|
 rant-tacular! |
UTS is turning us all into fucking Trotskyites. Yeah, it's another motherfucking rant, inspired in part by ![[info]](http://www.caleida.com/img/userinfo.gif) slack's post regarding Iraq. Deal, thx.
For a moment, let us forget about the current situation in Iraq and delve into an analysis of the communique that has developed between the U.S. and the Middle East over several decades. The one thing I've learnt as a student of history is that to understand where we are headed, we must first understand where we have been. So how did the complex sess pit of Middle Eastern relations reach the all time lows of civilian decapitations? It's all too easy to point the finger of ignorant blame at a demonised minority, but one rarely ever pauses to consider the actions and reactions enacted by the U.S. to push the situation into the horror of humanity it has become.
Let us begin with Afghanistan, the most recent pre-Second Gulf War conflicting dialogue. The U.S., despite bleating hot rhetoric about eradicating the Taliban "network of horror" and establishing a "democracy", has actually handed over much of the land to 'war-lords'. Thirteen war-lords, in fact. Now, as far as I understand, the concept of dividing a country into what could be called a series of nation-states is far from "democracy" when one considers the ramifications of factual insurgency, independent militia and the clashing interests of said 'war-lords'.
That being said, I think it becomes important to consider the role of the U.S. in mobilising and funding the Taliban during the Soviet occupation. The U.S.'s primary aim lay firmly with ousting the 'Red Peril' from a "vital sphere of influence", id est a Communist force close to natural reserves in which the U.S. and much of the Western world have a vested interest in. Now now, don't get all hot under the collar thinking that I'm pulling out that old chestnut -- N0 wAr 4 O1L N0 wAy -- as that's an issue in itself. The crux of my argument lies primarily with the fact that the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East has been consistently self-seeking.
But wait, there's more. An important factor to consider in this particular scenario is that the U.S. actively brought the Taliban to power, used them for war by proxy then effectively left them to their own means despite knowing of their fundamentalist ways. How long before a second wave of Osamas (gracious I love those buzz words) rise from the factional in-fighting of Afghanistan's current war-lords?
To reiterate the idea of the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East as being self-serving, let's visit the idea of how Iraq was supported during its conflict with Iran. Indeed, it was because the U.S. feared the insurgency of Ayatollah Khomeini's 'regime'. Indeed, it was Rumsfeld who aided Hussein in 1983 with the provision of "U.S. friendship and materials". Indeed, these materials included "chemical and biological warfare technologies". Indeed, Iraq was quickly abandoned after quelling the Iranian insurgency. Indeed, the rapid deterioration of both Iraq and Iran in terms of government and quality of life can be thus directly linked to U.S. involvement. Indeed, it was Iraq that came under fire during the Bush Sr. administration. Indeed, the cause of conflict again lay with the more economically convenient oil of Kuwait. Ah, the juicy plum that is the First Gulf War. In-fucking-deed.
Now, let us move on to the complex and highly esoteric involvement of the U.S. in the disputed Palestine-Israel region. I must note here that my personal judgement and emotions make it difficult to engage with this discourse with completely strenuous academic rigour. However, I do make a concerted effort to distance myself from the facts and isolate the truth as it is and not as I see it. [Edit: Upon re-reading, I realise this 'disclaimer' makes it seem as though I am in some way anti-Semitic. I assure you that this is not the case. I hate the human race evenly, making no concessions for ethnicity or background.]
No examination of Arab-Israeli relations in the past century can be adequate without considering the theory of Zionism, a Jewish movement that seeks the establishment of a nation-state in a 'spiritual' land. Despite criticism being levelled at it from atheists and agnostics alike, Zionism can be seen as passive or aggressive; id est, it is either a reactionary movement to the growing anti-Semitism of the early 20th century and beyond, or it is a calculated and intelligent grab for land and subsequently power.
