Julian Assange and his cronies in crime have it in for the US. Why this is so is for psychiatrists not historians to determine. Today the desire of the supposed foe of secrecy in government launched his most direct attack on the security of the US and many other countries by releasing a cable which never, but never should have been classified only SECRET and thus available to the nimble fingers of the mentally skewed Bradley Manning.
The latest dispatch from the neitherworld of WikiLeaks details physical facilities identified by US embassies as critical to the security interests of the US. By any reckoning, this release puts both places and people squarely in the crosshairs of any individual or group wishing to wreak havoc. As such, it provides direct and substantial "aid and comfort" to enemies of the United States--and other countries as well such as the UK where several facilities are located. Admittedly any individual with even the minimal Internet skills of the Geek and a fertile imagination could have located the vast majority of the listed facilities without the assistance of WikiLeaks, but a list with the official imprimatur of the State Department makes each and every location more inviting.
This release escalates the damage caused by Assange by a significant extent. The previous dumps were, at most, embarrassing, with the caveat that longer term repercussions caused by reticence on the part of either American diplomats or their interlocutors may cause ripples of damage far more significant than the short term appearances indicate. This time WikiLeaks is intentionally and with malicious aforethought seeking material harm to the US and other countries, including civilian casualties.
This malice has been implicit in the earlier releases, but this time there is no mere implication--only direct challenge to the Obama administration. It is part of the Assange strategy of seeking to terrorize the US government into immunizing him and his organization against reprisals, legal or otherwise. It is also part and parcel of Assange's remarkable hubris, an arrogance which surpasses the capacity of mere words to describe adequately.
The Assange arrogance is resident in his belief that he alone has the moral authority to determine what constitutes a legitimate state secret. It is resident as well in his preposterous demand that President Obama resign if it can be shown that he knew of the spy-on-the-UN cable sent over the signature of Secretary of State Clinton. It is resident as well in his threat to decrypt a "poison pill" of state and corporate secrets currently on hard drives of Assange groupies around the world.
With respect to the threatened "poisoned pill" which purportedly includes unseemly details from Gitmo as well as footage showing an air attack in Afghanistan with civilian fatalities and details from such diverse corporate "bad guys" as Bank of America and BP, the answer is simple, "Publish and be damned!" No "revelations" such as these will topple the US. They will not even topple the president. It is an Assange bark without any real bite behind it.
Assange must know that the computer system to which Specialist Bradley had access was limited to low order material, classified at SECRET and below. The real hot metal on target stuff is not classified this low down the pole with the apparent unfortunate exception of the critical facilities list. The probability of any "poison pill" dump having any larger impact on the interests and security of the US than that contained in the critical facilities list is slim to none.
The real issue now that Assange has so blatantly thrown down the gauntlet is whether or not President Obama will show more backbone than a snail and order Cyber Command or some other, blacker, organ of state to go ahead and take WikiLeaks down for good. The challenge has been made. Will our commander-in-chief respond quickly, massively, and effectively to it?
The recurrent, distributed denial of service attacks carried out by legions of zombies from Asia, Russia, Africa, and the Central Asian Republics in recent days against WikiLeaks servers provides perfect cover to move in with the killer blow. It can be done without leaving any Made In the USA fingerprints, if the Clueless Guy in the Oval directs that it be done.
So far Mr Obama has treated the three WikiLeaks dumps with a measure of indifference which surpasses belief. He has done zilch either to counter the potential negative effects of the dumps, reassure the American and global public that steps have been taken to preclude any future repeats, or let Assange know he had picked on the wrong country and the wrong president.
Given that Assange, hiding behind his lawyers, has threated to unleash his version of a "thermonuclear bomb" with the promised/threatened "poison pill" of unexpurgated documents, the president must step up and strike back. Investigations by the Justice Department and explanations or apologies from the State Department do not cut the mustard now. Only direct and serious words--and actions--from the POTUS will be sufficient.
Come on, Barack, this Assange creature has made it mano a mano, so man up over it and slap the bastard and his buddies where it hurts.
