Posts filed under 'RESOURCE WARS'
August 7th, 2007
By: Carolyn Baker of Speaking Truth to Power
By owning the truth and all of its distressing emotions, we empower ourselves beyond our wildest dreams.
Within the past month, America has witnessed two dramatic events which have illumined the devastating demise of its infrastructure-the New York City steam explosion in mid-July and the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, on August 1. And in the same span of one month, a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court “collapses” with a seizure. Now, in neon lights, we have the word “collapse” writ large across empire even as the overwhelming majority of Americans refuse to face the collapse of every institution in the nation: the economy, healthcare, education, religion, transportation, energy, political systems, and so much more. In fact, the word “collapse” is now being used in American journalism with increasing frequency to describe the ubiquitous crumbling of nearly all facets of our society. Yet as most progressives with the exception of Oprah, along with middle America, avoid talking about the ghastly plot of the recent novel “” or steer clear of discussing information such as that contained in the documentary “What A Way To Go: Life At The End Of Empire“, they have only to turn on CNN and see that collapse is no longer something imagined by Stephen King or wild-eyed, doom-and-gloom “conspiracy theorists”. Collapse is here, it’s now, and it’s going to exacerbate, and Minneapolis is a metaphor as well as another gruesome literal example of civilization’s grotesque self-annihilation.
One of my favorite characters in ancient history is Socrates, the Greek philosopher whom that society could not tolerate and who courageously drank the poisonous hemlock rather than compromise his convictions. Socrates drove his countrymen to distraction with questions-in fact he rarely provided answers and instead engaged listeners in inveterate interrogation. It was through those questions, he insisted, that people actually learn-that their eyes open and light breaks into sealed and darkened places. Although he was popular for a time, Socrates never sought to create a mass movement. He appeared on the scene at a pivotal time in Greek history but had no illusions about inciting mass consciousness. If his listeners heeded his message, he was content; if they didn’t, he was also content. He almost never offered “solutions” but perpetually needled his listeners with provocative questions. In other words, he refused to tell people how to help themselves but rather challenged them to go within themselves and critically think about how the solutions lay within each individual.
Not surprisingly, many individuals who label themselves progressive and read my website and books tell me that I should be doing more to spread the word and inspire mass consciousness. I’m not unlike some of my colleagues who also receive the same lament: “You should find ways to spread your message far and wide. If you don’t, you’re just preaching to the choir.” When I respond that I don’t give a rat’s ass about mass consciousness, these folks are aghast, shake their heads, and comfort themselves by reading Michael Moore’s website. Now there’s someone who’s inciting mass consciousness! Or is he? The big question is: Where does so-called mass consciousness go-if anywhere? Has anything in the past seven years in America significantly changed because of “mass consciousness”? What could be a better example of this fallacy than public opinion about the Iraq War? The reality is that the ruling elite have become even more intransigent in spite of mass opposition to the war and have cunningly and very successfully shredded the Constitution and our civil liberties in order to render any meaningful protest virtually impossible. In a fascist empire-and yes Virginia, we are living in one-mass consciousness is about as effectual in the face of tyranny as meditating on Goldilocks and the three bears.
I repeat: I’m not worried about preaching to the choir because there is no choir. Furthermore, individuals are either awake, in a process of awakening, or comatose and unwilling to wake up. My work is directed toward the first two groups.
Therefore, in sympathy with Socrates, my role as I see it, is to ask the right questions-evoke discomfort among the comfortable, announce the elephant in the room to everyone’s embarrassment including mine, and connect the dots to see what shapes appear. My audience is not the neocons but people who call themselves progressive and libertarian. So why can’t I just tell them what they want to hear and make them happy?
Well, because I care little about mass movements and mass consciousness which are manifestations of the capitalist, consumeristic paradigm of narcissistic privilege and entitlement. It is a theme touted by people who are still running around manically and frantically driven by the soporific of hope and who are sometimes frequent fliers to conferences on energy conservation, technofixes and global warming in search of solutions that will require no changes whatsoever in their lifestyles. Just get your new idea into mass media-get Susan Sarandon or Leonardo DiCaprio to endorse your gig, and everything will change-except the nuts and bolts of the paradigm that created Western civilization.
A plethora of ideas abound about where civilization is headed and how we arrived at where we are. My ideas are generally rejected as “conspiratorial”, “angry”, and “depressing” by the so-called “choir” that people assume agrees with me. Yet I empathize with those individuals and their perceptions of me. Who would prefer embracing the notion that the world as we have known it is ending and that humans are likely to annihilate every life form on earth within the course of the twenty-first century and perhaps within the next decade or two? As a corporately-owned presidential candidate whose message is “The Audacity Of Hope” dazzles the progressive community with possibilities that do not exist, why would anyone choose to go down the opposite road into the despair of a very dark and daunting future? Why would anyone want to turn over rocks, dive deeper into the sea of incontrovertible evidence of humanity’s and the planet’s demise, and risk being sucked under by the appalling vacuousness of all “solutions” thus far proposed? It’s enough to send one screaming into the night-unless one has totally rejected the dominant paradigm.
And then there are those like Thomas Homer-Dixon in who insist that:
The good news — and there is some — is that the collapse doesn’t need to be total and catastrophic. We needn’t follow Rome into the dustbin. Rather, once the crisis is recognized, a new cycle can begin, if we’re willing to go back to the drawing board. The Fire of 1906 led to a better, more resilient banking system in the U.S. — not to mention better fire protection in San Francisco! — and the Great Depression led to a more resilient economy in the U.S. The problems of the 21st century can be faced in one of two ways: we can keep trying to add complexity until the world is one giant, possibly horribly Orwellian, system of command and control (and still too brittle to cope with the problems of the 22nd century!), or we can recognize the crisis for what it is and start from scratch.
What planet is Homer-Dixon living on? Certainly not this one. When more than 90% of Americans are clueless about collapse even in the face of global warming, a plummeting Dow, their own catastrophic financial plight, and the gargantuan loss of their civil liberties-when the majority of passengers on the Titanic have no idea that it’s sinking, how can any rational human being expect that they will “recognize the crisis for what it is and start from scratch”?
So now we enter new territory because the moment I demand confronting one’s hopelessness, I am also inviting us into deeper layers of the psyche which is the Greek word for soul. At that point we are under the radar of theories, facts, and even paradigms. We are brushing against our deepest terror, our most excruciating grief, and our billowing, frothing, fulminating rage. Suddenly, we are confronting our human limits, and in fact, our very own death. Yet until we can affirm that the planet is in a death struggle both literally and metaphorically, and until we can adopt the attitude that we are doing nothing less than inhabiting our days and hours in a funeral procession, we will kick and scream for hopeful solutions.
