The Peace Press — Saturday, July 3, 2021 edition
“American Exceptionalism is grounded in racism and militarism. It posits that the United States is a unique force for good in the world, exempt from the international laws and norms it expects other nations to follow, and is thus entitled to kill or subdue those who disobey its orders. It has resulted in US bombings and assassinations of people of color around the world criminalized as “terrorists” or otherwise defined as dangerous “others,” exorbitant Pentagon spending, an expansive global network of military bases, and a system that gives sole authority to the US president to decide whether to annihilate the planet.
At its heart, US “national security” doctrine assumes that the lives of white Americans are more valuable than those of others, and that “we” can make ourselves more secure by making “them” less secure. The foreign policy establishment sees the primary threats to national security as military in nature and emanating from outside US borders. No matter that the greatest existential threats are climate change and nuclear catastrophe, nor that pandemic disease, rising inequality, militarized and racist policing, and gun violence — the burdens of which all fall heaviest on Black, Indigenous, and otherwise nonwhite people — pose far greater dangers to American lives than do any imagined threats from China, Russia, Iran, or global terrorism.
The consequences of this doctrine have been devastating. Current US foreign policy is destabilizing the world and robbing it of the resources needed to achieve human development, human security, human rights, and human dignity. The surest way to protect American lives is to eliminate poverty and hunger; achieve racial and gender equality; reverse climate change; create fair and humane systems for migration; develop a robust global capacity to prevent pandemic disease; build an open and inclusive multiethnic, multiracial democracy at home; and establish peaceful and cooperative relationships with other nations. None of these goals can be achieved through military force.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/independence-day-foreign-policy/
.
.
.
“Two hundred years ago this week, our wisest secretary of state warned Americans against a career of empire.”
“Two hundred years ago, on July 4, 1821, the nation’s eighth secretary of state, John Quincy Adams, spoke to the US House of Representatives on the role that the United States should play in the world.
“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers, shall be,” Adams declared. “But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”
That statement remains the finest expression of the unique balance that a republic must strike if it wishes to avoid paying the morally and politically unaffordable wages of empire.
In his address Adams reminded Americans that, while they have a responsibility to speak up for global democracy clearly and without apology, they have an equal responsibility to avoid entangling themselves in the turmoil of other lands. The most well-traveled and engaged American diplomat of his time, Adams was no isolationist. Yet he warned that these entanglements would ultimately undermine liberty in the United States — as they would require of America economic and political compromises that were inconsistent with domestic democracy.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/independence-day-anti-imperialism/
.
.
.
“Nevertheless, as if it wasn’t ridiculously obvious enough, the Biden Administration’s Sunday night bombings of allegedly Iranian-backed militia sites in Syria and Iraq illustrate that what’s been unfolding on those adventures is more mission-manufacture than creep.
Almost all mainstream media articles or reports describe the latest strikes as retaliatory responses to rocket or drone strikes on US military bases in one or both countries, and refer to the alleged Iraqi or Syrian culprits as “Iranian-backed.” Seriously, like every time. In so doing, the establishment press uncritically — and one suspects, in many cases, willfully — accepts the US Government’s line and denies any agency (and legitimacy, grievances, or outright identity) to the numerous, diverse, and complex Iraqi and Syrian resistance groups actually doing the shooting. Most reporting on such bombings also offers the impression that these missions — if not the world — began yesterday, omitting almost all backstory, context, or nuance.
The absence of these three critical elements of any effective analysis is, of course, rather convenient for a Washington establishment which would otherwise have its initial illegalities, dissembling justifications, senseless strategies, and inherent indecencies in two wars they’ve championed comprehensively exposed. Overall, it’s the utter ignorance — willful or otherwise — currently characterizing America’s Iraq and Syria policies that’s truly striking. More troubling, though, is the public apathy enabling the nefarious pundit-politician nexus to continue the killing — this, perhaps befitting a nation finally gone mad on the narcotic of responsibility-free forever wars.”
https://original.antiwar.com/Danny_Sjursen/2021/06/30/manufactured-mission-the-iraq-syria-forever-war-factories/
.