Showing posts with label Julian Assange. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Julian Assange. Show all posts
Monday, December 6, 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
A Tribute To Honesty
Most of We the People like to think honesty is a good thing. Heck, we may even try to be honest and open in our interpersonal dealings. Sure, we are jaundiced--with good reason--with respect to the honesty of politicians, advertisers, journalists, and preachers of the frothing mouth persuasion. In some areas we are even given to joking about the amount of honesty on the part of practitioners.
There is an old saw regarding diplomacy, "A diplomat is an honest person sent to a foreign country to lie on behalf of his own." This mordant bit of semi-wit is undeserved. More it is flat out wrong.
Two aspects of a country's foreign relations establishment depend upon blunt candor and utter honesty. These are diplomacy and intelligence. While it may be necessary to lie to outsiders in pursuit of the diplomat's or intelligence officer's mission, both must be fully and candidly frank and honest in their reporting from the field. There is no room for fudging. No tolerance for heaping sweeteners on underlying sour realities. The diplomat must tell it like it is regardless of the hopes or fears of the denizens topside. Any shading, no matter how slight, in deference to what the folks upchannel might want to read is a sin against the national interest.
The WikiLeaks cables demonstrate that our representatives are doing their job correctly. The reports and accompanying assessments are bluntly honest. We the People are, therefore, being well served. The honesty, candor, and quality of the assessments are a very far cry from the sort of diplomatic traffic which passed from overseas to Foggy Bottom thirty and more years ago. And, that is a very good thing for our country.
Because journalists and even the academic experts quoted in the MSM are apparently unacquainted with history, there has been an unfortunate silence regarding just how superior the leaked documents are in honesty, bluntness, and incisive analysis when compared with the tripe and pablum passing for diplomatic cables during the long dark years following the Republican attacks on the State Department and its personnel during the waning days of the Truman administration.
The shrill cries of "Communist! Fellow traveler! Commie dupe!" which echoed in the halls of Congress and through the media of the day served to totally emasculate American diplomats. Diplomats high and low, accredited to countries great and small, were afraid to put the words of their interlocutors down on paper unless those words were precisely what the most ardent anti-communist in Congress or the press wanted to read. Likewise, our Foreign Service personnel were scared to death to write an assessment which would not pass muster with the most rabid anti-communist crusaders.
The fear of being hailed before some Senate committee and accused of being the person who "lost" some country or another to the Global Communist Menace assured that the decision makers inside the Beltway--even in the Oval--flew blind, deprived of the necessary eyes on the ground and the counsel of situationally aware professionals.
As a result, American foreign policy for thirty years consisted of aligning the US with each and every authoritarian regime which delivered short term order. As long as the local heavy promised to oppose Communism in all its many guises and kept a sufficiently strong lid on local discontent, one administration after another regardless of party pretended our "ally" was a staunch bastion of long term stability as well as free enterprise and, well, maybe, some sort of democratic appearances.
This approach--and all the many blunders which came with it--was not so much a policy as it was the default forced upon presidents and secretaries of state by sheer ignorance. That ignorance resulted from the unwillingness of Foreign Service personnel to be honest, blunt, and candid. The unwillingness of diplomats to be honest was the direct and completely predictable consequence of the unjustified and quite lethal attacks levied against their predecessors by totally irresponsible and self-seeking politicians riding the great wave of fear--fear of Communism.
The tree of ignorance bore us many poisoned fruits. In some cases--think Iran--the toxin of these fruit continues to infect the world. The Iranian object lesson by itself is proof positive of the crucial nature of honest reporting and frank assessments even when such is not welcomed in the rarefied air inside the Beltway.
Fortunately for our country and its interests, the professionals at State left the doldrums of cowardice some years ago as is illustrated convincingly in the WikiLeaks revelations. Our people abroad are telling it like it is and offering assessments which are trenchant, well founded, and highly useful. When Secretary of State Clinton argued the cables showed "diplomats doing the work of diplomacy," she spoke a truth of the highest order.
