The Quiet Road

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (her parents named her after an oil tanker, or so I’ve been told) visited the UK last week. According to one news source, the visit was a “PR nightmare”. What truly staggers me is the idea that UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw – who hosted the visit – could have expected anything else.

The UK government is in power by default, not because they are popular in any sense of the word. They are – in fact – deeply unpopular. Not only that, but the current US administration, of which Rice is a well-known figurehead, is easily the most reviled that there’s ever been. On top of all that, Blackburn – Straw’s constituency and location of the visit – has a very substantial Islamic community; many of whom – rightly or wrongly – view the current American government as waging a war on Islam. Anybody living in the real world would see the inevitability of “a PR nightmare”.

I’m also bemused that – given all this background – Straw would choose BAE systems fighter-jet factory as the first stop on this diplomatic visit. It’s the sort of touch you’d add to a political satire that would tip it over the edge and make it feel ham-fisted…

Secretary of State visits UK in current political climate. First stop… fighter-plane factory. Gaze lovingly and approvingly at weapons of death recently used to drop bombs on Iraqi people. Next stop… deliver speech in which you admit to “thousands” of “tactical errors” during the war in Iraq. Final stop, meet some Muslim community leaders and get reported as “shrugging off” the anti-war protests.

Rice is often listed as one of the intellectual heavyweights of the Dubya administration. Of course, one only has to look at the company she’s in to realise this could be being said in jest. Y’know, the way you’d point at a mentally feeble aunt in a family known for its stupidity and call her “the intellectual heavyweight of the bunch”.

If it’s not a piss-take though, and she really is one of the sharper tools in that particular shed, then maybe she could answer this question… “what, in practical terms, is the difference between a regime that outlaws all protest and a regime that ignores all protest?” Being told that we are “lucky” to live in a democracy and have the right to protest is easily the most patronising thing a politician can say. It ignores the fact that “luck” has nothing to do with it, and that the “right to protest”, like all such rights, has been wrestled – spilling blood, sweat and tears – from those in authority by the protesters. She is paid by the people in order to serve the people. It’s time she thought about how lucky she is that we, the people, have given her the right to step down from power without the aid of a guillotine. The protesters are lucky to have their rights? I think not. Especially not when members of the ruling class feel comfortable patronising or ignoring them. Let them eat cake, eh Condi?

Much is said of her childhood prodigiousness… the fact that she graduated from university whilst still a foetus. And then people say that she’s a “concert pianist”. But they forget to point out that’s actually one and the same point. She went to university on a piano scholarship.

Don’t get me wrong… I’m a music geek, and excellent musicians impress the hell out of me. I have a deep and abiding respect for anyone who can make genuinely beautiful music. But it doesn’t automatically make you an “intellectual heavyweight”. And it certainly doesn’t mean you’re a good choice for Secretary of State. I believe, for instance, that Prince is one of the handful of most talented musicians to have ever lived. I would nonetheless question the wisdom of putting him in charge of US foreign policy.

I suspect he’d do a better – albeit weirder – job than is currently being done, but I still don’t think Sign ‘O’ The Times merits that level of power. Call me old-fashioned, but there you have it.

Yes, yes, yes, I’m sure Condoleezza isn’t a one-trick pony. No doubt her intellectual talents extend beyond good keyboard skills. But they clearly can’t extend much beyond, given the complete shambles being made of the world by herself and her mates. To be wrong-headed is one thing… but Rice and her gang (and I include Straw, Blair and all the other nuLabor running-dogs in that) aren’t merely implementing the wrong policies / policies I disagree with, they are doing it with truly historic incompetence.

Maybe the world would be worse if smart, competent people were implementing the bad policies. But it wouldn’t be half as frustrating. Watching complete morons do a dreadful job is excruciating for most of us with half a brain. Watching them do it knowing that your personal safety may depend upon the quality of their work makes it that much worse.

For Rice to heap praise (as I’m certain she did) on weapons makers, and then introduce the world to a new euphemism for murdering innocent people with those weapons* whilst “shrugging off” those who object, is almost as incompetent as conducting a war on an abstract concept; the repercussions of which have been wholly disastrous. It displays a complete inability to grasp the consequences of her actions, or else – more chillingly – a psychotic disregard for those consequences.

