GDAE Podcast Episode 3

Episode 3 - January 15, 2009 returns to a wider variety of music, current events, and laughs (at Joe Scarboro):

• Music by Ryan Harvey on a corporate globalization scheme, song entitled "Plan Puebla Panama."
• Joe Scarborough (MSNBC) gets comeuppance from Zbigniew Brzezinski via Wakeup AM Podcast.
• Two false narratives by the US media on Gaza are exposed.
• Rickbackbookbock on the prosecution of George W. Bush.
• Auto industry bailout: Can't take our eyes off of this one. Opportunities and risks.

Update: Israel uses exotic, experimental weapons.

LINK to the GDAE Podcast Website or Subscribe via Buttons to the Right.

Psssst... Do Something

• Contact the Broadcast Media
  
• Contact the Newspapers
  
• Contact the US Senate
  
• Contact the House of Representatives

US: Isolated and Living in Gated Communities

I've written about an analogy between the United States and Bear Stears, in which the other nations abandon the US to be cannibalized. This general theme was getting air play on MSNBC this morning.

First, the MSNBC business reporter noted that, during her recent international travels, representatives from other nations expressed disfavor with what they perceived to be US finger-pointing on current economic problems of food and petrolium prices among other things. She noted that the G-8 nations no longer feel the US has any legitimacy as a gate-keeper to that group. Most interesting, she mentioned the other nations recently met without the US present.

Later, Zbigniew Brzezinski was interviewed, by his daughter who was anchoring for MSNBC. Brzezinski said that US policy is leading toward isolation and a state of living in a figurative "gated community."

In other words, the rest of the world is likely to not only turn its back on the US, it is likely to organize their policy positions to drive the US out of business as the presumptive world leader.

I'll end with an observation about the MSNBC self-promo piece I saw this morning. It in effect seemed to say, "We're informing you, not to keep the US in the position of world leader, but to ensure the Nation simply survives." Since I don't have cable, and rarely watch MSNBC, I'm curious whether others have seen this ad.

Arc of Southwest Asian War

The latest in a string of bombings in Pakistan sent a message: "Those who spy for America will face this same fate." It might be premature to say that Pakistan is unraveling, but when the mainstream media talks about "further instability" and "another sign" of the Afghan war spilling over into Pakistan, you can deduce the situation is probably worse.

And it is worse, when you consider Southwest Asia as a region, stretching from Pakistan to the horn of Africa (Somalia). The US is conducting overt war in Somalia (with illegal proxy assistance from Ethiopia), Iraq, and Afghanistan. The US is conducting covert warfare in Iran and Pakistan. In addition, the US has taken sides with Israel in the war of occupation against the Palestinians, employing divide-and-conquer techniques by arming the corrupt Fatah against Hamas. The US backed Israel in Lebanon last summer in the war on Hezbollah, supplying fuel and weapons (including cluster bombs).


So, what next? The monarchy of Saudi Arabia is composed of the oil barrons (the royalty and their court) and the fundamentalist Wahabbists (the ones who were actually involed in 9/11 if you believe that version of the story). The phrase "further instability" applies to Saudi Arabia too. The American colonies revolted against their monarchy, and the natural drive for liberty will play out in Saudi Arabia too.

Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski made a now-famous statement that bounced around the blogosphere back in February. Here it is again:

A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks [that is, Bush's surge fails]; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Add Saudi Arabia and Somalia to that list and you might as well call it a World War, as depicted in the map above. We're not quite there yet, but Brzezinski has laid out a formula for getting there, and the Democrats seem to be (unwittingly?) playing into it with their blame-the-Iraqi benchmark approach to Iraq.

Pandering Edwards Showing True Colors?

A little while back I did a broad side on John Edward's speech to a conference in Herzliya, Israel. (Before that, I was heaping praise).

Maybe he's just a politician playing both sides, but I found this of interest. But this tid bit is making its rounds on the blogosphere, from Peter Bart's Variety column January 19, 2007. Writing about Hollywood politics, Bart describes an encounter John Edwards had at a recption hosed by "Adam Venit, a honcho at Endeavor":

The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

If the event is described fairly, it says as much about the crowd as it does Edwards. We should be concerned about an Israeli attack, and Iranian potential response. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Februray 1, 2007, Edwards is right:

A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks [that is, Bush's surge fails]; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Brzezinski: Bush Steering US Toward War with Islam

The bloggers at Pedestrian Infidel (PI) have bought into what Zbigniew Brzezinski recently called, "A mythical historical narrative," or maybe they're just trying to sell it. In a February 8, 2007 post to their site, PI proposes an amendment to the US constitution. Following nine whereas statements that argue Islam is social and political ideology, is intolerant of other religions, seeks to supplant all other religions across the world, they conclude Therefore:

Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

They continue with a series of proposed constitutional amendements that begin with a change to Article I:

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

One might dismiss this as, "just another blogger doing his or her thing", or in this case just another group of bloggers.