The worst impact of the data dump by Mr Assange's outfit is in its probable chilling effect upon both American diplomats and their foreign interlocutors. For good and sufficient reason--the fear of future leaks--neither will be as willing to speak or write forthrightly. While the impact may not be as devastating or long lasting as after the Republican scorched earth campaign of the McCarthy Era of Great Fear, any lowering of the candor quotient will harm our national interests.
The real work of diplomats is no more glitzy or glamorous than is the quotidian tasks of spooks. It consists of talking to people and reading things. It requires thinking. Analysis. Finally, it demands an ability to write and speak with cogency and effect. Most of all, the work of diplomats needs intellectual and moral courage.
That is, the diplomat in all times and places must be able to see things as they actually are and not as they might be hoped or feared to be. Then, the diplomat has to relay the results up the chain of command without any thought as to its impact on one's personal career let alone the opinions of those in Congress or the views of those who constitute the vast beast, the media.
Julian Assange as well as his media enablers at the NYT and other outlets and his source(s) such as the emotional and moral cripple Bradley Manning have conspired to impair the willingness and ability of our diplomatic personnel to do the job we pay them to do. A job, the cables show clearly, that all hands have been doing with great skill and dedication.
There is an old saw regarding diplomacy, "A diplomat is an honest person sent to a foreign country to lie on behalf of his own." This mordant bit of semi-wit is undeserved. More it is flat out wrong.
Two aspects of a country's foreign relations establishment depend upon blunt candor and utter honesty. These are diplomacy and intelligence. While it may be necessary to lie to outsiders in pursuit of the diplomat's or intelligence officer's mission, both must be fully and candidly frank and honest in their reporting from the field. There is no room for fudging. No tolerance for heaping sweeteners on underlying sour realities. The diplomat must tell it like it is regardless of the hopes or fears of the denizens topside. Any shading, no matter how slight, in deference to what the folks upchannel might want to read is a sin against the national interest.
The WikiLeaks cables demonstrate that our representatives are doing their job correctly. The reports and accompanying assessments are bluntly honest. We the People are, therefore, being well served. The honesty, candor, and quality of the assessments are a very far cry from the sort of diplomatic traffic which passed from overseas to Foggy Bottom thirty and more years ago. And, that is a very good thing for our country.
Because journalists and even the academic experts quoted in the MSM are apparently unacquainted with history, there has been an unfortunate silence regarding just how superior the leaked documents are in honesty, bluntness, and incisive analysis when compared with the tripe and pablum passing for diplomatic cables during the long dark years following the Republican attacks on the State Department and its personnel during the waning days of the Truman administration.
The shrill cries of "Communist! Fellow traveler! Commie dupe!" which echoed in the halls of Congress and through the media of the day served to totally emasculate American diplomats. Diplomats high and low, accredited to countries great and small, were afraid to put the words of their interlocutors down on paper unless those words were precisely what the most ardent anti-communist in Congress or the press wanted to read. Likewise, our Foreign Service personnel were scared to death to write an assessment which would not pass muster with the most rabid anti-communist crusaders.
The fear of being hailed before some Senate committee and accused of being the person who "lost" some country or another to the Global Communist Menace assured that the decision makers inside the Beltway--even in the Oval--flew blind, deprived of the necessary eyes on the ground and the counsel of situationally aware professionals.
As a result, American foreign policy for thirty years consisted of aligning the US with each and every authoritarian regime which delivered short term order. As long as the local heavy promised to oppose Communism in all its many guises and kept a sufficiently strong lid on local discontent, one administration after another regardless of party pretended our "ally" was a staunch bastion of long term stability as well as free enterprise and, well, maybe, some sort of democratic appearances.
This approach--and all the many blunders which came with it--was not so much a policy as it was the default forced upon presidents and secretaries of state by sheer ignorance. That ignorance resulted from the unwillingness of Foreign Service personnel to be honest, blunt, and candid. The unwillingness of diplomats to be honest was the direct and completely predictable consequence of the unjustified and quite lethal attacks levied against their predecessors by totally irresponsible and self-seeking politicians riding the great wave of fear--fear of Communism.
