Psychopolitik 2.0

-The first thing I thought (other than “…wtf?”) about this whole alleged suburban one-woman sleeper cell business was about how casually pro-ethnic-profiling sentiment had spread in regards to terrorism.  I don’t think you could’ve in a million years designed a case as forcefully showing that approach to be inherently ineffective, in addition to merely being bigoted, as this one.   I wonder how long the line of swarthy foreigners getting roto-rootered at airport security would’ve gotten before the plane carrying another Jihad Jane (that’s what she supposedly called herself) blew up.

-Behind many political statements that are taken for granted are implications that, sadly, never get discussed.  Take accusations of Chinese currency manipulation, for example: the claim is that the Yuan is artificially undervalued, giving China an advantage in trade.  If the value were to go up, then U.S. exports would become comparatively cheaper because it would take fewer Yuan to get a dollar worth of goods.  This means that to argue that the Yuan is undervalued is akin to saying the dollar is overvalued.  Note that China happens to hold a particularly large chunk of U.S. government debt, and you see where this is going.

-Y’know, as long as we’re going to have super-wealthy media moguls in this world, it’d be interesting to see what kind of shifts would be initiated in the U.S. media as a result of a Mexican joining the club.

-Joe Biden, while Israel was announcing new construction for East Jerusalem settlers: “progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel”.  Um, yeah, which is why they’re fighting over the same shit still after all these years.  Speaking of East Jerusalem, here’s how some of the residents celebrate their holidays.  Nice neighbors ya got there…

-The Cheneyite approach to terror suspects, which results in the kind of atrocities that Conor Friedersdorf describes here, among other things, can only be explained by one of two things: vengeful indiscriminate rage (that is, it’s all about expressing “don’t fuck with us!!!” at any and every opportunity that arises, accuracy be damned) or cultural hatred.

Fareed Zakaria, in reference to Sarah Palin claiming that the best thing for Obama’s re-election odds would be to declare war on Iran:

The regime would gain support as ordinary Iranians rally around the flag. The opposition would be forced to support a government under attack from abroad. The regime would foment and fund violence from Afghanistan to Iraq and across the Persian Gulf. The price of oil would skyrocket — which, ironically, would help Tehran pay for all these operations.

It is important to recognize the magnitude of what people like Palin are advocating. The United States is being asked to launch a military invasion of a state that poses no imminent threat to America, without sanction from any international body and with few governments willing to publicly endorse such an action. Al-Qaeda and its ilk would present it as the third American invasion of a Muslim nation in a decade, proof positive that the United States is engaged in a war of civilizations.

Mkay, he beat down that obvious idiocy.  So where does he go from here?

The United States should use the latest IAEA report to bolster a robust containment strategy against Iran, bringing together the moderate Arab states and Israel in a tacit alliance, asking European states to go further in their actions, and pushing Russia and China to endorse sanctions. Former secretary of state James Baker suggested to me on CNN that the United States could extend its nuclear umbrella to Israel, Egypt and the Gulf states — something that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has hinted at as well.

At the same time, Washington should back the “Green Movement” in Iran, which ultimately holds out the greatest hope for a change in the basic orientation of Iran’s foreign policy.  (emphasis mine)

Translation: “Hey, Tehran!  Double-time it on the murders of those activists, wouldja?”

Here’s an alternative proposal: Leave the “green movement” alone because any association with the US is poison.  Meanwhile, drop the idea of sanctions because they don’t actually hurt the regime, since as we’ve already established they could give half a fuck about their people.  As for any pursuit of nukes, remember that the most likely target of any future nukes already has nuclear weapons.

One of these is a question to which “sure!” is not a sane response.  See if you can guess which one:

1. “Hey man, I got some pizza.  You want a slice?”
2. “We’re going to see a movie, wanna come?”
3. “Does the US Constitution allow the president to order the massacre of a village of civilians?”
4. “While you’re up, could ya grab me a brew?”

Obama: “The world is a warzone, and we’ll kill anybody we even remotely think is doing something.  Even if you’re a U.S. citizen, whatever, we finna snipe your ass!”

Glenn Greenwald: “Isn’t this the kind of crap we bitch about when other countries do it?”

