Why do we act surprised when areas of the world erupt into bloody vicious conflict. We are shocked at the intensity and absolute disregard for human life. Yet how do the ‘bad guys’ get access to all these calamitous weapons?
We sell them. We sell a whole bunch of weapons in nearly every corner of the world to pretty much anyone who has the cash. That’s how. This has been a feature, as Mr.Hartung states, of every presidency from Nixon on in. It is the status-quo and has bi-partisan support, for decades.
Another prestigious brick in the monument attesting to the trivial worth of human life. We in the civilized West speak of human rights while ensuring through our arms sales they they will never become universal rights.
Fuck.
If it makes you feel better, slap the ‘business is business’ rhetorical dodge all over this appalling fact. This is what happens when we divorce the public from the political decision making process. This is what happens when we lose the basic trait of empathy toward others. The feelings are the same when someone on the other side of the globe loses a loved one. Gunshot wounds maim people and cripple family units for life whether it is here in North America or in San Salvador, Syria, or Yemen.
Yet geography makes a (fateful) difference. We disassociate from the losses people experience ‘over there’. We remain ignorant of our contribution in the slaughter of innocent people across the globe. It is a moral chasm that follows us. arms dealers to the world, ignorant or not, of to what we are really committed to as a nation. The lofty rhetoric we hear on the news from the political class is divorced from the realpolitik in which we actually operate and base our foreign policy on.
My real fear is this – what if people are informed of the real nature of this aspect of the world, and their response is apathy. I would not know what to do after that.
Anyways, my moralizing aside read the entire article at Tom’s Dispatch, but this is the part I was commenting on:
“Though Saudi Arabia may be the largest recipient of U.S. arms on the planet, it’s anything but Washington’s only customer. According to the Pentagon’s annual tally of major agreements under the Foreign Military Sales program, the most significant channel for U.S. arms exports, Washington entered into formal agreements to sell weaponry to 130 nations in 2016 (the most recent year for which full data is available). According to a recent report from the Cato Institute, between 2002 and 2016 the United States delivered weaponry to 167 countries — more than 85% of the nations on the planet. The Cato report also notes that, between 1981 and 2010, Washington supplied some form of weaponry to 59% of all nations engaged in high-level conflicts.
In short, Donald Trump has headed down a well-traveled arms superhighway. Every president since Richard Nixon has taken that same road and, in 2010, the Obama administration managed to rack up a record $102 billion in foreign arms offers. In a recent report I wrote for the Security Assistance Monitor at the Center for International Policy, I documented more than $82 billion in arms offers by the Trump administration in 2017 alone, which actually represented a slight increase from the $76 billion in offers made during President Obama’s final year. It was, however, far lower than that 2010 figure, $60 billion of which came from Saudi deals for F-15 combat aircraft, Apache attack helicopters, transport aircraft, and armored vehicles, as well as guns and ammunition.
There have nonetheless been some differences in the approaches of the two administrations in the area of human rights. Under pressure from human rights groups, the Obama administration did, in the end, suspend sales of aircraft to Bahrain and Nigeria, both of whose militaries were significant human rights violators, and also a $1 billion-plus deal for precision-guided bombs to Saudi Arabia. That Saudi suspension represented the first concrete action by the Obama administration to express displeasure with Riyadh’s indiscriminate bombing campaign in Yemen. Conducted largely with U.S. and British supplied aircraft, bombs, and missiles, it has included strikesagainst hospitals, marketplaces, water treatment facilities, and even a funeral. In keeping with his focus on jobs to the exclusion of humanitarian concerns, Trump reversed all three of the Obama suspensions shortly after taking office.
Fueling Terrorism and Instability
In fact, selling weapons to dictatorships and repressive regimes often fuels instability, war, and terrorism, as the American war on terror has vividly demonstrated for the last nearly 17 years. U.S.-supplied arms also have a nasty habit of ending up in the hands of America’s adversaries. At the height of the U.S. intervention in Iraq, for instance, that country’s armed forces lost track of hundreds of thousands of rifles, many of which made their way into the hands of forces resisting the U.S. occupation.
In a similar fashion, when Islamic State militants swept into Iraq in 2014, the Iraqi security forces abandoned billions of dollars worth of American equipment, from small arms to military trucks and armored vehicles. ISIS promptly put them to use against U.S. advisers and the Iraqi security forces as well as tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. The Taliban, too, has gotten its hands on substantial quantities of U.S. weaponry, either on the battlefield or by buying them at cut-rate, black market prices from corrupt members of the Afghan security forces.