.
.
“In a very somber address from the White House’s Treaty Room announcing a September 11th end to the war in Afghanistan, President Joe Biden noted on 14 April that he was the fourth U.S. president to preside over the conflict. “I will not,” he firmly stated, “pass this responsibility on to a fifth.” Barely two months later, however, that firm commitment is looking about as solid as melted butter.
The Associated Press reported on Thursday that upwards of 650 U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan, even after the so-called withdrawal is completed later this summer. The reasons for the change are confusion, as U.S. officials told the AP that troops will remain behind to provide security at the embassy, but also said they would be there as, “a more permanent force presence in the country.”
President Obama was the first to say he was going to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and then went back on it. President Trump followed suit and likewise failed to follow through. Now it appears Biden is falling prey to the enormous pressure put on by establishment Washington to resist, at all cost, ending the forever-war in Afghanistan. But this is, first and foremost, a contest of wills between the Afghan government and the Taliban.”
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/06/joe-biden-promised-to-leave-afghanistan-has-he-changed-his-mind/
.
.
.
How can keeping 650 to a thousand U.S. troops in Afghanistan be considered a withdrawal at all? Only to a shallow person who believes political rhetoric.
A decade after the first shots were fired, cities are in ruins, over half a million Syrians have died, and more than ten million have been displaced.
“In recent years, the U.S. government has turned starvation into official policy. Determined to force hostile states to bend to its will, Washington increasingly imposes economic sanctions, using America’s financial dominance to penalize foreign individuals, companies, and even governments. The Trump administration turned starving already impoverished peoples into a fine art.
Among its prime targets were Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela. The objective was to wreak economic destruction — and the policy succeeded in that sense. These nations all suffered increased hardship. Yet the people who suffered the most were at the bottom economically. Regime elites usually lost some access to excess, including foreign bank accounts and the luxuries which depended on those funds. But everyone else struggled to feed themselves.”
https://original.antiwar.com/doug-bandow/2021/06/29/the-sanctimonious-destruction-of-syria-washington-starves-syrians-to-save-them/
.
.
.
Since the U.S. intends to leave 650 troops to guard the airport in Kabul and is keeping the option to launch airstrikes open, would it be acceptable for tit-for-tat, that is to have 650 Taliban troops guard Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C. and keep the option open of launching airstrikes on civilian and military populations Washington, D.C. until the U.S. leaves Afghanistan? If this idea sounds ridiculous and absurd to you, imagine how the Afghans feel about us doing the same to them. Why is it ok when we do it but not ok when they do it?
“President Biden pushed back the original May 1st withdrawal deadline to September 11th. The US wants to keep 650 troops in Afghanistan to guard its embassy in Kabul indefinitely. Several hundred additional troops would stay until September 11th to help Turkey secure the Kabul airport.
The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the top US commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Scott Miller, will leave this week. His authority to bomb the country will then be transferred to Gen. Frank McKenzie, the head of US Central Command.”
https://news.antiwar.com/2021/07/01/us-keeping-airstrike-option-open-in-afghanistan-until-september/
.
.
.
“If the military officials who talk to the press get their way, the U.S. war in Afghanistan will never end. This became execrably clear on June 9, when the New York Times published an article quoting anonymous Pentagon dignitaries informing us that after the U.S. leaves Afghanistan, it may continue to bomb the country, if it doesn’t like how things go. You read that right. President Biden says the war will end. The geniuses in the Pentagon say no it won’t, we’ll keep bombing.
I confess I did a double-take reading this apparent mucking up of the chain of command. We all knew that military bigwigs become rebellious when told to wind down a war. We got a display of that when Trump tried to pull troops out of Syria — and that’s just what we mere mortals read about in the press. Who knows what temper-tantrums exploded behind closed doors at the Pentagon? But still, going to the media with promises to continue Afghan bombing after Biden withdraws the troops, well, that seemed excessive.
