A Defiant Ecuador Seeks Solutions in Assange Case

A Matter of Principle in an Age of Secrecy

[T]wo years ago, one of the most controversial figures of the age of cyberspace appeared on the doorstep of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. On the verge of losing an appeal in the British courts that could open the door to his extradition to Sweden and then later, the United States, where a secret Grand Jury had convened to indict him, Julian Assange sought refuge in Ecuador’s modest Embassy flat. During the following two months, the Ecuadorian government studiously reviewed his case, calling in experts to discuss and debate the duties and risks Ecuador faced in granting the asylum petition.

On August 16, 2012, Ecuador’s Foreign Minister, Ricardo Patiño, announced that his country would grant Assange diplomatic asylum, a concept enshrined in the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum of 1954, also known as the Convention of Caracas. The British government refused to recognize this status and initially threatened to violate Ecuador’s sovereignty by entering into the Embassy and arresting Assange. After strong protest from the Ecuadorian government and outcry from Latin American nations, England refrained from causing an international uproar by forcing entry into the Embassy, and instead chose to maintain a prominent police presence surrounding the building, impeding Assange’s escape.

Two years later, the Assange case is at a standstill. Despite his legal team’s efforts to end the unsubstantiated persecution against him from Sweden, where no formal charges have materialized, an extradition request still remains to bring him to Stockholm for “questioning”. The British government has made clear it would extradite Assange to Sweden if they could detain him. While no public extradition request has been issued from the United States to Sweden for Assange, sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that a Grand Jury may have already indicted him in a US court, on charges, including espionage and/or aiding and abetting the enemy, that could result in his long-term imprisonment were he subjected to a trial. This well-founded fear of political persecution has reinforced Ecuador’s decision to maintain his political asylum.

In 2013, when Foreign Minister Patiño visited Assange in the Embassy on the one-year anniversary of his confinement, Ecuador initiated an effort to create a bilateral working group with the British government to find a solution to the situation. To date, no movement has been made in the group and England has refused to discuss the matter further. Recently, during Foreign Minister Patiño’s second visit to see Assange on August 16, 2014, the British Foreign Office issued a statement
claiming they were “committed to finding a solution”, yet only according to their vision of the outcome: “We remain as committed as ever to reaching a diplomatic solution to this situation. We are clear that our laws must be followed and Mr Assange should be extradited to Sweden. As ever we look to Ecuador to help bring this difficult, and costly, residence to an end.” In other words, the British government sees no other solution than Assange’s extradition. Their unwavering, rigid position leaves no opportunity for diplomacy or creative problem-solving, which is what this case needs.

The Ecuadorian government has reiterated its support for Assange and has made clear that their country is bound by international law to maintain his asylum. As Minister Patiño has affirmed, there is no return policy on asylees who are still subjected to exactly the same conditions as when the asylum was granted. The persecution remains, and there are still no charges of any kind against Assange. Ecuador, a small nation of 15 million inhabitants with bananas and beautiful roses as its main exports, has remained defiant in the face of pressure from England, Sweden and their biggest ally, the United States.

Two years enclosed in the Ecuadorian Embassy, a narrow flat with just a handful of rooms, has taken its toll on Julian Assange. While he continues to work from his small space inside the Embassy, and his organization Wikileaks has not ceased publishing important documents exposing the abuses and illegal acts of powerful interests, the lack of sunlight, fresh air and regular exercise have obviously decreased his quality of life and impacted his health. Despite his confinement and separation from close friends and family, his spirits remain high, as was apparent during the visit with Minister Patiño, and he is optimistic about changes to a law in the UK that potentially could lead to his freedom.

Known within political circles as the “Assange Act”, an amendment was made in early 2014 to the Extradition Act 2003 in the British parliament. Resulting from discontent and discomfort over the legal limbo Julian has been in for the past four years – even two years before receiving asylum from Ecuador, Assange had been on house arrest in England, pending potential extradition to Sweden – several British MPs began debating a substantive change to the law that would impede a future Assange situation from happening to someone else.

_____________

The Editors say: Where is the rest of Latin America? The silence —except for Cuba and Venezuela—is deafening. The British slap in the face of Ecuador is an insult to all Latin Americans, from Mexico to Patagonia. If the abject British government were to confront a united Latin America, ready to impose sanctions on British commerce, they would surely be more amenable to stepping out of their squalid subservience to Washington.
_____________

The amendment is included in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (not the most socially-friendly name), in Chapter 12, Part 12. It specifically states that “Extradition is barred if no prosecution decision has been made in the requesting territory”, as in Assange’s situation. If the country requesting extradition has not yet charged or decided to try the individual being requested, than the United Kingdom will not extradite. This is exactly the case of Julian Assange. The Swedish prosecution has not decided to try him yet or even formally charge him, and the extradition request is merely based on the desire to “question” him about certain allegations he may or may not be involved in.

In the parliamentary debates in the House of Commons leading up to the passage of the extradition act amendment, specific references to Assange’s case were made. According to the parliamentarians, the new clause, amending the extradition act of 2003, “seeks to ensure that people are not extradited when it is not certain they will be charged, so that they do not sit in a prison for months on end”. Reference was also made to the case of a British citizen, Andrew Symeou, who was extradited to Greece for questioning and remained in inhumane prison conditions for over ten months with no charges against him. In Julian Assange’s case, the debate concluded, “where a decision to charge and try is not taken, extradition cannot take place. People will not be left in limbo…”

Julian’s legal team will need to challenge this law in order for it to be applied to his case, since at present it does not appear to be retroactive. But there is no denying that this change in the law would impede Assange from being extradited to Sweden were it to have been in place previously. Ecuador’s Foreign Minister made reference to the amended law as a potential opening for dialogue with the UK government in the case. Ecuador has also offered to allow Swedish authorities question Assange inside the Embassy, or via videoconference, all to no avail. It seems as though the only parties interested in finding a solution to this situation are the government of Ecuador and Julian Assange. The Brits and the Swedes have done everything possible to stall and stonewall the case.

Foreign Minister Patiño has stated previously that Ecuador could bring the case before the International Court of Justice in the Hague, or the United Nations. The affronts to Ecuador’s sovereignty, the failure to recognize the asylum granted to Julian Assange and the refusal to provide him with safe passage to Ecuadorian territory are all violations of international law. Julian’s human rights are also affected. The inability to fully enjoy his right to asylum and the confining conditions he has been forced to remain in for two years, under threat of arrest by British authorities right outside the Embassy doors and windows, have subjected him to cruel and inhumane punishment. Were he to experience a medical emergency and need hospital attention, the British government has already made clear it would arrest him.

Both Julian Assange and Ecuador have taken on the most powerful world interests, despite the dangers, threats and consequences of their actions. Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño and President Rafael Correa have made clear that Ecuador will stand strong in its decision to grant Assange asylum under international law, and they will not bow to pressure and intimidation from anyone. The Assange case goes beyond just simple political asylum and issues of sovereignty. It is matter of principle in a time in which information and secrecy have become ever more the tools of the most powerful. Justice must be done for those who have sacrified their liberties to warn us of these dangers.

