A bit more on that story we brought you earlier about the horrific killings in Afghanistan which followed lunatic Pastor Terry Jones' Qu'ran-burning stunt.
Those reactionaries within our own society who are pushing the Clash of Civilizations are mirror-images of the terrorists that inspire their hyperbolic fear; they're just as xenophobic, just as irrational and, ultimately, are just as great a threat to our security. Both have to be challenged aggressively before they give birth to another, even bloodier generation of culture warriors.
This latest spasm of bloodletting seems like a perfect example. Radical Cleric Terry Jones burns some Qu'rans in an intentional provocation, extremists in Afghanistan kill some people, which ultimately emboldens people like Terry Jones, and so on. A vicious cycle, with the vast majority of people in the middle.
But over at the must-read UN Dispatch, Una Moore, an international development professional based in Afghanistan, says that there's a lot more going on with this attack:
Many aspects of the Libyan situation remain unclear: the scope of the mandate given to UN member states by Security Council Resolution 1973, the broader aims of the intervention, how many civilians have been killed and by whom, and who the rebels represent. One thing, however, seems clear: the international intervention is considered to be legal. International lawyers have agreed with the UK government’s advice that Security Council Resolution 1973 ‘provides a clear and unequivocal legal basis for the deployment of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution’s objectives’. Legal experts have been quick to suggest that Resolution 1973 gives authority for any action thought necessary not only to protect civilians, but to protect areas inhabited by civilians.
If today’s Western leadership is really ready, in the words of William Hague, to support the people of the Middle East in their ‘aspirations for a better future’, it will need to do more than use international law to target its enemies while protecting its friends. In rejecting their authoritarian leaders, the current wave of Arab revolutionaries is also rejecting the international system that has profited from their existence. As the US declares yet again that Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorists while bombs rain down on Libya, as protesters continue to be killed in Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Iraq, and as the numbers of people detained continue to grow, the idea that Nato is working to support the freedom fighters of this Arab spring rings increasingly hollow. The bombing of Libya in the name of revolution may be legal, but the international law that authorises such action has surely lost its claim to be universal.
By Josh Rogin Friday, April 1, 2011 – Foreign Policy
Upon taking over as the ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen.Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) brought on a new staff director with no direct experience working on intelligence matters.
Martha Scott Poindexter has served on Capitol Hill for over 10 years. She has worked as the Republican staff director on the Agriculture Committee since 2005, and before that as legislative director in Chambliss's personal office.
SSCI Staff Director on Facebook
Previously, according to her LinkedIn profile, Poindexter was the director of government affairs at Monsanto, the agribusiness giant. She studied nutrition at Salem College and holds a Bachelors degree from the Mississippi State University College of Agriculture.
On Capitol Hill, a senior staffer's effectiveness is measured several factors: by their subject matter expertise, by their ability to get things done, and by their close personal relationship with the boss.
Phi Beta Iota: Penguin, who has served in the senior political ranks of Republican administrations, is not an intelligence professional and therefore has no way of knowing that the appointment makes perfect sense at multiple levels.
1) The SSCI is a side show with zero relevance to oversight of anything–the US Intelligence Community receives ZERO effective oversight and ignores whatever bleats it might deign to acknowledge.
What's Not to Like?
2) The SSCI is a side show with respect to appropriations and authorizations as well–many years have seen no intelligence “authorization” at all because the SASC owns the intelligence budget–at best, the SSCI is a small bleat extra for pork for the Chairman, and insights helpful to investments by the Members.
3) There isn't actually any real expertise on the SSCI–clerks trying to oversee executive clerks, all of them focused on spending the taxpayer dollar in ways that have absolutely nothing to do with actually serving the public interest.
4) Finally, apart from the Chairman having every right to appoint whomever he pleases to oversee his fiefdom–even a sideshow can be a fiefdom–there is a certain elegance in having an Aggie as Staff Director–who better to ensure the pork of interest to the Members gets properly monitored (2-5% kickbacks on new initiatives is a lot of money). The lunacy continues.
