BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES: The “Essential Relationship” and Lost Wars

What is the point of David Cameron’s visit to Washington? Is there any point to it at all? The most banal explanation might be that it is reward for the razzamatazz and royal junketing  that so bedazzled Barack and Michele Obama on their visit to London in 2010. In return, the prime minister, despite not being a head of state, received the grandest welcome in Washington accorded any leader this year: a ride in Air Force One, a 19 gun salute, an official reception on the south lawn of the White House and a state banquet. Cameron must have felt he had upstaged Tony Blair on his famous visits to G.W. Bush. This visit, if we are to believe the official propaganda accompanying it, was to further consolidate (yet again) what is now referred to as the “essential relationship.”  

In an op ed for the Washington Post on 13 March, the two leaders treated those who could be bothered to read it to their thoughts on the subject.  And, as always when the “special” or “essential” relationship comes up, they started with World War II. Anyone anticipating the string of platitudes, half-truths and untruths that frequently passes for serious thought on this subject, would have found themselves on familiar ground. Nevertheless, it is still astonishing that such tendentious drivel can find its way into print. In an opening turn of phrase that may be intended subliminally to recall Lincoln at Gettysburg, we are told that “Seven decades ago, as our forces began to turn the tide of World War II, Prime Minister Churchill traveled to Washington to coordinate our joint efforts.” In what follows the impression is created that World War II was won by the United States and Great Britain, and that the alliance between the two countries is the foundation upon which “the institutions that undergird international peace and security” rest. “We count on each other”, and, we are told, “the world counts on our alliance.” Grandiose, heroic stuff!  Tedious though it is to have to do so because the historical facts are so well known, these claims must be subjected to elementary scrutiny.

If we take the claims about what “our forces” were doing seven decades ago literally, we are talking about March 1942. Far from having begun to “turn the tide of war” the US and Britain faced serious reverses in the Pacific and the far-east and there wasn’t a single US soldier yet in Europe or North Africa. The biggest reversal the Axis powers suffered was at the hands of the Red Army, who, in December 1941 stopped the Wehrmacht’s advance before Moscow – the first serious set-back for the Nazis. And, in January 1942 the first declaration of the newly proclaimed “United Nations” was issued on behalf of 26 national signatories led by the U.S., the U.K and the USSR. Despite the onset of hostilities following Japanese aggression in the Pacific, during 1942 it was clearly recognized by all the combatants that by far the greatest contribution to securing the eventual defeat of the Axis powers was the titanic struggle being waged by the Soviet Union. It is true that Britain stood alone against Nazi Germany from June 1940 to June 1941. If first Britain and then the Soviet Union (June-December 1941) had not survived the blitzkrieg assaults against them, the outcome of World War II would have been very different. And, if we take October 1942 - February 1943 as a more realistic date for “our forces” turning the tide against the Axis, then two decisive battles stand out: El Alamein (October ’42) and Stalingrad (February 43). In terms of the strategic balance of power, Stalingrad was by far the more important. Churchill and Roosevelt were outstanding war leaders. They did not always see eye-to-eye, particularly over what Roosevelt regarded, not without reason, as Churchill’s determination to preserve the British Empire. They both recognized Stalin as an outstanding war leader, and often Roosevelt seemed more sympathetic to Stalin than he did to Churchill. This was not lost on the later cold warriors in the United States, who accused him of selling out to Stalin at Yalta.  

In 1942 the western allies assured their Soviet ally that they would open a second front in Europe that year. It didn’t happen. It was then promised for 1943, but again postponed. Finally the second front was opened on D.Day, June 6 1944, which meant that the Soviet Union had faced the full force of Germany’s heaviest divisions for three years without respite, at a cost, by the end of hostilities in May 1945, of 25 million dead. “Our Soviet ally” too played a not insignificant part in securing the victory over Nazi Germany, though more often than not this is conveniently forgotten.

The perpetuation of myths about World War II has since about 1947 rested on the pretence  that the war against Nazism was won by the British and the Americans. Almost every film about that war has, in one way or another, contributed to the myth. Accordingly, the French and the Italians were liberated by the Anglo-Americans and the peoples of Eastern Europe were enslaved by the Russians. World War II saw the birth of the convenient myth of the “special relationship”, or an “essential relationship” between Britain and the United States. This is a pretence that both sides find it convenient to preserve. Prior to the war Britain was able, despite its waning economic power and its increasingly tenuous hold over the peoples of its far-flung empire, to maintain the claim to be a “great power.” The loss of its empire after 1945 reduced Britain to the status of a second-rate European state dependent, like the rest of Western Europe, on the USA for Marshall Aid. But delusions of imperial grandeur die hard. The post-war Labour government soon opted to side with the USA against Soviet Russia in the developing “cold war”. The claim to world power status as its empire broke up in the rising tide of colonial independence could be maintained by acquiring the atomic bomb. France later took the same decision for similar reasons.