Eva Golinger is the author of The Chavez Code. She can be reached through her blog.

Western Leaders Fear-Monger to Mobilize Support for Air-Strikes on Syria

what’s left

Gen. Dempsey: The dangerous voice of the mendacious, utterly corporatized military. Telling lies out of stupidity or corruption.

By Stephen Gowans

[O]ne of the roles of leading politicians and top officials of the state is to enlist public support for policies which serve the goals of the upper stratum of the population from whose ranks they sometimes come and whose interests they almost invariably promote. When these policies are at odds with the interests of the majority, as they often are, the mobilization of public consent is possible only through deception.

The deception is carried out through prevarication, equivocation, and fear-mongering, crystallized into misleading narratives which the mass media can be reliably counted on to amplify. So it is that Western officials have ramped up a campaign of deception to provide a pretext for military intervention in Syria to combat ISIS but which may very well serve as a Trojan horse to escalate the war on the Syrian government.

The foundations of the campaign were laid in March, when US officials began warning that Islamists bent on launching strikes against Europe and the United States were massing in Syria. [1] The campaign kicked into high gear with ISIS’s territorial gains in Iraq and the organization’s beheading of US journalist James Foley. Now US officials say they are contemplating air strikes against ISIS targets in Syria.

___________

Editorial comment—
MEANWHILE…ALL’S QUIET ON THE IMPERIAL HOME FRONT

____________________

To justify the possibility of an air-war in Syria, US officials employ nebulous language about safeguarding US “security interests,” but neglect to spell out what those interests are or how they’re threatened. US defense secretary Chuck Hagel calls ISIS an “imminent threat to every interest we have,” adding that ISIS “is beyond anything that we’ve seen.” [2] Hagel doesn’t say how ISIS is a threat to even one US interest, let alone all of them, while his elevation of ISIS to a threat “beyond anything that we’ve seen” is transparent fear-mongering. Clearly, ISIS’s brutality in Iraq, its beheading of Foley, and its ability to seize and control territory, have been no more shocking than what has transpired in Syria, where ISIS and its fellow Islamists have carried out equally bloody displays of depraved cruelty, while seizing and controlling sizeable swathes of Syrian territory, amply assisted by members of the US-led Friends of Syria.

Hagel also invokes 9/11, suggesting that ISIS “is more of a threat than al Qaeda was before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.” [3] Invoking 9/11 invites the conclusion that without airstrikes on Syria to eliminate ISIS, that an attack on the United States on an order greater than 9/11 is a serious possibility, if not inevitable. France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, also points to 9/11 to buttress the case for airstrikes, noting that “The attacks in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, cost $1 million. Today, we estimate the Islamic State has several billions.” The obvious conclusion Fabius wants us to draw is that ISIS will launch thousands of 9/11s. [4] The implied conclusion, however, is no more credible than the implied conclusion that the United States is on the brink of vaporizing the planet because it now has a nuclear arsenal that is vastly greater than the tiny one it had when it atom-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Capability does not necessarily equate to motivation or action.

Serious, but routine deception is carried out in the U.S. through prevarication, equivocation, and fear-mongering in high circles, crystallized into misleading narratives which the mass media can be reliably counted on to amplify.

General Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered his own contribution to the emerging campaign of fear-mongering. Dempsey observed that ISIS aspires to absorb “Israel, Jordan, Kuwait and Syria into its caliphate.” [5] This is manifestly beyond ISIS’s capabilities, and merits no serious discussion. Dempsey nevertheless adds that if ISIS “were to achieve that vision, it would fundamentally alter the face of the Middle East and create a security environment that would certainly threaten us in many ways.” [6] This is tantamount to saying “If Haiti had an arsenal of 200 thermonuclear weapons and an effective anti-ballistic missile defense system it would certainly threaten us in many ways.” What’s important here is the word “if.” IfBarack Obama was a woman he would be the first female US president. If ISIS has the capability of absorbing a large part of the Middle East into a caliphate, it would be a threat to US control of the Middle East. But ISIS does not have this capability. Still, even if it did, it would not be a threat to US security, but to the security of Western oil industry profits.

For its part, The Wall Street Journal suggested that James Foley’s beheading was reason enough to warrant US airstrikes on Syria. [7] Yet beheadings, carried out by ISIS and other Islamists in Syria, and those carried out by US-ally Saudi Arabia against its own citizens, have hardly galvanized Washington to action. Washington’s Saudi ally “beheaded at least 19 convicted criminals since Aug. 4, nearly half of them for nonviolent offenses, including one for sorcery.” [8] These beheadings have been passed over by Western leaders in silence. They certainly haven’t been invoked as a reason to launch air strikes on the Saudi tyranny.

Also passed over in silence by the same Western states is the brutal, misogynist, medieval character of the anti-democratic Saudi regime, one of the principal “Friends of Syria.” In contrast, The New York Times reported that “The president and his top cabinet officials have all denounced the Islamic State as a medieval menace,” adding that US “Secretary of State John Kerry said the group should be destroyed.” [9] What the newspaper didn’t point out was that Saudi Arabia is just as much a “medieval menace” yet no US president or secretary of state would ever use this language to describe their ally, nor, more importantly, undertake a campaign to eliminate the medieval regime. This underscores the reality that Washington bears no animus toward medieval menaces—not when, as in the case of Syria, they operate against the government of a country targeted for regime change, not when they govern a source of immense petrochemical profits on terms favourable to Western oil companies, and not when, as in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they fight against a progressive, pro-Soviet government.

Washington’s campaign to mobilize public opinion for air strikes on Syria, then, has nothing whatever to do with eradicating medieval menaces. Nor has it anything to do with preventing the rise of a caliphate in the greater part of the Middle East, since ISIS hasn’t the capability to accomplish this aim. Even if it did, the rise of a caliphate is a matter for the people of the Middle East to decide, not Western powers. Lastly, until ISIS achieved startling territorial gains in Iraq, Washington was perfectly willing to allow, indeed, even to foster (what it now calls) “the cancer” of ISIS to “metastasize” throughout Syria. It expressed no apprehensions then about ISIS launching 9/11-style attacks on the United States, and did nothing to stop the flow of money to the anti-Assad group from supporters based in countries that make up its Friends of Syria (read Friends of US Imperialism) coalition. Warnings of an ISIS-engineered 9/11-style attack are, therefore, pure fear-mongering.

In light of the above, we ought to ask whether, once launched, a US air-war in Syria will expand its target list from ISIS to Syrian government forces? Is the campaign to mobilize public support for an air war against ISIS in Syria a Trojan horse to escalate the war on the Assad government, and on a broader level, against the interlocked Hezbollah-Syria-Iran resistance against US domination of Western Asia?

