September 10, 2011
Some Links And Open Thread
The Arab Counterrevolution - NYRB
The Arab world’s immediate future will very likely unfold in a complex tussle between the army, remnants of old regimes, and the Islamists, all of them with roots, resources, as well as the ability and willpower to shape events. Regional parties will have influence and international powers will not refrain from involvement. There are many possible outcomes—from restoration of the old order to military takeover, from unruly fragmentation and civil war to creeping Islamization. But the result that many outsiders had hoped for—a victory by the original protesters—is almost certainly foreclosed.
Analysis / Crises with Turkey and Egypt represent a political tsunami for Israel - Aluf Ben/Haartez
Germany Said to Ready Plan to Help Banks If Greece Defaults, Greek Credit Swaps Surge to Record, Signal 91% Chance of Default - Bloomberg
Greece is broke and only needs to acknowledge it. Other countries will follow. This is good. The debt bubble that clogs the global economy can not be solved without forgiving debt. Greece will only be the starting point for that process.
On 9/11: Ten Lost Years - Jakob Augstein/Spiegel
Posted by b on September 10, 2011 at 11:53 AM | Permalink
- Jeremy Scahill has a fantastic dispatch from Somalia about the recent history of the 3-way conflict between the US backed Transitional Federal Government(TFG), the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) government that replaced it, and Al Shabab, the Al Qaeda linked army now taking over after the US crushed the moderate Islamic Courts.
- Amir Mir, a Pakistani Journalist, has another fairly gloomy piece about Al Qaeda this time in Pakistan. The gist is that by pushing Al Qaeda and the Jihadists out of Afghanistan in 2001 they merely moved the problem from a remote small country and into a larger more important country which is now at risk.
I think what both Scahill and Mir's articles show is that despite all the commentary in the blogosphere recently about the Arab Spring finishing Al Qaeda in both Somalia and in Pakistan Al Qaeda have never been stronger or more popular. In Somalia, the Islamic Courts were moderate but still unacceptable to the US so they conducted Special Forces raids and funded psychotic warlords to defeat them but ended up creating a radical Al Qaeda affiliated Al Shabab which now enjoys popular support because it defends the people against the US backed warlords.
In Pakistan, Taliban and assorted Jihadists flooded into the already unstable Pakistan after 2001 and fused with Kashmiri fighters, Baloch seperatists and mainstream Islamic political parties with grievances against the Pakistani state. This didn't led to the Talibanistan of Pakistan but the Pakistanization of the Al Qaeda movement.
- Robert Fisk has a good piece on the culture of thuggery in the British army, in light of the conviction of 4 British soldiers of beating a 24 year old Iraqi to death (his post mortem found 94 different wounds on his body) after being detained and punched and kicked to death and how the British government always lies about its crimes.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Sep 10, 2011 12:50:40 PM | 1
The NYRB piece is very tired, the sort of thing that the State Department will buy, but of no use to anyone else. These guys don't understand revolutions and they don't understand what is happening in the world.
The opening reference to Lenin is vulgar journalism of the cheapest kind: a meaningless assertion that only those who know nothing of Lenin could make.
