War! What Is It Good For? Keeping Pundits’ Careers Afloat…

Truer words have seldom been spoken than Michael Tomasky’s in this morning’s Grauniad, on the way the talking heads provided the impetus for the illegal invasion and how they continue to drive the Iraq war along, despite all the evidence that it’s lost:

[…]

Cynosure though he will be today, Petraeus in fact has only a limited role to play in seeing to it that the US continue its mad engagement. The stars of that dispiriting drama will be the phalanx of foreign policy experts based in Washington, who will, in the wake of the general’s testimony, fan out across the cable channels and op-ed pages, arguing that giving the surge one more chance is the only “serious” option.

These, you see, are the “serious” foreign policy people. It’s good work if you can get it. You may be thinking that you become a serious foreign policy person by often being right about foreign policy. But this just shows how little you know about how these things work.

No – you become a serious foreign-policy person in Washington by dint of meeting two criteria. First, you should adopt the most hawkish position you can plausibly adopt, so that you come across as appropriately “tough-minded”. Second, you must note what all the other serious foreign policy people are saying and take care to ensure that your position is sufficiently indistinguishable from theirs for you to be lumped in with them when the time comes for the Washington Post to write a group profile of Washington’s serious tough-minded foreign policy people.

At the moment the tv talking heads’re nominally Republican: give it a couple of years and they’ll be equally nominal Democrats. The new pundit cohort is practicing its on-air persona already (Ezra, Matt Y. et al – yes, I’m looking at you).

Either way, nominal Republicans or nominal Dems, they’re paid pundits first and foremost and they don’t want that to change. Why throttle the goose that lays such golden eggs?

For skilled practitioners of the art, this tends to work out marvellously, career-wise. Take Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon, the two emblematic seriousistas of the Bush age. Both are scholars at the Brookings Institution, a centre-left thinktank, and both are nominal Democrats. Both were also early fans of the Iraq war. Pollack achieved special notoriety with his book The Threatening Storm, which persuaded many a liberal who might otherwise have looked askance at a war undertaken by the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney war to support it.

Here in America, we’re taught that in the realm of ideas, no less than of products of commerce, the free market sorts everything out – it rewards the good ideas and punishes the bad ones, and at the end of the day fairness will obtain.

Excuse me while I splutter with laughter.

Well, the famous invisible hand seems to have left the world of foreign policy seriousness untouched, because Pollack and O’Hanlon, far from paying any price for their errors, are just as celebrated as ever. They published a major op-ed piece in the New York Times in late July touting the progress being made in Iraq, and O’Hanlon’s byline appeared again on the page a mere five weeks later. This week, cable bookers will be calling them so often that they might as well set up cots in the studios.

Of course, all this hasn’t worked out too well for the country or the world. But that’s tolerable in Washington, because the important thing here is that the status quo should not be disrupted.

Read more…

Well done Mr Tomasky, but how long has it taken you bloody journalists and pundits to come to this point of view?

Do a word search on this blog and look for ‘status quo’ and you’ll see that “the status quo should not be disrupted” is what I and many, many others have for years been saying is the driver of US domestic and foreign policy, regardless of individual party affiliation.

Do keep up – if only you and your media colleagues had noticed this and spoken out like this 5 years or so ago we might not be in this godawful mess. now

Today’s Must Read

Many left bloggers in America and in the UK wrote about the blatant theft of billions of dollars in cash and antiquities by US contractors and others in Iraq while it was happeniing; we also wrote about the fact that the looting was only made possible by the incompetence and collusion of the fundy-staffed, Paul Bremer-led Coalition Provincial Authority (aka ‘What Liberty U students did on their gap year“).

But, as has become usual in Bush’s America, it’s taken years for big media to actually notice ( or to be more accurate, to have the guts to write about it) and to get the story to Mrs and Mrs Average Glossy Mag Buyer.

Vanity Fair’s account of the mercenary free-for-all following the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation (however odious its regime), Billions Over Baghdad, although it’s a day late and a dollar short will, I hope, deeply shock those American voters who still have residual faith in the probity of their politicians and government officials and in the good intentions and morals of the senior ranks of their military. These are not the Good Guys.