NOTES

1. Eric Schmitt, “Qaeda militants seek Syria base, U.S. official say”, The New York Times, March 25, 2014.

2. Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper, “U.S. isn’t sure just how much to fear ISIS,” The New York Times, August 22, 2014.

3. Dion Nissenbaum, “U.S. considers attacks on ISIS in Syria”, The Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2014.

4. David Dauthier-Villars, “France calls for action to cut off ISIS money supply”, The Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2014.

5. Mazzetti and Cooper.

6. Mazzetti and Cooper.

7. Nissenbaum.

8. Rick Gladstone, “Saudi Arabia: Executions draw rebukes”, The New York Times, August 21, 2014.

9. Nissenbaum.

Blood on All Our Hands: Don’t Thank Me for My Service [Redux]

OpEds
Camillo Mac Bica

A US tank convoy during the Vietnam War. (Photo: Starry, Donn A. / Dept. of the Army)

[Y]ears after writing the much-read and controversial piece “Don’t Thank Me for My Service,” Camillo (Mac) Bica reflects on the same theme, responding to readers who were taken aback by his approach and veterans who found comfort in his words.

Also see: Don’t Thank Me for My Service

[A] number of years ago, I wrote an article published at Truthout in which I asked not to be thanked for my “service” as a United States Marine Corps Officer during the war in Vietnam. Clearly the article hit a nerve for both veterans and civilians. According to Truthout statistics, it has been shared over 2,700 times, and received 51,000 “likes.” While “dislikes” are not registered, judging by the feedback I received, I imagine that number to be significant as well.

I was motivated to write “Don’t Thank Me for My Service” for a number of reasons: First, I hoped to offer a sincere personal reflection of the Vietnam War experience to complement the mythology, lies and misinformation that has become so pervasive over the years, the latest being a 13-year Congressionally mandated “Commemoration” – probably “celebration” is more accurate – of the war’s 50th anniversary. I made no pretense in the article to be speaking for anyone other than myself.

Second, I attempted to express the profound and lasting impact the war had upon me, and so many others, who suffer from PTSD and moral injury – guilt, remorse, and shame for our involvement.

Third, I hoped to draw attention to the plight of veterans whose needs continue to be ignored – 23 veterans commit suicide each day – by a society that believes mouthing meaningless assertions of thanks and appreciation satisfies their obligation to the nation and to those who fight their country’s wars. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the article expressed my acceptance of personal responsibility and culpability, as part of an errant American military machine, for the deaths of over 2 million Vietnamese people, many of them civilians, and the destruction of the Vietnamese countryside by Agent Orange, pink, purple, and green dioxin poisoning that continues to have disastrous environmental and human effects – horrendous birth defects suffered by Vietnamese children born long after the war had ended.

I was not drafted into the military; I chose to enlist, despite having the option of accepting a deferment from conscription offered to teachers at the time.

Smedley D. Butler: Soldier with a conscience.

In revisiting this article, it is not my intent to rehash the argument for the criminality of the Vietnam War. One has only to read Daniel Ellsberg’s “Pentagon Papers,” or watch Robert McNamara in The Fog of War, or listen to Lyndon Baines Johnson’s secret White House tapes, to name but a few sources, to realize that the Vietnam War was unnecessary, based upon lies and deception, motivated by greed and political ambition, and fueled by a communist hysteria and paranoia instigated and perpetuated by charlatans and opportunists.

Over the years, many have commented on this article. Some, perhaps a majority of combat veterans, found my perspective cathartic and expressive of how they also felt, but were unable, or chose not, to articulate.

Others disagreed, some offering coherent and interesting counterpoints. A few attacked me personally, angrily questioning my patriotism, even my having been in the military at all, condemning me as mentally unstable, weak, misguided, and as defaming the sacrifices of the injured and killed. Though ad hominem attacks add little to the dialogue, civil and rational discussion is always appreciated and valuable, so I thank everyone who took the time to voice their opinion, supportive or critical.

For the remainder of this article, I will abridge and respond to the insights and observations alluded to in the comments regarding my perspective on military “service.” In doing so, I hope to further clarify why I remain adamant that participating in the aggression and barbarism of the Vietnam War constitutes neither service to country – exactly what service did I provide? – nor something for which I should be proud or thanked.

Response to Readers’ Comments

Comment: Your article reads as though you were forced against your will into a military you profoundly disliked, to serve a Country you deeply hated. As a Marine Corps officer you were not drafted; it was your decision to enlist.

Response: It is true, I was not drafted into the military; I chose to enlist, despite having the option of accepting a deferment from conscription offered to teachers at the time. The fact that I went willingly into the military, that I have continued to work diligently for a peaceful, moral nation and for the well-being of veterans and members of the military is evidence enough, I think, that I did not then, nor do I today, hate America or the military. Nor does my volunteering preclude my commenting upon or making moral judgments about the war or obviate the validity of my observations regarding the reality and nature of the experience. Isn’t that one of the freedoms we take seriously in this country and are willing to fight, kill, and die in order to preserve?

Comment: You lament the killing and destruction that is inevitable in war. What did you expect war to be like? What did you believe you would be doing as a Marine during wartime?

In fact, soldiers are legally and morally required to obey only JUST orders and to disobey orders that are UNJUST and will be held personally accountable for a failure to differentiate one from the other.

Response: Though as a late adolescent, I was quite naïve and idealistic when I enlisted in the Marine Corps Officer Program, I was aware that the mission of the military, specifically the Marines, was fundamentally to kill people and blow shit up. Like most adolescents/young adults during the 1950s and ’60s, I learned about war from reading books and watching movies, particularly The Sands of Iwo Jima, starring the World War II draft dodger-turned-war/Marine icon John Wayne.

With the realization that war and the reason we are fighting was very different from what we had been told and from how it was portrayed in film, the mythology quickly crumbled, ideology forgotten, and war became a struggle for survival. Today children are much better “prepared” – perhaps conditioned is the more accurate term – for war, killing and destruction, having grown up playing sophisticated, “realistic,” and violent video games, some even created by the military, during an era of perpetual war.

Comment: You express regret about participating in the Vietnam War, in doing what you were told “needed to be done.” Did you not understand that it is the duty of members of the military to follow orders?

Response: Though some may mistakenly believe that the old adage, “Theirs [is] not to reason why, theirs [is] but to do and die,” characterizes military service, it is not the intent of the military to create automata that blindly and unquestioningly obey ALL orders they may receive. In fact, soldiers (1) are legally and morally required to obey only JUST orders and to disobey orders that are UNJUST and will be held personally accountable for a failure to differentiate one from the other. So the fact that an individual serves in the military does not entail a forfeiture of autonomy, her ability to reason. Soldiers do not abandon their moral agency at the recruiting station or induction center. They remain obligated to make legal and moral choices regarding the orders they receive. Fighting in an illegal and unnecessary war is criminal and the order to do so unjust.

