home / subscribe / donate / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
Exclusive in the CounterPunch Print Edition!
You Want to Deal With a Humanitarian Crisis, Mr Obama?
“Right now Israel, with full support from the U.S. is denying 1.5 million people in Gaza ALL the necessities of life.” Read Kathleen and Bill Christison’s searing emergency bulletin to Obama. “This is a U.S.-created, U.S.-supported disaster…Put meat on the bones of your talk about compassion…” Also in the new issue of our subscriber-only newsletter, Barbara Rose Johnston brings us a detailed report on the drive for justice in Guatemala after another catastrophe sponsored by the U.S. – the building of the Chixoy Dam. Finally, Alexander Cockburn sets out the record of assaults on freedom in the Bush years. Get your Legacy Edition today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and gear make great presents.
|
Today's Stories December 4, 2008 Ece Temelkuran December 3, 2008 Andrew Cockburn December 2, 2008 Jeremy Scahill Paul Craig Roberts Ayesha Ijaz Khan Sarah Anderson / William Blum John Ross Dave Lindorff Nicola Nasser Steve Conn Robert Bryce Website of the Day December 1, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Damien Millet / Vijay Prashad Deepak Tripathi Joshua Frank P. Sainath Alan Farago Binoy Kampmark Chris Genovali David Michael Green Stephen Martin Website of the Day November 28-30, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Mike Whitney Ted Honderich Tom Kerr Mike Ely David Yearsley Deepak Tripathi Sonja Karkar Ramzy Baroud Robert Weitzel Robert Roth Carlos Fierro David Macaray David Rosen James Cockcroft Stan Cox Steve Conn Stephen Martin Richard Rhames Kim Nicolini Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement November 27, 2008 Tariq Ali Steve Hendricks Ralph Nader John Walsh Dave Lindorff Christopher Brauchli Matthew Koehler Website of the Day
November 26, 2008 Michael Hudson Alan Farago Stanley Heller Kevin Zeese Steve Conn Ray McGovern Ron Jacobs Eric Walberg Martha Rosenberg Matt Siegfried Website of the Day
November 25, 2008 James Abourezk Ralph Nader Patrick Irelan John Ross Fred Gardner Dan LaBotz Tom Barry Norman Solomon Richard Morse Chris Strohm Website of the Day November 24, 2008 Mike Whitney Pam Martens Laray Polk David Ker Thomson Uri Avnery Joe Mowrey Ramzi Kysia Kevin Zeese Dave Lindorff David Macaray Howard Lisnoff Website of the Day November 21 / 23, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Barbara Rose Johnston / Serge Halimi Alan Farago Ralph Nader Saul Landau Robert Bryce Shannon May Binoy Kampmark Jack Ely Ramzy Baroud Missy Beattie Larry Portis James McEnteer Christopher Brauchli David Yearsley Adam Engel Ron Jacobs Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend November 20, 2008 P. Sainath Brian McKenna Paul Craig Roberts Andy Worthington Peter Lee Dr. Eyad al-Serraj Sen. Russ Feingold Lance Selfa Ray McGovern Benjamin G. Davis Tracy McLellan Website of the Day November 19, 2008 M. Shahid Alam Mario A. Murillo Martine Boulard Robin D. G. Kelley Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi Jonathan Cook Steve Conn George Wuerthner Michael Winship Stephen Martin Website of the Day November 18, 2008 Chellis Glendinning George C. Wilson Franklin Lamb Bill and Kathleen Christison Roger Burbach John Ross Wajahat Ali Damien Millet / Marc Gardner Eric Walberg Wendy Williams Website of the Day November 17, 2008 Michael Hudson Paul Craig Roberts Mike Whitney Steve Conn Andy Worthington Jonathan Cook Rannie Amiri David Macaray David Michael Green Charles Modiano Website of the Day November 14 / 16, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair Mike Whitney Sasan Fayazmanesh Moshe Adler Anthony DiMaggio Jean Bricmont Sheldon Rampton Douglas Valentine Joseph Nevins / Tom Barry Ron Jacobs Larry Portis Mary Lynn Cramer Obama's Brain Trust: Seems Like Old Times Sherry Wolf Peter Cervantes-Gautschi Jacob Hornberger Lance Selfa Benjamin Dangl Seth Sandronsky Russell Mokhiber Allan Stellar Kelly Overton Martha Rosenberg Richard Rhames David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
November 13, 2008 Pam Martens Vijay Prashad Patrick Cockburn Jonathan Cook Ralph Nader Bill Quigley Lee Sustar Omar Barghouti Steve Conn Howard Lisnoff Jeff Cohen Website of the Day November 12, 2008 Johanna Berrigan Steve Conn Patrick Bond Bokar Ture / Alan Farago Dave Lindorff Karl Grossman David Macaray George Wuerthner Susie Day Website of the Day
|
December 4, 2008 Changing the RulesThe Syria AttackBy CONN HALLINAN A little more than a month ago, four U.S. Blackhawk helicopters crossed the Syrian border from Iraq and attacked a civilian farmhouse near the town of al-Sukkariyeh. The U.S. claims the farmhouse was an al-Qaeda way station and the eight men killed during the raid were terrorists, including a major al-Qaeda leader, Abu Ghadiya. The Syrians say the dead—five of them members of the same family—were building a house and had nothing to do with terrorism or al-Qaeda. A BBC report found that most of the dead appeared to be construction workers, including a night watchman, which suggests the raid may have been botched. Sorting out what happened, who authorized the attack, and what the motivations behind it were is not an academic exercise, but one that goes to the heart of the Bush Administration’s “pre-emptive war” policy and the problems the doctrine presents to the in-coming Obama Administration. When President George W Bush outlined the strategy of pre-emptive war in his 2002 West Point address, he broke with more than 50 years of international law and a central tenent of the United Nations Charter. One of the pivotal initiatives that emerged from the carnage of World War II were rules to prevent unilateral attacks by one country on another. Since the aggressors in WW II—Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and imperial Japan—all claimed they were fighting “preventive wars,” the UN insisted that only an actual or “imminent” armed attack could trigger an all-out conflict. And such wars were only legal if the UN Security Council authorized them. There are a number of countries that have ignored these restrictions. The U.S., the Soviet Union, China, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Israel, South Africa, Morocco and Britain all invaded other nations without bothering to get the blessing of the Security