[…]

Over the next year, a compliant Congress gave $1.6 billion to Bremer to administer the C.P.A. This was over and above the $12 billion in cash that the C.P.A. had been given to disburse from Iraqi oil revenues and unfrozen Iraqi funds. Few in Congress actually had any idea about the true nature of the C.P.A. as an institution. Lawmakers had never discussed the establishment of the C.P.A., much less authorized it—odd, given that the agency would be receiving taxpayer dollars. Confused members of Congress believed that the C.P.A. was a U.S. government agency, which it was not, or that at the very least it had been authorized by the United Nations, which it had not. One congressional funding measure makes reference to the C.P.A. as “an entity of the United States Government”—highly inaccurate. The same congressional measure states that the C.P.A. was “established pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions”—just as inaccurate. The bizarre truth, as a U.S. District Court judge would point out in an opinion, is that “no formal document … plainly establishes the C.P.A. or provides for its formation.”

This isn’t just about the criminality and greed of the Bush administration but also about the incompetence of Congress and the corruption of the civil service and the military.

Not only did the institutions of government fail to stop the criminality, they allowed it to happen.

Even if individual congresspersons, civil servants or army officers didn’t personally benefit from the smash and grab they didn’t speak out, except in very rare cases: Bunnatine Greenhouse, for example, should be a national hero but instead she’s demoted and vilified.

Those who knew what was happening and failed to speak out failed in their duty and are therefore in it up to their necks, as much as any apparatchik or noncom with a handy cash sum stashed in the Cayman Islands.

Accountable really to no one, its finances “off the books” for U.S. government purposes, the C.P.A. provided an unprecedented opportunity for fraud, waste, and corruption involving American government officials, American contractors, renegade Iraqis, and many others. In its short life more than $23 billion would pass through its hands. And that didn’t include potentially billions more in oil shipments the C.P.A. neglected to meter. At stake was an ocean of cash that would evaporate whenever the C.P.A. did. All parties understood that there was a sell-by date, and that it was everyone for himself. An Iraqi hospital administrator told The Guardian of England that, when he arrived to sign a contract, the army officer representing the C.P.A. had crossed out the original price and doubled it. “The American officer explained that the increase (more than $1 million) was his retirement package.” Alan Grayson, a Washington, D.C., lawyer for whistle-blowers who have worked for American contractors in Iraq, says simply that during that first year under the C.P.A. the country was turned into “a free-fraud zone.”

Iraq has been the biggest home invasion of all time. Murder, rape, torture, looting; Genghis Khan would be proud. But it’s not just Iraqi money that these slime are stealing, though, it’s yours too, if yoiu’re a US or UK taxpayer – Bush has just asked Congress for another 50 billion dollars more and the UK has spent 6.6 billionpounds so far. Who knows into whose pockets it goes?

America may not be the Good Guys their self-image tells them they are, but then neither are we British and there is another, untold story here.

What was the role of the British military and diplomats in the CPA? They were as deeply involved as the Americans in the invasion – what were they doing while this as happening, sitting on their hands and going ‘Oh, dear”?

Take Basra: who handled the money for Basra province? Where’s it gone and to whom and for what? Has there even been an accounting?

I note that British diplomats, in concert with the US, pressured the UN for the CPA to be accepted as a valid interim government. They worked hand in hand with the Pentagon: do we really think our diplomatic staff and senior military had no inkling of the wholesale theft that was going on? Can we believe that if they did know, that they were so morally spotless as not to have been tempted to have a dip themselves? Of course it may not have been necessary to be quite as crude as that: there are other ways to benefit from criminality. Turning a blind eye can be quite rewarding, as our country’s record on rendition has shown.

But surely, if there are any malefactors, heaven forbid, in the ranks of our government, diplomatic corps or military, good old British justice will sort it out. Won’t it?

I mean, just look at the way George Galloway has been hounded by New Labour for being a bit equivocal reporting a donor in his paperwork for the Mariam Fund (total value 1.4 million) – that’s how punctilious New Labour is. They’d never do something sio venal as to take cash for honours or anything like that, oh no.

Shorter Uk government – criminals and war profiteers? What criminals and war profiteers? We’re British! We’re honourable!