But the question remains, why would anyone choose to do this? Certainly not because they want to but only because it is the truest truth and because by owning the truth and all of its agonizing emotions, we empower ourselves beyond our wildest dreams. All of the energy required for our denial, positive thinking, making nice, appearing rational and therefore behaving like good little Stepford Citizens of empire, is now freed up to, as Andre Gide said, “let go of the shore” and swim into new waters of falling in love with the earth all over again-or perhaps for the first time, preparing ourselves for collapse, and doing so with the community and support of other earthlings who have let go of the shore and are swimming or sailing in lifeboats with us. Suddenly, options appear that could not have otherwise penetrated our addiction to optimism. Every moment, every plant, tree, animal, bite of food, drink of clean water-every star-filled night, every soaking rain, every sunset becomes precious because we have it now, and someday we won’t.
This is conscious preparation for death, and I and all those who are willing to embrace the reality of collapse are hospice workers for ourselves and the world. There isn’t much time left, and every moment is a gift to be savored, smelled, tasted, touched, and caressed. Why then would I worry about preaching to the choir? There is no choir– only those who are passionately committed to truth-telling and those who aren’t.
Someone has said that death is a place in the middle between birth and rebirth. In terms of literal death in this lifetime, we only experience it once, and whether it is our own death or the death of planet earth, it is as sacred as the moment of our birth. It is everyone’s right and privilege to defend against death and in so doing, opt for disempowerment. But I choose to continue savoring the empowerment that I have personally experienced in opening to utter hopelessness, and I’d like it very much if you would join me. Together we can let go of the shore and discover our deepest layers of humanity in life or in death.
August 3rd, 2007
By Carolyn Baker of Speaking Truth to Power
The 2004 documentary, “End Of Suburbia”, produced and edited by Barry Silverthorn and written and directed by Greg Greene, was a stunning and chilling cinematic landmark which placed the issue of Peak Oil and its consequences squarely on the world stage and connected the dots between the unsustainable suburban lifestyle and perilous issues of the twenty-first century such as food production, population die-off, and economic meltdown. Recently, Greene and producer, Dara Rowland, have released the sequel, “Escape From Suburbia” which examines the journeys of several individuals who have fled or are in the process of fleeing from civilization. It highlights how they are building new lives and new subcultures which offer the possibilities of deepened humanity and sustainability. Unlike “End Of Suburbia”, “Escape” spends less time interviewing the usual Peak Oil experts and follows the escape routes of ordinary people who are passionate about removing themselves from a culture of over-consumption and extinction.
After a brief explanation of Peak Oil, the film opens with the departure of a baby-boomer man and woman from their suburban home in Portland to an ecovillage in Canada, then moves into focusing on two gay men from New York City, Philip and Tom, who are eagerly planning their escape from the Big Apple to a venue where they can utilize the plethora of farming and permaculture skills they have intentionally acquired over the past few years. Juxtaposing these “escapees” is Kate from Toronto who strongly believes that her calling is not to escape but remain in suburbia and dig in to green it and make it truly sustainable. Interwoven with the various vignettes is Philip’s personal experiences with the 2005 Petrocollapse conference in New York and the 2006 Local Solutions To The Energy Dilemma conference in that city which he helped produce, Philip adamantly insisting that New York and cities like it are not only unsustainable but are self-destructing before his eyes. On the opposite coast in Willits, California, the film highlights a number of its residents engaged in creating a relocalized, sustainable town of 13,000 people who are energy self-sufficient and passionately involved in community building.
“Escape” is refreshing because regardless of what viewers may consider feasible or unfeasible responses to the collapse of civilization, it is a powerful testimony to the reality that we do have options and follows the path of several individuals who are seizing them with remarkable creativity. What is under-emphasized in my opinion is the urgency with which those options must be taken in the face of global warming’s rapid progression, the likelihood that we have passed Peak, and the reality of economic meltdown and a burgeoning fascist dictatorship in the United States. Some scenes, such as sections of the interview with Philip and Tom which conveyed the direness of the situation, may have been edited out in order to make the documentary more palatable to more skeptical viewers. Nevertheless, “Escape” affirms the stark reality of collapse and the glaring truth that some individuals are consciously organizing their lives around preparing for it.
At the same time, Greene leaves us with numerous unanswered questions such as: How will newcomers to an ecovillage be received, and how will they integrate into the community? Will their transition be successful in their eyes? Will they regret making the move, or will they thrive? How will two gay men navigate collapse in a homophobic world where gay and lesbian people more often than not have no connection with families of origin because they have been rejected by them? How will gay and lesbian people be received in ecovillages or communities comprised primarily of heterosexuals? What will be the specific challenges to gay men and women in a collapsing world? Will people of various ethnicities be genuinely welcomed in such communities, or will they encounter prejudice behind politically correct rhetoric? What is unique about Willits? And what will transpire in similar communities committed to self-sufficiency and relocalization? What options exist besides the creation of ecovillages? What options exist for people who want to leave the United States and live in other countries besides Canada?
For me, the most riveting and wrenching footage in the film was the destruction by the Los Angeles police of South Central L.A.’s community gardens in 2006. I was thrilled that Greene chose to include this footage because it destroys all notions of “hope” and “happy endings.” Moreover, it raises deeply disturbing questions about the extent to which ecovillages and sustainable communities will be allowed to function in the face of a dictatorial response to civilization’s collapse. I have no words to describe the sensations in my body as I watched the obliteration of the gardens in South Central by order of the L.A. City Council which had voted to replace them with a warehouse. “Rape” is the only word that even comes close to describing scenes of lush plants and fruit trees being bulldozed as those tending their former garden plots valiantly resisted police or sobbed in abject despair.
The film’s archival and current footage are masterfully woven together, along with a musical score even more haunting and appropriately timed than that of “End Of Suburbia”. So is there anything wrong with Greene’s sequel documentary? Well actually, there is: the price. Whereas “End” consistently retailed for around $25 U.S. dollars, “Escape” retails for $35 plus shipping which approaches $40, and its screening rights have been set at $1500-a marketing decision guaranteed to result in pirating and many fewer people seeing the film which in my opinion is tragic because “Escape” needs to be seen by everyone concerned about Peak Oil, climate change, and economic catastrophe.