Comment: Soldiers are warriors not diplomats, politicians, lawyers, or moralists. It is not the soldiers’ responsibility to make legal and moral judgments or determinations of necessity regarding the war. Shakespeare made this clear. “We know enough if we know we are the king’s men. Our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.”(2) The honor, merit, and nobility of the soldiers and the value of their service and sacrifice depends not upon the legality, morality, or necessity of the war but is contingent upon their willingness to selflessly serve their country, to follow orders, to do their job proficiently – to kill and destroy – without question or complaint. Consequently, regardless of the legal and moral value of the war in which they participate, soldiers are deserving of gratitude and should be justifiably proud of their service.

Comment: To question the necessity, morality and legality of the Vietnam War and to imply that soldiers who fought it are unworthy of gratitude and thanks is to violate a sacred trust and to demean the sacrifices of all who “served,” especially of those injured or killed.

The truth is that the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, have absolutely nothing to do with preserving American freedom and values or with eliminating an existential threat.

Response: Contra Shakespeare, the Nuremburg Accords make clear that obedience to the orders of superiors does not obviate personal responsibility for the crimes of war. (3) Despite conscription – conscripts can refuse induction or claim conscientious objection – and especially in the all-volunteer Army, soldiers DO get to choose the war they fight and how they fight it. As argued above, under international, domestic and US Military Law, soldiers remain personally responsible for their actions and decisions and as such are obligated to make critical legal and moral judgments, many times under very stressful and coercive conditions, regarding whether to participate in a particular action or war.

Being a good soldier does not imply becoming a robot. Gen. Butler enjoying a warm moment with a small friend.

Consequently, the value of the sacrifice is not inherent in the act of sacrifice itself, nor is it independent of questions about the merit of the policies that sent the soldier into harm’s way in the first place. Nor is the value of the sacrifice contingent only upon the soldier’s motivation, his dedication to the cause, to comrades, to his willingness to follow orders without question or to his proficiency to kill and to destroy. I am sure many of those we deem “terrorists” are highly motivated, proficient at what they do, willing to make great personal sacrifices for their cause, however misguided, and dedicated to their brethren. Yet, there is no nobility in their actions nor do we admire their dedication and selflessness. Consequently, the virtue, honor, merit, and value of a soldier’s service and sacrifice, depends in large measure upon the legality and morality of the endeavor in which he is engaged and the manner in which s/he conducts herself.

Comment: Members of the military make great personal sacrifices to ensure that freedom and American values prevail. Freedom is not free, you know. Fighting to preserve that freedom is an honor and a duty, deserving of thanks and appreciation, and something for which veterans should be proud.

“There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.”

Response: I agree that it is an obligation of citizenship to participate in the defense of America and of the freedoms we hold sacred – hence my enlisting into the Marine Corps when I, and so many others, were led to believe that our democracy, our cherished way of life, was in peril. For that, I have no regrets. What is tragic, and a violation of trust, is that we were then, and are now, being lied to. The truth is that the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, have absolutely nothing to do with preserving American freedom and values or with eliminating an existential threat.

Comment: You entered into a contract with the government, took an oath to fight, kill, and, if necessary, to die for this great nation, not to criticize the decisions of our political and military leaders or whine about the justness or legality of the war.

Response: Soldiers’ obligations under the contract and oath are quite specific, as are the obligations of the other contractee, the government. Two-time Medal of Honor recipient and Marine Corps General Smedley Butler, (who can challenge these credentials?) correctly and succinctly explained why and when soldiers are obligated to risk their lives in battle. “There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.”(4)

The United States Government has, historically, been negligent in regard to fulfilling its obligations under the contract. First, it consistently fails to ensure that its military is “used” well, i.e., deployed only for legitimate national defense, and not as a tool of imperialism or as cannon fodder to increase the profit of oil companies, Wall Street executives, the arms industry, etc.

Again, General Butler: “I served in all commissioned ranks from a second Lieutenant to a Major General. And during that time, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.” (5)

Second, as even the mainstream media have documented of late, the government has failed in its contractual and moral obligation to adequately care for the needs of members of the military and veterans returning from war. It is not “complaining” or “whining,” therefore, to bring attention to this abuse of power – the violation of contract – by political and military leaders and the exploitation of veterans and members of the military. Rather, to speak the truth about war and its aftermath is, as General Butler made clear, a matter of personal honor and fidelity to fellow service members, veterans, and country.

Comment: You pontificate on the righteousness of your point of view and claim that anyone who disagrees is uninformed or misguided.

It is a reponsibility . . . to ensure that the sacrifices of comrades are not further exploited for corporate profit or to entice another generation of young men and women to fight wars that further enrich bankers and war profiteers.

Response: As moral agents, we are obligated to seek objective truth – it is not all perspectival – and to make correct moral and legal choices regarding our behavior. This is most critical and the obligation most stringent in regard to endeavors such as war that inevitably involve the taking of life. It is more than reasonable to expect, therefore, that morally sensitive and aware individuals who have experienced the insanity, horror and chaos of the battlefield and its aftermath and have become familiar with the facts of America’s involvement in Vietnam (and elsewhere), should understand, as did many combat veterans who commented on the article, that participating in the Vietnam War is not a source of pride, but of regret. I can understand, however, the motivation of those veterans who shun the truth and condemn truth tellers, choosing rather to embrace the mythology and hoping that the illusion of noble cause and personal heroism would somehow placate the demons that still haunt them today. As I argued in the original article, though, it may appear preferable to think oneself a hero than a dupe,

” . . . In order to truly come home from war, to make the perilous journey of healing, one must face the realities of one’s own war experience head on, as no healing is possible from fantasy, myth, rationalization and distortion of truth.” (6)

Comment: To question the necessity, morality, and legality of the Vietnam War and to imply that soldiers who fought it are unworthy of gratitude and thanks is to violate a sacred trust and to demean the sacrifices of all who “served,” especially of those injured or killed.

Response: Pointing out and bringing attention to the lies and deception and ensuring that the truth be told is not to demean the sacrifices of those who fought, suffered, and died. Nor is it unpatriotic, or a violation of the enlistment contract. Rather, it is a patriotic duty to set the record straight, to do what is in the best interest of members of the military and veterans, and to restore the moral character of this nation.

It is a responsibility, especially of veterans, to follow the heroic example of General Butler and to ensure that the sacrifices of comrades are not further exploited for corporate profit or to entice another generation of young men and women to fight wars that further enrich bankers and war profiteers.

And finally, I believed then, and I believe now, that a person, whether a soldier or civilian, should conduct herself with honor, according to personal principles, and the dictates of one’s conscience. To participate in an unjust war, a criminal act of aggression, a violation of International and Moral law, is dishonorable, an affront to one’s integrity, a violation of conscience, and foundational to the moral injury suffered by so many of our veterans.

