More best intentions (with bonus: Obama offers change!)

The US just went out of its way yet again to demonstrate that it only has the best intentions toward the Palestinians:

...the [UN Security] Council failed to adopt a draft presidential statement calling for Israel "to ensure unhindered access for humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people and to open the border crossings to facilitate the passage of exports and imports to the Gaza Strip."

Why? Because it was not acceptable to the U.S. delegation, a diplomat present at the meeting told IPS. The U.S. rejected the first draft statement because it did not cover Israeli concerns about rocket fire by Palestinian militants into its territory.

But with the law of unintended consequences being what it is, I don't doubt that the Palestinians will misread this gesture as well.  What will it take for them to finally accept the sincerity of our good intentions toward them?  Not only do we love them, we love them to death, and still they misunderstand us!

Here's ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad explaining why the US blocked the resolution:

U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told the Council that Washington was equally concerned about the situation in Gaza and that the U.S. would continue to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. But at the same time, he fully supported the Israeli view that it was the Palestinian militants who are responsible for the misery of their people.

"We believe the current situation is a direct result of Hamas's policies and actions," he said, adding that the United States "condemns in the strongest terms the ongoing firing of rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel by terror groups."

And here's Barack Obama taking time out of his busy campaign schedule to write to Khalilzad, urging him to reject any resolution that wasn't properly constructed to lay the blame where it belongs:

"All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families," wrote Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, in his letter to Khalilzad. "However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this. Gaza is governed by Hamas, which is a terrorist organization sworn to Israel's destruction, and Israeli civilians are being bombarded on an almost daily basis."

Thank goodness we have a candidate for change!

(In related news, Obama wrote letters to George Bush, suggesting that he embrace corporate tax cuts; to Alan Dershowitz, urging him to support Israel; and to Rob Schneider, encouraging him to make more crappy movies.)

Comments

[Save the Oocytes]

I wrote a letter to Obama, asking him to not give up producing platitudes, and a letter to the president, asking him to keep killing Muslims. I hope they listen!

[SteveB]

I wonder how far Obama is willing to go with this collective punishment idea. Obviously, denying Palestinians access to food and medicine isn't intended to directly prevent the missile attacks (unless Obama lives in a magical world in which missiles are constructed of pita bread and fueled by aspirin). So the only "strategy" here is to inflict enough pain on the Palestinians to cause them to rethink their support of Hamas.

But if it's really about bringing the pain to people who aren't attacking Israel, in the hope they'll turn on the guys who are attacking Israel, then why stop with cutting off food? Why not give them food, but put poison in it? Too extreme? Okay, how about putting something in the food that gives them really, really bad stomachaches? I mean, they have to be shown there's a cost for their "support" of terrorists, right?

And can anyone think of a historical example where a "strategy" of this sort actually worked? Where it didn't cause people to rally around exactly the leadership we don't want them to support? Did the blitz cause Londoners to turn against Churchill, did 9/11 cause Americans to turn against Bush?

But sometimes I forget, they're not like us.

[John Caruso]

I only ask to be able to visit the magical world where missiles are constructed of pita bread and fueled by aspirin. (You're at ground zero in a strike, and what's the worst that happens? You may end up dangerously full...but on the plus side, your headache is gone.)

As for examples of where this type of strategy has worked, I'd say that yes, there are (unfortunately) quite a few. The best recent example for Americans would probably be Nicaragua—but US-backed terror throughout Latin America was very effective in smashing popular movements. People may not turn against their leaders outright, but they will give up on them and they'll moderate their goals and hopes and desires more generally, because they know that if they don't their children will be tortured, their wives and daughters will be raped, their friends will be mutilated and murdered.

As I've said before, though, one of the things that makes me hopeful is seeing these dormant aspirations coming back to life again throughout Latin America. Violence (and the threat of violence) does often work, especially in the short term, but it needs constant reapplication—and the human spirit is amazingly resilient against even the worst of it.

[SteveB]

To be fair to Obama, I have heard that mad scientists affiliated with Hamas have progressed from simple vinegar and baking soda rockets to more powerful models, fueled by Mentos and Coca-Cola.

And sure, I'll admit Nicaragua might be a counterexample, although you would also have to factor in Daniel Ortega's molestation of his stepdaughter, and the way in which Sandinista leaders betrayed the revolution, using it as an opportunity to accumulate wealth and power for themselves, to explain why they were rejected by Nicaraguan voters.

