Rebellion Without Truth

 Where is the love

You said you'd give to me

Soon as you were free

Will it ever be

--Where is the Love,

Robert Flack

No one knows what it's like

To be the bad man

To be the sad man

--Behind Blue Eyes, The Who

Rebellion without truth is like spring in a bleak, arid desert

--Khalil Gibran

Nuclear arms in the Middle East

Israel is attacking the Iraqis

The Syrians are mad at the Lebanese

And Baghdad do whatever she please

Looks like another threat to world peace

For the envoy

--The Envoy, Warren Zevon

_____________________

Ever avant-garde in simple matters, Ranger questioned the wisdom of hopping on the bandwagon of manufactured joy surrounding the so-called Arab Spring way back when it first sprung.

He asked in his April Fool's Day post (Reverse English) if the U.S. largesse in the form of 200 Abrams M1 main battle tanks to then- Egyptian President Morsi was such a great idea. Now we know the Egyptian military used those fine examples of speed, shock and firepower to depose the now so-yesterday Mr. Morsi.  We enabled the military to execute a coup versus a democratically-elected leader, leading us to say there is some element of hypocrisy or failure or both in that action.

We at RAW ask, as always, "Where is the rationale in such an action -- did the gift increase or decrease the chance for peace in the region? Did the weapons increase the ability of Egypt to develop into a democracy?" Leaders in erupting nations are likely to be given the old heave-ho overnight, so why encourage malcontents (i.e., most of the animated population) to vie for control over such goodies?

Must the United States always play the dupe, sending materiel goodies down the chute to the merest facsimile of a leader? Yet now we stand before Syria wringing our hands over the same question. Most "sensible people" seem to be saying, "Just send a little", as though somehow tossing some candy into the ring will allow the best man to emerge victorious. We have heard it all before: Assad (substitute your leader of choice) is a baaad man. We don't like bad men (we wear the White Hat, after all), so he just has to go.

Or do we just support everyone and hang our hats on hope and change?

Never mind that the nation over which he rules might be chock full of bad men in defilade, patiently awaiting their turn in the spotlight. We can only do what we can do, which is throwing some of the products of lucrative military contracts at a problem. Hard ware just compounds the problem.

One definition of insanity is repeating the same action in a similar situation yet expecting a different outcome. "Oh, but Saddam and Assad are different men," those on the supply-side claim. No -- they are all wolves in sheep's clothing ... but we do love us some lambs, no ... the meek, and all that?

At the risk of stating the obvious, tanks are offensive weapons for warfare, and are not designed for police functions like breaking up crowds, so why would we supply them to (Egypt / Libya / Iraq / Afghanistan)? Not only is the gift to a supposedly burgeoning democracy misguided, but they cost a fair bit, money that a nation under sequestration can ill-afford to fritter away. What does the U.S. gain from attempting prop up these corrupt regimes?

When our own nation teeters on the brink of insolvency, we cannot afford to play these games.

Bad Dogs

--Arend van Dam 

what have we to do
but stand with empty hands and palms turned upwards
In an age which advances progressively backwards? 
--The Rock, T.S. Eliot

As I feel the world watching I try not to care. 
My deepest emotions are best left unsaid. 
Let others show grief like a garment they wear, 
but the loss that I feel will not leave my head. 
--Guard of Honour, Paul Hansford

And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We're captive on the carousel of time
We can't return, we can only look behind 
--The Circle Game, Joni Mitchell

______________________

Do we lack the good sense that even a small puppy possesses?

Witness the behavior of the United States vis-a-vis its Middle East fellow democracy, Israel, and her new missile defense system dubbed Iron Dome.  This system, paid for in large part by U.S. tax dollars, is reminiscent of President Reagan's proposed Star Wars defensive strategy except it will shoot down tactical rockets and missiles.  It appears to be a theatre-oriented customization of the Patriot missile system.

