Third Time Lucky

We had Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former director of policy planning at the Obama State Department, write an op-ed ("Syrian intervention is justifiable, and it's just," Washington Post, June 8) in support of bombing Syria.  We've reprinted seven key points with staff commentary.

1.  Don't believe us when we say we want regime change

For some reason China and Russia don't believe anything we say.

A.M. Slaughter: Henry Kissinger recently argued against intervention in Syria [“The perils of intervention in Syria,” Washington Post, June 3] on the grounds that it would imperil the foundation of world order. His analysis was based on a straw man, one put forward by the Russian and Chinese governments, that outside intervention would seek to “bring about regime change.”

Fear Dept: It goes without saying that any idea held by China or Russia is inherently worthless, any perception they share, mistaken. 

2. Our plan works like magic

A.M. Slaughter: The point of an intervention in Syria would be to stop the killing — to force Bashar al-Assad and his government to meet the demands of the Syrian people with reforms rather than guns. If the killing stopped, it is not clear what shape the political process would adopt, how many millions would take to the streets or whom different factions would support.

Fear Dept:  We’ve done a lot to stop the killing already.  For example, we’ve encouraged Gulf state dictators to supply Syrian rebels with guns and explosives. Some say we're providing serious logistics support to the rebels. We can't comment on allegations that Mossad trains militants bent on destabilizing Iran’s most important ally.

If we bomb a country with a pure intention for the killing to stop, the Universe will create the outcome we desire; we just can’t know what shape the manifestation of our desire will take in advance. 


3. Syrian institutions will remain intact

Minority religions are over-represented in Syrian institutions.

A.M. Slaughter: The majority of Syrians would almost certainly demand that Assad leave office, but by the ballot box or a negotiated political settlement that would leave the Syrian state in the sense of bureaucracy, the army, the courts largely intact. The chaos and horrific violence in Iraq resulted in large part from the US determination to destroy those institutions along with Saddam Hussein.

Fear Dept: All we have to do is bomb Syria and voilà! A negotiated settlement and elections will leave “bureaucracy, the army, the courts largely intact.” When it comes to the transfer of power, the fact that many of the key positions in these institutions are held by Alawites and allied minorities should not create any complications.

If the U.S. made a strategic mistake in Iraq it certainly wasn’t the initial decision to invade.

4. Libya is actually a success story

In Benghazi there were no militiamen to be seen.

A.M. Slaughter: As a cautionary tale, Kissinger and others point not only to Iraq but also to Libya. Kissinger lumped Libya in with Yemen, Somalia and northern Mali as a “blank space” on the map “denoting lawlessness.” Yet political scientist Juan Cole, who recently visited Libya, where he expected a fair degree of chaos, reports that in Benghazi, Misrata and Tripoli, “there were no militiamen to be seen, that most things were functioning normally, that there were police at traffic intersections, that there were children’s carnivals open till late, families out, that jewellery shops were open till 8 pm, [and] that Arabs and Africans were working side by side.”   The Economist reached the same conclusion early this year, reporting on relatively optimistic economic prospects.

Fear Dept: The fact our NATO air campaign did not eliminated all vestiges of civilization in several of the oldest cities in North Africa is a testimony to the righteousness of our decision to bomb the shit out of Libya.  And if we haven't ruined the economic prospects of one of the world's richest countries, that should count for something.   Slaughter was smart not to address the clashes in the Libyan countryside, the deteriorating situation in Mali, or the disaster that is Somalia in the wake of Ethiopia’s CIA-sponsored invasion. 

5. Let's hope nothing goes wrong

Not worth mentioning.

A.M. Slaughter: Kissinger is right that in the end NATO’s operations in Libya looked like an effort to remove Moammar Gaddafi from office, not because NATO planes took out command-and-control facilities in Tripoli from which Gaddafi and his generals were ordering civilian massacres but because NATO planes never sought to protect civilians supporting the regime against opposition troops. The response to this concern, however, is not to oppose intervention in Syria but to support a UN Security Council resolution with clear parameters about a limited use of force.

Fear Dept:  Our Security Council resolution on Libya said nothing about toppling Gaddafi, but we made that NATO’s mission anyway. For some reason China and Russia suspect we might pull the same stunt again.  In the past, Anne-Marie Slaughter argued that we don't need a Security Council approval for military action in Syria, suggesting the support of Arab league dictators ought to be sufficient.

Any use of force resolution would no longer be “limited” should the Syrians strike back against US, Turkish, NATO, or Israeli assets in the region. We're pleased Anne-Marie Slaughter does not think the possibility that a desperate Syrian regime would seek to draw Israel into the conflict is worth mentioning. 

6.  We have a plan to minimize civilian casualties

The civilian death toll from our military campaign will be zero.