To those who would argue that to speak out, to tell the truth about war is to betray some trust, some fidelity to Corps and comrade, I would ask, as our brothers and sisters continue to be maimed and killed in Afghanistan, and elsewhere; as trillions of dollars are diverted from education, infrastructure, and necessary social programs to fund the war machine; as the futility and waste of perpetual war becomes apparent even to the staunchest of war’s supporters, wars that benefit no one other than the obscenely wealthy – the war profiteers – what trust and fidelity to comrades is kept by your silence? (7)

Comment: It is inaccurate to suggest that a public expression of appreciation and gratitude to veterans and members of the military for their sacrifice and service is insincere and hypocritical.

All citizens in whose names these wars are fought must share responsibility; there is blood on all of our hands.

Response: Many “civilians” claim to adamantly support the troops, to be concerned with their well-being, and truly appreciative of their sacrifice and service. Since Vietnam, the end of conscription and the establishment of the all-volunteer army, the relationship between society and its military can best be characterized as distant, symbolic and superficial. “You fight and I will cheer you on from a safe distance, and express my gratitude and celebrate your sacrifices twice annually, Veterans and Memorial Day, with barbecues and sales at the mall.”

Andrew Bacevich, historian, West Point Graduate, retired Army Colonel, and Vietnam Veteran bemoans society’s indifference to the plight of the military and of veterans. He writes, “From the pulpit and podium and at sporting events, expressions of warmth and affection shower down on the troops. Yet when those wielding power in Washington subject soldiers to serial abuse (perpetual war) Americans acquiesce. When the state heedlessly and callously exploits those same troops (multiple deployments with inadequate down time), the people avert their gaze. Maintaining a pretense of caring about soldiers (and veterans), state and society actually collaborate in betraying them.” (italics mine). (8)

Conclusion

In this article, I have addressed some of the criticisms and concerns of those who have taken issue with my request not to be thanked for my “service.” If I’ve accomplished nothing else, however, I hope to have made clear that for many of us such a request or perspective on war is motivated neither by a hatred of America nor a profound dislike of the military.

While participation in illegal and immoral war is criminal, culpability and guilt is not ours alone. We live in a democracy, government by and for the people. Consequently, all citizens in whose names these wars are fought must share responsibility; there is blood on all of our hands. Most culpable, of course, are those political and corporate leaders who make war unnecessarily and profit from the death and carnage.

Despite the great personal anguish of having to relate, in many cases to relive, profoundly troubling memories and experiences, I will continue to write about the Vietnam War and its aftermath. I write from a sense of patriotism, a love of country, the same motivation that led me to enlist in the Marine Corps some 40 years ago.

I write from a profound concern for my fellow veterans and members of the military. I write to advise them and all Americans to become informed and remain vigilant against the warists and war profiteers who continue to exploit the soldiers’ legacy and sacrifices to entice another generation of young men and women to become the cannon fodder for corporate profit. As the quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan has made clear, it is important that we heed the wisdom of the philosopher George Santayana who observed that, “Those who cannot remember (or learn from) the past are condemned to repeat it.” (9) And finally, I write to warn the politicians and war makers that there are many who see through their lies and deceptions and will not be intimidated or coerced into compliance or silence.

I will end this article as I did the original, with a plea to fellow Americans, both veteran and civilian, to abandon the mythology and the pretense of support and appreciation and do what is truly in the interest of this nation, our troops, veterans, and all those victimized by war.

” . . . Rather than merely mouth meaningless expressions of gratitude for something you don’t truly understand or care much about, do something meaningful and real . . . Make some demands. Demand, for example, an immediate end to the corporate takeover of our “democracy” and to the undue influence of the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex . . . Demand an immediate end to wars for corporate profit, greed, power and hegemony. Demand that we adhere to the Constitution and to the dictates of International and moral law.

Demand accountability for those who make war easily and care more for wealth, profit and power than for national interest or for the welfare of fellow human beings. And finally, if you are truly concerned about members of the military, demand that they be brought home now, and that they be adequately treated and cared for when they return.”

Notes:

2. Henry V, 4:1, II. 132-35.

4. Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket, Feral House, 1936, 2003.

5. Ibid.

Don’t Thank Me for my Service.”

7. The United States spent $2 trillion funding the war in Iraq, 90 percent of that money going to the richest 1 percent of Americans who had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Imperialist war in search of a pretext

The lies and the criminal indecency continue unabated. The US directly aided, armed and trained Syrian “rebel” fighters who went on to form the core of ISIS.

ISIS: Made in the USA and a most convenient pretext to inflate the “terror” threat to justify more interventions.

[T]he Obama administration is moving rapidly towards launching air strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border, in a major escalation of US military intervention in the oil-rich Middle East.

Reports indicate that the initial form of such attacks is likely to be drone-fired missiles aimed at Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and other leaders of ISIS, on the model of those already carried out in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

“For weeks, the US military’s Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, has advocated a more expansive, near-term air campaign targeting Islamic State commanders, equipment and military positions that US intelligence has pinpointed in Iraq,” the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday, quoting one top official’s mantra: “Hunt while the hunting’s good.”

The drive to war is a measure of the crisis facing US imperialism in the Middle East, after a quarter century of escalating intervention, characterized by the combination of recklessness and brutality that is the particular specialty of the American ruling class.
_______________________

The readers opine…

Thomas Baldwin

25 August 09:31

While increasingly apocalyptic administration comments and media headlines declare ISIS to be a deadly threat to the United States, there has been virtually no acknowledgement that the crisis in the Middle East is the direct product of the repeated US interventions.

Through war, occupation and CIA-backed regime-change operations, the American ruling class has created a social and political catastrophe, while stoking sectarian conflict and civil war. More immediately, the US directly aided, armed and trained Syrian “rebel” fighters who went on to form the core of ISIS, seeking to deploy them to overthrow the Assad government there.

Perhaps the most important feature of the political crisis facing the Obama administration in Iraq and Syria is that no amount of government-media war propaganda has been able to shift US public opinion. The American people are adamantly opposed to new military adventures in the Middle East, a sentiment that reflects both the thoroughly justified mistrust of the warmongers in Washington, and the mounting social crisis within the United States itself.

This deep-rooted social opposition means that the Obama administration’s plans for Syria and Iraq remains a war in search of a pretext. Over the past month, a series of provocations have been staged in an increasingly desperate effort to manufacture support for wider military action in the Middle East.

The first casus belli was to be the plight of the Yazidis, a small religious minority in northern Iraq. This was accompanied by claims from the Obama administration that military action was needed to defend American citizens and installations in Iraq.

On Tuesday, August 19, came a new pretext, supplied by ISIS itself, in the video of its barbaric execution of US photojournalist James Foley, held prisoner for two years in Syria. These terrible images generated widespread disgust and outrage at the Islamic fundamentalists.

