In his review of David Halberstram’s journalistic profile of Robert Kennedy, William Spragens writes that the author “feels Robert Kennedy was a transitional figure in American politics, with an understanding of the old politics but also with a rare feeling for the new politics.” Indeed, in the first chapter, Halberstram lays out this thesis quite matter-of-factly when he says that Kennedy existed “at the exact median point of American idealism and American power. He understood the potency of America’s idealism, as a domestic if not an international force, and yet he had also exercised American power.” It is difficult to disagree with the latter assertion; Bobby Kennedy’s illustrious political career included stints on the McCarthy Committee and the Senate Racket’s Committee, time as John F. Kennedy’s campaign manager and one of his most trusted political advisors during his brother’s presidency, as well as an appointment to the most senior position in the Justice Department. However, Bobby Kennedy’s evolving views on the Vietnam War from 1965 to 1968, ultimately reveal him to be, not an idealist, but, rather, a shrewd realist. Continue reading
In response to Robert Caro and Lyndon Johnson’s other disparagers, Johnson historian Robert Dallek cautions that “we need to see Johnson’s life not as a chance to indulge our sense of moral superiority, but as a way to gain an understanding of many subjects crucial to this country’s past, present, and future.” Indeed, Dallek is correct in his implication that to view the decisions and the major policy initiatives made by Johnson during his presidency solely as products of a single mind and a single determination is an analytical mistake. Continue reading
On Sunday U.S. secretary of state John Kerry publicly assured the Shiite government in Iraq led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that the United States will support its war against militants from the Al-Qaeda-linked group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It has been reported that the ISIS now largely control the major cities of Ramadi and Fallujah located in Anbar Province. In his comments Kerry made reference to their “barbarism against the civilians in Ramadi and Fallujah” and asserted that “these are the most dangerous players in that region.” In the course of putting emphasis on his claim that the administration is not contemplating the return of U.S. troops to Iraq, Kerry said,
“We can’t want peace and we can’t want democracy and we can’t want an orderly government and stability more than the people in a particular area, in a particular country or a particular region,” he said. “This fight, in the end, they will have to win, and I am confident they can.”
Of course Mr. Kerry neglected to mention the fact that the primary threat to democracy, peace, order, and stability in Iraq ever since the U.S. completed its troop withdrawal in 2011, has been the U.S. backed regime of one Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. By pledging support to this regime, Kerry refuses to acknowledge that this Shiite strongman has been largely responsible for igniting sectarian tensions in Iraq by branding all legitimate Sunni opposition and protests as “terrorism” and instituting vicious crackdowns against dissenters thus creating the environment in which Al-Qaeda could gain the support of certain tribes. It is because of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s vicious crackdowns and discriminatory policies against the Sunni minority that 2013 saw the highest number of casualties in Iraq since 2008. Of course Mr. Kerry neglected to mention that the strategy al-Maliki is currently employing against the ISIS is largely reminiscent of the counterinsurgency strategy which U.S. troops employed in Iraq in 2006; namely to enlist (mainly through bribes) the cooperation of some local tribal leaders in his fight thus further inflaming sectarian tension and laying the groundwork for the tragic mess that Iraq is today. The Secretary of State neglected to denounce the most recent raid by Iraqi security forces on an encampment of peaceful Sunni protestors in Ramadi. Of course Mr. Kerry neglected to mention the fact that the U.S. has never, is not, and will never support democracy in Iraq. Of course Mr. Kerry neglected to mention the fact that the U.S. has always supported strongmen in the Middle East as opposed to human rights and the development of strong civil and political institutions and this policy of supporting al-Maliki is just an extension of that commitment. Of course Mr. Kerry neglected to mention the fact that guns, tanks, helicopters, fighter jets, and especially drone strikes have never, do not, and will never solve the problem of Al-Qaeda. Of course Mr. Kerry neglected to mention the fact that what Iraq needs from the United States is not military aid funneled to a corrupt government intent on destroying all opposition but rather massive reparations directed at the civilian population. Of course Mr. Kerry neglected to mention the fact that this resurgence of Al-Qaeda and seething sectarian tension in Iraq is the direct result of the invasion and subsequent occupation which he supported. Of course Mr. Kerry doesn’t mention the fact that President Obama’s expansion and escalation of the Global War on Terror has actually had the opposite of its stated intended effect and that this foray into Iraq will be no different. And finally, Mr. Kerry doesn’t mention the fact that that anti-terrorism is just a cover for the assertion of American global hegemony in the twenty-first century much like anti-communism was just a cover for the assertion of American global hegemony during the so-called Cold War period.Tweets by @EphraimHussain
The NSA does not protect the American people. The NSA does not help catch terrorists. The NSA does not stop terrorist attacks.
The NSA does protect the American government from the American people. The NSA does threaten the freedom and liberty of the American people. The actions of the NSA do display the ongoing moral degradation of the American government. The NSA does work to extend and ensure U.S. imperial hegemony across the globe. Continue reading
Hanlon’s Razor says that we should never attribute to malice that can which be adequately explained by stupidity. I believe Hanlon’s Razor presents a false binary, one which suggests that if a person or group of people is acting ignorantly, he or she can not be acting malevolently. Continue reading
Absolutely Not!! And in one sentence here’s why,
Whenever people use this phrase, it is usually to say that they have a right to have their opinion considered as truth, even if their argument is logically demonstrated to have serious holes in it. You see the problem here???
Now I understand the assertion I have made here may irk most people because most tend to get very defensive when it comes to arguing for the sanctity of their opinions. Nonetheless the forthcoming explanation of my answer to this question is not meant to satisfy raw emotions. It is an appeal to logic…nothing more, nothing less. Continue reading
This is my first post for the Rootstrikers campus team blog. Rootstrikers is a nonprofit, grassroots organization that strives to reduce the influence of dirty money in politics. Led by the efforts of the campus teams, Rootstrikers is currently working in conjunction with the huffington post to get politicians “On the Record” about the corrupting influence of money big money in politics. Here I discuss Congressman Scott Garrett’s (NJ-5) response to my attempts to get him “On the Record”. FYI, Congressman Garrett, I will not cease my efforts. Continue reading