Particularly repulsive was the Times’ eagerness to provide these anonymous officials with a platform — essentially putting their views on equal footing with stated U.S. policy, namely ending the war. But that was the whole point of the exercise, right? To show that when it comes to dragging out a 20-year war that has killed thousands of American soldiers, thousands of Afghans and cost trillions of dollars, military bureaucrats are in the driver’s seat, regardless of official white house policy. Frankly, the whole display was sickening.”
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/25/bombing-afghanistan-after-the-troops-are-gone/
.
.
.
President Biden on Friday refused to continue answering questions on Afghanistan, telling reporters that he only wanted to talk about “happy things.” Media reports have said the bulk of US forces in Afghanistan are expected to be out by July 4th, so naturally, reporters had questions. But the commander in chief was more concerned with enjoying his holiday weekend.
https://news.antiwar.com/2021/07/02/i-want-to-talk-about-happy-things-man-biden-cuts-off-questions-on-afghanistan/
.
.
.
“The U.S. has no compelling reason to keep tens of thousands of troops in the Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Syria, and it should follow the withdrawal from Afghanistan with complete withdrawals of the forces currently located in these countries. There is a growing body of arguments advocating for ending the US military presence in the Middle East in recognition of the fact that there are no vital interests that require keeping American forces deployed there. Many of these forces are essentially sitting ducks, and in some countries they are not authorized to be there and they are not wanted. The Biden administration’s latest airstrikes against Iraqi militias and the retaliatory rocket attacks on an American base in Syria remind us that our government’s continued military presence in Iraq and Syria puts Americans in danger for nothing. The rest of our military presence in the region is redundant and potentially destabilizing.”
https://original.antiwar.com/Daniel_Larison/2021/06/29/the-us-military-presence-in-the-middle-east-needs-to-end/
.
.
.
““Rules-based order” (or sometimes, “rules-based system”) is among the Biden administration’s favorite terms. It has become what “free world” was during the Cold War. Especially among Democrats, it’s the slogan that explains what America is fighting to defend.
Too bad. Because the “rules-based order” is a decoy. It’s a way of sidestepping the question Democrats should be asking: Why isn’t America defending international law?”
https://archive.is/9Ia6V#selection-511.20-515.167
.
.
.
“Last weekend, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. ordered the U.S. military to bomb targets in Syria and Iraq in an effort “to send a clear and unambiguous deterrent message” to Iran. It is apparently the belief of the Biden administration — as it has been with Biden’s three immediate presidential predecessors — that the US has the moral and legal authority to destroy any target outside the US with financial or political or military ties to Iran.
Morally, the US can only use force defensively or to repel an imminent attack. When asked for the legal authority for an offensive attack, a Pentagon spokesperson stated that it could be found in Article 2 of the US Constitution. Yet, it is not there.
Governments love war. The political philosopher Randolph Bourne, who made a lifetime study of the effects of war, once famously and derisively called it “the health of the State” because it tends to unify persons behind the military might of the war-makers and it makes it easier to raise taxes to support the troops. It keeps the government’s agents busy and its patrons well compensated. Hence the nearly irresistible impulse that modern American presidents have had to utilize the military to assert imperial political will around the globe.
Can the president on his own send lethal missiles to any target of his choosing? In a word: No.”
https://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2021/06/30/can-the-president-kill/
.
.
.
“The Pentagon’s announcement of a series of bombing raids on Syria and Iraq — ordered by President Joe Biden without the constitutional authorization by Congress — raised more questions than it answered.”
https://original.antiwar.com/Paul_Lovinger/2021/06/30/when-boss-orders-act-of-war-flacks-put-on-an-act-for-him/
.
.
.
Aaron Maté tells Ann Garrison that US media helps the OPCW cover up its cover-up for the US, UK, and France.