Either way it must surely, in a sane world, be grounds for excluding her from power. Her and all her incompetent / psychopathic friends. Sadly, the American people are the only ones who can possibly do this… the only ones who can get rid of the people currently raining death and destruction down wherever they choose, using the money and the legitimacy conferred by the US population. I say “sadly”, because the American people really aren’t doing a great job of holding their politicians to account. Dubya can get away with all those dodgy electoral shenanigans in Florida, then lead America into an illegitimate shambles of a war and still get returned to power.

It beggars belief.

Of course, the UK re-elected nuLabor and here in Ireland we’ve had an eternity of centre-right corporate politicians running the show. So this isn’t unique to the American people in any way. But the bigger you are, the harder you fall. When America is run by imbeciles or crazies, then tens of thousands of innocent people, half a world away, die horrible deaths. It’s just not acceptable. And there’s a moral responsibility to put an end to it.

Tony Blair has just called me “mad”. What a bastid. And talk about your pots and kettles!

Also, I notice he flew all the way to Australia to do it. Clearly decided to put some distance between us before unleashing the insults. Probably afraid I’d lamp him. And lamp him I would if I were ever within arms-length of the freakin’ psycho.

Y’know, when Orwell was asked – soon after the publication of Animal Farm, and his subsequent leap in fame – why he’d changed his name from Eric Blair, he is quoted as replying that he had “a premonition” that “one day the name Blair will be associated with infamy”, likening it to “… Hitler or Stalin. And what writer would like to see his work beneath the name Eric Hitler?”*

Many moons ago, on a blog not unlike this one, I wrote a piece entitled “Why I’m anti-American”. I shall reiterate the main points of that, as I feel they bear repeating on a day Tony Blair dismisses those who disagree with him as clinically insane (and presumably in need of sedation) rather than worthy of engaging in debate.

Firstly, let’s make it clear what being anti-American is not about. It isn’t about disliking Americans. There’s already a word for that… “bigotry”. Disliking or discriminating against someone because of their nationality or skin colour just means you’re an obnoxious tosser. It doesn’t make you “anti-American” in the sense I’m using the phrase.

And because anti-Americanism isn’t about disliking people, there’s thankfully no danger of it ever manifesting as a desire to murder a whole bunch of Americans indiscriminately. So I utterly reject the idea that anti-Americanism of itself has a logical extension in what happened on September 11th 2001. What you had there was anti-Americanism mixed up with a whole bunch of other stuff. The anti-Americanism chose the target, but it was the other stuff that chose the tactics.

Needless to say, I favour different tactics, and I’m just as opposed to the other stuff; the stuff that justified thousands of murders in the eyes of extremists; as Dubya Bush and Tony Blair are. But that “with us or agin us” crap? It doesn’t wash with me. My enemy’s enemy is not always my friend.

“Anti-American”ism / Anti-“Americanism”

Most people would agree that there is a genuine difference between being anti-Islam and being anti-Islamist. No such distinction currently exists in our language between anti-American and anti-Americanism. Though perhaps one should.

Whatever the intentions of the Founding Fathers and a succession of constitutional scholars may have been; in the eyes of much of the world the United States no longer stands for what most Americans are taught it stands for in school. Schoolchildren throughout the days of Empire in Britain were taught that colonialism was all about bringing “civilisation” to the savages. The savages saw it as rape, murder and the theft of their land and resources. These days it’s America and not Britain, and it’s “democracy” and not civilisation. The savages still use the same words though.

And that’s very much part of the problem. The whole “we confer upon you lesser people the right to rule yourselves” thing. It’s so much bullshit. And it’s transparently bullshit. There’s no moral high ground here.

The Iraqi people know that for half of Saddam Hussein’s rule he was supported by exactly the people who ousted him. And the Iraqi people, more than anyone, know just how brutal he was during that time. The Iraqi people also know that when – after the first Gulf War – they were urged to rise up against the regime, those who did were left dangling by US forces ordered not to help. And finally, after more than a decade of crippling economic sanctions causing poverty, misery and death; reducing a once-functioning nation to a “failed state”; these same erstwhile friends of Hussein decided that Shock And Awe, followed by a three year occupation – launched from corrupt and compliant dictatorships next door – was the best way to help the poor Iraqi people who can’t run their own affairs… and shepherd them towards democracy.

