Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Brussels Deconstructed


THE ABSURD TIMES





Everyone marching the wrong way.  Latuff.





Brussels Deconstructed
By
Post Modernist Frankfurt Existential Avaunt Guarde, Ph.D.

When I heard the New York response to the attack, sending the Hercules force into action, I suddenly know what the attack meant and was about.  We have a couple interviews that actually speak meaningfully on the incident and do not focus on the deaths, who, where, Jihad, and such fare and are worth reading, but first an insight here.

Hercules was faced with several impossible or inhuman tasks, one of which was cleaning out the Augean stables, essentially an endless supply of unmitigated horseshit and other foul substances thrown in for good measure.  We have been suffering though our own Augean stable of domestic politics here to the point it is futile and meaningless to even comment on them.  In the last worthwhile gesture, Sanders decided not to visit the charming gathering called AIPAC and also pointed out that we are fighting a war with a terrorist group, not a religion.  This is actually a bold statement this year, so you have an idea.

Well, finally, someone cut through the crap and said something meaningful about the situation.

Belgium has begun three days of mourning after at least 31 people died and over 230 were injured Tuesday in bombings targeting the Brussels Airport and a crowded subway station near the headquarters of the European Union. ISIS took responsibility for the Brussels bombings and claimed more would follow. The bombings took place just days after authorities arrested Salah Abdeslam, a suspect in the November Paris attacks that killed 130 people. A massive manhunt is underway for a 24-year-old Belgium man named Najim Laachraoui, who is suspected of being involved in Tuesday's attack as well as the Paris bombings. Over the past decade, hundreds of young Belgian men have left their home to fight with ISIS and other militant groups in the Middle East. We speak to three guests about the Brussels attack and how Belgium should respond: Frank Barat in Brussels, journalist Joshua Hersh and Yasser Louati of the the Collective Against Islamophobia in France.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Belgium has begun three days of mourning after at least 31 people died and over 230 were injured Tuesday in bombings targeting the Brussels Airport and a crowded subway station near the headquarters of the European Union. ISIS took responsibility for the Brussels bombings and claimed more would follow. The attacks took place just days after authorities arrested Salah Abdeslam, a suspect in the November Paris attacks that killed 130 people. A massive manhunt is underway for a 24-year-old Belgian man named Najim Laachraoui, who is suspected of being involved in both Tuesday's attacks as well as the Paris bombings.
AMY GOODMAN: According to press accounts, Najim Laachraoui went to Syria in 2013. He's believed to be one of three men seen in security camera footage at the Brussels Airport prior to the bombing. Belgian media has also reported two brothers, Khalid and Brahim el-Bakraoui, as being involved in the bombings. Both are believed to have blown themselves up in the attack.
Over the past decade, hundreds of young Belgian men have left their home to fight with ISIS and other militant groups in the Middle East. Belgium reportedly provided the most ISIS fighters per capita of all EU countries last year. The Belgian prime minister, Charles Michel, has announced the country had raised its security level to maximum.
PRIME MINISTER CHARLES MICHEL: [translated] The Coordinating Unit for Threat Analysis has decided to bring the security level to level four, which means additional safety measures, the reinforcement of border controls and limits on public transport, and a reinforcement of military presence in key sites. We are studying further measures.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: On the streets of Brussels, residents expressed grief over the bombings.
JOKI NIGS: After the past months, I believe that we have not really been prepared, but there has always been this sense of dread that something might happen. It honestly really hasn't sank in yet for me personally, because I never really believed that something could happen here in Brussels. But yeah, it's clearly here.
AMY GOODMAN: President Obama addressed the bombings during his trip to Cuba.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: This is just one more example of why the entire world has to unite against these terrorists. The notion that any political agenda would justify the killing of innocent people like this is something that's beyond the pale. We are going to continue with the over 60 nations that are pounding ISIL and going to go after them.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today's show in Brussels, Belgium, where we're joined by Frank Barat, author and activist.
You're in Brussels right now. Can you talk about this last 24 hours, what has happened and the response to it, Frank?
FRANK BARAT: Good morning, Amy. Good morning, Juan.
First, as an update for you—for you guys, there were reports this morning that Laachraoui, the major suspect, one of the major suspects in these attacks, has been arrested in the suburb of Anderlecht. So it's not confirmed yet, but there were some reports saying that he had been arrested.
The last 24 hours have been a sort of a blur, I guess. You know, when those type of things happen, it's very hard to make sense of it all. And I think as much as Belgians and the government and the police maybe expected something to happen, the scale of what happened was totally unexpected, so people were left in shock. And in a way, the response of the politicians and the police forces, etc., took a while to arrive, because I think it was a sort of a big shock for everybody.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what is life like right now in Brussels after the attacks, in terms of the situation locally with the schools and other businesses?