Ooh, guess who’s not getting invited to the White House any time soon…

Much Shorter Obama: “I don’t deserve this, but I’ll accept it anyway.  Besides, we’ve at least thrown up attempts at regulating war, which we promptly ignore.  As for people elsewhere that point out how much criticism w/r/t lack of restraint applies to the imploding hegemony I currently hold the keys to: y’all some ungrateful mufuckas, y’know?”

In case anyone doesn’t believe my interpretation of that last part, here’s what he actually said that prompted it:

[…] In many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

Get that?  The U.S. dominates the world because “we” (since much of the action that is taken in our names we don’t even find out about until later) love it, & think shaping it in our image helps.  If you question this, you’re a cynical sunuvabeotch and objectively pro-Nazi.  Honestly, a Republican could’ve easily wrote this speech.

As for “Just War”, the concept makes about as much sense as an abstinent whore.  The reasoning behind it attempts to apply individual self-defense principle to that of nation-states, despite the ease with which the differences are illuminated.  Try looking at it the other direction: you know what they call a “pre-emptive strike” when you’re an individual and not a state?  Assault, that’s what.

In practice, the attempts to regulate state violence have been worse than failures, they’ve been used as a tool to justify later violations.  Calling it putting lipstick on a pig would be an insult to pigs.  Perhaps if someone out there who realizes that war itself is a failure of “the rules” knows of a way to make the “rules” of war stick — which would actually discourage war for once — then they should get that prize.

Chuck Todd, on Hardball ahead of the announcement of Dear Leaders’ intent to call do-over on Afghanistan: “Chris, I spoke to senior administration officials & asked them what’s the difference between this ’surge’ & Bush’s ’surge’ in Iraq.  There really isn’t any.”

Cue announcement of Chuck’s contract termination in 4…3…2…

The U.S. economy sucks worse in some places than others.  Yet, that isn’t as bad as getting blown up.  As a result of that calculation, Iraqi refugees are coming here.  A lot of them had been settling directly in Michigan, since there’s a substantial population of people there from the Middle East, but the State department decided to try to prevent that.

Guess what happened?:

The U.S. government resettled Mazen Alsaqa in Massachusetts in February. Within a month, the Iraqi refugee moved to Michigan.

It wasn’t that Alsaqa disliked Worcester, Mass. But he never thought twice about staying. Even though the U.S. government tried to keep him away from the Detroit area and its soaring unemployment, that was the only place Alsaqa wanted to live.

Tens of thousands have fled Michigan’s troubled economy in recent years, yet Iraqi refugees continue to move there despite a U.S. government policy trying to limit refugee resettlement in the Detroit area. Family ties and cultural support from the region’s large Middle Eastern community appear no match for the U.S. effort, which tries to place refugees in cities where they stand a better chance of financial success. […]

Southeastern Michigan has one of the country’s largest Middle Eastern populations — about 300,000 can trace their roots back to the region — and has long been a top destination for Arab immigrants to the U.S.

So people prefer places where there’s familiar cultural ties, regardless of what bureaucrats tell them.  What a shock, huh?

@Jeff Goldberg, w/r/t Palin attempting to talk about Israel: The 2nd one.  If you need to ask anymore…

So according to the NYT & multiple sources, Hamid Karzai’s brother the accused opium trafficker is on the C.I.A.’s payroll.  Gee, no wonder Karzai needs fraud to stay in office & U.S. mercenaries to stay breathing…

…or more accurately, welfare state-expansion:

Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank get significantly bigger slice of Israeli government financial help than municipalities in Israel itself, according to a study published on Tuesday.

Their population is also growing more than three times faster than that of Israel proper, says the report, which traces the development of Jewish settlements since the 1967 Middle East war to today. […]

“While Israeli municipalities as a whole receive 34.7 percent of their income from (the government) and obtain another 64.3 percent from their own income, settlement municipalities obtain 57 percent from the (government), and only 42.8 percent from their own income,” it found.  Israel’s government “allocates 4.1 percent its total budget for municipalities to settlements, although they constitute just 3.1 percent of the total Israeli population,” the report adds.

The study by the Macro Center of the Israeli European Policy Network is entitled “Historical Political and Economic Impact of Jewish Settlements in the Occupied Territories.”

Yeah, subsidizing expansion on the backs of uninterested citizens, way to negotiate in good faith…