The
Power Of Arrogance
By Niranjan Ramakrishnan
18 July, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Notwithstanding cries of outrage
and shock over the events in the Middle East, is there really any difference
between the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the Israeli attacks
on Lebanon? A parody of the Cartesian mindset of recent vintage is in
play once more -- I (think I) can get away with it, therefore I do.
The United States destroyed huge parts of Afghanistan after 9-11. Thousands
were rendered homeless, large numbers were killed and maimed. In the
end, Bin Laden, the ostensible quarry being pursued following the WTC
and Pentagon strikes, was never found.
Then came Iraq, where there was not even the fig leaf of hot pursuit.
A warmed over dish of fear, concocted from the embers of 9-11, old UN
resolutions (proving in the process that some UN resolutions are more
important than others), fake intelligence reports and journalistic fabrications,
was enough to get a craven nod from a petrified Congress. As a result,
thousands perished, and, along with the usual toll of usual infrastructure,
a deliberate American negligence caused priceless museum artifacts belonging
to all mankind to be lost forever.
The engagement in either Afghanistan or Iraq is far from over yet. Already,
here comes the third volume in the series, Lebanon. Watch out, JK Rowling.
Hezbollah is holed up in Southern Lebanon, shooting missiles on Israeli
border towns. Hezbollah guerrillas have kidnapped Israeli soldiers.
The stated objective is to remove the threat of missiles and recover
the captives. OK. But why bomb Beirut, 100 miles to the north, and Tripoli,
another hundred miles farther? Why destroy dozens of bridges, airports
and seaports, oil depots and power plants? Why punish the people of
all Lebanon? Because the terrorists are hiding everywhere, comes the
answer. The United States is on record supporting this logic. Quite
naturally, too, for it applies an identical reasoning to justify its
own actions.
If this rationale is accepted, an impartial observer might ask, could
one justify the bombing of the World Trade Center? Did not the CIA have
offices in one of the collapsed buildings, and was it not well known
that the CIA had orchestrated coups, assassinations, riots, military
takeovers, etc. in several parts of the world? If the Israelis could
bomb Lebanese army bases without any provocation from the Lebanese army,
and the US could defend such an act, on what basis could the oppose
someone crashing a plane into the Pentagon, by every account a military
target?
A fair question, perhaps, but such introspection is persona non grata
in our times. We like to keep it simple: I (think I) can get away with
it, therefore I do. The same powers that chided Russia for its actions
in Chechnya, and bombed Serbia into submission for its moves against
Kosovar drug runners, today make the all-purpose claim that "Israel
has a right to defend itself", ranking right up there on the inanity
scale with such gems as, "We are a nation of immigrants".
Of course every country has a right to defend itself. But by bombing
power plants and bridges all across a non-combatant state? By demolishing
residences and roads? All for the actions of one group? Israel, of all
countries, should know that that mass punishment of populations is a
war crime.
Both Democratic and Republican worthies dutifully thronged the microphones
this weekend, many to aver that bombing civilian targets is justified;
for the terrorists are holed up among civilians. An even more amusing
(if sad) variant of their plaint was "But Hezbollah does it".
Is the standard for a modern, democratic, state the same as it is for
terrorists and warlords? Who would ask that question? They never raised
it when Bush rammed through the Patriot Act, not when it became known
that their government was spying on its citizens and prying into their
financial transactions, not when Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo surfaced.
Why would they raise it now?
Clearly, Israel's actions were not spur-of-the-moment, far from it.
Several commentators have said the Israelis had planned for precisely
such an opportunity for years. That's merely a tactical element. As
a strategic backdrop, it was America that provided the enabling logic
(Lebanon's prime minister this week called Israel a major perpetrator
of terror, saying Israel had set his country decades back in time),
with its two singular examples of attacking non-combatant countries
with not a whimper from the world.
Now another country has employed the same logic and tactic. More world
silence. Wasn't the UN created for just such occasions? Deconstructionists
may ponder the significance of the term "United Nations" sounding
so much like "Eunuch Nations". It is further a hallmark of
our times that the worst presidency of US history coincides with the
tenure of the most spineless UN Secretary General in the organization's
life. That line about the age bringing forth the man takes on a whole
new meaning.
Much has been made of how the Israeli public is solidly behind Olmert.
It might help to recall how solid American public support once was for
going into Iraq, and how high Bush's approval was as he first bombed
Afghanistan. It was said of the intrepid scooter wallah (the driver
of the three wheeler, a wholly Indian contraption) of New Delhi that
if the front wheel could make it, he would proceed boldly into the narrow
lane, forgetting the vehicle's wider rear section. That's public opinion.
If the US has demonstrated anything during the past three years, it
is that today, after spending a half-trillion dollars (eleven million
dollars an hour, to quote Rep. John Murtha), it is unable to prevail
in a contest with a ragtag band of insurgents with no overt support
from any major power (unlike its opponents in the Vietnam or Korean
wars, who were backed by China and the USSR). An honest reflection might
have led to a sober view of the current crisis. Instead, Bush is busy
rattling his sabers against Syria and Iran, trying to widen the conflict.
Rather than calling for an immediate cease fire (a reasonable step even
while condemning Hezbollah), he has justified the destruction of Lebanon,
a friendly country whose government was installed at his own behest.
It is tempting to hang the well-worn phrase, "The Arrogance of
Power" on Israel's attitude and on America's. But realistically,
it is rather more a case of the Power of Arrogance. Consider this spectacle:
The biggest debtor in the world tacitly encourages the destruction of
an entire nation, by another nation whose defense budget is largely
underwritten by itself. Guess who is going to pay for the reconstruction
aid to Lebanon that must inevitably ensue? The American Taxpayer, it
would seem, is the world's perennial fool. In a brilliant article in
2004, Michael Neumann captured this paradox, "America's weakness
is not a problem; the problem is that it acts as if it were strong..."
Arrogance has the power to sideline reality and embark on ever more
ambitious projects. Let's not forget the words of a White House official
quoted in Ron Susskind's book, saying the White House created its own
reality.
The consequence of the silent acquiescence in aggression three times
in five years will take the whole world, not just Lebanon, back into
the dark ages. The clearest lesson is that the collective deterrent
of world opinion has collapsed. A very real proliferation has resulted
-- that of the idea that powerful nations can attack others without
fear of consequence -- unless...
Welcome to the Nu(clear) World Order.