FRANK BARAT: OK, I mean, the schools and the businesses and stuff were closed after Paris, so after November and the Bataclan attacks. Brussels was in a sort of total lockdown, with everything pretty much closed, including public transport. It's different now. Schools are open today. Nurseries are open. A few businesses are open, not all of them. We're here near, actually, the European—we're in the European Quarter, very close to where the bomb of the suicide bomber happened in Maelbeek, so there's lots of police, lots of journalists, as well, lots of cameras and press. There was like a minute of silence before, sort of about 200 yards away from where I am now. So, yeah, lots of police, lots of, you know, military personnel in the streets. A few roads are closed. A few shops are opened. But, you know, I think it's—people are trying to, as much as they can, live a normal life, even if everybody is talking about what happened yesterday. I was in a taxi before; we talked about it. I went to a shop this morning; we talked about it. So, everybody, even at school this morning, my kids' school, people were talking about it. So people are in shock still.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the significance of this subway station, Maelbeek, which is right next to the European Union and down the road from the European Parliament, can you talk about that and also the attacks coming as Salah Abdeslam was arrested a few days ago, and someone killed and others rounded up, and what you think is happening here, Frank?
FRANK BARAT: It's very hard to sort of make any sort of conclusions now, because we don't have a lot of the facts. What we know is that Paris—the Paris attacks and the Brussels attacks are linked. It's now been established.
And what we know for sure is that two of the most major hub of life in Brussels and of political life in Brussels, the national airport and the European Quarter, have been attacked. And I guess these targets, these two targets, you know, are a terrorist sort of wish list, on top of a terrorist wish list. You know, the airport is a symbol of internationalism, symbol of Europe, symbol of many nationalities being there. And the European Quarter, of course, is the symbol of the European Union and the European Commission and the rest. So the targets chosen were very powerful, and hence the situation here, hence the fact that even the police and the army, at least from the reports that we heard yesterday, felt completely lost.
But now, I mean, the question is—we have to try to explain how this happened. You know, we've had in Brussels security and military personnel in the streets sinceCharlie Hebdo, so since January 2015, so for more than a year now. Military is all over the place, police. We are on the highest level of security alert. And despite all this, two, again, of the sort of biggest targets have been hit yesterday. So, a lot of questions need to be asked and answered, hopefully.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Frank, one of the points that you've made is that you believe that a lot of the radicalization of Muslim youth in Belgium is occurring not through the mosques or through trips to Syria, but through stints in prisons in Belgium. Could you talk about that?
FRANK BARAT: I mean, it's—I don't want to generalize, of course, and it's a mix, a mixture of a lot of things. But if you see—I mean, when I was talking about jails and prison, it's—the people that did the attacks in Paris, Coulibaly and the two brothers, had spent years in jail, together, actually, in the same jail. They met there. They were radicalized through jail and radicalized also through the people they met—that they met in jail, including a radical Islamist preacher. But it's a mixture of things. But what we see—and the families have often talked about it—is that they were—you know, they came to jail as maybe small-time delinquents, and they came out completely transformed and radicalized. So sometimes this happened in a couple of years. The family just couldn't sort of recognize their sons after that. So it's—obviously, there's a lot more to it than this, and, you know, radical Islam is also a factor. But we're talking about sort of a disenfranchised youth in Paris and in Brussels, that is therefore left opened to being led into such a such path by people that actually maybe offer them something that they have never been offered before by sort of society and their peers.
AMY GOODMAN: Frank Barat, you are coordinator of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine—that's Bertrand Russell—and president of the Palestine Legal Action Network. Can you talk about what political ideology is espoused by these young men and what you think is important to bring out?
FRANK BARAT: I mean, what's important to bring out, I mean, in a way, we have to look at it—we've got two options, right? We either continue the status quo, we continue and we follow what sort of our so-called leaders are saying this morning and have been saying for—since even before, but since September the 11th—you know, those people hate our freedoms, they hate our culture, they do not like life the way we do, and they are waiting to go to paradise to meet whatever how many virgins—so we either do this and continue the sort an-eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth war and more sort of revenge-type of things that have led to nothing but more terrorism on the ground—I mean, the end of al-Qaeda and the killing of bin Laden was celebrated, but it only created something even more powerful in ISIS—so, we either do this and we follow sort of a maybe Fox News analogy or Donald Trump analogy, or we decide to stop and start to ask the tough questions and the questions that need to be answered.
