A new Fox News poll out this week shows Sanders has a +28 net favorability rating among the US population, dwarfing all other elected politicians on both ends of the political spectrum. And he’s even more popular among the vaunted “independents”, where he is at a mind boggling +41.

This poll is not just an aberration. Look at this Huffington Post chart that has tracked Sanders’ favorability rating over time, ever since he gained national prominence in 2015 when he started running for the Democratic nomination. The more people got to know him, they more they liked him – the exact opposite of what his critics said would happen when he was running against Clinton.

One would think with numbers like that, Democratic politicians would be falling all over themselves to be associated with Sanders, especially considering the party as a whole is more unpopular than the Republicans and even Donald Trump right now. Yet instead of embracing his message, the establishment wing of the party continues to resist him at almost every turn, and they seem insistent that they don’t have to change their ways to gain back the support of huge swaths of the country.

Politico ran a story just this week featuring Democratic officials fretting over the fact that Sanders supporters may upend their efforts to retake governorships in southern states by insisting those candidates adopt Sanders’ populist policies – seemingly oblivious to the fact that Sanders plays well in some of those states too.

Sanders’ effect on Trump voters can be seen in a gripping town hall this week that MSNBC’s Chris Hayes hosted with him in West Virginia – often referred to as “Trump country” – where the crowd ended up giving him a rousing ovation after he talked about healthcare being a right of all people and that we are the only industrialized nation in the world who doesn’t provide healthcare as a right to all its people.

But hand wringing by Democratic officials over 2018 candidates is really just the latest example: the establishment wing of the party aggressively ran another opponent against Keith Ellison, Sanders’ choice to run the Democratic National Committee, seemingly with the primary motivation to keep the party away from Sanders’ influence.

They’ve steadfastly refused to take giant corporations head on in the public sphere and wouldn’t even return to an Obama-era rule that banned lobbyist money from funding the DNC that was rescinded last year. And despite the broad popularity of the government guaranteeing health care for everyone, they still have not made any push for a Medicare-for-all plan that Sanders has long called for as a rebuttal to Republicans’ attempt to dismantle Obamacare.

Democrats seem more than happy to put all the blame of the 2016 election on a combination of Russia and James Comey and have engaged in almost zero introspection on the root causes of the larger reality: they are also out of power in not the presidency, but both also houses of Congress, governorships and state houses across the country as well.

As Politico reported on the Democrats’ post-Trump strategy in February, “Democratic aides say they will eventually shift to a positive economic message that Rust Belt Democrats can run on”. However: “For now, aides say, the focus is on slaying the giant and proving to the voters who sent Trump into the White House why his policies will fail.”

In other words, they’re doubling down on the exact same failing strategy that Clinton used in the final months of the campaign. Sanders himself put it this way in his usual blunt style in an interview with New York magazine this week – when asked about whether the Democrats can adapt to the political reality, he said: “There are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats.”

In the long term, change may be coming for Democrats whether they like it or not. Sanders loyalists are quietly attempting to take over many local Democratic party positions around the country. While Ellison lost the race for the DNC chair, it was incredibly close – closer than Sanders came to beating Clinton. And Sanders’ supporters are already organizing primary challenges to incumbent Democrats who aren’t sufficiently opposing Trump.

One thing’s for sure: Democrats who refuse to change do so at their peril.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why the UN Branded Israel an Apartheid State Print
Friday, 17 March 2017 13:42

Cole writes: "A shouting match has been provoked this week by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, which issued a report this week concluding definitively that Israel is guilty of Apartheid practices toward the Palestinians."

Palestinians march along the wall marking the edge of the Israeli settlement in the West Bank. (photo: Abbas Momani/AFP)
Palestinians march along the wall marking the edge of the Israeli settlement in the West Bank. (photo: Abbas Momani/AFP)


Why the UN Branded Israel an Apartheid State

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

17 March 17

 

shouting match has been provoked this week by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, which issued a report this week concluding definitively that Israel is guilty of Apartheid practices toward the Palestinians. The report is careful to say that it is not using the term merely as a pejorative but is rather appealing to a body of international law with precise definitions, definitions that Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians easily and transparently meet. Here’s the short blog version of the report, which runs to 76 pages.

