When Will Americans Learn that Blowback is Real?

In 1953 the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency at the urging of the British M16 overthrew democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.  In a declassified report completed in 1954 on the 1953 operation “blowback” for the first time entered the CIA’s lexicon.

At the time, analysts were concerned that the U.S. government’s actions in Iran would yield unintended consequences.  It took a long time, but those concerns were finally realized in 1979 when, after 25 years of brutality and corruption from the Shah, Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution engulfed Iran and Iranian students stormed our embassy and took our people hostage for 444 days.

Then in 2004 a Pentagon Report commissioned by the Bush/Cheney Administration, labeled the President’s approach to the so-called “War on Terror” counter-productive.  It indicated that contrary to the President’s rhetoric, Muslim terrorists don’t attack us because they hate our freedom; they attack us because they loathe our foreign policy.  The report went on to suggest that continuing the policy of occupying Muslim countries will have the effect of radicalizing Muslims and instead of preventing future terrorist attacks will engender them.

Through the patriotic and nationalistic bluster of our politicians and the media the Pentagon report was mostly forgotten.  It took the presidential campaign of Ron Paul in 2008 to bring the issue of blowback back to the forefront.  In a Republican presidential candidates’ debate, Congressman Paul was asked about 9-11.  He talked about how U.S. foreign policy was a “major contributing factor”.  In particular he cited our bombing of Iraq for 10 years through the 1990s.  Then he stated:

“I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were –if other foreign countries were doing that to us?”

And that is the deep question that all Americans must ask themselves:  what would we think and do if other countries were doing the same things to us?  What would we do if another country occupied our territory, supported through financial and military aid a tyrannical government in the United States, or used drones to kill their enemies on U.S. soil consequently killing innocent American citizens in the process?  We wouldn’t tolerate it in the least bit, so why do we think it is justified to do it to others and label those that take umbrage with our actions terrorists?

And so once again, Americans have experienced a “terrorist” attack on our soil.  This time it was perpetrated in Boston by two ethnically Chechen Muslims.  Once again, we are supposed to believe it was done because they hate our freedoms and prosperity.  We are supposed to believe this even though one of the suspects was a naturalized American citizen who enjoyed the freedoms and prosperity he allegedly was accused of hating.  We are supposed to believe this even though the seriously injured Dzhokhar Tsarnaev lying in his hospital bed before he was Mirandized admitted that he and his brother were motivated to carry out the Marathon Bombings by American aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan and the thousands of Muslims who had been killed by American forces.

We can continue to delude ourselves that we can do whatever we want to whomever we want and there won’t be consequences.  Or we can learn that the CIA was on to something in 1954 – that blowback is real.

Article first published as When Will Americans Learn that Blowback is Real? on Blogcritics.

Kenn Jacobine teaches internationally and maintains a summer residence in North Carolina

Bernanke’s Publicity Stunt

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has taken his defense of the Federal Reserve System on the road.  In response to recent critics of the central bank, notably Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, Bernanke is scheduled to deliver four classroom lectures at George Washington University.  In his first discourse, Bernanke was Bernanke, extolling the virtues of the Fed while criticizing calls to return the dollar to a gold standard.

One of Bernanke’s criticisms of a return to the gold standard is that it is not practical.  By that he means “it can be a waste of resources to secure all the gold needed to back currency, moving it from South Africa to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s basement”.  But, the benefit of using gold to back currency is precisely because it is scarce and difficult to dig up and transport. Otherwise, it would have little value and be about as valuable as paper money.

A more significant criticism lodged by Bernanke against the gold standard is that it doesn’t prevent “short-term volatility”.  According to the Fed chairman, “Since the gold standard determines the money supply, there’s not much scope for the central bank to use monetary policy to stabilize the economy”.  By short-term volatility, Bernanke must be referring to those periods in the 19^th Century when the Second Bank of the United States and the federal government from time to time allowed banks to suspend payment in species thus enabling widespread currency inflation and financial volatility.  The fact is that under a true gold standard short-term volatility would not exist.  Prices would be stable and the artificial booms and inevitable busts caused by Fed monetary price fixing would not happen.

But, to his credit, Bernanke did acknowledge that historically countries using the gold standard have experienced long periods of price stability.  In fact, in the United States from the mid-Nineteenth Century until 1940 prices in the United States actually fell on average from year to year – the main exceptions being during war years.