Hardly. Some of our recently retired generals and diplomats are now issuing their own revisionist versions of recent history – what they say, in short, is that they were against the invasion all long, really, and it was all the fault of those naughty Americans. They didn’t want to do it – a big boy made them do it and ran away, wasn’t us, guv, we said it was a bad idea.

Unfortunately for untold thousands of dead Iraqis they weren’t so honourable as to say so at the time. Only now, when there’s autobiographies to be sold and the information is of no earthly use do they come forward. There’s the honour of our glorious military.

Meanwhile the Iraq war continues to be highly profitable – for some.

Aegis turnover soared from £554,000 in 2003 to £62m last year – three quarters through work in Iraq, including its role coordinating all private military and security firms operating in the country. Aegis is led by Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Spicer, who broke a UN arms embargo on Sierra Leone with his former company Sandline International, and was jailed in Papua New Guinea for earlier activities. The firm DSC, now part of British company ArmorGroup, was implicated in providing intelligence that helped Colombian death squads identify groups opposed to a BP oil pipeline project. ArmorGroup, which trebled its turnover from $71m in 2001 to $233.2m last year, typifies the private military sector in hiring former government officials and officers to wield political influence. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former UK defence and foreign secretary, is a non-executive director of ArmorGroup. In 2005 the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development awarded the firm armed security contracts in the Afghan capital Kabul, as well as in the Iraqi cities Baghdad and Basra, together with control of the Iraqi police monitoring programme.

Aegis’s non-executive directors include ex-UK defence minister Nicholas Soames, as well as Lord Inge, former chief of defence staff, and Roger Wheeler, earlier professional head of the British army as chief of the general staff.

That’s the kind of moneymaking from war that goes on all the time, but no-one complains and if they do well, they’re just whiny peacenik hippies who want to curb free trade.

The difference in Iraq is that war profiteering, instead of being a covert operation, has been carried out in the open with actual cash money and a blatancy that takes the breath away.

The big question, to my mind, is if, when those alleged to be the ‘good guys’ commit crimes of such magnitude, who, if anyone, is to step in and enforce the law? The Democrats don’t seem to have the bottle for it and neither do either of the British opposition parties.

This is a question that no-one seems to want to answer, because it would mean questioning the fundamental bases of our entire political systems, on both sides of the Atlantic. That way lies revolution – and that would never do.

Comment of The Day: Cascading Down The Generations

Today’s is from Sadly No commenter and war vet Mikey, on the plausibility or otherwise of a The New Republic report on US atrocities against civilians:

mikey said,

July 25, 2007 at 23:16

In a combat zone you are asked to do things no one should ever do. You cannot avoid seeing things no one should ever see. On top of that, people you don’t even know are trying really hard to kill you and you have no option if you want to go home in one piece than to kill them first, and harder.

This has been true for many thousands of years. The young man in combat is not defined by his nationality, but by what the environment requires of him. Or perhaps what it creates FROM him. American soldiers are like all soldiers. They quickly understand that a vestigial humanity will get them and their friends hurt.

You have to look inside and find hatred, anger and cruelty. You need to turn off your other feelings, and let your hatred come to the fore. You burn away all softness. You grind down the kindness. You react with a careless brutality to all stimulus.

You see, it can’t be pretend. You understand completely that if you’re pretending to be a soldier in combat, when that moment comes when you have to do something truly, horribly inhuman to survive, you won’t be able to do it. You’ll act as a civilized human, and not a brutal killer. And you’ll die.

So to find cruel, brutal people behaving in cruel, brutal ways in a combat zone is not a surprise. It’s not news. And anyone who denies it is delusional. I cannot begin to imagine the thoughts and feelings of a 24 year old kid from Missouri on his third tour, rolling out for yet another night patrol in Diyala. But if you think that he has any humanity left inside him, you are wrong.

Don’t forget that he’ll be your neighbor, your daughter’s boyfriend, your employee one day. And sure, he’ll tamp it all down and bury it behind a veneer of civilized politeness. He may not even know it’s still there.