Apartheid is a Dutch word meaning “apartness” and was used to describe the system of racial segregation deployed by the ruling Afrikaner minority in South Africa 1948-1991. In international law, however, it has been generalized to any government practicing systematic racial domination.

Article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) defines it this way:

“The term “the crime of apartheid”, which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to… inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”

The 2002 Rome Statute, which has 150? signatories among the nations of the world, and which established the International Criminal Court, contained a definition of Apartheid.

‘The crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts . . . committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime…

Apartheid is one of the listed “crimes against humanity” along with enslavement, torture, war rape, and forcible deportation. A crime against humanity is the systematic and continuous commission of war crimes

Because of these international law instruments (the Rome Statute is a multilateral treaty), Apartheid now refers to a generalized crime, not just the policy of the old South African government.

As a result, the Court can under some circumstances charge individual politicians with the crime of Apartheid. Those circumstances are that 1) the country has signed the Rome Statute or 2) that the UN Security Council has forwarded the case of a war criminal to the ICC. Neither of these circumstances fits Israel, since it is not a signatory and the US would veto any attempt to charge a major Israeli politician at the International Criminal Court. This inability to bring Israeli officials to the Hague, however, is merely procedural. As a matter of law, Israel can still be guilty of Apartheid practices.

The UN report is concerned with specific legal infractions as spelled out by international law, and with the intention behind those infractions. Intent to dominate another people is important to the definition of Apartheid.

The report points out that:

“The Israel Lands Authority (ILA) manages State land, which accounts for 93 per cent of the land within the internationally recognized borders of Israel and is by law closed to use, development or ownership by non-Jews.”

Going back to the colonial Jewish National Fund, there has been a practice that once land is owned by Zionist institutions, including the Israeli state, it can never be sold to a non-Jew– it is permanently taken off the market on a racial basis.

The Law of Return is another discriminatory practice. Any Jew anywhere in the world can emigrate to Israel. But no Palestinian family expelled in 1948 can return to their ancestral homeland.

Jewish councils may reject applications for residence from Palestinian-Israelis. An Israeli Jew who married an American Christian is allowed to bring the spouse to Israel; but an Israeli Jew who married a West Bank Palestinian may not.

The report argues that in the Israel-Palestinian context, Palestinians are a “race.” I would add that the exclusion of Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens underlines this definition, since one characteristic of race is endogamy or marrying within the in-group.

Other UN decisions have recognized the Palestinians as a people entitled to self-determination (and indeed such recognition goes back to the correspondence of League of Nations states overseeing the British Mandate over Palestine in the 1920s).

The document says:

“This report finds that the strategic fragmentation of the Palestinian people is the principal method by which Israel imposes an apartheid regime. It first examines Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid how the history of war, partition, de jure and de facto annexation and prolonged occupation in Palestine has led to the Palestinian people being divided into different geographic regions administered by distinct sets of law. This fragmentation operates to stabilize the Israeli regime of racial domination over the Palestinians and to weaken the will and capacity of the Palestinian people to mount a unified and effective resistance.”

As for the specifics of Apartheid in the Occupied West Bank, the UN document observes that this territory is virtually a textbook case in Apartheid governance:

“Domain 3 is the system of military law imposed on approximately 4 .6 million Palestinians who live in the occupied Palestini an territory, 2 .7 million of them in the West Bank and 1.9 million in the Gaza Strip. The territory is administered in a manner that fully meets the definition of apartheid under the Apartheid Convention: except for the provision on genocide, every illustrative “inhuman act” listed in the Convention is routinely and systematically practiced by Israel in the West Bank. Palestinians are governed by military law, while the approximately 350,000 Jewish settlers are governed by Israeli civil law. The racial char acter of this situation is further confirmed by the fact that all West Bank Jewish settlers enjoy the protections of Israeli civil law on the basis of being Jewish, whether they are Israeli citizens or not. This dual legal system, problematic in itself, is indicative of an apartheid regime when coupled with the racially discriminatory management of land and development administered by Jewish – national institutions, which are charged with administering “State land” in the interest of the Jewish population.”