We need to—I mean, as an example, in Norway, a country, actually, that most Trump supporters probably don't know exist, we—after the attacks of Anders Breivik in 2011, which killed more than 70 people, the prime minister of Norway said that Norway's response to terror would be more openness, greater political participation and more democracy. It's words we don't hear nowadays. You know, there's been—the prime minister of Belgium has announced more security in the streets, more security at airports. So it's either, you know, they don't want to look at the real problem, and they don't want to face their role in it and their responsibility in it, or they're simply lying. So now the civil society has to be clear that we need answers from them.
And we need to look—I mean, those young Muslims and others, actually, that were radicalized, it didn't come out of nowhere, right? It came out of radicalization through what's happening in Syria, which is actually key to understand the creation of ISIS. Syria and what's happened in Syria in the last few years is a betrayal, a total betrayal, in part of the Western world. You know, people rising to fight its oppressor and the West sort of turning its back on them, allowing slaughter, this created so much anger, so much rancor. And when you put this on top of the failure of U.S. foreign policy and U.S. imperialism, when you put this on top the sort of ambitions of the West in terms of oil, in terms of trade routes and in terms of supporting dictators and Israel, you know, it creates a powerful and very dangerous mixture that then manifests in the form of ISIS or al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organizations. So we have to ask the tough questions. And we need answers.
AMY GOODMAN: Frank, we're going to break.
FRANK BARAT: We don't need more blood. We don't need more wars. But, unfortunately, this—yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: We're going to break, and then we're going to come back to this discussion.
FRANK BARAT: OK.
AMY GOODMAN: Frank Barat is an author and activist based in Brussels, Belgium. He is president of the Palestine Legal Action Network. And we'll be broadening out the discussion with Joshua Hersh, who is a journalist who reported from Brussels following the Paris attacks in November, wrote a piece headlined "What They Missed: The Anti-Terror Raid That Asked All the Wrong Questions." We'll also be joined by Yasser Louati, a French-Arab spokesperson for the International Relations Desk of the Collective Against Islamophobia in France. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: The instrumental to "Butter" by A Tribe Called Quest. It was announced today that one of its main rappers, Phife Dawg, passed away at the age of 45. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
We have a roundtable to talk about what's happening in Brussels, Belgium. Here in New York, we're joined by Joshua Hersh, who is—who reported from Brussels following the Paris attacks in November, wrote a piece headlined "What They Missed: The Anti-Terror Raid That Asked All the Wrong Questions." At the time, he was the BuzzFeed News Michael Hastings fellow.
Well, what did they miss?
JOSHUA HERSH: Well, that was a particular story about a raid that took place in a town in eastern Belgium in January of last year, and it was right in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. And so, it didn't really get a lot of attention at the time. But what I did is I went back and looked at it, and I noticed that the description of it, the reporting on it, the way that the prosecutor talked about it fit with the pattern that we tend to hear about these raids: Somebody who's a psychopath of some sort, who goes to Syria, who returns back to Brussels, he's a very Islamist radical, and he wants to blow himself up and kill everyone. And that made some sense, but there was a third guy in that house. And they grouped him together in that category, but he didn't really fit there. He seemed to be someone who had—he had never gone to Syria. Everyone I met said he wasn't radicalized at all. Some people said he may have had no idea what he was doing there. But I think, more likely—
AMY GOODMAN: And this was which raid?
JOSHUA HERSH: This was a raid in a town called Verviers where they killed everyone except him. And this guy jumped out the window, and the prosecutor conceded that he didn't seem prepared to die like the other two.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And they killed everyone in a fierce firefight, right?.
JOSHUA HERSH: A really—I mean, and you may have heard about the firefight in Saint-Denis after the attacks in Paris. It was exactly the same thing. I mean, it was a many-minutes-long battle.
AMY GOODMAN: But this was after Charlie Hebdo.
JOSHUA HERSH: This is after Charlie Hebdo, so it was much earlier. And what I realize is that people like this guy seem to exist—they come up all the time in these attacks. They're people who play kind of smaller support roles, who have connections to the people who we think of as the terrorists, through childhood, through growing up in the neighborhoods together, through pretty criminality, but they aren't terrorists in the way we think of it. And if we realize that actually those are the people we need to focus on, it helps us to understand that the foundation for the terrorism structure that exists in cities like Brussels and in Paris of people who are going abroad and coming back, it may be much more mundane than the sort of high rhetoric we hear about people trying to defeat democracy and they hate our freedoms and things like that. It's actually people who exist within a sort of lower spectrum of local grievances and criminality and things that actually are maybe easier to deal with, but also more complicated to try to understand.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And this neighborhood of Molenbeek that we've heard so much about now in recent months, it's quite distinct from other Arab or Muslim neighborhoods in Europe in that it's right in the center of Brussels, isn't it?