I don't think Latin America generally is a counterexample, though. What you had in Latin America was a class war, where local elites, supported by the US, brutally suppress popular resistance. For this to work, the country needs to be divided (and having extreme inequalities of wealth is important here) so the US can simply weigh in on one side, mostly in a covert way. The US and Israel are following a strategy like this in Palestine, in propping up Abbas and other Palestinian elites in a effort to get them to sell out their own people (what Newsweek generously described as Bush's "West Bank first" strategy.)

But, for this strategy to work, there need to be class divisions to be exploited and local elites willing to be coopted. When those opportunities don't exist (Cuba, Gaza, Iran) the US falls back on an "outside pressure" strategy that's isn't at all effective.

Violence does work, of course, but bringing "pressure" on a civilian population to get them to repudiate a leadership that they themselves elected doesn't.

[John Caruso]

Not repudiate in their hearts, maybe. But in 1990 the Nicaraguan people did in fact repudiate the leadership they themselves had elected, thanks in large part to years of US-backed violence and threats of more of the same if they made the wrong decision (Ortega's stepdaughter didn't accuse him until 1998).

I don't see that a class division contradicts the effectiveness of violence in a given example—it's just one possible scenario, and one of the easier levers to manipulate. Another is tribal or ethnic divisions. The general strategy is the same; it's just a matter of how you implement it.

The Palestinians are lucky in that the Israelis operate under constraints that prevent them from going to Latin American extremes of violence. But whether the current Israeli/US strategy is working or not isn't so black and white. By backing Abbas and encouraging a civil war (successfully, though it's been limited so far), Israel and the US have fractured the Palestinian resistance, making it less effective in fighting the real enemy. And that's taken a toll in terms of the public's regard as well; these internecine killings don't make Hamas more popular.

Anyway, in rereading what you wrote I think I took your point beyond where you'd intended it. I'd agree that in and of itself, siege warfare of the kind that's being used in Gaza will tend to increase the popularity of the government, not decrease it. It's a strategy that 's more likely to be effective in combination with other tactics.

[SteveB]

Well, our ruling class works from a very limited playbook. Plan A is always to find some local elites who can be corrupted to do our bidding. This almost always works, and it's the preferred option because it's cheaper than the others (even when you factor in the cost of the bribes) and it puts a "brown" face on imperialism, and makes US manipulation look like "internal squabbling" by those uncivilized folk we're trying to "help".

When that doesn't work, Plan B is the one Israel is following now, and the one the US has followed for years with Cuba. This almost never works (I'll accept your argument with respect to Nicaragua). But they do it anyway, I suppose because even if it has no effect on the country in question, it sets a useful example to other countries who might be thinking about defying us in the future.

Plan C is direct invasion. This is a last resort, because it's expensive, and doesn't have a good track record either (most recently, it worked in Grenada and Panama, failed in Vietnam, and is in the process of failing in Iraq).

And that's about it. Modern American imperialism is really as simple as A,B,C.

[roy belmont]

"Works" is operative only in so far as it's given a legitimate definition, through more than just the testimony of the actors themselves. Stated goals versus more genuine, less conscious even. Political expedience versus sublimated desire. All those zippy slogans and scrolled nominatives under the news anchors' cosmetic shine as neurotic noise, diversion.
The real goals for the invasion of Iraq were never stated accurately and clearly, so the debate couldn't happen accurately, and it didn't.
The "goals" of sado-masochistic bondage and discipline aren't as simple and obvious as the images on porn sites make them seem. Creating suffering in the other can be an end itself, when it can't be countered by the victim it's an expression of dominance. The pathology masks itself, reveals itself, hides, boldly exerts its will, hides, assumes the costume of normality, asserts its own violated innocence. What it wants is healing, what it creates is the chaotic nest of its own brokenness.
The walls of Krakow and countless other ghettos transplanted, brought forward and under the authority of the ghettoized, the boot in the neck from Cossack and Christian on the other foot now ha-ha. The heartlessness of racist bigotry and the extortive slammed-against disdain and refusal, exigencies of survival used as binding rope and whip to the back. Exile to who-cares-where-you-go just get out.
So much of Israeli intrigue involves disguised self-wounding and suicidal catharsis, personalities stuck in the buzzing discharge of polarized self-hatred and guiltless outrage.
The violated put on a kind of costume of healing in assuming the postures of violation, as if the only way forward was to descend. The unquestionable moral authorization of the wound maintained by no one having the right to question it who isn't wounded and thus caught up in the dynamic.
This is clinical, textbook, obvious. It doesn't "work", though. It doesn't heal, doesn't change anything central, it shuffles the symptoms around, projects them, but if anything it deepens the pathology. The source of wounded gratification and that psychic stench that emanates from the sadistic vengeful.
To debate the ethics of the violence against them we need to view the resultant suffering of Palestinians as itself one primary goal of Israeli action. Just as the dysfunctional present of Iraq, its decimated economic and military, were actual goals of the invasion and occupation though never spoken of, never made clear enough to become accusatory.
It "worked" that way, and it was immune to criticism for that reason, because its goals were never acknowledged.

