black holes and gray matter. in one thousand tangos.

             

“Ugh. From Mittens’ insightful analysis last night we now know tumult is everywhere, Pakistan is important, Syria is Iran’s route to the sea, we have never dictated to the world and he wants to get bad guys. Talk about genocide by rhetoric. We learned Obama knows more but wants to get bad guys too, preferably by robots from the sky. Missing: Climate change, kill lists, Palestinians, Europe, Africa, hunger and (focused) female moderators.”

- Abby Zimet
“Barack Obama has succeeded in preserving and even enhancing U.S. influence in this world precisely because he has recognized these new forces at work. He has traveled to the emerging nations and spoken admiringly of their rise. He replaced the old Western club and made the Group of 20 the central decision-making forum for global economic affairs. By emphasizing multilateral organizations, alliance structures and international legitimacy, he got results. It was Chinese and Russian cooperation that produced tougher sanctions against Iran. It was the Arab League’s formal request last year that made Western intervention in Libya uncontroversial.

Mitt, by and large you have ridiculed this approach to foreign policy, arguing that you would instead expand the military, act unilaterally and talk unapologetically. But chest-thumping triumphalism won’t help you secure America’s interests or ideals in a world populated by powerful new players. You can call this new century whatever you like, but it won’t change reality. After all, just because we call it the World Series doesn’t actually make it one.”
Fareed Zakaria: It’s a new world, Mitt
United States as a global power: new world disorder

The Guardian Editorial:

The time has long since past when it became fashionable to talk about a new world order. The collapse of the Soviet Union provided an opportunity to fashion one. But instead of using that opportunity to create a new security architecture in Europe, Nato expanded eastwards as the military anchor for democracy promotion. Not content to have seen off one global military competitor in the Soviet Union, the western military industrial complex and the think-tanks they funded scurried around for a worthy replacement. When 11 September happened, they thought they were in business again. For a brief moment, al-Qaida seemed to fulfil some of the characteristics of communism: it could pop up anywhere in the world; it was an existential enemy, driven ideologically and uncontainable through negotiation; and it was potentially voluminous. Neither the doctrines of the pre-emptive strike, nor attacking a foreign country abroad to ensure security at home, were new. Swap the domino theory of the Vietnam era for the crescent of crisis of the Bush and Obama eras, and you had the same formula for a foe that hopscotched across the globe.

But here’s the curious thing. Al-Qaida failed, not by being bombed out of the tribal areas of Pakistan or by losing its video-hugging leader. It failed as an ideological alternative, in its own terms and for its own people. It failed in Egypt, the country that mattered most to its chief thinker, the Egyptian-born doctor Ayman al-Zawahiri. When the opportunity arose for millions of Muslims to shed their brutal Arab yoke (this was supposed to be the fourth phase in the construction of the Caliphate, to be accompanied by physical attacks against oil suppliers and cyber ones on the US economy), nothing of the sort happened. Islam is indeed winning the day, but it is political rather than military. It seeks alliances with the apostate and says it is committed to democratic partnership and the rule of law. […]

Military overreach and serial economic crises have bequeathed us a generation of small leaders who battle with events that outsize them. They have stopped trying to fashion them, but appeal instead to a defensive desire. Protectionism not internationalism rules the day. The Middle East has been transformed from a zone of allies to one in which Washington has been reduced to the role of spectator. It is now largely a taker of Middle Eastern policy, not one of its makers. There are other parts of the globe where US power projection finds natural allies, such as the Pacific, where China’s rise is feared. So the paradox is that while US military power retains global reach (it is working on supersonic cruise missiles, and long-range drones) its stewardship as world leader, as a generator of the next big idea, is gradually ending. There may come a time when international institutions are rebuilt to fill this vacuum. But that time is not yet. Until then, a new world disorder would be nearer the mark.

The killing of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son

Two weeks after the U.S. killed American citizen Anwar Awlaki with a drone strike in Yemen — far from any battlefield and with no due process — it did the same to his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, ending the teenager’s life on Friday along with his 17-year-old cousin and seven other people. News reports, based on government sources, originally claimed that Awlaki’s son was 21 years old and an Al Qaeda fighter (needless to say, as Terrorist often means: “anyone killed by the U.S.”), but a birth certificate published by The Washington Post proved that he was born only 16 years ago in Denver. As The New Yorker‘s Amy Davidson wrote: “Looking at his birth certificate, one wonders what those assertions say either about the the quality of the government’s evidence — or the honesty of its claims — and about our own capacity for self-deception.” The boy’s grandfather said that he and his cousin were at a barbecue and preparing to eat when the U.S. attacked them by air and ended their lives. […]

— Glenn Greenwald (via: andrewgreene)

“As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region. […]

With Iraq and Afghanistan still in transition and serious economic challenges in our own country, there are those on the American political scene who are calling for us not to reposition, but to come home. They seek a downsizing of our foreign engagement in favor of our pressing domestic priorities. These impulses are understandable, but they are misguided. Those who say that we can no longer afford to engage with the world have it exactly backward — we cannot afford not to. From opening new markets for American businesses to curbing nuclear proliferation to keeping the sea lanes free for commerce and navigation, our work abroad holds the key to our prosperity and security at home. For more than six decades, the United States has resisted the gravitational pull of these “come home” debates and the implicit zero-sum logic of these arguments. We must do so again.