The Executive Summary is here.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Don't Rely on the Courts to Fight the New Travel Ban. We Need Protest. Print
Friday, 17 March 2017 13:31

Hunter writes: "The fate of the new ban will be decided in the streets - not in the courts. So don't assume that judges can do the heavy lifting for us."

The success of the wave of actions against the first ban must inspire renewed protest.’ (photo: Andrew Kelly/Reuters)
The success of the wave of actions against the first ban must inspire renewed protest.’ (photo: Andrew Kelly/Reuters)


Don't Rely on the Courts to Fight the New Travel Ban. We Need Protest.

By Rob Hunter, Guardian UK

17 March 17

 

The fate of the new ban will be decided in the streets – not in the courts. So don’t assume that judges can do the heavy lifting for us

he first travel ban was a fiasco, but will the second one be? Political pressure on the streets was the crucial factor behind an early victory against Donald Trump’s authoritarian racism. The spectacle of simultaneous direct action at multiple international airports formed the political backdrop for the legal proceedings initiated against the ban. We have protesters – and not the courts – to thank for this win. Let’s not forget that as we prepare for round two.

It is unlikely that so many judges would have felt compelled to hear legal challenges so quickly – and to respond with a stay and restraining orders shortly thereafter – had they not been aware of mass anger. That anger was unmistakably expressed through rapid and confrontational protests at some of the most heavily policed and strictly surveilled public spaces in the world.

Legal intervention was a necessary step in the fight against the ban, but only a vigorous exercise in mass democracy was sufficient to secure a victory. It was not a total victory; none of the orders reversed the ban in its entirety, and border personnel at multiple airports did not scruple to detain people simply because judges told them to stop. But Trump clearly provoked widespread opposition.

His Islamophobic intent was unmistakable and – crucially – it was broadly and publicly contested. Trump didn’t just lose prestige. He stumbled into a confrontation with the courts, one sufficiently bruising that he has been forced to revise his ban.

The administration claims that the revised order does not discriminate on the basis of religion. However, it reproduces the same list of countries of concern singled out in the first ban (except for Iraq). Those states – most of which have been bombed or occupied by the US – are majority-Muslim. It’s hard to see how the Islamophobic animus behind the first version of the ban has somehow vanished through the process of revision.

The revised ban is meant to survive a court challenge. Nevertheless, the same organizations and legal collectives that battled the first have vowed to do the same with this one – only now with the knowledge and experience forged in urgent struggle. This should not be cause for complacency.

The court orders against the first ban were hard-won and partial victories, made possible only through oppositional politics. Fighting the revised order is a task for large groups of people, organized and standing in solidarity with one another.

Trump clearly enjoys issuing executive orders – they suit his disdain for deliberation and debate. It may be tempting to criticize him as dangerously unconstrained for seeking to rule through executive orders, but he is not the first president to do so. Trump’s use of them is novel only in its macabre theatricality.

Both George W Bush and Barack Obama were fond of executive orders. Nor are executive orders anything less than legally binding instruments for directing the activity of the executive branch – and that remains the case even when Trump issues them.

We can deplore Trump’s authoritarian pretensions without deluding ourselves that he is a lawless despot. Claims to the effect that Trump has plunged the US into a state of exception – a crisis of legality itself – are not only inaccurate but dangerous. They obscure the fact that millions of vulnerable and marginalized people already live in a state of exception, facing state violence and discrimination every day.

Trump has inherited a vast deportation regime from Obama, who oversaw the unprecedented expulsion of millions of undocumented people from the US. We cannot be content with undoing Trump’s ban, congratulating ourselves that we could, then returning to a status quo.

The success of the wave of actions against the first ban must inspire renewed protest, not only against the new ban but against the maintenance of racism, xenophobia and social hierarchy through state power. The courts cannot do that for us. Only collective action – the confrontational, disruptive and sustained practice of mass democracy – can do that.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Budget Is a Declaration of War on the Environment Print
Friday, 17 March 2017 13:17

Excerpt: "The Trump team wants to dramatically shrink much of the federal government, but you know what it wants to shrink most of all? Environmental programs."