The first interesting aspect of the system is the asymmetry of the outlay.  Israel recently spent $25-35 million to shoot down 1,500 cheap and unsophisticated rockets fired upon them from Gaza.  When does such a defense outlay become infeasible for a small nation?

Second, since the rockets are fired from the Gaza strip it is a good bet they were smuggled in from Egypt, another friend of the U.S., with the full support of the new Egyptian government. The same Egyptian government that receives $1.5 Billion in U.S. foreign aid each year -- the government which will soon receive 200 U.S. M1 tanks, the most advanced main battle tank in the world.  Like Israel, Egypt is a country armed and equipped by the U.S.

So here is the deadly do-si-do the U.S. brokers:

• We equip the Egyptians

• The Egyptians equip Hamas in Gaza

• Hamas fires their Egyptian-obtained rockets at Israel (as Hamas & Egypt share a brotherhood of hatred towards Israel)

• The U.S. funds Israeli missile systems so that Israel may counter the Hamas missile threat

How long can our leaders facilitate this absurd spectacle and have us believe it is a logical foreign policy?  What does the U.S. achieve by implementing such a Kafaka-esque foreign policy?  How do the U.S. citizens benefit by our government playing both sides against the middle?

When will we ever learn?

Stirring the Pot

Is you is, or is you ain't my baby?
Won't you tell me please, I gotta know
--Is You Is, or Is You Ain't My Baby?
--Billy Austin

Hey, you, get off of my cloud
Don't hang around 'cause two's a crowd
on my cloud, baby
--Get Off of My Cloud, Rolling Stones

If you don't know where you're going,
any road'll do
--English saying
____________________

The games the politicians play are disconnected from the results of their policies, which are always strapped to the backs of the citizens, trusty mules we are. If they would only lead, versus politick.

Would anyone 60 years ago have imagined the Fantasyland that government policies have wrought? Does it matter that we won a Cold War when we are now devolving into Iron Curtain status ourselves?

Does it matter that Afghanistan and Iraq are free and democratic (sort of?) Did it really matter if Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)? Does it really matter that there is an al-Qaeda hostile to America? Do we realize that our own policies are hostile, and that WE export violence?

Do we realize that our Department of Defense policies add to the drain of dollars from our domestic lives? Our military policies adversely affect our economy and our people, and to what benefit? And to what detriment?

Now the U.S. has gone from assuming the onus of "protecting" rebels to supplying said rebels in Libya so that they may take out the sovereign leader of their nation. Iraqi and Afghani rebels: BAD; Libyan rebels: GOOD. Why are we meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations? Who was President Obama to tell Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek to step down? Our President is not president of the world.

Do we know what Democracy is about anymore, or are we are just deluding ourselves? If the reason for going into Libya is to protect the "innocent" civilians who are anti- Gaddafi from his brutal army and secret police, why are we not doing the same to Iran, Syria or any of the other states that are oppressing their peoples? The U.S. never lifted a finger to protect the protesters in Iran or Syria, so why Libya. Seems one rule for some and another for others.

Our venture into Libya will only incur the wrath of Gaddafi's supporters and help al-Qaeda consolidate power. It's a lose-lose scenario. Despite the exhortations of John Kerry and crew, air intervention in Libya is military intervention and arming the rebels is foolhardy and short-sighted. How many times has the U.S. armed the rebels only to see them become our eventual enemies? The unasked question is, if we arm the rebels now, at conflict's end will we be able to disarm them?

Why has the U.S. betrayed it's neutral hand and not simply urged Tunisia, Egypt and Libya toward a peaceful and bloodless outcome? When did we become instigators rather than negotiators for a regime change.

The U.S. has lost it's way, and the clarion calls to 9-11 grow fainter by the day.

