AFP quickly wraps up the latest from Syria:

Already weakened by political infighting, Syria’s opposition has been dealt another blow by the posting online of videos purporting to show rebel fighters committing atrocities, analysts say.

And on the back foot due to army advances on the ground, the opposition is also under international pressure to enter into dialogue with President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Videos posted online that showed a rebel mutilating a soldier’s corpse, and of a jihadist summarily executing 11 Assad supporters “will undermine the opposition’s narrative of an uprising against a dictator”, said Swedish expert on Syria, Aron Lund.

Oh yeah, our mainstream propaganda’s precious narrative. Don’t speak too soon Aron, the narrative lives, at least in the U.S., in ways like this courtesy of Angry Arab (links in original and I always modify AA’s crappy grammar):

Syria

Syrian rebels eating internal organs: Guardian versus the New York Times

Look how the Guardian reports it: “‘Anti-Assad fighter appears to eat internal organ of dead government soldier in horrific video’: “The figure in the video cuts the heart and liver out of the body and uses sectarian language to insult Alawites [Assad's minority sect]. At the end of the video [the man] is filmed putting the corpse’s heart into his mouth, as if he is taking a bite out of it.”

And now look at how Syrian “revolution” groupie Anne Barnard [of the New York Times] reports it, and notice the title is about Syrian regime crime: “One rebel commander recently filmed himself cutting out an organ of a dead pro-government fighter, biting it and promising the same fate to Alawites, members of Mr. Assad’s Shiite Muslim sect.”

AA doesn’t clarify that this first reference, to an atrocity recorded proudly by its perpetrator on video, is buried in the second sentence (the first sentence is propaganda accusing the Syrian army of being anti-Islamic) of the fourth paragraph of a ‘story’ whose first three paragraphs transcribe evidence-free atrocity accusations against the Syrian government. Angry Arab sums up Western ‘reporting’
on the incident:

That face of Syrian “revolutionaries”: munching on body organs
Did you notice how defensive Western media are about that video? I note these reactions:
1) The New York Times as usual buries the story under a different story about crimes of the regime.
2) Many news media reported that the guy is really upset because he saw crimes by the Syrian regime.
3) Some media actually quibbled with the facts: that he did not really eat the heart of the man but ate parts of the lung.
4) Many news media opted to totally ignore the story.
5) Many media put the story in the context of war crimes in Syria where the regime is solely responsible.
6) Some media focused on the man, saying that he really is not representative.

So, I disagree with the sense that imperial propaganda’s narrative no longer reigns supreme, though it is surely shaken in the _immediate_ aftermath of the grisly body parts eating video. The real hope, though, is for an ever-rapider decline in the credibility and viewership of that propaganda and that media. The imperial media takes hit after hit but its careerism requires that it not abandon its narrative no matter how foolish, so it suffers the consequences. And those are good consequences for anyone who wants a public better-informed, or at least less disinformed by capitalist and imperial greed.

The real news alternatives — more accurate and more fun — are out there just waiting to be better organized and delivered. Here are some very recent Syria accounts from what might be, in a sane and democratic media, a counter-narrative at least on an equal footing with the imperial one:

May 18: Vote Reflects Shift in Syrian Public Opinion (Franklin Lamb: “Opinion in Damascus and surrounding areas visited this past week, confirms this observer’s experience the past five months of a sharp and fairly rapid shift in opinion that now strongly favors letting the Syrian people themselves decide, without outside interference, whether the Assad regime will stay, and indeed, whether, the Baathist party will continue to represent majority opinion, not through wanton violence but rather via next June’s election.”)

May 17: The main opposition National Coalition now has to decide whether to take part in an international conference called by Moscow and Washington to push for a political solution … The [group], which insists that Assad’s departure is a key condition for a political solution, will decide in an Istanbul meeting on May 23 whether it will take part in the international conference.

May 17: Syria – FSA rebels under SAA heavy fire 17/05

May 15: Syria: Civilians Come Under Fire From Rebels (“The demonstrators were predominantly Syrian Palestinians, many from the Yarmouk district of Damascus who had fled when it was taken over by opposition forces eight months ago. Some screamed at us: ‘Please tell the world the truth! We don’t want the fighters here, we want the army to kill them!”)

May 14: Syrian Rebels Face Increasing Criticism For Human Rights Violations – Analysis (by IRIN, “the humanitarian news and analysis service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.”)

May 14: In Cairo, desperate Egyptian men search in vain for Syrian brides (“Men across the region are now seeking Syrian brides. In Turkey and Jordan, where refugee camps pepper the landscape, the desperation of the Syrians is far easier to spot as rich Persian Gulf men scour the camps to buy brides living in tents. Rape, child brides and temporary marriages are prevalent.”)
Read the rest of this entry →

For anyone thinking of enlisting, the video above is essential listening. It has the somewhat odd title of “Afghanistan veterans commit suicide from a good conscience,” but don’t let that discourage you. Partial transcript below.

