Prof. Mahfuz Chowdhury

The fact has remained that Bangladesh failed to uphold true democratic values even after forty years of existence. Sadly, the democratic process was halted by the very leader who had led the country to independence. Soon after freedom, his unilateral decision to establish a personal army and impose a one-party autocratic rule created a great setback for Bangladesh democracy. His heavy handed rule eventually cost him his life, and also brought fifteen years of successive military reign.

The election of 1990 was supposed to have paved the way to a democratic process. Instead, it has given rise to a different kind of authoritarian rule by establishing a dual family dynastic reign. At the center of it all now sit two politically inept ladies, Sheikh Hasina Wajed and Begum Khaleda Zia, who have inherited the leadership of the two dominating political parties in the country. They show no respect for democratic process and tolerate no dissension within their party, and government when in power.

The option people get in the election that follows is to choose one or the other party, thereby putting one or the other lady in power. While in power, these ladies often treat the country as if it were their family property; they rule autocratically, tolerate corruption, ignore or even sanction human rights abuse, and most importantly, promote and implement their personal agendas with little regard to general welfare. The existing system is best described as democratic authoritarianism since regular election only leads to an autocratic rule.

The ladies have their own army of die-hard supporters. Most are core supporters, while others came from different political spectrum, left, right or center, driven by their personal ambition. At times there is a race to join the winning party even by those who claim to be the champion of democratic rights. Their apparent goal for joining is simply to gain personal benefits. Incredibly, the country’s ex-President also came to line up behind the leader who sacked him from the highest office.

In addition to the unscrupulous politicians, the so-called intellectuals of the country are lending support to the present autocratic system in Bangladesh. To be fair, the country’s intellectuals would fall into three categories – two of which are advantageously aligned with the two parties who support and defend their policies. Of the third group, most prefer to keep quiet for fear of imminent reprisals, while a few who remain vocal fail to make much difference.

If a country’s progress is somehow attributed to its intellectuals or political thinkers, the blame for any failure should be shared by them as well. The corrupt politicians are indeed responsible for the failure to establish a functioning democratic system in Bangladesh. Yet, the intellectuals couldn’t escape their responsibilities for failing to properly resist, educate or warn the people on the impact of autocratic family dynastic rule. Those who continue to believe that something good might come out of the present scandalous system are clearly being dishonest to them and the nation.

Under Bangladesh’s unitary system of government all important decisions are made at the center. It would be impracticable to run a country of 160 million people with such a centralized system. For the smooth functioning of government and the fostering of economic growth, power decentralization into several provinces is well overdue. But neither of the country’s governing ladies is willing to decentralize the country’s administration for fear of losing their absolute authority.

The world is currently on a change mode where the younger generation is taking charge and using the internet to their advantage. Whoever thought that an unemployed college student in Tunisia could ignite the “Arab Spring” by sacrificing his own life? Once powerful autocratic rulers in the Middle East have fallen like houses of cards; even developed countries are feeling the pinch from the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. Could Bangladesh be too far behind?

The people are the source of power, and given the opportunity Bangladeshi people seem quite ready to exercise their power. In a recently held municipal election, people have shown their disdain for the current system by electing a courageous lady as their mayor who didn’t get a party endorsement. But, to hide their infamy, both political parties rushed to quickly embrace the winner – immediately before or after the election.

For better or worse, change is bound to come to Bangladesh. The obvious question is – what kind of change will that be, or at what price?

The options for the country are quite clear – either democratize and decentralize, or plunge into anarchy. Time is running out. As reported by the country’s news media, the level of dangerous violence, mysterious killings, political assaults and slayings that the country is now experiencing point to already a serious lawlessness situation. The escalation of such violence both within and outside of each party is constantly being fueled and encouraged by hostile acts of both parties where democracy has no footing.

Bangladesh has a great potential to forge ahead economically with minimal foreign help only if it had a functioning democracy in place. The two feuding leadership families, which control the country’s politics and governance, are engaged in promoting their personal agendas with no regard to national interests. They lack the integrity and conviction to politically do the right thing, or right the wrong. The current system is fundamentally flawed and must therefore be changed for the good of the country.

