Yes, I did post an entry earlier today about Barack Obama’s recent appointments. And yes, it did include speculation and some condemnation. But to be honest with you, I’ve reached the end of my rope with regards to speculating about the pros and cons of Obama’s soon-to-be administration. The truth of the matter is that no matter Obama’s historic victory, and the sense of optimism that it has created, the state of the American military industrial complex will not be significantly altered. And because of that, neither will those bedrock aspects of US foreign policy that have remained consistent since the end of the Second World War. In truth, there is only one thing that can threaten that reality – an economic collapse. Beyond that, its prevalence within the modern American landscape will remain intact.

Members of Presidential administrations are only significant in their peripheral, even unknowing, role of helping support the status quo and that on which the military industrial complex thrives – neocolonialism, economic imperialism, militarism, and the now inseparable connection between government and the defense sector. That is a national reality that no President has been able to even come close to altering in half a century. Barack Obama will fair no different.

The world is replete with contradictions driven by the need to sensationalize that which supports policy. The recent attacks in Mumbai are being labeled “India’s 9/11”. That said, I have a question: what, or when, was Iraq’s 9/11? Was it during the decade in which international sanctions caused the deaths of some 1 million Iraqis after America’s once Middle Eastern golden boy overstepped his bounds? Or is it the last 5 years of war that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions? It would seem the people of Iraq don’t get their own 9/11, despite the fact that their country was illegally invaded based on lies and the hegemonic lust of ideological neoconservative zealots. Over 4,000 American soldiers have paid with their lives and yet Iraq remains the most dangerous country in the world despite what those makeup laden spin doctors on television routinely spew.

Today, 58 Iraqis were killed and another 112 were injured by a car bomb and a teenaged suicide bomber in Bagdad, a bombing in Suleikh, a suicide car bomber in Mosul, and a bomb in Yarmouk.

Hear about it?

How Iraqis die doesn’t concern us. Iraqis die every day. Old news. How Americans die, on the other hand, does concern us and is always news worthy.

A US historian once opined on the Spanish conquest of the South West during which Native Americans were given 5 minutes to choose whether to convert to Catholicism or face annihilation. The edict that they were read was in Latin, so of course they couldn’t understand it and were thus killed. The point made was what if a foreign peoples arrived in Catholic Europe and told the French or the Spanish that they had 5 minutes to abandon a belief system and an entire way of life that had been over a millennia in the making? You can imagine the response.

Now imagine it again.

My eyes slowly open. I sleep with the curtains pushed back, so am blinded briefly. In that instance, as I lay in bed new to another day, people around the world are being killed violently.

What has transpired in Mumbai is a representation of the worst of what we as a species are capable of, but it is by no means the only example of our predilection for death. We live in a world in which more has been done to further the arts of destruction than creation. It has become our great work, our calling card, the one constant employed by terrorists and governments alike. The majority of the planet fears death, so possessing the ability to deliver it has become the greatest undertaking in human history. Its perfection has many faces, from the mushroom cloud to the seizing of hotels in a major city. From carpet bombing to suicide bombing.

As an advocate of peace I feel peace too great a threat to the status quo to ever become a reality. Peace does not further agendas, nor does it possess the power to threaten. Peace is simply the unfortunate lesson learned when the fullness of our inherent aggression has been spent.

Those responsible for what has occurred in India are to be utterly condemned. But to condemn them also requires that we condemn every facet of the aggressive mechanism that we have allow to continue that cements the promotion of the deliverance of death as a tactic with which to intimidate, depress, and dominate. For we are all culpable in helping maintain that reality, even if we have never personally fired a shot.

We are the sons and daughters of a terrible legacy, one that has gone unburdened throughout the course of our tenure on this planet. We are children of murder, the anointed offspring of death from above and search and destroy.

There will come a time when this planet will no longer have any use for us. Perhaps, when all is said and done, that is peace. And in saying as much, one can only hope that nature shows us that no matter how skilled we have become at destroying one another, she possesses the ultimate solution to the problem that is mankind. For despite all of our hypocritical beliefs with regards to the use of dominance to secure peace, it seems to me that its full measure can only be achieved when we are no longer.

That is the reality that we have created for ourselves, and one that, in the end, we will ultimately have to account for. The world is old, she can be patient. We are but the blink of an eye to her and millions of her other guests that have lived in harmony with her long before we assumed this mantle of superiority. They, nor she, will mourn our passing. For with it will come peace, even if those we consider too unintelligent to comprehend it ultimately inherit what we could never brave to aspire to.

