The coming revolution is as sure as rain.
If there is any result of the Arab spring that will capture the attention of history, is the resulting irony of revolution in the US.
Why, we ask, did the Arab spring catch like wildfire across the middle east?
Simply because people witnessed the sheer power of protest, and how truly unstoppable it is.
The only component necessary, after the full disclosure of the actual risks of such a revolution, is the level of angst to outweigh the costs.
The costs of revolution through protest, thought to be quite high, has been discovered to be much less, causing a global adjustment to the cost/benefit equation of revolution.
There is now less of a threshold, a lower necessary level of discontent necessary to tip the scale.
Does any one think, after witnessing the Arab spring, that we cannot bring down any government on earth with simple passive resistance alone? Quite clearly, we can.
So, the threshold of pain has yet to be reached in the US. But when and if it does, we will not need to take up arms against anyone. The revolution will happen at the right time, and the people will be ready to form a new government when that time is right.
I listen to the Obama Democrats, as I call them, or those who voted for Obama twice.. and what I hear astounds me.
Obama is an obvious conservative, if anyone knows what the term means in context. Not only does the left not protest his imperialist military policies, but they stand in line to worship the man. Some of these same people were student leaders protesting the Vietnam war in the 60's. Hippies into Yuppies, they abandoned their principles in the booming 90's and haven't looked back.
I have to laugh when people talk about the banks causing the housing crash. It was personal greed, for the most part. I watched it all around me at the time. People took what they could get, with little concern for the big commune. These are the hippies, now driving hybrids and eying their 401ks.
Noam Chomsky and Cornel West both talk about how the values of the 'left' changed from social welfare to the protection of personal freedoms, ie civil liberties and the like. There was a time when lifting a citizen out of poverty was the central liberal agenda, as opposed to abortion rights, global warming, labor union protection and the like.
People talk about the extreme right and their salacious ideas, but the left has shrunk so far as to only include those who participated in the Occupy movement, those who mostly protest the voting system for lack of authenticity, and a majority of despondent and apathetic give-upers who have also chosen the selfish path.
And from this motley crew, we will find the leader of the next great American revolution.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
War on terror and global domination
It is amazing how efficient the suppression and control of information has become, in the main stream US press..
What started as a 'war on terror', in revenge for 911, has increasingly merged with existing struggles of global domination, after the Arab Spring in particular, pitting old foes against each other upon 'terrorist' fighting lines.
The cold war is not over. In fact, Russian aggression in Georgia while the US was over burdened with Iraq and Afghanistan, is a clear indication that Russia is capable, willing, and looking for the opportunity to take territory.
The stalemate in Syria is one of the most brutal of US policies, harking back to the encouragement of civil wars in Aria, conflicts like Afghanistan v Russia, Iraq v Iran. The US war mongers love the idea of Islamists dying to fight Iranian and Russian secret service and militia, not to mention depleting the strength of Syrian state.
The US learned from the arming of the Mugahadeen in fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan that they may very well morph into a al Qaeda like entity, able to turn the fighting skills and weapons provided by the US, back on the US in time... The US learned not to arm or train them, just to get them to fight effectively enough to create a stalemate against another enemy (in this case Assad in Syria)
The US is happy to see the coalescing of Islamist groups, given how difficult it has been to find and bomb them into submission. How wonderful it would be, for our WWII style military, built to take and hold land. Stand there and let us shoot at you.. sounds silly, but we figured out how to get Islamists to not only show themselves, in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to get them to stand up and fight our enemies.
I dont think the US military is smart or talented enough to make that happen by design, but since it has materialized, the US brass is all over supporting and perpetuating the situation.
The modernization of the military, or so Obama called it, is all about being everywhere, irrespective of declarations of war, or map bound conflict over land.
The US decided not to follow international law, quite some time ago now. Part of that, is not playing by the rules of engagement up to that point. No declaration of war necessary, no need to hold territory, no need to send public personnel, using technology to blur the lines of the old paradigm. - For example, we now do business with our enemies, as long as our conflicts are low on the public radar. (Russia, China)
What we thought would be a war of information and espionage, has also been a war of evolving methodology in how to use that information (drone strikes, political and social manipulation, for example). Managing stability of nations, or the lack thereof, has been the key to the new global war.
The Arab spring has provided a large opportunity for the US. Both the Muslim brotherhood movement and the fall of dictators we didnt favor. In general, the middle east is unstable, just like we want it. We dont want them to become too powerful, in a state kind of way, ie Iran. Its much better to see the tribal fiefdoms all across the middle east, not able to organize any major military to threaten the global position of the US. Its a risky strategy, but thats what we are going with, given the results of the Arab spring to date.