The pretence of an “essential relationship” with the USA has enabled the British ruling classes to distance themselves from the countries of continental Europe. The right wing hostility to the E.U. is coupled with a sentimental Atlanticism. Admiration of the USA as a world super-power, peddled constantly in the Tory press, is also a form of nostalgia for the lost “English-speaking empire”. It is obvious that in this relationship – which is not a partnership - the UK is the subordinate member. In their article Obama and Cameron write: “As leading economies, we’re coordinating with our G8 and G20 partners to put our people back to work.” In the ranking of leading world economies based on GDP, the UK has just been displaced from sixth place by Brazil. The UK is still in recession; there is no economic recovery. In spite of the crisis in the Eurozone, both Germany and France rank above the UK among leading world economies. Though it is seldom stated so bluntly, the value to the U.S. of the “essential relationship” is that Britain’s political leaders can almost always be relied upon to support the U.S in whatever military action its leaders choose to take. Thus, in recent times, Blair stood “shoulder to shoulder” with G.W. Bush in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. The consequences of both invasions have been disastrous.

Following 9/11 GW Bush, supported by Blair, launched “the war on terror”. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have taken the lives of countless thousands – mainly Afghanis and Iraqis. In Iraq the result has been to replace a tyrannical regime with an unstable, dysfunctional one, subservient to western corporations and oil companies and riven by tribal and religious sectarianism.

Afghanistan is proving even more intractable than Iraq. Nearly 200 years of experience of foreign colonial interventions seem to have taught the British, US and other Nato powers nothing. The 11 year long Soviet occupation might have provided a few lessons for anyone interested in the recent history of the place, but it seems that no-one was interested in studying it. Obama and Cameron write blithely: “As the largest contributors to the international mission in Afghanistan, we’re proud of the progress our troops have made but, as recent days remind us, this remains a difficult mission. We honour the profound sacrifices of our forces and in their name we will carry on the mission.” Of what do recent days remind them?

A week ago six British soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb in Helmand province. Their deaths were treated as a national tragedy. There was a packed memorial service for them at Halifax Minster.  A few days later a US serviceman murdered 16 Afghan civilians, shooting men women and children as they slept. This follows many often unreported incidents of British and US troops gratuitously torturing and killing Afghan civilians. Such things were common in Iraq. Thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed over the past eleven years. Their names are unknown, their deaths unremarkable. Wars of this kind always give rise to such atrocities. And the folks back home are seldom encouraged to consider them. Those who commit them are “our boys”, or, as The Sun newspaper likes to describe them “our heroes”. When such incidents do come to light because they are so horrendous that they cannot easily be covered up, the perpetrators are said to be mentally unstable and their acts are treated as isolated incidents. But the unpalatable truth is that all wars dehumanize those involved in them. Colonial-type wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan encourage and cultivate racism directed against the people whose countries are occupied. And now, with the war so obviously lost, it looks as though the “essential allies” in Nato’s “international mission” in Afghanistan are likely to reap the whirlwind of fury that will surely rise against them. When the “Nato mission” is forced to withdraw, which is now likely to be long before 2014 – the corrupt Karzai regime is unlikely to survive for very long. Karzai will probably be overthrown by his own army. The long-suffering people of Afghanistan will continue to suffer under whatever type of government replaces his. It will not be enlightened or democratic, but at least it will not be the puppet of foreign invaders.

SUCKED INTO THE ABYSS

In 2002 many of us knew Bush would pull the trigger on Iraq – plunging the U.S. into needless, counterfeit war for domestic consumption purposes, both political and material. (Karl Rove calculated political dominance despite being handicapped with a below-par president if major war could be generated.) Others less attuned argued Bush was simply bluffing to get Saddam to step down. But indicators pointed otherwise – well before Bush’s theft of the presidency. We happened upon PNAC’s (Project for a New American Century’s) 1990s blueprint for conquest of Iraq and noticed the signatories on its website: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb, Wolfowitz, Quayle, Kristol, and other war-whores who came to be known as “neocons” – landing in the White House as guests of GW, the clown-like figurehead.

We realized Iraq would spell disaster; others dismissed our concerns by predicting a cake-walk costing around $1.7 billion (possibly financing itself en toto via seized oil) and wrapping up in a month or two. Ten years later, a million lives lost, $3 trillion and a collapsed world economy – the Bushmen still refuse to recant. Republicans continue their rabid war-lust in full pursuit.

The same feel grips us of recent. Is war with Iran inevitable? Now we realize Israel is sucking America into the abyss to serve Jerusalem’s own interests.

This certainly feels like a similar slippery slope, not mere premonition, but a repeat from recent history.

Prodded by the Israeli lobby and cajoled by election-year opposition, Barack Obama is most likely to cave. The military option will probably be executed before November, not to play the “October Surprise,” but to appease the right – both at home and Israel. Obama’s pattern dictates it, Netanyahu demands it, and Republicans make it a moral imperative.