[John Caruso]

Steve: I think we're not using the same definition of "works". If the point is just that siege tactics like the ones Israel is applying now in Gaza don't in and of themselves make people turn immediately against their popularly-elected government, I'd say that's generally true—but also not very meaningful, because it excludes success in many other forms. For instance, would Hamas win again in future elections? You can bet that Palestinians will think twice about voting for them, now that they've experienced the consequences directly. And as you say, there's a demonstration effect for other people as well—and that's often not just a side benefit but a primary goal (as in the case of Cuba).

And I wouldn't say that Vietnam was a failure, and I don't see that Iraq is failing either. Maximal military goals may not be achieved in Iraq, but the overall goal of establishing effective US control over the country's resources and a long-term presence in the region are going pretty well.

Roy: Your comment came in while I was typing this one, but yeah, that's what I'm getting at. The definition of "works" matters a lot here, and it's most definitely not either/or. Out of many goals, some will be 100% achieved, others 80%, others 20%, and some not at all.

[SteveB]

I don't buy the argument that Iraq is going according to "plan" and that the chaos and destruction there was the Bush administration's actual, secret intention.

I don't say this because I have a high opinion of Bush, obviously, but because I think they really did want to use Iraq as a neoliberal model for the rest of the world. Bremer's initial orders to privatize all government services and sell off all state-owned industries, to end all state subsidies for food and fuel, etc. were straight out of the standard IMF/World Bank playbook. They wanted this stuff to work, so they could use Iraq to rebuild support for a neoliberal model that is currently being repudiated in Latin America and elsewhere.

Furthermore, the neocons have all been very clear that they saw Iraq as only a first step. With Iraq under their belt, they wanted to go on to Syria and Iran. Now, all those plans are in ruins, thanks mostly to the heroic resistance of the Iraqi people.

And that's what I find most objectionable about the claim that Bush "wanted" it to turn out this way. It discounts the resistance to the occupation, against overwhelming odds, and the way it has fought the world's only superpower to a standstill.

Usually, when i raise this point I'm accused of naivete, but I'm a (Jonathan) Schwarzian on these questions: these fuckers really do believe what they say.

Will the US be able to salvage something from the mess? I suppose so, since the ruling class always has it's Plan B, Plan C, etc, at the ready. The continued violence does help to "justify" some continued presence for US forces. But I don't think a few beseiged "permanent" military bases in the desert were what the Bush administration had in mind initially, and it's very, very far from what they expected to get out of the war.

Also, I don't think I understand what you mean by "effective US control over the country's resources." In what sense does the US "control" Iraqi oil? If anyone can lay claim to having their hand on the spigot, it's the Iraqi resistance, who can shut down the pipelines any time they want.

[John Caruso]

Steve: It sounds like some of what you're responding to is what Roy said and some is what I said, so it's difficult to reply. I was mainly agreeing with his first paragraph. In case it's not clear, I don't think that chaos and destruction were goals (though a massive show of force certainly was). And I also don't think Bush "wanted" it to turn out this way, of course.

My main point (which is getting worn out from repetition) is: success isn't black or white, either/or, 100% or 0%. There were many goals in invading Iraq—original goals, revised goals, incidental goals, etc, etc—and they've had varying degrees of success, and in many cases we don't know yet how they'll fare in the long term. I'd agree that the goal of turning Iraq into a neoliberal showcase has gone awry (mainly because they pushed it too far and too fast), though it'll be a while before we know which elements of it have failed and which have worked. Same with the oil; I didn't say the US controlled it, but the goal of effective control is still very much in play. It's just like the "war" itself; Bush wanted to claim victory a month and a half after he first attacked, but that was wildly premature. If in ten years the Iraqis have nationalized all the oil fields, that goal will have failed, but if US oil corporations still have a large stake (and the US has influence over the Iraqi government) it will have succeeded.

And I'd say a permanent military staging presence in the heart of the Middle East was a major goal, not just a consolation prize. Look at how long the US kept a presence in Saudi Arabia despite the cost. This is a permanent US goal, from Kosovo to Iraq, and if it succeeds it'll be a major victory.

I agree with your point about the Iraqi resistance, BTW (and I don't see anything naive about it).