The tree of ignorance bore us many poisoned fruits. In some cases--think Iran--the toxin of these fruit continues to infect the world. The Iranian object lesson by itself is proof positive of the crucial nature of honest reporting and frank assessments even when such is not welcomed in the rarefied air inside the Beltway.
Fortunately for our country and its interests, the professionals at State left the doldrums of cowardice some years ago as is illustrated convincingly in the WikiLeaks revelations. Our people abroad are telling it like it is and offering assessments which are trenchant, well founded, and highly useful. When Secretary of State Clinton argued the cables showed "diplomats doing the work of diplomacy," she spoke a truth of the highest order.
The worst impact of the data dump by Mr Assange's outfit is in its probable chilling effect upon both American diplomats and their foreign interlocutors. For good and sufficient reason--the fear of future leaks--neither will be as willing to speak or write forthrightly. While the impact may not be as devastating or long lasting as after the Republican scorched earth campaign of the McCarthy Era of Great Fear, any lowering of the candor quotient will harm our national interests.
The real work of diplomats is no more glitzy or glamorous than is the quotidian tasks of spooks. It consists of talking to people and reading things. It requires thinking. Analysis. Finally, it demands an ability to write and speak with cogency and effect. Most of all, the work of diplomats needs intellectual and moral courage.
That is, the diplomat in all times and places must be able to see things as they actually are and not as they might be hoped or feared to be. Then, the diplomat has to relay the results up the chain of command without any thought as to its impact on one's personal career let alone the opinions of those in Congress or the views of those who constitute the vast beast, the media.
Julian Assange as well as his media enablers at the NYT and other outlets and his source(s) such as the emotional and moral cripple Bradley Manning have conspired to impair the willingness and ability of our diplomatic personnel to do the job we pay them to do. A job, the cables show clearly, that all hands have been doing with great skill and dedication.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
This Time The Leaks Really Hurt
As a historian dealing with national security affairs the Geek has been long frustrated and angered by the degree of secrecy surrounding diplomatic and military communications and other documents, even those dealing with the most mundane tactical matters. He has fought many skirmishes with the Minions of Secrecy in order to gain access to materials forty and more years old.
Many, many times when the documents have been released (usually with more than their fair share of thick black lines scattered throughout), the Geek has been surprised that the materials had ever been classified given their content. Many seem to have been stamped "Burn Before Reading" in order to protect egos, cover over errors of judgement, and otherwise maintain what one White House wallah called, "the mystique of government."
With that as background, the release today of a quarter million documents by the media organs favored by WikiLeaks, to say nothing of the actual WikiLeaks posting, does constitute real damage to the ability of American diplomats to carry out their most basic function. That task, the foundation of all embassy work, is to speak candidly with representatives of the host government and report back to Foggy Bottom in full, accurate, and blunt candor. While a degree of public prevarication is a requirement for diplomats, the need for internal honesty of fact and assessment is even more vital.
Diplomats who can not report honestly and frankly are a waste of public money. Likewise, a host government which cannot speak bluntly with American representatives constitutes a net liability for American interests. All hands everywhere in the world play the game the same way. All expect blunt honesty in all internal communications. All speak with forked tongues--a friendly, bland one for public consumption and an acidic sharp one in private. And, most importantly, all anticipate that the bluntness will stay all in the family so to speak.
Thanks to the treacherous actions of a weasel named Brandly Manning aided and abetted by a computer system which grants automatic access to any low level person with a Secret clearance, the honesty and frankness without which diplomacy in its many, many forms has been compromised. Over and above Private Manning is the shadowy Australian Julian Assange whose motives are declared to be pure beyond the ken of mere humans but who may well be a meretricious servant of men deeper in the dark for whom the United States and its actions are anathema.
The duo of Manning and Assange as well as their media facilitators such as the NYT have conspired and acted to cripple severely the capacity of the US to engage effectively in the normal tasks of diplomacy. They may even have damaged the American ability to formulate and execute foreign policy for years to come.