Potential enlistees, don’t become a killer of people you have never met, about whom you know very little or nothing. More morality lessons here.

Hakim: Some people who hear your story may think your mind was weak; you wanted to commit suicide.

Nao Rozi: Veterans who commit suicide are not cowardly, they are victims of the war. They were persuaded to do things they didn’t want to do. Or, if they chose to do those things, don’t we sometimes regret things we’ve done, or feel ashamed? That was exactly what happened in my crisis. I felt ashamed. I regretted what I had done. … Life becomes meaningless. … You think you’ve done something such that you feel you no longer have the right to live. …

The U.S. veterans who have committed suicide had a conscience. They fought in Afghanistan and some killed or were killed. Those thoughts afflicted them day and night. I myself experienced them. When I was sleeping, I would wake up suddenly in the middle of the night shouting. It was not fear, they were nightmares. At times I slept walked. I even thought I was a murderer, though now I think I was not because I didn’t kill anyone. [But] even those who may have killed others should not keep thinking those thoughts.

Hakim: What message do you have for friends and for the world?

Nao Rozi: … How I wish that every human in the world would, just for once, sit down alone and ask, ‘What are we here for? How have we been deceived? How true to self have we been?’ These questions are important.

… I was a captive of the things I heard from society and the media, but now I am free!

Nao Rozi currently lives with and struggles for the Afghan Peace Volunteers, seeking a better life and a better world.

Kinda sad when the U.S., the West and their corporate media lead the fight for war and against reconciliation in Syria. (More Nobel Peace Prizes likely in the mix!) Once again all the pro-civil-war, pro-terrorism statements are being voiced by U.S. and Western officials, and their media are as biased as ever against peace and for more death and destruction. Not to mention Ban Ki-Moon … and the rebels themselves: “To date, opposition leaders have refused to consider any form of negotiations or compromise with the regime.”

Despite the predictable response, once again Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has presented a national reconciliation process leading to democratic elections, and the proposal is instantly rejected by the rebels, the U.S. and the West (and this is presented as ‘normal’ and ‘honorable’ in the corporate media). On Sunday Assad described his three-part plan:

Phase I would … entail making contact with the full spectrum of Syrian society, political parties and administrative bodies. These would include “all forces inside and outside the country who are interested in a solution,” he said.

In Phase II, the current government would chair a “comprehensive national dialogue conference” with these groups with the goal of drafting a national charter.

This document would uphold Syria’s sovereignty and unity, reject terrorism and “pave the way for the political future of Syria,” said Assad.

The charter would be put to a national referendum for approval.

Parliamentary elections would then be held within the framework of the constitution to form a new government that would represent all segments of Syrian society. …

In Phase III, a new government would be formed in accordance with constitutional law.

Now, what exactly is wrong with the preceding? Well, that’s pretty clear: it’s not a proposal for immediate regime change, which is the first and only demand of the rebels and their sponsors. Those sponsors unfortunately include the UN’s Ban Ki-Moon, who said he rejected Assad’s plan because it did not include “a political transition and the establishment of a transitional governing body with full executive powers that would include representatives of all Syrians.”

But Assad’s plan allows for transition, if that’s what Syrians vote for in elections. In contrast, Ban’s suggested path is anti-democratic, not allowing Syrians to choose “representatives of all Syrians” in any sort of election.

Me, uh, I’m for democracy … guess that ain’t cool anymore.

A final note on one of the imperial media lies about Assad’s Sunday speech, that he had “dismissed any chance of dialogue with the opposition.” In fact Assad asked for dialogue with the opposition, but lamented “that his government had not yet found any partners willing to back a solution to Syria’s ongoing crisis.” And who can deny his description of the violent opposition as largely Western puppets or terrorists? Or deny the good sense of his desire to dialogue with “the master not the servants”? And, finally, isn’t the opposition at the moment, as it has always been, badly fractured and riddled with sleaze?

Finally, a bit of optimism. In part because regime change in Syria by and for the West was never a very coherent plan, there are hints of peace despite its latest knee-jerk rejections. And after all, if the choice is really between “‘Somalia-ization’ of Syria Or a Political Settlement,” then whispers that the U.S. is secretly negotiating with Russia on a quiet, peaceful, end to the civil war might be true. Certainly almost all Syrians prefer peace to their present hell. Instituting a democratic transition that would lead to democratic governance and, if the Syrian people will it, Assad stepping down would also be real nice.

It’s just particularly cruel to fight against peace now, when both sides seem exhausted, and the winter is cold and food scarce in both government and rebel-held areas.