Bangladesh would plunge into an anarchical state like Afghanistan, Pakistan or Somalia unless the destructive policies of the two dominant parties are effectively reversed and true democratic reforms are put into place. It’s imperative that the key supporters of the present autocratic system realize this ominous fact and take appropriate action to save the country from the imminent gloom. Otherwise, the consequence would be dreadful from which no one in the country would escape unharmed. As the seventh largest country in population, the world order would also be enormously affected by such an outcome.

   Prof. Mahfuz Chowdhury
Judging from the controversial actions being carried out by the government and the reactions of the opposition, most observers believe another period of political turmoil is looming in Bangladesh. The outcome of such turmoil would be anybody’s guess at this point.

Anyone who follows events in Bangladesh knows all too well that the country is now pretty much captive to two dynastic families for its politics or governance. Since 1991, state governing power in the country has been alternating between these two families. In a country not known for equality between the sexes, both families are now headed by women who have for all practical purposes remained each other’s sworn enemy.

One of the women, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, the current Prime Minister, is the daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the supreme leader who led the country to the liberation war against Pakistan in 1971. The other, Begum Khaleda Zia, the present Opposition Leader, is the widow of Gen. Ziaur Rahman, the renowned freedom fighter in that same war. Both Mujib and Zia later ruled Bangladesh. Their periods of iron fisted rule were surrounded by many controversies and ended in their murder while in office. Yet, the power vacuums that followed their respective assassinations prompted their die-hard followers to help establish the present family dynastic rule by elevating the two women political novices, the leaders’ heirs apparent, to the leadership positions of their personal parties – Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party. The two ladies in turn seized the opportunities to consolidate power and assume autocratic rule within their parties.

After the end of dictatorial rule in Bangladesh in 1990, the two ladies alternated state power for an almost equal number of terms. Both of their administrations were, however, marked by huge irregularities. They tolerated the massive corruption and the injustices inflicted by their party members and supporters. This has resulted in the creation of a widening wealth divide in the country with more people falling below the poverty line. Their human rights violations were equally appalling. According to Amnesty International, the special police force, Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), established in 2004 has been implicated in the killing of at least 700 people despite repeated pledges by both ladies to end extrajudicial killings.

The grass root support or popularity of both parties seems equal, and neither party was strong enough to grab state power all by itself. So they both enlisted the support of a junior partner, namely the Jamaate Islami Party, at one time or another. When Khaleda Zia was last in power with such alliance, she maneuvered things to put down the opposition and bolster her own re-election prospects. The opposition led by Sheikh Hasina resorted to agitation, leading to political turmoil in 2006. The army promptly took advantage of such turmoil by seizing power in early 2007 under the guise of a care-taker government system that the feuding parties had earlier established for conducting national elections, and ruled for two years.

Given the ferocity of the turmoil preceding the military takeover, the army backed care-taker government enjoyed rare popular support at the time. Hopes were also raised when it swiftly initiated vital democratic reforms in the organization and regulation of political parties, election rules, power decentralization and judicial independence. But sadly such valiant efforts all ended in utter failure. The army backed unelected government gave in to tremendous pressures from both inside and outside. After arranging an election, it handed over power to Sheikh Hasina, who had won the election.

The opposition rejected the election result claiming it was conveniently manipulated and influenced by neighboring India. This claim has since been backed by an article appeared in The Economist on July 30, 2011. The opposition’s argument that Sheikh Hasina has made secret deals with India is also gaining considerable traction after the article detailed the benefits that India would extract from its cozy relation with Bangladesh. In rebuffing the gain that Bangladesh could expect in exchange for the transit facilities for India, the opposition reminds people about the water sharing fiasco that India has indeed created for Bangladesh.

Additionally, Sheikh Hasina is seen to be more interested in using her current parliamentary mandate to find a way to extend her rule by suppressing or eliminating the present or perceived opposition than to properly address the many critical problems facing the nation. These problems are, run-away inflation especially for staple foods, acute gas and electricity shortages, crises with regard to infrastructure, unemployment, rising crime rates, police brutality, campus riots, rampant corruption, and an ongoing stock market scandal.

But to ensure her firm grip on power and to prevent any kind of dissent in her own party, Sheikh Hasina surrounded herself only with loyalists by eliminating the moderate and independent party stalwarts from decision making. All vital decisions in the country, including judicial judgments, must now meet with her approval.

