Because You Never Asked

 

(12/08)

     Many of you out there in essay land might remember that old song, “it’s Istanbul not Constantinople”. I begin this essay just hours after the well coordinated terrorist attacks on “its Mumbai not Bombay”. This has left the financial capital of one of the world’s most dynamic new neo-liberal economies in a state of 9/11 shock. In harmony with the ambiguity of the city’s name, just who was responsible for this mayhem and why, is still not clear. Almost all western news sources have decided the usual grey of Islamic radicals have targeted western people and interests in a city whose existence is firmly tied to such. For now, I’ll have to go with that, knowing there is some truth muddled up in such an assertion, but also knowing what shoddy journalism can result from western Big Media’s attempts to make money.

     I’ll try to get the drop on most professional news pundits by asking what will eventually be the most pertinent issue to come out of this event: how will all this effect the foreign policy overview of the world’s “great black hope”, Barack Obama?

     There is no ambiguity in saying the rest of the world sees Obama as a man who can rectify the bellicose stupidity the Bush Gang has mired the planet in. This feeling is even more pronounced amongst those who voted for him, and this writer felt the same elation as everyone else in this camp upon victory. But Spring Training is just about over. Obama has shown himself to be a great young prospect --- but now he has to live up to his promise and perform when the games really count.

     An educated guess would suggest the first area where Obama’s base might begin to lose its erection is in the foreign policy arena. First and foremost amongst this group’s hatred (not just loyal opposition dissent, but hatred) for George W. Bush and his gang of gunslingers, is revulsion for the war in Iraq and the black hat image it has given their country. One must remember American Big Media was an accomplis to this war and has found its tail between its legs for its ice cold efforts in questioning it. One gets the feeling they have consistently underestimated the passion of this war dissent, because it was “their” war as well. Regardless of what Big Media ranked as the most important issues of campaign 2008, this repulsive attitude towards this latest Bush Oil War is an almost unanimous aspect of Obama’s core support. They not only want a sooner than later military disengagement in the Middle East, they want a whole new face put on American foreign policy, one less Don Corleone-like (although, on second thought, when it comes to diplomacy, I might prefer the Corleones to Cheney-Rummy-Rice and Co.).

     Although all of American Big Media allied itself to the original concept of war in Iraq (and Afghanistan too), there is a more radical voice in the crowd embodied in Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Network. It is not an exaggeration to say that over the last quarter century or so, the rise and gradual seizing of power by the neo-con wing of American politics, has almost geometrically coincided with the putting in place of a neo-con media apparatus whose flagship is the Fox News Network. Fox News, and all of Murdoch’s surrogate programming and print media empire in general, can almost be held directly responsible for leading America into the mountain of shit it is currently stuck in. In every way, the defeat of Reagan-Bush-McCain was a defeat for them as well, and their prestige as a serious media voice has taken a hit.

     The Mumbai terrorist attacks give them an opportunity. Twisted to suit their concept of perverse self interest (and neo-con “ideology” is always just a cover for self interest), these lunatic attacks can be used to vindicate their radical rhetoric. “You see, they hate us, they want to kill us, to conquer us, to humiliate us. We must attack them, bomb them, invade them, make war on them, with our armies, tanks --- bonzai!”. Iraq is good.

     But Mumbai proves just the opposite, and having to explain it is wearisome because this was a self evident truth even before the Iraqi war, a truth American Big Media chose to ignore, but leaving stones unturned is a bad policy and my duty as a sincere chicken soup philosopher demands further explanation.

     The United States has now been involved in a massive military action both in Afghanistan and Iraq for 6 to 7 years. It not only has occupied both countries militarily, but has taken over the whole political apparatus of both places, crafting and setting up  civilian governments adjusted to the gringo image of proper governance. Big Bad Saddam is no longer cognizant matter. The Taliban are out of power. What do we see?

     Boom! The London subway. Boom! Mumbai not Bombay. Boom! Boom! Ladies and gentlemen, these people are still out there, hail and hearty.

     And this is where some of Obama’s campaign rhetoric becomes worrisome for his core supporters (perhaps the phrase “core supporter” is too constricted. How about “almost all those who voted for him“). His refusal to back the war in Iraq at its inception is an act that has endeared him to his backers in no uncertain terms. It surely helped him win the nomination against some of his more jelly legged Democratic opponents. It is difficult to say what degree of moral conscience entered into this decision (and the immorality of this military barbarism has been sorely absent from the American discourse), but, at the very least, it showed a wisdom with regard to foreign policy and the general gear works of the world’s engine, he can now proudly defend with an unfortunate “I told you so”. Even if all went optimally well from here on out, and an American satellite state over that ocean of oil became a reality, there would be a good deal of self delusion in saying it was cost effective both in terms of American lives lost and maimed and the never ending financial investment. And that’s not to mention --- and I repeat, it is not mentioned in America --- the totally uncalled for apocalypse that has been rained down on the Iraqi people.