Beyond our borders, people are also wondering about America’s intentions — our willingness to remain engaged and to lead. In Asia, they ask whether we are really there to stay, whether we are likely to be distracted again by events elsewhere, whether we can make — and keep — credible economic and strategic commitments, and whether we can back those commitments with action. The answer is: We can, and we will.”
Hillary Clinton: America’s Pacific Century | Foreign Policy
thenoobyorker: shortformblog: Not what you think: Helen Thomas appearing in Playboy in April: “I knew exactly what I was doing — I was going for broke,” the disgraced Dean of the White House Press Corps says in her first major interview since being fired. (via producermatthew) Follow To quoth Gandhi (from Clone High), “say whaaaaaaat?”I’d really love it if my followers would read this exchange. On the aftermath of her May 27 remarks about Israel: “I went into self-imposed house arrest for two weeks…Every columnist and commentator jumped on me immediately as anti-Semitic.  Nobody asked me to explain myself.  Nobody said, ‘What did you really mean?’” On the situation in Palestine: “Everybody knows my feelings that the Palestinians have been shortchanged in every way.  Sure, the Israelis have a right to exist – but where they were born, not to come and take someone else’s home.  I’ve had it up to here with the violations against the Palestinians…[The Palestinians] are incarcerated and living in an open prison.  I say to the Israelis, ‘Get out of people’s homes!’  It’s unacceptable to have soldiers knocking on a door at three in the morning and saying, ‘This is my home.’  And forcing people out of homes they’ve lived in for centuries?  What is this?  How can anybody accept it?  I mean, Jewish-only roads?  [She later corrected herself to say Israeli-only roads.]  Would anyone tolerate something like that in America?  White-only roads?” On Palestinian violence against the Israelis: “Of course I don’t condone any violence against anyone.  But who wouldn’t fight for their country?  What would any American do if their land was being taken?  Remember Pearl Harbor.  The Palestinian violence is to protect what little remains of Palestine.  The suicide bombers act out of despair and desperation.  Three generations of Palestinians have been forced out of their homes – by Israelis – and into refugee camps.” On American support of Israel: “We keep giving Israel everything.  Our government bribes the Israelis by saying, ‘Please come to the [negotiating] table and we’ll give you this and we’ll give you that’…Why do you have to bribe people to do the right thing?  I don’t want my government bribing anybody.  I want them demanding.  Stop all this aid to Israel when they’re killing people!…Why do they send my American tax dollars to perpetuate it?” On Jews: “I think they’re wonderful people.  They had to have the most depth.  They were leaders in civil rights.  They’ve always had the heart for others but not for Arabs, for some reason.  I’m not anti-Jewish; I’m anti-Zionist.” On Jewish persecution and victimization: “The slaughter of Jews stopped with World War II…They were liberated since then.  And yet they carry on the victimization.  American people do not know that the Israeli lobbyists have intimidated them into believing every Jew is a persecuted victim forever – while they are victimizing Palestinians…Why do they inflict the same pain on people who did nothing to them?” On memorializing the Holocaust: “There’s nothing wrong with remembering it, but why do we have to constantly remember? We’re not at fault.  I mean, if they’re going to put a Holocaust museum in every city in Germany, that’s fine with me.  But we didn’t do this to the Jews.  Why do we have to keep paying the price and why do they keep oppressing the Palestinians?  Do the Jews ever look at themselves?  Why are they always right? Because they have been oppressed throughout history, I know.  And they have this persecution.  That’s true, but they shouldn’t use that to dominate.” On the Jews’ influence and power: “[The Jews are] using their power, and they have power in every direction…Power over the White House, power over Congress…Everybody is in the pocket of the Israeli lobbies, which are funded by wealthy supporters, including those from Hollywood.  Same thing with the financial markets.  There’s total control…It isn’t the two percent.  It’s real power when you own the White House, when you own these other places in terms of your political persuasion.  Of course they have power.  [To the interviewer] You don’t deny that.  You’re Jewish, aren’t you?” On what her obituary will say: “[Eyes suddenly fill with tears] Oh, I know what they’re going to say: ‘anti-Semite’…They don’t give a damn about the truth.  They have to have it their way, and they’ll be writing my obituary…I don’t care what they write about me…Because of what happened recently, people are going to remember me a certain way.  The truth is, I don’t hate anybody.  I care deeply about people.  I care for the poor, the sick, the lame, the harmed, those who’ve been treated unjustly.” You should read what Ralph Nader had to say about this too. A quick blurb on questioning Israel’s legitimacy by Chris Hedges. “…no matter the occasion, no matter the question, no matter the newspaper or TV or radio journalist, every question must first be answered with a few basic points about the military occupation that has been in place for 34 years since 1967. This is the source of violence, this is the source of the main problems, and it is the reason Israel can never have real peace. Our entire political position must be based on ending the occupation and this must take precedence over any and every other consideration. When Erekat or Shaath or Ashrawi or Khatib is asked something, for example, about the Mitchell report or the Powell visit, the answer should always begin, “so long as there is a military occupation of Palestine by Israel, there can never be peace. Occupation with tanks, soldiers, checkpoints and settlements is violence, and it is much greater than anything Palestinians have done by way of resistance.” Something like that. (More here) -Edward Said wrote this in 2001, still relevant?