If I were Iraqi, I’d probably mutter something about how if you’d only left us alone 100 years ago, then maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess. And how being carpet bombed and subjected to a further period of occupation is probably NOT WHAT WE NEED RIGHT NOW! Although that said, the average Iraqi is probably too busy trying to track down enough fresh drinking water without being blown up or having his head chopped off to be thinking very much about historical context. Life in Baghdad is probably focussed very much on the next few minutes, rather than the last hundred years.

What Tony Blair is unwilling to admit or too thick to understand is that the vast majority of people who he’d describe as anti-American are actually anti-Americanist. They may have American friends and love a lot about America but they are against what America has come to stand for. Not what it says it stands for; but what its actions demonstrate.

Americanism is a kind of rapacious, aggressive capitalism willing to ignore all ethical concerns in the desire for global dominance. Americanism is a willingness to unilaterally use a military machine unrivalled in all of human history to reduce entire nations to rubble which it designates, falsely, to be a threat. Americanism is the arrogance of power… “freedom is occupation”… “democracy is compliance”. It’s all a bit You Know Who.

And speaking of Orwell, can I just cite a short passage from Politics and The English Language to better illustrate this point…

The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

George Orwell | Politics and The English Language

I wonder has Tony Blair ever read that essay? I don’t imagine Dubya Bush has, but you’d think someone might have sent a copy to Blair by now. After all, it was written in 1946.

The point being that when Blair accuses anti-Americanism as being “mad”, he’s essentially saying that anti-Americanism translates as anti-freedom and anti-democracy. But the freedom being exported by America is the freedom to have US corporations make billions off the back of Iraqi misery. And the democracy is limited to electing those approved by America.

It’s Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay for crying-out-loud. It’s secret “rendition flights” shipping suspects to central Asia for torture. And because these are not ‘blips on the radar’ or ‘a few bad apples’, but instead clearly represent the policies of modern America, then it is necessary for all those who believe in a world without state torture, secret police and “the military option” to label themselves anti-American.

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things [… that] can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, “I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.” Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

The inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns, as it were instinctively, to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics.” All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.

George Orwell | Politics and The English Language

* That paragraph is a lie.

Thanks in large part to Oliver Kamm (see previous post) I’ve spent the last few hours thinking about the Iraq war and the various justifications put forward by those in favour of it. My ex-flatmate, Gyrus, and I used to play a game whenever we watched the news… each time a politician or authority figure (police chief, army general, etc.) made a statement; we would imagine that they meant the exact opposite of what they said. The number of times this little thought-experiment would result in the news bulletin making far more sense became really quite frightening.

Anyways, I have no doubt that there are many people out there (for example Jarndyce… see his comment on my last post) who are not “pro-War” per se, but who feel there were valid reasons for us to invade Iraq. Jarndyce’s position (and correct me if I’m wrong on this) is essentially the “humanitarian interventionist” one. In the case of Iraq, the ongoing humanitarian crisis could be attributed to the historical actions of Western imperialist policies (starting with our division of the region into administrative zones / nations that suited us, rather than the people living there; all the way up to our installation and support of undemocratic royal families and dictators). It was our meddling in the region that brought the situation in Iraq to a crisis-point. Therefore we had a moral obligation to set things right. This could never be achieved with Saddam Hussein or his sons in power, and we were the only ones who could remove them.

I fundamentally agree with the assessment that our historical involvement in the region is in no small part to blame for the hardships faced by the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein (even ignoring the issue of economic sanctions). I also agree that this fact does indeed place upon us an “obligation going back decades at least” (to quote Jarndyce). Where I disagree is in the belief that this obligation would best be served by an invasion of the country.

I am also convinced that those who planned and executed the invasion did not have our obligation to the Iraqi people fixed foremost in their mind. Indeed, I’d go so far as to say that their only interest in the Iraqi people was ensuring that they didn’t kill so many of them that it became a Public Relations disaster as well as a humanitarian one. To those who call me cynical, I have just two words to say… “cluster bombs”.

No invasion of a country which involves the use of cluster munitions has got the interests of the general populace at heart. And that’s not being simplistic. No matter what the benefits of cluster bombs may be from a military standpoint, if you are planning an operation aimed primarily at the liberation of a people; i.e. one with a large humanitarian component; then the very first thing that gets said at the very first meeting must be “Well, put your heads together folks, we need to find a way of doing this without cluster bombs.” If that isn’t the first decision, then please don’t stink up my air with bullshit about humanitarian intervention. Er, not you Jarndyce… the people who decided that cluster bombs (or even that wonderful neo-napalm they’ve got that’s absolutely not napalm) were OK.