A.M. Slaughter: Such a resolution, which would have to follow a request by the Arab League, should resolve to protect the establishment of no-kill zones by local Syrian authorities by whatever means necessary, short of foreign troops on the ground. These means would include the provision of intelligence and communications equipment, antitank and anti-mortar weapons, and, crucially, air support against Syrian government tanks and troops that seek to enter or overrun a zone. The provision of such support would also require the disabling of Syrian air defenses.

Fear Dept:  We have policies in place that should considerably reduce the civilian death toll from our military campaign.  None of the tens of thousands of innocent Syrian civilians that could reasonably be expected to die in our air campaign will be counted. That’s because the Secretary General of NATO does not count civilian deaths.  Moreover, the President calls the bodies of all military-age males found near strike zones “dead militants.” 

All the "no-kill zones" we carve inside Syria will provide a safe haven for friendly holy warriors from across the Middle East. We know these rebels will fight hard because many of them hate the fact that Syria is a secular state. They hate that Syria is not run by “genuine” Muslims of the Sunni sect. They hate that Syrian women have the freedom to walk the ancient streets of Damascus without head scarfs. On the other hand, they love getting paid in U.S. petrodollars. These fighters know the secular civilian population of Syria is a long way from being sufficiently terrorized to abandon support for Assad regime.  From bases protected by NATO air support, the holy warriors can hunt down Syrian soldiers and plot attacks against a variety of targets in Damascus. And nothing whatsoever the Assad regime does will protect ordinary Syrians from terrorism.  Nothing, that is, short of an effort to draw Israel into the conflict in hopes of generating a groundswell of popular support for its cause across the Muslim world.

"Whatever means necessary, short of foreign troops on the ground" includes extensive use of killer drones. 

7. Our motives in Syria are pure, our near genocides irrelevant

 People should not ask about the difference between
our support for Bahrain and Russia’s support for Syria.

A.M. Slaughter: Proposing this type of action would force the Russian and Chinese governments to come clean about the real motives for their positions. Even if Libya had never happened, would Russia really be willing to allow intervention in Syria? Assad would still be one of Moscow’s principal allies in the Middle East. Russia would still have port facilities at Tartus. It would still want to protect the principle that a govt can suppress popular demonstrations by any means it chooses, including the kinds of crimes against humanity, indeed near-genocide, that Vladi­mir Putin ordered in Chechnya at the turn of the century.

Fear Dept: Russia must “come clean” about their “real motives” for backing Assad. Of course, we have no obligation to explain why we’re selling a shitload of arms to Bahrain. Don't ask about the difference between our support for Bahrain and Russia’s support for Syria.  The department has a God-given right to defend the territorial integrity of our protest-stricken undemocratic client states.  Unlike in Syria, the protesters in Bahrain are peaceful. They have not taken up arms against the monarchy. We will go all-out to support heavily armed rebels (Libya, Syria), but the support we offer peaceful demonstrators is either stingy (Egypt, Yemen) or nonexistent (Bahrain, OWS).

Anne-Marie Slaughter recognizes that the “near genocide” that “Vladi­mir Putin ordered in Chechnya” is relevant to the debate about U.S. led military action against Syria, whereas more recent “near genocides” in Mesopotamia are not. For example, it would have been entirely inappropriate for Slaughter to have mentioned the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who died "at the turn of the century" as a result of UN-imposed sanctions. It would have been equally inappropriate for Slaughter to have mentioned the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died as a direct result of our invasion of Iraq. Slaughter realizes our own "near genocides" in the Middle East are less relevant than Putin's in Central Asia.

The Rules of American Justice

The Rules of American Justice are quite clear:

1. If you are a high-ranking government official who commits war crimes, you will receive full-scale immunity, both civil and criminal, and will have the American President demand that all citizens Look Forward, Not Backward. 
2. If you are a low-ranking member of the military, you will receive relatively trivial punishments in order to protect higher-ranking officials and cast the appearance of accountability. 
3. If you are a victim of American war crimes, you are a non-person with no legal rights or even any entitlement to see the inside of a courtroom. 
4. If you talk publicly about any of these war crimes, you have committed the Gravest Crime — you are guilty of espionage – and will have the full weight of the American criminal justice system come crashing down upon you. 

Source:  Glenn Greenwald, "Rules of American justice: a tale of three cases"

Double Ring of Fences Protects U.S. Congress from Citizens

To protect Congress from the people in advance of the "Occupy Congress" protest Tuesday in Washington, we put a double ring of fencing around the Capitol Building.  The new fencing is the centerpiece of our "Green Zone DC" initiative.

What is Green Zone DC?  Modeled after our former seat of government in Baghdad, Green Zone DC will comprise a system of fortifications designed to keep the People at a distance from Congress.  The temporary fencing we have in place today is only a beginning. 

Both parties have agreed in principle to allocate $350 million to make the double fencing permanent.   They're only arguing about how to pay for it.  The GOP wants the money to come out of a school lunch program for handicapped orphans, and the Democrats propose that permanent fencing be funded through a new "mansion tax" on homes valued at more than $500,000.