Trump administration officials at the Oval Office. (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
Trump administration officials at the Oval Office. (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)


Trump's Budget Is a Declaration of War on the Environment

By Emma Foehringer Merchant and Lisa Hymas, Grist

17 March 17

 

he Trump team wants to dramatically shrink much of the federal government, but you know what it wants to shrink most of all? Environmental programs. Under the budget plan released by the White House on Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency would take a bigger percentage hit than any other cabinet-level department: Its funding would be slashed by almost a third. That means many of the agency’s programs would experience crippling budget cuts, while others would get wiped out entirely. Environmental programs in other departments would come under the ax as well.

President Trump claims he wants to focus on clean air and water instead of climate change, but this new “skinny budget” proposal suggests otherwise. It not only eliminates climate initiatives, but cuts air and water programs, too.

Here are 13 of the most critical proposed budget cuts:

  •  Slashed: EPA’s budget would be cut by 31 percent, from $8.2 billion to $5.7 billion — its lowest level in four decades, accounting for inflation.

  •  Slashed: EPA’s staff would be cut by about 21 percent, taking the workforce from around 15,000 people down to some 11,800.

  • Eliminated: International climate change programs run by the State Department and the EPA would end, including payments the U.S. had pledged to make to United Nations climate efforts.

  • Eliminated: President Obama’s signature Clean Power Plan, designed to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants, would have all of its funding zeroed out. (Trump is soon expected to issue an executive order calling for the Clean Power Plan to be rewritten.)

  • Eliminated: Restoration programs for the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay would be completely wiped out.

  • Eliminated: Energy Star, a popular voluntary labeling program for efficient appliances and devices, would lose all federal funding.

  • Slashed: The Superfund program for cleanup of contaminated sites would have its funding cut from about $1.1 billion to $762 million. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt reportedly pushed to maintain funding for toxic site cleanups, but lost that battle.)

  • Eliminated: There would be no more funding for long-distance Amtrak trains; federal funds would be focused on Amtrak’s regional service, like in the Northeast Corridor.

  • Eliminated: The Department of Agriculture’s water and waste disposal loan and grant program, which gives money to rural governments and tribal nations to improve drinking water systems, would end.

  • Eliminated: All funding would be erased for National Historic Sites, which are managed by the National Park Service.

  • Eliminated: No funds would go to the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program, which improves the energy efficiency of low-income families’ homes, helping them save money on utility bills and prevent carbon pollution.

  • Eliminated: The Department of Energy would lose all funding for its Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which helps to get innovative energy technologies off the ground, and for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, which works to develop more advanced, efficient cars.

  • Slashed: NASA’s climate research programs would get hit hard, with several missions that study climate change getting the ax.

There’s lots more where that came from. If you want to dig deeper into Trump’s budget plans, the Washington Post has an excellent rundown.

Keep in mind, though: Congress gets to write federal budgets, not the president. Trump has now put forward his proposal, but the House and Senate will do their own thing. Even many Republicans are unnerved by Trump’s proposed cuts, environmental and otherwise. Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, chair of the subcommittee that writes EPA’s budget, said she “cannot support” many of the cuts. And Rep. Leonard Lance, a New Jersey Republican, argued that some of the cuts “are penny wise but pound foolish.” That’s putting it mildly.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | President Blowback: How the Invasion of Iraq Came Home Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6396"><span class="small">Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Friday, 17 March 2017 11:55

Engelhardt writes: "If you want to know where President Donald Trump came from, if you want to trace the long winding road (or escalator) that brought him to the Oval Office, don't look to reality TV or Twitter or even the rise of the alt-right. Look someplace far more improbable: Iraq."

U.S. troops enter a C17 transport aircraft. (photo: Reuters)
U.S. troops enter a C17 transport aircraft. (photo: Reuters)


President Blowback: How the Invasion of Iraq Came Home

By Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch

17 March 17

 

f you want to know where President Donald Trump came from, if you want to trace the long winding road (or escalator) that brought him to the Oval Office, don’t look to reality TV or Twitter or even the rise of the alt-right. Look someplace far more improbable: Iraq.

