Wednesday, May 29, 2013

The Delusions of the "Powerful"


The Delusions of the “Powerful”
P. Schultz
May 29, 2013


            This is a link to an article in the NY Times today, entitled “Drone Strike Said to Kill a Top Pakistani Taliban Figure.”

            Does anyone else not sense that while this appears to be an indication of the power of the United States that it is, in actuality, just the opposite? I mean, think about it: What if our leaders were being “picked off” one by one? I mean what happened when the World Trade towers came down and the Pentagon was attacked? Did that make us weaker?

            Do these leaders in D.C. really think that the situation in Pakistan and/or Afghanistan will be remedied by such measures? After all, we tried the same thing in Vietnam with the Phoenix program, which is reputed to have “eliminated” 20,000 Viet Cong, and the war was still lost. As the Vietnamese knew from their history, defeat is not decisive. Surrender is decisive but not defeat. And if our leaders think that the Taliban is going to surrender then they are as delusional as I think they are.

Monday, May 27, 2013

Greenwald on Sullivan


Greenwald on Sullivan
P. Schultz
May 27, 2013



This column speaks for itself. Greenwald explains as well as it can be done why people like Andrew Sullivan get so angry when called on their bullshit. Enjoy.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Life in the Empire


Life in the Empire
P. Schultz
May 20, 2013

            Things are not going well in the empire. Perhaps that is why I am currently rereading Deadly Paradigms by Michael Shafer, in which Shafer argues that counterinsurgency, a part of what is called “development theory,” which in turn is a part of the delusion that this thing we call “modernity” is the inevitable and ultimately satisfying end point of human history, has never worked as the theory claimed it should.






Friday, May 17, 2013

More Smoke and Mirrors


More Smoke and Mirrors
P. Schultz
May 17, 2013

            As I perused the newspapers on line, viewing the articles about the “scandals” that are, allegedly, threatening to bring Obama down, even to the point of an impeachment, I wondered: “What the heck is going on? That is, what the heck is really going on?’

            “Scandals” are, I have decided, a really neat way for politicians to control “the story line,” as is said so often these days. That’s one reason politicians really don’t mind them. It is also a way to preserve the status quo because, while the “scandals” are alive, it is impossible to pay much attention to more important issues the resolution of which might require changes of a more than superficial character.

            Then I turned to the Guardian and found that the Obama administration has just said that the “global war on terror” will last another ten years and, perhaps, another twenty years.

“That the Obama administration is now repeatedly declaring that the "war on terror" will last at least another decade (or two) is vastly more significant than all three of this week's big media controversies (Benghazi, IRS, and AP/DOJ) combined.”


            So, there it is: A story line that gets buried in the debris of Benghazi, the IRS, and the Department of Justice attack on the press; a story line that all the establishment politicians would agree on, even those allegedly “small government” types in the Republican Party; a story line that affects and will affect our politics and society into the foreseeable future.

            Does anyone else see shades of 1984 in this? Endless war, never voted on, never debated, just announced while being overshadowed by those “scandals” that are going to bring down an administration – that is, until the next “terrorist” attack occurs and we are urged to be strong!

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Guatemala and Statesmanship


Guatemala and Statesmanship
P. Schultz
May 14, 2013


            The headline in the NY Times reads: “Former Leader of Guatemala Is Guilty of Genocide Against Mayan Group.”

            One line therein is illustrative of several things: “After a regional meeting, President Reagan described him as “a man of great personal integrity and commitment.”

            Enough said. Let the war on terror continue.



Land of the Free?


Land of the Free?
P. Schultz
May 14, 2013

            This link to an article in today’s NY Times is for anyone who thinks that our “liberals” are actually interested in liberty and for anyone who thinks that presidents, even those of “different” parties, don’t follow the precedents of their predecessors. And, of course, what the Obama administration has done is simply a repeat and continuation of what the Bush administration did, with the same justification, that is, an argument that claims its actions are seeking a “balance” when in fact those actions are extreme. But then, as one comment in the Times had it, why should we be surprised when this administration engages in “extrajudicial killings” at will.