--Lisa and Jim

Qua Daffy

[People] don't want to be trapped
into a condition that the level of support
for war is equated with patriotism
--Dennis Kucinich

I will let you down
I will make you hurt
--Hurt, Nine Inch nails

I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair share of abuse
Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration
If we don't we're gonna blow a 50-amp fuse"
--You Can't Always Get What You Want,
The Rolling Stones
__________________

One factoid is noticeably missing from news reports of recent happening in the Middle East, yet it is instrumental in understanding the flow of events. It is simply this: The majority of the Middle East is batshit crazy, and we fail when we cast the disruptive events as an inexorable march toward democracy. Maybe not!

Let us begin with Muammar Qaddafy, Libya's long-time leader. Muammar has never been sane, yet we have recently concluded that Brother Colonel must go. However, the reality we are ignoring is that the Libyans have embraced his brand of crazy for the last 42 years. He did not turn batshit crazy yesterday, so why is everyone noting this rather egregious and obvious fact now? Ditto Egypt.

For some historical perspective, when the Russian Czar fired on the crowds in the early 1900's, the crowds had legitimate concerns that were democratic in nature. While the czarist stance was autocratic and conservative, was it ultimately beneficial to have the monarchy overthrown? This action put Russia into a crisis mode which still has not been satisfactorily resolved.

There are numerous interpretations to all historical events. The U.S. sent the Wolfhound Regiment (27th Infantry) to fight the Bolsheviks, indicating that democracy (or eliminating a monarchy) was not a strategic interest of the U.S. in 1918. Democracy is not always a desirable US export if it engenders destabilization of a region.

The Russian Revolution may share some commonalities with the (possible) ones in Egypt and Libya. Still, does the revolutionary impulse arise from within the population, or is it the result of outsider agitation? The concept of such outside parachustists is a theme central in unconventional and guerrilla warfare (UW/GW), and Qaddafy may be correct in his assertions that the people's restiveness has been stoked by outsiders interested in destabilizing the region further (thank you, United States).

And who shall benefit? Batshit crazy Iran (but to paraphrase Condoleeza Rice in the wake of the 9-11-01 attacks -- who could have known?). Does this credulousness irk anyone else out there?

One can imagine a mob to represent an impulse to democracy, but what if it is not? Is change always positive?

The reason we tolerate the Qadaffis and Mubareks of the world is because we never know if his successor will be worse. The U.S. is so pumped up with HOPE and CHANGE that we ignore the ugly realities on the ground. Such gullibilty is to our detriment. The Tunisian fruit vendor's offense is their Rosa Parks moment but as we all know, Ms. Parks was a contrived mascot, for the true work of the Civil Rights movement was borne by countless behind-the-scenes agitators, lawyers and organizers.

A cell phone photo of a riot does not equate to positive change, and the guy taking the shot is as crazy as the dude he may be trying to depose.

Facebook the Nation

--Camel Jockeys, Petar Pismestrovic

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule,
where fifty-one percent of the people
may take away the rights of the other forty-nine
--Thomas Jefferson
___________________

Watching U.S. policy floundering in the Middle East is like watching the obsessive-compulsive t.v. character Monk walking a sidewalk.

He knows there are cracks, but he assiduously avoids stepping on them, his arduous crack-avoiding walk allowing him to maintain a measure of equanimity. He would deny that he's making any accommodation for something that is driving him mad -- he would deny even seeing the cracks -- and so it is with U.S. foreign policy. The fictional Monk is OCD, but how do we diagnose U.S. policy, one as bizarre as Mr. Monk's strange denial and sidesteps?

Our leaders have been all atwitter about the upswell of mob action in Egypt, elevating mobocracy to democracy. This ignores the reality that mob rule should not / cannot be tolerated by any government, democratic, autocratic or otherwise. The U.S. has never tolerated mob rule, nor should we.

The streets of Washington were planned with crowd control in mind. The School of the Americas at Ft. Benning taught crowd control as a basic element of foreign Army training. U.S. mobile training teams worldwide taught the host nation forces how to control crowds. Here in the States, elite Airborne Infantry units have performed domestic crowd control, and the National Guard is well-versed in the topic.

