US Gives Drones to Turkey For Use Against Kurdish Separatists

Last week, Turkey asked the US for assistance (read: weapons) in fighting separatist Kurds in southeast Turkey. As I mentioned in the piece, it wouldn’t be the first time and back when the Clinton administration “donated” arms to Turkey for this same reason, it resulted in a significant increase in violence and serious human rights violations.

And this week, Obama has accommodated Turkey handsomely on this latest request.

Turkey is expecting the delivery of Predators in June 2012, the Turkish defense minister said a day after the country’s prime minister announced that Turkey has agreed with the US on a deal involving the transfer of US-engineered unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could prove crucial in combating terrorism.

“We have agreed in principle [on the delivery of Predators]. Negotiations will continue,” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo?an was quoted as saying by the Cihan news agency on Saturday in New York, where the Turkish leader was visiting on the occasion of the 66th session of the UN General Assembly. Erdo?an also noted that Turkey had offered to either purchase or lease the drones and that the two countries were still settling the details regarding the delivery of the Predators.

This is not only indicative of the US role as War Monger in Chief, but also of the dangerous proliferation of drone technology for use in state warfare and the losing legal argument that it is a weapon not of any proximate conception of war but of murder. Civilians have borne the brunt of the effects of America’s drone wars; a similar result is predictable in the case of Turkey as well as the other recipients of drones.

Libya Mass Grave: Still No Dice On Humanitarian Justification

Libya’s interim rulers say they have found a mass grave believed to hold the remains of 1,270 inmates killed by Moammar Gadhafi’s security forces in a notorious 1996 massacre.

Yes, this is a horrible crime. No, it does not retroactively bolster the case for US intervention against the monster Gadhafi. No matter how badly interventionists want to use this as an updated Saddam excuse (“Is it or is it not a good thing that Saddam Hussein is out of power!?”), it can’t be done. There are three very obvious reasons for this. First, the US and Europe had no idea this even happened until after their altruistic intervention. Second, the litmus test for whether our intervention was humanitarian still disqualifies the Libya mission from being humanitarian:

Has the US consistently supported comparable atrocities in many other countries, and do we now engage in foreign policy that predictably leads to the deaths of comparable numbers of civilians? Do we also totally ignore much worse atrocities if they don’t happen to be strategically important? The answer to all of those questions is yes, which excludes the possibility that civilian casualties motivated our intervention.

Third, the US supported Gadhafi after this incident, with the full knowledge that he was a dictator and likely had such horrible things on his record.

Quintessentially Authoritarian Foreign Policy

Reuters:

Pakistan’s military will not take action against the Haqqani militant group that Washington blames for an attack against its embassy in Kabul, despite mounting American pressure to do so, a Pakistani newspaper reported on Monday.

…The Pakistani commanders agreed to resist U.S. demands for an army offensive in North Waziristan, where the United States believes the Haqqani network is based, the Express Tribune reported, quoting an unnamed military official.

“We have already conveyed to the U.S. that Pakistan cannot go beyond what it has already done,” the official told the newspaper on condition of anonymity.

The root of the US anger over Pakistan’s reluctance to fight the Haqqanis is that it is a prime contributor to the Afghan insurgency against US occupation forces (harmful to the ‘national interest’). But something tells me this piece of news – coming after weeks of aggressive rhetoric and accusations – is an even more dire offense. Pakistan is “resisting US demands.” Disobedience is the cardinal sin in the American Empire. It has led prominent psychotic Senator Lindsey Graham to publicly warn that attacking Pakistan is an option if “we need to elevate our response.” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, too, has implied the potential for a violent response.

Of course, this is not a two way street. A few months ago, the Pakistani government decided the US drone base in Balochistan was destabilizing and harmful to their national interest and so ordered the US to leave it and stop all drone strikes from there. The Obama  administration’s official response was pretty straight forward: screw off, Pakistan. US officials insisted that Shamsi would not be vacated, now or in the foreseeable future. (After all the agitation, the US announced that the Shamsi base hadn’t been used for drone strikes in months, but this seemed more a PR move than anything.) Few were saying then what insolence the US displayed in not following orders.

And when Pakistan displayed disapproval for the high profile US attack inside Pakistan with the raid on bin Laden’s home, the US used its leverage and halted hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. “Talk back to me, and lose your treats,” Uncle Sam seemed to say. “You’re meant to follow my orders and welcome my breach of your sovereignty. How you dare object.”

Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out before, the US has repeatedly violated Pakistani sovereignty without permission, conducting kill/capture operations with special operations forces across the Pakistani border an undisclosed number of times. Obama has expanded the drone program exponentially, resulting in untold numbers of civilians casualties and increasing instability along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. One of the primary effects of the war in Afghanistan has been to push militants across the border into Pakistan, destabilizing the country. Indeed, the whole ten years of war in Afghanistan has been a detriment to Pakistan, who has laid virtually prostrate in the face of US demands. Yet, the US leadership sees fit to threaten Pakistan with attack for their intransigence.

