The Official Website of Reese Erlich » Satire

From Surrender Monkey to Oldest Ally

Reese Erlich — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 22:32:03 +0000

Published on Sunday, September 1, 2013 by Common Dreams

[updated version]

France is our new hero. Just over 10 years ago that beleaguered country of fine wine and soft cheese was vilified for not supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Now Secretary of State John Kerry praises France as “our oldest ally.”¹ France not only supports U.S. plans to attack Syria, it can do so without a parliamentary vote. That’s a close ally indeed.

To those living outside of the Washington beltway, our attitude towards the heroic French may seem fickle, based solely on whether French leaders support our war du jour. But that just shows how little you understand about international relations.

First some brief history.

In 2003 France had the audacity to question whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the West. To pressure France, the Bush Administration and its supporters orchestrated a campaign saying the French were “cheese eating surrender monkeys” during World War II. Congress voted to change the menu in the House cafeteria so that French Toast became Freedom Toast and French fries were christened Freedom fries.

Woody Allen famously commented that he would be forced to “Freedom kiss” his wife.

Americans boycotted French wines and other products. The U.S. tapped phones and spied on the French mission to the UN, along with all other missions that opposed the Iraq War.

But that’s 10 years ago, so ancien regime. France has a new leader; America has a new leader. The NSA regularly intercepts phone calls and email messages from diplomats all over the world, not just at the UN.

Today the French understand some basic tenets of U.S. policy:

· When the U.S. sends planes and missiles to attack another country, that is not an act of war. It’s Cruise lite, or as they say in Paris, une petite guerre.
· Military attacks must be proportionate to the attacker’s ability to sell the actions at home. Quick attacks in which no Americans die and cost less than $1 trillion are legal, requiring no vote of Congress. If there is a vote in Congress, the President obeys the vote only if he agrees with the results.
· Republicans go to war for national interests such a securing our strategic oil supplies. Democrats go to war to defend human rights, and get the oil wells and military bases later.
· All countries must respect international law and uphold decisions made by the UN Security Council, unless we disagree with them.
· No Arab country openly supports a U.S. military attack, but they all support it privately. How do we know? You’ll have to take our word for it.
· The findings of the UN chemical weapons inspectors are irrelevant unless they support the U.S. viewpoint.
· France supports military action as a disinterested power concerned with human rights atrocities, not as the former colonial power in Syria.
· The U.S. military assault will be surgical – just strong enough to get Assad mad but not harsh enough to accomplish anything.

Now that the U.S. and France have re-established their historic alliance, they can focus on the most important question facing the world today: How do we start a campaign against the British? Those limey bastards burned our capitol in 1812 and had to be bailed out during World War II.

I suggest we start by boycotting anyone selling fish and chips. English muffins shall hereby be known as Freedom muffins, and I urge a boycott of all future episodes of Downton Abbey.

^{———————————-}

¹ Actually certain Native American tribes from the French and Indian Wars may have been our oldest ally, but they don’t get mentioned because they are unlikely to favor sending cruise missiles into Damascus.

The Difference between a terrorist and a man who flies into a building

Reese Erlich — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 21:36:17 +0000

The Difference Between a Terrorist

and Someone Who Flies a Plane

Into a Building

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_difference_between_a_terrorist_and_someone_who_flies_a_plane_into_a_bui/

Posted on Mar 12, 2010

By Reese Erlich

There seems to be some confusion about who are the real terrorists these days. Allow me to shed some light on the issue.

John Patrick Bedell was angry at the totalitarian federal government that had devastated public education, private property rights and monetary policy, so he shot two security guards at the Pentagon. He was not a terrorist.

Andrew Joseph Stack flew a small plane into a building housing an office of the Internal Revenue Service in Austin, Texas, killing one IRS worker and injuring 13 people in the structure. Earlier that day, Stack wrote a diatribe on his Web page against the IRS and the federal government. “Violence not only is the answer,” he wrote, “it is the only answer.” Stack was not a terrorist.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist of Palestinian origin, opened fire on fellow soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 and wounding 29. He strongly opposed U.S. military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is a terrorist.

At first there may be some confusion about these designations, but there are clear differences among the three cases. The first two violent attacks were carried out as political protests by white conservatives angry at the federal government for taking over their rights. The third was carried out by an Arab-American Muslim angry at the federal government for taking over other people’s rights.

America’s major media understand this distinction. They quickly explained that the first two cases were deranged individuals not part of any wider conspiracy. Three days after the Pentagon attack, The New York Times wrote that Bedell had been living with his parents and “seemed to slide into a deep paranoia.” The paper reassured us that “federal authorities said there was no indication that Mr. Bedell had a connection to any domestic or international terrorist group.”

On the day of the attack against the IRS, The Wall Street Journal conveyed the comforting news that federal workers had not been victims of terrorism. “I consider this a criminal act by a lone individual,” said Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo.

The major media offered a split opinion on Maj. Hasan. Some went with the “deranged loner” theory. Thank God that Fox News kept up the pressure on President Barack Obama and the liberal media to label it a terrorist attack. As Sen. Joe Lieberman pointed out on Fox, “There are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and therefore that this was a terrorist act.”