The only upside in the current affair is that none of the documents carried the highest category of classification. Bad as the damage done by the glimpse at the real deal of diplomatic doings has been, it would have been orders of magnitude worse had the Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information category been breeched as well.
The way in which damage has been done to US interests does not reside so much in what was actually disclosed, although some of that, such as the Yemeni president saying he has no problem with smuggled whiskey provided it is "good," will have immediate negative ramifications. The real damage will come when foreign policy makers find some item in the revelations which provides plausible public cover in rejecting an American demarche or an American request for cooperation on a matter of what can be seen as a coinciding national interest.
Most political leaders--and all who deal hands-on with foreign policy--understand how the game is played and will be disinclined to take offense at the contents of the released documents. Most will take a thank-God-it-didn't-happen-to-us attitude. But there will be exceptions, some genuine and others artificial. The exceptions may well hurt.
Also likely to hurt will be the effects of released materials upon the domestic opposition to some foreign governments discussed in the documents. Opposition groups will go over the trove with an eye for anything, any tiny tidbit which can be exploited to the disadvantage of the man or party in power. Foreign leaders friendly to the US are the most likely victims of this data mining process. That will hurt, particularly if they are either forced from office or compelled by the opposition to change pro-US policies.
Another way in which the release will hurt is that it will inhibit honesty both on the part of American diplomatic personnel and foreign interlocutors both inside and outside government. If secret materials are likely to become a matter of global knowledge, the only rational response is not to talk--at least not honestly and not to write--again or at least not honestly.
This release is no victory for the public's right to know. Most of the materials are properly classified and awaiting declassification is no unacceptable burden on Americans or foreign nationals. No genuine need has been served by the dreadful duo of Manning and Assange--except the needs of enemies of the United States and other civilized countries.
Many, many times when the documents have been released (usually with more than their fair share of thick black lines scattered throughout), the Geek has been surprised that the materials had ever been classified given their content. Many seem to have been stamped "Burn Before Reading" in order to protect egos, cover over errors of judgement, and otherwise maintain what one White House wallah called, "the mystique of government."
With that as background, the release today of a quarter million documents by the media organs favored by WikiLeaks, to say nothing of the actual WikiLeaks posting, does constitute real damage to the ability of American diplomats to carry out their most basic function. That task, the foundation of all embassy work, is to speak candidly with representatives of the host government and report back to Foggy Bottom in full, accurate, and blunt candor. While a degree of public prevarication is a requirement for diplomats, the need for internal honesty of fact and assessment is even more vital.
Diplomats who can not report honestly and frankly are a waste of public money. Likewise, a host government which cannot speak bluntly with American representatives constitutes a net liability for American interests. All hands everywhere in the world play the game the same way. All expect blunt honesty in all internal communications. All speak with forked tongues--a friendly, bland one for public consumption and an acidic sharp one in private. And, most importantly, all anticipate that the bluntness will stay all in the family so to speak.
Thanks to the treacherous actions of a weasel named Brandly Manning aided and abetted by a computer system which grants automatic access to any low level person with a Secret clearance, the honesty and frankness without which diplomacy in its many, many forms has been compromised. Over and above Private Manning is the shadowy Australian Julian Assange whose motives are declared to be pure beyond the ken of mere humans but who may well be a meretricious servant of men deeper in the dark for whom the United States and its actions are anathema.
The duo of Manning and Assange as well as their media facilitators such as the NYT have conspired and acted to cripple severely the capacity of the US to engage effectively in the normal tasks of diplomacy. They may even have damaged the American ability to formulate and execute foreign policy for years to come.
The only upside in the current affair is that none of the documents carried the highest category of classification. Bad as the damage done by the glimpse at the real deal of diplomatic doings has been, it would have been orders of magnitude worse had the Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information category been breeched as well.
The way in which damage has been done to US interests does not reside so much in what was actually disclosed, although some of that, such as the Yemeni president saying he has no problem with smuggled whiskey provided it is "good," will have immediate negative ramifications. The real damage will come when foreign policy makers find some item in the revelations which provides plausible public cover in rejecting an American demarche or an American request for cooperation on a matter of what can be seen as a coinciding national interest.