The film is a mix of hopeful fantasies such as those offered by Kate from Toronto and Guy Dauncey, President of British Columbia’s Sustainable Energy Association, and the non-sugar-coated reality offered by James Howard Kunstler, Richard Heinberg, and Mike Ruppert. As always, these two opposite poles of reality offer the daunting challenge of holding both as opposed to eliminating one or the other.
Collapse is axiomatic and inevitable, and-human beings are not powerless in the face of it. Although in my opinion we are powerless to prevent it, we must decide how we want to live in the throes of it. “Escape From Suburbia” offers some options worth considering. They are not magic bullet remedies, and some viewers may be deluded by the more hopeful voices in the film, but overall, the usefulness of “Escape” is not even in the options it includes but in the empowerment it evokes. If nothing else, it enticingly demands that we become busy doing something, rather than nothing, in preparation for the end of earth-murdering, humanity-annihilating civilization.
July 30th, 2007
By Carolyn Baker of Speaking Truth To Power
The inexorable reality is that any community that does not process feelings and build trust by doing so…is NOT, I repeat, NOT sustainable.
A treasure trove of information pertaining to preparation for collapse can be found on the internet and in libraries throughout the world. Earlier this year I reviewed Mick Winter’s book on preparing for Peak Oil and have since posted on my site Stan Goff’s piece on “35 Ways To Prepare For Peak Oil” My own article, “What To Do, What To Do?” addresses preparation for collapse from yet another perspective. Websites such as Matt Savinar’s Life After The Oil Crash, Energy Bulletin, and Post-Carbon Institute offer ongoing suggestions for preparation as well. Yet the one topic which receives almost no attention is the notion of how individuals create community in the face of the collapse of civilization. This is curious since, in my opinion, all individuals raised in the culture of empire are deeply wounded emotionally and spiritually and have little experience of living harmoniously in community. In fact, more often than not, people who are preparing for collapse tell me that their experiences with attempting to create and maintain community have been disappointing at best and disastrous at worst, so it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out why so few people address the topic.
Much talk of ecovillages and intentional communities abounds among collapse watchers, and in many of such venues that have actually been created, a significant amount of time is devoted to community building-sometimes a minimum of three hours per day. One may wonder how anything else can get done when people sit in community circles that many hours. Who plants and weeds the garden? Who cooks? Who washes dishes and empties garbage into the compost?
What many communities have discovered is that community building requires so much time that its members must have “sprung themselves” from the system to such an extent that they have the time required to devote three or four hours per day to sitting in a circle and processing feelings and making decisions about the community’s well being. What does not work well, experience tells us, is a community in which people share residence but are still chained to a system in which they must commute to exhausting jobs, return to their groovy ecovillage, and have little or no time or energy left to do the emotional work necessary to sustain it.
The reader may be bristling with skepticism about this and inwardly protesting that he/she has little interest in “touch-feely” stuff like “processing feelings.” One may just want to live comfortably in his/her head in a safe space with friends or family and detach entirely from empire doing work for the community and living sustainably. The inexorable reality, however, is that any community that does not process feelings and build trust by doing so or simply holds long meetings about “mission statements”, division of labor, community logistics, or budgets, without addressing emotional issues is NOT, I repeat, NOT sustainable. The Lone Ranger is over-so over, and cooperation and heartfelt communication will be as essential as food and water in a post-collapse world.
I recently had the opportunity in a retreat setting to sit in such a circle, not because I am a member of an ecovillage or intentional community but because I am in the process of relocating and wanted to practice community building with other folks in transition. At first I felt absolutely overwhelmed with the amount of emotional work that needs to be done in order for community members to bond and build trust with each other. At the conclusion of the retreat, however, I felt less pessimistic and realized that it is not only possible for community members to consistently do such work together, but that when they do, they successfully break through their internalized culture of empire and experience and sustain the connectedness that empire renders utterly impossible. I’m not talking about momentary feel-good experiences where everyone holds hands and dances around the world, nor am I talking about everyone agreeing about everything. I’m talking about the kind of profound, intimate joining that natural cultures of indigenous traditions were able to experience and sustain and which allowed them to survive and thrive. And while circles of community building do not guarantee survival in the face of collapse, they are remarkably effective in facilitating the navigation of collapse.
What is more, every tribe, every community must develop skills for resolving conflict. Conflict will and should arise. Its absence is, in my opinion, a frightening red flag signaling glaring dysfunction and seething cauldrons of unspoken feelings and truths that need to be told. All indigenous cultures at their highpoints skillfully navigated conflict-in fact welcomed it as a barometer of their community’s health. They also developed ever-more creative skills for addressing it compassionately and assertively.
So what actually happens in a circle? To begin answering that question it’s important to understand that a community circle must be leaderless. Individuals may take turns facilitating them, but everyone in the group must be a leader. Facilitation simply means bringing up a topic or restating one that is already on the front burner and making sure that the group adheres to already-agreed-upon groundrules. Such groundrules include a commitment to stay in the group until the issue is resolved or until the group decides to take a break or decides to adjourn until a later time. For purposes of safety, everyone needs to agree to stay in the circle and not flee so that when someone is working on an issue with the group, they are not abandoned by anyone and know that space is being held for them by other group members. At all times, the group practices deep listening and compassionate truth-telling. When one person is speaking, the rest of the group listens attentively and stays present with the speaker. Likewise, when one speaks, one does so non-judgmentally using “I” statements, speaking as much as possible from a place of feeling rather than intellect or thinking. Perhaps most importantly, each person is accountable and takes responsibility for his/her part in whatever concerns or complaints he/she verbalizes. Deep listening and processing may involve other factors, but these are some of the most fundamental.
In facing collapse it is important to develop skills that will be useful in navigating it. We hear a great deal about learning permaculture, organic gardening, woodworking, composting, catching rainwater, and utilizing alternative energy sources, but the two skills without which communities cannot be created or sustained, deep listening and compassionate truthtelling, are rarely discussed.
As I have stated repeatedly, I do not know how collapse will play out. It may culminate in instantaneous nuclear annihilation, sudden economic devastation, or some other form of civilization plunging blatantly off a cliff. It may also unfold more slowly with consequences equally as dire. Therefore, it is important not to embrace the illusion that skills provide magic bullets of survival. Who knows who if any of us will survive no matter what we know or have experienced?