JOSHUA HERSH: Yeah, it is, geographically. It's just two metro stops away from the central station, which was striking to me, because I'm used to thinking of the suburbs in Paris, which are really isolated geographically. Molenbeek is right in the middle of the city, more or less. But it's still really isolated, and the people who grow up there will tell you that they feel like they can't really access other parts of the city. The other parts of the city feel like a foreign land to them. They can't get apartments there. They can't really get jobs in other places. And so, they'll—I spoke to one young man who lived there, who told me—he said, "People always say that we refuse to leave, we refuse to integrate." He said, "That's not the case. We're not allowed to integrate. We're not allowed to go elsewhere."
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what he meant. This is Mohamed?
JOSHUA HERSH: This is Mohamed, yeah. And he was, I think, characteristic of some of the people. Mohamed was in the piece I wrote. And he was describing how, among other things, for example—this is a young man who's very well educated. He's very smart. He's studying at one of the higher colleges in the city and actually was able, through his education, to get out. He's, I think, the only nonwhite Belgian in his school. And he still feels like he can never really be Belgian when he's at school. He had a job. It was working in a department store. And he told me that it was the best job he could get—I mean, he tried for years to get another job—despite his education, and he speaks English, speaks French. And at this job, he was responsible for folding clothes and cleaning up, and the people he worked with refused to learn his name. They would just call him "worker." And this was a daily reflection of what—how distant he was always going to be from society.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, I wanted to take that a little further. What is it, from what you've been able to see in terms of the particular social and political realities of Belgium, that has made it such a hotbed for the development of radicalized Muslim fighters now?
JOSHUA HERSH: Well, it's hard to say. I mean, Belgium—one of the things that happens in Western Europe that we don't deal with quite as much here in the U.S., although we have all—we have our faults, but integration is really hard to pull off in some of these countries in the Western—in Western Europe. And it has to do with a very strong sense of identity that these countries bring to the table. So when you arrive from North Africa or when you're the child or grandchild of people who arrive from North Africa, which is really more often the case, you find yourself butting up against this reality, that you just can't be considered Belgian. It happens in France. It's going to happen quite a lot, I think, in Germany. And that creates a real tension, and it creates a sense of the ceiling of opportunity for you is rather low.
And I think that that ultimately got exploited by people. I mean, you know, we have to remember, early in the war in Syria, many, many people were going off to Syria to fight, and it was before ISIS. It wasn't about radicalization. It wasn't—it was actually, I think, to some extent, welcomed by the Belgian government, which, by its policy, supported the rebels against Assad. It was welcomed by the French government. They sort of turned a blind eye. So you had a huge number of people going rather freely, and that created an opening for people who wanted to exploit it.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Yasser Louati into this conversation, who's a spokesman for the Collective Against Islamophobia in France. Talk about your response to what just took place—we had you on after the attacks of November in France—and your response to what's happened over these last months, particularly to the Arab community of France.
YASSER LOUATI: Hi, Amy. It's again a feeling of déjà vu. I've been following the news with the Brussels attacks, and it is the exact same feeling—shock and horror, people crying, people dead, and then we have politicians, you know, trying to advance their agenda on the bodies of our victims. And again, now, we have—we are facing the same problem, and we still refuse to address the question: Why do these things keep happening? What would make someone hate his or her country so much to the point of acting on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization?
So now the feeling is that the governments—I mean, like, I can speak for the French government, especially—four months after the November attacks, is not doing what should be done in addressing the root causes of terrorism. And every single guest, you know, on your program that spoke before me spoke about them. As long as you have foreign domination, imperialistic wars, social injustice, exclusion, strong identity against the minorities, etc., you will definitely push one of the weakest elements in the hands of these terrorist groups. And you don't need a thousand of them; one or two are enough. And Brussels was just a plain demonstration of it.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And in terms of what you expect now, considering what happened after the attacks in Paris in terms of dragnets and raids in the Muslim community, what's your fears?
YASSER LOUATI: We hope the Belgian government will not act like the French government did, meaning brutality against the Muslim population and holding it responsible, directly or indirectly, for what happened. So far, the Belgian government is sending positive signals, and we hope that it won't go down the path of said brutality against minorities. To give you a clear example of the French failures in the aftermath of the November 13th attacks, so far, after four months, 3,400 raids have been carried against homes, mosques, Muslim restaurants, etc., in total brutality, with a willingness to humiliate people. In the end, only four or five inquiries have been opened against—on the terror charges. This means that for four months you have been terrorizing innocent people and holding them accountable for your own failures. So I hope the Belgian government will look at the French failures and take another path, meaning that—you know, showing more solidarity, more unity in the face of a common threat.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.