Donald Trump may have been born in New York City.  He may have grown to manhood amid his hometown’s real estate wars.  He may have gone no further than Atlantic City, New Jersey, to casino-ize the world and create those magical golden letters that would become the essence of his brand.  He may have made an even more magical leap to television without leaving home, turning “You’re fired!” into a household phrase.  Still, his presidency is another matter entirely.  It’s an immigrant.  It arrived, fully radicalized, with its bouffant over-comb and eternal tan, from Iraq.

Despite his denials that he was ever in favor of the 2003 invasion of that country, Donald Trump is a president made by war.  His elevation to the highest office in the land is inconceivable without that invasion, which began in glory and ended (if ended it ever did) in infamy.  He’s the president of a land remade by war in ways its people have yet to absorb.  Admittedly, he avoided war in his personal life entirely.  He was, after all, a Vietnam no-show.  And yet he’s the president that war brought home.  Think of him not as President Blowhard but as President Blowback.

“Go Massive. Sweep It All Up”

To grasp this, a little escalator ride down memory lane is necessary -- all the way back to 9/11; to, that is, the grimmest day in our recent history.  There’s no other way to recall just how gloriously it all began than amid the rubble.  You could, if you wanted, choose the moment three days after the World Trade Center towers collapsed when, bullhorn in hand, President George W. Bush ascended part of that rubble pile in downtown Manhattan, put his arm around a firefighter, and shouted into a bullhorn, “I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you!... And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." 

If I were to pick the genesis of Donald Trump’s presidency, however, I think I would choose an even earlier moment -- at a Pentagon partially in ruins thanks to hijacked American Airlines flight 77.  There, only five hours after the attack, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, already aware that the destruction around him was probably Osama bin Laden’s responsibility, ordered his aides (according to notes one of them took) to begin planning for a retaliatory strike against... yes, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.  His exact words: “Go massive.  Sweep it all up.  Things related and not.”  And swept almost instantly into the giant dust bin of what would become the Global War on Terror (or GWOT), as ordered, would be something completely unrelated to 9/11 (not that the Bush administration ever admitted that).  It was, however, intimately related to the deepest dreams of the men (and woman) who oversaw foreign policy in the Bush years: the elimination of Iraq’s autocratic ruler, Saddam Hussein.

Yes, there was bin Laden to deal with and the Taliban and Afghanistan, too, but that was small change, almost instantly taken care of with some air power, CIA dollars delivered to Afghan warlords, and a modest number of American troops.  Within months, Afghanistan had been “liberated,” bin Laden had fled the country, the Taliban had laid down their arms, and that was that.  (Who in Washington then imagined that 15 years later a new administration would be dealing with a request from the 12th U.S. military commander in that country for yet more troops to shore up a failing war there?)

Within months, in other words, the decks were clear to pursue what George W. Bush, Dick Cheney & Co. saw as their destiny, as the key to America’s future imperial glory: the taking down of the Iraqi dictator.  That, as Rumsfeld indicated at the Pentagon that day, was always where they were truly focused.  It was what some of them had dreamed of since the moment, in the first Gulf War of 1990-1991, when President George H.W. Bush stopped the troops short of a march on Baghdad and left Hussein, America’s former ally and later Hitlerian nemesis, in power.

The invasion of March 2003 was, they had no doubt, to be an unforgettable moment in America’s history as a global power (as it would indeed turn out to be, even if not in the way they imagined).  The U.S. military that George W. Bush would call “the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known” was slated to liberate Iraq via a miraculous, high-tech, shock-and-awe campaign that the world would never forget.  This time, unlike in 1991, its troops would enter Baghdad, Saddam would go down in flames, and it would all happen without the help of the militaries of 28 other countries.

It would instead be an act of imperial loneliness befitting the last superpower on planet Earth.  The Iraqis would, of course, greet us as liberators and we would set up a long-term garrison state in the oil heartlands of the Middle East.  At the moment the invasion was launched, in fact, the Pentagon already had plans on the drawing boards for the building of four permanent U.S. mega-bases (initially endearingly labeled “enduring camps”) in Iraq on which thousands of U.S. troops could hunker down for an eternity.  At the peak of the occupation, there would be more than 500 bases, ranging from tiny combat outposts to ones the size of small American towns -- many transformed after 2011 into the ghost towns of a dream gone mad until a few were recently reoccupied by U.S. troops in the battle against the Islamic State.