And you know why that’s the case. Because a credible video of an 11 or 12-year-old Free Syrian Army boy beheading an Allawite Assad loyalist [apologies if youtube has disappeared it by now] doesn’t fit the narrative of “kill to protect” (KTP) or whatever is the current justification for the U.S. sponsoring and funneling Qatari/Saudi money to ‘our guys in Syria’. (Preemptive disclaimer for non-reality-based attacks on anything anti Syrian rebel: that doesn’t mean I’m pro-Assad, in the same way that any criticism of the U.S. invasion of Iraq did not mean we were pro Saddam Hussein.)

youtube screengrab via humanrightsinvestigations.org

Anyway, thank you to Patrick Cockburn in Syria, who’s written an excellent column — Descent Into Holy War — on what is going on inside Syria, especially in Damascus, right now. He writes:

…a basically false and propagandistic account of events in Syria has been created by a foreign media credulous in using pro-opposition sources as if they were objective reporting.

The execution video is a case in point. I have not met a Syrian in Damascus who has not seen it. It is having great influence on how Syrians judge their future, but the mainstream media outside Syria has scarcely mentioned it. Some may be repulsed by its casual savagery, but more probably it is not shown because it contradicts so much of what foreign leaders and reporters claim is happening here.

Besides the glaring imperial propaganda substituting for news (why do we pretend it is otherwise, why do we stand for it?) and the lessons that should teach us, here’s the impression the video is making in Syria:

The film is being widely watched on YouTube by Syrians, reinforcing their fears that Syria is imitating Iraq’s descent into murderous warfare in the years after the US invasion in 2003. It fosters a belief among Syria’s non-Sunni Muslim minorities, and Sunnis associated with the government as soldiers or civil servants, that there will be no safe future for them in Syria if the rebels win. … The beheadings, so proudly filmed by the perpetrators, may well convince [Shiites and other Assad supporters] that they have no alternative but to fight to the end.

So the video and the bizarre anti-news ‘reporting’ on Syria remind Cockburn of the U.S.-sponsored Iraqi descent into sectarian war/hell, and how that didn’t appear in U.S. news until it was impossible not to report. The same descent into sectarian and worse war/hell is happening in Libya of course in the wake of our KTP invasion there, but the imperial propaganda sheets aren’t forced to report that.

Source: http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/87/72087-004-CDFDD10E.jpg

Because raw imperialism can’t be defended, its defenders tend to be morons.

For example there’s the U.S. war on Iran, and therefore warrior for imperialism Fareed Zakaria vs. Iran. That country is suffering under the most brutal sanctions a corporate globalist hegemon can conjure, crushing the everyday hopes and lives of working and middle class Iranians. The victim’s duly elected president (the illegitimacy of the 2009 election is just more lies), although in most respects a bigoted right-winger himself, nonetheless consistently wins the debate with the intellectual warriors of corporate globalist imperialism. CNN a couple nights ago:

ZAKARIA: More with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I quote the Koran to him to show him that he might be wrong about something. …

Oh I bet you will ;->, looking forward to that Fareed …

ZAKARIA: You’re a student of history, and you said something that I was struck by in one of the gatherings that you were at. You spoke about Israel and you said it has no roots in history in the region. And I was wondering whether you really believe that because as you know, of course, Jews have lived there for thousands of years, and we know this, of course, because there are repeated references to the children of Israel in the Koran. There are 43 references to the children of Israel. In fact, one of them, chapter 17 Sura 104 says, we say onto the children of Israel, dwell in this land, live in this land, referring to the land that is now Israel. So do you dispute these facts or do you accept that there is some connection between the children of Israel and this land?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): So we’re trying to fabricate to make the roots a connection? So you do not draw any distinction between the Zionists and the Jews?

ZAKARIA: I’m asking you.

AHMADINEJAD: I am — I have always maintained that the Zionist regime has no historical roots in the region. I — why would I say that the Jews have no historical root? They were also in Iran, a great many of them. So that means that Iran belongs to the Jews? Iran belongs to Iranians, whether they’re Jews, whether they’re Muslims or Christians. Please pay close attention here, sir. The borderline is quite thin. Zionism is a doctrine, is a school of thought, is an aggressive school of thought. It has nothing to do with the Jewish people. At the same time, the majority of those who are there now have come from other lands. They’re immigrants. Many of them recently converted to Judaism. So the way this regime took shape doesn’t matter. Yes, for a long time, Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in Palestine with one another in peace and stability and they will continue to do so in the future. It is not a Jewish/Christian/Muslim fight. We’re speaking of a group of Zionists who came and gained the reins of power.

Change the subject Fareed, you just been floored! (By the way, does the Ahmadinejad you read in that final paragraph in any way resemble the corporate imperial media Ahmadinejad?)

The Syria headline today is Kofi Annan resigns as Special Envoy to Syria. But I think yesterday’s headline was much more enlightening: Obama authorized secret support for Syrian rebels. If you have even minimal understanding of real world power politics, you can learn exactly what imperialism looks like from that mainstream media source. The key information begins in paragraphs six and seven:

Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.

The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.