This is the nature of US hegemony. It is the quintessential authoritarian relationship and it extends to most of our “allies,” laid prostrate. Rules are rules because we can annihilate you. These rules are meant to be broken, by us. You must follow them.

And again, another perfect example of this approach is US policy in Afghanistan. As the US accuses Pakistan of conducting a proxy war, the US is conducting its own mere miles away.

US-supported Afghan militias are committing widespread human rights abuses, but neither Washington or Kabul are holding them accountable or changing policy in light of the crimes, according to a new Human Rights Watch report.

The report “documents serious abuses, such as killings, rape, arbitrary detention, abductions, forcible land grabs, and illegal raids by irregular armed groups in northern Kunduz province and the Afghan Local Police (ALP).”

…In March 2011, General Petraeus told the US Senate that the ALP is “arguably the most critical element in our effort to help Afghanistan develop the capacity to secure itself.”

…The ALP has been accused of “beating teenage boys and hammering nails into the feet of one boy,” although no arrests were made. “In April,” the report documents, “four armed ALP members in Baghlan abducted a 13-year-old boy on his way home from the bazaar and took him to the house of an ALP sub-commander, where he was gang raped.” The perpetrators are well known, but no arrests have been made.

The US has the right to call Pakistan out on its proxy terrorism. The Afghan government does not, nor does anyone else, have the right to call the US out on its own terrorism. Rules apply to others. Not to America.

Antiwar.com’s Video Contest: Playback for Peace

During our next pledge drive, we would like to feature videos made by our readers on what ten years of war means to them. For more information, please contact Angela Keaton at akeaton@antiwar.com or call 1-323-512-7095. The top 10 videos will be selected by our staff. Deadline is Tuesday November 1.

To kick off the contest, James Cox of Peace, Freedom and Prosperity created and narrated AntiWar: 10 Years In The Middle East.

Terrorist Mafia Ministate Militia Imperils Selfless US Schoolbuilding Operations in Afghanistan

For the past week the Obama Administration has been issuing daily statements accusing the Haqqani Network, a comparatively small Pakistani militant faction operating in North Waziristan, of being responsible for every press-worthy terrorist attack in Afghanistan. This has been interspersed with near-daily allegations that the Pakistani government is secretly behind the network, comments which the Pakistani government has warned could finally break their tenuous alliance with the US. The comments often come with US threats to invade Pakistan’s tribal areas with ground troops.

And if there’s a war to be shilled for, who better to help than the New York Times? To that end the amazingly convenient article “Brutal Haqqani Clan Bedevils US in Afghanistan” appears on the front page of the paper today.

The narrative, as always, is designed to be incredibly simple to follow. The Haqqani Network goes from terrorist group to militia to ministate to mafia throughout the piece, and is even likened to the Sopranos, in case Americans don’t get the picture. Funny, I always thought the Sopranos were more about humanizing what were on the surface stereotypical villains by showing the moral dilemmas and the family struggles they face. Apparently the Times was just wading through six seasons hoping for some drone strikes on New Jersey.

But I digress. The US, for its part, does what the US usually does in the New York Times, virtuously and selflessly helping the impoverished third world. The Afghan War, near as you could tell from the article, amounts primarily to “building roads and schools” and the mean old Haqqanistas are determined to stop both, demanding protection money and launching attacks on US embassies whenever the Pakistani military tells them to.

Which is another point at which the story breaks down. I mean, sure, they glossed over a decade of extremely ugly NATO occupation in the first paragraph, but if the Pakistani military, which is itself awash in US funds, is funding this ragtag tribal band for its terrorist attacks, and the article also hints at mysterious benefactors in the Gulf pumping money in as well, why does the group have to rely on extorting schoolbuilders for cash?

The answer, of course, is “because it makes them look like bad guys” and it gives the US an excuse to lob missiles at North Waziristan (grudgingly, the article claims, and with extreme CIA concern about civilian deaths) as well as a good reason to constantly browbeat Pakistan.

Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | September 24, 2011

Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | September 23, 2011

Help us meet our fundraising goal! Help keep the War Party at bay and make a tax-deductible donation today!

Don’t forget to sign the open letter to Obama and Congress to end the wars: ComeHomeAmerica.us

IN THIS ISSUE

  • Empire of Drones
  • Palestine’s bid for statehood
  • Accusing Pakistan of Terrorism
  • Libyan War Extended, Again
  • Iraq’s Elusive SOFA
  • The Afghan Quagmire
  • Saleh Returns to Yemen
  • What’s New at the Blog?
  • Originals
  • Antiwar Radio
  • Events

Continue reading “Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | September 24, 2011”