Which brings us back to Zbigniew Brzezinski's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Februray 1, 2007. Rather than ignore the kind of thinking reflected by the Pedestrian Infidel, Brzezinski invests a signigicant portion of his short testimony to exposing it's fraudulence. The set-up is his statement that:

A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks [that is, Bush's surge fails]; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

This statement is followed immediately by Brzezinski's exposure of the messianic, fear mongering calls for a crusade against Islam:

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran—though gaining in regional influence—is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In no uncertain terms, Brzezinski is saying that he believes the Bush Administration is intentionally steering the Nation into a huge war with Islam, which will make the war in Iraq pale by comparison.

Deplorably, the Administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about “a new strategic context” which is based on “clarity” and which prompts “the birth pangs of a new Middle East” is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles’s attitude of the early 1950’s toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.

Brzezinski closes his brief testimony with four steps in the "quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq."
~

Brzezinski: Four Steps Out of Iraq

In his February 1, 2007 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Zbigniew Brzezinski laid out four steps in the "quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq." It's basically an excerpt of the diplomatic elements of the Iraq Study Group recommendations, including attention to the Palestinian-Israeli situation, and a recomendation for the US to state clear intentions of prompt military withdrawl from Iraq.

1.
The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time. Ambiguity regarding the duration of the occupation in fact encourages unwillingness to compromise and intensifies the on-going civil strife. Moreover, such a public declaration is needed to allay fears in the Middle East of a new and enduring American imperial hegemony.
Right or wrong, many view the establishment of such a hegemony as the primary reason for the American intervention in a region only recently free of colonial domination. That perception should be discredited from the highest U.S. level. Perhaps the U.S. Congress could do so by a joint resolution.

2.
The United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed, and the resulting setting of such a date should be announced as a joint decision. In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation.

It is necessary to engage all Iraqi leaders—including those who do not reside within “the Green Zone”—in a serious discussion regarding the proposed and jointly defined date for U.S. military disengagement because the very dialogue itself will help identify the authentic Iraqi leaders with the self-confidence and capacity to stand on their own legs without U.S. military protection. Only Iraqi leaders who can exercise real power beyond “the Green Zone” can eventually reach a genuine Iraqi accommodation. The painful reality is that much of the current Iraqi regime, characterized by the Bush administration as “representative of the Iraqi people,” defines itself largely by its physical location: the 4 sq. miles-large U.S. fortress within Baghdad, protected by a wall in places 15 feet thick, manned by heavily armed U.S. military, popularly known as “the Green Zone.”

3.
The United States should issue jointly with appropriate Iraqi leaders, or perhaps let the Iraqi leaders issue, an invitation to all neighbors of Iraq (and perhaps some other Muslim countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan) to engage in a dialogue regarding how best to enhance stability in Iraq in conjunction with U.S. military disengagement and to participate eventually in a conference regarding
regional stability.

The United States and the Iraqi leadership need to engage Iraq’s neighbors in serious discussion regarding the region’s security problems, but such discussions cannot be undertaken while the U.S. is perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration. Iran and Syria have no reason to help the United States consolidate a permanent regional hegemony. It is ironic, however, that both Iran and Syria
have lately called for a regional dialogue, exploiting thereby the self-defeating character of the largely passive – and mainly sloganeering – U.S. diplomacy.

A serious regional dialogue, promoted directly or indirectly by the U.S., could be buttressed at some point by a wider circle of consultations involving other powers with a stake in the region’sstability, such as the EU, China, Japan, India, and Russia. Members of this Committee might consider exploring informally with the states mentioned their potential interest in such a wider dialogue.

4.
Concurrently, the United States should activate a credible and energetic effort to finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace, making it clear in the process as to what the basic parameters of such a final accommodation ought to involve.

The United States needs to convince the region that the U.S. is committed both to Israel’s enduring security and to fairness for the Palestinians who have waited for more than forty years now for their own separate state. Only an external and activist intervention can promote the long-delayed settlement for the record shows that the Israelis and the Palestinians will never do so on their own. Without such a settlement, both nationalist and fundamentalist passions in the region will in the longer run doom any Arab regime which is perceived as supportive of U.S. regional hegemony.

~

Reasons for Attacking Iran

The drum beat of war with Iran is unmistakable. A synopsis of that would be it's own topic. We're facing a "Boy who cried wolf moment," but I'm not buying the drum beat; don't worry George. You won't be eaten.

The Bush administration is demonizing Iran, with occasional foot-in-mouth assistance from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and compliance of the corporate mass media. But the Iranian constitution gives Ahmadinejad little power, so ignore the man who dresses like Obama behind the curtain.

Most of the drum beats are just propaganda excuses. For example, "Iranian's have refused some IAEA inspectors, and inspections." This is an excuse that the US engineered by securing special inspections through obscure actions of the UN Security Council, which the US knew Iran could not accept. The US was then able to point to "Iran's refusal to allow IAEA inspections", thereby making Iran look unreasonable, like they're hiding something. But, just as in Iraq, Bush must have underlying motives, or reasons, for war with Iran, right?

The Reasons for Attacking Iran:

These are the reasons that I think are motivating the Bush administration.