In the wake of the friendly occupation of now-democratic (and grateful) Iraq, the hostile Syria of the al-Assad family would naturally be between a hammer and an anvil (American-garrisoned Iraq and Israel), while the fundamentalist Iranian regime, after more than two decades of implacable anti-American hostility, would be done for.  The neocon quip of that moment was: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad.  Real men want to go to Tehran.” Soon enough -- it was inevitable -- Washington would dominate the Greater Middle East from Pakistan to North Africa in a way no great power ever had.  It would be the beginning of a Pax Americana moment on planet Earth that would stretch on for generations to come.

Such was the dream. You, of course, remember the reality, the one that led to a looted capital; Saddam’s army tossed out on the streets jobless to join the uprisings to come; a bitter set of insurgencies (Sunni and Shia); civil war (and local ethnic cleansing); a society-wide reconstruction program overseen by American warrior corporations linked to the Pentagon that resulted in vast boondoggle projects that achieved little and reconstructed nothing; prisons from hell (including Abu Ghraib) that bred yet more insurgents; and finally, years down the line, the Islamic State and the present version of American war, now taking place in Syria as well as Iraq and slated to ramp up further in the early days of the Trump era. 

Meanwhile, as our new president reminded us recently in a speech to Congress, literally trillions of dollars that might have been spent on actual American security (broadly understood) were squandered on a failed military project that left this country’s infrastructure in disarray. All in all, it was quite a record. Thought of a certain way, in return for the destruction of part of the Pentagon and a section of downtown Manhattan that was turned to rubble, the U.S. would set off a series of wars, conflicts, insurgencies, and burgeoning terror movements that would transform significant parts of the Greater Middle East into failed or failing states, and their cities and towns, startling numbers of them, into so much rubble.

Once upon a time, all of this seemed so distant to Americans in a Global War on Terror in which President Bush quickly urged citizens to show their patriotism not by sacrificing or mobilizing or even joining the military, but by visiting Disney World and reestablishing patterns of pre-9/11 consumption as if nothing had happened. (“Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed.”)  And indeed, personal consumption would rise significantly that October 2001.  The other side of the glory-to-come in those years of remarkable peace in the United States was to be the passivity of a demobilized populace that (except for periodic thank-yous to its military) would have next to nothing to do with distant wars, which were to be left to the pros, even if fought to victory in their name.

That, of course, was the dream.  Reality proved to be another matter entirely.

Invading America

In the end, a victory-less permanent war across the Greater Middle East did indeed come home.  There was all the new hardware of war -- the stingrays, the MRAPs, the drones, and so on -- that began migrating homewards, and that was the least of it.  There was the militarization of America’s police forces, not to speak of the rise of the national security state to the status of an unofficial fourth branch of government.  Home, too, came the post-9/11 fears, the vague but unnerving sense that somewhere in the world strange and incomprehensible aliens practicing an eerie religion were out to get us, that some of them had near-super powers that even the world’s greatest military couldn’t crush, and that their potential acts of terror were Topeka’s greatest danger. (It mattered little that actual Islamic terror was perhaps the least of the dangers Americans faced in their daily lives.)

All of this reached its crescendo (at least thus far) in Donald Trump. Think of the Trump phenomenon, in its own strange way, as the culmination of the invasion of 2003 brought home bigly.  His would be a shock-and-awe election campaign in which he would “decapitate” his rivals one by one.  The New York real estate, hotel, and casino magnate who had long swum comfortably in the waters of the liberal elite when he needed to and had next to nothing to do with America’s heartland would be as alien to its inhabitants as the U.S. military was to Iraqis when it invaded.  And yet he would indeed launch his own invasion of that heartland on his private jet with its gold-plated bathroom fixtures, sweeping up all the fears that had been gathering in this country since 9/11 (nurtured by both politicians and national security state officials for their own benefit).  And those fears would ring a bell so loud in that heartland that it would sweep him into the White House.  In November 2016, he took Baghdad, USA, in high style.

In this context, let’s think for a moment about how strangely the invasion of Iraq, in some pretzeled form, blew back on America.