Posted by: bevin | Sep 10, 2011 1:46:43 PM | 2
I agree, bevin, most people don't know Lenin. The best explanation of Lenin's politics comes from Chomsky in this speech where he responds to someone on the so-called "Left" who was also confused about Lenin.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | Sep 10, 2011 2:25:25 PM | 3
for over 40 years i have had to listen to nonsense, manufactured & otherwise about comrade lenin. including chomsky. no one is a saint. to call lenin an 'astute politician' rather than one of the most profound marxist thinkers is both a disservice to the fact & an underestimation of what lenin offered in his short life & his superior writing
the fact that the soviet union was under physical attack since its birth from invading imperialists & their pantins
for over 'à tears i have heard people attack lenin whom i know have never read him, not even the easier texts like 'state & the revolution', 'imperialsm, the highests stage of capitalism', what is to be done' - they simply do not know their lenin & they are very far from understanding the facts of the history
& there is the one person view of history which i have never believed, they are exceptional human beings even exemplary human beings but they are human beings, a part of an appareil, of a process or even if you like of a mechanism - they do not exist alone - they do not exist outside of history not even their own history, they are an organic part of it. stalin was also part of a process - he had a a privileged role in that process but even he was subject to its processus - they are not the state itself & i do not & have never believed that
the defeat of fascism by the soviet union is a revelator of that in all its aspects, of a growing society, a contradictory society, a society working within its contradictions
we are a little too old to be looking at history, especially in this moment without understanding the mechanisms by which societies work not some mickey mouse history where this or that bad guy controls everything, it is not only imbecilic but ahistoric
in the current conditions, even in my parlous state i find comrade lenin a useful comrade to reread to understand better the events history passes through
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 10, 2011 3:19:11 PM | 4
Challenges to International Security: The Case of Bosnia‐Herzegovina
Bosnia War 1992 - 1995 - Bill Clinton
Paper by Vlado Azinovic Senior Editor at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty from 2007
"However, the sole presence of Salafism/Wahhabism and the remaining mujahideen does not qualify Bosnia as a particular threat to international security. What does pose a significant threat is the fact that Bosnia is increasingly becoming a failed state."
"The Dayton Peace Accord may have ended the armed conflict, but through the establishment of the Serb Republic (Republika Srpska), it incorporated rather than resolved the fundamental dispute over which the war was fought - namely, whether Bosnia is a single or divided country.
This dichotomy provides a permanent incentive for Bosnia’s internal instability. It prevents the establishment of a viable state structure and a self-sustainable economy. It destabilizes democratic institutions and creates internal frictions, thus hindering the reconciliation process in this fragile, post-conflict society. The establishment of a functioning state is also undermined by money-laundering, corruption and weak law enforcement. As a result, the state’s borders are porous and susceptible to illegal human and drug trafficking. The police force is still fragmented and sectarian, and large amounts of weapons and ammunition from recent war are still readily available for purchase.
In short, the country is an ideal breeding ground for any extreme ideology, let alone Salafism/Wahhabism, which typically injects itself into troubled zones on a tide of substantial cash flow, and is able to provide, in this case, extreme yet simple answers to almost every challenge that arises from the grim postwar reality in Bosnia.
In addition, since 2002, the West, and particularly the US, has been shifting resources and political energy from Bosnia to other regions in the world where security threats seem more immediate.
So, while discussing the alleged propensity of Bosniaks to join the global Jihad Movement, one should look not just at whether there are individuals in Bosnia ready to put on suicide vests and blow themselves and others up, but also at factors that prompt people to embrace extremist ideologies.
While Al Qaeda-linked groups and individuals in Bosnia remain rather elusive, overwhelming"
It has been quite a trail ...
Yes, the author of the above is lunatic. Above study was funded by the European commission though.
"The “War on Terror” cannot be successful if fought solely against those already recruited and indoctrinated with jihadist ideology. Terrorism does not grow in a vacuum. No one is born a terrorist; terrorists are bred. Therefore, the social, economic and political origins of terrorism should be addressed with equal resolve. The failure to understand this may force the West to eventually fight the “War on Terror” against the birth rate of Muslim nations around the world."
Posted by: somebody | Sep 10, 2011 6:20:22 PM | 5
giap, I really don't care about the personalities involved. It's the theory propagated and the implications of that theory put into practice that concern me most. As you say, The Soviet Union was not about one person, two people, or even three. It was about untold numbers of people, many whose names will never be known, yet their sacrifices were crucial to the overthrow of the Old Order. What makes me so damn mad is that those sacrifices, and they were myriad, were rendered in vain, because those in significant positions of power in the Soviet Government, including Lenin and Stalin, betrayed the Revolution, and all those who sacrificed.....for what? State Capitalism? Seriously? I understand that the Revolution was under attack from its inception, and that even when the Old Order was eliminated, the West was making every attempt to sow discord and upend the noble effort, but that doesn't justify betraying the Revolution by turning to State Capitalism to save the the Revolution. These individuals, especially Lenin, had to have known that was pure folly. I believe some of them did know, but for reasons political, changed their theories to accommodate the political climate of the moment. It's either that, or they deluded themselves. I believe in the case of Trotsky, he deluded himself, and in the case of Lenin, he knew deep in his heart where this would go, but his hands were tied. He either went along, or he would be cast out. Ironically, he was cast out anyway, so he should have stick to his convictions.