“I spoke to The Grayzone ’s Aaron Maté about the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons docs published by Wikileaks, which prove that the organization released fraudulent reports to justify US, UK, and French aerial bombing attacks on government facilities in Douma, Syria in April 2018.”
https://www.blackagendareport.com/cover-cover-us-media-ignore-opcw-fraud-justify-missile-strikes-syria
.
.
.
“If there’s no shift in the U.S. approach, regular attacks by Iranian proxies will eventually kill American personnel. There’s no reason to wait for that outcome.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/biden-orders-airstrikes-iran-backed-militants-iraq-syria-it-s-ncna1272539
.
.
.
“It will take much more than repealing AUMFs to stop the president from making unilateral decisions to wage war.”
“President Biden’s air strikes constituted acts of aggressive war against Syria and Iraq according to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 8 bis defines the crime of aggressions as including, “Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State.”
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/06/29/us-airstrikes-in-iraq-and-syria-are-blatantly-unconstitutional/
.
.
.
“There’s only one thing worse than a soldier dying in vain; it’s more soldiers dying in vain.”
~ Senator Mike Gravel, 2008 Democratic presidential primary debate, July 23, 2007.
https://original.antiwar.com/Matthew_Hoh/2021/07/01/mike-gravel-and-an-ongoing-road-to-courage/
.
.
.
American officials and diplomats constantly circle the globe issuing statements, making demands, proposing initiatives, and otherwise bothering people to little effect. Most of these efforts are harmless, and often provide a politically advantageous image of international activity and influence for home consumption.
More malign, however, are forceful interventions in other countries.”
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/not-everything-on-earth-is-a-vital-interest-for-america/
.
.
.
“The Pentagon is upgrading its full-spectrum dominance, with China as the primary target.”
“President Biden is in lockstep with Austin’s anti-China mission. Much of Biden’s $715 billion Pentagon budget request for 2022 is for investment in hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, micro-electronics, 5G technology, space-based systems, shipbuilding and nuclear “modernization” (read: expansion). The request seeks $28 billion to “modernize” the nuclear triad (the ability to launch nukes from land, sea, and air). The budget also includes the largest research-and-development request — $112 billion — in the history of the Pentagon.
Imagine that kind of support for healthcare.”
https://original.antiwar.com/Koohan_Paik-Mander/2021/06/29/countering-the-china-threat-at-what-price/
.
.
.
“The New Cold War is a tech war, a propaganda war, an economic war, and a war to maintain US political and economic supremacy.”
“Some call it a hybrid war because of its multifaceted nature. However, too few have been willing to discuss the New Cold War’s shared roots with the Cold War. Similar to the Cold War, the New Cold War on China is essentially a war to contain and eradicate socialism. Dissimilar to the Cold War, the New Cold War is a response to the decline of U.S. hegemony rather than the opposite.
The US economy is shrinking and its legitimacy on the global stage waning due to an obsession with endless austerity and war. China on the other hand is a rising socialist country that will possess the largest economy in the world in the next five to ten years. The state is firmly in control of the commanding heights of the economy or strategically important sectors such as transportation, finance, natural resources, and energy. China’s central government is led by the Communist Party of China rather than so-called “representatives” beholden to corporate interests. “
https://www.blackagendareport.com/message-peace-movement-summary-new-cold-war-china
.
.
.
“Inflaming tensions like these has a very long and bloody history.”
“US media are fixin’ for a fight with China, Russia — or both. Commentary on the recent G7 and NATO summits, as well as President Joe Biden’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, was replete with examples of news outlets alternately praising the Biden administration for ramping up new cold wars with China and Russia, and criticizing it for not being even more aggressive. As it propagandized about the US supposedly fighting for democracy, this coverage betrayed a total indifference to the potential costs of these hostilities.”
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/07/02/us-corporate-media-fixin-cold-war-fight-china
.
.
.
“It is past time to change course and start repairing the damage done. Disavowing and ending the lethal strikes program is both a human rights and racial justice imperative in meeting these commitments.”