Y’know there was talk – in the interests of accuracy – of renaming “cluster munitions” as “child killers”. Apparently someone in the marketing department of Bombs Inc. vetoed the idea though.

War against change

This war, like so much of what gets done by those in power, happened for exactly the opposite reason than was claimed. It was not carried out to rid Saddam Hussein of WMD. It was not carried out to free the Iraqi people from tyranny and deliver them unto democracy. It was not carried out for any reason that had anything to do with Iraqi people or the Iraqi leadership at all. It was carried out entirely because of Iraqi geology.

In other words, the war that was billed as “bringing change to Iraq” was neither about “bringing change” nor “Iraq”. It was actually about “preventing change in America”. It was a war to ensure free-market (read: US) access to Iraqi oil reserves. A war to keep Americans in their SUVs for an extra half decade or so. A war to maintain the status quo in the last major oil basin on the planet.

Shifting US bases out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq and Afghanistan is precisely what I would do if I believed the world’s oil reserves needed to be secured by military force. Afghanistan though not itself oil rich, presents a convenient buffer between China (the great military competitor when it comes to oil) and the Gulf States. Also, US bases in Afghanistan have a tactical sphere of influence that includes much of the Central Asian gas fields.

Saudi Arabia will remain pro-American so long as the House of Saud is in power. And pulling US troops out of Saudi was a necessary step towards ensuring that occurs. Pouring them into Iraq on the pretence of self-defence / spreading democracy (hang on a second, weren’t we spreading democracy from bases in non-democratic regimes? How does that work?) was an obvious move. It removes an antagonist from the area, places the troops on top of the second largest oil reserves (but remaining next-door to the largest), while also putting the squeeze on Iran… another antagonist and oil-rich nation.

Is it just me, or is it wildly coincidental that the precise strategic moves that are required to bring Gulf oil almost totally under US military dominance happen to be the same moves that we need to take in order to spread democracy to those poor downtrodden Arabs?

We Western oil consumers are just lucky that way I guess.

And yes, I’m aware that the market economists will jump in and insist that these ideas are fanciful… after all, why seize the oil when we can just buy it? To them, let me point out that this essay is written – as is everything here – based upon my belief that the theory of an imminent or recent peak in global oil production is correct. But perhaps more importantly, I’m not the only one who believes it.

In September 2005, the US Army produced a report entitled Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations (PDF – 1.2mb). One of their conclusions was “The days of inexpensive, convenient, abundant energy sources are quickly drawing to a close.”

In summary, the outlook for petroleum is not good. This especially applies to conventional oil, which has been the lowest cost resource. Production peaks for non-OPEC conventional oil are at hand; many nations have already past their peak, or are now producing at peak capacity.

Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations

The same report points out that “there is no viable substitute for petroleum” on the horizon.

So can it really be a coincidence that the US military (the single largest consumer of global crude oil products) which believes that a time is imminent when energy supplies will need to be secured by means other than economic, just happens to be implementing a policy in the Gulf which appears designed to secure those very reserves by force of occupation; yet is really all about improving the lives of the locals?

All this despite singularly failing to improve the lives of the locals, yet oddly spending a huge amount of time securing the oil infrastructure.

Todays Guardian sees the publication of a column by Oliver Kamm entitled “We were right to invade Iraq”. Regular readers of my writing may be aware that some years back I had a bit of an online altercation with Mr. Kamm. He became abusive and nasty, and I decided that the man and his views were entirely loathsome. Once in a blue moon I encounter something of his linked to from somewhere I regularly read. To date he’s written nothing to counter that “loathsome” judgment. He’s Stephen Fry without the wit, the looks or the charisma.

Anyways, there I was perusing the columnists in today’s Guardian (Tuesday is George Monbiot day, incidentally, so you should check out his piece when you get a chance). To my disappointment there was nothing by Zoe Williams – another Tuesday regular – but there, listed in her place, was the name “Oliver Kamm”.

A travesty.