1) Controlling Iran has always been part of the neo-con master plan that Bush has bought into. Controlling Iran, like Iraq, entails the benefits of control over natural resources, if only to create predicatability, not necessarily stealing the wealth. Control also entails brining Iran into the corporate globalization free market world view. I find it hard to believe Bush thinks they can achieve "regime change," nevertheless, control is a long-term motivation.

2) Nearer-term, Bush needs to weaken Iran. He must first have chaos in Iran before he can have control. This goal is more urgent, because of the way things have gone badly Iraq. The logic is simple:

The US can't continue to occupy Iraq, because US soldiers are getting chewed up, it's too costly, and the US public is getting restless.

The US can't leave Iraq, because Iraq is now run by Shia political parties that are friendly to Iran, and leaving now would yeild too much regional influence to Iran.

Solution? First attack and weaken Iran, THEN pull back from Iraq (leaving behind US military bases, of course). Call it "The Third Way" to resolving the Iraq problem.

3) Israel Wants It. I confess. I've bought into the perspective that, "What Israel wants, the US wants." Just look at the way Hillary Clinton and John Edwards pander to the Israeli lobby? As far as Iran goes, the message to the Israeli vote is that "Everything is on the Table." Does Israel have any reasons? That doesn't really matter, but in general, they want control too.

4) Potential Nuclear Weapons in Iran. Even if Iran is ten years away from having a nuclear weapon, that's too soon. If an attack could make that twenty years, that's a good thing. Attack them in another ten years, and reset the clock again. Keep doing this, and.... we'll, you get the idea. Preventive war is now a formal part of American miliatry strategic policy, so we might as well make use of it, right? Who's going to stop us?

The recent propaganda about Iranians providing weapons to the Iraqi insurgency is being floated as a trial balloon in this reagard. But the logic falls a little flat; Iran's Shia allys are basically in power in Iraq, and thus don't need weapons to fight the US, and Iran's enemies are the Sunni "Saddam dead ender insurgency" fighting the US. This ties into number 2) above. That is, the US doesn't want Iran to gain influence in the region. Even if Iran isn't giving weapons to the insurgency, the US doesn't want Iran currying favor with the Shia-dominated Iraqi government.

Other Thoughts on the Topic:

The Provoked Response: This is no more a "reason" than the Tonkin Gulf incident was a reason for escalation in Vietnam. That is, the US will try to provoke a response from Iran, and use that as a pretext for attacking (As if nukes ain't good enough you say). This reason hasn't yet materialized, but it will. It will be bolstered by the drum beat of demonization that provides a fertile foundation for the unsuspecting American TV watchers (I hope I'm wrong about this). It helps that they're religious fundamentalists and we're, ah'hem, not. The Iranian Supreme Leader, a title to which Bush and Cheney aspire, has offered predictions to this end: terrorism or human rights violations. So has Zbigniew Brzezinski.

I think five reasons are enough. I suppose the benefits to the defense industry lobby might be another "good reason", but I don't want to be accused of being too cynical. Testing new bunker busters is another good reason, but that's probably considered a mere side-benefit to the inside-crowd who are taking us to war in Iran. Then, there is also the mesianic reason, against which former National Security Advisor, Zignew Brzezinski, spoke out against in his February 1, 2007 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It's hard to tell whether this later "reason" is actually motivating the Bush people or is just part of the Bush propaganda drum beat, in this case designed to rally his radical base of christian crusaders.

Scott Ritter offers another reason. The big bully has gotten beat in Iraq. It's time for the deafeated bully to vent elsewhere.... like Iran. To this many people might say say, "We can't go into Iran. We're already stretched too thin in Iraq." We're not "going in to Iran." We're just going to bomb the bajeebers out of 'em. We've got three aircraft carrier groups over there. CNN viewers will get to see more Clintonesque cruise missile launches. No, this isn't a wag-the-dog rationale... OK, maybe that's a "side-benefit."

There are other reasons being given, some of them, while intended to be humorous, have a sickening grain of truth to them.
~

Is Anything Keeping Bush from Attacking Iran?

One thing keeping Bush from attacking Iran might be joint chiefs chairman General Peter Pace. It was a mini military coup when Pace contradicted the White House line, saying there is no direct link to Iranian leaders. Pace spoke out while traveling in Indonesia.

There is, however, plenty of buzz that an attack is brewing. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former NSC Director in the Carter administration, delivered this warning to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Feb. 1:

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

There's also practical consideration of Iran's potential response to an attack that might give Bush pause: Iran has said they will retaliate around the world if attacked, and they have the assets to do it. Also, Iran could make life for US soldiers in Iraq even more dangerous if the US were to attack.

Brzezinski did not conceal his opinion about the genesis of Bush's Iraq war. His opening sentence was a slam:

Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.

Brzezinski and General Pace are doing their part to counter Bush's drive to war with Iran, and perhaps war with Islam. The other thing that could help keep Bush from attacking Iran is intense public pressure. To that end, we can begin by voicing our views with Congress and with the corporate mass media.

Contacts:

Write the US House of Representatives
Write the US Senate
Write the Major Media Outlets
~