I’d guess “a long time ago” and “anything goes,” based on the U.S. imperial track record. But the key paragraphs are nine to eleven:

A U.S. government source acknowledged that under provisions of the presidential finding, the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.

Last week, Reuters reported that, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey had established a secret base near the Syrian border to help direct vital military and communications support to Assad’s opponents.

This “nerve center” is in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 60 miles from the Syrian border, which is also home to Incirlik, a U.S. air base where U.S. military and intelligence agencies maintain a substantial presence.

“Turkey and its allies” means Turkey and the two Gulf dictatorships, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Knowing the real relationship between the U.S. and those powers, translate “the United States was collaborating with” into “the United States was commanding.” And confirm that by noting the ‘secret’ base is essentially at a longstanding U.S. military and intelligence base.

Which leads to the following headline from Lebanon, NOT something allowed into the U.S. mainstream: Damascus says U.S., Turkey, Israel, Gulf states directing ‘terrorists’ in Syria. Obviously true, but misleading if it directs us away from the fact that the boss of bosses is the U.S. and its puppets and underlings better not forget that.

Which takes us to the next true headline, also, of course, not allowed into the U.S. mainstream: No happy outcome in Syria as conflict turns into proxy war, which begins:

Regional powers are pouring in money and guns, jihadists are joining rebels battling to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, while his own well-armed but hard-pressed forces are fighting back ruthlessly with combat aircraft and artillery.

Gruesome scenes of slaughtered civilians or executed rebel fighters provide daily snapshots of the worsening conflict in Syria. Video [Syrian rebels execute pro-Assad militiamen in Aleppo] apparently showing rebels gunning down Assad militiamen in cold blood suggests the insurgents are capable of brutality to match their enemies.

Brought to you by the Nobel Peace Prize winner himself.

Finally, to really get at what is going on inside Syria, I strongly recommend the short article Syria & blanket thinkers. I agree with all four of his main points, but will blockquote just one of them:

It is correct to deny the broad label of ‘sectarian gangs’ to describe armed opposition groups operating in Syria. Nevertheless, evidence exists that these groups are not uniform and there is no united leadership or central command. A sectarian dynamic exists in the current conflict and some of these groups have been galvanised by anti-Shi’a hatred preached by Saudi aligned Salafi preachers (Sheikh ‘Adnan al-’Arour being one prominent example). Human Rights Watch and United Nations reports agree on violence committed by some opposition armed groups (Human Rights Watch makes salient the sectarian dimension of some of these abuses).

The kidnapping of Iranian engineers and Lebanese pilgrims, for example, are examples of this sectarian dimension. Leading Syrian opposition figures (e.g. Burhan Ghalioun and Haitham al-Maleh) justified the kidnapping of Lebanese civilians, perpetuating the narrative of leading Hezbollah officers being captured. Further, documents and news are frequently fabricated from an array of opposition factions (armed and civilian) to establish, on sectarian terms, the armed presence of thousands of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Sadr Brigades and Hezbollah fighters (a propaganda industry in coordination with the different Saudi monarchy owned media stations). It is not coincidental that this orchestrated scheme of fabrication is largely run on sectarian lines. In other words, it is not only the regime and its backers that may operate along communal lines but also opposition groups.

Also, specific wordings and ideas from anti-Shi’a Salafi polemics and tracts, initially mass distributed during the Iran/Iraq war (e.g. the book ‘The Magians (Zoroastrians) turn has come’), has now become common currency across some opposition factions (it is common to find, in this discourse of derision, talk of the dangers of the Shi’ite esoterics [in this context meaning a communal trait of treachery], the Zoroastrian Twelver Shi’ite rejectionists, the expansionist conspiracies of the Safavids etc.). Popular Facebook pages, such as Shaam News Network and the Syrian Revolution, regularly repeat terms initially concocted by Wahabi preachers (whether Saudi aligned or not), though it is not clear if they realise the theological background of the terms used (these terms are used within a Salafi discourse to excommunicate Twelver Shi’ism from Islam and treat their beliefs and practices as both pagan and idolatrous. This de-humanising language is also used to establish communal traits of treachery and expansionist visions as part of this supposed belief system).

So, do we accept that our country, the U.S., is the critical actor in this tragedy? Do we understand that if the U.S. told its forces to accept and respect a ceasefire – i.e., to do the opposite of what the rebels did when there was a ceasefire in May – that that would of course stop the killing and be the key contribution toward a negotiated settlement of this part civil war part foreign intervention?

To most Syrians, I think, this war has lost any point aside from sectarian score settling. Let’s pressure our government to stop the killing. It has the power, and therefore so do the citizens of the U.S. Or do we?
 

To judge the propaganda from the pro-imperial media, look at this from yesterday’s NPR, April 28:

When Gadhafi was in charge of the [Dhiba] border post, Libyans weren’t allowed to cross into Tunisia. . . .