With every passing day it becomes clearer to me that as civilization continues to self-destruct, I need to discern how I prefer to spend my time and energy-and with whom. What I least want to do is mimic the culture of empire by rationally focusing on logistics and losing sight of humanity. I know that I cannot survive alone, and even if I have learned no skills whatsoever, I need my fellow earthlings in order to navigate collapse. Moreover, even if I have learned every skill imaginable, if I and my companions in collapse cannot deeply listen to each other and speak our truth with compassion, none of us will survive, and even if we did, an internally vacuous emotional domain would render survival nothing less than absurd.
July 10th, 2007
By Carolyn Baker of Speaking Truth to Power
Every time I write an article on collapse such as my most recent one “Happy Independence Day; You Have No Government“, I am bombarded with emails asking me “what should I do?” For those who have just discovered this site, that is a legitimate question because for them, the reality of collapse may be new. Those who have been following this site for some time have heard many suggestions on what to do, but this article will offer those and other suggestions again more clearly and more adamantly than they have been offered here before. The intensity you are likely to hear in this piece is driven by the urgency which I and many of my peers are feeling at this moment. Quite frankly, it’s time to quit screwing around with talking about collapse and start acting. The Rubicon has been crossed, we’re not living in Kansas anymore, and we are living in the closest thing we’ve seen to pre-World War II Germany than anything since then. Suit up and stop theorizing and speculating. It’s showtime.
The first thing I’m not going to tell you is that collapse can be avoided or that human ingenuity and technology will come up with something to spare us from it. I’m not going to tell you that there will be some mass movement-some magic http://www.collapse.org/ that will organize progressives into a groundswell of protest, writing letters to Congress, creating blogs and websites, supporting the “right” candidate, and asking for donations. No, what I’m going to tell you is that as a nation and as a planet, we are screwed, fucked, and shit out of luck, or if you prefer Spanish, estamos jodidos.
The second thing I’m not going to tell you is what you’d like to hear-how you can just keep living the lifestyle you’re living but that somehow you can avoid collapse. I’m not going to tell you that you can keep banking with Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citibank, or any of the other satanic financial monsters and it will make no difference to you or anyone else. I’m not going to tell you that you can keep buying your food at your local supermarket or Walmart, and everything will be fine. I’m not going to tell you to go out and vote for a presidential candidate in 2008 when even if there is an election, whoever is selected by the electronic voting industrial complex, will be that complex’s man or woman-body, mind, and soul. I’m not going to tell you to get a hybrid vehicle or put solar panels on your house. In fact, before I tell you to do anything, I’m going to invite you to engage in doing nothing.
Tim Bennett and Sally Erickson, creators of the documentary “What A Way To Go: Life At The End Of Empire“, have suggested five things you can do, and I’d like to elaborate on those.
Unlike ancient cultures, America is a society of manic doers. Before we have even understood the problem, we are frantically rushing to find a solution. So I’m going to ask you first of all to stop-dead in your tracks and do nothing. In fact, I’m going to suggest that you go out in nature, sit down on a quiet log, tree stump, rock, or on the grass, and do and say nothing. Look into a river or stream, study a blade of grass, pick up a handful of soil, focus on a colony of ants, but whatever you do-pay attention. Look, listen, smell, and above all, feel your own emotions as you: 1) “fully acknowledge and internalize that the culture of Empire is destroying the support systems on which the community of life depends, and robbing us of our essential humanity.”
Acknowledge that all of your efforts and those of everyone you know and love cannot and will not prevent collapse. In addition, feel the powerlessness, helplessness, and hopelessness that courses through your body as you do this. Feel the forever loss of the stream or grass, or soil, or animal that you might be looking at. Imagine in its place the extinction of everything you are now perceiving. All that you are now observing has been supporting you, and soon, it will be gone. How does that feel? Yes, I know. Sad, tragic, horrifying, enraging-and now you feel even more despair. It’s OK. Let yourself feel it-really, really feel it. This is sacred time. This is the moment of truth; this is your meditation on what is so, and you can’t do anything else-not really, not effectively until you feel these very feelings. In other words, surrender to the idea of collapse. Stop running from it, imagine it, feel it. The more you focus on doing, the less you’ll focus on feeling, and your doing will not work for you until you feel the feelings behind your doing.
And then, when you’ve experienced those very precious and necessary moments of sacred truth, take yourself into the company of those you love and begin talking about what is so: 2) “Talk about your concerns with everyone you know. Make peak oil, climate change, mass extinction and population overshoot household words.” There will be many people you cannot discuss these with. Find those with whom you can. This is the beginning of “finding your tribe”-finding those individuals who get it, who feel what you feel and are no longer in denial about collapse. They have probably been looking for you as much as you have been looking for them. Talk not only about the facts, the research, the events of collapse, but equally or even more importantly, about your feelings about it. This really isn’t hard to do. If you have children, think about their future. What do you feel?
Yes, I know you want to know more about what to do, but slow down. You’re moving too fast. Keep feeling. Keep talking.
The very first action steps really have to do with you and your inner world. You need to think and feel about who YOU want to be in the face of collapse. What kind of work do you really want to be doing? 3) “Find your work in the world to preserve life, change this culture and /or create restorative ways for individuals and communities to live in harmony with each other and the non-human world.” Does the work you’re doing help to preserve life? Do you need to relocate to another part of the country or world so that you and your loved ones can live lifestyles that prepare yourselves for collapse? What are you doing to take responsibility for your food supply? How are you preparing to live in a post-petroleum world? Can you even fathom what that means? Such dramatic change does not happen overnight; it’s a transition, but remember, you don’t have all the time in the world. Several dozen species have become extinct while you’ve been reading this article.
4) “Assess what you actually need during this transition in order to live and do your work. Only buy what you need and buy from local sources in order to support the creation of local economies.” And now comes an enormously important exercise: What do I need and what don’t I need? Preparation for collapse will change as much in your life as will collapse itself. Every step of preparation is a meditation, a paring down, and gathering together, always informed by “Who do I want to be? What’s really important? What do I really not need? What do I really need?”
I believe that one reason collapse is so unthinkable for many individuals is that they have no spiritual (I did not say religious) basis for navigating it. On the other hand, some individuals can think deeply about and realize its daunting reality, but they approach it with cynicism and bitterness. All of the above questions I have suggested entertaining are essentially spiritual questions because they are questions of the soul. 5) Therefore, “find or deepen your spiritual connection to that which is greater than you. Ask and then listen for guidance about how to live joyfully and creatively in the face of these unprecedented times.”
