Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Being U.S. President is Never Having to Say You’re Sorry, Never Stopping a Madness You Didn’t Start & Inducing National Amnesia

John Grant has a wry, clear way of framing the moral vacuum that is America and its ferocious military status quo that steamrolls ever onward, contrary to all logic, justice and empathy.

Grant contends that the U.S.'s Middle East influence has profoundly waned, as opposed to Turkey’s and Iran’s, despite “hundreds of thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars of equipment and bases." “And a lot of face to save,” he adds. The 2003 U.S. Iraq invasion and occupation was what “boosted” Iran to strong regional influence he emphasizes.

John Grant on George W. Bush's reflection on his war (or lack of reflection):

Still, you have to admire US leaders for their talent and tenacity in never publicly recognizing the obvious. George Bush, of course, was an underestimated master at this.

He and his gang of cutthroats stumbled around in the world like drunken fat men knocking over furniture and vomiting on the couch. Then, at the press conference when a reporter asked if there was anything he could say had been a “mistake,” he'd give us that famous vacant look.

“Gee. I’m thinking,” he’d say with an aw-shucks grin and a shy chuckle. “I’m trying but I just can’t come up with anything right now.” Another chuckle and a little shrug. Then: “I’ll take it under advisement and get back to you in a couple decades.”

In other words, “Buzz off and leave me alone. I’m the leader of the free world. I don't make mistakes. I make history.”

Grant also takes on the present do-nothing reality of Obama and his continuation of Bush-Cheney policies:

Mr. Obama doesn’t play the same coy public games Mr. Bush played. His game revolves around the idea that all the mistakes were made by Bush, but since they are now so institutionalized that they constitute The-State-Of-America-Today, to rock the boat would only damage the nation. And no American President can get very far – like be re-elected – by doing anything that might be characterized as hurting America.

What is “America” but the bright and shining accumulation of 235 years of decisions and campaigns that left a lot of death, wreckage and collateral damage in their wake? So Mr. Obama's modus operandi to stay afloat and get ahead in this great churning enterprise is to go with the flow, since those who try to dam the flow or swim against it only get battered and smashed by the flotsam and jetsam rushing down-river. Better to be forward-looking.

Frank Rich of The New York Times described this top-down, power-driven national process nicely. Specifically, he was speaking about how our government and media were addressing the aftermath of the Tucson shooting. Rich picks it up at the close of President Obama’s beautiful speech in Tucson:

“As soon as the president left the podium Wednesday night, we started shifting into our familiar spin-dry post-tragedy cycle of the modern era – speedy ‘closure,’ followed by a return to business as usual, followed by national amnesia.”

We certainly saw that cycle at work following the economic collapse in the middle of the 2008 election campaign. Greed has, maybe, been tempered ever-so-slightly -- but not enough to put a damper on the profit-driven market, which was, of course, bailed out (that “closure” thing) with many hundreds of billions of our tax dollars. The poor and the working middle class were left to struggle to keep their homes and their jobs, which was deemed good for their character.

Grant also comments on Tunisia and speculates on possible interference from our low-road, wrong-way USA.

Two things helped set off the Tunisian eruption. First, Mohamed Bouazizi, a poor, struggling fruit peddler was harassed by a government factotum to the point he set himself on fire before the governor's house in a poor province of the country.

Then once the street reaction grew, demonstrators became aware of cables released by WikiLeaks that showed US diplomats expressing disgust at the levels of corruption and greed they witnessed in the Ben Ali regime – at the same time these diplomats made it clear the Ben Ali regime was working for US interests and was, thus, just fine with the United States.

Looks like the citizens of other countries actually read WikiLeaks, instead of just railing about or ignoring them. Grant goes on:

The Islamic Al-Nahda party -- in English The Renaissance Party – was crushed by the Ben Ali gang, its leaders murdered, exiled or tortured. One of those leaders, Ali Larayedh, was imprisoned and tortured for 14 years. He is now part of a true renaissance movement and the center of great popular interest, as is the founder of the party, now exiled in London. Larayedh says his party is a modern Islamic party that advocates free and fair democratic elections, women’s rights and the selling of liquor.

