Re: [Marxism] Zero Hour: Calibrating the Case for Intervention in pakistan

[Dennis Brasky <dmozart1756@xxxxxxxxx>]

>
>  Empire Burlesque - Chris Floyd
>
>  Posted: 07 May 2009 07:33 AM PDT
>
> A reader writes:
>
> Do you see Pakistan as an unstable republic with nukes? If yes, is there
> anything you might approve of/wish for the United States (and others) to do
> to preemptively mitigate the risks that might ensue from political chaos
> there? For the sake of argument, let's pretend that the US has pure motives.
>
> We're obviously going to hear many arguments for why "Pakistan is the one
> (even if you didn't like our other interventions)," how Abdul Qadeer Khan
> pals around with 
> terrorists<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/06/pakistani-scientist-abdul-qadeer-khan>,
> etc.
>
> So, it would be helpful to know what canny critics of American imperialism
> see as the maximum degree of intervention that would be appropriate.
>
>
> My response:
>
>
> One of the largest empires the world has ever known – complete with
> second-largest nuclear arsenal in the world, capable of wiping out the
> planet several times over – disintegrated completely in the early 1990s,
> breaking into a myriad of different nations, and chaotic polities, some of
> which went to war with each other while others had internal wars that raged
> for years. Corruption was rampant, society collapsed, death rates climbed,
> birth rates plunged – all of this, again, with a vast nuclear arsenal
> looming over it all. Yet I don't recall anyone recommending any U.S.
> military intervention to "preemptively mitigate the risks that might ensue
> from political chaos" in the break-up of the Soviet Union, to which I was
> eye-witness for a time. The only difference I can see in regard to Pakistan
> is that the scale of the risk and its possible global ramifications are
> actually much, much *smaller*.
>
> Oh, I suppose there is one other difference, of course. The Pakistanis are
> Other – dark-skinned, Asian, Muslim, etc. – whereas most people perceived
> the Soviets to be like Us – white, European, etc. (Even though, in reality,
> many of the peoples of the Soviet Union were in fact dark-skinned, Asian and
> Muslim.) And thus, as Other, we must assume that a) they are so primitive,
> childish and incapable that they need real people like Us to step and save
> them from themselves and sort out their affairs; and b) they are so wild and
> crazed that they will seize the first possible opportunity to grab those
> nukes and blow up half the world. This is precisely the level of witless
> prejudice that underlies -- or indeed, defines -- any argument for
> "intervention" in Pakistan, of whatever degree. No matter how the argument
> is tricked out with think-tank speak and the savvy tropes of *realpolitik*,
> it actually goes no further than that.
>
> As far as unstable republics with nukes go, it is far more likely that
> primitive religionists will seize the US nuclear arsenal and use it in the
> Lord's service to blow up half the world, as anyone who has watched the
> ever-spreading 'Christianization' of the American military will know. [Jeff
> Sharlett has much to say on this point in 
> Harper's<http://markcrispinmiller.com/2009/04/harpers-cover-story-jesus-killed-muhammad-on-newsstands-tomorrow.html>,
> and Mark Crispin Miller provides more links as 
> well<http://markcrispinmiller.com/2009/04/the-crusade-for-a-christian-military-by-jeff-sharlet-and-much-more-from-mrff.html>
> .]
>
> As Juan Cole and many others have 
> noted<http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175069>,
> the picture now being painted of Pakistan on the verge of a Taliban takeover
> is wildly off the mark, and completely ignores the reality (there's *that
> *damn thing again!) of Pakistan, which, as I pointed out 
> yesterday<http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1756-rolling-out-the-product-a-new-full-court-press-for-pakistan-war.html>,
> is actually filled with millions upon millions of ordinary, literate,
> peace-loving people, committed to democracy and the rule of law: principles
> for which they courageously risked their lives and liberties in ousting an
> American-backed military tyrant *just a few months ago.*
>
> But now, suddenly -- because it serves the needs of a militarist empire
> trapped in the worsening quagmire of another pointless, murderous,
> destablizing, hate-breeding "intervention" next door -- these same
> Pakistanis are being painted as a mob of barbarians who are either cravenly
> capitulating to terrorists – or becoming terrorists themselves.
>
> As someone who lives surrounded by people of Pakistani origin, I find this
> virulent racism and dehumanization – which is being implied and/or directly
> expressed by the highest officials of our political establishment, including
> the "progressive," "liberal" Obama Administration – to be a sickening,
> shameful abomination.
>
> I have no idea what a canny critic of American imperialism might say on the
> subject, but in my own decidedly uncanny opinion, the maximum degree of
> military intervention in Pakistan that would be appropriate is this: *zero.
> *
> **
> <
> http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1758-zero-hour-calibrating-the-case-for-intervention.html
> ><http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/empire_burlesque/~3/TKKRRRGULmw/1758-zero-hour-calibrating-the-case-for-intervention.html>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu