Nemesis

   THE “TREASON” OF THE MEDIA

Con George-Kotzabasis

A cosmic tidal wave of Muslim fanaticism is threatening Western civilization and its peoples with destruction. Since 9/11, the terrorist myrmidons of Islam have unleashed a ruthless and relentless war against Western countries in the name of God. With such indefatigably fanatic believers in their godly mission, no compromise is possible and all overtures of diplomacy by Western and other governments are bound to fail. As Brian Jenkins of the Rand Corporation has said, to the Jihadists, ‘war is its own reward, a perpetual condition until Judgement Day’. It is for this reason that all efforts of the United Nations -as it has been shown in Afghanistan prior to the overthrow of the Taliban – to reach some sort of accommodation based on reason with these terrorist zealots and their state sponsors, would be an exercise in futility and would have  no chance of being successful. Fanatic terror can only be strategically compromised and defeated on a world scale only by “platetary” intelligence and military power, whose arsenal and force must be deployed overwhelmingly against the terrorists with no quarter given.

Also, the nations whose political leaderships, such as Bush’s, Blair’s, Berlusconi’s, and Howard’s, are clear-sighted about the real stakes of this total war against global terror, which must also involve the rogue states which are the silent, if not the loud, sinister allies of terror, must initiate and undertake covert, clandestine operations against suspected terrorists on a global scale, – as I had suggested in a paper of mine back on October 2001 – as well as against the breeding grounds of terrorism, i.e., the madrassas, wherever they happen to be situated, in the East or in the West.

Total war by definition, is a limitless war against an enemy, and Western political leaders who profess to be involved in such a war against global terror, as both Bush and Blair have averred to be, cannot avoid and eschew its imperative and remorseless demands.  One must use all means and techniques of warfare, including foreign mercenaries organized in covert operations against these shadowy terrorists, whose murderous deeds have no frontiers and all areas of the world are open targets.

One has to recognise, that in total war, one also has to fight the allies of one’s foe, in this case the rogue states which directly or indirectly support the terrorists, which is pivotal to the easing of the defeat of the latter. By decisively cutting the Gordian Knot of the logistical support in materiel and manpower the terrorists receive from these states, one irreversibly debilitates the morale and militancy of the former. Hence, total war against the terrorists, is strategically a two-front war. But that does not mean that one has to start a war against all rogue states. Such a course would be strategically foolish! One has only to pick and fight one rogue state, and by defeating it decisively, one  can simultaneously defeat by “proxy” all other rogue states, as the Americans have done in Iraq and as Libya exemplified this defeat by proxy, with the caving-in of Colonel Qaddafi. And it is apparent that Syria is next in line.

In the context of such a total two-front war against global terror, the media in general have an historical responsibility, as the fourth-estate in the political structure of  democratic countries, to generate a factual awareness, beyond any shades of ideology, among its readers and viewers about the real stakes of the war against these fanatic barbarians – an awareness that will mobilize the people of these countries that are engaged in this war to stand unflinchingly behind their governments.

As in any critical armed conflict that involves the survival of a nation, the moral fibre of its civilians is just as important as the moral fibre of its armed forces in the defeat of a mortal enemy, such as the terrorists are. Any moral or intellectual doubts and scruples that the media might have about the justice or strategic correctness of the war, must be expressed with infinite prudence and wisdom without compromising or sacrificing this awareness, in the name of the freedom of the press, that is so vital to the moral strength of its people to support their government in war. The moral fortitude of any  people does not arise from some sort of immaculate conception, but only by falling, like the mythical figure of Antaeus, on the earth of reality that unravels and reveals the dangers that a nation countenances. In this peoples’ fall on the earth of reality, the media must be a primary pusher to this fall, as strength can only be generated by the coupling with strength -in the present case, the realization that the strength, the power, of the terrorists can mortally endanger one’s existence. Once such a realization imbues the inner being of a people, it instantly conceives in them the mettle and determination to confront this great  danger head on.

It is in this moral and spiritual realm that the Western media could have reached the peak of its achievement. Regrettably however, instead of concentrating its immense power of persuasion to forge and mould the spiritual strength of its readers and viewers, it chose to betray, both to itself and to its audience, its vocational noblesse oblige. It chose to select and pick the most negative, indeed, the most gruesome aspects of the war in Iraq, such as the civilian casualties, the prolonged and apparently irrepressible and undefeatable insurgency, the abuse and torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, etc. etc., to make its case against the war.  The result of this enamoured “nuanced” selectivity to which the media is hooked on, was to enfold its readers and viewers into a thick cloud of doubt from which all ability to perceive the whole gamut of this total war against terror was lost.

