#who led major CIA reforms

[dan6085]

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, ruled from 1941 until his overthrow in 1979 during the Islamic Revolution. His reign was marked by efforts to modernize Iran, increase its international stature, and maintain close ties with the West, particularly the United States. However, his policies also led to significant social unrest and opposition, ultimately leading to his downfall. Here’s a detailed timeline of his life and reign:

### **Early Life and Ascension to the Throne**

- **October 26, 1919**: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is born in Tehran, Iran, to Reza Khan (later Reza Shah Pahlavi) and Queen Tadj ol-Molouk.

- **1931-1936**: Mohammad Reza is sent to Institut Le Rosey, a prestigious Swiss boarding school, for his education.

- **1936**: Returns to Iran and attends the local military academy, following his father’s wishes.

- **September 16, 1941**: Following the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran during World War II, Reza Shah Pahlavi is forced to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who becomes Shah at the age of 21.

### **Early Reign and Post-War Period**

- **1941-1946**: Mohammad Reza’s early reign is marked by limited power as Iran is occupied by British and Soviet forces. The young Shah struggles to assert his authority in a politically unstable environment.

- **1946**: The Soviet Union refuses to withdraw its troops from northern Iran, leading to the Azerbaijan Crisis. With American support, Iran successfully pressures the Soviets to withdraw, enhancing Mohammad Reza’s international standing.

- **1949**: Survives an assassination attempt by a member of the Tudeh Party, a communist group. This event leads to the banning of the Tudeh Party and the Shah consolidating more power.

### **Nationalization of Oil and the Mossadegh Crisis**

- **1951**: Mohammad Mossadegh is elected Prime Minister and moves to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, challenging British control over Iran’s oil resources.

- **1953**: The Shah faces a major political crisis as Mossadegh’s popularity grows. After a failed attempt to dismiss Mossadegh, the Shah briefly flees Iran. However, Operation Ajax, a CIA and MI6 orchestrated coup, successfully overthrows Mossadegh, and the Shah returns to power with increased authority.

### **Consolidation of Power and the White Revolution**

- **1953-1963**: The Shah consolidates his power, suppressing political opposition and expanding the role of the SAVAK, the secret police, to enforce his rule.

- **1963**: Launches the White Revolution, a series of reforms aimed at modernizing Iran and reducing the influence of traditional elites. These reforms include land redistribution, women’s suffrage, and educational reforms. While these efforts lead to economic and social progress, they also generate opposition, particularly from religious leaders like Ayatollah Khomeini.

### **Economic Growth and the Persepolis Celebration**

- **1960s-1970s**: Iran experiences rapid economic growth, fueled by oil revenues. The Shah embarks on ambitious infrastructure projects and strengthens Iran’s military with substantial purchases from the United States.

- **October 1971**: Hosts the lavish 2,500-year celebration of the Persian Empire at Persepolis, showcasing Iran’s ancient heritage and the Shah’s desire to position himself as the heir to a glorious past. However, the extravagance of the event sparks criticism both domestically and internationally.

### **Increasing Opposition and the Islamic Revolution**

- **1975**: The Shah abolishes the multi-party system in favor of a single-party state under the Rastakhiz Party, further centralizing power. This move alienates many Iranians who see it as a step towards dictatorship.

- **1976**: In an attempt to modernize Iranian society further, the Shah introduces reforms like changing the calendar from Islamic to an imperial calendar. These moves alienate religious leaders and traditionalists.

- **1977**: Opposition to the Shah’s rule intensifies. Human rights abuses by SAVAK, economic difficulties, and the widening gap between the elite and the general population contribute to growing discontent. The Carter administration in the U.S. pressures the Shah to allow for more political freedom and human rights, leading to limited liberalization.

### **The Decline and Fall of the Pahlavi Dynasty**

- **January 1978**: Mass protests begin, initially sparked by an article attacking Ayatollah Khomeini. These protests, fueled by a combination of religious, economic, and political grievances, grow in scale and intensity.

- **1978**: The situation in Iran deteriorates rapidly as strikes and demonstrations paralyze the country. The Shah tries various measures, including concessions and repression, but fails to quell the unrest.

- **January 16, 1979**: Facing massive opposition, the Shah and his family leave Iran for exile, marking the end of the Pahlavi dynasty. He travels to Egypt, Morocco, the Bahamas, and Mexico in search of a permanent home.

- **February 1, 1979**: Ayatollah Khomeini returns to Iran from exile, and the Islamic Revolution quickly takes control of the country.

### **Exile and Death**

- **1979**: The Shah’s health deteriorates due to cancer. His request for asylum in the United States, primarily for medical treatment, exacerbates the situation in Iran, leading to the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis.

- **1980**: After being denied asylum by several countries, the Shah finds refuge in Egypt under President Anwar Sadat’s protection.

- **July 27, 1980**: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi dies of complications related to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Cairo, Egypt. He is buried in the Al Rifa'i Mosque in Cairo, alongside other members of the Egyptian royal family.