So while even Bernanke admits that the gold standard is an effective means to produce stable prices which after all benefit the poor, the elderly, and others on fixed budgets, why is he still so resistance to a return to the gold standard?  The key is in the answer he gave to one student’s question about why Fed critics are pushing hard to return to a gold standard. Bernanke indicated that they want to remove some “discretion” the Fed has over the economy.  It is this “discretion” that Bernanke and his monetary oligarchs used to dole out trillions of dollars in secret loans to their bank buddies who nearly brought the whole financial system to its knees.  Many of them got a piece of the action – Citigroup – $2.513 trillion, Morgan Stanley – $2.041 trillion, Merrill Lynch – $1.949 trillion, Bank of America – $1.344 trillion, Barclays PLC – $868 billion, Bear Sterns – $853 billion, Goldman Sachs – $814 billion, Royal Bank of Scotland – $541 billion, JP Morgan Chase – $391 billion, Deutsche Bank – $354 billion, UBS – $287 billion, Credit Suisse – $262 billion, Lehman Brothers – $183 billion, Bank of Scotland – $181 billion BNP Paribas – $175 billion, Wells Fargo – $159 billion, Dexia – $159 billion, Wachovia – $142 billion, Dresdner Bank – $135 billion, and Societe Generale – $124 billion.  You see with a gold standard these loans and other Fed schemes to benefit the bankers would not be possible.  Thus, when Bernanke criticizes the gold standard it is more than just professorial theorizing, it is a defense of the current corrupt banking cartel in America.

In the final analysis, Bernanke’s lecture series at G.W. is nothing more than a publicity stunt and not a very good one at that.  The Federal Reserve is an indefensible institution.  Compounding his problem are arguments he is attempting to make against the gold standard which served our country well for so long.  Anything he says cheats the students of valuable educational time.  Perhaps the powers that be at G.W. should invite Ron Paul to debate Bernanke.  Only then will the students get their money’s worth.

Article first published as Bernanke’s Publicity Stunt on Blogcritics.

 

Ron Paul’s Delegate Strategy May be Working

There is an interesting analysis article over at Real Clear Politics that lays out a scenario whereby the August Republican National Convention evolves into the worst nightmare imaginable for party officials – a brokered convention.  Based on how Republican candidates for president have done so far with different demographics and regions of the country, Sean Trende predicts how the race for the Republican nomination may play out and lays out a scenario where a brokered Republican convention could take place.

Now, it’s no secret that a brokered convention would be a catastrophe for Republican Party leaders use to grand coronations at their quadrennial national party events.  After all, anything could happen.  Chaos could rule or a dark horse candidate not officially sanctioned by the party oligarchs could emerge.  In either case their lack of control would disrupt the usual smooth proceedings meant to portray to the nation a party united, happy, and excited about its standard bearer.

Given his campaign’s strategy of focusing on caucuses and out hustling his rivals at local, county, and state conventions nationwide the main beneficiary of a brokered convention would be Texas Congressman Ron Paul.  The fact of the matter is that most Americans do not get involved in politics.  Many rightly view it as an ugly, corrupt business.  Others are too busy following American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, or the latest escapades of Lindsay Lohan.  While others would rather leave it to the professionals.  But, Ron Paul supporters are different.  They may not outnumber the supporters of other candidates, but they are hungrier and more dedicated to their principles.  They are much more willing to show up, outlast, and fight for delegate positions than the supporters of rival candidates.  These attributes seem to be paying dividends for the Paul campaign at least in the early stages of the delegate selection process.

In Iowa, Ron Paul supporters have become delegates for other candidates.  Under party rules, if the convention is brokered at some point those delegates could be eligible to throw their support behind Dr. Paul.

In Georgia, Paul forces took over or as local GOP officials called it “hijacked” the DeKalb County delegate-selection convention in eastern metropolitan Atlanta.  They also missed by a whisker doing the same thing in populous Cobb County.

And in Clark County, Nevada, home to Las Vegas, at the county GOP convention made up of over 2600 delegates, Paul supporters organized and triumphed by electing Paulites to all 14 seats on the ballot for county GOP executive committee board.  These 14 new members of the board will make up two-thirds of the ruling body.  Consequently, that county’s GOP platform now calls for holding elected officials to their oath to the Constitution, repeal of the 16^th Amendment, and a full audit of the Federal Reserve.

The process of selecting delegates in most states is in the early stages.  There will be multiple stories like the ones mentioned above.  Ultimately, there may be a brokered Republican convention in August.  Then again, there may not be.  Ron Paul may not get the GOP nomination for president in 2012, but whoever does will be leading a party much different from the one that exists today.  It will include delegates to the national convention, activists, and party officials who support a non-interventionist foreign policy, sound money, and civil liberties.  You talk about a nightmare for the party oligarchs!