So . . . why is the U.S. so optimistic about riots and mobs in the streets of Cairo? Further, was Obama's 2009 Hope - Change Cairo speech the match to this tinderbox (Dictators and Hedgehogs)? We are inconsistent: The U.S. heralds mobs in one place yet quashes them in another, forcing the residents to accept rulers they do not want.

How can the U.S. disingenuously press on with its counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan in the face of such hypocrisy? It spends trillions of dollars forcing people not to be insurgent, while sitting back on its haunches calling mobs elsewhere constellations of freedom fighting? Furthermore, isn't a mob a form of Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC)?

Will we allow Sadrist mobs to control Baghdad? No, so why can mobs overthrow a regime in Cairo but not in Baghdad? If U.S. policy is to empower mobs, then COIN should be abandoned as dead-in-the-water.

We need to think versus reacting in a Pollyannaish, vacuous Katie Couric moment. We do not know where Egypt will end up, nor do we know if the results will be constructive or democratic. Additionally, we do not know if democracy in Egypt will benefit the U.S. On the pragmatic side: What leader will cast his lot in with us when he knows he will be tossed to the wolves after he has done our bidding for 30 years?

One thing is certain: Democracy does not prosper in mobs.

[Cross-posted @ milpub]

Indian Giver

___________________

Talk amongst yourselves . . .

[cross-posted @ milpub]

Haze of Rhetoric

We are more often frightened than hurt;
and we suffer more from imagination
than from reality
--Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Fine sounding phrases,
hiding hollow arguments
--Hendrik Van Loon

Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are cutting us down.
Should have been done long ago
--Ohio, C,S,N & Y

All the Japanese with their yen
The party boys call the Kremlin
And the Chinese know (oh whey oh)
They walk the line like Egyptian
--Walk Like an Egyptian, the Bangles
____________________

Ranger Question of the Day (RQOD):
Would U.S. police allow demonstrations of the magnitude
of those in Egypt on Pennsylvania Avenue?
____________________

The U.S. that is trying to steer Egypt's government on moral and democratic behavior vis-a-vis their protesters and/or angry mobs is suffering a serious amnesia in regards to democratic behavior.

This amnesia is a result of the mass hysteria enveloping the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) which has allowed for the degradation of our founding principles. The U.S. is the apostle of international armed overreaction, yet we shamefacedly promote prudence to other nations. Our words do not accord with our actions. Likewise, no form of government should be expected to tolerate violent riots; democracy does not issue from this source.

Protesters do have a right of assembly if they are peaceful, yet in America we have created a new society in which protesters are limited to zones strictly cordoned off by the police. Protest around our leaders is not tolerated and protesters are routinely arrested and removed from public events -- a protest can be large but if avoided by the press, may as well have never happened.

Diligent reader and friend tw shared the non-coverage of an anti-war protest in D.C. last December, noted only, it seems, by a humble blogger:

"About 135 people were arrested yesterday in an anti-war protest outside the White House. This came as President Obama was revealing a new report that touted progress in the war in Afghanistan. ... (t)his act of civil disobediance [sic] and arrests apparently are [sic] not news.

"Those arrested included Pulitzer prize-winning war correspondent, Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon papers, retired 27-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern, FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley . . .(135 arrests in DC and that's not news)."

But while protest in America has died an ignominious death, the U.S. has the gall to encourage Egyptian leaders to accept protest of their government, all the while crouching like the Cheshire Cat, knowing the tanks and armaments wielded by the Egyptian authorities were fronted by them. Egyptian repression is facilitated by U.S. policy

Our advice is disingenuous. The U.S. has created phony villes of Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan by the barrel of a gun and the bribe of cash and materiel, yet we would moralize to the Egyptians. The Egyptians, who have tortured prisoners for us in our extra-legal renditions.
We will use their non-democratic features when it behooves us, then come out from behind the skirt and admonish them to be kind and forbearing when their power structure is threatened.

U.S. tax dollars have funded and facilitated dictatorial brutality in the region, and we become poseurs when we pretend it is otherwise.