No matter how well I write it, I cannot even begin to come close to the perspective provided by someone like Robert Fisk, who has been covering the greater Middle East for The Independent since I was six or seven years old. With regards to Afghanistan, Fisk’s recent piece entitled Kabul 30 years ago, and Kabul today. Have we learned nothing? is a must read, but it is how he begins it that is truly brilliant…

“I sit on the rooftop of the old Central Hotel – pharaonic-decorated elevator, unspeakable apple juice, sublime green tea, and armed Tajik guards at the front door – and look out across the smoky red of the Kabul evening. The Bala Hissar fort glows in the dusk, massive portals, the great keep to which the British army should have moved its men in 1841. Instead, they felt the king should live there and humbly built a cantonment on the undefended plain, thus leading to a “signal catastrophe”.

Like automated birds, the kites swoop over the rooftops. Yes, the kite-runners of Kabul, minus Hollywood. At night, the thump of American Sikorsky helicopters and the whisper of high-altitude F-18s invade my room. The United States of America is settling George Bush’s scores with the “terrorists” trying to overthrow Hamid Karzai’s corrupt government.

Now rewind almost 29 years, and I am on the balcony of the Intercontinental Hotel on the other side of this great, cold, fuggy city. Impeccable staff, frozen Polish beer in the bar, secret policemen in the front lobby, Russian troops parked in the forecourt. The Bala Hissar fort glimmers through the smoke. The kites – green seems a favourite colour – move beyond the trees. At night, the thump of Hind choppers and the whisper of high-altitude MiGs invade my room. The Soviet Union is settling Leonid Brezhnev’s scores with the “terrorists” trying to overthrow Barbrak Karmal’s corrupt government.

Thirty miles north, all those years ago, a Soviet general told us of the imminent victory over the “terrorists” in the mountains, imperialist “remnants” – the phrase Kabul communist radio always used – who were being supported by America and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Fast forward to 2001 – just seven years ago – and an American general told us of the imminent victory over the “terrorists” in the mountains, the all but conquered Taliban who were being supported by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The Russian was pontificating at the big Soviet airbase at Bagram. The American general was pontificating at the big US airbase at Bagram.

This is not déjà-vu. This is déjà double-vu. And it gets worse.”

Slept all day, so I’ve got nothing. Yammered with Tony late last night about his disappointing experience at the Playboy Mansion on Halloween – they just don’t look the same up close. They never do. Interviewing them was apparently also a challenge.

I’ve had it with inaccurate historical dramas. I totally get that they gave the role of Henry to someone like Jonathan Rhys Meyers to attract female viewers, but his performance is simply unbelievable. I mean, Henry VIII was fat and had gout – he wasn’t ripped with chiseled facial features. He was also 42 years old when he married Anne Boleyn. Of course, you can’t shoot hot sex scenes between a fat 40 something and a hot girl in her 20’s - that just wouldn’t fly with television audiences. Or would it, you naughty monkey’s?

That’s why I like CSI. They make no attempt to hide the fact that everything they do on that show is basically impossible in the real world. DNA results in five minutes? No problem! Trace analysis that’s faster than getting a burger at a drive-thu? No problem! Toxicology results in nanoseconds? No problem! And all those wonderful computer programs that they have that can do just about anything but make a physical arrest – astounding!

At least CSI provides a public service. I mean, how intelligent is your average criminal? After all, they watch television too. And if they believe that all of that technology actually exists, well, they might just think twice before committing their next crime. Either that or they’ll become forensic enthusiasts, which would, of course, lead to them to discover that the show is totally full of shit, not to mention providing a crash course on how best not to get caught.

Don’t even get me started on ‘Elizabeth The Golden Age’ or I might put my fist through my monitor.

There is, as far as I’m concerned, nothing worse than willful ignorance. If you possess the ability to educate yourself, you possess the ability to change and therefore help create change – and by saying that I am in no way referring to the recent election in the United States.

Self education is paramount the world over for those that have the ability to do it. If you have access to a wide variety of information then you really have no excuse when it comes to ignorantly espousing beliefs based on a lack of self education.

Take, for example, the misuse of the following of late in the political realm online…

Marxism: Marxism is a political philosophy based on the ideologies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Thus, any theory that is based on any interpretation of their ideologies can be termed Marxism.