One of my favorite mantras is a quote from Derrick Jensen: “We’re fucked, and life is really, really good.” Amid the dismal we need fun, joy, play, lightness of heart, art, music, poetry, songs, stories, and creativity of infinite varieties. Yes, I know, it’s a tremendous challenge holding such opposite emotions in the same body, but that is our work in the face of the end of the world as we have known it. Recall the words of Morpheus in “The Matrix”: “I didn’t say it would be easy, I just said it would be the truth.”
I will be away from the computer and Truth To Power from July 14-28. Not only do I need two weeks away from the website, but I need to gather with my “tribe” as we spend days and nights in nature sharing our feelings and planning how we might create and maintain a community for navigating collapse. People often ask me what I’m doing to prepare and where I might relocate. Even if I were able to tell you, what I would tell you isn’t necessarily what you should be doing or where you should be going. Only you can discover that for yourself. My wish for you is that you will use these two weeks to contemplate your future and where you need to be and what you need to be doing.
Remember: There are no “solutions” but only options as the fascist empire concretizes around us. Part of the empire’s agenda is to keep you, like a dog chasing its tail, looking for solutions and bashing people who don’t offer them to you but tell you the truth instead-that the future of you and your loved ones is entirely in your hands and no one else’s. The sooner you let go of your illusions about avoiding collapse and someone or something being able to prevent and cure it, the more energy you will free up to act on behalf of yourself and your tribe.
OK, now I’ve told you what to do. If you don’t want to do it or refuse to do it, please don’t call me “dismal”, “negative” or a “purveyor of hopelessness.” Look in the mirror and ask yourself how it is that after all this time, despite all the information you have, you still don’t get it. Someone has said, “Deal with reality or reality will deal with you.” Do you want to deal with reality when collapse is in your face, or do you want to take action to prepare for it now? Ground yourself in your authentic feelings about your collapsing world, then join with your tribe to build lifeboats. For two weeks this website will be in “hibernation”. It could be sacred time–time to reflect, time to feel, time to act-before time runs out.
June 25th, 2007
By John Chuckman
This is an excerpt from “What’s It All About? The Decline of the American Empire by John Chuckman published by Constable & Robinson Ltd, London. Available from Indigo Books, Canada.
In military matters, China has taken America by surprise a number of times recently, and surprises of this nature are not things with which Americans deal well, some portion of America’s political establishment becoming irritable and uncomfortable. It is not clear how much of this is based on genuine analysis and how much on the kind of paranoid reaction which characterizes America’s attitude towards Arabs since 9/11. There is also the distinct possibility of traces of anti-Asian prejudice which has a long history in America and in its policies. America’s paranoid reaction to a number of events in the past - the rise of Japan, Communism, Islamic fundamentalism - reflect an arrogant imperial attitude of expected easy superiority which does not welcome any clouds on the horizon.
China’s explosion of a thermonuclear warhead not many years ago that proved through chemical analysis of atmospheric samples to resemble America’s best at the time, the W-88 warhead, lead to a McCarthy-like campaign to track down a betrayer of American secrets. Attention focused on a Chinese-American scientist at Los Alamos Laboratories, and the New York Times, undoubtedly prompted by the FBI, conducted a terrible campaign of innuendo. The FBI charged the man with a ridiculous number of things, a favorite technique of political police trying to get a plea on something, but the lack of any evidence saw him released with his career ended and his reputation muddied. It seems never to have occurred that China’s new army of clever scientists and engineers, always seen going about with the best laptop computers in hand much the way British businessmen in London once all wore derbies and carried umbrellas, might just have developed this technology themselves, or largely so, of course benefiting from the bits and pieces garnered from others that always support new work anywhere.
China has put a number of satellites into orbit, including a manned one, and has a very ambitious space program, including plans for landing people on the moon. The American military sees near-earth space as its most important base for future “projection of power” over the planet, its militarization of space well underway, so China represents a potential challenge not yet felt from India. The huge noise made by Republicans under Clinton’s administration over the remote possibility that China may have secretly contributed to an American election gave us a heady whiff of the paranoid fears that reside in some quarters of American society.
Most recently, China launched a vehicle into space designed to destroy a satellite. An obsolete Chinese weather satellite in an orbit about 500 miles above the earth, roughly the same orbit as that occupied by many of America’s fleet of spy or global-positioning satellites, was the target for this apparently successful test. The message was clear: China is now capable of destroying the satellites which are now America’s eyes for war. The news was especially dramatic coming as it did not long after America’s admitting that a powerful Chinese laser, or other directed-energy beam on the ground, had, a while back, swept an American spy satellite over China, temporarily blinding it.
The satellite-killer led to a lot of noisy accusations about China’s aggressiveness and its militarizing space, but these claims are quite inaccurate. The United States has been militarizing space for many years, gradually and in many surreptitious ways. The space shuttle program, for example, was always a military one, the shuttles actually being very costly, inefficient vehicles for science, sometimes even leading to delays in the launch of important science projects.
America’s fleet of military and spy satellites, many of whose capabilities remain secret, is used actively today as a weapon. Nations friendly to American policy are given priceless data to support their efforts while opponents are left at a serious disadvantage. This was done, as just two examples, in supporting Iraq’s invasion of Iran and in supporting Israel’s assault on Lebanon - both examples, by any sensible reckoning, of America’s using these sophisticated machines not for defense but to support aggression it regarded as being in its own interest at the time.
Perhaps, the clearest militarization of space is America’s new anti-missile missile program, a program not just of research but of deploying actual weapons. No matter how ineffective the existing American system is - it has failed many tests, and independent scientists advise us that the computer programming for such a system is truly beyond our existing ability - America’s spending new billions on it has to make China and Russia uneasy. The same scientists and other experts warned some years back that a new American “Star Wars” program would start a new weapons race, and they were right. The Russians have already announced the development of a new warhead that spirals unpredictably when heading for its target. It also may put into service a mobile version of its highly-accurate Topple-M intercontinental missile.
China’s response includes its ability to destroy spy satellites needed as eyes for such a system plus an increase in the number and quality of its intercontinental missiles. China’s DF-31A missile is its first solid-fueled intercontinental missile, meaning it can be fired more quickly than its existing liquid-fueled ones, and it is the first Chinese intercontinental missile that can reach all parts of the United States. It could be made mobile, and a submarine-based version is under development. It should be noted that China’s nuclear deterrent until now has been extremely modest, consisting of about two dozen known missiles plus some element of uncertainty as to whether there are in fact a limited number more.