Thursday, March 10, 2016

FROM CHAOS TO TODAY


THE ABSURD TIMES



Illustration: Pre-Enlightenment vision of the Cosmos – Shared today.
Illustration: This is a fundamentalist vision of how the cosmos is arranged.  The concepts of "down in Hell," and "up in Heaven" are quite clear.  Hanging from a chain or string from Heaven is the universe and if you are really good, you get to go up.  From there you are either let in, or sent down to "burn in Hell."  This is not made up.  Most Evangelicals or "Born again Xtians" believe this, but would be hard put to draw it.  That Universe was made 6,000 years ago after Lucifer and 1/3 of Heaven's Angels revolted, staged a revolution, and were sent down to a newly created Hell.  The date of this even is not clear.  These are the people voting for Ted Cruz and Donald Trump today.



FROM CHAOS TO TODAY

BY

TSAR DONIC



            I honestly could not think of anything else as a title, so there it is. 



            Some people get the idea that important issues have not been mentioned lately on American television because of the Republican Debates.  Actually, Racism, Poverty, Freedom of the Press, Equal Rights for Women, Right to Choose, Sexual Identity, the need for true investigative reporting, and corporate greed were all mentioned live on television in the past few weeks, only it happened to be at the Oscars Awards, not during a Republican Debate.



            NEWS FLASH: NANCY REAGAN IS DEAD!  She is most remembered for her remark that the best way to avoid addiction is to "Just say NO."  It may have been good advice as NO = Nitrous Oxide, or laughing gas.



            To understand the voting so far in the American primaries, the "Super Tuesday," and most recent states holding elections, come from an area with a population that overwhelmingly believes that the universe is as depicted above.  Remaining states will be much more sane and reasonable and this should be remembered when the delegate count is totaled.  In addition, Sanders is much more popular with all American voters when compared to Trump than Hillary.  Most of Hillary's support with African-American voters is due to their proximity to the bible belt racists on the other side.  Anyway, that is enough of this silly season report.



            Israel is taking great advantage of this interlude to both expand and increase its pressure of both the Palestinian people and our election.  Recently, there has been attempts to compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler because he asked for a show of support at a rally and that was just like Hitter at the Holocaust.  Raising ones hand in support is a far cry from the Nazi salute, but Trump is increasingly coming under attack by Zionist activists because he said that we should be more "neutral" in our relations between Israel and the Palestinians. 



It should be clear that Mr. Trump's campaign is operated much like P. T. Barnum's publicity practices and the theme is subject to change at any time depending on how popular it sounds.  Most of those supporting him have no real idea that he is one of the 1%.  They are unhappy with the political situation as it stands today and that is about it. 



If the Nazi salute is an issue we should take seriously, Mr. Foxman, what about this Nazi salute?:








            A 50 year old mother was killed in Palestine as a "Terrorist." She had no weapon.  Her offense, it seems, was giving birth.  This is arguably a bad thing, but it is hardly akin to the holocaust. 



            90% of the Ukrainian soldiers that were in Crimea prior to its independence have chosen to stay there. The other 10% returned to Ukraine.  This is hardly a mass defection or expression of discontent.



At any rate, here is some more on foreign policy and the election:


In a recent article, historian and retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich raised six questions that have been ignored in the 2016 presidential race. Most notably, he says, "Nearly 15 years after this 'war' was launched by George W. Bush, why hasn't 'the most powerful military in the world,' 'the finest fighting force in the history of the world' won it? Why isn't victory anywhere in sight?" Bacevich joins us from Boston to talk about the race and these missing questions. His new book, "America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History," will be published next month. He is professor emeritus of international relations and history at Boston University.




TRANSCRIPT


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: To talk more about the presidential race and to look at some of the questions not being raised at the debates, we're joined by Andrew Bacevich, a retired colonel and Vietnam War veteran. His new book, America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, will be published next month. He is professor emeritus of international relations and history at Boston University, also author of several other books, including Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War. His son was killed in action in Iraq in 2007.

AMY GOODMAN: Andrew Bacevich's most recent article is headlined "The Six Questions Missing from the 2016 Election Debates." He's joining us now from Boston.

Andrew Bacevich, welcome back to Democracy Now! So what is missing from these debates?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, from my point of view, the big thing that's missing is a willingness to take on board the progress, or lack thereof, of U.S. military involvement in the Islamic world. Certainly, there is attention in the campaign given to the ISIS campaign, the campaign against ISIS. But let us note that even as theISIS campaign unfolds, we're still involved in Afghanistan. You noted in your news roundup, we've just had a major bombing incident in Somalia, followed by a special operations raid. Last week in The New York Times, there was an article discussing the plans within the Obama administration perhaps to launch a major air campaign in Libya.

And it seems to me to be time for the American people, or for those aspiring to be the next commander-in-chief, to take stock of this military involvement in the region, which has been going on for decades now, and to ask, "How are we doing? Are we winning? What are the prospects?" And to pose those questions in a serious way would, I think, contribute to a conclusion that the militarization of U.S. policy in that part of the world has been utterly counterproductive and is making things worse, not better.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Andrew Bacevich, a lot of people in the U.S. would disagree with the claim that ISIS is not the principal threat facing Americans today. So could you explain why you think that's not the case?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I think ISIS is a—poses an existential threat to the countries in the region. It threatens the state structure that was created in the aftermath of World War I. And therefore, from that point of view, the powers in the region, whether we're talking about Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq and others, they have a profound interest in bringing about the destruction of ISIS. But by any realistic measure, ISIS poses only a modest threat to the United States of America. It doesn't have an air force. It doesn't have a navy. It consists of a relatively small number of fierce fighters, not particularly well armed. And the notion that ISISsomehow threatens us, I think, is really absurd.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Do you think that there's any evidence to suggest that the next administration, whether it's Republican or Democrat, will be less interventionist in the Muslim world?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, if we look at the remaining Republican candidates, they are all clearly different flavors, but they're all militarists. I would certainly evaluate Secretary Clinton as an exceedingly hawkish Democrat. Her principal achievement, if you want to call it that, as secretary of state was in pushing the intervention in Libya, which has produced catastrophic consequences.