In the final analysis, I agree with Mattick.
Trotsky denies the state capitalist character of Russian economy by reducing the term state capitalism to a meaningless phrase. That is, he sees in the concept no more than was seen in it prior to the Russian revolution, or than is seen in it today with reference to the state capitalist tendencies of the fascist countries.
Since it is clear that Russia today is dominated by an economy different from what is implied by the term state capitalism in fascist or general bourgeois society, Trotsky is enabled to win his argument by posing the question to suit his convenience. But a full-fledged state capitalist system is surely something other than state capitalist tendencies, or state enterprises, or even state control in an otherwise bourgeois society. State capitalism as a social system presupposes the expropriation of the individual capitalists, that is, a revolution in property relations.
While the capitalist mode of production grew up historically on the basis of individual ownership of the means of production, the Russian revolution has shown that under certain conditions the capitalist mode of production can continue to exist even though the individual proprietors are eliminated and replaced by a collective exploiting apparatus where factories are not owned by capitalist “X” or “Y” but are “controlled” (i. e. owned) by the State (i. e. the controlling classes).
The Russian revolution changed property relations, replacing individual proprietors by the Bolsheviks and their allies, substituting new “revolutionary” phrases for the old pep slogans, erecting the hammer and sickle over the Kremlin where the Czarist Eagle once stood, but the Bolshevik seizure of power did not change the capitalist mode of production. That is to say, under the Bolsheviks, there remains, as formerly, the system of wage labor and the appropriation by the exploiting class of surplus value which is profit. And, what is done with such profit is exactly what was done with it under the system of individual capitalists, allowing, of course, for the special character of state capitalism.
Such surplus value is distributed according to the needs of the total capital in the interests of further capital accumulation and to safeguard the state capitalist apparatus by increasing its power and prestige.
Only a change in the mode of production can bring about socialism; otherwise, as far as the workers are concerned, they will have only exchanged one set of exploiters for another. Under the conditions of state capitalism the process of accumulation, the development of the productive forces by wage labor is bound up, as in the case of “regular” capitalism, with an increased appropriation of surplus value, with further exploitation, and hence with the development of new classes, of new vested interests in order to continue this process since the working class cannot exploit itself.
This capitalist necessity serves to explain Russian development; no other “line,” no other “policy” could have essentially changed this development. By failing to recognize the state capitalist character of Russia, by regarding its present economy as a transitional step to socialism, Trotsky merely indicates his readiness to precipitate a new state capitalist revolution which must lead to a new Stalinism – another betrayal of the Revolution.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | Sep 10, 2011 7:27:40 PM | 6
When you’ve got friends like this … Part 6
Posted on Thursday, September 1, 2011 by bill
Today I continue my theme “When you’ve got friends like this” which focuses on how limiting the so-called progressive policy input has become in the modern debate about deficits and public debt. Today is a continuation of that theme. The earlier blogs – When you’ve got friends like this – Part 0 – Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 and Part 5 – serve as background. The theme indicates that what goes for progressive argument these days is really a softer edged neo-liberalism. The main thing I find problematic about these “progressive agendas” is that they are based on faulty understandings of the way the monetary system operates and the opportunities that a sovereign government has to advance well-being. Progressives today seem to be falling for the myth that the financial markets are now the de facto governments of our nations and what they want they should get. It becomes a self-reinforcing perspective and will only deepen the malaise facing the world.
Posted by: c | Sep 10, 2011 8:04:46 PM | 7
mb & giap,
What about the gulag's? and who killed 20 million in them and why and in the system nobody stopped it? These questions mystify me.
