The United States is an empire. This has become an unequivocal fact. Even the most staunch pro-America fanatics could not excuse the actions of the Bush Administration when it unilaterally invaded Iraq, committing an act explicitly deemed illegal and against human interests by the United Nations. During the Cold War, imperialist acts could be excused as being part of a greater world-wide struggle against the forces of communism- a battle for the freedom of humanity in all corners of the globe. During the War on Drugs, the invasion and oppression of numerous Latin American countries was excusable, perhaps, because illicit narcotics being produced in those places were hurting Americans and, indeed, people all around the world.
But the war on terrorism is a stretch as an excuse for breaches of international law. The Americans stretched it to the breaking point in Iraq. And it would seem Bush realizes this. Or, at least, someone in the Pentagon does, as the American imperial war machine has taken up a new way of exerting its interests and agenda upon other states: war by proxy, and war by strategic bombing.
The war by proxy is something that has been going on in the news for the past couple of weeks. On New Year's Eve 2006, Ethiopian bombers attacked Mogadishu Airport as a prelude to an overt invasion and seizure of power from the Islamist regime that had displaced the warlords. Ethiopia did not do this because they felt particularly threatened by Somalia. It is true that Somalia has been, and could again be, a problem for Ethiopian security. During the 1960's, the Mogadishu government managed to achieve widespread support through the utilization of a policy similar to Hitler's "Lebensraum". That is to say, the Somali government decried the way East Africa was carved up by the British and other colonial powers at the end of the World Wars. The predominant language spoken in Somalia is Cish and, as some may be already aware, language is often believed to be the main basis for the determination of a national group. So, using this argument, Somalia claimed to be the appropriate political representation of those peoples in East Africa that speak the Cish language. Unfortunately, due to the way the Europeans ignorantly carved up Africa, large numbers of Cish speakers were left living as minority groups in Kenya and Ethiopia. Somalia eventually invaded both Kenya and Ethiopia in 1965, the Somali-Ethiopian War not ending until 1966 with the defeat of the Somali invasion, due in no small part to the interference of British Special Forces units operating in Somalia in support of Ethiopian and Kenyan troops.
Perhaps with memories of this war, or due to a more sinister agenda, Ethiopia was only too willing to fight America's war against the Somali Islamists, who were making promises to people in Mogadishu that "all Somalis will some day live under the same flag". But the issue with Somalia is not solely Ethiopia's.
Apparently, the Americans have an agenda there too. How is this known? Because the Americans, being bad poker players, finally showed their hand- all the while without exposing themselves to gunfire, in keeping with their war by proxy. Yesterday, an AC-130 gunship (for those unfamiliar with these things, they're massive plains capable of dropping thousands of rounds per second from multiple machineguns and cannons, used extensively during the Vietnam War as part of the American strategic bombing campaign that left thousands of civilians dead) flew over the town of Amfadow in the southern tip of Somalia, not far from the border with Kenya. The reason? Suspected al-Qaeda operatives were hiding out there. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Americans have moved a small segment of the fleet they have standing watch over the Persian Gulf to Somalia- blockading what little sea traffic exists off the coast of the country. From these naval vessels, several helicopters launched today to engage in a series of rocket attacks on the same town- Amfadow. Unconfirmed reports from the Somali Defense Ministry, now again controlled by the "legal" government of Somalia that went into exile when the Islamists seized Mogadishu in a bloodless coup, state that 31 civilians were killed. The designation of the American helicopters are presumed to be Apaches, given the extent of the damage (an Apache attack helicopter is practically a small army in a flying tin can due to the sheer amount of firepower it packs, a complicated interface allows the pilot to see exactly where he is aiming through cameras mounted just under the muzzle of each gun and filtered into a display that projects the image directly into the retina- effectively allowing the human to merge with the machine in something almost out of a sci fi movie).