The administration’s own claims to be horrified by the beheading of the journalist do not hold water. Its closest ally among the Arab states, Saudi Arabia, beheads people with great regularity—19 in just the month of August—including immigrant nannies fleeing slave-like conditions, and Saudi citizens “guilty” of religious offenses against the Wahabi version of Islam. There have been no condemnations of Saudi savagery from Washington, let alone demands for regime-change in Riyadh.

In the cynical calculations of US strategists, James Foley as a human being counts for nothing. As one top Pentagon adviser, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, declared, “Strategically, it doesn’t matter whether one American is killed. One person is not a measure of strategic importance. Frankly, it would be irresponsible for a president to react to a single killing.”

However, the Obama administration has decided to use the Foley murder as a justification for expanding the current US air war on ISIS to targets in Syria. “If you come after Americans, we are going to come after you,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told a press conference Friday. “We’re not going to be restricted by borders.”

On Sunday came a new theme: ISIS has grown so strong militarily that it was a threat to the entire Middle East. The British Guardian wrote that ISIS “is establishing itself with extraordinary speed as a regional power” and cited one diplomat’s claim that “Islamic State is now the most capable military power in the Middle East outside Israel.”

The purpose of this grotesque exaggeration—ISIS has been stalled outside of Baghdad by the remnants of the Iraqi Army and is now being driven back by lightly armed Kurdish peshmerga forces—is to provide yet another pretext for war. By this account, ISIS is now a threat to US allies like Jordan and NATO members like Turkey, which Washington would be treaty-bound to defend through force.

These reports point to the basic fact that the fundamental aim of US imperialism in the Middle East is not defeating ISIS—which, after all, is its own creation—but reinforcing its control over the entire region. Just one year ago, plans for bombing the Syrian government were put off. These plans, however, have not gone away.

Amidst the various contradictions of American policy in the Middle East, the one consistent thread is that every argument by the Obama administration, the Pentagon, and their media collaborators has been based on lies. The real goals of US imperialism in the region are never publicly declared, but they have nothing to do with the various humanitarian pretexts.

US imperialism seeks to maintain its domination of the oil-rich region, one of the most valuable prizes in world geo-politics. That is why Bush invaded Iraq, why Obama invaded Libya and subverted Syria, why Washington finances and arms Israel, and why the world is once against on the brink of a new imperialist war in the Middle East.

Patrick Martin is a senior commentator with the wsws.org information collective.

Kill Putin!

The Guns of August
Americans do not mind a war. They gained in every war: they had sustainable losses, they preserved their industrial base and they profited by their victories.

by ISRAEL SHAMIR, Counterpunch

(AP)

Moscow.

[O]n the Pushkin square in central Moscow, McDonald’s, this symbol of Pax Americana, has been shut down this week. It was opened 23 years ago, as the USSR collapsed, and the unipolar world of One Superpower came into being. Soviet people queued for hours to get in and try this divine foreign food. They were so innocent, so inexperienced, the Russians of yesteryear! For 23 long years, the US has ruled the world alone, while McDonald’s served its burgers. Meanwhile Russia has changed. McDonald’s is no longer an attraction for world-weary Muscovites. Across the Pushkin square, there is now another fashionable eatery, Café Pouchkine, serving the best Russian haute cuisine. In a tit-for-tat, the cheeky Russians had established a new Café Pouchkine in Paris, on Boulevard St Germain, teaching the French the joys of Russian cooking.

The Americans did not accept the challenge lightly. Kill Putin, called American pundits. They proposed to strike against Russian forces from the NATO bases in the Baltics. Pentagon extolled [the] advantages of the first nuclear strike. The Russians gloomily prepared for the worst. In a quiet dacha summer-house to the west of Moscow, my Russian scientist friends discussed Andrey Sakharov’s plan codenamed The Wave to wash away the entire Eastern seaboard of the US by means of a giant tsunami (yes, it is the same Sakharov). They lauded the Perimeter, the Doomsday weapon system Russia inherited from the USSR ensuring total destruction of the US even if Russia were erased. New and secret weapon systems were mentioned. August 2014 increasingly reminded humanity the August of 1914 or August 1939, the countdown to a Great War. At that time, the conciliatory tone of President Putin’s Crimea speech signalled that the danger of general conflagration abated somewhat. Russia stepped back from abyss.

Ostensibly this is a duel of nerves between Russia and the US; though many states, great and small, from China to Bolivia, are interested in dismantling US hegemony, Russia is the only one with political will, military clout and economical stamina to mess with the bully.

In order to preserve its place of the ultimate consumer at the top of food chain, the US wants to cut Russia down to size; publicly humiliate Putin and remove him; to assert its superiority; to harm European economies and strengthen their submis

(McDonald’s.ru)

sion to Washington; to stop loose talk of its decline, to eliminate opposition; to turn the treatment of Russia into a case study for all possible challengers.

Russia’s aims are not so grand: the country wants to live peacefully its own way and to be respected. This desire has been summed up by its opponents as “challenging the architecture of the post-cold-war order”, and it is probably true, for “the order” denies every country its right to peace and independence.

Americans do not mind a war. They gained in every war: they had sustainable losses, they preserved their industrial base and they profited by their victories. Their world wars and their recent wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria were profitable. A war between Russia and Europe with some American support has attractive sides, for them.

Russians want to avoid war. They had hard and bad experience in world wars: Russia collapsed in the course of the First world war, and suffered a lot in the Second one. In both cases, their development was retarded, a lot of human misery and economical disaster befell them. They did not enjoy their smaller wars: none gave them an advantage or profit of any kind.

Paradoxically, Russian desire to avoid war brings war closer to home. The US military and politicians do not mind to play chicken with Russia, as they are sure: Russians will chicken out. This false certainty makes them more daring and fearless with each round.

Russia is not alone. China usually supports its moves, India under Modi gets closer, Latin America builds its alliance with Russia, Iran looks for friendship in Moscow. Equally important, in every state there are people who are dissatisfied with the existing post-cold-war set-up of diminished sovereignty. They are not too far from power in France, where Marine Le Pen makes gains in elections. Americans who prefer to live their own way, just like the US did before the WWII, a normal country, not the world sheriff are potential Russian allies, as well.

The US is not alone. It has its faithful allies, England the devoted, Saudi Arabia the wealthy, Israel the cunning, – and a plethora of important politicians in all countries on the globe that were supported and promoted by various US agencies. There is probably no country without US agents near [the apex of] power: Karl Bildt of Sweden, Tony Blair of the UK… In Russia they occupy many positions around the pinnacle of power, as they were installed during the Dark Years of Yeltsin’s abject rule. Whoever wants his country to serve the Empire is an American ally.