Posted by: Khalid | Sep 10, 2011 8:35:01 PM | 8
thee figure is grossly inflated - even the most hysteric cold war warriors have pulled that figure back considerably. when a society has to fight continually for its survival it is not a complete surprise that it turns in on itself. & that is what happened. & yes everyone participated so everyone is guilty
capitalism, since its inception has placed many more millions in a limbo of life without equality of opportunity, lives of great poverty & terror - so i don't think the soviet union had a monopoly on terror.
& frankly, i'm tired of bullshit that doesn't look at the societies as the complex mechanisms they are - imperialism is dying today precisely because of those mechanisms - because it effects your daily lives it would be well to understand them
the soviet system was brutal but that society defeated fascism & it defeated fascism, alone - the participation of others was minimal & at the most a sideshow so i'd filter your criticism even through recent history
& what is the 3 million prison archipelagoes in america other than a gulag - all western jurisprudence is based on the defence of property - is that law, is that justice
the people & the people alone are the decisive factor - something i & dr habash can agree on, always
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 10, 2011 9:16:27 PM | 9
Khalid....to answer your question you need to ask where those numbers come from......
Posted by: georgeg | Sep 10, 2011 9:20:53 PM | 10
Regarding the Crises with Egypt and Turkey piece from Haaretz...
This was a joke, right?
I stopped reading the agenda-driven Israeli press a long time ago, beginning with Debka. But it turned out that Debka was just the worst of a bad bunch. Before reading any article from any Israeli 'news' outlet, one should ask oneself...
"What lie is this article promoting?"
... and if it's not obvious during the first reading it's never hard to find. In the Turkey/Egypt article the lie is at the beginning of the last par...
"Israel cannot prevent the rise of Erdogan or the fall of Mubarak, the same way that it cannot halt Iran’s nuclear weapons program."
The Israeli press was, is, and always will be, just an extension of the ideological sewer known as Israel. Countries which actually possess a nuclear deterrent NEVER whine about possible nuclear threats from elsewhere. The fact that Israel persists in doing so is merely proof that Israel's arsenal is as mythical as 'Israel' itself.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 11, 2011 1:10:30 AM | 12
• The body count in the 20th century was staggering. The planet was drenched in blood. Most of the killing and death was the product of colonialism, imperialist war, and nazism/fascism.
• Opposition to communism was determined, violent, ruthless, and unremitting.
• The victors have written the history and supplied the numbers; many of those accounts are dubious as noted in #9 and #10.
• The Soviet government was forced to resort to rule by virtual martial law to achieve an internal ‘monopoly of violence’. Most socialists would agree that the USSR was therefore not socialist because democracy is the essence of socialism.
• The CPSU didn’t have sufficient time to fine-tune the forms of social ownership necessary to establish an economic system geared to output rather than to profit.
• Lenin is one of the clearest thinkers that I’ve come across.
Posted by: Watson | Sep 11, 2011 1:33:55 AM | 13
There's much to admire about Jakob Augstein's Spiegel Tenth Anniversary 9/11 article. Apart from the wisdom and accuracy of his observations, there was the merciful brevity. As media outlets go Spiegel still rates high, in my book, for candor and clarity - and not only in prose.
Spiegel's photo-journalism is usually second to none. Their coverage of the accident scene in which Jorg Haider died stopped the NWO conspiracy theorists dead in their tracks. Similarly, Spiegel's photos of the South Korean corvette, Cheonan, during the 'veiled' recovery, and later in dry dock, showed beyond a shadow of doubt that North Korea had nothing whatsoever to do with its sinking despite Mrs Clinton's shrill and nonsensical efforts to assert otherwise.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 11, 2011 2:11:33 AM | 14
Greece is broke and only needs to acknowledge it.
I have that nagging feeling that Greece wants
to default, but is not allowed to do it, or even allowed to acknowledge how deep in a hole it is. Even acknowledging the depth of the hole would sink more than a couple of Euro banks – and then a jump across the Atlantic.