The plan for Green Zone DC is on display inside the recently competed $1 billion dollar Capitol Visitor Center.  Similar to Green Zone DC, the thinking behind the Visitor Center was to protect our political leaders from the public.  

The first five photos show the double ring of fencing we installed around the U.S. Capital Building in advance of the "Occupy Congress" protest.    The space between the perimeter fences is intended to be wide enough for an officer mounted on a horse.  

The final four photos show the Capitol Detainment Zone and Arrest Venue (aka "the West Lawn") which we have surrounded with double fences.  The space between the fences is wide enough for us to ride two horses.  It provides a corridor from which we intend to videotape and photograph protesters.  These images will go into a database which we plan to share with various government agencies including the FBI and Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) which now deports U.S. citizens for us.  We may also decide to share the images with foreign governments and private corporations.

If we get annoyed by what we overhear the protesters saying and we feel like pepper spraying them, the double fencing provides a quiet area from which to assault them with our chemical weapons.  Depending on wind conditions, we may volley canisters of the new tear gas the Egyptian junta kindly tested for us in November. 

Members of the public have provided some feedback about our new fences on Twitter.  You are welcome to tweet your own comments to @FearDept.  Suggested hashtags are #FearFence and #GreenZoneDC.

We must change our laws to get Assange

Heritage Foundation recently held a public panel discussion about WikiLeaks. The panelists included Cully Stimson, former Asst Deputy Sec of Defense on Detainee Affairs, and Paul Rosenzweig, former Asst Deputy for Homeland Security.

Staff have transcribed former Asst Deputy of Homeland Security Paul Rosenzweig's statement from the 2 min 20 sec mark:

It seems to me that if we're going to go down the road of trying to fix our espionage laws to fix issues like Assange and terrorism, the right way is not to try and shoehorn a change that we're not quite sure of its second order and collateral effects into a statute that actually is pretty effective under the terms that it is in. I mean I'm not going to be an advocate of not amending the espionage laws to get at Assange -- I think it's a reasonable thing for Congress to want to do. I would be an advocate for them to take a little more time, step back, and think about all of the categories and types of information, and all the different means by which information is disclosed. And see if there isn't a way -- I believe there is -- of drawing distinctions between mainstream media organizations who report news and add value and things like WikiLeaks which I tend to think of as just a means of communications as a telephone directory. I mean they're just putting information out. Nobody would say a telephone directory is a news organization...

We agree with Paul Rosenzweig. The key is for Congress to carefully work out how to support the mainstream corporate media while sticking it to WikiLeaks.  This is legislation that cannot be rushed but will require the full attention of media and entertainment industry lobbyists.

Former Asst Deputy Sec of Defense on Detainee Affairs Cully Stimson went on to suggest that we have reason to believe "WikiLeaks has a lot more information to divulge" and presumably changes to the espionage laws could be made in time.  The bottom line is we have to get Assange before he can liberate any more of the information we are keeping from the public.  

__
See also this post about the Espionage Act of 1917.

Fear Sharing

Above are selected responses.  You can view more here. 

The Secret to Our Success

I didn't know our government could torture people.  I didn't know the president could go to war with another country without the approval of Congress.  I didn't know the Supreme Court could decide the winner of a presidential election.  I didn't know the president could assassinate American citizens.   I didn't know American citizens could be imprisoned without trial indefinitely.  I didn't know the Constitution could be suspended. 

There was a time we didn't know either.   But we chose not sit around contemplating ethics or legal precedents.  We didn't consult the Constitution.   Instead of listening to our lawyers, we spoke to them.  And they assured us if we broke laws, we could change them later.  We realized we would never known how much power and wealth we accumulate for our corporate partners until we tried.  When the time was right, we set out to see what we could get away with.

A few years ago Easton Syme (now with DoF) explained our winning attitude to journalist and author Ron Suskind:

The [George W. Bush White House] aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." 

Our Journalist Surveillance Program

Have certain media personalities or bloggers been bad mouthing Fear Dept? We'd like to know. That's one reason we systematically monitor the activities of journalists and citizens active on social media.

Citing a recent report by Homeland Security, FastCompany (h/t @Asher_Wolf) notes that not only are we spying on U.S. journalists, but we're sharing our findings with corporate and international partners: 

DHS Discloses NOC Monitoring Initiative. In a document posted to the Department of Homeland Security's website, the agency confirmed the existence of an extensive media monitoring program. Since at least 2010, DHS has been collecting personally identifiable information on "anchors, newscasters, or on-scene reporters who are known or identified as reporters in their post or article or who use traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed" and "current and former public officials who are victims of incidents or activities related to Homeland Security." In-house media monitoring reports created by DHS are also being shared with private sector and international partners.