Author: R J Adams

Today, the story of that old English king of legend, Canute, who attempted to stem the tides by royal command, is considered nothing more than myth. As a schoolboy, I was taught that Canute attempted this rather egotistical act, not with any vain idea of success, but to prove to his feudal barons he really was a mere mortal.

King Canute was nothing if not bold, and Liberal Democrat life peer Andrew Phillips, writing in the Guardian newspaper yesterday, stated that Tony Blair will need to be “……..bold, in the way he was in Ulster……..” if he is to make any progress in resolving the Israeli/Palestinian situation, adding, “He will need all his connections and experience to make progress.”

Lord Phillips began his article by suggesting Tony Blair may have accepted “………the thankless role of special envoy to that benighted land……” because he “……has Palestine on his conscience……..”

Andrew Phillips may be right in his assessment. After all, it’s been the Bush administration’s policies in the region and Blair’s unconditional attachment to them, that have resulted in a lack of any progress towards furtherance of the ill-fated “roadmap”.

Unlike his transatlantic counterpart, who blindly follows the indoctrinal traditions of wealthy, right-wing, nationalistic US policies without thought to the consequences, Blair is a thinker only retarded by the indoctrinal policies of religious ethics and a desire to be linked with the all-powerful. In a nutshell, Tony is intelligent but insecure, and uses both religion and the US as his personal crutches, but only after serious infighting with his conscience.

Blair’s decision to accept the “thankless role of special envoy” was, I believe, down to two factors: an inflated sense of his own ability to achieve success where others have ignominiously failed, bolstered by a degree of achievement in what was a somewhat different situation in Northern Ireland, and, the egotistical flattery of George Bush’s enthusiasm for determining him the “man for the job”.

It is here that Bush and Blair part company. Bush chose Blair for the position because he needs a mouthpiece in the region, and he assumes Blair will follow blindly, as he did with Iraq. Blair, on the other hand, believes he was chosen as the best man to succeed at the job. In a sense, that was true. Where both men differ, is in defining “the job”.

Any future for the Palestinians and the “peace process”, must now be viewed within the broader context of American foreign policy in the Middle East. A Democrat takeover in 2008 is unlikely to effect that policy substantially, given that both parties are controlled by the same corporate power machine. Top of the agenda is success in Iraq. An ignominious withdrawal from that country might not scupper plans completely, but would make furtherance of US policy much more difficult due to a heightened sense in the region that the US was not the invulnerable superpower it has claimed to be. Israel is still struggling from a similar problem after its debacle in Lebanon last year.

If the US can achieve subjugation in Iraq, it will have successfully surrounded both Iran and Syria with US bases. Applying the nutcrackers of political, and if necessary, military pressure on those regimes would be a relatively easy and straightforward task. It is unlikely either government could withstand such pressure for long, creating an instability in both nations that the US could manipulate to its own ends.

At this point, it is anticipated all resistance to US intervention would collapse, moderate governments like those of Egypt and Jordan would toe the line, and militarily the US/Israeli alliance would be sufficiently well-placed to impose a solution on the Palestinians they would have little choice but to accept.

Tony Blair’s job, as envisaged by Washington, is to keep alive the idea of a “peace process” for the interim, while skilfully steering a diplomatic course through the reefs and political shipwrecks of continued Israeli domination of Palestinian interests.

Blair’s view is likely to be somewhat different. He’s still young and ambitious enough to recognize that success in this arena would place him in an exalted position on the world stage. He is unlikely to follow George Bush’s bidding in the same way he capitulated over Iraq.

Andrew Phillips is right to say he will need to be bold, for like that legendary king of ancient times, he will have to stand firmly on the beach of international politics and command the tides of US/Israeli interventionism to ebb away before him.

Somehow, I doubt Tony Blair will find himself any more immortal than Canute.

Link to Andrew Phillip’s article HERE.