Communism: First, have you read the Communist Manifesto? If you haven’t, how can you claim to understand Communist theory? You certainly can’t claim to understand it by using the Soviet, Chinese, or any other corruption of the theory as examples because none of them represent true reproductions of it. Therefore, Communism, as understood by most with regards to its corrupted application in the 20th century, is not Communism at all. That said, the theory itself is, in fact, philosophically genius.

Socialism: One of the great misunderstandings regarding Socialism is that its roots are found in Communist theory. The reality is that Socialist theory predates Communist theory, its origins being French and English. That said, modern Socialism is actually a wide ranging ideology with no fixed doctrine. The core principles of modern socialism are economic rationalization and social interventionism, not the unshakable belief in the creation of an egalitarian society, though there are certainly some that still hold true to that founding principle. This would be why there exists everything from Social Democrats, some of whom have been Prime Ministers of this country, to Libertarian Socialists.

Fascism: Fascism was the brainchild of philosopher Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini. When it first reared its head in Italy in the early 20th century it wasn’t a political model that was by any means condemned. In fact, the demonizing of it would not begin until the mid to late 30’s. Fascism is a nationalist ideology that places emphasis on Totalitarian governance and the Third Position, an alternative to Capitalist and Communist theory. One of its core principles is the use of violence against political opponents and dissenters through the use of militants. In short, it is a political ideology steeped in Nationalism, Third Position, Militarism, and Totalitarianism.

Democracy: Democracy’s core principle, established in antiquity, is very simple – that the people hold supreme power through the existence of a free electoral system. Interestingly, and perhaps to the shock of some, no universal agreement on its definition actually exists to this day. Only two principles are considered fundamental to its existence – equal access to power and the recognition that established rights and freedoms are guaranteed and protected. Beyond that, it has been interpreted, reinterpreted, and corrupted since its inception. Despite widespread belief, Capitalism is not a primary tenet of the Democratic model, even though most are taught that it is.

I mention these things because I find it increasingly troubling how many people rely on one dimensional definitions of such theories and ideologies, especially as they apply to the Western political landscape.

There is also the even more worrisome reality that many people aren’t even familiar with any of it.

First, I’d like to direct readers to Roy Jurgens new blog, Harbinger Of Doom. As always, Roy’s writing is excellent and it’s a blog that’s certainly worth bookmarking, maybe even more so than this one.

A few days ago, Dimitri Vassilaros of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review wrote something regarding Remembrance Day that I found very poignant. An excerpt…

“When remembering the brave Americans on Tuesday who served this republic — especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice — remember the people who put them in harm’s way.

Veterans Day, which was known as Armistice Day until 1954, honors American veterans of all wars on Nov. 11.

What many of them experienced doing their duty is almost incomprehensible. Sing their praises to the heavens. Shower them with all the glory they so richly deserve. Thank God so many put their lives on the line to help make this the greatest nation in history. But after the parade bands stop marching, the bunting is decommissioned and the bystanders stop waving those little American flags, consider why so many have been wounded or lost — and if anything can be done to lessen the need for more rehab hospitals and national cemeteries.

The public should ask itself if it’s ever done a disservice to its service men and women when expedience trumped the U.S. Constitution. And if so, how many in our military paid — and how dearly.

Congress has formally declared war during five conflicts: with Great Britain in 1812, Mexico in 1846, Spain in 1898 and the two world wars.

However, this nation has used its armed forces abroad in situations of military or potential conflict (or for other than normal peacetime purposes) more than 420 times, according to a report by Richard F. Grimmett, a congressional research service defense specialist at the Library of Congress.

U.S. forces have been in Afghanistan to Zaire, the Fiji Islands, Hawaiian Islands and Falkland Islands, Samoa, Sumatra and, yes, even Soviet Russia. The U.S. battled Barbary pirates and Mexican bandits but also deployed troops to protect American interests in foreign lands — too many times and in too many places (like Korea and Vietnam) — to fight and maybe die.”

In Response

In the comments regarding my last entry a reader wrote…

“The gates of Auschwitz were not opened with peace talks. Holland was not liberated by peacekeepers and fascism was not defeated with a deft pen. Time and time again men and women in uniform have laid down their lives in just causes and in an effort to free others from oppression.”

There is no questioning the fact that the Second World War is difficult to confront when commenting on the virtues of peace. Throughout history there have been those that have acted criminally and that have had no regard for it unless attained through the use of arms to secure a self serving state of peace. The Third Reich is one such example, but it is certainly not the only one, and certainly not the most infamous.

