ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Yglesias

The Dark Continent

Johann Hari writes about France’s destructive interventions in the Central African Republic and other parts of Africa. Andrew, apparently trying to shore-up his conservative credentials, observes that “If the US did anything like this, you wouldn’t hear the last of it. But this is the first report I’ve read.” Well, obviously US policy gets more coverage in the United States than does French policy, but it’s really not as if we’re inundated with coverage of American involvement in sub-Saharan Africa either.

Walter Pincus, for example, did an interesting May 28 Washington Post article about some potential problems with the idea of creating a new Africa Command but it ran on page A13 and I haven’t seen whatever’s happening there been the subject of intense journalist interest anymore than Ethiopia’s US-backed invasion of Somalia has been. The truth is simply that things that happen in Africa that don’t involve westerners getting killed (if French or American personnel started dying in large numbers as part of these intervention, we’d hear about that) don’t get covered very much and a huge proportion of the coverage is dedicated to the situation in Darfur.

Yglesias

Levy on the Lobby

Daniel Levy, not unpredictably, has what’s to my mind the best take on The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy that I’ve seen yet. He does a great job of highlighting the very real flaws in the Walt-Mearsheimer argument without turning that into mere triangulation in the face of their more deranged critics. The problems Levy points to, in my view, stem basically from the limits of Walt and Mearsheimer’s methodology.

Basically, as realists, I think they don’t really “get” ideology and the extent to which the World War IV view of the world exists as a freestanding, transnational (most influential, clearly, in US and Israeli politics, but also with some sway in the UK and Australia and some of its leading proponents in the US are Canadian, etc.) view of things that’s not “about” serving Israel’s interests or America’s interests or, indeed, anyone’s interests — it’s just wrong.

Does Bush Think His New Joint Chiefs Chairman Is ‘Na¯ve’?

In May, former senator John Edwards (D-NC) said that “war on terrorism” is a “slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe.” During a press conference, Bush attacked critics of the phrase, calling them “naive“:

This notion about how this isn’t a war on terror in my view is na¯ve. It doesn’t reflect the true nature of the world in which we live, you know?

Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/05/bushwarterror524.320.240.flv]

Al Kamen reports today that incoming Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike McMullen is also opposed to the use of the words “global war on terror“:

Seems the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Michael Mullen, has banned the use of the phrase “Global War on Terror” (GWOT) and has prohibited using it “in any future correspondence,” according to a Sept. 27 e-mail from a Mullen aide.

Vice President Cheney has also ripped critics of the “war on terror” nameplate. After House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) objected to the use of the phrase, Vice President Cheney said Skelton exhibited “flawed thinking” and was “dead wrong on this.

But in reality, even President Bush, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers have stated that the “global war on terror” is misnamed.

The administration continues to flaunt the phrase “global war on terror.” Will President Bush and Dick Cheney attack their new Joint Chiefs chairman as “na¯ve” and “dead wrong?”

Senior U.S. Military Official Faults Blackwater In The Shooting Of 11 Iraqi Civilians

A senior U.S. military official tells the Washington Post that the Sept. 16 firing incident at Nissor Square involving Blackwater USA was unprovoked and that the 11 civilian victims were unarmed:

It was obviously excessive, it was obviously wrong,” said the U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the incident remains the subject of several investigations. “The civilians that were fired upon, they didn’t have any weapons to fire back at them. And none of the IP (Iraqi Police) or any of the local security forces fired back at them.”

Military reports also “appear to corroborate the Iraqi government’s contention that Blackwater was at fault.

Separately, an Iraqi investigation “recommends that the security guards face trial in Iraqi courts and that the company compensate the victims.” A panel led by the Iraqi Defense Minister said that “Blackwater guards sprayed western Baghdad’s Nisoor Square with gunfire Sept. 16 without provocation.”

ThinkProgress reported on Monday that the FBI has been sent to Baghdad to conduct an investigation at the request of the State Department. Yesterday, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack “hinted…that Blackwater guards could face legal proceedings,” and that the FBI investigation was “a hedge against the possibility that an investigation leads to the point where there may need to be a referral” to U.S. prosecutors.

The U.S. Congress is also looking into the matter of private security firms. Yesterday the House of Representatives voted “to bring private security firms in Iraq out of legal limbo” by making security firms stationed in combat zones “subject to action in US courts.” Private contractors have not been subject to prosecution under a directive issued by Paul Bremer, shortly before leaving his post as head of the provisional authority in Iraq.

– Dave de Give

This post was submitted through our Blog Fellows program. Make your own contribution — and get paid for it — by clicking here.

Digg It!

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up