Filed under: Blair’s blunders

On US television one voice stands out, alone in the wilderness of corporate corruption and political scandal, as a dim candle in the long dark night that is this period of America’s history. Bill Moyer’s Journal, a weekly uncovering of the underhandedness and scams of those who control the lives of ordinary Americans, never fails to raise the hope that somewhere in the Stygian gloom there are others prepared to light their candle and shine an ever intensifying beam of truth on the scandalous and uncaring takers in this society, those who have no conscience, no qualms, no thought for any but themselves; those who steal from the poor to give to the rich, while pocketing a hefty fee for the privilege, even when the “rich” are actually themselves.

Bill Moyers ended this week’s show by offering a personal opinion of one such parasite, perhaps one of the most rapacious and malevolent of them all – Rupert Murdoch.

The transcript is copied below:

“If Rupert Murdoch were the Angel Gabriel, you still wouldn’t want him owning the sun, the moon, and the stars. That’s too much prime real estate for even the pure in heart.

But Rupert Murdoch is no saint; he is to propriety what the Marquis de Sade was to chastity. When it comes to money and power he’s carnivorous: all appetite and no taste. He’ll eat anything in his path. Politicians become little clay pigeons to be picked off with flattering headlines, generous air time, a book contract or the old-fashioned black jack that never misses: campaign cash. He hires lobbyists the way Imelda Marcos bought shoes, and stacks them in his cavernous closet, along with his conscience; this is the man, remember, who famously kowtowed to the Communist overlords of China, oppressors of their own people, to protect his investments there.

The ambitious can’t resist his blandishments, Nor his power to get or keep them in office where they can return his favors. Mae West would be green with envy at his little black book of conquests. Tory Margaret Thatcher. Labor’s Tony Blair. George Bush. Even Jimmy Carter couldn’t say no.. now Bill and Hillary Clinton, who know which side of their bread is buttered, like having it slathered by their new buddy Rupert. Our media and political system has turned into a mutual protection racket.

You will not be surprised to learn that Murdoch’s company paid little or no federal income tax over the past four years. His powerful portfolio positions him to claim a big stake in Yahoo and his takeover of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, now owned by the Bancroft family, which, like Adam and Eve, the parents of us all, are tempted to sell their birthright for a wormy apple.

Murdoch and THE JOURNAL’s editorial page are made for each other. They’ve both pursued the right’s corporate and political agenda of the past quarter century. Both venerate what THE JOURNAL editorials call the “animal spirits” of business. But THE JOURNAL’s newsroom is another matter – there facts are sacred and independence revered. Rupert Murdoch has told the Bancrofts he’ll not meddle with the reporting. But he’s accustomed to using journalism as a personal spittoon. In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, he turned the dogs of war loose in the newsrooms of his empire and they howled for blood. Murdoch himself said the greatest thing to come out of the war would be “$20 a barrel for oil.”

Of course he wasn’t the only media mogul to clamor for war. And he’s not the first to use journalism to promote his own interests. His worst offense with Fox news is not even its baldly partisan agenda. Far worse is the travesty he’s made of its journalism. Fox news huffs and puffs, pontificates and proclaims, but does little serious original reporting. His tabloids sell babes and breasts, gossip and celebrities. Now he’s about to bring under the same thumb one of the few national newsrooms remaining in the country.

But the problem isn’t just Rupert Murdoch. His pursuit of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL is the latest in a cascading series of mergers, buy-outs, and other financial legerdemain that are making a shipwreck of journalism. Public minded newspapers are being dumped by their owners for wads of cash or crippled by cost cutting while their broadcasting cousins race to the bottom. Murdoch is just the predator of the hour. The modern maestro of a financial marketplace ruled by money and moguls. Instead of checking the excesses of private and public power, these 21st century barons of the first amendment revel in them; the public be damned.”

Is Bill Moyers to be the only American of this era with enough guts and decency to stand up and shout the truth from the rooftops? He’s not a young man. His voice may not be around too much longer. Where are those young Americans with lusty voices and truth-loving minds who will form the next generation of warriors for justice, fairplay, and equality? Will any of them be prepared to rise up and take on the corporate thieves who are stealing their birthright?