As we’re all aware, Auschwitz-Birkenau was physically discovered by the Red Army, but the existence of the camp was made known to the Allied powers by the Polish underground as early as 1941. While the extent of what took place at the camps was beyond imagination, it should not be forgotten than IBM, acting through foreign subsidiaries, provided the Third Reich with the punch card machines that helped them track down and identify Jews in Europe. Thomas J. Watson, then the CEO of IBM, was a known Nazi sympathizer who lobbied as the head of the International Chamber of Commerce to have the economic sanctions implemented against Germany lifted. He personally travelled to Germany numerous times in the 1930’s, was awarded The Eagle with Star medal from Hitler, and dined with the Nazi elite while Jews, and others, were being systematically rounded up.

While IBM has always denied that their assistance significantly aided the Third Reich, as the Germans would eventually take control of the operation and were unable to reproduce the punch cards themselves, Thomas J. Watson was never tried for treason, nor held accountable for his actions. He returned the medal that Hitler presented him after Germany declared war on the United States and remained IBM’s CEO. One of his masterstrokes, one made unquestionably either to cover his own ass or as the result of pressure from the US government given the dirt that they no doubt had on him, was the implemented the 1% Doctrine, which meant that IBM would not receive more than 1% profit from the sale of military equipment to the US government.

Watson is just one example of an American businessman that not only supported the Third Reich, but profited from his relationship with them. And those profits did not evaporate while young Americans were dying on the beaches of Normandy or at Anzio.

War has many faces, we look for the just ones, but the truth is that even the Second World War is replete with criminality on both sides. Of course, the dedication and sacrifice of those men and women that did their duty cannot be questioned. But the truth of the matter is that war remains war and peace remains nowhere near as exalted an enterprise in the annals of human history. For even in the aftermath of the most justifiable of conflicts, new conflicts arise out of their ashes, as was the case at the end of the Second World War. And because of that reality, atomic weapons were used on two Japanese cities to make a political point at Potsdam, one which only fueled the fire. That’s what happens when the likes of Dean Acheson are whispering in your ear.

The men and women of this nation that served in the Second World War certainly deserve our praise and gratitude for their sacrifice. Many members of my own family served, so it is something that has certainly never been lost on me. We are a nation that is commonly overlooked when it comes to out contribution in foreign wars, and World War 2 is certainly no exception. Our actions at Juno Beach on D-Day were exemplary, though they have been completely overshadowed by the accomplishments of others. That would be why I personally donated more money to the construction of the Juno Beach Memorial Centre than many Canadian corporations did.

The point of my last entry was to not to claim that peace should be ignorantly sought, but rather that we must safeguard ourselves in this current day and age against the wanton use of force and the wholly disrespectful use of the past to play on our perceptions and emotions to justify it. Afghanistan is not World War 2. Those that have been lost in Afghanistan are, in my opinion, victims of policy, and therefore their loss is extremely disconcerting. This nation has paid a greater cost in Afghanistan than any other when the size of the contingents involved are taken into account. And to me, that is simply unacceptable.

Defeating the Germans in the Second World War was something that certainly had to be done. Then again, so was the toppling of Rome given that it waged unrestrained wars of conquest for centuries and enslaved and killed millions over the course of its imperial domination. And yet, in the annals of history, the Roman civilization is considered one of humanity’s bright spots.

What occurred yesterday in the United States will be remembered for centuries to come. The man that stood on that stage in Grant Park in Chicago last night delivered a speech that sent shockwaves of hope from Times Square to Portland, Paris to Tokyo. At sporting events in this country, entire stadiums stood and cheered when the news was announced.

When was the last time you can remember that occurring?

There are naysayers, of course, and there is certainly a long road ahead of President Obama who is inheriting one of the worst Presidential landscapes in American history, but his victory yesterday symbolizes something that was so desperately needed in the United States that it is impossible to ignore. The nation, in the span of a day, went from one of cautious trepidation to one of renewed hope and strengthened belief in itself. Even the staunchest of Republicans are today faced with the reality that the people of the United States did something yesterday that has not occurred often in American history – they voted with their hearts.

As somewhat of a historian, the fact that, in my lifetime, an African American has been elected to the highest office in the United States seems almost a dream. A century ago African Americans faced persecution and intimidation in many parts of the United States if they even attempted to vote. In truth, that reality existed in parts of the country up until the 1960’s. Two hundred years ago, African Americans were largely viewed as property, with most enslaved and living in conditions that we can scarcely imagine possible. And now, in what will be remembered as one of the most historic moments in the nation’s history, an African American has been elected President.

