Pakistan is one of the most dangerous states in the world today, many observers have postulated, with the spread of militant Islamic radicalism threatening total destabilization in a nation armed with nuclear weapons. The US government has taken the position that it is better to support the dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf, deemed a “moderate” and regarded as a strong “ally” in the US “war on terrorism,” than to risk the spread of radicalism and perhaps even the possibility that the Taliban or al-Qaeda might get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Thus, the US government has remained fully committed to its support for Musharraf, even as he has declared a state of emergency and attempted to consolidate his power by suspending the constitution and suppressing his political opposition.

The threat, though perhaps exaggerated, is real. But the choice presented, between supporting a dictator or allowing terrorists and radicals to overrun the country, is a false one. Pakistan is certainly in a state of crisis today, but to present the situation in such a framework, where democracy is necessarily sacrificed for security, is to specifically preclude the possibility for a solution that would both mitigate the threat of terrorism and help foster the growth of democracy. Such a solution is possible, but US policies are decreasing the likelihood that it could ever occur.

The radical and terrorist elements in Pakistan represent a minority, and moderates in favor of democratic reforms are far greater in number. Although members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda fleeing to Pakistan as a result of the US’s war in Afghanistan were initially welcomed by many Pakistanis because of shared opposition to the US war, the growth of strict, Taliban-style interpretation of Islam has resulted in many local populations now being oppressed by those whom were initially regarded as guests. These Pakistanis now long for an end to the radical militancy that has flooded their towns, as well as for an end to a dictatorship that they feel doesn’t represent them or act in their best interests.

So, while the White House is correct to point out that the solution for the present crisis in Pakistan is for the country to make efforts to implement democracy, this is the very solution that is effectively precluded within the existing framework for discussion accepted by government officials and media commentators. The framework consists of a false dichotomy and fails to acknowledge that the US itself is largely responsible for creating the present state of affairs. By accepting a framework which rejects this embarrassing and inconvenient truth, the possibility that we might actually learn from our past actions and their consequences is also precluded. As a result, the options presented for the best way forward are extremely limited and will serve not to precipitate positive change, but only to maintain the status quo.

In order to be able to make an intelligent decision about what direction to take from here, it’s essential to recognize where the present day threat of radicalism and terrorism had its roots—widely known but rarely regarded as remarkable in critical analysis of the present situation. Read more...

There still remains some controversy over the real reasons the U.S. went to war in Iraq. The official reasons for the war, that Iraq had WMD and threatened to supply them to terrorist organizations, namely al-Qaeda, intent upon using them against the U.S., have long since proven to be false and we may dismiss them. We know much in hindsight that we did not know at the time, but the fact is that no credible evidence was presented at the time to support the claims being made and the available facts contradicted the Bush administration's case. Hence, a campaign of deception was necessarily orchestrated against the American people in order to create a false pretext to invade Iraq. Read More...

The Path Towards War With Iran

Ramifications of the proposal to add Iran's Revolutionary Guard to the list of terrorist organizations

This month saw yet another escalation of the U.S. policy of isolating and pressuring Iran as the White House announced its intention to add Iran's Revolutionary Guard to the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. There is something to be learned from this about the nature of U.S. foreign policy if we care to examine the implications; and the ramifications of such a decision could be quite serious and potentially deadly, so it warrants a look. Read More...

The Framework for Debate on Iran

Existing U.S. policy and its peaceful alternative

There is a very narrow and rigidly defined framework within which discussion of U.S. policy towards Iran is confined in political discourse and mainstream media. This framework effectively precludes the possibility that there could be a change of foreign policy which would produce more positive results than the present status quo, policies which at best are counterproductive and at worst could have disastrous consequences both for the U.S. and Iran, with repercussions that could extend throughout the Middle East. An alternative framework is possible, but it requires the dispensation of certain attitudes and myths and a reevaluation of the facts concerning U.S. policy towards Iran.

An article from the July 21 issue of The Economist provides a useful example for analysis in that it contains all the basic elements of the existing framework. The gist of it is by now a familiar story; Iran is ruled by unreasonable madmen intent upon constructing nuclear weapons to use against Israel and the only option, as discomforting and undesirable as it may be, is the use of military force to compel Iran to obey the rules set by the West. The present framework is conducive towards that end while effectively precluding alternative courses of action. Read more...

Honored by Hatred

Elite Propaganda and U.S. Policy in the Middle East

A recent op-ed in the Washington Post offers an instructive example of elite opinion towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the kind of logic, or lack thereof, which guides U.S. policy.

