Category Archives: Geopolitics

Sovereign immunity is criminal insider immunity

Governments are the only arbiters of the law within their own borders, where they have a monopoly on the use of force, and make deals with other governments so individual citizens of any country can’t sue governments for their actions.  Individual citizens can be sued, corporations can be sued, but governments can’t be sued.

But governments don’t act, the individuals in the governments do, and they often don’t have their citizens’ interests in mind when they act.  They act for the benefit of special interests.  When average people are hurt because of the actions done for the benefit of the few, the few don’t want them to be able to receive compensation, and they certainly don’t want to be held accountable personally.  Otherwise the prisons would be filled with presidents, politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists from all over the world.

From The Hill:

“The White House has come out against the legislation, because of what it claims would be dangerous precedent that could erode the legal system of sovereign immunity.

“If we open up the possibility that individuals and the United States can routinely start suing other governments, then we are also opening up the United States to being continually sued by individuals in other countries,” Obama said in an interview with CBS broadcast early Tuesday.”

Foreign policy for whose benefit?

Are “foreign policy elites” incompetent, or might they have another motive than what is commonly believed?  The foreign policy establishment is made up of individuals who produce no product that anyone in a free market would want to buy, so they must rely on the generosity of benefactors for their livings.  Those benefactors, be they governments or businesses that receive money from governments, have their own agendas, and those agendas have nothing to do with the average American citizen, other than to get into his pockets.

Here we read that “foreign policy elites” have advocated one disaster after another, and don’t want to work with a potential president who has openly criticized the results of their decisions and advocacy.  But if they are so obviously incompetent, then why are they still listened to?

Perhaps the people who pay their salaries don’t view them as incompetent or the results of their ideas as negative.  Some clues from today’s news:

Could money play a role in foreign policy, or is it all based on good old American goodness of intention?

Do “foreign policy elites” in the government view their constituents as the American people, or a small, powerful sliver of the American (and other) people?

Another question comes to mind:  why the obsession with Iran, and the protection of Saudi Arabia, which is a much more dangerous and destabilizing force than Iran could ever dream of being?  How many of the “foreign policy elite” are on the Saudi payroll, and how many are on the Iranian payroll?

 

 

 

Different kinds of intervention

Honduras has been the focus of US intervention for over a century.  While corrupt Honduran “leaders” bear most of the blame for the country’s situation, the US government, often at the behest of private interests, has not helped.  From Stephen Kinzer:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/03/29/hard-choices-honduras/sLI9xnEw6TWXQgGb9ZVTZO/story.html

The Herd Mind: Who Benefits?

U.S. citizens are sheep, but sheep get shorn.  Another from Dan Sanchez:

https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/humiliation-and-herd-think-52174109511e#.hm8p1kgpl

“Moreover, the troops hold a special place in the fold. They are not sheep, but sheep-dogs, as Chris Kyle was instructed as a boy in American Sniper. Never mind that sheep-dogs work not for the sake of the sheep, but for the sake of the shepherd’s wool and mutton. And when it comes to the humiliation of sheep at the hands of shepherds and sheep-dogs, the herd mind is extremely tolerant.”

The Wahhabi-Israeli Alliance

From Dan Sanchez:

https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/saudi-arabia-and-israel-an-axis-of-convenience-d553f4b1fb46#.larng9pef

“Finally Britain had the Saudis give Hussain an offer he couldn’t refuse. Ibn Saud, the Emir of Najd in eastern Arabia, had long been on Britain’s payroll, but had already been largely crushed by the Ottomans before Hussain joined the fight. After the war, Churchill and Lawrence both threatened to unleash Ibn Saud and his fanatic Wahhabi followers against Hijaz if Hussain would not yield. After finally giving up on Hussain ever accepting Sykes-Picot and Balfour, the British made good on their threat and sicced their religiously rabid bulldog on Hussain’s people. As Wahid wrote:

“Ibn Saud’s Wahhabis committed their customary massacres, slaughtering women and children as well as going into mosques and killing traditional Islamic scholars. They captured the holiest place in Islam, Mecca, in mid-October 1924. Sharif Hussain was forced to abdicate and went to exile…”

Ibn Saud, who was willing to play ball with Britain’s colonial designs on the Middle East, thus gained dominion over most of the Arabian Peninsula. As his reward, the British upgraded Ibn Saud’s Emirate to a Kingdom. A British functionary later came up with the name “Saudi Arabia.”