The impessionistic analyses of events by its commentators and pundits, gave the impression to its audience, that it was their governments which were the real culprits of the war in Iraq. This in turn generated among many peoples, whose governments were involved and engaged in the war, an almost complete discouragement and great doubts about the need and justice of the war. The ominous dark clouds that menacingly loomed over the cities of Western civilization replete with the lightning bolts of the terrorists, were no longer real and became merely a fantasy of the “mythical” and “lying” world of Bush, Blair, Berlusconi, and Howard. But the commentators who believe that Al Qaeda could not obtain weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons from rogue states, or if they did, they would not use them without warning against the cities of the West, are fools and knaves.  

Only America, among all the nations of the world, has the military power and resolve to prevent and preempt  this from happening. Ostensibly however, the court jesters of the media are very proud of their intellectual performance before their populist audiences in exposing the above named leaders as the irredeemable liars and wrong-doers of the war. And it is by this breathtaking flippancy that they will claim, as intellectual pretenders, the Nobel Laureates for being the keepers of the freedom of the press.  But history, being neither forgetful nor forgiving, will play an everlasting trick upon them. It will render its harsh and remorseless verdict by condemning this “treason” of the media toward the nations, such as America, Britain, Italy, and Australia, whose leaderships had the moral courage and political acumen to be the gatekeepers of Western civilization, against this surge of fanatic terrorism which threatened, and threatens, to bring all civilized life to an end.

ALEA JACTA EST

HUFFINGTON’S FALLACY ABOUT WAR’S UNPOPULARITY

Con George-Kotzabasis — March 14, 2006

A reply to: RUMMY FAULTS HISTORY

Huffington Post-03.09.2006

According to the graph that Arianna Huffington presented in her post, it shows clearly that Roosevelt during World War II was by far more popular than Bush is with the war in Iraq. But while this is obvious, one can also argue that the unpopularity of Bush is not a result of the war itself, but of the presentation of the war, especially in its later phase. The Americans in their majority after 9/11, as similarly they did after the attack on Pearl Harbor, strongly supported the war against global terror and its state sponsors. The war, however, was knocked off its strong base as a result of a serious error of the Bush administration to abandon its tangible base, i.e., the war against global terror, and to link it instead with “intangibles”, i.e., weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the building of democracy in Iraq. Hence irreversibly diminishing the meaningfulness of the war, especially in the face of not finding WMD and the difficulties of installing democracy in the country. Operation Iraqi Freedom, under which the invasion of Iraq was undertaken, was propaganda wise, a total disaster.

The American public did not care one whit about the freedom or the establishment of democracy in Iraq — as likewise it did not care in its isolationist mood about the European war prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor — and therefore was completely unwilling to expend American blood and resources for this goal, notwithstanding its humane and idealistic intentions. But it definitely did care about the protection of its security and vital interests. This is why nearly 80% of Americans immediately after 9/11 – despite the unacceptability of the electoral result in Florida by many Americans — supported the initial declaration of President Bush that this war was a war against global terror that threatened the security of the US and its vital interests. As the American historian Daniel Pipes contends, the invasion of Iraq should have been called “Operation American Security”, as it would have been on this basis that the public would have supported the war unflappably, and would have made the necessary sacrifices for it.

If Bush had not deviated rhetorically from the original and true reason of the war in Iraq, i.e., war against global terror and the prevention of the deadly coupling of fanatic suicidal terrorists with rogue states armed with WMD and possibly soon with nuclear weapons, the war would not have lost, despite the heavy loss of life and matériel, its popularity. It was due to this serious mistake, this rhetorical “misfire” of the Administration from its original purpose that the war lost its “fire”.

Notwithstanding this error of the Administration however, Secretary Rumsfeld’s claim that all wars are unpopular is incontestable and therefore he is right in his history. Backing this claim, upon which Arianna in her congenital bias against the Secretary poured her vitriolic scorn, Rumsfeld has an illustrious defense witness, Roosevelt himself. The latter, despite his enormous popularity, he would still not dare to involve America in the War against the Axis powers, as he was quite conscious of the public’s strong disposition to isolationism and aversion to war. Indeed, he was so cautious that he would not even supply armaments to Britain, as he was concerned that such action would give the impression to Americans that he was preparing the country for war. And he used all kind of devices such as the famous Lend-Lease by which he would supply those armaments to Britain and its allies. Only Pearl Harbor did what Roosevelt would not risk doing without it.

Arianna should douse off all her illusions. We are fighting the “Big One”, as in World War II, in its by far more lethal form, suicidal fanatic terrorism, “the one we have to win”, so that Arianna can continue writing her brilliant satire, and “misrepresent” George Clooney, on The Huffington Post.

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON’S ARISTOPHANEAN

WIT AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR

A retort: Con George-Kotzabasis

Bush and the Truthiness Taliban

Huffington Post-February 27, 2006

Arianna, coming long ago from an ancient philosophical stock, always presents her arguments with cogency and “tinsel town” wit. But whilst her Aristophanean wit has the power to lift even the basket – laid Socrates into the clouds, she is no Athena, and lacks wisdom. She argues that the Bush administration “sold us the invasion of Iraq” with false claims and half-truths, which she satirizes as “truthiness”, and she jeeringly says that the “’Saddam unleashed mushroom clouds’ could be the logo for the truthiness society”, i.e., the Bush administration. But after the lethal attacks on New York and Washington, the Bush administration, or any administration, would hardly need to sell the war to Americans by sleek and crafty Madison Avenue techniques, as a majority of Americans would have bought the war, and did, at any price.

