THIS MODERN WORLD

Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor under Carter, acknowleded in a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur that the Carter administration began funding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan six months before the Soviets invaded (a statement corroborated by former CIA director Robert Gates).

Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

* * *
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

At this point in history, one need hardly elaborate on the short-sightedness of a policy which sought to give the Soviets their own Vietnam at the small cost of a few “stirred up Muslims”. But for the rare, obtuse reader, let’s state it flat out: there’s a direct line leading from this ill-conceived decision to the events of September 11, 2001.

The law of unintended consequences.

One of the post-facto rationales for the Iraq war, popularized by Andrew Sullivan back in his Screaming Eagle days, is the “flypaper theory” — the idea that we’ll all be safer in the United States if the terrorists are kept busy in Iraq. In other words, trust us, we’ve got everything under control! We meant for this to happen!

The law of unintended consequences:

The News: A classified assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency says Iraq may be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was for Al Qaeda in the days of the struggle against Soviet occupation. Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat.

Behind the News: The assessment, as described by several Congressional and intelligence officials, says the urban nature of the war in Iraq is helping combatants learn how to carry out assassinations, kidnappings, car bombings and other kinds of attacks that were never a staple of the fighting in Afghanistan during the anti-Soviet campaigns of the 1980’s.

The report says that, for now, most potential terrorists are expected to focus their energies on attacking American forces in Iraq, but that Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries would soon have to contend with well-trained militants from the conflict.

The history of Western intervention in the Middle East is the history of unintended consequences, and it should have been clear from the start to anyone with basic cognitive functions that the Iraq war was going to come back and bite us in the ass. And make no mistake — it will.

But what the hell. Just a few stirred-up Muslims, right?

With the flypaper theory, the neocons and their cheering section have effectively claimed pre-emptive responsibility for whatever future 9/11’s await us — but I doubt they’ll see it that way. The dark irony of it is, no matter what horror unfolds as a result of this little terrorist training camp they’ve manged to create, they’ll claim it as further proof that they were Right All Along, and of the need to Stay the Course. Even as they deny knowing what flypaper even is, or having ever heard of flies.

Chocolate rations have always been up. Or, as Atrios often says, “Clap louder! Clap louder!”

Make of this what you will:

US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo; in Iraq, Afghanistan – UN
06.24.2005, 11:37 AM

GENEVA (AFX) – Washington has, for the first time, acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.

The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.

‘They are no longer trying to duck this and have respected their obligation to inform the UN,’ the Committee member said.

‘They they will have to explain themselves (to the Committee). Nothing should be kept in the dark,’ he said.

UN sources said this is the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities.

The Committee, which monitors respect for the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is gathering information from the US ahead of hearings in May 2006.

Signatories of the convention are expected to submit to scrutiny of their implementation of the 1984 convention and to provide information to the Committee.

The document from Washington will not be formally made public until the hearings.

Update: this makes more sense when you read the entire article on Yahoo News, rather than Forbes’ truncated version. Picking up where the above leaves off:

“They haven’t avoided anything in their answers, whether concerning prisoners in Iraq, in Afghanistan or Guantanamo, and other accusations of mistreatment and of torture,” the Committee member said.

“They said it was a question of isolated cases, that there was nothing systematic and that the guilty were in the process of being punished.”

The US report said that those involved were low-ranking members of the military and that their acts were not approved by their superiors, the member added.

In other words, just a few bad apples…

I’m listening to Curt Weldon talk about his new Regnery tome on an NPR show called Radio Times, and I have to say, somebody needs to cut back on the caffeine. I’ve been shouted at by lunatics on the subway who sounded more rational than this guy.

Count me among those who think a ban on flag burning is both un-American and unnecessary, but the thing I find so fascinating is how untenable a ban would be as well. But let’s take a step back for a second here. One thing that is important to keep in mind is that the amendment in question doesn’t actually ban flag burning at all. Supposing that the amendment that made it through the House passes through the Senate and is approved by the state legistlatures of two-thirds of the states, the only change would be the addition of this sentence to the Constitution :

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

So if everything goes as the conservatives plan, the only thing they’ve gained is the ability to pass a law that prevents flag desecration. Once that’s done, they have to go back to square one and define the words “flag” and “desecration”. For example, take this picture that was posted at BoingBoing :

Is this an American flag? Technically, no. The flag above the 49 stars and one circle. It’s a snarky point since we can agree that the American flag has 50 five-sided stars on a blue field with 13 stripes alternating between red and white in color, but even given this rather strict definition, does that make this an American flag?



Well, it’s got the correct number of stars and stripes and it’s got the colors right, but the stars need to be in the upper left of the flag. Perhaps this is a flag then?



Nice try, smartass. That’s a t-shirt with a picture of a flag. Even though we’ve got all the details right, the object in the picture above isn’t a flag because what surrounds the red, white, and blue rectangular image makes it a shirt. How about this then?



There are flags with yellow trim, so I assume that doesn’t disqualify the image above. But if we can conclude that this isn’t a picture of a flag, but a patch, then would that mean the difference would be the material, the size, or the purpose of the object above? If that’s the case, then does this let the President off the hook for this infamous bit of flag desecration?

I would say “no”. Despite all the nitpicking about size, layout, shape, and material, the pictures above meet the common sense definition of flag desecration. Even then, should what the President did be considered a crime? That’s where the two sides differ. Conservatives think that it’s okay to arrest and/or fine someone for being disrespectful to our national symbols. Liberals on the other hand think that just because the President is acting like a jerk doesn’t mean he’s a criminal.

Even if the conservatives get their way with this stupid flag desecration amendment, they have to follow this bit of feel good pandering with the hard work of defining exactly what a flag is, what constitutes desecration, and what the penalties should be. That is, of course, unless Congres decides to punt the issue to the courts by passing a law that’s incredibly vague. This is what they do with abortion laws in order to get some election year kudos without having to worry about crafting a law that actually works, but those of us who actually take this stuff seriously should be asking these questions now.

So for the time being, it’s open season on flag burning. If you burn a flag around me, however, be prepared for a verbal or physical backlash. Unlike the babies in the Republican party, if somebody pisses me off by insulting our country, I’m not gonna go crying to the government for protection.

FYI, I’ve got three rare Tom Tomorrow posters up for auction on eBay — here, here, and here. (My digital camera crapped out on me and I need a new one, so bid early and often.)