The Saudis midwifed Israel by overthrowing and displacing a major early obstacle to the Zionist project in Palestine. And Zionism midwifed Saudi Arabia when the former’s imperial patron granted the Arabian Peninsula to the House of Saud largely for the sake of Zionism. Israel and Saudi Arabia were born symbiotic twins out of the womb of the British Empire.”

 

Cute, Naive, and Disastrous

This old article I found in a Daniel Sanchez piece today has it all:  flytrap theory, which worked, but in the opposite way American strategists thought it would; fight them over there instead of here; building democracy in the Arab world; bring ’em on.  It all seems like a long, long time and hubris ago.

Perhaps the oddest bit of logic from those days was that the U.S. being in Iraq created a target for terrorists other than Israel, a sort of red matador’s cape to distract the bull.  But unfortunately the cape takes the brunt of it until the matador, whoever that was supposed to be, finishes off the bull.  The cape looks as if it was actually the bull, and that bull is leery of returning to the ring this time.

 

Turkey’s Push for a No Fly Zone

From the Washington Post:
“France and Turkey, in turn, have pushed to establish a no-fly and buffer zone to protect refugees in northern Syria, an idea opposed by the United States, Germany and others. No country in the coalition is eager to send ground troops to Iraq or Syria, despite a shortage of reliable proxy forces in either country to fight the Islamic State head-to-head.”

Why would Turkey want a no-fly zone?  ISIS has no planes.  Turkey and France have been pushing for the no fly zone since 2011.  Turkey thought this would limit Syria’s military options, allowing the Turkish-allied Muslim Brotherhood in Syria to take over the government, which would in turn limit the Kurdish drive for sovereignty.  It hasn’t turned out that way, but Turkey hasn’t shifted its strategy.

Is Saudi Arabia ISIS’ True Goal?

From Pat Lang at Sic Semper Tyrannis:

“The US will wreck itself if it continues to fight these ruinously expensive wars against the jihadis. IMO the IS wants to build a salafist state across the Middl East and South Asia. To that end they must achieve control of the assets now possessed by Saudi Arabia.

Would IS welcome a chance to inflict as many casualties on the US as possible? Certainly they would but that would be a means to an end and not the end itself.”

Turkey, the Valued NATO Ally

From Patrick Cockburn:

“Ever since Syrian government forces withdrew from the Syrian Kurdish enclaves or cantons on the border with Turkey in July 2012, Ankara has feared the impact of self-governing Syrian Kurds on its own 15 million-strong Kurdish population.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would prefer Isis to control Kobani, not the PYD. When five PYD members, who had been fighting Isis at Kobani, were picked up by the Turkish army as they crossed the border last week they were denounced as “separatist terrorists”.

Turkey is demanding a high price from the US for its co-operation in attacking Isis, such as a Turkish-controlled buffer zone inside Syria where Syrian refugees are to live and anti-Assad rebels are to be trained. Mr Erdogan would like a no-fly zone which will also be directed against the government in Damascus since Isis has no air force. If implemented the plan would mean Turkey, backed by the US, would enter the Syrian civil war on the side of the rebels, though the anti-Assad forces are dominated by Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate.”

“Why doesn’t Ankara worry more about the collapse of the peace process with the PKK that has maintained a ceasefire since 2013? It may believe that the PKK is too heavily involved in fighting Isis in Syria that it cannot go back to war with the government in Turkey. On the other hand, if Turkey does join the civil war in Syria against Assad, a crucial ally of Iran, then Iranian leaders have said that “Turkey will pay a price”. This probably means that Iran will covertly support an armed Kurdish insurgency in Turkey. Saddam Hussein made a somewhat similar mistake to Mr Erdogan when he invaded Iran in 1980, thus leading Iran to reignite the Kurdish rebellion that Baghdad had crushed through an agreement with the Shah in 1975. Turkish military intervention in Syria might not end the war there, but it may well spread the fighting to Turkey.”