Most political leaders--and all who deal hands-on with foreign policy--understand how the game is played and will be disinclined to take offense at the contents of the released documents. Most will take a thank-God-it-didn't-happen-to-us attitude. But there will be exceptions, some genuine and others artificial. The exceptions may well hurt.
Also likely to hurt will be the effects of released materials upon the domestic opposition to some foreign governments discussed in the documents. Opposition groups will go over the trove with an eye for anything, any tiny tidbit which can be exploited to the disadvantage of the man or party in power. Foreign leaders friendly to the US are the most likely victims of this data mining process. That will hurt, particularly if they are either forced from office or compelled by the opposition to change pro-US policies.
Another way in which the release will hurt is that it will inhibit honesty both on the part of American diplomatic personnel and foreign interlocutors both inside and outside government. If secret materials are likely to become a matter of global knowledge, the only rational response is not to talk--at least not honestly and not to write--again or at least not honestly.
This release is no victory for the public's right to know. Most of the materials are properly classified and awaiting declassification is no unacceptable burden on Americans or foreign nationals. No genuine need has been served by the dreadful duo of Manning and Assange--except the needs of enemies of the United States and other civilized countries.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Diplomacy By Tribunal
The fallout from the latest WikiLeaks monster dump includes a shot of growth hormone for one of the most disturbing recent trends in the conduct of foreign relations. That new, dark development is an increasing reliance upon investigations conducted by tribunals operating under some sort of mandate from the UN or a subsidiary organization of the Really Big Folly By The Hudson.
The use of these tribunals, exemplified by the UN created travesty which goes by the name of the Goldstone Panel, is being expanded. An excellent example of this mission creep is found in the call for a special "study" of the ethics, legality, and general humanitarian propriety of the employment of unmanned lethal systems typified by the US operated Predator and Reaper UAVs. The long term goal of the "study" called for by the UNs new Special Rapporteur on Extrajudical Executions is the outlawing of these systems by international convention. In this, the new guy, Christof Heyns, hopes to further the campaign of demonization started by his predecessor, Phillip Alston.
Mr Alston saw the use of Predators and Reapers as being especially vile as they operated at a remove from the immediate combat zone and, worse, did not put the operators at any physical risk. The fact that the opposition command structure sought immunity from the consequences of its own actions by locating itself within the civilian population in a third country in no way bothered either Mr Alston or Mr Heyns. Neither worthy were concerned about the cavalier attitude held by the senior leadership of al-Qaeda, Taliban, or other similar groups toward the local non-combatants among whom they sheltered.
Heyns no more than Alston worried in the slightest that the unmanned systems were actually more accurate in their targeting than would be the case with manned platforms. Apparently, each man was most disturbed by the technological asymmetry favoring advanced countries such as the US and, horrors!, Israel.
The very success of the unmanned platform operations against leaders of groups practicing violent political Islam has built a momentum against the continued use of these systems. One can be sure that the call for a "study" will be strongly supported by states which facilitate and support the operations of groups pursuing violent political Islam. It is equally probable that states lacking equivalent technology but harboring deep hostility against the US and other Western countries will do the same. It is almost as likely that Great Powers such as Russia and China will support the "study" since their efforts in the unmanned systems would be exempt from any proposed restrictions.
In short, the "study" demand is an excellent example of the conduct of diplomacy, the search to advance one's own interests at the expense of the interests of others using a modification of the "tribunal" method. Since the notion of "arms limitation" has an appeal to people on the Left of the political spectrum and, since the object of the "limitation" is the US or other equally easy to demonize states, the approval for the "study" will be loud within the Left leaning elites of the US and Western Europe.
The same elites will loudly back the demands for investigations of the abuses committed by sectors of the Iraqi security forces set forth in some of the documents in the WikiLeaks dump. Of necessity, the investigations will focus on the US for alleged sins of omission as well as Iraq for sins of commission. In the eyes of some, including UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, the actions or inactions of both the US and the UK in Iraq merit probing.