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman had this to say about the attacks: the bombings were "based on intelligence that led us to believe we had principal al-Qaeda leaders in an area where we could identify them and take action against them. We're going to remain committed to reducing terrorist capabilities where and when we find them." Gee. That sounds an awful lot like the line about "Iraq possesses or intends to possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq also harbours terrorists." Maybe someone didn't read the memo about Saddam being hated by al-Qaeda for his secular policies and Sunni background. If that's the case, here's a memo for the Pentagon: "We're onto you. We've heard this story over and over again- the boogeyman is out to get us. And guess what? It's not funny any more and, one of these days, we're going to put a stop to your oppression."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Oh where to begin to correct this leftist tripe.
1) We who are Pro-Bush rather despise the anti-American, anti-semitic UN that seems only able to take action when there are bribes to be taken, Jews to be bashed & African refugees to be raped
2) International law is a farce & is only used as a club by people like you to beat the US & Israel with. If it were to be consistent, lefties like you would demand that all the terrorist leaders in Palestine would be brought to justice. But since most of you are good little dhimmis, that's unlikely.
3) The US constitution trumps any foriegn law in America
4) If high-level Al-Qaeda terrorists had taken refuge in Canada, you think the US wouldn't come after them?? I think not
Seeing as we're employing user-friendly numbers:
1) The UN, the organization itself, is not anti-Semitic nor does it engage in a policy of rape or sexual misconduct. This is a critical error in some people's logic. The United Nations is not a "legal person" in terms of international law in that it is incapable of undertaking actions on its own accord or possessing an agenda of its own. It's a forum, just like Parliament. When Parliament passes a bill a person does not like, one cannot declare that "Parliament is robbing us!" and then recommend revolution. The institution does not "rob" people nor does it choose to pass a bill, say, increasing taxes. That would be the party-in-power and whoever voted in favour of the bill on the other side of the Parliament floor.
In other words, any resolutions passed by an organ of the United Nations that may be construed as anti-Semitic would be the fault of those countries voting in favour of the bill- not the institution itself. The UN doesn't decide what people vote for or propose while in NYC or Geneva. Your beef is with the countries.
The matter of the sexual misconduct engaged in by members of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations is, indeed, a horrible thing. I can promise you that I'm ten times angrier about this than you. I served with the Canadian military. I have friends serving on UN peacekeeping operations. Heck, my good luck charm was a UN flag wrapped up in the back of my rucksack. The UN represents an ideal that many of us fight for. And those who were molesting children in Sudan brought dishonour to that. They will be prosecuted for it. But their actions are not the actions of the United Nations. Again, when Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, did the American populace rise up and reject the idea of the American government? No, Clinton was impeached.
In other words, if you've got a cancer patient, you cut out the tumour rather than killing them.
2) Assumptions make asses out of you and I. I don't see any evidence that suggests I'm in favour of Palestine in the Middle East question anywhere in my blog thus far. To clarify, I see both sides of the conflict as a problem. Palestine needs to reign in its extremist elements and regain control of the people it is supposed to represent. Palestinians need to start spending the cash given to them as foreign aid on development projects, as the money was meant to be spent, and not on a fruitless "war" that has gone on for far too long. By the same token, Israel also needs to reign in its own extremist elements and has made good progress in this regard thus far, but destroyed much of its credibility when it went after Hezbollah in Lebanon- something the Lebanese government should have been left to take care of.
As for the comment about international law, I'll pretend I didn't read it. Somehow I like the idea of being able to fly back to Europe to visit relatives this February without being shot down. International law establishes, among other things that we take for granted, flight zones. So countries can't unilaterally declare that any planes passing within 250km of their borders on a Sunday must be destroyed.
3) Obligatory chest-thumping?
4) The Americans would not come after al-Qaeda if they were hidden in Canada. Why? Because Canada is a wealthier state with far more diplomatic pull. American credibility would be utterly destroyed in the event of an attack on a fellow "Western nation". But Somalia has no political clout. It cannot speak up for itself on the international scene to make very many people care about rockets dropping from the sky, killing civilians who happen to be within a several kilometre vicinity of the alleged al-Qaeda operatives. However, some of us pay attention. Some of us are going to call BS on the war on terror and call it for what it really is: neo-imperialist war by proxy.
Post a Comment