Council, mostly because it would not have been forthcoming. Still, the philosophy of “imminent danger” did play a certain restraining role through much of the last half century. For instance, the U.S. went through the process of obtaining UN authorization for Gulf War I. But in the name of “liberal interventionism,” the Clinton Administration and NATO openly broke with the covenant in 1999 and launched a 75-day air war on Serbia. Indeed, on a number of occasions the Bush White House has pointed to the Yugoslav War as a precedent for its own pre-emptive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush Administration, however, added “terrorism” as a rationale for war. As the 2002 National Security Strategy document puts it, “The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism—premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated against innocents.” Elevating “terrorism” to “imminent danger” has allowed the Bush Administration to invade two countries, expand the powers of the executive, undermine constitutional checks on surveillance, and ignore U.S. and international laws on torture and incarceration. Since “terrorism” is a tactic and a stratagem likely to be with us as long as one side in a conflict is vastly more powerful than the other, to wage “war on terror” is to fight a never-ending conflict. In his book “Terror and Consent,” Philip Bobbitt, a Columbia law professor and former national security advisor in the administrations of Jimmy Carter, George H. Bush, and Bill Clinton, and foreign policy advisor to John McCain, argues that “nation states” are passé, because terrorism is everywhere and nowhere. If you believe there are terrorists in Syria you can invade because the old rules of national sovereignty no long apply. (For a fuller discussion of Bobbitt, see David Cole’s discussion of his philosophy in the Dec. 4 New York Review of Books). So what was the attack on Syria about, and who authorized it? Was it a strategic decision made at the highest levels of government? Or CIA and Special Forces hot shots—Task Force 88 is rumored to be the unit involved—snorting too much methamphetamine? The latter explanation is possible. When Donald Rumsfeld was Defense Secretary he endowed the Special Forces with a great deal of independence, and it is not entirely out the question that the attack was just the military doing what the military does. According to U.S. Col Pat Lang, a retired intelligence officer, Special Forces many times operate outside of the established military command structure. “If left to themselves, they would do this kind of thing. They don’t follow policy, they carried out their assigned mission,” he says. Which doesn’t mean that the highest levels of the Administration were not involved. Lang says the White House has often “bypassed the established chain of command” and that he has a “sneaking suspicion that the authority to do this comes right out of the White House.” That “authority” is based on a 2004 classified order by the Bush Administration giving the U.S. the right to attack “terrorists” in some 15 to 20 nations, including Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and Iran. According to the New York Times, “Each specific missions requires high-level government approval.” The timing of the raid was certainly odd. While back in 2002 the Bush Administration declared Syria part of the “axis of evil,” relations between Washington and Damascus have improved in the last year. Which may be why it was targeted. A number of hawks in the Bush Administration, in particular Deputy National Security Advisor for the Middle East, Elliot Abrams and Vice-President Dick Cheney, have long advocated “regime change” in Syria. According to the Financial Times, the Bush Administration has discussed who should replace Assad, and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley was put in charge of the operation. Cross border attacks were seen as a way to make Assad look “weak,” thus encouraging a military coup. Abrams has long been close to Benjamin Netanyahu, who may be Israel’s next prime minister and who is implacably opposed to negotiations with either Syria or the Palestinians. A Netanyahu policy paper titled “A Clean Break” and authored by Cheney’s national security advisor, David Wurmser, advocates war with Syria. According to Israeli diplomats, during the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon, Abrams encouraged Tel Aviv to attack Syria. So was this a hit by the hawks? An attack on Syria would not only derail the delicate negotiations over Golan, it would also fire a shot across the bow of the EU. Jonathan Freedland of the British Guardian says that the raid was to remind “those uppity Europeans who’s in charge.” Whether it was Special Forces out of control—unlikely—or a high level effort by hawks in the Bush Administration to torpedo efforts to reduce tensions in the region—likely—,once again the U.S. has committed what in any other era would be considered an act of war. Princeton international law scholar Richard Falk called the raid a “serious violation of international law” and charged the Administration with “a unilateral expansion of the scope of the right of self-defense.” President-elect Barak Obama has somewhat contradictory views on this question of “pre-emptive war.” During the election he openly called for violating Pakistan’s borders: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and (then Pakistan) President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” On the other hand, he says he wants to strengthen international organizations like the UN. And while his bellicosity on Afghanistan is worrisome, it might be more an effort to finesse a withdrawal from Iraq, and counter charges that he is “weak on terrorism,” than a full-blown commitment to escalate the conflict. For the past several decades the U.S. has felt it had the right to define its own sovereignty as pre-empting all others. That philosophy has led to several ruinous wars and deep international animosity directed at this country. If the Obama Administration is serious about change it can start by rejecting force as a policy tool, a philosophy that has more in common with the law of the jungle than international law. Conn Hallinan is an analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus.
|
Now Available from CounterPunch Books! Waiting for
Lightning
|