The UN and its subsidiary Human Rights Council have already called for investigation. There is a good chance that Iran will seek to tag its search for a UN investigation of purported US government involvement in the events of 9/11 onto any review of American culpability for alleged war crimes or human rights abuses committed by Iraqi security forces. Admittedly, there is no logical let alone direct link between the two universes, but that sort of mundane consideration is of little merit in the UN.
The WikiLeaks "revelations" are likely to reinvigorate the search for "justice" by Turkey and its associates regarding the Israeli assault on the Mazi Marmora. The whatever-we-can-do-for-the-Palestinians crew will barnacle their cause to any inquiry into alleged Iraqi abuses. The new narrative will emphasize the unity between the US and its actions in Iraq and Israel and its actions vis a vis the West Bank and Gaza.
When night falls, the conclusion will be that the US turns a blind eye to the inhumane and inhuman acts of both its Iraqi and Israeli clients. The US will be branded as the facilitator of crimes against humanity in both Iraq and the Mideast. It will take only a very small slide down this very slippery slope to conclude the US not only facilitates and protects but also directly engages in the most vile abuses of human rights.
The goal of the narrative as well as the "studies" and "investigations" and "tribunals" on both the input and output end will be the global reduction of US influence by a consistent message of American indifference to human rights or the ethical conduct of military operations. Truth is not a consideration. Neither is that mythical beast, "justice." All that is important is the diminishing of American influence, American ability or will to play a major role in international politics.
Because "tribunals," "studies," and "investigations" seem to reek of an even handed pursuit of truth, they will gain both support and acceptance within the US and the West generally. The conclusions, no matter how unjustified or unjustifiable, will be warmly embraced by significant segments of the American and Western European population--the blame-America-first bunch.
It is this built in potential for support and acceptance which gives the new approach in diplomacy its appeal, It is what makes it so dangerous to the interests of the US and other civilized countries. The use of mechanisms which represent themselves to be detached, impartial, disinterested, which present themselves as judicial, uses the Western love of justice as a sovereign weapon against the West.
The enemies of civilization be they practitioners of violent political Islam, members of the profoundly alienated, self-hating Left of the West, or simply governments skilled in the pursuit of national interests have developed a new and powerful form of diplomacy. It is a form which uses the strengths of civilized states against them. It is a form of diplomacy for which we are poorly prepared to engage. It is a form of diplomacy which may well lubricate the skids to Western impotence.
WikiLeaks and the MSM have given the users of this new form of diplomacy a new venue in which to operate. WikiLeaks and the MSM have provided the enemies of civilization with a new set of tools to use against us.
The founder of WikiLeaks said "it is all about the truth." He is wrong. It is all about defeating the West and all it stands for.
Julian Assange has done a good job of work for whoever is paying his bills. The paymasters have chosen well. They got more than their money's worth.
The use of these tribunals, exemplified by the UN created travesty which goes by the name of the Goldstone Panel, is being expanded. An excellent example of this mission creep is found in the call for a special "study" of the ethics, legality, and general humanitarian propriety of the employment of unmanned lethal systems typified by the US operated Predator and Reaper UAVs. The long term goal of the "study" called for by the UNs new Special Rapporteur on Extrajudical Executions is the outlawing of these systems by international convention. In this, the new guy, Christof Heyns, hopes to further the campaign of demonization started by his predecessor, Phillip Alston.
Mr Alston saw the use of Predators and Reapers as being especially vile as they operated at a remove from the immediate combat zone and, worse, did not put the operators at any physical risk. The fact that the opposition command structure sought immunity from the consequences of its own actions by locating itself within the civilian population in a third country in no way bothered either Mr Alston or Mr Heyns. Neither worthy were concerned about the cavalier attitude held by the senior leadership of al-Qaeda, Taliban, or other similar groups toward the local non-combatants among whom they sheltered.
Heyns no more than Alston worried in the slightest that the unmanned systems were actually more accurate in their targeting than would be the case with manned platforms. Apparently, each man was most disturbed by the technological asymmetry favoring advanced countries such as the US and, horrors!, Israel.