Prodded by the Israeli lobby and cajoled by election-year opposition, Barack Obama is most likely to cave and execute the military option, probably before November – his past practice serving as the credible predictor.

As in Bush’s phantom WMD, there’ll be no proof of nuclear arms development posthumously, although America will have committed national suicide, and the final proof will be a world lost in a cloud of poverty.

Objective intelligence realizes Iran is years away (if at all) from developing a nuclear weapon. Must the right again “fix the intelligence around the policy” to justify another military adventure?

Unfortunately, Iran is committed, at least through religious fervor, to annihilating the State of Israel. That’s the problem. Saddam Hussein’s mouth sealed Iraq’s fate through false boasts; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s mouth could be Iran’s ruin as he threatens Israel’s destruction.

What Benjamin Netanyahu neglects to calculate is Russia’s reaction to an attack on Iran. The returning President Vladimir Putin may be inclined to escalate the conflict into full-fledged war to prove his strength internationally and galvanize his power domestically. Putin’s questionable election will thus fade. Has the CIA role-played this contention?

The sensible option is clandestine political ops empowering Iranian youth to revolt against hardline theocrats – as was done in 2008-09. But is it too late? When given the chance, did the US blow it? Bunker-busters, the Pentagon concedes, cannot do the job; neither can the Israeli Air Force. So, what’s the purpose in threatening military action other than to appease war-hungry rightwingers?

And the mission to destroy any underground Iranian nuclear arms facility (real or imagined) would require more than the Seals swooping down for a heroic midnight raid. It’ll demand full-scale war resulting in a blockaded Strait of Hormuz and astronomical energy prices. (Can Obama win with $8 gas?)

That’s not the worst scenario. What if Putin pushes the button? What if the US and Russia finally exchange nukes? What if the world faces nuclear winter like it feared decades ago?

These nightmares are made possible by an ill-thought Iranian venture, an unnecessary concession to please hard-right Netanyahu and the rightwing GOP threatening to evict the present president if resisting compliance. Will Obama yield to temptation?

Wars are rooted in male dominance – testosterone tests to see who’ll mate with the flowering female. This metaphor is certainly true for the impending Iranian War. Obama must show strength by committing America to war for Israel, thereby trying to placate the right which is itching to replace him and at the same time is dominated by the religious, Zionist right. Putin must show strength by retaliating, thereby legitimizing his dubious election. And Netanyahu must show strength by dragging America into war, thereby relieving fears from the Israeli right that Iran could destroy them sometime in the unknown future. Israel cares not what happens to America after it’s done with her.

America hasn’t faced such dilemma since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. The nation seems asleep at this time, unaware of the lethal dynamics and the characters on stage. Will Obama act wisely like JFK or will he cave to the right as he’s done so many other times before?

 In 2002 many of us knew Bush would pull the trigger on Iraq – plunging the U.S. into needless, counterfeit war for domestic consumption purposes, both political and material. (Karl Rove calculated political dominance despite being handicapped with a below-par president if major war could be generated.) Others less attuned argued Bush was simply bluffing to get Saddam to step down. But indicators pointed otherwise – well before Bush’s theft of the presidency. We happened upon PNAC’s (Project for a New American Century’s) 1990s blueprint for conquest of Iraq and noticed the signatories on its website: Romney, Cheney, Jeb, Wolfowitz, Quayle, Kristol, and other war-whores who came to be known as “neocons” – landing in the White House as guests of GW, the clown-like figurehead.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

We realized Iraq would be disaster; others dismissed our concerns by predicting a cake-walk costing less than $1.7 billion (possibly financing itself en toto via seized oil) and wrapping up in a month or two. Ten years later, a million lives lost, $3 trillion and a collapsed world economy – the Bushmen still refuse to recant. Republicans continue their rabid war-lust in full pursuit.

http://thinkprogress.org/report/the-architects-where-are-they-now/?mobile=nc

The same feel grips us of recent. Is war with Iran inevitable? Now we realize Israel is sucking America into the abyss to serve Jerusalem’s own interests. This certainly feels like a similar slippery slope.

Prodded by the Israeli lobby and cajoled by election-year opposition, Barack Obama is most likely to cave and execute the military option, probably before November. His pattern

GOP Candidates Past and Present and Lies They Tell about Their Military Service (Part II)

In Part I we saw that sometimes the rich and powerful had ways and means to get their sons out of the Draft and harm’s way as the Viet Nam War raged. So Sid Adger, Poppy’s Houston businessman friend, calls former Texas Lieutenant Governor, Ben Barnes who then calls Texas Air Guard Commandant, General James Rose, and (presto) Junior Bush gets an appointment to TANG (Texas Air National Guard). And if that don’t beat all, in addition Bush gets an instant commission as a Texas Reserve Air Force officer just as pretty as you please, and begins to train for flying aircraft for Texas Air Force General Bobby Hughes at Ellington AFB, Houston. No boot camp, no Officer Training School, no ROTC required. You could have knocked me over with Sarah Palin’s brain.