Theoretical wankjobbery aside, the facts of the establishment of Israel are clear. Post-holocaust, millions of displaced Jews needed a land of their own. The U.N. presented many options, including Australia and Canada, however the U.S. strongly advocated Palestine and the region's need for a "stabilising presence". Cue the Arab-Israeli War, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and the Palestinian Exodus. Between 1948 and 1949, the Jewish demographic of Palestine-Israel doubled, displacing millions of the multi-religious Palestinian population through over-crowding, blockades, war and famine.
The U.N. has since declared the Israeli occupation of Palestine illegal several times [Resolution 194, Resolution 242 and Resolution 446]. However, the U.S. has consistently used it's veto and establishterian privileges to quash any movement against the state of Israel, insofar as supporting it with weaponry and funding.
To me, the U.S. stance on Israel is one that makes it simple to see the turmoil and distrust of the West that has spawned the idea of 'Islamic terrorism'. How could one see the U.S. supporting the invasion of their land and not see it as a cause for retaliation? [Please note: I advocate civil disobedience and cultural revolution, not flying planes into buildings filled with non-military personnel.] How could one see 3000 Lebanese women and children slaughtered while taking refuge in a U.N. camp by Israelis using U.S. weapons and not see injustice? How can one watch Israeli tanks bulldoze Palestinian homes as families within eat dinner day after day of 'enforced evictions' and not call this a 'war crime' or 'act of terror'? Where is the U.S., the friendly mediatator and purveyor of human rights for all amidst this? Too happy keeping the support of rich Jewish-American political backers, is my wager.</b>
One more example, just to make me happy. This time, I will step out of the sphere of turmoil that is the Middle East and draw a similarity in Soviet/Cuban relations to reiterate the inadequacies of U.S. policy as a global rather than a localised phenomena. Namely the U.S.'s communitarian movements when Castro overthrew Batista, despite previously supporting Batista's coups. Then the failed U.S. incursion during the Bay of Pigs incident merely two years later because of Cuba's economic links with the U.S.S.R., as well as the subsequent naval blockade. Another perfect example of war by proxy, as well as the U.S.'s exceptional rhetorical talent (the blockade being an act of war was craftily dodged by it being called merely a "quarantine").
Now I could continue with such analyses and examples and citations from the Arabic world - relations with Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Lebanon, Egypt, just to name a few. But as this is an opinion piece rather than an essay, I feel that those that I have already cited fulfill my point. Where are the U.S.'s high and mighty morals of democracy and liberty when its interests are not economic? Or am I ignorant in believing such ideals aren't simply transient, to be enacted and disabled at will? Perhaps the "war on terror" might like to address some long established "tyrants", such as the PKK, IRA, ETA, FLTTE and -- shock, horror -- the CIA?
My point? The U.S. government has a recurring dialogue of justifying inhumane actions via a long-winded and difficult to decipher series of issue dodging and hypocrisy. Bush was never "right", he was merely able to pull the wool over our collective eyes. It's a six year old characteristic -- HE HIT ME FIRST SO I HIT HIM BACK! -- and yet often, it wasn't "he" who hit first. If the U.S. is to uphold the tenets of "spreading democracy and dissipating terror", then perhaps this should be a consistent and concerted effort at bettering the world, not merely the parts of the world in which the U.S. has much to gain.
In short? American bureaucratic foreign policy can eat a dick, thanks.
Now children, turn off the fucking FOX NEWS report and stop thinking that all Arabs are born hate-filled, die-hard fundamentalists. There is a reason behind the resentment, if you can sift through all the propaganda aired into your living room, you'll be much better off. Read Ghassan Hage or Edward Said instead of the tabloid newspaper. You might learn something, it's nothing to be afraid. BUT OH SHIT! GHASSAN & SAID? AREN'T THEY FUCKING CAMEL JOCKEY NAMES?! xD
|
ANNOYING!
calm
insomniatic![[info]](http://www.caleida.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