There are those that claim that race should not be a factor, that far too much emphasis has been placed on it, and that it is enough to say that the better candidate won. As an idealist I agree. But as someone that has studied the history of the United States for the better part of twenty five years it is something that cannot be so easily dismissed. In truth, within the context of US history, it is monumental.

While there is no questioning that the majority of African Americans voted for Obama, he would not have secured the victory that he did without considerable and historic support from other ethnicities, predominantly White Americans. And that is something, when placed in historical context, that makes me want to literally get up from this chair and dance around the room. The fact that the people of the United States have elected the first African American President is immensely historic. But what is equally historic is the fact that the American people, no matter their ethnicity, chose a man based on their belief in him, and that race was trumped by that belief. Thus, two occurrences of overwhelmingly historic import occurred in the United States yesterday, producing even more of a reason for jubilation.

Therefore, before the scrutiny begins, let’s take a moment to stop and bask in what has occurred. Because occurrences such as this usually only happen once in a lifetime.

A few people were disconcerted by a recent entry I posted about diplomacy, particularly the historical references that I chose to use. Obviously, we all have varying points of view with regards to history, and such points of view are shaped by how much we have been educated regarding various historical subjects. But more importantly, it is the information with which we expose ourselves to that says a great deal about how our beliefs are shaped.

History has many dimensions, but two of its most important are the truth and the manipulation of the truth for the purposes of perception. It is routinely the latter, not the former, that we are commonly exposed to.

Universal Historic Culpability

War, conquest, exploitation, slavery, torture, theft, deception, religious subjugation – elements of all of these things can be found in the histories of every great society that has existed, some more than others, and certainly in numerous cases more blatantly that others. The progression of morality is the façade that has altered the methodology of such societies throughout history, ultimately limiting their ability to act in a shamelessly transparent fashion. The Romans tortured and enslaved without shame, as did the Greeks and the Egyptians, but all of them, at the height of their influence, were also considered to be the most civilized of societies. That reality has not changed in over two millennia, only the mechanism used to disguise the reliance on those things deemed immoral to achieve various ends.

Every great power has, in its time, been guilty of the worst crimes conceivable on a mass scale. No matter the ideologies on which those societies were based, be they monarchies, dictatorships, or democracies, the reality is that all of them are just as culpable as their forebears. But it is perception and context that skew our understanding of history, often leaning on necessity as justification for those things that we consider despicable though condone because of context. That phenomenon is the usurpation of history itself, no matter what point of view you happen to hold, and thus the manipulation of the truth for the purpose of perception.

Proper Context

The Soviet Union was invaded by Germany on the 22nd of June, 1941. In the four years that followed the Soviets suffered over 10 million military deaths and over 11 million civilian deaths. And yet, in the context of Western history with regards to the Second World War, the role played by the Soviets is significantly downplayed for various reasons – Stalin’s murderous and dictatorial reign, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and the East-West confrontation that emerged after the war.

Historical truth, on the other hand, tells a very different story, one in which the Eastern front was the deciding factor of the war itself. Be it German miscalculation or Soviet resolve, the reality is that what occurred on the Eastern front played a significant role in the ability of Western powers to successfully invade Western Europe. Without it, the likelihood that Britain would have been invaded is considerable, which would be why the West went to great lengths to aid the Soviets on the Eastern front. As a result, the Soviet Union lost 23 million people. In comparison, the losses suffered by the major Western Allied powers in the European theatre were paltry by comparison.

No nation in the European theatre paid a greater price than the Soviets, and yet theirs was a contribution wholly undermined by anti-Communist sentiment that ultimately led to the mass manipulation of historical truth in classrooms throughout the Western world.

In the decades that followed, the Cold War saw the world’s two primary super powers stoop to the same degenerate levels in various instances, both engaging in situations that would carelessly waste lives. This game, justified by both powers as a battle of ideologies, was anything but. It was, in truth, the desire for global military supremacy and the cementing of those regional influences required to achieve it. Ultimately, the United States won that battle, primarily because its citizens were never exposed to the sort of widespread destitution and corruption that their Soviet counterparts were. Theirs was a just cause, and the dirty work that occurred out of sight and mind was concealed by both the mass belief that freedom was the guiding principle of the struggle coupled with those elements prevalent in Western societies that provide distraction.

If the Cold War proved anything, it’s that democracy is a far easier guise to exploit with regards to the advancement of global military dominance.