The fact is, that Bush invaded Iraq not because Saddam had a link to the 9/11 attack but because of the high probability of his link with a future 9/11, that would have been more devastating than the first one. No responsible and insightful political leadership could disregard and discount this probability of a connection between terrorists and rogue states in the near future, and do nothing about it. The war in Iraq had as its primary aim the prevention of this ominous coupling of suicidal fanatic terrorists with rogue states, the latter being willing and able to furnish the former with the lethal weapons that would mortally endanger America and the rest of the West. Only someone who was living in a state of pathological complacency and moral and intellectual indifference, enjoying the stupefying and ephemeral glittering comforts of ones narrow and egotistical existence could have mocked and lampooned the above “truthick” threat as “truthiness”. In times of danger, it’s utter foolishness to indulge in the rambling diversions of witty political satire or in gloomy broodings instead of taking firm action.

Moreover, to bring in Halliburton’s corporate shenanigans, which for many Americans is justifiably an emotional issue, is to bring into the debate of the war the American public “roaring like an oak on fire”, to quote Aristophanes, when more than ever, in face of some US strategic errors, cool deliberation is needed. Especially when, the question as to whether the US should stay the course in Iraq or should cut and run, must be answered by the public and its leaders from the Congress and the House, soberly and wisely. Probing to the highest possible degree whether a premature withdrawal from Iraq would bring in its wake dire and catastrophic consequences for the people of Iraq and of the region in general, and whether it would also embolden the terrorists to perpetrate even more deadly attacks against the US and the West in general. With such high stakes in place, Arianna’s insinuation that corporate greed is a major cause of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is ethically and intellectually irresponsible. It’s also, historically and economically benighted. In all economic systems of demand and supply economic units prosper. In war when the demand reaches astronomical heights only the biggest and the most possibly efficient corporations can supply these huge demands. And by the irreversible laws of economics they are the biggest beneficiaries. But does this economic reality in any way impugn a just war? If I’m allowed to remind Arianna, Themistocles (I’m using this historical event as an illustration not as a comparison in respect to the personal merits of Bush or Cheney to those of the great Athenian), the victor of Xerxes invasion of Greece that saved the latter from despotism and slavery, was subsequently accused of peculation and was banished from Athens. Did this accusation in any way diminish Themistocles’s illustrious standing as one of the greatest generals of his era of whom Thucydides so admirably had written about?

It maybe, that all the above examples are for Arianna seeds sown in a barren soil and she will never reap their invaluable lessons. It seems she is more concerned in vying with comedian Stephen Colbert – whom she calls the “godfather of truthiness” – for the first prize of truthiness, and it’s more likely than not that she will win the Dionysian Oscar for truthiness in this contest of wits.

                    WILL IRAQI POLITICIANS LEAD

                   THE COUNTRY INTO CIVIL WAR?

                   Con George-Kotzabasis   March 2, 2006

Many media commentators, after the murderous rampage of Shiites and Sunnis, have contended that Iraq will not be able to step back from the brink of civil war. But one can still argue, despite the bleak and gloomy events of the week before, for a more optimistic scenario, that Iraq will avoid its fall into a civil war. Two facts stand against the possibility of civil war. The first one is, that nearly ten million Iraqis had taken heed of the calls of their political and religious leaders and participated in last December’s elections. The second one, that all politicians that were elevated in their positions of power did so on the back of a democratic process and not by the barrel of the gun. Hence, the base of their power is the electorate and not any of the militias.

Certainly, the three major factions, the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds do have support among the militias, and the Sunnis might even have some support among the insurgents. But none of these militias separately or combined in two, possess enough military muscle to overwhelm the others or other, and hence determine the political course of the country.  Therefore, none of the political groups that are presently ensconced in positions of power could secure the latter by using the militia that supports them. Any attempt to do so, would lead to a prolonged civil war with all its uncertainties about the outcome, and which would oust many of the politicians from their present positions of power. Hence, the fomenting of civil war is against the vital interests of those who hold power. And it would be most unlikely that Iraqi politicians would be so foolish as to let go the bird that is in their hand for the two birds that are in the bush.

This is why there is a great chance, that the leading factions of this troika, the Shiites and the Kurds will be willing to make the necessary compromises and accommodate some of the weighty demands of the Sunnis, as well as US ambassador Khalilzad’s blandishments to form a government of national unity.

Hence, the balance, whether Iraq will be embroiled in a civil war or not, lies in the wisdom of its politicians. There is a high probability, for the reasons mentioned above, that wisdom is bound to prevail.