I agree that it would be a “good thing”™ if that debt bubble finally pops - in macro-economical sense. We the people the world around will probably take a heavy hit, though.
(if you happen to need to walk through financial districts in the Euro/US zone, don't forget a heavy duty umbrella, it might rain bankers jumping out of the window…)
Posted by: philippe | Sep 11, 2011 2:30:02 AM | 15
Lenin basically acted against his own Marxist analysis. Russia then was a peasants' nation, they had been slaves until 1861, that is one generation. Industrialization was very thin.
The Bolschewiks, who basically were the best organized minority of the original Russian revolutionaries, did get to power by a putsch, and stayed there by dictatorship. The terror necessary for this was very real and threatening for the Bolschewiks themselves. Leninism actually split the international communist movement.
Read up on any neo-leninist movement in any country and it is a history of splits. It is inherent in the theory. In Russia it meant dictatorship of one small group.
Their personal background was upper middle class in a country that did not really have a middle class. They counted on Germany to lead, however, communists in Germany were stopped by a well organized Social Democratic Party dating back to working men's clubs of 1848.
They finally gave up hoping for communism in developed capitalist countries arguing that workers there shared the spoils of imperialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_aristocracy
Like in China communism in Russia ended up by forcing modernization and industrialization on its people. Marx had not meant it that way.
Russia and the Soviet Union were Empires, trying to dominate states after World War II that were more developed than themselves.
Posted by: somebody | Sep 11, 2011 4:01:33 AM | 16
where does tikkun olam fit into all this blather?
how much of the world do we have to wreck before we start repairing it?
Posted by: lead.and.lag | Sep 11, 2011 8:09:09 AM | 17
Those peaceful 'rebels':
AFP - At least 12 people were killed and many more wounded when two groups of fighters opposed to Muammar Gaddafi turned on each other in Libya's west, two officials told the AFP news agency on Sunday.
The fighting, which has its roots in ancient rivalries and pitted combatants from the towns of Gharyan and Kikla on the one side and from Asabah on the other, broke out on Saturday, according to the chief of the Gharyan council and confirmed by the head of the military council of Asabah.
The towns are on the eastern edge of the Nafusa mountains and were important centres of resistance to Gaddafi's forces in months of fighting to oust the strongman.
Posted by: ThePaper | Sep 11, 2011 11:19:28 AM | 18
The lady Zeinobia doesn't much like the mob, does she?
I wasn't convinced she was telling the whole story.
Posted by: alexno | Sep 11, 2011 1:45:05 PM | 20
AJE is quite silent today on Libya. On Friday and Saturday they were on their usual pro-rebel bombastic propaganda drive.
Where is NATO?
Posted by: ThePaper | Sep 11, 2011 1:49:45 PM | 21
@alexno - the Ultras are Cairo's soccer hooligans - the liberal lady may not have the best experience with them.
@The Paper - from an account I read today NATO today bombed Bani Walid. There are still NATO Forward Air Controllers on the ground. The rebels attack only to find out where the loyalist positions are, then they retreat and NATO bombs those positions, rinse, repeat.
Posted by: b | Sep 11, 2011 2:22:18 PM | 22
I didn't mean that way. If you read up to the end the whole article presents the typical bunch of weak disorganized rebel fighters which main recourse is asking for NATO air request.
On the back foot for the moment, the ragtag anti-Gadhafi forces are reconsidering their options and perhaps hoping that NATO will somehow clear the way for them and bring this long conflict to an end.
As one of the cars drove away from Bani Walid, a fighter shouted out: "Where are you, NATO?"
Basically it was an ironic way to say that this a NATO war and a NATO 'victory'. Not a rebel one.
Posted by: ThePaper | Sep 11, 2011 2:50:48 PM | 24
"a NATO 'victory'"
so long as we've chased 35,000 chinese oil workers out of libya, we won, didnt we?