“The letter demands “an end to the unlawful program of lethal strikes outside any recognized battlefield, including through the use of drones,” that are “a centerpiece” of the so-called War on Terror and have “exacted an appalling toll on Muslim, Brown, and Black communities in multiple parts of the world.”
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/06/30/over-110-groups-urge-biden-end-unlawful-lethal-strikes
.
.
.
Those who despise “big government” would be wise to remember that a big military is big government.
“The glory days of military innovation are behind us, spelling trouble for national security in the future.”
“As one observer recently pointed out, the Defense Department’s convoluted and wasteful acquisitions process is a symptom of a more fundamental problem, which is that the United States lacks a coherent global strategy and is blind to the limitations of its power. So it’s worth taking a look at what research, development, and fielding of new weapons looked like when America had a clear mission — and when the American defense sector championed merit over politics."
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/americas-defense-industry-is-a-corrupt-incompetent-mess/
.
.
.
“Al-Darwish is not the only death row inmate who allegedly committed a “crime” while he was a minor. There are others, including Abdullah al-Huwaiti, who was arrested when he was only 14. More protestors and activists of all ages face the death penalty for peaceful protest, including many from the kingdom’s Shi’a majority Eastern Province who demonstrated against the government during the “Arab Spring” ten years ago, and Sunni reformists and clerics, such as Salman Alodah, who faces a death sentence for, among other peaceful actions, tweeting an appeal for reconciliation between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, even though Riyadh has since normalized relations with Doha.
These abuses just concern the death penalty. Not to be forgotten are the continuing travel ban and harassment to which Loujain Alhathloul and her family have been subject, or that dozens of human rights defenders, real reformists, and pro-democracy activists continue to languish in Saudi prisons, serving long sentences simply for calling for basic rights or a constitutional monarchy. So if President Joe Biden is looking to honor the mandate of the Copenhagen Democracy Summit, which he recently attended, to seek “fresh ideas to stem the tide of authoritarian advance and put democracy back on the front foot,” he should consider how his administration’s policies are enabling authoritarianism in Saudi Arabia. Democratic values cannot be advanced by turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the persecution of peaceful activists and thereby signaling to dictators that it’s “business as usual” in Washington.”
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/06/28/mbs-saudi-reform-exposed-by-execution-of-teenage-protester/
.
.
.
“AFRICOM chief Gen. Stephen Townsend didn’t want to detail his “options,” but did say that the training advise and assist missions are a lot harder when US troops aren’t in Somalia.
That’s not surprising. US operations in Somalia, to the extent they were seen, seemed mostly limited to assassinating suspected militants in rural Somalia and fueling complaints of civilian deaths, which they constantly dismissed.”
https://news.antiwar.com/2021/06/29/africom-chief-pushes-for-us-troops-to-return-to-somalia/
.
.
.
“Military tribunals are sometimes a necessary consequence of war, but to drag the judicial process out for this long — up to nearly 20 years — is absurd and un-American. It’s an abandonment of our commitment to rule of law and what we consider to be fair jurisprudence.”
“I thought our pursuit of justice could be fair and impartial, and an example to the world. I was wrong. Everything I saw and experienced while serving in that assignment convinced me of that. Nothing I’ve observed since has changed my mind.”
https://archive.is/1qeyw#selection-343.0-343.55
.
.
.
Goodbye and good riddance. Mourning the death of Donald Rumsfeld is akin to mourning the death of Adolf Eichmann. Not worth one tear at all.
“The only thing tragic about the death of Donald Rumsfeld is that it didn’t occur in an Iraqi prison.”
“Donald Rumsfeld is responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths and enriching himself in the process. The least we can do is to forever link his name with ‘war criminal.’”
— Veterans for Peace
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/06/30/merciless-war-criminal-and-ex-defense-secretary-donald-rumsfeld-dead-88
.
.
.
“With news of the belated death of Donald Rumsfeld, it’s vital that his true legacy of villainy be recalled. In the name of setting the historical record straight, here’s the late great Michael Ratner, making the unimpeachable case against Rumsfeld for his war crimes in Iraq.”