This is not only the US vs Russia, but Machine vs Man, as well. In plotting its foreign policy, the US increasingly relies upon the computer-driven game theory using its formidable data resources, while Russians prefer manual human control. Modern super-computers and surveillance techniques give the US an edge over Russia’s decision-making. Increasingly, President Obama appears to be a perfect cyborg of right appearance who says the right things in the right time and right place, but whose actions bear no relation to the words. I wouldn’t be amazed if in a length of time we shall learn that Obama has been the first humanoid robot in the helm of power. And if he is human, he is truly wonderful actor at pretending he is a robot. Even his wife Michelle and girls seem to be well-chosen movie props rather than live partner and children.

Putin is undoubtedly human and manly. One may dislike him, and a lot of people do, but there is no doubt about his belonging to the human race. This makes the chicken game less predictable than the US leadership assumes. After Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi’s horrible executions, much can be said in favour of an all-out nuclear war in comparison with defeat and surrender. And the young Russian generation does not share their fathers’ fear of war, and they do not mind to try some of the better toys their country has. Satan, anyone?

Moreover, the game theory (partly declassified in the last decade) is not perfect yet in cross-cultural conflicts, where antagonists may play different games. For instance, you play chess, but your opponent is kickboxing. This seems to be the case here. The US plays chicken with Russia, while Russia skilfully evades the horns of a charging American bull.

The US considers itself the exceptional city on the hill, the God’s Chosen, predestined to rule the world now and forever. History is over. They want to lecture and impose their rules upon the world. The Soviets had similar ideas of Communism being predestined to complete History (for much more valid reasons—Eds), so the Cold War between two predestined states was a natural thing. Nowadays Russians do not believe in predestination. Countries rise, and go down, and form alliances, and there is no End of History in sight (the “End of History” was actually an ideological prop, a code used by capitalist ideologues to signify the “end of all class struggle,” and the arrival of a permanent “capitalism now and forever” regime.—Eds). The unipolar world is a fluke, now reverting to its normal multipolar state. The best and most comfortable arrangement is each country lives the way it likes. Leben und leben lassen.

For a long while the US was itching to teach Russia a lesson. Russia was not in full rebellion: it sold its oil and gas for US greenbacks, it kept profits in US Treasury papers, it observed the sanctions on Iran, it did not interfere with the despoiling of Libya. Still it was not sufficiently obedient. Russia blocked the destruction of Syria; it toyed with de-dollarisation of oil trade; it was for Christ and against gay marriages; cunningly it tried to undermine “Western unity” by building pipelines and bridges and bribing Europeans. In short, Russia forgot its collapse of 1991.

The Ukraine was chosen by the US as a suitable place to ignite a war, or at least to put Russia a couple of notches down and to get rid of Putin who had become by far too independent.

Ukraine

The US is winning ground while Russia loses ground in the Ukraine. Putin stubbornly refuses to send his troops in; he strains to come to terms with the US and the West over the future of Ukraine. Russia has been humiliated while proposing humanitarian aid to the besieged cities of the Donbass: its loaded lorries were delayed at the border, waiting for the Kiev regime permission to move forward. Half a million Ukrainian refugees crossed the Russian border, a few thousand civilians, militia and army personnel were killed in the confrontation.

The war for Donbass has not been especially successful for the Russians. Though the military reports are exceedingly obscure and conflicting, it seems the rebels are losing the battle against the Ukrainian army, as they have no external support. While the US claimed that the conflict is caused by Russian intervention, Russia tried to stay out of this conflict. Russia did not interfere in Kiev, when all Western ambassadors and ministers encouraged the revolt against the legitimate president. When Donbass flared up, Russia did not support it.

Putin did not want to take Donbass, in the first place, he did not want to take the Ukraine, secondly, and he did not want to resurrect the USSR, thirdly. He was forced to take the Crimea, the home base of the Russian fleet, an old part of Russia, populated by Russians, willing to join Russia, as otherwise Crimea would become a NATO navy base, but he did not want to proceed anywhere else. It did not help him: Putin is blamed internationally for the conflict and internally, for non-involvement and the subsequent defeat.

The revolt in Novorossia (the Russian-speaking half of the Ukraine) was a popular response to the West-inspired coup in Kiev, as this coup had a strong nationalist anti-Russian flavour. People of Novorossia would not try to secede if their language and culture weren’t persecuted, and if their ties to neighbouring Russia weren’t endangered. But they would not be able to proceed far, unless their revolt attracted some rebels looking for a cause, first of all – the military genius and a great romantic figure, Colonel Igor Strelkov, a “Russian Lawrence”.

Igor Strelkov (left) read history in Moscow U, but he decided (like T.E. Lawrence) that it is more fun to make history. He fought in Transnistria, a small sliver of land between Moldova and Ukraine, defending local people from the onslaught of Moldavian nationalists. He volunteered to a Serb militia in Yugoslavia; he forced the indifferent Russian Army command to take him as an officer to the First Chechen war; he served in the Second Chechen war, and as a volunteer, he served in Syria and Dagestan. He writes beautifully, he is a superb tactician, able to lead soldiers by the strength of his charisma. His acquaintances describe him as a daredevil who does not care about money, comfort, family life or pleasures.

For Strelkov, the campaign in Novorossia had a taste of destiny. Like many Russians of his generation, he dreamed of resurrecting Russia as it was, whether the Soviet Union or pre-revolutionary Russian Empire (his preference). Like many Russians of his generation, he considered the Ukraine – a natural part of Russia, and an independent Ukrainian state – a misnomer. Despite his military rank, Strelkov was a free agent; he came to Novorossia without Putin’s blessing and he would come and stay against Putin’s will, too. We shall probably hear more about this remarkable man.

Strelkov was not alone: quite a few brave fighters from Ukraine and Russia came to join the rebels. Their initial success was a surprise for Putin’s administration. But the rebellion has failed to take over other provinces. In Odessa, the private army of Kolomoysky the ruthless oligarch burned some fifty unarmed rebel sympathisers alive in a grisly autodafe, and this cruel act scared the timid and jovial Odessites. In Kharkov, the governor made a deal with the Kiev regime and the uprising miscarried. It seems that Strelkov, though a military prodigy, was less than a wonderful demagogue. His dream of Great Russia did not make sense to the people of Novorossia. Yes, they spoke Russian, yes, they hated the Kiev and Lvov neo-nazi gangs, but they did not understand Strelkov’s Russian nationalism.

Without direct Russian involvement, a separatist movement in Novorossia was doomed to fail. There was a way to win: to conquer the whole of Ukraine, perhaps barring its far-west, and afterwards to make arrangements for federalisation or even for break-up. It could be done by using an inclusive ideology, acceptable for Donetsk, Odessa, Kiev, Poltava. Perhaps some neo-Soviet ideas could be employed; dissatisfaction with the oligarchs could be used. But Strelkov and other rebels with their firm rejection of Ukraine per se could not sweep the masses, and they did not even try to move towards Kiev or Kharkov.

