Defending Missile Defense

The US isn't the only one selling missile defense. Arch foe of Iran, Peter Kenyon, teams up this morning with Sec. of War Robert Gates and Centcom Commander David Petraeus to frighten us about the Iranian threat - again. Starting the sales pitch is Linda Wertheimer:

"US officials also want the UAE to purchase another missile defense system for more than twice that amount. As NPR's Peter Kenyon reports, they're hoping to deter the potential threat from Iran."

Kenyon doesn't disappoint:

"Gates made sure to remind delegates of the threat from Iran. [reluctant servant Gates] 'Now when it comes to Iran's missile programs...it is clear that this year Iran has tested...can hit any country in the Middle East...has continued its pursuit of a nuclear program...geared toward developing nuclear weapons...'"

"General David Petraeus, head of the Central Command, followed up with a five point plan for enhancing security in the region - near the top of the list missile defense. [Petraeus] '...expand existing bilateral air and missile defense initiatives...multilateral cooperation in this defensive area...active missile defense measures underway are vital elements of regional deterrence...'"

"US officials have been making the case for a Persian Gulf missile defense system for several years now. As gulf economies boomed in recent years...the argument took on a sharper edge: invest in protection against Iranian missiles or risk losing the confidence of overseas investors."

You have to admire the skill with which NPR seamlessly combines US military (and corporate weaponsmakers') propaganda into this report. Never is the assertion that Iran is a threat called into question (and conveniently, no mention is made of why the UAE would be a target of Iranian missiles).

Kenyon does mention that the effectiveness of anti-missile technology has a "mixed record at best" and that missile defense could spark a new arms race, but he closes his report with this Orwellian twist:

"Analysts say it's not clear when missile defense technology will be a truly effective deterrent...."

Missile defense [even if it is technically successful] is the opposite of a deterrent. At best it can be seen as defensive, and practically, it is likely to encourage offensive adventurism on the part of those who possess it.

Merchant of Death, Lord of War

Thursday evening Melissa Block reports on weapons dealer, Viktor Bout, who was arrested in Thailand. She says he is "known as the Merchant of Death and the Lord of War." Oooooh, imagine that! Block notes that "starting in the 1990s Viktor Bout made a business of providing arms to fuel wars from Sudan to Sierra Leone to Rwanda to Afghanistan...." I can't imagine what kind of sick, disgusting warmongering profiteers would flood the developing world - and especially the continent of Africa - with weaponry.

Block interviews Doug Farah, an investigative journalist, who coauthored a book about Bout. She expresses great surprise that "he fueled conflicts all over the world, [but]...also did a lot of work for the US military it seems." What's the surprise? Has she ever heard of Dick Cheney? Does she ever read any independent articles about US arms exports?

Farah responds, "He did, ironically, after helping to inflame conflicts in Africa throughout the 1990s and even working with the Taliban in Afghanistan and indirectly al-Qaeda...he then flipped and began working with the US military and also for private contractors in Iraq."

Hmm, what other dastardly crew of individuals helped inflame conflicts in Africa and even helped to build al-Qaeda? So why does Farah considers it "ironic," and call it a "flip" when Bout starts working with the US military?

Block's surprise and Farah's framing of Bout's lethal business help to buttress the narrative that in the world there are "bad guys" and then there is the US military establishment and its allies, the "good guys." Even when a story concerns negative behavior of the US (in this report Farah discusses the US government's close work with Bout in Iraq) the report is always based on the assumption that US military and foreign policy is at its core decent, humane and moral.

Quiz Time: Fill in the Blanks

This morning Peter Kenyon is covering an arms merchants fair in Abu Dhabi.

Just so we'll know where this story is going Renee Montagne sets up the story: "Gulf states led by Saudi Arabia will be on a buying spree, fueled in part say analysts by fears about the growing influence in the region of _________________. "

Peter Kenyon picks it right up with "...Gulf States driven to come here by two factors: treasuries bulging with petroleum wealth, and fear that _________________’s interventionist policies won’t end with Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories...."

All right students, write in the name of one country to make the statements true. Your choices are a) the United States, b) Israel, or c) Iran. Don't rush the answer; remember that since WWII one country has intervened overtly and covertly in the Middle East over and over again, one country has launched several invasions and waged a brutal occupation for forty years, and the other country hasn't aggressively invaded anyone for over a century.

If you filled in country a or b, it's because you mistakenly based your answer on historical evidence. But if you rely on US propaganda then, like NPR, you opted for country c - Iran!

One point on which I could agree with Peter Kenyon was his statement that "at this point in the twenty first century death and destruction are very big business" although he conveniently doesn't mention who the 800 lb gorilla in the global business of death and destruction is. It's obviously click here for clues.

Of Guns and Presidents - The Guns

NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday chose to highlight two books for its show today. One on the AK-47 and one on the lives of ex-Presidents. Both are telling as much for what is said as what is not said.

OF GUNS

NPR interviews Larry Kahaner, the author of the book about the AK-47 assault rifle. Andrea Seabrook asks Kahaner how the AK-47 has "changed the face of modern warfare" - which seems to be his central theme. He responds by talking about "asymetric warfare" and then says of the AK-47, "...anyone can have them, anyone can own them, and that’s what’s changed warfare is that anybody can be a soldier. Now the US has the best disciplined, best trained soldiers in the world – I believe – but you can put anybody in a Toyota pickup truck and give them AK 47s and they can go out and give US soldiers a hard time.”

Seabrook doesn't bring up any of the obvious questions such as. "Doesn't the US military allow each Iraqi family to own an AK-47?" or "How many US casualties can actually be attributed to AK-47s? Aren't more deaths due to IEDs, car bombs, RPGs, and sniper rifles?"

What is most sad, is that the real victims of the ubiquitous AK-47s are usually civilians in poor countries wracked by conflict. Furthermore, the worlds largest supplier of arms to conflict zones is--guess who?--the United States. And perhaps most disturbing of all, is that there is one nation that is doing more to impede global cooperation to end small arms proliferation - again the United States! None of this comes up; it's as if Kahaner and NPR are looking in the wrong end of the telescope asking How is this one weapon harming US soldiers? and not How is US foreign policy harming all the peoples of the world including US soldiers who often face enemies armed with weapons from the US arms trade flood?