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/07/01/the-war-crimes-case-against-donald-rumsfeld/
.
.
.
“War with Iraq, its physical and social infrastructure already shredded following a decade of Washington’s crippling sanctions, had nothing to do with 9/11. For Rumsfeld and his neocon colleagues, Iraq was a target waiting to be taken down. The reasons were both ideological and strategic — a crucial location for the projection of US military power, control of oil, the establishment of military bases; and destruction of a regional power challenging Washington’s and its Arab and Israeli allies’ hegemony in the Middle East.”
“It would be the critical success of the effort to transform US foreign policy from a kind of pragmatic imperialism often relying on fig leaves of multilateralism to an unlimited assertion of US power based on preemptive military force.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/donald-rumsfeld-obit/
.
.
.
Is there really so much difference between the 2003 unprovoked war of military aggression upon Iraq and the unprovoked war of military aggression against Poland by Nazi Germany in 1939? Both of these historical events bear striking parallels to me. Are we really so different from the Nazis?
““Costly.” “Divisive.” “Failings.” “Mistake.” “Based on a false premise.” These are specific descriptors that The New York Times used to describe the Iraq war. It could have used other descriptions that would have been far more critical of what the U.S. did. Words like: Illegal. War crime. Deception. Lies. Immoral. Mass murder. These are strong words, and for those who did not live through the disturbing years of that war as adults, or who did, but whose memories are beginning to fade, or who never paid much attention at the time at all, I’ll elaborate on the points above.”
Illegal, and a War Crime: The U.S. invasion of Iraq represented one of the worst war crimes of the last century. It was a blatant violation of the United Nations Charter, which outlaws the use of force unless authorized by the Security Council (Article 48), or when a country uses force in self-defense against an ongoing attack (Article 51). The U.S. could claim neither with Iraq, meaning that its invasion was a blatant violation of not only the U.N. Charter, but also the principles of the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which were created by the UN to punish Nazi party officials for their crimes of aggression during the Second World War. These crimes included 1. “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances,” or 2. “participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned” in point 1. above. Clearly, U.S. actions in Iraq constitute a violation of the Nuremberg principles,
considering they were planned, prepared, initiated, and waged by a hostile power against a country that was not engaged in belligerent activities toward the U.S., and U.S. acts were pursued in violation of the explicit principles laid out in international treaties and agreements to which the U.S. was bound (the U.N. and the U.N. Charter).”
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/07/02/rehabilitating-rumsfeld-erasing-empire-on-all-those-u-s-war-crimes-in-iraq/
.
.
.
“If the U.S. government was trying to destroy Burkina Faso, it could hardly have done it any better. This already impoverished, landlocked West African country is simply symptomatic of Franco-America’s Sahel-wide exercise in absurdity.
It goes like this: in the years following the 9/11 attacks there was no Islamist militant threat to speak of in this region. Nevertheless, on account of its hallucinatory fear, racialized mental-mapping and neocon-neo-imperial reflexes, the George W. Bush administration imagined and then induced not just a genuine jihadi rebellion, but an inter-communal implosion clear across the Sahel.
And because Burkina Faso was long considered one of the most stable countries in West Africa — and its conflict currently runs hottest of all — this tortured nation makes for an instructive case study in incompetence and indecency.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2021/07/02/how-to-destroy-a-nation-in-10-years/
.
.
.
“In a new video, a cross-party group of 11 Australian members of Parliament tell the U.S. president that the Australian publisher of WikiLeaks should not be punished for his work and that all charges against him should be dropped.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2021/06/30/australian-mps-to-biden-free-julian-assange/
.
.
.
“The US indictment of Assange is recognized by free speech groups as an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment. This is the first time that the US Espionage Act has been used against a publisher. All major media, press freedom, civil liberties, and international human rights advocacy organizations oppose proceedings against Assange — who faces a 175 sentence if he were to be extradited.”