Senator Sanders, however, is largely—it seems to me, hasn't laid out his position. One might anticipate that given his general left-leaning view of the world, that he might be somewhat less inclined to rely on U.S. military power, might be more willing to consider alternatives to military power, but he has not yet, at least to my knowledge, really spelled out in detail where he stands on these matters. And frankly, I wish he would. I think he—I think he needs to, in order to move his candidacy beyond the economic and social justice themes that have been the core of his campaign thus far.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, you know, last night at the Univision debate, we just played that clip of Bernie Sanders saying, overall, when he was talking about Latin America, everyone from Nicaragua to Chile and the ouster of the democratically elected leader Salvador Allende, said he was opposed to, you know, U.S. interventions for regime change. And then, this was Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders at the Democratic presidential debate in [New Hampshire] accusing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of being, quote, "too much into that regime change."

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: There's some difference of opinion with Secretary Clinton on this. Our differences are fairly deep on this issue. We disagreed on the war in Iraq. We both listened to the information from Bush and Cheney. I voted against the war.

But I think—and I say this with due respect—that I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be. Yes, we could get rid of Saddam Hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. Yes, we could get rid of Gaddafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS. Yes, we could get rid of Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS. So I think, yeah, regime change is easy, getting rid of dictators is easy. But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after.

HILLARY CLINTON: Now, with all due respect, Senator, you voted for regime change with respect to Libya. You joined the Senate in voting to get rid of Gaddafi, and you asked that there be a Security Council validation of that with a resolution.

All of these are very difficult issues. I know that; I've been dealing with them for a long time. And, of course, we have to continue to do what is necessary when someone, like Gaddafi, a despot with American blood on his hands, is overturned. But I'll tell you what would have happened. If we had not joined with our European partners and our Arab partners to assist the people in Libya, you would be looking at Syria. Now the Libyans are turning their attention to try to dislodge ISIS from its foothold and begin to try to move together to have a unified nation.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I was not the secretary of state.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders at the debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, last year. Andrew Bacevich, respond.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I think that she's putting a fairly optimistic take on the prognosis in Libya. And I think Senator Sanders's critique of her interventionism, her pension for interventionism, deserves a far more serious response than she offers. She tends to shrug off the Iraq vote. She tends to shrug off the Libya experience as, you know, "Well, we did our best, and so what?" And I think that my point here is not—

AMY GOODMAN: Isn't she just trying to get away from it?

ANDREW BACEVICH: —is not the partisan one—

AMY GOODMAN: Isn't she just trying to get away from it, because, I mean, that you could say that that's one of the key reasons that President Obama is president today? He opposed the Iraq War, and she voted for it. And now she's dealing with the same thing with Bernie Sanders, who continually raises that key issue, that she voted for war with Iraq.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Yes, but the point here really is one that needs to look beyond partisanship. That is to say, who gets the better in these debates? The real issue that, it seems to me, never gets fully addressed is this larger question of what the militarization of U.S. policy, in particular, in the Islamic world has yielded over a period of now several decades. The issue is not, specifically, what went right or wrong in Iraq, right or wrong in Libya. The issue really is, given the magnitude of the U.S. military involvement in the region, in one country after another, whether our purposes were supposedly to bring order, spread democracy, pacify, advance human rights, the total sum of our activity has produced next to nothing that is positive, has imposed great costs on ourselves and on many other nations and peoples, and shows no evidence of producing anything more positive tomorrow or the next year. So there is a need to take stock of U.S. military involvement in the region to recognize its failure, and therefore to consider alternatives. And it's my personal judgment that there are alternatives to the militarization of U.S. policy. And quite frankly, I'd like to hear Senator Sanders be the one to begin to articulate what those alternatives might be.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And in your view, Andrew Bacevich, what are some of the alternatives to the militarized foreign policy, U.S. foreign policy, that we've seen so far?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, let me give you, very briefly, a three-point strategy. First of all, point number one of this strategy is self-protection. Earlier, we talked about whether or not ISIS poses a particular threat to the United States. The threat's minor. But we need to do a better job—certainly, we need to do a better job than we did on 9/11—at simply erecting barriers to keep the bad guys from getting at us. And that is primarily a function of domestic agencies—FBI, the Coast Guard, the TSA, border agencies. Keep the bad guys out.