In northern Syria, two U.S.-armed groups are now fighting each other. Turkish forces are facing off against Syrian Kurdish militias that have been among the most effective anti-ISIS fighters and there is even an ongoing risk that U.S. and Turkish forces, NATO allies, may find themselves in direct combat with each other. Far from giving Washington influence over key allies or improving their combat effectiveness, U.S. arms and training often simply spur further conflict and chaos to the detriment of the security of the United States, not to speak of the peace of the world.”
21 comments
April 25, 2018 at 5:49 am
john zande
Apathy is guaranteed so long as it’s *them* over *there*
LikeLike
April 25, 2018 at 6:23 am
Bob Browning
Shared this illuminating piece to FBook. Too many are kept xenophobic by the PR of the US oligarchy thus allowing this brutal world “order”.
LikeLike
April 26, 2018 at 5:06 am
severeves
We always knew this to be true. Even more specifically, as long as there is capitalism, there will be war. People at the top – and not just Americans – have more to gain from the non-white world ripping each other’s throats out than they do peace. But no amount of proof will suffice – even my partner, a very liberal gay man – thinks I’m being hostile to America just by pointing this stuff out. America’s been good to us, he says. The problem isn’t America, he assures me, but the people running America. Try living in one of those countries, he says. So I’ve given up on using this angle.
Yo Arb, this is a big off subject, but I came across this article and thought about you (you’ve pretty much become my go to authority on shit like this so forgive me):
http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm
It seems to be very focused on the ways in which males, not females, are hurt by the dominant culture. That was kinda jarring to me – but then I started wondering if this approach would be useful in turning men against the dominant culture, seeing as how we blokes aren’t exactly the most empathetic of folks.
LikeLike
April 26, 2018 at 10:34 am
The Arbourist
@JZ
It is unfortunate situation because our actions ‘over there’ are responsible for (some of) the revenge minded actions perpetrated against us here at home. Chalmers Johnston in writing about the dark CIA follies in Latin America and the Middle East coined the term “blowback”. How you stop blow back is simple. Stop doing terrible shit while hiding behind sanitary terminology like ‘the national interest’ to other people.
History is replete with examples of senseless blood feuds ruining people and nations, and yet we continue to act if we are impervious to generational revenge.
:/
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 26, 2018 at 10:36 am
The Arbourist
@Bob Browning
Hartung is a formidable writer and I am grateful he chooses to share some of his work on Tom’s Dispatch.
LikeLike
April 26, 2018 at 11:11 am
The Arbourist
@severeves
Eugene Debs eloquently said – “Let the capitalists do their own fighting and furnish their own corpses and there will never be another war on the face of the earth.” The power to make war, by no small accident, has been taken from the US Congress (ostensibly the voice of the people). The responsibility for dying is fully furnished by the working class, and and because of this they – and no president – should have the final say as to whether or not the country goes to war.
For a liberal, that argument sounds akin to the foundational libertarian notion of “fuck you, I’ve got mine…”.
It sounds as if he’s made up his mind on that particular issue and it is ‘america, love it or leave it’. Stuck thinking is hard to unstuck, good luck in your endeavors with that. :/
LikeLike
April 26, 2018 at 11:40 am
john zande
When you get a chance, this post by Swarn is interesting: Discussion: Re-framing Rape
https://cloakunfurled.com/2018/04/26/discussion-re-framing-rape/
LikeLike
April 26, 2018 at 11:43 am
The Arbourist
@severeves
Re: Denisdutton
Interesting piece. I have a terrible memory when it comes to Latin but I finally remembered what I was looking for, with regards to Dutton’s piece.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. (Latin: “after this, therefore because of this”) – Example: “the rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise.”
Dutton’s work is essentially one Post Hoc argument after another. Good social science looks to provide an explanation for human activities and why they happen, a frame work is proposed and tested against the available facts. In Dutton’s work, his model seems to always be working backwards looking for evidence that supports his conclusions – rather than basing his conclusions on all of the evidence available.
From Dutton’s intro – “But rather than seeing culture as patriarchy, which is to say a conspiracy by men to exploit women, I think it’s more accurate to understand culture (e.g., a country, a religion) as an abstract system that competes against rival systems — and that uses both men and women, often in different ways, to advance its cause.”