Posted by: lead.and.lag | Sep 11, 2011 3:21:52 PM | 25
oh and there is now this of course
"Al Jazeera's Hashem Ahelbarra , reported on Jibril’s speech from the Libyan capital:
The decision to bring all the military councils under the authority of the NTC and Mustafa Abdel Jalil is quite significant and a turning point but it is already backfiring.
You have two kinds of leadership, the political leadership, which is represented by the chairman Mustafa Abdel Jalil and the prime minister of the interim government Mahmoud Jibril. You have the military leadership represented by two extremely powerful guys, Hakim bi Haj, who is the military commander of Tripoli and Ismail al-Salaabi from Benghazi, both of them are considered Islamists.The NTC is considered liberal.
The military council rejects the idea of joining the NTC and they are considering this move an attack to hijack their revolution and rain on their authority. They say they are the ones who have been fighting colonel Gaddafi for 6 months, and they are the ones who should represent the wish of the Libyan people.
Sources from the military council told Al Jazeera that they reject the move and they will now ask for Mahmoud Jibril to quit. This is quite significant, it shows that differences and divisions are beginning to emerge."
What is NATO going to do now. Invade?
Posted by: somebody | Sep 11, 2011 7:36:12 PM | 28
and this is the US analysis
"in recent days, fighters who had rushed to the front from other towns complained bitterly about being kept out of the battle by their comrades from Bani Walid, who told them they do not want outside help. The out-of-town fighters said Bani Walid natives at times prevented them from searching homes or carrying out arrests of relatives who were on the Gadhafi side."
Surely after Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza they must know they cannot continue colonialism the old way with or without boots on the ground, what did they think they were doing?
Posted by: somebody | Sep 12, 2011 2:41:41 AM | 29
I do that a lot more these days as I watch the morass which is 'civilization' slinking towards a backwards, medieval feudalism.
'Educated' people are fools, charlatans, and more and more, just simple assholes because they 'believe' their feces don't smell. I've been reading at the Market Ticker Blog about 9/11, and I'm amazed at how many different opinions there are regarding the events that took place that day, and why the whole thing went down. What really surprises me is how many people who don't trust the government, also don't believe the u.s. government had anything to do with what happened that day.
And could someone educate me as to why the Muslims are supposed to hate us? These armchair historians keep referring to something that happened 1400 years ago as the "why" Christians should fear Muslims... but that leaves me wondering why then do they hate the Jews? What happened way back then that these folks are supposed to want to kill us over... seems silly when these same dorks could point to all the crap visited upon Muslims (especially Middle Eastern Muslims) by the west since 1900 (yeah, much longer than that, I know) as reasons for 9/11 and I might buy their arguments. But some feces that happened over a thousand years ago seems a bit of a stretch, especially when most folks can't remember what they, themselves, did last week.
If you go to the link above and read thru the comments it won't be too hard to spot the problem: there are people posting who feel 'might makes right'... one in particular is telling the world that Europeans were OK in taking the Americas because they were somehow a better people then the natives who were more or less a bunch of stick throwing apes. It's a shame there are so many like him, and they're only spewing that crap because they grew-up on John Asshole Wayne movies which broadcast a two-dementional look at just a few of the nomadic tribes. No one likes to mention that before Europeans arrived there were more distinct languages spoken than exist in the world today... and that was just on the west coast of North America.
People like to think Europeans had 'superior' technology... but look at what an environmental mess Europe was, even back then. They had so exploited and soiled their own nest they were forced by circumstance to go searching for fresh meat; is a technology that takes, uses and destroys, better than a life of peace and harmony?
I'm not so lost in the clouds that I think the Americas were paradise, in the heavenly sense. But, it seems that many native populations had developed cultures that didn't rely on warfare and stealing to survive. I know there were some kooks here too. Just look at all the human sacrificing the Aztecs were doing and it makes ya' cringe. It also lets you know what might happen in the future if people don't pay attention.
What does this mean... sigh... nothing.
Time marches on and it won't be too much longer before jackbooted thugs will rove the streets demanding paperwork, and the average citizen will have no recourse when government steps on him. Kind of like it is now, just more obvious and worse.