In a clear effort to reduce the power of her nemesis, Khaleda Zia, corruption charges were recently filed against her. Her two sons, who live in exile, were also indicted earlier on similar grounds by the Hasina administration. The charges against them may well be true and the people have the right to know the truth, but they are not at all sitting well with the BNP supporters. Besides, an amendment to the constitution to do away with the earlier agreed upon system of care-taker administrations to oversee elections has been enacted unilaterally. This act was even taken contrary to the wishes of Hasina appointed Supreme Court, which though ruled against the care-taker government system, opined that it should be slowly phased out. In any event, no one expects the opposition to accept such a unilateral change to the constitution for fear of election manipulation.

Sheikh Hasina commissioned a controversial tribunal, which is to begin shortly the trial of the alleged war-crimes during the war of independence of some 40 years ago. The accused are being deprived of any legal help from outside the country. Oddly, her father with his enormous power didn’t envision such a disruptive and unsettling trial. Her apparent target is to wrestle the opposition forces of Jamaate Islami. Although she is trying to justify her action on ground of controlling fundamentalism, many countries including the U.S. have expressed reservations about this trial. She remains unfazed.

She stripped Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus from his position in the Grameen Bank, which he had founded to promote micro-credit among the rural poor, by using trumped-up charges and his age. She did this without even waiting for the investigation report that she had ordered, which later cleared him of any wrong doing. His obvious crime was that he was becoming too popular. Prof. Yunus’s popularity was casting a shadow over Sheikh Hasina’s plan to make her father “the greatest Bengali of the millennium”, and at the same time making him a potential rival in future elections.

These actions clearly epitomize Bangladeshi politics, where such personal vendetta has time and again overtaken national interests! As personal vengeance has now become more fierce and intense, the situation is getting even more precarious day by day.

Currently, there are four major players in Bangladesh politics, and each holds substantial power. They are: the two parties that the two ladies lead and control, the Islamist group of which Jamaate Islami Party is a part of, and finally the army. Given the intensity and scope of the present conflict, the ensuing power struggle is thus likely to turn ugly.

The actions of Hasina’s administration are clearly on collision course, and the response by the aggressive opposition, led by Khaleda Zia, is equally stern. The Islamist group itself is a very formidable force. It has demonstrated its strength in 2005 by successfully exploding over 400 bombs in 300 locations and claiming the lives of judges, lawyers and policemen with their suicide attackers. The group has also been implicated in the notorious grenade attack in 2004 on the rally of the then opposition leader Sheikh Hasina. Though she survived, the attack took the lives of 22 people including the wife of the country’s current President. As to the army, it has so far seized state power on three occasions, the latest one being in 2007.

Democracy was never given a chance to flourish in Bangladesh. Its system of governance, including the army rule, was centered and built on individual leadership cult. It has since given birth to the dual family dynastic rules. The existing system may at best be termed as democratic authoritarianism in which the country seems to be locked in for now.

If the country’s past violent history and the present realities of the Middle East are any guide, the family dynastic rules in Bangladesh will only bring more chaos and confusion where neither democracy nor economy would get a chance to prosper. Yet, with such a well perceived gloomy outlook, no one expects a change in the key players’ stance on any crucial issue. So the world must wait to see what the next political turmoil brings to Bangladesh!

P/S — Please scroll down for the authors’ BIO

   Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.
Sam Vaknin is the author of “Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited” and Editor-in-Chief at Global Politician

1. Italy, the euro, and the US dollar

On November 24, 2010, I published (in Global Politician and elsewhere) an article titled “Italy will Kill the Euro.” Six months later, credit rating agencies have downgraded Italy’s outlook from “stable” to “negative.” Italy is in worse shape than most members of the European Union (EU): at 6% of GDP, it has an ostensibly sustainable budget deficit, but its external debt (now close to 120% of GDP) is higher than that of the most egregious wastrels in the bloc, Greece and Ireland included. Italy’s banking sector is over-exposed to borrowers in Central and Eastern Europe, a region habitually pendulating between recovery and economic calamity. If Italy goes Greece’s and Ireland’s way, the EU and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – already over-extended by serial bailouts – will be unable to stem the red tide. Italy may actually effectively default and, in the process, ruin the euro and restore the US dollar to its erstwhile glory.