Funny how a rare few have struggles with their conscience over monkey business such as messing with the Draft, and Ben Barnes was no exception after the fact.  Ben Barnes did a national television confession on CBS at the time Dan Rather was being demonized and scourged for one bogus article condemning Bush II for lying about his own military service.  See the source Rather used was not one of 100s of documented and true sources, but the one Rather used happened to be bogus and falsified (Brilliant piece of work, Karl). But nobody listened to Ben Barnes. His confession made Americans non-plused and confused about what all the ruckus was about. No one cared about the overwhelming other sources of evidence that Bush cheated and went AWOL, thanks to Poppy and other high officials who greased the gears and the palms of government. 

Ironic, but Bush’s ongoing torment by the Press would end with a whimper on ONE bogus piece of paper. It would end the heckling of George W. Bush’s going AWOL forever. And Dan Rather was the scapegoat. Even after the Boston Globe and LA Times newspapers had gathered decades of strong evidence that showed Bush to be a complete liar about his service in the Texas Air Guard and the Alabama Air Guard when he got out of the Draft when the Viet Nam War raged. Overcoming this black lie about his military service carried Bush II on to become Governor of Texas and President of the United States. And no one cared about the lie. Or wonted to pursue it. I thought America was running on its rims at the time.

In the Texas Air Guard you were assured of never having to fly missions in Viet Nam because the Draft provided enough cannon fodder for the combat positions in rice patties and ditches of the Mekong Delta when war raged and bullets whizzed by your head in your foxhole. In his Autobiography My American Journey General Colin Powell, on page 148, lamented:

"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. . . Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

But you see, that was before Colin Powell accepted the appointment of Secretary of State in the Bush II Administration. What a difference a day makes, eh? It made the good general angry when a Congressman asked him on camera a few years back to explain his obviously split feelings now that he worked for such a privileged son of the powerful as Powell described in his autobiography. It was the grossest form of discrimination possible, or so Powell said in his book. Discrimination in the Draft meant you could get killed, and the rich and powerful should get no breaks or special treatment. The congressman had Powell on the ropes, though, and these were new and different times. The general waxed indignant with: “I’m not going to dignify that with an answer.” Why not? Oh, well. Maybe there is another category of why people don’t tell the truth: maybe it hurts too much.

From this point on the glorious saga of George W. Bush twists and turns from his ascendancy to CEO of Arbuster Oil, then Harken Oil, part-owner of the Texas Rangers, Governor of Texas, and finally President of the United States. Both sides of the political aisle have spent billions of advertising dollars on truths, half-truths, and lies to prop up whatever each side wants the public to believe or not believe about Bush II’s military service and later on, his two terms as President. 

Sometimes it is difficult to sift the truth from the lies. For instance in Bush’s 2000 campaign autobiography, Bush claimed that after completing his training in the F-102 jet fighter, he continued flying with his unit for the next several years. That assertion was a blatant lie, according to records eventually released by the Bush campaign. Bush was grounded and never flew in uniform again after his suspension from duty in August 1972 for failing to show up for a mandatory annual flight physical.

In the same book Bush also suggests that he tried to volunteer for service in Vietnam “to relieve active duty pilots” fighting the war. Egad what a fantasy. In the first place Bush avoided being drafted for active duty so he could avoid the Viet Nam War, not to risk his privileged, young ass getting shot off. Earlier before his star began to rise, he said in a 1998 newspaper interview: “I don’t want to play like I was somebody out there marching [to war] when I wasn’t. It was either Canada or the service and I was headed into the service.”  So which way was it, Dubya, a Billy Bob down at the local ice house or a courageous pilot willing to go into combat to relieve his comrades? His Overseas Duty selection of “Do Not Volunteer” with a bold X in the box for his TANG application, said it all. Bet his pants burst into flames on that one.

Yet Bush’s ego-driven false revisions cannot compare with the fantastic recollections of the late Ronald Reagan. In November 1983, he told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir during a White House visit that while serving in the U. S. Army film corps, his unit had shot footage of the Nazi concentration camps as they were liberated. He repeated the same tale to Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal and other witnesses the next day. Reagan had indeed served in the Army and worked on morale-boosting movies for the War Department. But he had done so without ever leaving Hollywood for the entire duration of the war. Reagan was never in Europe or for that matter out of the USA during WWII. Perhaps Reagan was tripping in his early stage dementia about how he was a WWII hero in Europe and all, but Bush’s phony account of volunteering for air combat to relieve our Viet Nam pilots, to give them a breather, is pure baloney. This premeditated lie is not too far removed from the Major who is presently before the Supreme Court to appeal his one-year sentence for lying recently about receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor.