Cuba

Cuba is a touchy subject, especially for Americans. While I’ll not argue that Castro’s governance of the country didn’t produce human rights violations, and that such violations are never excusable, proper context must once again be applied.

Prior to the Cuban revolution, Cuba was a nation governed by an American puppet regime that ensured that US economic interests were vehemently protected. In truth, General Fulgencio Batista’s dictatorial rule of the country was much hasher than that of Castro’s, with his guiding principle for the ill treatment of segments of the Cuban population being the protection of the interests of a foreign nation. In any other circumstance, Batista’s removal would have been viewed as just, especially by a populist movement. But given what the United States lost after Batista’s removal, it was seen as criminal.

Like it or not, Fidel Castro did initially attempt to work within the nation’s corrupted democratic framework to invoke change. When that failed, primarily because of Batista’s seizure of power, which was wholly backed by the United States, the method of change, and the ideology behind it, was altered. That alteration, steeped in Marxist-Leninist ideology, ultimately led to the successful populist uprising that drove Batista from power, one which was supported by the majority of Cubans at the time. What’s crucial to remember is that prior to the revolution 75% of Cuba’s best arable land was owned by foreign interests, predominantly American.

There is no questioning the fact that the revolutionary government was flying by the seat if its pants when it took power, nor that it used extreme methods to deal with those that supported Batista. But what should not be overlooked is that it also implemented programs of worth, such as a nationwide literacy program and land reforms that actually raised the standard of living. But Cuba’s post revolutionary future was not one that would be allowed to naturally unfold.

The United States waged nonstop covert warfare against the Castro government for years as a part of the CIA’s Cuba Project, which included everything from psychological to agricultural warfare. Ultimately, using a brigade of US trained Cuban exiles, an invasion of the country was attempted. When it failed, US covert operations continued unabated.

Threats of invasion, coupled with a crippling economic embargo, forced the Cuban revolutionary government into a corner. In that corner was, of course, the Soviets waiting with an available hand. But the question has to be asked – had the revolutionary government been allowed to focus on domestic matters rather than being driven into a state of paranoia and economic disparity, what would Cuba look like today?

We will never know the answer to that question because the United States refused to allow it to happen. In the end, the spirit of the revolution was replaced by paranoia and fear, leading to a dictatorial government rather than one that could have evolved into something else had it the chance to.

The Challenge

If there is one thing that history demands of us it’s vigilance, and to be vigilant we must be prepared to open ourselves up to those things that cause us discomfort and that challenge accepted norms. It is there that the eclipsed side of history is to be found, the completion of its totality, and therefore its whole truth.

When you are the most powerful nation in the world you risk nothing by sitting down and talking with those you consider enemies. Any fool can claim that preconditions have to be met before dialogue can happen, but without dialogue nothing changes without the use of force, and even then change is never assured nor lasting, as has been demonstrated very clearly over the last seven years.

It takes a bigger man to talk than to pull a trigger or order others to do it for them. It takes an individual with vision, determination, and moral fortitude to exhaust every option available before sending young people to their deaths. It is a quality that President Bush completely lacks, as does Vice President Dick Cheney and others, past and present, in the current administration. The foreign policy doctrine adopted after 9/11 erased diplomacy from the American political dictionary, replacing it with unilateralism and preemption. Subsequently, more Americans have died in Iraq than did on September 11th, with tens of thousands more wounded. The real tragedy, of course, is that that is nothing compared to what the people of Iraq have had to endure.

When it comes to the invasion of Iraq, diplomacy was not something that the Bush Administration was ever interested in. In truth, the possibility of sitting down with their once notorious ally was never an option. A permanent military footprint in the region cemented through regime change was the goal of the invasion, rendering diplomacy laughable. It would have been as fruitful for the Iraqis as Chamberlain’s negotiations with Hitler. Despite those negotiations, the German inner circle had already decided on a course of action that no amount of diplomacy was going to alter. And yet, that very same historic example was applied in reverse with regards to the regime of Saddam Hussein – that diplomacy was pointless, even though the Bush Administration set about engineering the appearance that it was attempting to exhaust diplomatic options. What is commonly overlooked though is that those options were direct threats that, if not adhered to, would result in military action that was wholly premeditated. Compounded by the entirely false link between the regime of Hussein and 9/11 spread by the Bush Administration, there was nothing that Iraq could have done to avoid a US invasion. Even if Hussein, his sons, and his closest confidants had either left the country or given themselves up, the United States military still would have ventured onto Iraqi soil, still would have played the leading role in the creation of a new government, and their presence would have still led to the unforeseen uprising that no one at the Pentagon thought a seriously damaging proposition.