2. Korean Unification

By late 2010, a succession war was simmering in North Korea. His panoply of suddenly-bestowed senior political and military posts notwithstanding, the generals and military establishment are less than happy and impressed with Kim Jong-un, the younger son of the Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il. Each side flexes muscles in an attempt to burnish their nationalist and martial credentials. The outcomes of this internecine conflict are ominous: a series of ever-escalating military skirmishes with South Korea and the ramping up of North Korea’s already burgeoning nuclear weapons program.

North Korea’s leaders are likely to try to reform their country’s economy and introduce capitalism, but this will fail. The regime in North Korea is all but dead on its feet. These are its last days. China is facing the terrifying spectacle of a crony failed state with tens of millions of starved and destitute potential refugees swarming across its porous and indefensible borders. There is only one solution to all the problems of the Korean Peninsula: unification. The parties came close to discussing it in secret talks in 2002 and then again in 2009.

3. China’s Economy and the Second Great Depression

As I predicted in an article published on February 22, 2009 and titled “The Next 18 Months: Recession, False Recovery, Depression“, the years 2010-2011 saw a false recovery from the Great Recession of 2008-2009. Mounting sovereign debts crises in Europe and an anemic rebound in America’s economy were more than outweighed by the emergence of Asia as a global powerhouse. Yet, the warning signs were there: China’s economic “miracle” was based on unsustainable dollops of government largesse and monetary quantitative easing. This led to the formation of asset bubbles (mainly in real-estate) and to pernicious inflation. The Chinese authorities’ attempts to clamp down on rampant speculation and price gouging are too little, too late. The economy will slow down considerably and the Chinese house of cards will collapse ominously and swiftly. This will bring the entire global economic edifice into disarray with mounting imbalances and increased risk-aversion among investors. The second phase of the global crisis will resemble closely the Great Depression with massive write-offs in the values of equities and mounting, two-digit, unemployment rates everywhere.

4. Israeli-Arab War

The Arab Spring of 2011 empowered Islamist and other anti-Israeli elements in Arab society. Israel and its allies, the reactionary Arab regimes, were long and justly perceived by the oppressed average Arab as outposts of American (and, previously, British) mercantilist neo-imperialism. The popular uprisings unseated these entrenched dictatorial elites and replaced them with military and Muslim ruling classes bent on restoring the anti-Israeli hostility and enmity that characterized the Middle-East before 1979. In time, this — and heavy Iranian meddling – will lead to an all out war between Israel and its neighbours, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with any certainty.

5. Russian Liberalism

On June 2, 2010, I published an article titled “Putin’s Last Days.” Putin is on his way out. With this clownish “strong man” gone, Russia is bound to become a far more liberal and democratic place. Whether Medvedev wins the next presidential elections or not, Russia’s oligarchs are a dying breed; the rule of law is asserting itself; property rights will be restored; a new cadre of politicians — young, educated, self-confident, and cosmopolitan (though not necessarily pro-Western) — will take Russia forward and free it from its pecuniary dependence on oil.

6. First Cyberwar

The Stuxnet worm delivered a paralyzing payload via cyberspace, thus heralding the first salvo in the gathering storm of cyberwars. Prior to Stuxnet, hacker networks — both government-mandated and self-assembling — attacked the Internet infrastructure of perceived enemies (the prime examples being Russian attacks on the Baltic States and on Georgia and Chinese attacks on dissidents’ accounts with Google). The resulting disruption was minimal and transient. Not so with Stuxnet which ruined the Iranian uranium enrichment infrastructure single-handedly and remotely and without a single casualty among the Israelis who launched it. Similar offensives will become common in the near future.

7. Change of Guard in International Institutions

The composition of and voting rights within the United Nations and its organs (including the World Bank) as well as other multilateral institutions (such as the IMF — International Monetary Fund) reflect the world as it was in 1946, after the Second World War. A lot has changed since then, most notably the emergence of Asia as the fastest-growing region, both economically and militarily and the relative decline of an insular Europe and depleted USA. Within the next few years, the upper echelons of the IMF and the UN will be revamped to reflect these gargantuan historic shifts: we will see Asians and Africans running the world.

