naked capitalism

DownSouth says:

Re: “Obama murdered bin Laden for a fistful of votes” Haaretz

• The president, who came to power with liberal slogans and a pose of reconciliation with the Muslim world, speaks like Martin Luther King but operates in the international area like a right-wing/conservative outlaw from Alabama.

• Murder in cold blood (especially in a foreign country ) contradicts the principles of international law, but thanks to military, economic and political power – and not for reasons of principle – there is no chance that Obama will have to pay for it.

Yes, but the American people will pay, and pay, and pay for Obama’s treachery and moral depravity.

Richard Kline says:

On the former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan is a most unsavory individual with a lot of blood on his hands. However, the article linked is worth reading in its entirety for the pickings which can be gleaned. The socio-political context surrounding Israel is profoundly shaken, and Israeli policy must and certainly is being redefined on the fly at this time; we’ll see by, say, the autumn what they settle on. Dagan will be one of perhaps a dozen people at most who shape that policy, and his (extremely rare) public remarks in this article are surely a part of signaling his dimensions. There were two things that stood out, to me.

Dagan’s “Only shmucks want to do Iran” remarks strongly suggest that the pragmatists want to bury that idea deep and full. Of course, Israel was _never_ going to bomb Iran on its own or even as a participant; that is my considered opinion. Dagan himself enumerates some of the most salient reasons why in this very article; he’s definitely in touch with reality in that regard. The whole idea was for Israel to egg on _the United States_ to bomb Iran for them, just like Israel succeeded in doing in promoting the Americans to ‘take care of Iraq’ for Israel. Worked once, didn’t it? All that passing bogus intel, press releases on a steady media drip on the [such and such] threat; all that huffing on maybe-probably we might just be about to go a week from some Tuesday swamp fog that’s been put out. Well, the US didn’t go there, so to speak, and the context has radically changed. So Dagan wants, it would appear, to pull the plug on the media campaign for an action which will never happen.

The other remark with stood out was Dagan’s opinion to the effect that ‘nothing has changed’ in the Near East during the events of this year. Now to be sure there are definite elements of wishful thinking in that remark. The Palestinian unity deal, should it prove effective, is a significant change, and there are others, mostly incipient rather than realized. But in the broad sweep there is an armature of realist accuracy in his remarks worth bearing in mind. The ‘deep state’ of corrupt elites have been uprooted _nowhere_ so far; not in any country including those where the leadership of recent times was evicted, such as in Tunisia and Egypt. In other places such as Yemen where the elite’s power is compromised the elite is nonetheless not even gone. In others such as Jordan and Algeria, promises of ‘reform’ are utterly worthless and will surely be of now potency, if they aren’t simply buried in a few months behind cosmetic statements as is most likely the intended course. So yes, from the power-political standpoint, ‘nothing of consequence’ is substantively changed. Yet.

Changed yet, that one word unuttered in his remarks. Because it is the expectation and drive of the masses which has changed. To someone like Meir Dagan, that quality is meaningless. States are run by men of power, like him; the populace are herds of turkeys. When the turkeys won’t be herded anymore, and in fact begin a general strike, then we see whose surmise holds. So while nothing at the altitude of Meir Dagan has changed, everything at the altitude of Mohamed Bouazizi has changed. Dagan would like to believe that anything happening down there is inconsequential to him and his like. I suspect he is wrong. Place your bets ‘n’ take your stations, folks, the wheel of fortune’s cranked to fine pitch.

eric anderson says:

Re “Coast to coast people are moving their money.”

I applaud efforts to take away profits from bailed-out banks. I wish it was as simple to remove our support for public employee unions. The services they provide are essentially a monopoly, and they’ve bought politicians in many places the same way the banks have bought Congress. The only option to cut my support of the unions would be to move to a different city and state. Which I probably will do, if I am able.

Just remember, this moving your money business can work in a myriad of ways. Think of all the millionaires who have bugged out of New Jersey, and the businesses which will soon be leaving Illinois.

KFritz says:

Re: Obama murdered bin Laden

1) The geopolitical analysis is spot on. Never heard of the Brandt-Heath plan/conception (Heath was a Conservative!), but the neo-Liberals have triumphed.

2) I believe that if future historians have a chance, they’ll conclude that from the very beginning of the US war in Afghanistan, our opponent has been the Pakistani military, whose proxies the the Taliban are. The Talibs were indoctrinated in Pakistani madrassas, and trained and equipped by the Pakistani military, especially the ISI. They kept the Northern Alliance, most notably their arch-enemy Commander Masood, bottled up with superior weaponry, courtesy of Pakistan. Very predictably, they were easily defeated by the superior weaponry of the US.

After nearly ten years of indirect fighting, the raid on Abbottabad was the first direct attack against the Pakistani military on its home turf. It could be said to mirror 9/11. It took the Pakistani military four days to regain its composure, let the initial reactions dissipate, and cop an attitude of hurt indignation, but they’ve done it.

I hope that someone in the US defense/security establishment has had an epiphany and now conceives of the war from this realpolitik POV.

It would be very interesting to know the innermost thoughts of Pakistani civilian populations who have to tread oh so very carefully with the military, still the most powerful interest group in their ‘nation.’