Putin minimised Russia’s involvement in the Donbass war. He supported it much less than the United States supported the Texas revolution of 1835. His government tried to patch things up with the Kiev regime, but its ‘president’ steadfastly refused, under American orders. In Kiev, far-right radicals attacked the Russian embassy; and the regime’s armed forces began indiscriminate shelling and bombing of rebel cities. This was a great humiliation for Putin who promised to defend the Russians in failing Ukraine. His advisers, notably Sergey Glazyev, an expert on Ukraine, called to take a leaf from the Western book on Libya and impose a no-fly zone over Donbass. (In March 2011, as a rebellion flared up in Benghazi, the US and its allies imposed a no-fly zone over parts of Libya professing horror of Qaddafi’s ruthless shelling of the rebels. Russia and China abstained, and the French-British draft became the Security Council resolution authorising not only no-fly zone but “all necessary measures” to protect civilians from harm.) Kiev’s regime certainly killed more civilians than Qaddafi did; but Putin did not declare a no-fly zone, he did not use his firepower to suppress Kievan artillery shelling civilians.

Russia did very little for Donbass. Now, the Russians try to negotiate a conclusion to the Donbass war. The reports predict some autonomy for Donbass within Ukraine.

Many Russians are likely to be greatly disappointed. But some enterprises – worthy and unworthy – fail. Life is full of disappointments. I remember Ibo separatists of Biafra, who were eventually defeated by the central government. Separatists of Iranian Azerbaijan were defeated, though Josef Stalin supported them. The US failed to re-conquer Cuba. Argentines failed to liberate the Malvinas. This list is endless. Perhaps Russians have to wait for a better opportunity.

Did Putin chicken out?

Why did Putin give up on Novorossia? There is no doubt, Novorossia is extremely important for Russia. NATO troops and US missiles in Donetsk and Lugansk would endanger Russia. Its loss would threaten Russian defence industry as this part of Ukraine was fully integrated with Russia since the Tsar’s days. Was it fear of an all-out war? Did President Putin consider intervention in R2P mode a too dangerous step for his country?

The Western media machine is as powerful as nuclear weapons; when in full blast, it incapacitates leaders and countries.

In Putin’s view, Europe is more important than Ukraine. He is willing to sacrifice Donbass in the hope of gaining Berlin. For years, he courted old Europe. Even his Olympic games with its expensive show aimed at Europe: he wanted to tell the Europeans that Russia is part and parcel of Europe. Putin speaks German, he served in Germany as KGB operative in the last years of the USSR, and he has a soft spot for Germany.

The US propaganda machine called upon Europeans to defend Ukraine from the Russian bear, claiming the Russians will not stop in the Ukraine but continue to the Atlantic. This claim was quite successful; especially as it came after the very long anti-Russian media campaign (gays, orphans, toilets in Sochi etc.). Putin was afraid that by taking Ukraine he will alienate European public opinion. So he procrastinated, until the Malaysian liner disaster struck.

The liner

The Malaysian liner crash was a terrible disaster in many ways. Not so much per se: three hundred people are being killed each day in Gaza, Iraq, Donbass. Europeans and Americans forgot the Cuban air liner flight 455, or Iranian liner flight 655, or Libyan liner flight 114, as these liners were downed by “our side”. But this was a chance for the Western media machine to unleash its dreadful might. This machine is as powerful as nuclear weapons; when in full blast, it incapacitates leaders and countries. Thousands of TV channels, newspapers, radio programs, bloggers, internet sites, experts, ministers, presidents united in one single message, terrifying as vox Dei, though it’s not even a vox populi, just a device of the Masters of Discourse (mouthpieces for the “Masters of the Universe”—the finance capitalists‚), akin to big trumpets used by Romans to scare the barbarians.

All British newspapers ran photos of dead children with captions like “He was murdered by Putin”. Russians were overwhelmed by the furious blast of propaganda. People wept; some weak and emotional personalities admitted their guilt and lit candles in front of the Netherlands embassy in Moscow. Why Netherlands, if the liner was Malaysian? (Because Netherlands is a European “white” country, while Malays are not?) Why guilt, if nothing was known yet? Why did not we see pictures of slaughtered Gaza kids with caption “murdered by Netanyahu”, killed Iraqi kids “murdered by Blair”, murdered Afghani babies “murdered by Obama”? This is the incredible power of the Masters of Discourse: when they go full blast, people lose their minds and panic.

I welcomed every conspiratorial scheme in this case, as well as in 9/11 case. Not because I believe or even prefer this or other scheme. I see it as a useful device to release minds from the holding power of mass hysteria induced by the mass media. It is necessary to sow doubt in order to release minds and regain sanity.

A successful 9/11 conspiracy theory could have saved the lives of thousands of Muslims killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Recently Israeli Jews were induced into mass hysteria as three young settlers disappeared. This mass hysteria resulted in the half a million refugees and two thousand dead of Gaza. An attempt to sow doubt regarding the official story (claiming they were stolen by Mossad etc.) was an attempt to save lives. Likewise, every way to sow doubt regarding the Malaysian plane was a way to save lives.

Now, one month later, we know that there was no evidence of Russian involvement in the tragedy. There are strong pieces of evidence suggesting Kiev and US involvement, the best of them is a negative one: if Kiev and Washington would have a proof of Russian and/or the rebels’ guilt we would hear of it day and night. If you are interested in a detailed analysis of the disaster, you can read this one, recommended by our friends. I must admit I am not interested in details, for the reasons similar to those of Noam Chomsky regarding 9/11. While every explanation that differs from one promoted by Masters of Discourse is good because it breaks their hold on minds, the importance of such an event is greatly overblown by media. Anyway, the air liner is out of the news and out of mind by now, and this means it was an accident or a failed provocation by Kiev or Washington, for otherwise we would hear about it.

However, in real time the air liner disaster made a huge impact on Russian minds. For a while, I feared Putin would retire or be retired or removed from power, and Russia would fall apart. The US wanted to get rid of Putin and place a more pliable figure on the Russian throne, preferably an oligarch like Poroshenko.

Their thinking was summed up by Herbert E. Meyer, a spook (“an ex- Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council”). He wrote:

“Since subtlety doesn’t work with Russians, the president and his European counterparts should also make absolutely clear that we have no interest whatever in how these people solve their Putin problem. If [the oligarchs] can talk good old Vladimir into leaving the Kremlin with full military honors and a 21-gun salute — that would be fine with us. If Putin is too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head — that would also be okay with us.”

Tension peaked at the most dramatic night between Sunday, July 20 and Monday, July 21, when Putin delivered a short message to the nation – at 01.40 am. For such an unusual time, it was quite a tame message. Putin said nothing of importance. Next day, he was supposed to make a major speech at his own security cabinet. Again, he said nothing of importance. In my view, President Putin wanted to show he is still alive and well and still in command. Apparently this was not obvious for some persons, in Russia or abroad, at that fateful night.

(To be continued)

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net