8. A Dictatorship in Turkey

Snubbed by the EU (European Union) and the USA alike, Turkey is re-orienting itself. Once again, it is playing the role of a regional potentate, with ties to regimes of all sorts: veteran and unsavoury; emerging and fundamentalist; terrorism-prone and peace-seeking. Turkey’s military and its secular political establishment have lost their decades-old grip on power. Moderate Islam, reified by Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan, is slowly being transformed into an authoritarian, fundamentalist, anti-Western pale imitation of Pakistan and Iran. Its erstwhile warm relationship with Israel is frayed. Media freedoms and online access are curtailed and censored. Human rights are again breached and violated blatantly (especially where Kurds are concerned). Turkey’s role in NATO, its special relationship with the USA, and its EU accession are all in doubt.

9. War in Pakistan

The second war between the USA and China — directly and via proxies — will be fought on Pakistani, Indian, and Afghani soil. As an increasingly-Islamized Pakistan veers away from its frenemy, the United States, and towards its new-found ally, China, America’s vital interests in Afghanistan, India, Japan, and South Korea are at stake. Skirmishes will evolve into a full-fledged conflict, with a slate of nuclear powers as adversaries: Pakistan, India, China, and the USA/NATO.

10. Dissipated Cloud Computing

As the inherent instability, unreliability, and unsafety of cloud computing are demonstrated time and again, businesses and, later, users will shy away from it and return to the safe havens of their servers, laptops, tablets, notebooks, netbooks, and PCs. Hyped today, cloud computing and its derivatives (Chrome Operating System, for instance) is a fad and will become the exclusive reserve of giant consumers of storage such as Google and Amazon. Other predictions: Bing will triumph over Google as it gains access to Facebook’s and Skype’s vast treasure troves of user-generated information; the PC will make a comeback (of course, transformed beyond recognition); Windows Mobile (Nokia) and Android will overtake Apple’s iOS.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————

   Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.
Sam Vaknin is the author of “Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited” and Editor-in-Chief at Global Politician

UPDATED May 10, 2011 at 13:30 CET

On May 2, a mere few hours after bin-Laden was assassinated in Pakistan, and then again on May 4, I published in Global Politician and the Chronicle Media Group detailed articles regarding the raid, its background, and its unfolding (the entire texts of these 2 articles are appended below). On May 5, I reiterated my claims in an exclusive interview I granted to the Macedonian weekly Publika and in a televised investigative journalism show (“Vo Centar” with Vasko Eftov).

My articles contained numerous bits of information that were confirmed only days later. Here is a partial list:

I was the first journalist to expose the fact the Obama and other senior figures in the administration watched the raid unfold in a live feed. I even identified the ultra-secret and sophisticated equipment involved (helmet-cams with small, mobile drop-down transmitters). A day later, BBC confirmed that indeed this may well have been the materiel used in the operation.

I wrote that bin-Laden and his family moved into the compound in late 2005 and early 2006. This was confirmed on May 7 by Amal, his young Yemenite widow. Moreover, on May 5 and 6, the CNN made public utility bills (connection to the gas network, for instance) which prove that the building complex was not in full use prior to April 2006.

I further asserted on May 2 that both the ISI and the CIA knew about bin-Laden’s whereabouts and were involved in procuring the land, constructing the structure and transferring him and his family there. On May 5 and 6, the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence service) insisted in a series of press releases that it had corresponded in 2009 with the CIA and sought their input regarding the fate of bin-Laden’s brood, mentioning the compound specifically and repeatedly. On May 4, the CIA admitted that they have been watching the compound for months prior to the raid. Such prolonged presence in a sensitive militarized border town would, of course, have been impossible without the close collaboration of the ISI.

Moreover: in an interview the aforementioned talkative bin-Laden widow gave to the Daily Mail, she astoundingly made the statement that, back in 2001, after the invasion of Afghanistan, her infamous husband and she crossed the border and entrusted themselves to the “Pakistani government” (presumably the ISI). Bin-Laden, she averred, was stashed among friendly tribesmen in villages (exactly as is set out in my articles) until 2006. This was further confirmed by Reuters on May 7.