Lieberman correctly understands that extremism comes only from the Muslim world, not right-wing white people with persecution complexes and semiautomatic weapons.

There seems to be similar confusion about international extremists. The extremists of al-Qaida intentionally kill civilians in an effort to win political goals. They are terrorists.

The U.S.-funded Afghan mujahedeen fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s intentionally targeted university professors, movie theaters and cultural events. The U.S.-trained Nicaraguan Contras intentionally killed teachers and health workers in order to overthrow the Sandinista government in the 1980s. Both these groups were freedom fighters.

America is besieged by enemies and we should be afraid. For decades this country faced the communist menace. I remember as an elementary school student hiding under my desk to protect myself against a Soviet nuclear attack and invasion. Today we face a far greater threat from Muslim terrorists. Thank goodness today’s children have much larger desks.

I hope this clears up the confusion about exactly who is a terrorist. Remember, consistency is the core principle of American national security policy.

Freelance foreign correspondent Reese Erlich is author of the forthcoming book “Conversations With Terrorists: Middle East Leaders on Politics, Violence and Empire.”

AP / Jack Plunkett

Andrew Joseph Stack flew a plane into this building because he was angry at the IRS.

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Web site development by Hop Studios

Good Dictators and Bad Dictators

Reese Erlich — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:45:51 +0000

Published on Thursday, September 1, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

Perhaps you are confused by U.S. policy towards Middle East dictators. The U.S. supports some, denounces others and launches missiles to overthrow another. Having reported from the region for over 25 years, I can explain what might otherwise seem to be an inconsistent U.S. policy.Qaddafi was bad before he was good before he was bas again. And yet US policy is sinisterly consistent. (File)

There are good dictators and bad dictators. We support the good ones and denounce the bad ones, unless of course, we change our minds.

Take Muammar Qaddafi – please. When he nationalized U.S. and European oil companies in the 1970s, he became a bad dictator. He was such a bad dictator, no one could agree on how to spell his name (Gaddafi? Khadafy?)

Qaddafi was such a bad dictator that the Reagan Administration bombed Tripoli in 1986. But Qaddafi stuck around for another 25 years, proving once again the effectiveness of aerial bombardment in punishing bad dictators.

In 2003 Qaddafi, expecting a U.S. victory in Iraq, stopped planning to build a nuclear weapon and otherwise cooperated with the U.S. and Europeans. While Britain and the U.S. removed sanctions against Libya, Qaddafi blithely continued the brutal repression of his own people.

That was OK, however, because Qaddafi was no longer a bad dictator. He was just naughty.

When a popular uprising against Qaddafi seemed about to lose earlier this year, Qaddafi once again became a very, very bad dictator bent on genocide against his own people. U.S. and European powers began an aerial war but said they wouldn’t send ground troops. They sent in CIA operatives instead.

The opposition leaders, who assassinated their own top general, are now known as heroic freedom fighters. Now that Qaddafi appears to be defeated, western powers have to find a good dictator to take over. That won’t be easy because of the feuds existing amongst exiled politicians, tribal leaders and former Qaddafi officials.

Another wonderful example is Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. He accepted billions in U.S. military aid and didn’t attack Israel. He conducted fraudulent elections, allowed only government-controlled trade unions, muzzled the press and jailed dissidents, subjecting them to horrific torture.

He was a good dictator.

Well actually, Mubarak was a good dictator right up until February of this year when millions demonstrated in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, and workers went on strike in Suez, threatening the entire political and economic system in Egypt. Then he became a bad dictator, which in retrospect, the U.S. had only been reluctantly supporting for strategic, geo-political reasons.

Please remember that such zigzags in U.S. policy reflect our National Interest. It’s a rough world out there and we have to make tough choices. The National Interest benefits all of us, whether rich or poor.

For the long-term stability of our nation, we need access to Middle East oil and gas. We’ve established military bases in the region to protect the sea lanes and pipelines needed to get the crude shipped to U.S. oil companies.

Maintaining high profits for U.S. oil companies is an important component of our National Interest. After all, if oil companies didn’t make outsized profits, we might end up paying $4 for a gallon of gas.

The U.S. has been pursuing the National Interest for many years under both Democratic and Republican administrations, which means it must be OK.

Not only does the U.S. oppose bad dictators, we

always favor democracy. The U.S. favors free elections, for example, unless the wrong people win.

In 2006 the Palestinian Authority held parliamentary elections. International observers agreed the elections were free and fair. Hamas, a conservative Islamist party, won the election. The U.S. and Israel refused to recognize the results and encouraged fighting between Hamas and Fatah, the other major Palestinian party.

In 2007 military skirmishes broke out between Fatah and Hamas. Fatah took control of the West Bank. Hamas took control of Gaza. Israeli officials said they couldn’t hold peace talks as long as the Palestinian leadership remained divided. When Fatah and Hamas agreed to form a joint government earlier this year, Israel said it could never negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas.

The U.S. has remained equally consistent. It calls for the resignation of Bashar al Assad in Syria but makes no such pronouncements about pro-U.S. dictators in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Jordan.

So don’t be confused by U.S. policy. Any country opposing the U.S. National Interest can’t be a democracy. Any dictatorship agreeing with U.S. policies is on the road to democratic change.

I hope that clears up any remaining confusion.