thenoobyorker:

shortformblog:

Not what you think: Helen Thomas appearing in Playboy in April: “I knew exactly what I was doing — I was going for broke,” the disgraced Dean of the White House Press Corps says in her first major interview since being fired. (via producermatthew) Follow

To quoth Gandhi (from Clone High), “say whaaaaaaat?”

I’d really love it if my followers would read this exchange.

On the aftermath of her May 27 remarks about Israel: “I went into self-imposed house arrest for two weeks…Every columnist and commentator jumped on me immediately as anti-Semitic.  Nobody asked me to explain myself.  Nobody said, ‘What did you really mean?’”

On the situation in Palestine: “Everybody knows my feelings that the Palestinians have been shortchanged in every way.  Sure, the Israelis have a right to exist – but where they were born, not to come and take someone else’s home.  I’ve had it up to here with the violations against the Palestinians…[The Palestinians] are incarcerated and living in an open prison.  I say to the Israelis, ‘Get out of people’s homes!’  It’s unacceptable to have soldiers knocking on a door at three in the morning and saying, ‘This is my home.’  And forcing people out of homes they’ve lived in for centuries?  What is this?  How can anybody accept it?  I mean, Jewish-only roads?  [She later corrected herself to say Israeli-only roads.]  Would anyone tolerate something like that in America?  White-only roads?”

On Palestinian violence against the Israelis: “Of course I don’t condone any violence against anyone.  But who wouldn’t fight for their country?  What would any American do if their land was being taken?  Remember Pearl Harbor.  The Palestinian violence is to protect what little remains of Palestine.  The suicide bombers act out of despair and desperation.  Three generations of Palestinians have been forced out of their homes – by Israelis – and into refugee camps.”

On American support of Israel: “We keep giving Israel everything.  Our government bribes the Israelis by saying, ‘Please come to the [negotiating] table and we’ll give you this and we’ll give you that’…Why do you have to bribe people to do the right thing?  I don’t want my government bribing anybody.  I want them demanding.  Stop all this aid to Israel when they’re killing people!…Why do they send my American tax dollars to perpetuate it?”

On Jews: “I think they’re wonderful people.  They had to have the most depth.  They were leaders in civil rights.  They’ve always had the heart for others but not for Arabs, for some reason.  I’m not anti-Jewish; I’m anti-Zionist.”

On Jewish persecution and victimization: “The slaughter of Jews stopped with World War II…They were liberated since then.  And yet they carry on the victimization.  American people do not know that the Israeli lobbyists have intimidated them into believing every Jew is a persecuted victim forever – while they are victimizing Palestinians…Why do they inflict the same pain on people who did nothing to them?”

On memorializing the Holocaust: “There’s nothing wrong with remembering it, but why do we have to constantly remember? We’re not at fault.  I mean, if they’re going to put a Holocaust museum in every city in Germany, that’s fine with me.  But we didn’t do this to the Jews.  Why do we have to keep paying the price and why do they keep oppressing the Palestinians?  Do the Jews ever look at themselves?  Why are they always right? Because they have been oppressed throughout history, I know.  And they have this persecution.  That’s true, but they shouldn’t use that to dominate.”

On the Jews’ influence and power: “[The Jews are] using their power, and they have power in every direction…Power over the White House, power over Congress…Everybody is in the pocket of the Israeli lobbies, which are funded by wealthy supporters, including those from Hollywood.  Same thing with the financial markets.  There’s total control…It isn’t the two percent.  It’s real power when you own the White House, when you own these other places in terms of your political persuasion.  Of course they have power.  [To the interviewer] You don’t deny that.  You’re Jewish, aren’t you?”