In my articles I said that 3 men and 1 woman died in the raid and that bin-Laden was unarmed. This was later confirmed by everyone involved, including the Pakistani authorities. The 3 men were bin-Laden’s son and 2 couriers who were mistakenly (and intentionally) misidentified as 2 Pakistani brothers (actually, they were not brothers and they were not Pakistani). The woman was one of bin-Laden’s entourage, possibly one of his wives.

Finally, all manner of “experts” explained why bin-Laden didn’t have weapons, bodyguards, escape tunnels, and hidden rooms behind double walls in his compound: he didn’t want to stand out, they said. But, in the lawless and crime-ridden border areas of Pakistan everybody who is anybody has bodyguards and is armed to the teeth. Indeed, bin-Laden provoked the intense curiosity of locals and the CIA alike precisely BECAUSE he did NOT have any of these amenities. Thus isolated, he was forced to rely on couriers and one of them allegedly led the investigators to his doorstep.

Sources (note the dates, days after in have published my articles):

•   http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/07/us-obama-statement-idUSTRE74107920110507

•   http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/06/us-binladen-pakistan-photos-idUSTRE7450G720110506

•   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384420/Osama-Bin-Ladens-wife-talks-moving-cave-terror-chief.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

•   http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/world/asia/08binladen.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

•   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden%27s_hideout_compound

•   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_of_Osama_bin_Laden

•   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

UPDATE DATED May 4, 2011 at 20:30 CET

The United States shared with the Israelis the two-way wireless and satelite video feeds (provided by the raiding party’s helmet-cams and drop-down transmitters) of the assault on bin-Laden’s compound. At a certain point an officer is heard asking for instructions “from the Commander (in Chief Obama – SV)”. Obama then ordered him to “terminate target” (i.e, to kill bin-Laden) although this is not captured on tape. Obama gave the lethal command from an underground situation room, flanked by Panetta, Clinton, Gates, and other senior officials.

In 2001, shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA whisked bin-Laden and his family to a safe haven in Pakistan, among friendly tribesmen who served as guides and supplier for American special forces on the ground. The CIA, in cahoots with Pakistan’s ISI, then embarked on the construction of the compound that was stormed on May 1, 2011. In 2005-6, bin-Laden and his family were transferred there and virtually imprisoned. Bin-Laden was not allowed to carry weapons and he had no bodyguards. The entire fortress-like edifice was locked from the outside. The CIA allowed only couriers to come and go with censored mail and minimal money orders. One of the couriers was a Tunisian and the other Jordanian. They both collaborated with the Mossad and with the CIA on multiple assignments.

The decision to assassinate bin-Laden was adopted after he was repeatedly heard threatening to expose what he knew about various covert operations in the USA and elsewhere should he not be allowed free movement.

WRITTEN MAY 2, 2011 at 10 AM CET

On May 1, 2011 Osama bin-Laden was allegedly shot in the head by Navy Seals during an operation in Pakistan. The order came directly from US President Obama and he also monitored the firefight from the White House Situation Room as it unfolded.

Bin-Laden’s body was first whisked away to Afghanistan where DNA samples were taken and an autospy was performed. The cadaver was then returned to Pakistan and buried at sea. Thus, we have only the word of the United States administration – not known for its veracity – that he is no longer with us.

But, even if true, why wasn’t bin-Laden taken alive? Presumably, had he been abducted, he would have proven to be an invaluable source of intel on crucial national security issues facing the United States. A shot to the head, execution-style, indicates orders to shoot to kill (as was later confirmed by the CIA and the military – SV). Why give up such a cornucopia of information that cannot be obtained in any other way? To shut him up, of course. A live bin-Laden would have had to be debriefed, interrogated, and then judged in a court of law or military tribunal. To prevent multiple embarrassments and a myriad incriminating revelations involving multiple administrations, he had to be disposed of summarily.

All powers are self-interested – but America is narcissistic. It is bent on exploiting and, having exploited, on discarding. It is a global Dr. Frankenstein, spawning mutated monsters in its wake. Its “drain and dump” policies consistently boomerang to haunt it.