Or are they, perhaps, just too absorbed in the novelty of their new iPhones?

Filed under: Courageous American

The latest news from Iraq, that American media outlets seem in no rush to broadcast, involves two US soldiers accused of premeditated murder for the killing of three Iraqis, then attempting to make it look as though the civilians were killed in combat by placing guns next to the bodies.

A statement from the military announced this is:

“merely an accusation of wrongdoing. The soldiers are presumed innocent unless and until they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of any alleged offense.”

Obviously, these guys are fighting in a different world from those Middle Eastern detainees, presumed guilty and held indefinitely without hope of trial, in various US facilities throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay.

Story link HERE.

US news channels were less loathe to broadcast the story that troops overnight killed twenty-six “militants” and captured seventeen in raids on the Sadr City district of Baghdad.

A glorious victory? Perhaps, if the US military’s account is to be believed.

One thing is certain, these “militants” were definitely not members of al Qaeda. There are no al Qaeda in Shia Sadr City.

Which begs the question: who were they?

Iraqi hospital officials and police put the death toll at only eight, and say civilians were killed while in their homes. According to AP, one resident Basheer Ahmed, who lives in Sadr City’s Habibiya area said:

“”At about 0400, a big American convoy with tanks came and began to open fire on houses – bombing them……….What did we do? We didn’t even retaliate – there was no resistance.”

Of course, we know from experience that US military reports are always one hundred percent accurate, and the Iraqis are just a bunch of lying bastards who deserve everything they get, even when what they get is Abu Ghraib style abuse, torture, rape, and similar atrocities imposed by the US military.

Link HERE.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan – (where?) – the steady and regular slaughter of innocents continues, with a report today suggesting possibly fifty to eighty civilians, including women and children, were killed when US-led forces bombed an area in Helmand province on Friday.

Link HERE.

There is some confusion regarding NATO’s role in Afghanistan – confusion often conveniently utilized by the US news media. More than once, the term “NATO-led forces” has been heard when describing incidents of civilian deaths. In fact, there are two separate forces in Afghanistan – NATO-led Isaf, or International Security Assistance Force, charged with providing security and assistance to the Afghan people, rebuilding roads and infrastructure – and the US-led (and dominated) coalition originally charged with finding Osama bin Laden. In almost all instances of civilian deaths, it has been the US-led coalition who were responsible, not the NATO-led Isaf.

Such was the case in this latest incident, which occurred only one week after another twenty-five civilians were killed in the same area by the US-led coalition. An incident that brought a stiff rebuke from Afghanistan’s President Karzai.

Just three months ago, in March 2007, a supposedly “elite” US Marine Corps unit was ordered to leave Afghanistan after:

“……Afghan witnesses said the Marines fired recklessly at passing vehicles and pedestrians along the crowded road flanked by shops. The U.S. military initially said 16 civilians were killed but later changed that estimate to eight. An official at a local hospital said 14 people had died. The military said 35 people were wounded, among them a coalition service member. Afghan President Hamid Karzai criticized the U.S. military reaction, and the incident sparked large anti-American protests.” Washington Post 03/24/2007 & 04/15/2007.

The US military investigation later updated the figures to ten dead and thirty-three wounded.

While accepting that many US service personnel are decent, humane individuals trying to do their best under the the most severe conditions, the evidence for a large-scale mindset of trigger-happy arrogance and egotistical superiority in the US military – including amongst high-ranking officers – leaves little doubt there are serious shortcomings in the training and discipline of US military personnel of all ranks.

Americans are consistently led to believe their military is the best in the world. Best armed; best trained; most disciplined. Once again, the American people are being hoodwinked by their politicians.

The US military is renowned throughout the rest of the world as the most undisciplined, badly trained and inefficient organization, only able to function at all through sheer force of numbers and equipment.

The record the US military will eventually leave behind in Iraq and Afghanistan will confirm beyond doubt the accuracy of that assessment.

Filed under: US militarism