Al-Jazeerah History
Archives
Mission & Name
Conflict Terminology
Editorials
Gaza Holocaust
Gulf War
Isdood
Islam
News
News Photos
Opinion
Editorials
US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
www.aljazeerah.info
|
|
|
American Zionist Media Beat Drums of Hate
Against Russia and Putin
By Ben Tanosborn
Al-Jazeerah, CCUN,
December
19, 2016 |
|
American Media Cries: Enough Cyber-Disputin! We Just Hate
Vladimir Putin!
In 1898, incited by a yellow press (the Hearst gang) and aspiring
American imperialists, the
American public was clamoring for war after the Maine’s sinking in Havana’s
harbor. The cry then was, “Remember the Maine! To Hell with Spain!” which
allowed sacrificing an old and decrepit despot to surrender its colonial
booty (Cuba, the Philippines and Puerto Rico) to a nascent bully in the high
seas itching to test its 1890’s state-of-the-art armored cruisers, using two
dated Spanish flotillas for target practice. Today, a month before
Donald Trump takes the reins in Washington,
America’s powerful corporate media, just a few
degrees removed from Hearst’s yellow press,
is agitating the public equating “assumed hacking,”
and how it might have affected the presidential elections, to an act of war.
Sinking of the Maine, redux! The cry now can be said to be, “Enough
Cyber-Disputin’! We Just Hate Vladimir Putin!” Amazing how history
repeats itself; or, to put it more accurately, how those holding power in a
bully-nation, can clamor injustice or foul play by others regardless whether
truth resides with them, or with others, or it’s minute-in-grade to the
situation. It was never proven, nor is it rational to think, that
Spain would act suicidal by sinking the Maine. And it is just as irrational
for us Americans to conclude that hacking, in any form, even if true, merits
thoughts of darker intentions: to be considered an act of war.
Russia has been for a while America’s adversary-of-choice for not allowing
NATO to weaponize at her borders; the sibling dispute with Ukraine and
annexation of Crimea but a response to US’ ever tightening noose, a measured
defensive action which left the US cringingly mad, while allowing Russia to
preserve its pride and integrity. But that reenactment of détente took
place thanks to the all but forgotten MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) of
the Cold War era. One would think that our sapient leaders, trained
in ecumenical diplomacy to better run the empire, would be more tactful with
their language when referring to other nations and their leaders. But power
breeds bullying, and bullying carries in its DNA the need to be exercised,
either directly or via surrogates. And that the US has done; mildly at
first, after the breakup of the Soviet Union; then forcefully making sure
Skeletal Russia stayed on a diet and didn’t gain any regional
influential-weight. Whether Hillary Clinton’s running of the State
Department from 2009 to 2013 followed a prescribed path set by Obama, or was
a consensual understanding between the career neocons in the State
Department and her, is not clear given the results from the foreign policy
which may then have existed; results which beg to be judged precarious at
best and catastrophic at worst. In any event, Hillary Clinton proved
herself out to be an ineffective hawkish dud. Little wonder that Putin
finds Lady Clinton annoying or that, as she claims, his “beef” with her
provoked the hacking of Podesta’s and DNC’s emails. Whether there is merit
to such conclusion or not, we should not lose sight of the fact that the
person who was royally screwed in this 2016 electoral fiasco was not Hillary
Clinton, but the Democratic Party’s sacrificial lamb, Bernie Sanders.
Loudest cheerleaders in the anti-Putin yell are two frontline American
Jihadists, Lindsey Graham, the simpleton senator from South Carolina, and
Annapolis’ tail-ender, POW-hero-stretcher, John McCain. The latter,
indisputably lacking in both tact as well as grey matter, to possibly be
someday remembered for coining almost three years ago that insulting phrase
defining Russia as “a gas station masquerading as a country.”
Whether we approve, disapprove, or have a wait-and-see attitude to Trump’s
ascent to power, we may err in our prejudging of success or failure of his
presidency in the domestic arena, particularly in economic matters and the
creation of living-wage jobs. But one thing we can almost count on: Trump is
unlikely to fare any worse in the international arena than the previous four
presidents… not when it comes to Russia or the burning Middle East.
However, as we assess the cast of characters being chosen during the
transition period to head Trump’s International Brigade, we can’t help but
identify foreign policy contradictions ranging from a positive Rex Tillerson
as candidate to head the State Department, to a calamitous David Friedman,
as ambassador to Israel. Let’s wait and see if “The Art of the Deal”
metamorphoses into “The Art of Diplomacy,” and Donald Trump achieves
celebrity status not just in the vulgarian, but the historical realm as
well.
***
Share the link of this article with your facebook friends
|
|
|