Kamm’s essays always have a slightly surreal note to them. They’re so close to being clever parodies, that in the past I’ve suspected he’s actually a deep-cover Discordian. The column in the Guardian is no different… it’s so witless and filled with gaping intellectual holes that it’s almost difficult to believe that it’s meant to be taken seriously.

Recall also the alacrity with which some commentators attributed the 7/7 bombings to the provocation of the Iraq war. Disgracefully, the New Statesman carried a cover picture of a rucksack with the caption “Blair’s bombs”. But containment would have meant persisting with what most outraged Osama bin Laden: western troops in Saudi Arabia – and Bin Laden urges “Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorise the enemies of God”.

Oliver Kamm | “We were right to invade Iraq”

Kamm appears to be suggesting that the London bombers were pawns of Osama bin Laden. That they were merely tools of his desires. That what “most outraged” bin Laden would also be the motivating factor for the bombers. But that’s just ridiculous. Certainly these men will have heard bin Laden’s broadcasts and watched his tapes. But their outrage was clearly aimed at the British government. These young British men did not kill themselves and murder dozens of Londoners as a protest at American troops in Saudi Arabia.

They did so as a protest at British support of – what they saw as – US imperialism in Iraq. To suggest that they would have committed the same outrage had UK policy been the same as France or Germany is to ignore both the evidence (the tape left behind by the bombers) and common sense. Certainly it requires a little more proof than a blasé assertion by someone desperately trying to justify an obviously disastrous war.

Those pesky WMD

But quite aside from his mentalism with regards to the July 7th bombings, Kamm’s main reason why “we were right to invade Iraq” is – astonishingly – that to have done otherwise was to invite Saddam Hussein to strike at the West with his Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Yes, you heard it right. Three years on, Kamm is still peddling the line that even the Dubya Bush administration abandoned as being too bloody embarrassing. He’s still waving non-existent nukes at us and telling us to be scared of The Bad Man.

See what I mean when I say it’s difficult to believe we’re supposed to be taking this at face value? I’m assuming the Guardian published it as satire. For example, can anyone tell me what this line is all about… “The absence of WMD was a huge intelligence failure; so it is fortunate that we are no longer reliant on Saddam’s word.”

To the best of my knowledge we were never reliant on Saddam’s word. Seriously, wasn’t that the reason we went to war in the first place; because we didn’t take his word on it, and our intelligence was wrong despite his word being – in this case – perfectly right? We never ever relied on Saddam’s word. To suggest otherwise is to engage in shameless historical revisionism. We invaded his country precisely because we refused to rely upon it.

Kamm also namechecks George Galloway. It’s a cheap and easy shot. Try to put a discredited “celebrity” face to the anti-war movement in the hope of making it look a bit silly. Galloway is – in my view – a fool. I don’t know of any intelligent anti-war writer who takes him seriously. To paint him as the figurehead of the peace movement is cynical and, ultimately, fruitless.

But as for his “crime” of shaking Saddam Hussein’s hand and saying nice things about him…? Even Kamm must admit that his only real crime was doing it after it was fashionable. We’ve all seen the video footage of Donald Rumsfeld warmly greeting the “psychopathic despot”, so I hardly need to track down a still to illustrate the point.

It is intellectually dishonest – yet it is something the pro-War crowd determinedly stick at – to criticise Galloway for cosying up to Hussein just a few years after the hawks in the US administration were doing the same. Did we think he was a Nice Man then? Did we think he was going to treat his people well and offer them the democratic reforms that are so very important to us now? We did not. We knew, just as Rumsfeld knew, that he was shaking the hand of a psychotic despot, but it was politically expedient for him to do so. So he did.

But when a left-wing loon shakes the same hand, just a few years later, for exactly the same reason (political expediency), then it’s knives out. And call The Senate to session. I guess Galloway’s real crime – ironically enough – is that he didn’t bring home lots of oil money upon his return. He didn’t sell any guns or poison gas or fighter jets to the psychotic despot. Clearly he should be lambasted for that failure.

Oliver Kamm is ultimately suggesting that it is “right” to wage war on a country based upon what we suspect they might do at some future date. It is an abandonment of hundreds of years of European rationalism. Embracing feudalism and mindless savagery, it hints at a Divine Right of leadership… that the dangerous suspicions, foolish whims and outright lies of our leaders, when acted upon, are nonetheless moral and just.