That contrasts a LOT with this:

Libya: Tunisia Closes Dhiba Border Post
21 April , 17:45

(ANSAmed) – TUNIS, APRIL 21 – The Tunisian authorities have closed the border crossing at Dhiba. The decision was taken after Libyan rebels attacked the post this morning, forcing Gaddafi loyalists to flee towards the border with Tunisia, where some of them crossed over into the country and were promptly arrested. (ANSAmed).

And with this, a report Microsoft Translator-ated from (at last!) a reasonably even-handed source, the French language La Presse de Tunisie:

Massive influx of Libyan refugees
April 19, 2011

… Refugees continue to arrive en masse from the Libyan cities located in the Jabal Al-Gharbi, fleeing from the intensive bombing which destroyed many houses.

Over the last two days, their number has reached 3,000, including women and children.

A total of 11,000 Libyans crossed the border post of Dhiba last week.

Here’s three more NPR pro-imperial propaganda test sentences:

Refugees crossing the border say Gadhafi’s forces are terrorizing people any way they can. They are gunning down flocks of sheep just to wreck livelihoods, the refugees say. But they say Arabs and Berbers are now united in their opposition to Gadhafi.

Funny how even pro-rebel Al Jazeera doesn’t have that “gunning down flocks of sheep” stuff or the classic pro-imperial “Arabs and Berbers are now united” hacksterism. Could it have a lower tolerance than NPR for what sounds like complete cheerleading and/or demonizing bull%#t? Jazeera’s source, the UNHCR, says the refugees are escaping from our war (that the imperial powers have massively escalated and refuse to let the Libyans stop), not from one side or another:

4:33pm [April 29] The fighting at the Dehiba-Wazin border crossing has stopped the flow of refugees from Libya’s Western Mountains, seeking refuge in neighbouring Tunisia, according to the UNHCR.

The UN’s human rights agency warned in a statement on Friday:

UNHCR is very concerned that people fleeing Libya could be caught in the cross-fire as government and opposition forces battle for control in the border area. …

Another Le Presse report, this from April 26, confirms the very probably real reason the refugees cross into Tunisia (one that makes a lot of common sense), “fear of the renewal of military operations between the two parties in conflict on the Libyan side of the border.”:

An eyewitness in the locality of Dhehiba [Dhiba] has indicated, in a telephone communication with the correspondent of the TAP agency, that the last days were marked by the escape of more than 3000 Libyan citizens, originating in Wazen, only 3 km from the Dhehiba border crossing point, who entered into Tunisian territory with large herds of sheep and cattle. …

These persons, including women and children, suffer from a very difficult situation. A sense of anxiety prevails in the locality, with the fear of the renewal of military operations between the two parties in conflict on the Libyan side of the border area.

In addition, the increase in the number of Libyan citizens residing in several localities of Tataouine governorate, and their membership of the two parties to the conflict in Libya, animate other fears, in particular the possibility of clashes between them.

Today, Le Presse reports on a large group of Libyan refugees who prefer to take refuge in the Tunisian desert rather than near “Libyan insurgents and their families.” You’ll never get this perspective from NPR:

Des familles libyennes se réfugient dans le désert tunisien
Libyan Families Take Refuge in the Tunisian Desert
April 29, 2011

A thousand Libyans originating from Wezen (Libya), village located about 3 km from the Dhehiba border crossing point, have preferred to take refuge in the Tunisian desert camps and urban areas. They left their homes after the takeover by the insurgents from their village and the point of border crossing on the Libyan side.

Security sources and eyewitnesses reported to the correspondent of agency TAP that the Libyans have preferred to settle near the localities of Tunisian Martba, Om Zougar and El Ouni, to stay away from Libyan insurgents and their families in the towns and villages in the region of Tataouine and the camps of refugees.

Moreover, citizens of Tataouine told the correspondent of agency TAP that the Libyans continued to flow to the region to escape the war. They have expressed their fear that this situation generates conflicts, either between the insurgents and the troops of the Gaddafi regime or at the level of the refugees in the camps, emphasizing the imperative to establish a distance from each other.

Aid is provided by the population, the host committees and civil society to all Libyan refugees without distinction.

Donate to the UNHCR fund for the refugees from our war.

How’s that Nobel Peace Prize winner working out for us? The Washington Post writes (emphasis added):

. . . perhaps most significantly, the [CIA] is in the midst of what amounts to a sustained bombing campaign over Pakistan using unmanned Predator and Reaper drones. . . .

[CIA insiders] voiced concern that Petraeus is too wedded to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — and the troop-heavy, counterinsurgency strategy he designed — to deliver impartial assessments of those wars as head of the CIA.

Indeed, over the past year the CIA has generally presented a more pessimistic view of the war in Afghanistan than Petraeus has while he has pushed for an extended troop buildup.