Point number two in this strategy—and this alludes to my previous point about it is the nations in the region who are really affected by ISIS—point number two is to, as a diplomatic task, get those nations to recognize that they have a common interest in dealing with ISIS. Yes, they are divided among themselves on any variety—other variety of fronts—religious, sectarian, historical. But their common interest in dealing with ISIS is preeminent and ought to provide the basis for a collaboration againstISIS.

Point number three, again, the big question, the big issue, it seems to me—and I know that President Obama believes this—is the difficulty of some in the Islamic world of finding a path that will reconcile belief, faith, with secular modernity. Peaceful coexistence between the West and the Islamic world will require that reconciliation between faith and modernity occurring. But it has to occur on terms of the people within the region. So, point number three, really, of that strategy is to encourage that reconciliation; to demonstrate, through our own behavior, that faith and modernity need not be at odds; and to encourage exchanges—cultural, educational—between ourselves and, in particular, young people in the Islamic world, that will help demonstrate that we are not the enemy.

Now, that's a strategy that does not involve U.S. military power in any significant way. It's a strategy that would have to unfold over decades. But it is a preferable alternative to permanent war, and that's where we are now.

AMY GOODMAN: Andrew Bacevich, what is the media not asking? What is your critique of the media right now?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, my critique of the media is that they allow this preoccupation with what happened yesterday, the day before, to transcend or to remove any larger awareness of what the United States has attempted to do, has accomplished or not accomplished, and at what cost over a period of decades. I mean, for all practical purposes, the U.S.-Iraq War of 2003-2011 has already been forgotten, not to mention the U.S. war in Iraq of 1990-'91, not to mention U.S. involvement in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980 to 1988. If you—if one takes on board that entire experience, military—U.S. military experience in and around Iraq over a period of decades, it's hard for me to imagine that you can look at what's going on now and say, "Well, gosh, if we just defeat ISIS, everything is going to be—everything is going to be hunky-dory." The media is too focused on the immediate past and ignores the deeper past.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to your piece, "Has Trump Already Won?: He Has Already Changed the Republican Party and American Democracy Forever." But I want to start by playing two short clips. This is Trump this week responding to Anderson Cooper on CNN's question of whether Islam is at war with the West.

DONALD TRUMP: I think Islam hates us. There's something—there's something there that—there's a tremendous hatred there. There's a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it.

AMY GOODMAN: And now I want to turn to Donald Trump at the Republican debate in Greenville, South Carolina, Trump denouncing the Iraq War, calling it a "big, fat mistake."

DONALD TRUMP: Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? Now, you can take it anywhere you want. And it took Jeb—it took Jeb Bush, if you remember, at the beginning of his announcement, when he announced for president, took him five days. He went back. It was a mistake, it wasn't a mistake. Took him five days before his people told him what to say. And he ultimately said it was a mistake. The war in Iraq, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. We don't even have it. Iran is taking over Iraq, with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake.

JOHN DICKERSON: So—

DONALD TRUMP: George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.

AMY GOODMAN: So there was Donald Trump taking on Jeb Bush, George Bush's brother. He would then pull out of the race. And today, actually, Jeb Bush is meeting with Kasich, Rubio and Cruz, but not meeting with Trump, before the big debate tonight. But look at those two quotes, Andrew Bacevich, fitting in with saying Muslims should be banned from the U.S., saying Islam hates America, and then George Bush lied about the—lied us into the Iraq War.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, the Iraq War was a big, fat mistake. I mean, Trump, in many respects, is a blowhard, but from time to time he actually says something that is true. What's not true is his characterization of Islam. It's not simply that it's not true; it's that it's utterly counterproductive. It cannot provide the basis for any sort of meaningful policy, unless somehow or other a president Trump would be interested in promoting some sort of Armageddon-like conflict between the West and Islam.

I mean, my—one of my points with regard to Trump is this. There are those who compare him to a fascist. I don't think he's a fascist, because however evil it may have been, fascism did imply some sort of a coherent ideology. Trump has no ideology. He shoots from the hip. He contradicts himself. He speaks in generalities. He has a remarkable aptitude, I think, for manipulating and exacerbating anger and alienation in a certain part of the American population. So he's not so much a fascist, I think, as he is a representative of a kind of a personality cult. And in a sense, that would make him that much more dangerous, were he ever to become president, because we actually don't know what he stands for, and therefore what he would do if in the position of commander-in-chief.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, you've suggested that departing from U.S. foreign policy orthodoxy often has fatal consequences. And I want to ask about another point that Trump has made, and this on Russia. In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper in October, Trump was asked about NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Trump denounced Snowden and said he would get along very well with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

DONALD TRUMP: I think he's a total traitor. And I would deal with him harshly. And if I were president, Putin would give him over. I would get along with Putin. I've dealt with Russia. Putin hates—

ANDERSON COOPER: You think you'd get along with Putin?