### **Legacy**

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s reign is remembered for its significant modernization efforts, economic development, and the secularization of Iran. However, his authoritarian rule, reliance on the West, especially the United States, and failure to address the grievances of various social groups led to widespread opposition. His overthrow in 1979 not only ended the Pahlavi dynasty but also transformed Iran into an Islamic Republic, marking a significant turning point in the country’s history.

His legacy remains deeply contested, with some viewing him as a progressive leader who sought to modernize Iran, while others criticize him for his autocratic rule and the repression of political freedoms. The consequences of his reign and subsequent overthrow continue to influence Iranian politics and society to this day.

[xtruss]

'F**k This Guy': Ex-Bernie Supporters Slam US Lawmaker for Spouting ‘Neocon Propaganda’ About Russia

Many said they regretted having given their time and money to Sanders’ presidential campaigns in 2016 and 2020 after his aggressive statements.

Former supporters of US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) took to social media Friday to express their disgust after the former peace candidate expressed support for the Biden administration’s anti-Russian stance.

The outrage came in response to comments Sanders made in a recent BBC interview held amid his ongoing book tour.

When asked whether the US should “send F-16s” to the Ukrainian regime, Sanders replied: “It’s not an issue that I’ve been heavily involved in, but I support what the president is doing.”

“The United States” and NATO “cannot sit back and allow” what he called “Russia’s aggression” to go unanswered, he insisted.

Social media users were quick to call out the aggressive anti-Russian rhetoric by the supposed peace candidate.

”My spouse and I gave our time and money to support this man, and this is what he tells us now?” asked one. “Disgusting.”

“F*ck this guy,” added another, who couldn’t believe “I campaigned & organized a few hundred hours for this bastard that is joining Biden in the push toward nuclear war.”

“The most ‘progressive anti-war’ Democrat spouting neocon propaganda and protecting Biden and the neocon cabal as they push us towards WW3,” said a third, adding: “and you still think you can reform that party from within?”

On Twitter, journalist Glenn Greenwood expressed incredulity at the statement, noting Sanders has become “one of America's most vocal and steadfast advocates for supporting Joe Biden's war policies in Ukraine.

“He voted to send $40 billion to Raytheon and CIA ‘for Ukraine,’ and when asked if the US should send F-16 *fighter jets*, he seems not just ready but eager to send much more,” Greenwald noted.

He argued Sanders’ comments show the senator “deceived millions” of Americans when he promised a “‘political revolution’ against the [Democrat] establishment.”

Sanders was once considered a leading anti-war figure in the United States. Opponents of American imperialism found much to appreciate in his criticisms of “endless war” and the military industrial complex, and he clearly and vocally opposed the unprovoked US invasion of Iraq months before it began in 2003.

At a time when few were willing to publicly oppose the US-backed overthrow of Bolivia’s first indigenous president, Evo Morales, Sanders made waves by condemning the ouster as a “coup” on live television during the presidential debates in 2019.

Now, after two failed presidential bids, during which the Democratic Party openly manipulated the process to disadvantage him on multiple occasions, many former supporters now see Sanders as little more than a shadow of his former self.

However, it’s not just Ukraine, there are other areas where it seems Bernie has lost his mojo — or perhaps never had it at all. Last December, Sanders “abandoned his plan on Tuesday to introduce the resolution to end US involvement in ‘hostilities’ alongside the Saudi-led coalition,” a major US outlet noted.

— Wyatt Reed | Sputnik International | March 03, 2023

[rolliinformation]

Perry miller errand into the wilderness

#Perry miller errand into the wilderness driver

The title of this book by Perry Miller, who is world-famous as an interpreter of the American past. Taking as his basic text Winthrops lay sermon, 'A Model of Christian Charity,' de-livered on the Arbella in 1630, Miller argues that the Bay Colony sought to execute 'a flank attack' on the unfinished reformation in the Mother.