On what her obituary will say: “[Eyes suddenly fill with tears] Oh, I know what they’re going to say: ‘anti-Semite’…They don’t give a damn about the truth.  They have to have it their way, and they’ll be writing my obituary…I don’t care what they write about me…Because of what happened recently, people are going to remember me a certain way.  The truth is, I don’t hate anybody.  I care deeply about people.  I care for the poor, the sick, the lame, the harmed, those who’ve been treated unjustly.”

You should read what Ralph Nader had to say about this too.

A quick blurb on questioning Israel’s legitimacy by Chris Hedges.

“…no matter the occasion, no matter the question, no matter the newspaper or TV or radio journalist, every question must first be answered with a few basic points about the military occupation that has been in place for 34 years since 1967. This is the source of violence, this is the source of the main problems, and it is the reason Israel can never have real peace. Our entire political position must be based on ending the occupation and this must take precedence over any and every other consideration. When Erekat or Shaath or Ashrawi or Khatib is asked something, for example, about the Mitchell report or the Powell visit, the answer should always begin, “so long as there is a military occupation of Palestine by Israel, there can never be peace. Occupation with tanks, soldiers, checkpoints and settlements is violence, and it is much greater than anything Palestinians have done by way of resistance.” Something like that. (More here)

-Edward Said wrote this in 2001, still relevant?

Guardian: US embassy cables leak sparks global diplomacy crisis

The US was catapulted into a worldwide diplomatic crisis today, with the leaking to the Guardian and other international media of more than 250,000 classified cables from its embassies, many sent as recently as February this year. At the start of a series of daily extracts from the US embassy cables - many of which are designated “secret” – the Guardian can disclose that Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran and that US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN’s leadership.

Among scores of other disclosures that are likely to cause uproar, the cables detail:

• Grave fears in Washington and London over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme.

• Alleged links between the Russian government and organized crime.

• Devastating criticism of the UK’s military operations in Afghanistan.

• Claims of inappropriate behaviour by a member of the British royal family.

The cables published today also reveal how the US uses its embassies as part of a global espionage network, with diplomats tasked to obtain not just information from the people they meet, but personal details, such as frequent flyer numbers, credit card details and even DNA material.

The electronic archive of embassy dispatches from around the world was allegedly downloaded by a US soldier earlier this year and passed to WikiLeaks. Assange made them available to the Guardian and four other newspapers: the New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El País. All five plan to publish extracts from the most significant cables, but have decided neither to “dump” the entire dataset into the public domain, nor to publish names that would endanger innocent individuals. WikiLeaks says that, contrary to the state department’s fears, it also initially intends to post only limited cable extracts, and to redact identities.

On 11/16 Havana will celebrate its 490th anniversary, being founded by the Spanish in 1519. It is home to nearly 4 million people - 20% of the entire population of Cuba, and the seat of the faltering state-run economy. The 50-year-old trade embargo imposed by the United States, a practice recently condemned (again) by the United Nations 187-3, still stands. (via Big Picture)

On 11/16 Havana will celebrate its 490th anniversary, being founded by the Spanish in 1519. It is home to nearly 4 million people - 20% of the entire population of Cuba, and the seat of the faltering state-run economy. The 50-year-old trade embargo imposed by the United States, a practice recently condemned (again) by the United Nations 187-3, still stands. (via Big Picture)

Nidal Hasan

It looks increasingly as if he snapped at the thought of participating in a war he might have seen as anti-Islam. This, if borne out, is grim news:

“He was making outlandish comments condemning our foreign policy and claimed Muslims had the right to rise up and attack Americans,” Col Lee told Fox News. “He said Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place.” He said that Maj Hasan said he was “happy” when a US soldier was killed in an attack on a military recruitment center in Arkansas in June.

An American convert to Islam was accused of the shootings. Col Lee alleged that other officers had told him that Maj Hasan had said “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Time Square” in New York. He claimed he was aware that the major had been subject to “name calling” during heated arguments with other officers.

It’s therefore hard to see any silver lining here. It’s a tragic massacre in the first place. It will doubtless increase suspicion of Muslim service members, which in turn propels more religious polarization, which makes winning this war harder still. You can instantly see how a war on American Muslims can get jump-started in America.

The danger of this war on terror, it turns out, is that it not only collapses when it hits the ground in Muslim countries - as the sheer impossibility of using force to control Islamism in Iraq and Afghanistan reveals itself - but that its religious nature can divide the West as well, rendering a minority suspect and further undermining the chances of a multi-faith democracy successfully fighting a religious war without succumbing to more primal identities. Every which way, Osama wins. - Andrew Sullivan

©2011 Kateoplis