This how the influencers are influenced to justify to the “prol's that rule of law properly means nothing. All in place before Obama sent in Special ops and claimed that there were no boots on the ground.
It is not just Libya that now risks long-term division. Telltale signs of fragmentation in the international community’s approach are opening up. Not for the first time Muammer Gaddafi may be on the verge of securing a public relations coup against his western opponents. Now we must declare humanitarian victory, and regroup.
Tuesday’s London conference was a confused affair. The Germans and the Italians touted a ceasefire and exile for Colonel Gaddafi. Others, notably Saudi Arabia and the African Union, stayed away. The US and the UK, meanwhile, insisted the military job was not done, with David Cameron, the UK prime minister, noting on Wednesday that UN Security Council resolution 1973 might give the allies a legal basis to arm the Libyan opposition.
Forget U.N. resolutions! After decades of Gaddafi's deadly attacks and his support for terrorist groups across the world, America has every right to seek revenge, says Andrew Roberts.
In all the discussion of where, if anywhere, American strategic interests lie in regard to Libya, one very obvious motivation for U.S. action seems to be being ignored: Vengeance. Yet the certain knowledge that the West will eventually take revenge for terrorist crimes committed even as long ago as the 1970s and 1980s is itself a vital strategic interest. Rogue states must always know that there is no such thing as a statute of limitations on murder, and that even after four decades, the slate has not been wiped clean.
Andrew Cockburn's essay in The Pentagon Labyrinth is titled “Follow the Money.” There are a lot of people who will say that is an undignified way to assess America's national security apparatus; they might even say that Cockburn's focus is cynical. I would personally venture to guess that a disproportionate number of those saying so are doing rather well – thank you very much – in that same national security apparatus. Or, they plan to do so in the foreseeable future.
Cockburn summarizes his argument in a interview in the ongoing series conducted by Federal News Radio. Chris Dorobek of the DorobekInsider Show interviews Andrew Cockburn.
Following the money and understanding why that is important is key to comprehending why the Pentagon, Congress, the manufacturers, and the think-tanks behave the way they do. After all, as Cockburn says in the DorobekInsider interview, why do you think the manufacturers put all those ads in the Washington Metro system. They're not there for the area's teachers or the local sports teams' fans.
But there is much more to following the money than just that. Cockburn explains fully in his essay in The Pentagon Labyrinth: 10 Short Essays to Help You Through It. He addresses perhaps the most powerful and recurrent theme underlying contemporary defense community behavior. Read Cockburn's essay. Download the book free.
Have a comment? Pro or con? We welcome a public debate.
_____________________________
Winslow T. Wheeler
Director
Straus Military Reform Project
Center for Defense Information
Phi Beta Iota: INTEGRITY. One word. The one word not spoken at the Pentagon by anyone above the rank of Major. You don't make Colonel, and you do not advance as a General, without drinking the kool-aid and “going along” with systemic corruption. Our shame–our continuing shame–is a burden on the Republic.
What vintage bomb survival suits have to do with Dr. Stragelove and Richard Nixon.
The recent tragedy in Japan has triggered a tsunami of terror, founded and unfounded, about the potential risks of nuclear reactors.
While there are people better equipped than us to explain the precise implications of the situation, we thought we’d put things in perspective by examining the flipside of these dystopian fears: The exuberant optimism about nuclear power in mid-century America.
The issue is heating up in America as well, and will soon be heard in court.
On April 5th, 2011, at 11 a.m., at the Federal Courthouse at 141 Church Street in New Haven, Connecticut, the case of Gallop v. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers will be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
Phi Beta Iota: There is not a sufficiency of evidence to convict, but there is assuredly a sufficiency of evidence to indict, and we are equally certain that the 911 Commission was at best a mediocre and incomplete endeavor and at worst a complete cover-up. As Penguin notes, the truth will come out.
Friday, April 1, 2011 – Foreign Policy