People have poor memories for history and that's why it's easy to manipulate the way they view the past. As Orwell was so astute to note, "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."
Posted by: DaveS | Sep 12, 2011 10:38:20 AM | 32
Boiling Frogs Breaking News: CIA Goes After Producers Nowosielski & Duffy
On Thursday, September 8, 2011, the CIA issued legal threats against producers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy on their discovery of the identities of the two key CIA analysts who executed the Tenet-Black-Blee cover-up in the case of two key 9/11 hijackers. The analysts were referred to only by first names initially, but were going to be fully named in a follow up segment.
Nowosielski and Duffy are working with legal advisors and we will have more on this soon. Meanwhile you can listen to our recent exclusive interview with the producers and their discovery here at Boiling Frogs Post:
Podcast Show #55: The Boiling Frogs Presents Ray Nowosielski & John Duffy
Also, here are related interviews with Paul Thompson based on the exposé by the two producers: Part 1 & Part 2.
The producers’ website was taken down yesterday. We are in touch with them, and we will keep you informed. Please disseminate this stunning new development, the CIA’s panic, and the content of their interview. Thank You.
Posted by: Uncle | Sep 12, 2011 11:54:38 AM | 34
the CIA’s panic
Huh? The CIA panicked? She's joking, right? Firstly, the CIA doesn't panic, and secondly, even if they did, they wouldn't be panicked over this. They just want to push these guys around a little bit...because they can, and that's part of what they do well. If these fellas were really a threat, you wouldn't have heard of them, and they would have gone missing, or committed suicide by now.
Besides, they could expose this, and it wouldn't matter in the least, even if it's true. No one's listening, and even if they are, alright, what next? Seriously, what next? Nothing, that's what. Exactly nothing....and don't think the CIA doesn't know that.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | Sep 12, 2011 12:43:23 PM | 35
Let's face it. There is a purposeful attempt to dynamite the EU and the German 'Austrian' Talibans are a big part of it (with the aid of some 'atlanticist' lameduck Merkel and Sarkozy).
Jurgen Stark = Credit Anstalt 2.0 (and Euromarkets Reacting Accordingly)
Every time the debt crisis has worsened it has been preceded by declarations and 'rumors' out of a single European country.
What are the bets? And who is betting? I doubt it's just 'evil speculators'. This is as much an economic as geostrategic matter.
Posted by: ThePaper | Sep 12, 2011 4:08:30 PM | 36
Nice to read your mind/emotion dump. It is good therapy for you I’m sure and it facilitates my attitude shift from angst to peace before zz time. I, many nights, can use that calming. Tonight happens to be one. I’m here at the Moon every day and value it but sometimes I miss the interm stopgap conversations over at Le Speakeasy.
Anyway, thanks for your posts. They always resonate.
Posted by: juannie | Sep 12, 2011 8:11:12 PM | 37
Would you care to explain that one?
I don't get it.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 12, 2011 8:22:51 PM | 38
The EU's movers and shakers are discussing the merits(?) of an 'orderly' default for Greece. Then they're going to slip into their diving gear and re-shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 12, 2011 8:50:54 PM | 39
from February 2011 describing US policy
presumably policies towards Al Qaida before 9/11 went along those lines,too: support them so you can influence and use them, officially fight them, support local enemies, so they do not get too strong. It is the old colonialist "keep the natives fighting each other" Officially the US supports human rights and pro democracy groups.
let's face it: Washington considers religion a useful tool.
could an avowed atheist become president of the United States?
Posted by: somebody | Sep 13, 2011 2:02:44 AM | 42
there is a nice comment on 9/11 in the above paper
"However, the political turbulence of the 1960s and economic upheavals of the 1970s,
presented a serious challenge to the quest for equilibrium and led to a preoccupation
with the failures and unintended consequences of covert intervention – arguably the
most important being the impact of CIA meddling in Cuba on the later missile crisis.
Such consequences became known within the US intelligence community as
“blowback”, but had long been described by the technical jargon of systems theorists
as “positive feedback”."