Going back to Palestine: is the Israeli strategy working? If you think the purpose is just to topple Hamas, then no—but I'd say that's little more than a sideshow. The main goal has never changed, and it's going on unabated in the West Bank. I'd say the focus on Gaza (and Hamas) has helped that goal, by pulling the world's attention away (how much have we heard about the Wall lately?). It's also allowed Israel to ramp up the war on Hamas in a major way without drawing much international condemnation (I'm speaking here about the uptick in Israeli missile attacks and assassinations over the past few weeks). Overall I'd say Israel's strategy with the Palestinians has been and continues to be very successful.

[Donald Johnson]

Plan A in Iraq, was, I think, the neoliberal paradise that SteveB described. Since that didn't work out, they went to PlanB, which involves a lot of killing.

Chomsky has made this point a few times--if the US can't win, it decides to make the victors suffer. Or rather, the ordinary people have to suffer. This happened in Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, Angola and obviously in the Gaza Strip. The mainstream consensus on this splits slightly on the level of suffering we are allowed to inflict--evidently the NYT editorial board feels that the Gazans are suffering a little too much or too prominently, so they've gotten squeamish, but otherwise they're fine with the general principle.

[roy belmont]

"the argument that Iraq is going according to 'plan' and that the chaos and destruction there was the Bush administration's actual, secret intention."
Not my argument.
Using the word "plan", as opposed to "goal", makes it sound too specific, as though everything that's happening in Iraq was thought out ahead of time. As opposed to the general idea of a broken and unfixable state being a main goal, with control of the major pipelines out of Iraq and permanent military bases in key areas right alongside. There's oil under Iraq for sure, but keep in mind the first Iraq pipeline to be opened after the invasion went directly northwest.
I do believe the primary goal was to destroy Iraq as an independent political entity in the Middle East, though I don't believe that goal was formed and implemented by George Bush, nor even Dick Cheney acting through George Bush. Nonetheless, Bush and Cheney are type-O, for oil, energy vampires. They certainly didn't get in the way of the Death-to-Iraq steamroller when it started rolling.
More than one goal is what I see there, different draws for different players. Dig a little and find one set of values and plans, dig a little deeper and find others. They don't all conflict, but only a timid mind would see this as as simple as "GWBush wanted to invade and did but failed to accomplish his true mission, a democratic and pro-American oil colony in the Middle East."
In that light the catharsis of seeing Bush head back to Texas comes cheap and shallow.
People have quickly forgotten that during Gulf War One Iraq threw missiles into Israel. This is practically ignored as an historical tangent, a triviality, but I think it's central.
Saying anything about the "Bush Administration's actual...intention" implies a clear picture of what that "Administration" is exactly. I'm not sure very many people have an accurate working definition of what's really there. Feith Perle Wolfowitz - they're not seen as the hands inside the socks but as Rosencranz and Guildenstern to Bush's Hamlet. Rumsfeld's gone, Bremer's gone, Gonzales. Negroponte flutters his batlike wings somewhere in the shadows offstage. Bush looks more and more like Mickey Mouse in Disney's The Sorceror's Apprentice. Cute, cheerful, apocalyptically incompetent.
This makes it possible for Hilary Clinton to be perceived and received as an agent of vital change, when in reality she looks to promise nothing but more of the same. The pea is not under that particular walnut shell.
The real architects of the Iraq invasion are shadowy gray, nebulous, peripheral, and remain publicly unaccountable for what they've done. The illusion is that when Bush leaves that murk and intrigue will leave with him. All that is is a comforting illusion.
"these fuckers really do believe what they say"
The single most important thing "they" have said since 9-11 changed everything, was:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
What that ghostly voice meant by "we" and by "you" in that chilling set of phrases is crucial to any real analysis of what happened in Iraq, and to any forecasts of what will happen next.
I guarantee you he wasn't talking about something as temporary and shallow as the current Bush Administration when he said, "We're an empire now."

[PJD]

Any you should know that CommonDreams is aggressively censoring any remarks regarding the infamous Obama pro-Gaza siege letter. I have been contributing to their news story comments since they started that utility with little problems, but now, I think I have been kicked entirely of the site.

Apparently CD has jumped on the Obama bandwagon and will brook no dissent. The vile pettyness of these actions is breathtaking.

John, feel free to contact me byu e-mail regarding this censorship problem.

[John Caruso]

PJD: Do you have an example? It's not that I don't believe you—I know as well as anyone what they're capable of—but I do still see your posting of the Obama letter on their site (i.e. the full text here...and I also see someone mentioning it here).

I do notice a definite anti-Hillary/pro-Obama tinge to their stories.