I think we learned from what Al Qaeda tried to do in Iraq, when they started car bombing opposite sides of old religious and cultural lines of conflict in Iraq in order to cause instability. We figured that was a great tactic, even though it didnt work for Al Qaeda of Iraq, with our resources and military sophistication, we could do that same trick much more effectively. I think this is now playing itself out in Syrian policy.
The US will go after the militants that gather, or recruit significant followings.. like in Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, parts of Indonesia, for example, as long as they are not busy fighting our enemies. I think they like the idea of a situation like Mali, where there is a visible force to defeat, especially if Europe foots most of the bill.
Where the Islamists do not solidify into a fighting force of size, we will attack them with commandos and drones.
We have military in over 130 countries or so.. its hard to count at this point. There is little hope of a change in strategy like long term economic engagement, or appeasement and recognition of those who want to live under Sharia law. Our support and cooperation with Saudi Arabia should be an example of how we can peacefully work with conservative Islamic states, not a reason for us to abandon relations with other Islamic states that may develop in northern Africa.
What started as a 'war on terror', in revenge for 911, has increasingly merged with existing struggles of global domination, after the Arab Spring in particular, pitting old foes against each other upon 'terrorist' fighting lines.
The cold war is not over. In fact, Russian aggression in Georgia while the US was over burdened with Iraq and Afghanistan, is a clear indication that Russia is capable, willing, and looking for the opportunity to take territory.
The stalemate in Syria is one of the most brutal of US policies, harking back to the encouragement of civil wars in Aria, conflicts like Afghanistan v Russia, Iraq v Iran. The US war mongers love the idea of Islamists dying to fight Iranian and Russian secret service and militia, not to mention depleting the strength of Syrian state.
The US learned from the arming of the Mugahadeen in fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan that they may very well morph into a al Qaeda like entity, able to turn the fighting skills and weapons provided by the US, back on the US in time... The US learned not to arm or train them, just to get them to fight effectively enough to create a stalemate against another enemy (in this case Assad in Syria)
The US is happy to see the coalescing of Islamist groups, given how difficult it has been to find and bomb them into submission. How wonderful it would be, for our WWII style military, built to take and hold land. Stand there and let us shoot at you.. sounds silly, but we figured out how to get Islamists to not only show themselves, in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to get them to stand up and fight our enemies.
I dont think the US military is smart or talented enough to make that happen by design, but since it has materialized, the US brass is all over supporting and perpetuating the situation.
The modernization of the military, or so Obama called it, is all about being everywhere, irrespective of declarations of war, or map bound conflict over land.
The US decided not to follow international law, quite some time ago now. Part of that, is not playing by the rules of engagement up to that point. No declaration of war necessary, no need to hold territory, no need to send public personnel, using technology to blur the lines of the old paradigm. - For example, we now do business with our enemies, as long as our conflicts are low on the public radar. (Russia, China)
What we thought would be a war of information and espionage, has also been a war of evolving methodology in how to use that information (drone strikes, political and social manipulation, for example). Managing stability of nations, or the lack thereof, has been the key to the new global war.
The Arab spring has provided a large opportunity for the US. Both the Muslim brotherhood movement and the fall of dictators we didnt favor. In general, the middle east is unstable, just like we want it. We dont want them to become too powerful, in a state kind of way, ie Iran. Its much better to see the tribal fiefdoms all across the middle east, not able to organize any major military to threaten the global position of the US. Its a risky strategy, but thats what we are going with, given the results of the Arab spring to date.
I think we learned from what Al Qaeda tried to do in Iraq, when they started car bombing opposite sides of old religious and cultural lines of conflict in Iraq in order to cause instability. We figured that was a great tactic, even though it didnt work for Al Qaeda of Iraq, with our resources and military sophistication, we could do that same trick much more effectively. I think this is now playing itself out in Syrian policy.
The US will go after the militants that gather, or recruit significant followings.. like in Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, parts of Indonesia, for example, as long as they are not busy fighting our enemies. I think they like the idea of a situation like Mali, where there is a visible force to defeat, especially if Europe foots most of the bill.
Where the Islamists do not solidify into a fighting force of size, we will attack them with commandos and drones.
We have military in over 130 countries or so.. its hard to count at this point. There is little hope of a change in strategy like long term economic engagement, or appeasement and recognition of those who want to live under Sharia law. Our support and cooperation with Saudi Arabia should be an example of how we can peacefully work with conservative Islamic states, not a reason for us to abandon relations with other Islamic states that may develop in northern Africa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)