Now this part of the intro isn’t exactly post hoc, but it doesn’t address the question it asks of itself – namely what system other than a patriarchal ones are we to compare ourselves (or others) with? Every major society on Earth has a patriarchal foundation, so what and who are we comparing ourselves too?
We can see the post hoc clearly in action in this paragraph – “The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women. “
Dutton takes these particular facets of society and then works backwards toward a justification of them. In any social strata the people that inhabit the lowest rungs are not men, but women of colour and then men of colour then the poor white women, and then the poor white men. So, where do women of colour fit into his analysis at least with regards to his ideas about who does the dirty and dangerous work in society?
Dutton isn’t creating a theory, but rather a justification for white patriarchal society.
Detton continues with (one of many arguments based on) the genetic fallacy – “Tradeoffs again: perhaps nature designed women to seek to be lovable, whereas men were designed to strive, mostly unsuccessfully, for greatness.”
Really? It seems awfully convenient that ‘nature’ studiously replicates the patriarchal ordering of our current society…
Male chauvinism and apologia comes in many flavours and this piece by Dutton isn’t a particularly good example as it is generously littered with fallacies and retrograde thinking.
LikeLike
April 26, 2018 at 11:55 am
The Arbourist
@ JZ
I think you just wait for threads to happen in which you can let loose the dogs of radfem war and watch what precipitates.. :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 26, 2018 at 11:57 am
john zande
LOL! There might be a god!
LikeLike
April 26, 2018 at 12:30 pm
john zande
Be gentle on Swarn, Arb. He’s a good man, head and heart in the right place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 26, 2018 at 12:41 pm
john zande
I think he’s just trying to honestly explore the subject. That was my impression, and I know from past experience he’s very much what we’d consider a like-minded person.
LikeLike
April 26, 2018 at 12:44 pm
The Arbourist
@ JZ
Of course. We’re all at different spots in different areas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 26, 2018 at 1:03 pm
john zande
You think Brison is on the right track? Sounded reasonable to me. At least, something has to change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 26, 2018 at 3:44 pm
The Arbourist
@ JZ
I do think she is on the correct track. What is needed is systemic change, and one has to start somewhere, naming the problem and the context it which it exists is a good start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 26, 2018 at 3:49 pm
john zande
That was my reading. I haven’t watched the video, so you made me do a double-take just to see hadn’t missed something.
I was thinking of you after that Toronto attack. Never heard of this Incel thing before. What a twisted reality these people must inhabit. Equal parts sad and abhorrent.
LikeLike
April 26, 2018 at 3:51 pm
The Arbourist
@ JZ
I forget myself sometimes JZ, as talking with women, and talking with men are often two different experiences.
A woman with a feminist consciousness would see exactly what was going on in the post.
Not that it was bad, but her frame of reference makes it obvious what is going on, and it is not particularly mysterious – if you happen to be used to being on the short end of the stick.
Often, for men to appreciate the context of a situation vis a vis their relative position in society versus one that they don’t necessarily have access to – is a big step.
But, jesus. Empathy has been an important part of being a reasonable adult since forever… Men (as a class) shouldn’t have to get cookies for being a reasonable facsimile of a well adjusted human being. :/
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 26, 2018 at 3:55 pm
The Arbourist
@ JZ
I didn’t watch the video either. As a rule of thumb, I think that anything over 10 min (and 10 min is pushing it) just doesn’t get watched.
Regarding the Toronto attack. The whole Incel movement – that is involuntarily celibate – is fucking joke.
If you were a decent human being, you wouldn’t be blaming others for your ‘enforced celibacy’.
It is a cop-out and a way to blame women for your lack of personality.
I agree it is sad and quite regrettable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 26, 2018 at 5:31 pm
severeves
Thanks Arb. Very good points. I found the article interesting in some ways … though it harbored somewhat of a suspicious smell. Well, now I know why.
Despite the intellectual laziness on my part, I’m glad I posted it for you to have a look before I used it somewhere – as it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve used as source something sneaky and insidious.
LikeLike
April 26, 2018 at 5:35 pm
john zande
Often, for men to appreciate the context of a situation vis a vis their relative position in society versus one that they don’t necessarily have access to – is a big step.
Absolutely, and no matter how genuine the attempt, it’s impossible to *actually* understand. It’s why listening is so important.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 26, 2018 at 5:37 pm
john zande
There’s someone for everyone. These blokes just don’t have patience. Now. Now. Now.
LikeLike