And Blue Floridian adds truth about Obama’s nomination of Petraeus that mainstream places like WaPost won’t:

. . . this means there will never be any accountability for his wrong moves in Afghanistan. Petraeus nearly single handedly destroyed any ability for the U.S. to extricate itself from Afghanistan in the very near future. And his plans did not work, are not working and are leading to the destruction of more lives and our country and their country. He is responsible and he will never be held responsible.

Yeah, let’s not let an immediate and real chance for peace stand in the way of Petraeus’s favored option, a long-term imperial occupation of (“partnership deal” with) Afghanistan (emphasis added):

The Wall Street Journal reports that in an April 16 meeting in Kabul, [Pakistan] Prime Minister Gilani told Afghan President Karzai that the U.S. had failed both Pakistan and Afghanistan and that Karzai should “forget about allowing a long-term U.S. military presence in his country.” Gilani also reportedly urged Karzai to form a long-term partnership with Pakistan and China in order to revitalize Afghanistan’s economy and negotiate a peace deal with the Taliban. Though U.S. officials have privately played down the Pakistani proposal, General Petraeus has met Karzai three times since April 16, “in part to reassure the Afghan leader that he has America’s support, and to nudge forward progress on the partnership deal.”

More on the endless warrior’s plans for Afghanistan:

Gen. David Petraeus and the Pentagon have yet to accept the notion of talks with Taliban leaders. So far they have only embraced a policy of “reintegration,” which aims at splitting and weakening the Taliban, and not “reconciliation” which means negotiating with them.

A European diplomat depicted this stance rather graphically: “the U.S. military only wants to talk with their boots on the Taliban’s neck.” This approach no longer enjoys the confidence either of the international community or of a majority of Americans. Above all the Afghans want an end to the fighting and a chance at peace.

Nobody knows whether the U.S. will leave (YES, DO IT!) because of Petraeus’s failure to effectively pacify Afghanistan or whether it will re-commit to long-term war and death. But, certainly, Obama moving Petreaus to the CIA is bad news for Afghanistan (and for Pakistan too). Pakistani defense analyst Asif Haroon Raja seems of two minds on the “will they leave or won’t they” thing in the following two paragraphs (emphasis added: how does 2024 grab ya?):

The US reinforced the Lisbon plan and extended its departure date from Afghanistan to 2014. It is now having second thoughts and is throwing feelers that it may stay up to 2024. Karzai stated in February 2011 that Washington intends to establish permanent military bases in Afghanistan. The US has for long been planning to convert Baghram in north, Kandahar in south, Shindad in west, Herat and Kabul as military bases from where Pentagon can conduct surveillance and combat operations within and outside Afghanistan. These places are being speedily fortified and modernised. The US Ambassador Cameron Munter has now stated that the US will not leave Afghanistan.

Although hardnosed hawks have softened their mulish stance to some extent, it will still require more time before they get rid of their conceited ego and start seeing the changed ground reality objectively and astutely. It may take another 1-2 years of further bloodshed before the realization sinks into their jaundiced minds that hope of victory, or forcing Taliban to agree to their conditions is illusive. Resurgence of Taliban, casualty factor, growth of psychiatric illnesses among the troops, home pressure, melting economy and growing instability in Middle East are some of the factors that have converted USA from a hunter to a hunted. This change in profile would compel occupation forces to retreat well before the given cutout time.

Yeah, okay, but mebbe defense analyst Raja doesn’t get something about 2011 USA: Jaundiced Minds Rule, BABY!

Ultimately, though, Glenn Greenwald reminds us of the big picture, that Petreaus to the CIA is a symptom but not the disease itself. Know the (emphasis added) disease, people:

The nomination of Petraeus doesn’t change much; it merely reflects how Washington is run. That George Bush’s favorite war-commanding General — who advocated for and oversaw the Surge in Iraq — is also Barack Obama’s favorite war-commanding General, and that Obama is now appointing him to run a nominally civilian agency that has been converted into an “increasingly militarized” arm of the American war-fighting state, says all one needs to know about the fully bipartisan militarization of American policy. There’s little functional difference between running America’s multiple wars as a General and running them as CIA Director because American institutions in the National Security State are all devoted to the same overarching cause: Endless War.

And still the ‘left’ nominates no one to run against Obama, currently conducting five wars in the Middle East (in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and Pakistan). Amazing, sad, predictable ‘careering’ of Democratic Party fake leftists and fake peaceniks.

“Now there is inconvertible evidence that civilians are dying both due to the efforts of Gaddafi and the forces opposing him. … All we need to do now is get a ceasefire and a politically negotiated solution.”

– Hardeep Singh Puri (India’s UN envoy)

“An immediate cease-fire must be declared, Gaddafi forces must lift the siege on some towns and they must withdraw. Safe zones must be created that would enable uninterrupted flow of humanitarian aid to Libyan people. A process must start immediately for transition to democratic change and transformation taking into consideration legitimate rights and interests of the people of Libya so that a constitutional democracy could be established.”