The very success of the unmanned platform operations against leaders of groups practicing violent political Islam has built a momentum against the continued use of these systems. One can be sure that the call for a "study" will be strongly supported by states which facilitate and support the operations of groups pursuing violent political Islam. It is equally probable that states lacking equivalent technology but harboring deep hostility against the US and other Western countries will do the same. It is almost as likely that Great Powers such as Russia and China will support the "study" since their efforts in the unmanned systems would be exempt from any proposed restrictions.
In short, the "study" demand is an excellent example of the conduct of diplomacy, the search to advance one's own interests at the expense of the interests of others using a modification of the "tribunal" method. Since the notion of "arms limitation" has an appeal to people on the Left of the political spectrum and, since the object of the "limitation" is the US or other equally easy to demonize states, the approval for the "study" will be loud within the Left leaning elites of the US and Western Europe.
The same elites will loudly back the demands for investigations of the abuses committed by sectors of the Iraqi security forces set forth in some of the documents in the WikiLeaks dump. Of necessity, the investigations will focus on the US for alleged sins of omission as well as Iraq for sins of commission. In the eyes of some, including UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, the actions or inactions of both the US and the UK in Iraq merit probing.
The UN and its subsidiary Human Rights Council have already called for investigation. There is a good chance that Iran will seek to tag its search for a UN investigation of purported US government involvement in the events of 9/11 onto any review of American culpability for alleged war crimes or human rights abuses committed by Iraqi security forces. Admittedly, there is no logical let alone direct link between the two universes, but that sort of mundane consideration is of little merit in the UN.
The WikiLeaks "revelations" are likely to reinvigorate the search for "justice" by Turkey and its associates regarding the Israeli assault on the Mazi Marmora. The whatever-we-can-do-for-the-Palestinians crew will barnacle their cause to any inquiry into alleged Iraqi abuses. The new narrative will emphasize the unity between the US and its actions in Iraq and Israel and its actions vis a vis the West Bank and Gaza.
When night falls, the conclusion will be that the US turns a blind eye to the inhumane and inhuman acts of both its Iraqi and Israeli clients. The US will be branded as the facilitator of crimes against humanity in both Iraq and the Mideast. It will take only a very small slide down this very slippery slope to conclude the US not only facilitates and protects but also directly engages in the most vile abuses of human rights.
The goal of the narrative as well as the "studies" and "investigations" and "tribunals" on both the input and output end will be the global reduction of US influence by a consistent message of American indifference to human rights or the ethical conduct of military operations. Truth is not a consideration. Neither is that mythical beast, "justice." All that is important is the diminishing of American influence, American ability or will to play a major role in international politics.
Because "tribunals," "studies," and "investigations" seem to reek of an even handed pursuit of truth, they will gain both support and acceptance within the US and the West generally. The conclusions, no matter how unjustified or unjustifiable, will be warmly embraced by significant segments of the American and Western European population--the blame-America-first bunch.
It is this built in potential for support and acceptance which gives the new approach in diplomacy its appeal, It is what makes it so dangerous to the interests of the US and other civilized countries. The use of mechanisms which represent themselves to be detached, impartial, disinterested, which present themselves as judicial, uses the Western love of justice as a sovereign weapon against the West.
The enemies of civilization be they practitioners of violent political Islam, members of the profoundly alienated, self-hating Left of the West, or simply governments skilled in the pursuit of national interests have developed a new and powerful form of diplomacy. It is a form which uses the strengths of civilized states against them. It is a form of diplomacy for which we are poorly prepared to engage. It is a form of diplomacy which may well lubricate the skids to Western impotence.
WikiLeaks and the MSM have given the users of this new form of diplomacy a new venue in which to operate. WikiLeaks and the MSM have provided the enemies of civilization with a new set of tools to use against us.
The founder of WikiLeaks said "it is all about the truth." He is wrong. It is all about defeating the West and all it stands for.
Julian Assange has done a good job of work for whoever is paying his bills. The paymasters have chosen well. They got more than their money's worth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)