     And we all know the optimal is a tooth fairy concept that ain’t gonna happen.

     So Obama gets high marks for his negative vote on Iraq, but his flirtation with a military solution in Afghanistan leaves a queasy feeling in his supporters’ stomachs. Even his language on the subject --- the idea that we “took our eye off the ball” by going into Iraq --- seems outmoded, trite, clichéd, and even not cool in a man who generally exudes “cool”. It’s something like his opponents still using such worn out blasphemies as “bleeding heart liberals”.

     This is not to say that Obama is wrong in such an assertion, but one has to question its relevance today, 6 years later. In the immediate afterglow of 9/11, when the dust was freshly settled and it became obvious as to who was responsible and where the focus of their operations was located (although, relegating the focus of such operations to a central place is still a stretch), there may have been some justification for the “hot pursuit” of Jesse James and his gang. But should that be the foundation of American  foreign policy in a post Cheney-Bush world? (I say no). Is it logical to assume that the pacification (if that is possible) of some of the world’s most remote geography along the Afghan-Pakistan border will have any significant effect on this kind of terrorism, an entity that is far more diffused and unconnected than compacted and centralized? (I say no).

     The war on terror is much like the war on drugs. You can roust them out of Peru and they’ll set up in Colombia. You can cut off their supply lines in the Caribbean and they’ll go through Central America. Both terrorist and organized crime operations are Hydras with many renewable heads. Conventional military force is ineffective against this kind of threat. By increasing our military efforts in Afghanistan, wouldn’t we be putting our feet in the same quicksand we found in Iraq? (I say yes). Is it prudent to further subject our military apparatus to such an endeavor when it is already over extended, tired, and in need of rest and reorganization? (I say no). Couldn’t we use this money back home? (I say yes, boy, do I ever say yes!).

     (Just as an aside, there is one significant difference between organized crime and terrorists I find relevant here. Terrorists are often referred to as thugs, gangsters and common criminals. This is 180 degrees incorrect. Thugs and gangsters are only motivated for their own, personal enrichment. There is no ideology. They are the drawing board model for cynicism. Terrorists are their direct compliment. They are exalted fanatics. They are motivated by a universal “good” cause, one meant to save humanity. They are the drawing board model for belief. In the context of the geo-political environment we now are talking about, it is generally a religious belief. The Islamic terrorism the Judeo-Christian world is now in conflict with, is a close relative to the American evangelical fanatics, who seem to have found the leader of their political wing in Sarah Palin. In the Islamic world, this animal has gotten out of its cage. Woe to us all if something similar happens in America).

     Given the current geo-political situation in the world, there is a truth Barack Obama hopefully understands right now, or will grasp the sooner the better: the terrorists cannot defeat us, nor can we defeat them. In trying to rid the world of this hair ball in its throat, the west, led by Obama’s America, must focus on 2 things: 1) its defense in the form of hyper-vigilant police work and effective intelligence gathering, and 2) a narrowly focused, all out attempt to develop an economy built over renewable energy sources. The first task is a necessary attempt to minimize the damage during the transition period, but the second task is the key to long lasting peace and harmony. The idea that this conflict is fueled by religious and cultural antagonism is a fake hand off the American public continues to fall for. These religious-cultural differences are nothing more than the visible weed of a more relevant, gigantic root system under the surface, a root system nourished by the occidental desperation for a natural resource the Arab-Islamic world is awash in. Once this necessity is surpassed, the root system will die, along with the ugly weed on the surface we see as some kind of cultural conflict. We must kill the roots in order to get rid of the weed.

     Weaning ourselves from fossil fuel is a win-win situation. It is both environmentally and politically necessary, and continued conventional warfare in the Middle East is superfluous to this goal. If Obama does not get this, he will lose his base quickly.

     Waterloo.

     (Post Script - It hasn’t taken long for the sloppy nature of American Big Media “journalism” to rear its profit oriented head. What was first given to us as an almost purely Islamic attack on western interests has now been shown to be less that and more a facet of Indian-Pakistani relations. The essay “Virginia Tech” shows an even more irresponsible disregard for accuracy by Big Media sources. In any event, none of this does much to change the relevance of what this essay delves into).