The paper is from 2006, by the way.
the main points of the paper above
"But while many academics were still struggling to describe the world, the US military
and foreign policy establishment were developing strategic tools to reassert control
within it. The key conceptual shift behind these new strategies was a radical new
understanding of and attitude towards chaos.
The Physics of Social Chaos
While biological systems provided the metaphor of choice for general systems
theorists, complexity discourse finds much of its inspiration and applications within
fluid dynamics, meteorology and high-energy particle physics. This is because
systems theory was primarily concerned with the continuity of dynamic but bounded
systems through patterns of change and development. The various theories of
complexity, however, are concerned with modelling the processes by which order
emerges from apparent disorder and returns to it. So while systems strategists focus
on the life cycle and “health” of social systems, chaos strategists are concerned with
their birth and death. Unsurprisingly then, the most immediate political utility for
chaos theory is as a philosophy of war."
"In order to understand US foreign policy in the 21st Century we should become
familiar with the strategic use of chaos, and with the political role of cultural
narratives of American “exceptionalism”. However, we also need to increase our
scepticism towards outdated assumptions that the defence of American interests – via
adventures in Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly Iran – is even intended to be compatible
with the security and stability of the rest of the world. For, as Mann (1997) suggests,
America’s role in a chaotic world is to defend the “national interest, not international
Posted by: somebody | Sep 13, 2011 5:26:05 AM | 44
Seriously, what next? Nothing, that's what. Exactly nothing....and don't think the CIA doesn't know that.
I unfortunately concur...
“God is dead. Marx is dead. And I don’t feel so well myself.” —Eugène Ionesco
Posted by: Uncle | Sep 13, 2011 5:31:09 AM | 45
"...we should become
familiar with the strategic use of chaos..."
chaos theory is tied in with aumann's game theory
and the whole works can be summed up thusly...
"shit happens, and if you make shit happen, you got the advantage, because you knew it was coming."
Posted by: lead.and.lag | Sep 13, 2011 5:44:08 AM | 46
if you wait until the situation becomes desperate to make shit happen, or if you're defending a bad idea, you're really operating under a different philosophy, long understood and practiced, one that doesnt require game theory, chaos theory, or a bunch of smart kids stuffing crays with garbage, and that theory is..."do something even if it's wrong." .
...which seems to be where we are now.
Posted by: lead.and.lag | Sep 13, 2011 5:52:48 AM | 47
re 48 on Putin.
He's wonderful, isn't he? Every testosterone-linked activity. Except I thought playing the piano was a bit off; doesn't fit.
Reminds me a lot of the Mongol Khans. I once had to read a Persian text about the Mongol Il-Khans in Iran in the 13th century, where the Khan was described as having mastered perfectly every skill from calligraphy to hunting, and was able to give master-classes to the experts in each of these fields.
Things don't change, do they? Especially not when Russia derives so much of its culture from the Tartar hordes.
Posted by: alexno | Sep 14, 2011 1:01:41 PM | 49
My sense from a distance is that Putin is more progressive than Bush or Obama (hard not to be), while Russia is more corrupt and undemocratic than the USA.
I'd be interested in b's views on Mother Russia. Thanks.
Posted by: Watson | Sep 14, 2011 1:52:33 PM | 50
He's wonderful, isn't he? Every testosterone-linked activity. Except I thought playing the piano was a bit off; doesn't fit.."
video of Vladimir Putin playing the piano and singing "Blueberry Hill" - almost Clinton-esque :)
Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 14, 2011 7:11:54 PM | 52
Bill Conroy of Narconews continues his investigation of CIA collusion with Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel. It is noteworthy (though hardly surprising) that this story has, to my knowledge, hardly been mentioned in the "mainstream U.S. media". Senate hearings on the related "Fast and Furious" case may attract greater attention to what would seem to have the potential to be a major scandal, but perhaps it is precisely that potential that guarantees respectful silence.
Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Sep 18, 2011 3:36:59 AM | 56