Richard Cohen, in an article entitled, "They Honor Us With Their Hate", begins by reminding his readers of news that on September 11, 2001, "the Palestinians were cheering the deaths of about 3,000 innocent people in America".

He then proceeds to explain that this was "before America's retaliatory invasion of Afghanistan or the war in Iraq", before "Guantanamo became shorthand for abuse of the president's constitutional authority and before the outrage of Abu Ghraib"; "In other words, the demonstration by Palestinians (in the Lebanese refugee camp of Shatila) preceded most of the usual reasons given for why America today is held in contempt by much of the world."

Cohen informs his readers that he's been to Shatila and mentions Israel "allegedly abetting the 1982 massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by Lebanese Christian forces." He notes that "The Palestinians have been mistreated by just about everybody, including, of course, their own inept and often corrupt leadership."

"Still," he continues, "the chief reason for the cheering on Sept. 11 was U.S. support for Israel. Sometimes that support has been mindless and sometimes it has been over the top, but fundamentally it is based on certain truths." Among these "truths", is that "Israel is a legally sanctioned state, created by the United Nations in 1948", Iran and "a host of militant organizations—Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and, of course, al-Qaeda—fervently wish for Israel's destruction." Cohen then adds that "There is no way the United States could appease these groups and not, in the process, trample on its own moral values. Israel on occasion is wrong—and the settlements are an abomination—but its existence is right."

Although the Bush administration has "made matters worse", "in a way, America has little choice about being hated in some parts of the world. The United States is never going to be truly popular as long as it insists on adhering to certain principles."

In conclusion, Cohen writes, "It's always nice to have friends. Sometimes, though, it's more honorable to have enemies."

In short, while Israel is sometimes in the wrong, we must support that country out of principle and should hence feel a sense of honor for adhering resolutely to our "principles" rather than seeking to "appease" Israel's enemies, even when doing so causes them to hate us as well. Read more...

Lessons From the U.S. Stance Towards Iran

Prior to the military invasion of Iraq in 2003, the government and media, for whatever various motives, had engaged in a propaganda campaign that effectively deceived the American people on a massive scale. The propaganda continues to this day, such as the implausible denial that there ever was such a campaign and the fabricated myth that there was an "intelligence failure" leading up to the war. But the propaganda isn't limited to Iraq. Iran has become a major focus of U.S. propaganda efforts. That this state of affairs continues demonstrates the failure of the American people to learn the most obvious lessons from the course of events that led us to be in Iraq in the first place.

One front in the propaganda war is to blame Iran for the situation that exists today as a result of U.S. actions. Iran, we are told, supports the resistance against the U.S. occupation and is intent upon destabilizing the country. We are told this at the same time that it is acknowledged that Iran's best interests lie in maintaining friendly relations with the current Shiite-dominated government of Iraq. No attempt to reconcile the contradiction is ever made.

The basic framework for present debate concerning Iran is founded upon the assumption that any Iranian involvement in Iraqi affairs is illegitimate and wrong. The legitimacy of our own actions is unquestionable, and it's accepted as an axiom that, though we may make mistakes from time to time, our presence in Iraq is one of benevolence. The U.S. waged a war of aggression, "the supreme international crime" as defined at Nuremberg, inflicting death and destruction upon the country and resulting in almost total destabilization (Iraq was recently ranked second only to Sudan in Foreign Policy's annual failed states index). But, still, the U.S. is basically good and her intentions benign; and no one must ever question that basic assumption. Read more...

The US Propaganda Campaign Against Iran

The US government has stepped up its rhetoric against Iran this week with a presentation held in Baghdad designed to support the claim that, as worded by President Bush last month, "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops." US officials said that weapons were being smuggled into Iraq by an elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard known as the Quds Force on orders "coming from the highest levels of the Iranian government." But, as the Washington Post observed, "The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops." That conclusion was an "inference", and the defense analyst present acknowledged the inconclusiveness of the evidence, saying, "The smoking gun of an Iranian standing over an American with a gun, it's never going to happen."

The reason for the buzz, as the Post also accurately noted, was that, “Although the administration has made many assertions about Iran’s nuclear program, its role in Iraq and its ties to groups on the State Department’s terrorism list, the U.S. government has never publicly offered evidence proving the allegations.” The presentation was the first attempt by the government to offer what it regards as evidence to substantiate the claims being made. Read more...