China used the anti-satellite test to get America’s attention for negotiations over the anti-missile missile system. They did get American attention, there being a very unpleasant reaction in Washington, but it is not clear that any kind of negotiations will follow. China’s immediate offer to negotiate a treaty against the militarization of space was ignored. America’s stubbornly-held view of anti-missile defense is that it is part of its overall anti-terrorist efforts, an argument which stretches credibility rather thin, especially in view of plans for basing some of these anti-missile missiles in former Soviet satellite states, plans that are highly confrontational towards Russia. There has also been talk of American anti-missile missiles being placed in Afghanistan, intended for Chinese I.C.B.M.s, again a highly provocative idea, going towards creating uncertainty in China’s sense of its nuclear deterrent.
Another recent military surprise from China was the unveiling of the new Jian-10, swept-wing fighter. The project to develop this plane apparently was a closely kept secret, hence the surprise at its appearance. It is the same general type of fighter represented by America’s F-16 or the Eurofighter Typhoon or Russia’s MIG-29, although its capabilities are not well understood. Whether or not it meets the performance standards of these other front-line, supersonic fighters, the plane represents a remarkable technical and manufacturing achievement by the Chinese, portending also the day when China learns to compete in civil aviation. China’s current military philosophy of husbanding its resources for only the kinds of projects best fitting what are deemed its greatest future needs has apparently permitted it to compete in this costly field of high-tech aviation which includes only a small number of nations.
China’s new investments in its military are, like so many things about China, heavily criticized by the American establishment. The truth is they represent a small fraction of what the U.S. spends, no matter what accounting you use. Widely accepted, published data put China’s military spending at about 10% of America’s, although some say it may be about half again more than that through hidden spending. They may be right, but they ignore the reality of a great deal of hidden spending in America, particularly when it comes to so-called black programs, and the unquestioned fact remains that America accounts for fully half of the entire planet’s military spending.
China’s new spending is to a considerable extent driven by what it sees as American imperial attitudes and behavior. Recall the incident of the American spy plane flying right up against Chinese air space early in Bush’s administration and being forced down by the Chinese. This was an extremely provocative act, somewhat resembling the flight of an American U-2 over Russia just days before a scheduled summit between Eisenhower and Khruschev. During the first hours of this recent, smaller crisis, the new Bush administration took a hard-line approach, making no apologies (a Chinese pilot had died bringing the spy plane down) and demanding the plane and its crew be returned immediately. After a while Bush relented, reportedly after his having consulted his much more knowledgeable father, and took a more accommodating approach. China then promptly allowed the crew to be flown home and returned the spy plane, after a bit of time, disassembled in a crate, mimicking a much earlier American exploit, one that undoubtedly had provided many laughs over the years at the Pentagon, when a defecting Soviet pilot landed one of the U.S.S.R.’s most advanced fighters in Japan. No one knows how successful the Chinese were in studying the spy plane’s top-secret electronic gear, but generally such machines are destroyed by explosive devices detonated by the crew when crashing or being forced to land. Things can be learned even from demolished mechanisms. Then again, those devices don’t always work.
China has not challenged American world leadership, nor has it set it as a goal to be able to do so, but this incident of the spy plane was interesting for a number of reasons, mainly in that it demonstrated China’s willingness to confront America behaving aggressively in China’s own backyard. Had it come to shooting, China could not have won, but much of the world’s public opinion was on China’s side in what clearly was reckless American behavior.
Few Americans appreciate the extent to which such high-risk behavior characterized American activity during the Cold War. Intrusive American military over-flights of the Soviet Union in the 1950s were common, indeed Krushchev was irritated and angry over the extent of these flights which Eisenhower observed once would have started a war had the Russians behaved the same way over the territory of the United States. There were also many confrontations with nuclear submarines, including a number of scrapes and collisions owing to close approaches on Soviet boats. Indeed, it has been reported, and there is some evidence from photographs for believing, that the advanced Russian submarine, Kursk, which sank during tests in 2000, sending its crew to a slow death, was the result of a torpedo fired in error by an American commander whose boat was closely observing the Kursk’s maneuvers. If so, it might help explain what many regard as a rather kid-gloves approach Bush has taken towards the Russians despite a belligerent history and many differences over policy.
June 6th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
Hold onto your hats folks. Gas prices could skyrocket shortly due to cyclone Gonu which is hitting Oman and heading into Gulf of Oman. This could have a significant effect on oil fields, production facilities and shipping. There is an extensive discussion at the Oil Drum at this link and the most recent thread at this link. I will try to summarize the high points.
Gonu has hit Oman and is heading on into the Gulf. The reports range from this being the most powerful storm to hit Oman in 60 years, to reports that no cyclone has ever entered the Gulf of Oman. Storm surges of 10-15 feet are expected to hit the coast of Iran. This will definitely impact shipping in the region - even oil shipping.
According to Oil Drum, Oman produces 774,000 bbl/day, and their operations could be impacted for 30 days or more. Combined with other likely impacts in the Gulf of Oman, there could be a drastic reduction in oil movement out of the region.
The image below - Courtesy of Wired News, looks at reasonably current gas prices around the world.
By Rowan Wolf
You can visit the Hurricane tracking center to see the updated path and impact of Gonu. It is about 3/4 down the page. and then look at the USGS Interactive Map of Geology, Oil and Gas Fields of the Geological Provinces of the Arabian Peninsula.
Given that the world is running on less than a 2% margin of supply and demand on oil, even an insignificant disruption could hit hard. If the Oil Drum estimates of at least a 30 day disruption in Oman happen, then threats of $4 a gallon gasoline prices in the US this summer could easily increase by 15-20%. That would put us closer to $5 a gallon than four.
Thanks to the folks at The Oil Drum for the extensive information.
May 31st, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
There needs to be a call to action. Big Coal (like Peabody Energy Company aka Peabody Coal Company) is pushing hard to get us (via the government) to make massive investments in coal, and coal to liquid fuel legislation. The plan is to take our current estimated 250 year supply of coal and use it as a liquid fuel to replace imported oil. Imported oil makes up 60% of the oil used in the United States. This plan is so stupid on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to start.