But Reagan’s strange assertions about reality are truly basket case meanderings. On his way to the White House Reagan told some whoppers. Reagan said he entertained troops in Europe during WWII. But Reagan was never in Europe. But what could it hoit? Might get his campaign kick-started way back when he had hopes of winning some state and national elections. And that was before Teflon was invented. But the little lies might tweak your image into something good, larger than life, stuff that might just get you some votes. But make no mistake, Reagan acted bizarre and out of touch with reality. When the Prime Minister of Israel visited Reagan at the White House, Reagan explained for almost an hour why he was pro-Jewish. It was because during World War II he fantasized that he had visited Buchenwald shortly after the Nazi defeat and made films of that concentration camp. Reagan repeated this story the following day to an Israeli ambassador. But the truth was Reagan was never in Europe; he never saw a concentration camp; he was in Hollywood, making films for the United States Armed Services.

It is a stretch to make sense about Reagan’s concentration camp story. Perhaps Reagan engaged in a bald-faced lie.  But why? What would he have to gain?  Votes? Yes. Popularity during his two terms as president? Of course. Would anybody notice or detect the lie? No. Or if they did Reagan would be forgiven as being old. Generally, that sort of thing carries no weight with a public glued to the Sunday afternoon football game. No one is plugged in. Or no one cares, take your pick. And the Press. Perhaps it had become non-news that during the debates with Mondale that the Social Security Fund was real and alive and separate from the National Budget? It’s not and it’s not. But not much was ever said about Reagan’s senior moments when it came to facts. Remember when Reagan said he would balance the budget by 1984? And deny it later when reminded of his boast?

Should we overlook such inconsistencies when lies prevail on the campaign trail about one’s military service? Are lies told early on likely to mushroom into bigger and more serious lies later on? One’s military service seems sacred enough and should be treated as such. Truth should overrule any lies told, and a candidate, even if he has won a race should be disqualified from that office if he has lied about his military service. As a start, perhaps then American values would not be the object of criticism. GOP, are you listening? You, too, Democrats.

Iran, Israel & the U.S.: The Slide To War

Wars are fought because some people decide it is in their interests to fight them. World War I was not started over the Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination, nor was it triggered by the alliance system. An “incident” may set the stage for war, but no one keeps shooting unless they think it’s a good idea. The Great War started because the countries involved decided they would profit by it, delusional as that conclusion was.

It is useful to keep this idea in mind when trying to figure out if there will be a war with Iran. In short, what are the interests of the protagonists, and are they important enough for those nations to take the fateful step into the chaos of battle?

First off, because oil and gas are involved, a war would have global ramifications. Iran supplies China with about 15 percent of its oil, and India with 10 percent. It is a major supplier to Europe, Turkey, Japan and South Korea, and it has the third largest oil reserves and the second largest natural gas reserves in the world. Some 17 million barrels per day pass through the narrow Strait of Hormuz, a significant part of the globe’s energy supply.

In short, the actors in this drama are widespread and their interests as diverse as their nationalities.

According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran is building nuclear weapons that pose an “existential” threat to Israel. But virtually no one believes this, including the bulk of Tel Aviv’s military and intelligence communities. As former Israeli Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said recently, Iran “is not an existential” threat to Israel. There is no evidence that Iran is building a bomb and all its facilities are currently under a 24-hour United Nations inspection regime.

But Israel does have an interest in keeping the Middle East a fragmented place, riven by sectarian divisions and dominated by authoritarian governments and feudal monarchies. If there is one lesson Israel has learned from its former British overlords, it is “divide and conquer.” Among its closest allies were the former dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia, and it now finds itself on the same page as the reactionary monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, and Oman.

Iran is not a military threat to Israel, but it is a political problem, because Tel Aviv sees Teheran’s fierce nationalism and independence from the U.S. and Europe as a wildcard. Iran is also allied to Israel’s major regional enemy, Syria—with which it is still officially at war— and the Shiite-based Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq.

In the Netanyahu government’s analysis, beating up on Iran would weaken Israel’s local enemies and at little cost. Tel Aviv’s scenario features a shock and awe attack, followed by a United Nations mandated ceasefire, with a maximum of 500 Israeli casualties. The Iranians have little capacity to strike back, and, if they did attack Israeli civilian centers or tried to close the Hormutz Strait, it would bring in the Americans.

Of course that rose-colored scenario is little more than wishful thinking. Iran is not likely to agree to a ceasefire—it fought for eight long years against Iraq—and war has a habit of derailing the best-laid plans. In real life it will be long and bloody and might well spread to the entire region.

Iran’s leaders use a lot of bombast about punishing Israel if it attacks, but in the short run, there is not a lot they could do, particularly given the red lines Washington has drawn. The Iranian air force is obsolete, and the Israelis have the technology to blank out most of Teheran’s radar and anti-aircraft sites. Iran could do little to stop Tel Aviv’s mixture of air attacks, submarine-fired cruise missiles, and Jericho ballistic missiles.