Like the neocons of the Bush administration, Donald Trump had long dreamed of his moment of imperial glory, and as in Afghanistan and again in Iraq in 2001 and 2003, when it arrived on November 8, 2016, it couldn’t have seemed more glorious. We know of those dreams of his because, for one thing, only six days after Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama in the 2012 election campaign, The Donald first tried to trademark the old Reagan-inspired slogan, “Make America great again.”

Like George W. and Dick Cheney, he was intent on invading and occupying the oil heartlands of the planet which, in 2003, had indeed been Iraq.  By 2015-2016, however, the U.S. had entered the energy heartlands sweepstakes, thanks to fracking and other advanced methods of extracting fossil fuels that seemed to be turning the country into “Saudi America.”  Add to this Trump's plans to further fossil-fuelize the continent and you certainly have a competitor to the Middle East.  In a sense, you might say, adapting his description of what he would have preferred to do in Iraq, that Donald Trump wants to “keep” our oil.

Like the U.S. military in 2003, he, too, arrived on the scene with plans to turn his country of choice into a garrison state.  Almost the first words out of his mouth on riding that escalator into the presidential race in June 2015 involved a promise to protect Americans from Mexican "rapists" by building an unforgettably impregnable “great wall” on the country’s southern border.  From this he never varied even when, in funding terms, it became apparent that, from the Coast Guard to airport security to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as president he would be cutting into genuine security measures to build his “big, fat, beautiful wall.”

It’s clear, however, that his urge to create a garrison state went far beyond a literal wall. It included the build-up of the U.S. military to unprecedented heights, as well as the bolstering of the regular police, and above all of the border police. Beyond that lay the urge to wall Americans off in every way possible. His fervently publicized immigration policies (less new, in reality, than they seemed) should be thought of as part of a project to construct another kind of “great wall,” a conceptual one whose message to the rest of the world was striking: You are not welcome or wanted here. Don’t come. Don’t visit.

All this was, in turn, fused at the hip to the many irrational fears that had been gathering like storm clouds for so many years, and that Trump (and his alt-right companions) swept into the already looted heartland of the country.  In the process, he loosed a brand of hate (including shootings, mosque burnings, a raft of bomb threats, and a rise in hate groups, especially anti-Muslim ones) that, historically speaking, was all-American, but was nonetheless striking in its intensity in our present moment.

Combined with his highly publicized “Muslim bans” and prominently publicized acts of hate, the Trump walling-in of America quickly hit home.  A drop in foreigners who wanted to visit this country was almost instantly apparent as the warning signs of a tourism “Trump slump” registered, business travel bookings took an instant $185 million hit, and the travel industry predicted worse to come.

This is evidently what “America First” actually means: a country walled off and walled in.  Think of the road traveled from 2003 to 2017 as being from sole global superpower to potential super-pariah. Thought of another way, Donald Trump is giving the hubristic imperial isolation of the invasion of Iraq a new meaning here in the homeland.

And don’t forget “reconstruction,” as it was called after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  In relation to the United States, the bedraggled land now in question whose infrastructure recently was given a D+ grade on a “report card” issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Donald Trump promises a trillion-dollar infrastructure program to rebuild America’s highways, tunnels, bridges, airports, and the like. If it actually comes about, count on one thing: it will be handed over to some of the same warrior corporations that reconstructed Iraq (and other corporate entities like them), functionally guaranteeing an American version of the budget-draining boondoggle that was Iraq.

As with that invasion in the spring of 2003, in 2017 we are still in the (relative) sunshine days of the Trump era.  But as in Iraq, so here 14 years later, the first cracks are already appearing, as this country grows increasingly riven. (Think Sunni vs. Shia.)

And one more thing as you consider the future: the blowback wars out of which Donald Trump and the present fear-gripped garrison state of America arose have never ended. In fact, just as under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, so under Donald Trump, it seems they never will. Already the Trump administration is revving up American military power in Yemen, Syria, and potentially Afghanistan. So whatever the blowback may have been, you’ve only seen its beginning. It’s bound to last for years to come.

There’s just one phrase that could adequately sum all this up: Mission accomplished!



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 latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands, as well as Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 Next > End >>

Page 1699 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