BLOG POSTS

One of my regular reads, Vineyard Views, recently drew attention to an article by Stephen Walt in ‘Foreign Policy’. It was entitled, “Why They Hate Us”, and addressed the concept of military occupation.

Walt begins the piece thus:

One of the many barriers to developing a saner U.S. foreign policy is our collective failure to appreciate why military occupations generate so much hatred, resentment, and resistance, and why we should therefore go to enormous lengths to avoid getting mired in them…….We blundered into Somalia in the early 1990s without realizing that we weren’t welcome; we invaded Iraq thinking we would be greeted as liberators, and we still don’t fully understand why many Afghans resent our presence and why some are driven to take up arms against us.”^[1]

Why, I ask myself, is it not obvious? Does anyone truly have to read this before pausing long enough to reach a glaringly blatant conclusion? Or has the populace of the U.S. played the role of the modern Roman Empire for so long that any innate ability to put oneself in the underdog’s position has, over generations, been completely brainwashed away?

Surely a gentleman from Yorkville, Manhatton, or Alcova Heights, Washington, D.C., wouldn’t find it utterly impossible to imagine how he’d react if a foreign army marched into his town and took over? After all, in a sense that’s exactly what happened on 9/11/2001; foreigners invaded part of Manhattan and destroyed it, while similar foreigners attacked the hub of the U.S. military. The resultant backlash from the American nation – the dreadful carnage of revenge – is well documented, begging the question: why, then, is America so mortified when its own army invades a foreign country and the inhabitants retaliate?

Walt continues his essay by likening life under foreign occupation to being caught by an abusive policeman on a U.S highway for speeding, or problems at a border crossing when the customs official doesn’t speak your language, before then suggesting America has itself experienced foreign occupation during the Civil War.

America invaded by Americans? I fail to grasp the similarity.

While Stephen Walt makes a valiant effort to understand the true feelings of those unfortunate enough to feel the jackboot of an invading army on their necks, he fails miserably. His essay only serves to highlight his own failings and those of his fellow Americans unable to grasp the real concept he is trying to portray.

Were one to compare the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan with the German conquests of Poland or Czechoslovakia in 1930’s Europe, American hands would raise in horror, but the end result is exactly similar.

The truth about foreign invasion is that it is never for the benefit of the indigenous populace, only ever in the interests of the aggressor. Walt’s writing is dotted with phrases such as, “benevolent occupation”, and, “acting from more-or-less benevolent motives”. The word ‘benevolent’ is a total antithesis to ‘military occupation’.

Walt’s essay serves only to provide proof that indoctrination of the American people is a total success. Political cover-ups suggest invasion and occupation by U.S. military forces are designed solely to liberate and protect the very people they’re subjugating. Americans lap it up like kittens around a saucer of warm milk.

The truth is much more to do with what is euphemistically called ‘American interests’. Oil is top of the list, ensuring that steady supply of energy vital to maintain the petroleum-based, fat-cat, lifestyles too many Americans have grown used to for too long. Control of a region by military force to advance U.S. markets in developing nations is the other major ‘American interest’, though frequently the two go together, rather like an M16 and an M1A2.

Stephen Walt needs to tell his readers to forget about American military benevolence. It doesn’t exist. Tens of thousands of Iraqis – at least, those still alive – will attest to that.

So long as the U.S. continues to conduct its insane foreign policy at the end of a gun barrel, Americans will find themselves considered by others as the barbarians they still are; content to live a slothful, indulgent, lifestyle at home while their military killing machine benevolently annihilates the innocents of foreign lands in vast numbers.

^{[1] “Why They Hate Us (I): on military occupation” FP, November 23rd 2009}

Filed under: Ignorance is no excuse

Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, has been ostracized by the Catholic Church and told not to partake of communion, due to his views on abortion rights.^[1]

Patrick Kennedy has never been ostracized by his church for binge drinking, drug addiction, driving under the influence, or any of the other ‘sins’ to which, over time, he has admitted, but he’s now become a victim of Rome for simply daring to hold a contrary viewpoint.

Patrick Kennedy believes any fourteen year old girl, perhaps raped by her father or stepfather, should have the right to terminate a subsequent pregnancy by removal of the tiny clump of fetal cells Rome and its followers hold in such high regard.

The life of a fourteen year old girl is of no consequence to Rome. Especially not if her religious affiliation is non-Catholic. Rome is not only illogical, it nurtures something innately evil at its heart.

Patrick Kennedy believes the life of a young female child to be more important than a few fetal cells.

Sparrow Chat agrees with him.

^{[1] “Kennedy son ‘denied communion’ in US abortion row” BBC, November 23rd 2009}

Filed under: There’s no such thing as hell

I arrived in America on September 18th 2002. Two weeks later, on October 2nd, John Allen Muhammad – the Beltway Sniper, as he quickly became known – murdered his first Washington victim.

The following day, October 3rd, Muhammad’s killing spree peaked, with the shooting dead of five more innocent people. Over the next nineteen days seven more fell victim to this lethal psychopath, though three of them survived.

I remember wondering just what sort of country I had come to. For fifty years of life in Britain I’d never once paused to consider the possibility of being shot dead while filling up my car, walking the dog, or nipping down the road to pick up a newspaper. Suddenly, it seemed a real possibility, reinforced by weekly visits to a Walmart supermarket that openly displayed rifles and ammunition on sale.

Muhammad’s killing spree, along with his young accomplice, Malvo, continued until their arrest on October 24th. America breathed a sigh of relief it was all over. So far as I was concerned, it had only just begun.

Living in a country that allows anyone and everyone to own a firearm is disconcerting when one’s previous abode does not. There is probably a similar percentage of psychopathic maniacs in Britain as are at large in the United States, but virtually none of them have access to any weapon with the sheer killing power of the Bushmaster rifle chosen by John Allen Muhammad.

Today, seven years on, it’s John Allen Muhammad’s turn to be murdered. He is to be executed by the State of Virginia. I hope they’re proud to sink to his level.

As for me, I’ve lived through so many massacres and shootings since the days of the Beltway sniper, even documented some, and I still never fail to be horrified at how quickly Americans put it all behind them, and pretend it will never happen again.

Personally, I’d much rather John Allen Muhammad lived out his days in a prison cell, where he could mull over the heartache and mental agony he caused so many to suffer for the rest of their lives. It hardly seems right to deny him that.

Meanwhile, I no longer own a dog, or read newspapers, but I’ll still glance nervously over my shoulder every time I gas up the car.

Filed under: Sick people