For all its talk about “everything being on the table.” The Obama administration appears to be trying to avoid a war, but with the 2012 elections looming, would Washington remain on the sidelines? On the “yes” side are polls indicating that Americans would not look with favor on a new Middle East war. But on the “no” side are a united front of Republicans, neo-conservatives, and the American Israeli Political Action Committee pressing for a confrontation with Iran.

Israeli sources suggest that Netanyahu may calculate that in the run-up to the 2012 American elections, an Israeli attack might force the Obama Administration to back a war and/or damage Obama’s re-election chances. It is no secret that there is no love lost between the two leaders.

But the U.S. also has a dog in this fight, and one not all that different than Israel’s. American hostility to Iran dates back to Teheran’s seizure of its oil assets from Britain in 1951. The CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and install the dictatorial Shah. The U.S. also backed Saddam Hussein’s war on Iran, has had a longstanding antagonistic relationship with Syria, and will not talk with Hezbollah or Hamas. Tel Aviv’s local enemies are Washington’s local enemies.

When the Gulf monarchs formed the GCC in 1981, its primary purpose was to oppose Iranian influence in the Middle East. Using religious division as a wedge, the GCC has encouraged Sunni fundamentalists to fight Shiites in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, and blocked the spread of the “Arab Spring” to its own turf. When Shiites in Bahrain began protesting over a lack of democracy and low wages, the GCC invaded and crushed the demonstrations. The GCC does not see eye-to-eye with the U.S. and Israel on the Palestinians—although it is careful not to annoy Washington and Tel Aviv—but the GCC is on the same page as both capitals concerning Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

The European Union (EU) has joined the sanctions, although France and Germany have explicitly rejected the use of force. Motivations in the EU range from France’s desire to reclaim its former influence in Lebanon to Europe’s need to keep its finger on the energy jugular vein. In brief, it isn’t all about oil and gas but a whole lot of it is, and, as CounterPunch’s Alexander Cockburn points out, oil companies would like to see production cut and prices rise. A war would accomplish both.

Iran will be the victim here, but there will be some who would take advantage of a war. An attack would unify the country around what is now a rather unpopular government, allow the Revolutionary Guard to crush its opposition, and give cover to the current drive by the Ahmadinejad government to cut subsidies for transportation, housing and food. A war would cement the power of the most reactionary elements of the current regime.

There are other actors in this drama—China, Russia, India, Turkey, and Pakistan for starters, none of whom support a war—but whether they can influence events is an open question. In the end, Israel may just decide that its interests are served by starting a war, and that the U.S. will go along because it is much of the same mind.

Or maybe this is all sound and fury signifying nothing?

The sobering thought is that the three most powerful actors in this drama—Israel, the U.S. and its European allies, and the Gulf Cooperation Council—have many of the same interests, and share the belief that force is an effective way to achieve one’s goals.

On such illusions are tragedies built.

Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries@wordpress.com

MURDOCH’S MEDIA EMPIRE: Power and Corruption.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation is the most powerful media group in the world. For more than a year, its British arm, News International, which publishes four newspapers in this country including the best-selling tabloid, The Sun, has been engulfed in a corruption scandal with revelations that have become more lurid by the day.  The paper at the centre of the storm was the News of the World, a Sunday tabloid which like its sister daily The Sun, was famous for peddling sensationalism and salacious gossip. By July of last year irrefutable evidence of phone-hacking on an industrial scale by NofW journalists made earlier attempts to deny such practices impossible to sustain. The evidence pointed to criminality at editorial and management level at News International. Murdoch summarily shut the paper down. NI’s CEO and Murdoch favourite, Rebekah Brooks – a former editor of NofW - was forced to resign. Shortly afterwards she was arrested by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of conspiring to conceal evidence of phone-hacking. Her close colleague, Andy Coulson, another former NofW editor and later director of communications for prime minister David Cameron, had earlier been arrested for the same reason. Both remain on police bail.  Murdoch’s son James resigned last week as chairman of News International.

In recent weeks the story has become even more engrossing. Failure by the Met to properly investigate the original evidence of large-scale phone-hacking unearthed by investigative journalists at The Guardian newspaper,  pointed to collusion by the police in the criminality at NI. The police were being paid for confidential information. The evidence pointing in this direction was so persuasive as to make plausible denial impossible. This was explosive stuff with the potential to seriously damage the government. Coulson had been appointed by Cameron as communications director for the Tory party and Brooks was a friend, neighbour and riding companion of the prime minister. Top level police officers were forced to resign over the scandal. Clearly, any new police investigation had to be conducted by people who were untarnished by association with Murdoch’s minions. Three such investigations, operations Weeting, Elveden and Tuleta are now under way into allegations of phone hacking, inappropriate payments to the police and computer hacking. They show every sign of being genuinely independent. Also, last July, an inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Leveson was established to investigate the culture, practice and ethics of the British press. The Leveson inquiry is also under way.