During the run up to the invasion the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission under Hans Blix attempted to make headway, but even they were bullied to the point of having to acquiesce to the premeditated determination of the Bush Administration, which also included dealing with British Intelligence’s Rockingham operation.

Over the last seven years we have had front row seats at a show that has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of both threats and force. When Afghanistan was initially invaded how many people would have believed that seven years later negotiations with the Taliban would be seen as a option? How many people have truly paid attention to NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe and seriously considered the ramifications? How many people still labour under the misconception that Iraq is a war that must be won to save face, as all other considerations have been rendered practically implausible? The Iraqi government doesn’t want foreign forces in the country, the majority of Iraqis, no matter their affiliations, don’t want foreign forces in the country, and yet foreign forces, primarily American forces, remain. So what is it about the American psyche that refuses to face reality? If anything it’s rooted in those occurrences in which diplomacy was not attempted prior to military action.

This is certainly not new territory for the United States. During the Vietnam war US forces fought for three years before Hanoi and Washington began dialoguing. It wouldn’t be until 1973 that any definitive agreement was reached, and not until 1975 until US personnel completely left the country. During the majority of that conflict many Americans considered it unfathomable that anything other than complete victory would be the outcome. After yet, after ten years and the deaths of just over 58,000 men, the North Vietnamese prevailed. Not surprisingly, given the outcome of the war, the Vietnam War Memorial that stands in Constitution Gardens was wholly funded by private donations.

Like Iraq, the Vietnam war was one that was a premeditated inevitability. After the assassination of President Kennedy, and the reversal of his decision to begin reducing the number of US military advisors in South Vietnam, the Joint Chiefs finally got what they wanted. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, real or not, provided the pretext that various individuals within the military establishment had been seeking since Kennedy’s last minute decision not to directly support the invasion of Cuba, a covert operation that his administration inherited when he took office – a reason to go to war. Communism was the threat with which they justified it, driven by belief in the Domino Theory which, with regards to South East Asia, was hollow given that the North Vietnamese struggle was nationalist in nature and that the Sino-Soviet split demolished the reality of a global Communist umbrella.

So what would the United States lose by sitting down with anyone from the Iranians to Hamas? Absolutely nothing. In fact, doing so would open vital lines of communication that could work towards solutions rather than impede them. Unfortunately, when preconditions are put into place, the willingness of others to enter into such relationships is severely impeded.

The moral high ground is not something that the United States can claim that it holds, despite the beliefs of those such as John McCain. Ironically, McCain’s imprisonment in Vietnam came to an end because of diplomacy, not because of the successful use of military force or diplomacy with precondition. Thus, to claim that preconditions must be met before diplomacy can occur only deters the possibility of its success.

During stump speeches, Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has exhaustively repeated that John McCain knows how to win wars. I find such an assertion utterly ignorant being that the United States lost the only war that McCain was ever involved in and that for most of it he was a prisoner of war. How that makes McCain qualified with regards to achieving military successes is quite beyond me, though it does explain his reluctance to sit down with the leaders of countries, such as Iran, without preconditions being met.

Ultimately, diplomacy at gunpoint is not diplomacy, it’s geopolitical extortion. If ever there was an example of the detriment of the lack of diplomatic access, look no further than the Cuban Missile Crisis. While it has since been wholly mythologized as an American political victory over the Soviet Union, the reality is that the roots of the crisis began with US covert actions against Cuba and support for its invasion. After Kennedy refused to allow US forces to directly support the failed invasion, which was undertaken by Cuban exiles, the government of Fidel Castro turned to the Soviet Union to help ensure that his government possessed a deterrent against the possibility of another invasion, perhaps one wholly undertaken by US forces. And so the USSR placed MRBM’s in Cuba, which were ultimately detected by US U2 surveillance, leading to a series of events that brought the world to the brink of global nuclear war.