“We are Muslim, but we are not against modernism,” he told a Times reporter. “We are still against the political agenda of American interference in Arabic countries.”

All eyes should be on Tunisia, since the current crisis is a chaotic and democratic experiment ripe for meddling. If Larayedh is right, it could become a model for moderate Islamic governance, something that, of course, terrifies many westerners who preach democracy but abandon that line and resort to military violence when Islam is involved.

Grant also conveys his opinion of what The New York Times called “a scalding critique of Arab leaders” at a conference in Qatar in the Persian Gulf by Hillary Clinton.

“Clearly aware of the implications of unfolding crises in Tunisia, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, Clinton took the podium and ripped into Arab leaders. (In Lebanon the government had collapsed; in Afghanistan, Karzai and the Parliament were on a collision course; and in Iraq, a firebrand Shiite had returned from exile in Iran and over 50 Shiites were slaughtered in bomb blasts.)

“In too many places, in too many ways, the region’s foundations are sinking into the sand,” Clinton said. “The new and dynamic Middle East that I have seen needs firmer ground if it is to take root and grow everywhere.”

She fulminated on corruption. To do anything in the Arab and Islamic world “you have to pass money through so many different hands,” she said. Arab leaders' determination to hold onto the past and to keep those with power in power was killing future opportunities and future growth. The woman was on fire.

“Those who cling to the status quo may be able to hold back the full impact of their countries’ problems for a little while, but not forever,” she scolded. “If leaders don’t offer a positive vision and give young people meaningful ways to contribute, others will fill the vacuum.”

Of course, she was absolutely right, and the audience of Arab foreign ministers, business people and rights groups were “stone-faced,” according to the Times reporter. In Tunisia, "others" were in fact filling the vacuum. And the Islamic Al-Nahda party in Tunisia was calling for real democracy, amnesty for exiles and social programs for the poor.

Grant is sure the hypocrisy behind that U.S. scolding was not lost on its audience.

Everything Mrs. Clinton railed against in her Qatar speech applies on a much larger scale in Washington DC and the America of 2011. Arabs have bribes, and we have the "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling that enshrined in law what a legendary crooked congressman from South Philly once said about Washington DC: "In this town money talks and bullshit walks."

Unless and until a critical mass of Americans (that "American street") begin to realize how damaging this state of affairs is and begin to do something about it – here at home, in the United States – no one in North Africa, the Middle East or Southwest Asia is going to pay much attention to fiery speeches like Mrs. Clinton’s.

Everyone in that room in Qatar knew very well the history of US intervention that reached back long before the First Gulf War. They knew what really motivated the horrific attack of 9/11 and about the reactive US war in Afghanistan. They knew what the full-blown “shock and awe” invasion and occupation of Iraq was really about. Everybody in that room knew about the special operations assassination raids and the increased drone assaults and the civilian collateral damage in Afghanistan now spreading into Pakistan. Everyone in that room knew about the one-sided US defense of Israel’s facts-on-the-ground militarist policies right down the line to the brutal assault into Gaza and the spread of Israeli settlements. And every Arab in that room didn't need Mrs. Clinton to tell them they lived in a corrupt world -- as they also completely understood Brzezinski's reference to Washington corruption.

Actually, the audacity of Mrs. Clinton’s speech was amazing. You had to hand it to her; she was one tough iron lady. Up there in a class with Margaret Thatcher.

The problem was Mrs. Clinton’s power in that speech in Qatar was not based on moral leadership. It was based on the blood on her hands. Which is something the Arab street also understands. To borrow her term, US moral leadership was sinking fast into the sand.

What was needed was not a scolding speech. What was needed was for the American people to get over their amnesia and come to terms with all the costly Bush era military blunders done in their name. Mrs. Clinton and President Obama could wash all that blood off their hands. It would increase their waning influence. It would save the nation a lot of squandered resources.

And, in conclusion, Mr. Grant addresses the amorality and illegality of Gitmo:

Finally, there’s a great moral stink still emanating from our prison in Guantanamo, where the Obama administration, despite campaign pledges otherwise, is planning to pursue military tribunals for men like Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of bombing the Cole in 2000.