Over the years he’ll discover that it’s a box, once opened, that you can’t just put up on the shelf when you’re done with it. Rather, when it’s done with you they’ll put you in a box.

Physical wounds are one thing. But the human damage that war does is infinitely worse, and the consequences last for generations…

mikey

Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, BURMA

How is regime change in Iraq connected to Burmese nukes?

While the world’s attention is elsewhere, the genocidal Burmese military dictatorship is alleged to be getting into the nuclear market and sidestepping IAEA oversight, courtesy of Moscow:

Last week Burma and the Russian company Rosatom announced a new contract. Rosatom would build Burma a nuclear power station. This news comes at the end of a period in which suspicions have been raised about the intentions of the Burmese regime. Over the last couple of years, both the universities of Rangoon and Mandalay have added nuclear physics departments to their faculties and 2,000 Burmese students have been sent to Moscow to study Nuclear technology. In April of this year Burma resumed relations with North Korea and dissidents have spotted shipments arriving from North Korea into Burma, with the US state department reminding the Burmese that under UN rules the United States is entitled to stop and search any North Korean ship going to Burma. Russian companies have discovered uranium in Northern Burma and it looks possible that the Burmese are delivering uranium to Pyongyang in return either for plutonium or for nuclear knowhow.

The Burmese government is not a nice regime.

Burma’s generals, known in state-controlled media as the State Peace and Development Council, routinely harass and imprison opposition activists. Citizens have been used as slave labor. The junta’s security police have been known to strafe demonstrators with gunfire. In December, an Asian human rights group issued a 124-page report on the Burmese government’s “brutal and systematic” torture of political prisoners.

To deepen the country’s isolation, last November the generals began to move Burma’s capital from the southern coastal city of Rangoon to the mountain stronghold of Pyinmana, deep in the country’s interior. Perhaps the regime’s oft-stated fear of a U.S. invasion prompted the retreat from the coast. That would explain press reports that the junta has surrounded its new capital with land mines. Perhaps the regime is even more afraid of the ethnically diverse and impoverished students of Rangoon. We can’t look for answers to the United Nations’ envoy to Burma. He resigned in January after failing for nearly two years to gain entry into the country.

There’s been a big natural gas discovery off the Burmese coast, so Burma is not short of energy. Why does it need nuclear technology? Is it for weapons? Who or what is it they are scared of, (Well, Danish artists for a start, but that’s a digression) if at all? If they’re not scared, why have they moved the capital?

Some think it is to remove themselves from the danger of a US invasion, since Bush placed Burma on a list of “outposts of tyranny” that includes North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe and Belarus, but the US is unlikely to invade, overextended as it is with its army broken and troops bogged down elsewhere.

Not only that the US has been very cosy with Burma in the past; US energy giant Unocal Corp. and its French partner Total SA built a $1.2 billion natural gas pipeline in the Burmese mountains using forced labour.

Unocal has since been sold to China, but past US collusion in Burma’s cruel, genocidal regime combined with a current need for gas lead one to think that no way the US government, run by energy industry types, would put their energy interests in SE Asia at risk by invading. So it can’t be a US attack the junta’s worried about.

Unlikely as it seems given the two countries’ history of dodgy dealings it could well be that Burma’s drive to acquire nuclear technology from Russia is a totally innocent commercial enterprise and not military at all, according to nuclear specialist John Large:

….Large also said it was possible that the Burmese government intended to use the facility to branch out into the highly lucrative radio-isotopic pharmaceutical market, and not for the production of weapons-grade nuclear components.

“There is a big commercial opportunity here because at the moment . . . what you have in the region . . . is a number of countries vying to establish their radio-isotopic foothold and of course countries like Burma could of course enter this market.”

It remains unclear when or where the facility will be built in Burma with analysts expecting further agreements on the deal to be signed in the near future.

It’s possible, but is it likely, given the regime’s history?

If indeed Burma is after weapons technology it looks as though there’s to be a another member of the new, eastern axis of nuclear powers; India, Pakistan, North Korea, China and now Burma, only 2 of which are even remotely politically stable.

Somehow I doubt this is the New World Order the neocons had in mind when they did their best to gut the International Atomic Energy Authority’s oversight capacity so they could invade Iraq.