Coal is being pushed as an “alternative” fuel. Oh please spare me. Coal is neither “clean,” “green,” or renewable. There is a big push to increase coal for electric generation as well. Even though the “scrubbing” technology for emissions have improved, more plants using more coal means more emissions - including CO2 emissions. Let us not forget that “energy” is not the only crisis facing us. There is the “little” issue of global warming. The New York Times (May 29, 2007) produced the nice graphic (below) comparing the greenhouse gas emissions o0f different fuel sources. It is instructive in this discussion:
As you can see from the graphic, even with carbon sequestration, the coal to liquid fuel production increases emissions. Without sequestration is increases emissions
dramatically (119% according to the NY Times. Now the rub is that carbon sequestration is virtually an undeveloped technology. It involves capturing emissions and “putting” them somewhere other than the air. The most investigated suggestions are: on the seabed; underground; and in used up oil and gas wells. To the best of my knowledge, there is no commercially active sequestration projects on line yet. Therefore, we do not know whether this will even work - nor what the consequences are of doing it. Therefore, it is unlikely that these plants will start with their emissions being “sequestered.” That will happen as a “retro-fit” sometime in the future.
The next dumb part of this is that if our current coal supply is estimated to last 250 years at existing use levels, what happens if we quadruple the use? Well, that 250 years just became 60 years (or less). Then what?
Dumb idea take three. Can we replace 60% of our current oil consumption with liquefied coal? That seems highly unlikely to me. I do not know how much usable liquid fuel one can get out of say a ton of coal, but it would seem to take one heck of a lot of coal to produce 12 million barrels of gasoline a day (we currently use approximately 20 million * 60% foreign oil = 12 mil.). That translates into roughly 505 million gallons of gasoline (from coal) a day (roughly 42 galls in a barrel). Now that is one heck of a production line, and my estimate of quadrupling coal use just shot up dramatically. Say maybe 10-15 years of coal in the U.S. instead of 250 years?
Dumb idea take 4. This is expensive and the plan is to subsidize research, development, and production. Subsidize means that our tax dollars will underwrite the cost of this little adventure while we may look at $4.00 per gallon pump prices as a real steal. This is a freaking bonanza to the “energy” industry, but it is not a bonanza for us, or the next generation, or for the planet.
Among those who have sponsored and promoted this legislation is Presidential candidate Barak Obama. I am sure he feels he is representing Illinois coal interests with this support. However, one might wonder whether Illinois is represented - much less the rest of us.
I do not see one positive thing in this plan, but it is being pushed and pushed hard. The goal is to have it passed and to Bush by early July (2007). If you want to express yourself to your legislators, then I recommend that you do so quickly.
Here is a link to get you to your Congress people and Senators - Contacting Congress
Resources for further information
CNN Money. 5/24/07. Lawmakers mull coal-to-liquid fuel plans
Edmund Andrews. NY Times. 5/29/07.
Senate Bill 154 Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Energy Act of 2007 (pdf)
Sponsors: Mr. BUNNING (for himself, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. PRYOR, Ms. MURKOWSKI,
Mr. BOND, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. ENZI, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. CRAIG
Senate Bill 155 Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 (pdf)
Sponsors: Mr. BUNNING (for himself, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. PRYOR, Ms. MURKOWSKI,
Mr. BOND, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. ENZI, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. CRAIG
House Bill 370 Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 (pdf)
Sponsors: Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. CANNON, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. HASTERT, and Mr. YARMUTH)
May 26th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
The Democrats caved in and supported the supplemental occupation funding demanded by the Bush Cabal. The arguments apparently being that they a) didn’t have the votes to overcome a veto; b) they didn’t want to be blamed for the growing death and chaos; c) the belief this keeps Iraq the Republican’s adventure; d) perhaps - because the PSAs haven’t been signed yet. Regardless, the considerations were political - not moral - not responsive to the mandate that the November elections sent. The arguments now are that they can revisit the funding issue in September - 4 months from now - 122 days from June 1 to September 31. Given a rough average death toll of five US troops and 50 Iraqi civilians, that makes a low estimate of 6710 (610 US troops, 6100 Iraqi civilians) deaths for buckling on the funding.
Six thousand seven hundred and ten lives for a failure of will.
Six thousand seven hundred and ten lives for vested corporate interests.
Six thousand seven hundred and ten lives for a coward’s political strategy.
Damn the Democrats, and damn the Republicans. Their gamesmanship is being paid for in the blood of others. How dare they do this? How dare we let them do this?
This is NOT a war. It is an OCCUPATION. It is a bloody occupation to be sure, but an occupation all the same.
Once more the Bush Folk are talking about regime change - this time to clean the militia influence (Al-Sadar) out of the Iraqi Parliament. How exactly are they planning the removal of a democratically elected block of another government? Who is in charge? Is there even the illusion that the Iraqi government is independent to the U.S.?
Six thousand seven hundred and ten lives (and likely far more) as collateral damage for a political calculus that is doomed to fail no matter what.
May 23rd, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought that “surge” was a rapid increase followed by a withdrawal. A surge does not keep coming. President Bush started a “surge” which was not supported by the public. He has now extended the tours of troops already deployed, deployed additional troops, and is continuing new deployments into the fall of 2007. We went from a “surge” of 35,000 troops to a sustained presence (of potentially) an additional 98,000 troops. This could bring U.S. troops in Iraq to 200,000 - more than have been there at any point in the invasion and occupation.
As Hearst notes in his report, the various steps taken by the Bush administration may result in as “many as 28 combat brigades in Iraq by Christmas.” He also quotes a retired US NATO Commander:
Retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, the U.S. commander who led NATO troops into Bosnia in late 1995, when asked to comment on the analysis of deployment orders, said: “It doesn’t surprise me that they’re not talking about it. I think they would be very happy not to have any more attention paid to this.”
Indeed, they likely don’t want this talked about - which is every reason to do so.
Meanwhile, the Congress, including the Dems, have decided to drop timelines and approve supplemental money to maintain the U.S. Occupation of Iraq.
There are costs to be born for the “strategy” that has been put in place: costs to the people of Iraq; costs to deployed U.S. forces; costs to the families of those troops; and costs to the entire nation. This is not a strategy that will make either Iraqi’s, the Middle East and Asia, or the United States safer. The attacks by the Lebanese army on the Palestinian Nahr el-Bared refugee camp is but one example of the tinder box that is being created.
There is also a cost that will be born for at least a life time for the repeated deployments and extended tours being forced on our “volunteer” military - visible and invisible wounds of war.