Beyond the rarely-observed fact that we hold the Cuban base at gunpoint based on some bogus 1898 imperial contract, the military tribunal decision is an instance of national amnesia at its worst.

The reason for these military tribunals is legalistically shameful. One, they will allow hearsay evidence from US intelligence and military agents; and two, the water-boarding and other tortures men like al-Nashiri underwent by US agents or their proxies will be finessed away.

No one is demanding the US let down its guard or become an international chump. But it’s time to prescribe serious medicine to heal America's epidemic of amnesia. The goal is a healthier nation, one able to cut back on expensive military boondoggles and to divert funds to creating jobs, improving education, encouraging alternative energies and fixing our crumbling infrastructure. The list is long.

To everyone's ears, Mr. Grant!

-------
["John Grant is a writer/photographer ... He has worked as a newspaper reporter and has published both fiction and non-fiction."]

0
No votes yet

Comments

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

We really need all of that!!!

Submitted by lambert on

... as the bubble shrinks.

It's like an army that has to defend a smaller territory also gets the advantage of quicker internal lines of communication. And so we do in fact see much more unanimity of messaging from Versailles, but we also see -- or at least I hope that we see, data, data! -- more people detaching from Versailles as well. Let's hope so.

Submitted by libbyliberal on

I always turn to the 100 monkeys myth for hope. When 100 monkeys see beyond the fog, the entire monkey nation sees beyond it -- but getting the 100 monkeys on board takes earnest grassroots building.

Walter Cronkite seems to have been the hundredth monkey to see beyond the Vietnam fog. And yet some of the same psycho-/sociopaths from that time re-infected the country with their poisonous wills and are now even stronger and more deranged inside men making sure they faux-legalize/institutionalize evil. The collective toxic ego, thanks to their cultivation, has captured the collective soul. Has become the enemy of the individual citizen. A little sky is falling fear-mongering and the inside men get away with literal murder and slip through secret illegitimate loopholes without accountability ... they go unchallenged. Meanwhile messengers of grotesque injustice can rot forever. Corporate media helps to ignore the obscenities.

I also realize that the more obscenely monstrous the psychopathic lies, the more unchallenged they often go, because the scope of evil is so wide that it horrifies and numbs the witnesses, and they don't want to believe what is happening to the victims and how can they believe those pleasant sociopaths could be such monsters. Plastic fuzzy cronyism is preferable to calling out someone who's personality belies his or her character or lack thereof. Especially when there are so many seeming personalities without character (like a whole Congress full). And then there is the sensory seductiveness of the teebee and all those personality over character personalities reassuring America that all is well or distracting America with titillation or "created justice" in a half or one hour can, while actual justice is getting raped in real life.

Submitted by lambert on

... except by a very few -- and the 100 monkeys (great title for a blog) as you point out. The bailouts, for example, really were the largest upward transfer of wealth in world history. Mortgage fraud really was the the biggest fraud in world history. We and the world will pay for both in a lot of pain and no doubt a war or two. But they cannot be seen. They are too large.

I'm not sure what a "collective ego" is, however. I don't accept family metaphors for political systems.

Submitted by libbyliberal on

I think I last heard it used by Tolle.

"Whatever my country does must be all right because this is the greatest country in the world." Cronyism and jingoistic group-think.

Tolle points out that the hippies and peace activists of the 60s punctured the collective ego and most of the country was humbled about the horror of Vietnam, though some won't and can't go there evah.

Family metaphors? Do you mean pscyhological references, not necessarilly family but sometimes? Especially thru study of addictive behavior, because power and control addiction is a biggie among the high and mighty, and with addictions, not just physical addictions but "process" addictions (workaholism, power and control, etc.) morality and altruism go out the window. Hard not to see things that way especially with the narcissism that comes with elected officials often and the competitiveness of the business community and the military big boys. I think a lot of what I have learned about the political dysfunctional insanity I learned from dysfunctional family systems and individual analyses.

You have the right to that opinion, lambert, though at times I thought I heard you speak with that sensibility. Anyway, doesn't mean my approach is wrong, just doesn't jive with your approach I guess. Just different though your "I don't accept" sounds a tad judgmental in tone, fwiw. Like being scolded.