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan:

The Libyan government has agreed to listen to Erdogan’s proposal, which parallels a similar proposal by the African Union a few days ago. But the U.S. and its rebels have both already rejected the immediate ceasefire plan. Rebel spokesperson Colonel Ahmad Bani, rejecting the proposal and insulting Erdogan’s motives:

. . . said the rebels rejected talks with Gaddafi and demanded he quit power.

“We respect the … Turkish people’s position but Erdogan’s position does not express the opinion of the Turkish people,” he told Al Arabiya television.

“I think [Erdogan] is not speaking in the interests of the Libyan or Turkish people but only in his personal interest.”

Add President Obama to the list of rejectionists. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

“There needs to be a ceasefire, his forces need to withdraw from the cities that they have forcibly taken at great violence and human cost. There needs to be a decision made about his departure from power and . . . his departure from Libya.”

Clinton’s rejection was to the letter written by Muammar Gaddafi himself to President Obama, asking for the U.S. President to do the right thing. It’s mainstream-media important to note that the letter contained bad grammar and mispellings. Gaddafi:

. . . implored Mr Obama to stop the NATO-led air campaign, which he called an “unjust war against a small people of a developing country.”

“To serving world peace . . . Friendship between our peoples . . . and for the sake of economic, and security co-operation against terror, you are in a position to keep NATO off the Libyan affair for good. I am sure you are able to shoulder responsibility for that.”

Gaddafi said a democratic society could not be built through the use of missiles and aircraft. He repeated his claim that the rebels seeking his ouster are members of the al-Qa’ida terrorist network.

Addressing Mr Obama as “our son” and “excellency”, Gaddafi said his country had been hurt more “morally” than “physically” by the NATO campaign.

. . . “Our dear son, Excellency, Baraka Hussein Abu oumama, your intervention in the name of the USA is a must, so that NATO would withdraw finally from the Libyan affair. Libya should be left to Libyans within the African union frame.”

And then there was General Carter Ham, head of U.S. Africa Command, who

. . . said in Washington DC that it was unlikely rebel forces could push Gaddafi out themselves.

Asked at a Senate hearing about the chances that the opposition could “fight their way” to Tripoli and replace Gaddafi, Ham replied: “Sir, I would assess that as a low likelihood.”

His comments underscored growing concern in Washington and European capitals that the conflict is heading towards a stalemate, with Gaddafi firmly in control in Tripoli and badly organised rebels unable to turn the tide even under the cover of NATO-led air power.

Why “concern”? Why not optimism for peace instead? Doesn’t the current stalemate mean a peaceful, negotiated settlement could be possible, especially now? Isn’t that better than the prospect, say, of eventual bloody street-to-street fighting between, on one side,  mercenaries, CIA and MI6 ‘trainers’, and Libyan rebels, and on the other Libya’s military and lightly armed Tripoli citizen militias (recall our invasion of Iraq)? Yes, the U.S. and the Western powers and their Gulf dictatorship ‘allies’ are probably already in the process of hiring mercenary troops.

So, then why the heck is Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama against an immediate ceasefire? Well, we know why if we get to the real reason for the war, which is imperialism. Demba Moussa Dembélé (but read the whole thing, it’s excellent):

The statements from Obama, Sarkozy and others are nothing but a pack of lies, a cover for the real aims of this imperialist crusade, whose real objective is regime change and control of the country’s vast resources – above all its oil. Indeed, one can ask since when did Sarkozy and his like care about the fate of the African people, and especially those of Arab origin? Since when did the US president start caring about what happens to people? And if these gentlemen had the slightest ‘humanitarian’ fibre, what were they doing when the Palestinians were being decimated by Zionist cluster bombs? What did they do when Israel imposed its illegal and inhuman blockade against Gaza? In the face of these crimes against humanity, how can Obama, Sarkozy and the others pretend they are acting in defence of the Libyan people?

The truth is that their sole concern is maintaining the hegemony of their economic and political system – imperialism. This is a system that is the sworn enemy of freedom, of the independence and sovereignty of peoples and nations everywhere in the world. It is the main obstacle to the emancipation of people. How could the guarantors of such a system claim to ‘protect’ the Libyan population? The only rights that matter in the imperialist system are the rights of a minority of exploiters and criminals, lawless and without conscience. All the rhetoric on human rights is just that, a facade to conceal the true purpose – the conquest, rape and pillage of peoples.

Regarding the UN, Dembélé notes:

By endorsing such an imperialist adventure, the UN has once again shown that it is a puppet of the big powers.

Important to remember that. The UN is _not_ the neutral referee it may have seemed at times to be when it was headed by Boutros Boutros-Ghali or even to a limited extent by Kofi Annan.