Both Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega – two acknowledged monsters – were aided and abetted by the CIA and the US military. America had to invade Panama to depose the latter and to molest Iraq for the second time in order to force the removal of the former.

The Kosovo Liberation Army, an American anti-Milosevic pet, provoked a civil war in Macedonia till 2001. Osama bin-Laden, another CIA golem, restored to the USA, on September 11, 2001 some of the material it so generously bestowed on him in his anti-Russian days.

Normally the outcomes of expedience, the Ugly American’s alliances and allegiances shift kaleidoscopically. Pakistan and Libya were transmuted from foes to allies in the fortnight prior to the Afghan campaign. Milosevic has metamorphosed from staunch ally to rabid foe in days.

This capricious inconsistency casts in grave doubt America’s sincerity – and in sharp relief its unreliability and disloyalty, its short term thinking, truncated attention span, soundbite mentality, and dangerous, “black and white”, simplism.

In its heartland, America is isolationist. Its denizens erroneously believe that the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave is an economically self-sufficient and self-contained continent. Yet, it is not what Americans trust or wish that matters to others. It is what they do. And what they do is meddle, often unilaterally, always ignorantly, sometimes forcefully.

Elsewhere, inevitable unilateralism is mitigated by inclusive cosmopolitanism. It is exacerbated by provincialism – and American decision-makers are mostly provincials, popularly elected by provincials. As opposed to Rome, or Great Britain, America is ill-suited and ill-equipped to micromanage the world.

It is too puerile, too abrasive, too arrogant and it has a lot to learn. Its refusal to acknowledge its shortcomings, its confusion of brain with brawn (i.e., money or bombs), its legalistic-litigious character, its culture of instant gratification and one-dimensional over-simplification, its heartless lack of empathy, and bloated sense of entitlement are detrimental to world peace and stability.

America is often called by others to intervene. Many initiate conflicts or prolong them with the express purpose of dragging America into the quagmire. It then is either castigated for not having responded to such calls – or reprimanded for having responded. It seems that it cannot win. Abstention and involvement alike garner it only ill-will.

But people call upon America to get involved because they know it rises to the challenge. America should make it unequivocally and unambiguously clear that – with the exception of the Americas – its sole interests rest in commerce. It should make it equally known that it will protect its citizens and defend its assets, if need be by force.

Indeed, America’s – and the world’s – best bet are a reversion to the Monroe and (technologically updated) Mahan doctrines. Wilson’s Fourteen Points brought the USA nothing but two World Wars and a Cold War thereafter. It is time to disengage.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————

   Columnist – John Sammon
Eight heavily armed men dressed in camouflage show up at a door and knock. A servant answers the door.

“Excuse me sir, we’re working our way through college. Would you like to buy an encyclopedia?”

The servant disappears into a hallway and a bearded man appears. Bin laden.

“Would you like to buy an encyclopedia, the Saudi updated version?” the college student asks.

Bin laden nods. He reaches into his robe like he’s going for a gun.

“Get interested in this.” The college students open fire.

BLAM!

“Take that!”

BLAM!

“How about another?”

BLAM!

“How about one on the layaway plan?”

BLAM!

“Hey Marcel, watch this.”

BLAM!

“You want leaded or unleaded?”

BLAM!

“One Lump or Two?”

BLAM!

Evidently, Bin laden thought he could out-draw eight Navy Seals who already had their guns out. It would have been nice if he could have been taken alive to stand trial and demonstrate the rule of law Americans like to say they’re so fond of.

Thus opens a new phase in the soon-to-be 25th unresolved year in the war on terror, the Upscale Condo Mansion Gated Community Raid. Navy Seals disguised as college students go to exclusive residential neighborhoods and dispatch a miserable wretch.

Meanwhile, George Bush, the world’s other arch terrorist, claims credit for the operation. He feels like donning his old National Guard uniform that he wore to avoid service in Vietnam, the uniform he seldom wore because he skipped Guard meetings. Or better yet, the flight suit he paraded around in when he posted that dopey “Mission Accomplished” sign on the aircraft carrier, years before thousands of U.S. servicemen were killed.

Bush, who with his lord-high inquisitor fat-boy Dick Cheney, killed a million Iraqis to get even with Bin Laden and his handful of wretches for 9-11 even though Iraq had nothing to do with it.