Monday, May 6, 2013

JFK and the Delusions of Power

-->
JFK and the Delusions of Power
P. Schultz
May 6, 2013

            I have just finished reading a very interesting book, The Secret War Against Hanoi by Richard H. Shultz – no relation – about the large covert war that the United States waged in Vietnam against the north and Hanoi, its capital. It is interesting because it illuminates in various ways the shortcomings of the United States’ attempt to intervene in Vietnam to “save” what it called the nation of “South Vietnam.”

            This covert war did not begin with but was given much impetus by the election of John F. Kennedy to the presidency in 1960. As Shultz says in several places, Kennedy “made it clear to the National Security Council that if Hanoi could foster a guerilla war in South Vietnam, he intended to do the same up North.” [p. 334]

            Now, Shultz analyzes the shortcomings of United States’ policies and action but it is evident that from the beginning Kennedy was deluded as to the situation he faced. Note that in the quote above, which Shultz has summarized from declassified documents of Kennedy’s administration, that, first, Kennedy equates North and South Vietnam. That is, Kennedy takes it for granted that there is a “South Vietnam” and that it is the equivalent of what he labeled “North Vietnam.” Of course, Ho Chi Minh and other Vietnamese did not think this way, no more than Americans spoke of a “North United States” or a “South United States” during the Civil War. And the Americans did not even have a history that was equivalent to that of Vietnam.

            Another way to put this is to say that Kennedy thought it was possible, despite thousands of years of Vietnamese history and repeated attempts over those centuries to preserve Vietnam’s independence, to create two Vietnams, one “North” and one “South.” And, similarly, Kennedy thought that he could create “a guerilla war” in the “North,” just as Ho Chi Minh had created such a war in the “South.” That is, the existence of “a guerilla war” in the “South” had little to do with conditions there and almost everything to do with what Ho Chi Minh had willed. So, Kennedy would then will such a war in the “North.” And, as Shultz points out, what is even more delusional is that Kennedy thought this could be done quickly!

            But is this not just typical of the delusions of many, if not most, American politicians? If we want to have a New Deal, we can have a New Deal. If we want to eradicate poverty, or crime, or drug use, or terrorism, then we can eradicate these phenomena – that is, if we will it and carry through for once we will do it. And here it must be said that Shultz, in his analysis, falls into this way of thinking. If only Washington and the politicians there had not gotten in the way of this covert war, everything would have been different In fact, perhaps the United States could have “won” that war. After all, it is all about will power, is it not? Or perhaps it would be better to say that it is all about the will to power.

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Constructing "Terrorism" 02


Constructing “Terrorism” 02
P. Schultz
May 5, 2013

            Demonology 101. And now, folks, for the demonizing of the “evil” but oh so shrewd and hidden bomber from Boston. Amazing what the media can do in creating the pictures the establishment wants to be believable in order to make a profit but, more importantly, to make sure we the people experience a fear that knows no end. Even Machiavelli would be proud, I think, and he definitely would not be surprised.

            I just love this line: “They seldom, if ever, saw… the gathering blackness in his most private moments.” Wow! How frightening! How scary! It’s almost like “Halloween” or “Scary Movie #5”.

“To even his closest friends, Mr. Tsarnaev was a smart, athletic 19-year-old with a barbed wit and a laid-back demeanor, fond of soccer and parties, all too fond of marijuana. They seldom, if ever, saw his second, almost watertight life: his disintegrating family, his overbearing brother, the gathering blackness in his most private moments.”



Friday, May 3, 2013

Constructing "Terrorism"

-->
Constructing “Terrorism”
P. Schultz
May 3, 2013

            Little commentary is needed after reading this article. Constructing a “picture” of “terrorism” that will scare us and fortify the government’s quest for more and more power requires a considerable amount of work. But one has to admire, if reluctantly, their ability to turn an old hag, living half way around the world, and a 24 year old widow into “threats to our national security.”

            Of course, though, as every con man knows, a successful con requires “a mark,” that is, one who is prepared to be bamboozled. And, apparently, “we the people” are prepared to be bamboozled.