The Kennedy brothers were smart enough to realize that had US forces openly assisted in the failed invasion of Cuba that the Soviets would have reacted elsewhere. As I mentioned earlier, the invasion of Cuba, or Operation Zapata, was inherited by the Kennedy administration and sold to them as one in which only Cuban exiles would participate. When things went bad, and the President was faced with the decision of providing air cover for the invading force, he refused. The disaster that resulted is well known, but it also led to the dismissal of prominent, and powerful, US political and military figures, among them CIA Director Allen Dulles, who Kennedy would later claim lied to him about aspects of the operation. That said, Kennedy was guilty of green-lighting Operation Mongoose after the failed invasion, a part of the CIA’s Cuban Project which was a wide ranging aggressive covert operation that’s stated purpose was to help Cubans overthrow the Communist regime. Another operation included in the Cuban Project, which was not adopted, was drafted by the Joint Chiefs and signed by then Chairman General Lyman Lemnitzer. Codenamed Northwoods, it was a false flag operation that outlined the use of CIA and other operatives to kill innocents and commit acts of terrorism within the United States to create public support for an invasion of Cuba.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct result of the failed invasion of Cuba. Rather than attempting to open lines of communication between Washington and Havana, the United States, under two Presidents, opted to isolate it, placing Castro’s government in the position of having to acquire a deterrent to ensure its survival. Being that Cuba is only 90 miles off the coast of Florida, and that US naval and air stations are within 100 miles of Cuban soil, Castro’s decision to turn to the Soviets for help was a forgone conclusion. Thus, the lack of concerted diplomatic efforts from the time that revolutionary forces in Cuba seized power up until the failed invasion played a significant role in what would ultimately result in the most dangerous two weeks the world has ever known.

Had the White House had open lines of communication with Moscow following the detection of Soviet missiles in Cuba, the crisis might never have escalated to the point that it did. But because both the Soviets and the Americans were operating largely in the dark, the situation was one that played out in a slow and dangerous fashion. While the United Nations was used as the pulpit from which both nations preached, it was largely guesswork and the Kennedy Administration’s decision to rely on the contents of the first of two missives sent via teletype from Premier Khrushchev. In that first missive, which may have been the result of backchannel communications between Washington and Moscow brought about by ABC’s John Scali’s relationship with Aleksandr Fomin, the Soviets top spy in the US and a long time friend of Khrushchev, it was evident that Khrushchev understood the gravity of the situation and that a diplomatic solution was required to defuse it. In the end, in exchange for the removal of the missiles from Cuba the United States pledged to remove its missiles along the Turkish-Soviet border within 6 months, a compromise that left both governments in the position of claiming that success had been achieved.

So the question has to be asked, especially given the fact that during that two week period the Joint Chiefs were breathing down Kennedy’s neck to launch air strikes to destroy the missiles and follow them up with a full scale invasion of Cuba, which would have only resulted in the Soviets acting elsewhere and producing a direct conflict between the two super powers – what other course of action was realistically available other than diplomacy and concessions on the part of both the US and the Soviets?

The answer is – none. Because had diplomacy failed, chances are that I would not be sitting here writing this.

Compared to the threat that the West believes that Iran currently poses, the Soviets were in a class far beyond anything the Iranians could ever dream of. And yet diplomacy was the method used to defuse a situation in which this world came the closest it ever has to nuclear war.

In the end, diplomacy is not the art of the weak. In truth, it is the art of hope and progress. And while it may be said that diplomacy is far more affective when your position is backed by significant military force, the truth is that, in most situations, honesty gets you a lot further than threats, and the willingness to talk gets you a lot farther than the willingness to fight. Unless, that is, those that you are talking with have already made up their mind that death and destruction is their goal. But even in such cases, what decent human being can say that by not trying to be civilized before civility is abandoned isn’t what makes us civilized in the first place?

Sometimes the unexpected happens. Years ago I had a day off during the making of Beautiful Midnight. Two friends had dropped by my place to get me, as we were going out. While sitting there, we somehow got into a discussion about writing quick songs about nothing. So I picked up this crappy old classical guitar that belonged to my ex-girlfriend and proceeded to play do-do-do-do-do…click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click…do-do-do-do-do. And then the words came - “I found me a reason, so check me tomorrow, we’ll see if I’m leaking, push and push and push till it hurts…”

In about 45 minutes I had what would basically be Hello Time Bomb, which later that night I quickly recorded onto a cassette and we tracked the very next day.

Sometimes the unexpected happens.

Of course, never in my wildest dreams did I think that that song would go on to become one of my biggest singles. I mean let’s face it, I wrote it on a dust covered classical guitar that had been sitting unused behind a large plant for years. But, in the end, that’s how it happened.

Now, that’s not to say that in an attempt to create spa music as a joke I wrote a future hit single – that’s hardly the case. But while messing around with various sounds in an attempt to produce something funny I did accidentally end up with something altogether different.

Sometimes the unexpected happens. Like Great Whales Of The Sea.

Sorry everyone, preview’s over.