Some have read the DoD report “Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) IV Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07 Final Report (17 November 2006). It clearly shows that the stress of repeated deployments, extended tours, and ongoing combat operations, are deteriorating the mental health, and the moral judgment, of the troops. Instead of addressing these critical issues, they get more of the same. There was a lot of PTSD from the Vietnam War, but it is going to be made to look insignificant compared to the percentage of troops facing PTSD from this extended disaster.
These troops will come home to a Veteran’s health system that is largely broken and stripped. Joining them will be the array of “contractors.” Most of those contractors were never prepared for the conditions they have lived and worked under in Iraq, who will not be covered by even the modest services of the VA, and who likely will not have access to health care - much less mental health care. In other words, this country will see a lot of people with a lot of problems. They are victims of the neo-conservative Iraq “experiment.” Many of them, like too many from the Vietnam and Gulf War, will find themselves on the streets - invisible and made invisible like these earlier veterans.
As a nation, we do not want to acknowledge that dirty little secret of the homeless veterans, or the veterans who aren’t receiving the care and support they certainly deserve. The veterans who still fight the almost daily battle with PTSD. As the right rages on about supporting the troops by supporting their “mission” (no matter how ill conceived or vague), one wonders whether they will be supporting the Vet who blows up in their faces 5 years from now. One wonders if anyone will?
So the surge becomes an increased occupation while the US strong arms the Iraqi government to sign away their oil reserves through PSAs. Got to have those in place you know - and the Dems know … which is why they won’t block funding for this fiasco. It is also why virtually no one running for office, except perhaps Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich, is saying anything about the surge actually adding to the standing occupation. Meanwhile, the whole process is creating more extremism and conflict, and a new generation who has every reason in the world to hate the United States (and the West). It is a sure fire way to make sure the private and governmental military machine keeps its gears running smoothly and lucratively.
The pundits are saying we are looking at at least a five year occupation. My guess is it will be much longer than that. Meanwhile, the reservoirs of blood, and pain, and loss, and rage will be full for much longer still. Some stains never wash out - or stay painted over.
Related Articles
Disinformation or Hypocrisy, Wolf, 5/09/07
Send in the Troops. What Troops?, Wolf, 3/13/07
May 7th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
I share with many of you a growing sense of anger and frustration at the constantly worsening situation in Iraq. Now, the “surge” is in place, and “gated communities” are being delineated over the objections of both Shia and Sunni residents. The Democrats have put on a good show of trying to rein in Bush, and have been rejected. However, are they really trying to rein him in, or just playing their part in an intricately choreographed deception?
The bill that Bush vetoed contained certain “benchmarks” for the Iraqi government. Among them was the approval of the “PSAs” (Production Sharing Agreements) initiated by the US Coalition Provisional Authority [see Troop Surges and Bloody Oil]. The oil agreement was moving through the approval process, but has now met representatives within the Iraqi parliament.
There has been a lot of pressure to get these agreements into law, and they turn over the majority of profits from Iraq’s oil to transnational oil companies. In other words, the development and exploitation of Iraq’s principle resource will lie in the hands of others. It was expected that these agreements would be in place sometime in May of this year. Once those agreements are law, then there is little incentive to maintain a U.S. occupation of Iraq. The oil companies have benefited handsomely from the dramatic disruption of Iraq’s oil production. They are likely willing to wait a long time for things to “stabilize” in Iraq, before actually calling in their PSA chits.
The fact that the PSAs were included in the supplemental funding bill is a clear signal that there is more than a Republican vested interest in who controls (and profits from) Iraq’s oil. Further, the foot dragging to get another bill through only buys time as the occupation continues, and the PSAs have time to become law. Further, as Jeremy Scahill points out, no one in Washington is addressing the issue of the private army we are funding. Even if U.S. forces are withdrawn, the (estimated) 48,000 mercenaries we have brought into Iraq are unlikely to be defunded - or removed. In fact, the size of that force may actually grow.
Meanwhile some more ominous changes are in motion. One area of concern is what is happening with the Kurds? It seems that outside the boundaries of the government of Iraq, the U.S. is engaged in separate negotiations with the Kurds. I guess we might have anticipated this since the Kurdish area is oil rich. However, it does seem to run counter to supposed efforts to create a unified Iraq. Further, it could run the U.S. right into the middle of another conflict. This one between Turkey and the Kurds in Iraq.
As you may recall, Turkey has a long history of conflict with the Kurds. This reared its head when the U.S. was trying to position U.S. forces in Turkey prior to the invasion of Iraq. Turkey withdrew its permission - partially because of public pressure in Turkey. However, underlying that was concerns about the creation of a Kurdish state. Those concerns have not been allayed over time. Certainly, the discussion of creating three “states” in Iraq are alarming to Turkey. In fact they have promised to invade if a Kurdish state is created along Turkey’s boarder.
So, what we have here is a growing independence of the Kurdish region from the “unified Iraq,” enhanced by separate relations between the Kurdish government and the United States, while Turkey moves from simmer towards boil. If Turkey invades the Kurdish region, what would be the response of the United States. This would be a sticky wicket indeed.
The other alarming shift is the possibility that the U.S. is going to end up actively engaged in genocide in Iraq. Purportedly, U.S. forces (particularly in Baghdad) are under the authority of Iraq. While that may be a legal fiction, what happens with the Iraqi forces are significant. Therefore, there should be some alarm that al Maliki seems to be purging the Army and police force of leaders who have aggressively gone after Shi’ite militias. Even prior to this purge, there have been concerns that Sunnis were the primary target of both Iraqi police and military, as well as the primary target of U.S. forces.
This places U.S. troops (and by extension the United States) possibly actively engaged in a genocidal offensive against Iraqi Sunnis.
All of this takes us back to the resistance of the Kurd and Sunni representatives in the Iraqi government to the PSAs. While I agree with the resistant “bloc” in regard to the PSAs, one has to wonder at the pressures that may be being brought to bear on both groups.
Is the price of the US friendship with Kurds support for the PSAs in exchange for protection against a possible Turkish invasion? Is the the tacit U.S. participation in a Sunni genocide a “lever” to get Sunni support of the PSAs? Or is the U.S playing of both sides of the fence in case the Shia end up in control of oil in the Sunni region of Iraq?
Meanwhile, the “bi-partisan” interest is still in the corporate control of Iraq’s oil regardless of blood, cost, or genocide. I am more than disgusted by the prospect and trends. I am sickened and enraged.
Next Posts