The corporate owners of most of the British press show distinct signs of unease at the proceedings of the police and Leveson inquiries. News International has no choice but to co-operate fully with the investigations and Murdoch felt obliged last year to establish through News Corp an independent Management and Standards Committee (MSC) which would supply the police with all the evidence in their possession. So far 300 million email messages have been handed over. However, Trevor Kavanagh, associate editor of The Sun, appeared incandescent with rage at the arrest in January of 5 (now 10 since November) of its journalists and executives on suspicion of bribery and phone-hacking. Laying claim to the moral high ground – a territory rather unfamiliar to The Sun – he sought to depict the journalists as martyrs in the cause of press freedom, persecuted for buying a policeman a drink. He railed against the MSC and News Corp, in effect accusing Murdoch of providing the noose to hang Britain’s best selling newspaper.  But, in a brilliant piece of timing, the octogenarian tycoon turned up in London to announce that The Sun would also rise on Sunday. A “new” paper, bearing the same name as the daily, was launched with the same editor and some of the same staff. It replaces the lost and lamented News of the World. On its launch last Sunday sales were more than 3 million. But this has not turned News International’s winter of discontent into glorious summer nor is it likely to do so. At best it might have provided a brief break in the lowering clouds.

At the end of February developments at the Leveson inquiry took a dramatic turn. Since it started its deliberations a succession of witnesses have given damning testimony about their treatment at the hands of unscrupulous, intrusive reporters for whom ethical standards did not exist. For the first time a spotlight was shone on the grubby and amoral world of much that passes for journalism in the tabloid papers. But now, the self-serving, specious defense presented by people like Kavanagh was blown out of the water. Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sue Akers, clearly angered by the suggestion that the arrests of Sun journalists had been unnecessary and vindictive as they had supposedly done little or nothing wrong, quietly but decisively demolished their defense. Referring to the millions of emails her team is examining, she said that at the beginning of the investigation it was already clear that these were not cases of Sun reporters buying public officials the “odd drink or meal”, but the payment of “regular, frequent and sometimes significant sums of money.” There was a “culture of illegal payments at The Sun at senior level.” The police were now investigating “a network of corrupt officials” in many walks of public life. Such payments were made, not for important information that, it could be argued, was in the public interest, but for stories that amounted to no more than “salacious gossip”. Furthermore, such payments, obviously authorized at management, level were known to be illegal because an internal payment system was used in order to hide the identity of the recipients.

Of great significance is the information contained in Akers’s testimony about an internal NI email clearly indicating that Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks, both former editors of the News of the World, knew about the extent of phone-hacking at the paper in 2006, though both have stated publicly since then that they had no such knowledge at the time.

These are still early days and so far we have seen only the tip of the iceberg. It might be thought that Murdoch’s media empire is sinking in a swamp of corruption. Last year, before this scandal broke, his seemingly unstoppable bid to take full control of BSkyB, was almost certain to have been waved through by culture secretary Jeremy Hunt. But it was stopped dead in its tracks through a rare parliamentary cross-party unity opposed to the bid.  Now, in view of the damning evidence against NofW , the Tories, who had been happy to appease Murdoch, could no longer regard him as a “fit and proper” person to be granted even more power over the British media than he already possessed. This was a serious set-back for the tycoon. However, it would be naïve to imagine that a global enterprise such as New Corp is likely to be brought down by the hacking and bribery scandal, however sensational it may seem in Britain. Reference is frequently made to the global reach of Murdoch’s media empire, but the details seldom receive much attention. It is worth considering them.

The revenue from newspapers accounts for only $6.1bn (18.6%) of News Corp’s $32.7 billion global revenue. Nevertheless, Murdoch owns 150 national and local papers in the country of his birth, Australia. Among his US and Canadian titles are The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. His European titles (mainly in the UK) amount to $1.6bn, merely 4.9% of the global revenue. Harper Collins publishing is worth $1.3bn.

News Corp’s largest source of revenue lies in film and electronic media, with the biggest concentration in the United States. Filmed entertainment, with 10 companies including 20^th Century Fox, and Fox 2000 Pictures accounts for $7.6bn. Cable networks include the Fox news channel, the Fox Business Network, 8 Fox network channels and 19 international channels, bringing another $7bn in revenue. A further $4.2bn comes from other Fox TV outlets in the U.S. such as the Fox Broadcasting Company, My network TV and Fox Sports.com. There are another 27 Fox stations.

Then there is a further $3.8bn from Satellite TV, including Sky Italia, Sky Deutschland (45%), BSkyB (39%), Tata Sky (20%) and Foxtel (25%). The New Digital Media group accounts for another $2.7bn.