Bush, who validated torture and wiretap spying on Americans and setting up an American Gulag Archipelago of secret torture camps in foreign countries and threw out the Geneva Convention to which America for decades had adhered. There would be no trials like the Nuremburg trials to demonstrate the rule of law by the civilized countries of the world.

Bush and Cheney with the apathy of the American people operated under the principal that to combat terror, you have to abandon democratic ideals and act more like the terrorists.

Such a man deserves praise.

And isn’t it fascinating in a Freudian way that the operation to get Bin laden was partly code-named Geronimo after the famous Chiracahua leader of the 1880s. Native American Indian activists were angered the government compared Bin laden to Geronimo. I get it, our government leaders, most of them paunchy white boys in their 60s, grew up watching John Wayne movies.

They can’t help compare today’s Middle Eastern terrorists with Indians. Subconscious and psychologically, it reminds them of snug safe days as five-year-olds when the world was simple, when they curled around a TV set with a cup of hot coco watching Wayne dispatch Indians and bad guys, the annihilation of our native population complimentarily called by racist America as the “Winning of the West.”

Gopher Killed: Will Ferrell Brutally Spoofs George Bush on Bin Laden

There are similarities between the Indian Wars of the 1870s and today’s struggle against terrorists. In both cases, the government spent billions of dollars and involved millions of troops going after perceived ignorant savages who never numbered more than a few thousand. In an eerily reminiscent echo of the present, in 1875, Kiowa, Comanche, Cheyenne and Arapaho warriors were imprisoned in a prison in Ft. Augustine, Florida, erased from memory without trial or attorney, not even 100 miles from Guantanamo.

The Bin laden operation was also code-named “Neptune.” This ties in nicely because in a further bizarre twist Bin laden, who spent his life on sand dunes, was buried at sea. The fish probably felt like throwing him back.

And look at the now-famous picture of the big-shots in the Pentagon White House War Room watching the Bin laden raid results. Obama looks like a college kid who wandered into the room, which is what his Republican detractors and even some of his white subordinates probably consider him to be, a college kid on an ethnic studies scholarship temporarily occupying the White House. Hillary Clinton’s hand is to her mouth as though readying to chew her nails, as though she’s watching a favorite soap opera.

By the looks on their faces you’d think they were planning D Day.

Is this the same country that took on Nazi Germany and Japan, the most powerful military power in the history of the world terrified of a bunch of wretches who 50 years ago would have been stealing sheep?

It’s to Obama’s credit that he didn’t pose with the body for photos. You can tell a lot about the immorality of a society in the way they pose with bodies for propaganda purposes, like we did with the sons of Saddam Hussein, or even the Abu Ghraib Prison dungeon S&M pictures where the bound bodies were still alive.

As we celebrate and Obama says “We won’t forget,” how come our memory is selective?

It begs the question. Is America incapable of doing wrong? Do Americans ever study the history of events that lead up to the current situation?

Is America operating in a vacuum, or an ivory tower?

For example, Ronald Reagan, everybody’s icon and hero, backing right-wing death squads in South America that killed millions. Or giving Israel a blank check to run wild and dispossess Palestinians which fueled the current conflict and gave Bin laden the opportunity to prominence he never should have attained. Or supporting Saddam Hussein with military equipment and guarantees leading him to miscalculate he could invade Kuwait and we wouldn’t do anything about it.

Or meddling in the internal affairs for economic or natural resources gain (oil) of a dozen other countries.

Or Bush killing a million Iraqis over false weapons of mass destruction to get even with Bin laden. We love the Saudis even though the 9-11 plotters including Bin laden were Saudis.

Today, we’ve largely forgotten the Viet Cong. We have friendly relations with North Vietnam. Our tourists go there. See, we do forget in a sense. Over time.

WHY DO WE FORGET WHERE AMERICA HAS BEEN WRONG?

Has America ever been wrong?

We’re never wrong, and even if we are, it’s not wrong. That’s called being a patriot. Ask Bush and Cheney.

————————————————————–

High Crimes & Misdemeanors: Why Condoleezza Rice Should Be in Jail For Life – (Part 1)