DONALD TRUMP: I think I'd get along with him fine. I think he'd be absolutely fine.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Trump speaking to CNN's Anderson Cooper in October, saying that he, Trump, would get along very well with Putin. In December, Trump defended Putin after the Russian president called Trump a, quote, "very colorful, talented person." Trump responded by saying it is, quote, "a great honor to be so nicely complimented." In a series of interviews, Trump disputed reports of the Kremlin's involvement in the killing of journalists, saying, quote, "Our country does plenty of killing also." Andrew Bacevich, your response?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I mean, I think it's frankly a bit silly to talk about the relationship with the leader of Russia in terms of "getting along with." Putin is not interested in, quote-unquote, "getting along with" the United States. Putin is a—is a thug. But in his own way, he is a relatively serious statesman playing a game that is defined by power and interests. I think, in many respects, Putin's primary interest is trying to maintain his status within Russia at a time when the Russian economy is clearly having a very difficult time. So, a posture of blustering, of insisting upon the rest of the world giving respect to Russia, the respect that it deserves, plays well, I think, with his domestic constituents and helps to ease his domestic problems. But the notion that Putin wants to get along well with us, I think, is frankly absurd.

But what's also, of course, not to be admitted, I think, or acknowledged or accepted is that Russia actually represents a very limited threat to the United States of America. There are those on the right in the United States who somehow think that Putin's Russia can be equated to Stalin's Soviet Union, and therefore every time Putin exercises a modest amount of muscle, that somehow that ought to lead to a U.S. military response. I think that that also would be a reckless way to approach Russia.

AMY GOODMAN: We don't hear very much about nuclear weapons. Why do you think this is a key question that is being missed for all of these candidates to have to address, Professor Bacevich?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, it beats me. I mean, I am astonished that there has been so little attention given to the Obama administration's announced plans to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal with smaller nuclear weapons, which, to some people, might sound reassuring. "Smaller" means, actually, more usable and, arguably, more likely to be used. The modernization program involves new ballistic missiles, a new manned bomber for the Air Force, new missile-launching submarines. This is a program—it's publicly announced—that probably will cost a trillion dollars or more between now and its projected completion, roughly around 2045, in time for the 100th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Neither party, certainly none of the candidates, to my knowledge, have questioned whether this is going to be money well spent, why we need an expanded arsenal, how this plays with regard to the professions by, what, the last 10 presidents, all of whom have indicated that they would like to see nuclear weapons eliminated altogether. It's another blindspot, it seems to me, in our political discourse that is baffling.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, another point that you raise that's missing from the debates is the fact, as you say, that U.S. forces are today active in 147 countries around the world. You ask why there are troops in so many countries, saying this question can't really be posed, because "[t]o answer it is to expose the real purpose of American globalism, which means, of course, that none of the candidates will touch it with a 10-foot pole." Could you tell us what the answer to that question is, why U.S. troops are stationed in 147 countries and what it says about the real purpose of American globalism?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, if we compared why they're in country A versus country B, the immediate rationale is going to differ. But when we consider that profile, the global profile that you just referred to—and that's a global profile which has expanded in recent years but certainly has been enormous since the beginning of the Cold War, a military presence orders of magnitude greater than that of any other significant power on the face of the Earth—why are we doing that? Well, because people in Washington believe that military power, military presence, the projection of force, that these translate into influence that benefits the United States. They believe that that influence then translates into security for the United States of America. Many of them even believe that that translates into enhancing the well-being of the rest of the world. And I think that that's a—it's a notion implicit in U.S. national security strategy, therefore never examined, never questioned. And I think that posing those questions, it's past time, because there's plenty of evidence that the U.S. military presence may, in some places, contribute to stability, but in many other places it actually contributes to instability, at great cost to ourselves and others.

AMY GOODMAN: Also not mentioned at last night's debate was the fact that the U.S. just bombed Somalia, killed 150 people. We're told they believe that they're militants at a training camp. It looks like the Pentagon first appeared to have initially tried to cover up the fact that it was not just drones, but also manned attacks. This is a country we are not officially at war with, and this week we first killed 150 people, the U.S. military, and now, in the last hours, another 19.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, exactly. So this—we used to call it the war on terrorism; I'm not sure if that term is actually still in circulation. But this enterprise, this war, this series of campaigns, continues to evolve, continues to expand. The authority of the president to make war wherever he chooses to now seemingly—is now seemingly beyond any sort of question. The Constitution, in that regard, has simply been thrown out the window. And to circle back to the fact that we're in a political season, virtually none of this is discussed. Virtually none of this becomes a subject of the moderators at these interminable debates. It's simply taken for granted that we—that war has become a normal condition.

AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there. I want to thank you, Andrew Bacevich, for joining us, retired colonel, Vietnam War veteran. His recent piece for The Nation, "The Six Questions Missing from the 2016 Election Debates." His new book,America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, will be published next month. He's professor emeritus of international relations and history at Boston University. Among his other books, Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War.

This is Democracy Now! 




The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.