The U.S. air war on Libya is a case of imperialism. Imperialism is why it is happening, and that is fundamentally why I oppose the war. Imperialism is when a weaker nation is forced to act in the interests of a stronger nation or multinational coalition. The intention of ‘our’ air war is to force Libya to give over sovereign control of its economy, including of its oil industry, to the forces of corporate globalization, in particular and especially to the corporate interests of those doing the bombing. Find a simpatico perspective in Diana Johnstone’s Why are They Making War on Libya? but also definitely don’t forget these two Pepe Escobar paragraphs from back on March 19:

History may register that the real tipping point was this past Tuesday when, in an interview to German TV, the African king of kings made sure that Western corporations – unless they are German (because the country was against a no-fly zone) – can kiss goodbye to Libya’s energy bonanza. Gaddafi explicitly said, “We do not trust their firms, they have conspired against us … Our oil contracts are going to Russian, Chinese and Indian firms.” In other words: BRICS member countries. …

When Gaddafi threatened Western oil majors, he meant the show would soon be over for France’s Total, Italy’s ENI, British Petroleum (BP), Spanish Repsol, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, Hess and Conoco Phillips – though not for the China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC). China ranks Libya as essential for its energy security. China gets 11% of Libya’s oil exports. CNPC has quietly repatriated no less than 30,000 Chinese workers (compared to 40 working for BP).

But the actual proof of Western intentions is in the history. Ten or so days ago the UN Security Council passed its ‘no fly zone’ resolution. Libya then offered an unconditional ceasefire and begged UN inspectors to come to Libya and make sure the ceasefire was real and that civilians were well-treated. Now, at that point, the intimidation of the ‘no fly zone’ obviously had worked. If the West had simply said ‘yes’ and put its efforts into making sure the ceasefire worked, then its intervention, the passage of the Security Council resolution and subsequent military preparations, could plausibly have been called ‘humanitarian intervention’ rather than imperialism.

However, as we know the Western powers rejected Libya’s peace offer. Why? Well, because of their imperialist intentions. That is the _only_ explanation. I’ve written two diaries here and haven’t heard another. (Note that many who defend the war, such as John Judis, predictably pretend the preceding offer did not occur; if it didn’t happen then they can pretend those opposed to the war don’t care about Libya’s civilians; since Libya’s ceasefire offer did take place it is war proponents who seem to disregard civilian lives.)

Instead of proposing some other reason for this war than imperialism, all I’ve heard from proponents is that _this_ one act of imperialism is good, because (as these off-topic ‘defenses’ usually go) the ruler of the target country is a very bad man and we must snuff him out. But the ceasefire offer makes that argument nonsense. Seriously, WAR would be better than a ceasefire and then a national compromise in which the West could force elections and also what really needs to happen, an even split of national wealth and power among the three or four regions that make up Libya? That’s what ‘we the people’ should want, not another hollow victory for a different Libyan minority, which in fact will be a victory for the military forces of the major Western imperialist powers. Whoever ‘rules’ Libya will know who has the most powerful guns, and will know from direct experience what those powers do when a weak nation strays from the imperial powers’ interests.

You know, I’d almost prefer debating the business elite press. They’d say I’m just being old fashioned with ‘this national sovereignty stuff’, that it’s a good thing to let the “international investor class” — they sometimes lie and call it ‘the market’ — take over and tell Libya to do all those sensible things it always recommends: cut back on safety net and other transfers to citizens, privatize at bargain basement prices, cut taxes for businesses and the rich, make labor costs lower and ‘more flexible’ and so on.

Not living off my investments and dependent someday on transfer payments from my government (and hopefully on an ‘inflexible labor market’ union), I would disagree, and say economic sovereignty, in the people’s interest if we fight for it, is a better way to go. But, at least the business elite knows what’s going on and doesn’t pretend this is ‘about Qaddafi’ or ‘civilians’. We’ve known that’s not the case since the Western imperialists rejected Libya’s ceasefire offer.

P.S. “The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists is that the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see as constraints on U.S. power), and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American dominance.” – Stephen M. Walt, March 21, 2011

UPDATE: A glitch in myfdl doesn’t allow me to respond (at least right now) to the various responses that “Libya didn’t really ceasefire” when it said it was declaring a unilateral ceasefire. Why it did not do so is uncertain, though the West universally says the fact that Libya did not shows that it is untrustworthy. First of all, there may have been good reasons, such as being under military attack by the rebels, why the Libyans did not completely ceasefire. We don’t in fact know the battlefield circumstances. I’m not blaming the U.S. and its allies for not telling the rebels to stop fighting, but I’m also not accusing the Libyan of bad faith for continuing to fight the Libyan rebels they were already engaged in battle with, if that was in fact the case. Second and more important, common sense could have interpreted the Libyan declaration as an opening for reciprocation. Why not respond with a confidence-raising measure of some sort, which would’ve indicated the U.S. and its allies in fact also wanted an immediate ceasefire? Instead of ridicule, accusations of bad faith, and then cruise missiles. I think I know why. The U.S., Britain, France, and Italy want a war in which they will reclaim firm control over Libya’s oil resources, through the rebel government that will know who the real bosses are.