It is sometimes claimed that Rupert Murdoch has a sentimental attachment to newsprint dating from his first business ventures. His surprise launch of the Sun on Sunday is seen as evidence that he will not abandon Wapping, the home of News International. But when it comes to protecting his global interests, Murdoch is a hard-headed business man, not a sentimentalist. Less than 5% of News Corp’s global revenue comes from his British newspapers. For many years his malign influence has corrupted successive governments in this country and dragged the standards of an already prostituted tabloid journalism from the gutter to the sewer. His influence over the political establishment has evaporated. No-one with any sense will dare to be associated with him, despite the fact that the ineffable education secretary, Michael Gove, apparently remains infatuated.

There is a respect in which Murdoch and others like him who seek “to bestride the narrow world” like colossi, resemble the fascist dictators of the 20^th century. They seek to dominate all who oppose them and to extend their empires as far as they can. They cannot accept defeat. Murdoch knows now that the ongoing investigations by the Metropolitan police and the Leveson inquiry will throw up ever more damning evidence of criminality by journalists and senior staff at News International. He has not attempted to deny that such criminality was practiced at the News of the World and The Sun. In saying, as he has, that such practices belong to the past, he admits that they occurred. His concern now must be that News Corp may face prosecution in the United States under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Should this happen the company, if found guilty, would face hundreds of millions in fines. The longer he continues to publish the tabloid titles that are under investigation, the more difficult it will be for him to extricate the parent company, News Corp, from the consequences of their criminality.

If he decides that it is in his best interests to jettison the 4.9% of News Corp’s revenue to protect the 95.1% of his global empire, he will either sell off or close down his U.K newspapers. It could well come to that sooner than many may imagine.

CLINGING TO THEIR GUNS AND RELIGION

Mom gave me some wise words of advice back in the day: “Son, when you hitch up, you not only marry the gal but her whole family.”

America could marry the new guy in the fall due to its disillusionment with the 44th. Romney might seem a reasonable alternative to Barack Obama to some. But they’re not looking at the big picture: his asshole GOP family that goes along with the deal. Is the baggage of kookiness and religiosity worth it? The appropriate bumper sticker should read: “Elect Mitt, get shit.”

When GW came to office, the incoming White House was packed with gun-lovers and religious zealots – a recipe for bad government and fabricated wars (not to mention the contribution of the village idiot himself with his psychopath partner leading the insane). We’re still suffering from that disastrous mistake.

Imagine a Secretary of State John Bolton, a Secretary of Defense Stanley McChrystal, a Treasury Secretary Darrell Issa, and a new faith-based cabinet post with Rick Santorum as its first czar – “Handmaid’s Tale” comes to mind. Imagine a Press Secretary Sarah Palin struggling to respond to the simplest of questions. (Did she finally discover Russia?) Now, imagine a Vice-President Bob McDonnell or cute-boy Marco Rubio.

Supreme Court nominees would be required to pass an anti-abortion litmus test – advanced to anti-contraception in recent days due to the party’s swing further right – anti-masturbation laws next? Imagine new justices to the right of Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Imagine further Citizens United cases where all control is delivered to the most powerful plutocrats and corporations.

The Kochs would be inaugurated hand-in-hand with the kooks. America would enter the realm of a mix between plutocracy and theocracy. One would dictate our finances – keeping us in abject poverty – while the other would dictate our religion – keeping us in abject subjugation to ignorant, ancient myth. The Dominionists will have won.

Obsession with guns and religion is why Americans vote against their own best interests – as Obama correctly stated in ‘08. But one other ingredient influences them in addition to this fixation: PROPAGANDA. They cling to the false because they’re fed the false. Not only is FOX broadcasting lies, but so are right radio and thousands of so-called “Christian” pastors and televangelists. It’s truly a national cult. And it’s a steady drumbeat – especially down South. The religious right and contemporary conservatives accept lies not only because they’re served, but because they’re predispositioned. Propaganda is only popular among those inclined to receive such. Inert bias leads to the embrace of falsehoods.

“They shall believe a lie and be damned.” – 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12

Naturally, gas prices and the economy may determine our destiny. Why? Because many Americans can’t see beyond the price at the pump. They can’t see the excess baggage coming with the alternative. Bush and the Republicans wrecked our economy and sent us into needless wars costing $3 trillion. Romney and the Republicans want finish the job. Oh, how much does the GOP baggage love their fake wars and fake religion! Oh, that the world was flat!

Afghanistan is exploding. Troops were uneducated how to handle Muslin holy books, and now we see unquestionably how useless and shallow Bush’s #1 war was. (Of course, Obama conceded by continuing the war for political advantage.) Israel probably will pull its big ally into a quagmire that could lead Obama to defeat – both in the election and abroad. And Syria could affect energy prices to a measure due to its proximity.

These are the factors driving America. Either we re-elect Obama despite his flaws and weaknesses or we allow the other guy to replace him who’ll do much worse due to whom and what he brings with him. Voters should have recognized the baggage onstage for 20 freaking “debates.” How dumbed-down are we?

How comfortable is America letting the demolition crew back in the White House?