#Perry miller errand into the wilderness driver

By braiding the development of the modern intelligence agency with the story of postwar American religion, Errand into the Wilderness of Mirrors delivers a provocative new look at a secret driver of one of the major engines of American power. : Errand into the Wilderness (9780674261518) by Miller, Perry and a great selection of similar New, Used and Collectible Books available now at great prices. The title essay, 'Errand into the Wilderness,' is fascinating in its central thesis, and deserves special attention. 46, America 24/7 : 24 hours, 7 days : extraordinary. As Graziano makes clear, these misconceptions often led to tragedy and disaster on an international scale. 45, Errand into the wilderness, Perry Miller, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1956. But more tellingly, Graziano shows, American intelligence officers were overly inclined to view powerful religions and religious figures through the frameworks of Catholicism. In a practical sense, this was because the Roman Catholic Church already had global networks of people and safe places that American agents could use to their advantage. Graziano argues that the religious approach to intelligence by key OSS and CIA figures like “Wild” Bill Donovan and Edward Lansdale was an essential, and overlooked, factor in establishing the agency’s concerns, methods, and understandings of the world. Fittingly, Errand into the Wilderness of Mirrors investigates the dangers and delusions that ensued from the religious worldview of the early molders of the Central Intelligence Agency. By braiding the development of the modern intelligence agency with the story of postwar American religion, Errand into the Wilderness of Mirrors delivers a provocative new look at a secret driver of one of the major engines of American power.Michael Graziano’s intriguing book fuses two landmark titles in American history: Perry Miller’s Errand into the Wilderness (1956), about the religious worldview of the early Massachusetts colonists, and David Martin’s Wilderness of Mirrors (1980), about the dangers and delusions inherent to the Central Intelligence Agency. As Graziano makes clear, these misconceptions often led to tragedy and disaster on an international scale. I am grateful to Nicholas Rogers for helping me on my. But more tellingly, Graziano shows, American intelligence officers were overly inclined to view powerful religions and religious figures through the frameworks of Catholicism. It was given wide currency by Perry Millers book Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge, MA, 1956). In a practical sense, this was because the Roman Catholic Church already had global networks of people and safe places that American agents could use to their advantage. Errand into the Wilderness (Torchbooks) : Miller, Perry: Amazon.es: Libros Selecciona Tus Preferencias de Cookies Utilizamos cookies y herramientas similares que son necesarias para permitirte comprar, mejorar tus experiencias de compra y proporcionar nuestros servicios, según se detalla en nuestro Aviso de cookies. Michael Graziano’s intriguing book fuses two landmark titles in American history: Perry Miller’s Errand into the Wilderness (1956), about the religious worldview of the early Massachusetts colonists, and David Martin’s Wilderness of Mirrors (1980), about the dangers and delusions inherent to the Central Intelligence Agency. Errand into the wilderness by Perry Miller, 1964, Harper & Row edition, in English.

[scottbcrowley2]

Stansfield Turner, who led major CIA reforms, dies - Thu, 18 Jan 2018 PST

Stansfield A. Turner, who served as CIA director under President Jimmy Carter and oversaw reforms at the agency after the Senate uncovered CIA surveillance aimed at American citizens, has died. ... Stansfield Turner, who led major CIA reforms, dies - Thu, 18 Jan 2018 PST

[ellynneversweet]

Curious English person here. Is republicanism common in Australia? I'm wondering as it sure doesn't feel common where I live. Especially with Labour desperately trying to prove it can do patriotism in order to make its self electable.

‘Lol what’s a political opinion, sounds wanky’ — old Australian proverb.

This gets long, because I can’t leave well enough alone. Short summary of what you probably wanted to know first, and then some history.

Theoretically, a republic of Australia (especially post-Elizabeth II) is generally understood to have the support of the majority of the population. Our last Prime Minister was and is a vocal supporter of a Republic who led the pro-republic campaign in the 1999 referendum, but didn’t bring it up again in the course of his term, and the Prime Minister before him (same party) re-established knighthoods so he could give Prince Phillip an extra title, so there’s a spectrum. In practice a republic of Australia is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, because it would take a lot of money and work to bring about, and would be largely a symbolic gesture rather than a practical one. Actually getting rid of the royals would require a referendum and constitutional amendment, and that’s not on the political table for a variety of reasons.

The general Australian opinion of the Windsor family can be summed up as follows: the Queen is a nice old grandma (depends how recently she’s been seen with Andrew), and it would be cruel to fire her in her twilight years; Charles is a useless tosser whom no one likes, although his wife is funny (depends on whether there’s a Diana retrospective trending on Netflix); the Cambridges seem stylish and wholesomely functional and are about as interesting as pro tennis players; ten years ago it was a quasi-serious joke that Harry would make a good Governor General, because he knows How To Drink Beer And Talk Shit Like An Australian, but then someone realised we’d have to pay him a bigger salary than the usual parade of retired lawyers and army officers and now it’s not funny. They get crowds when they do a tour, and the unofficial tourism advertising of having some pint-sized royal maul a wallaby at a petting zoo is considered a fair return on the cost of security when they travel here, which is the only time they cost Australia anything.

To give you some more detail:

The first thing that needs to be clarified is that that Parliament and Monarch of the United Kingdom have no official legislative power over the Commonwealth of Australia, and haven’t since 1986. The Monarch of Australia is, technically, legally seperate from the Monarch of Canada, the Monarch of New Zealand, and the Monarch of that other place off the coast of France, although by some weird coincidence all those seperate executive persons reside in the body of some old English woman. That’s bullshit, I hear you say, and, yeah that’s true, but consider this: she doesn’t actually do all those jobs. Functionally, the Head of State of Australia is an entirely different unelected executive, the Govenor General, and the office of the Governor General is careful to preserve their public position of political neutrality and independence.

There’s a bit of history here. The federation do Australia as a country happened in 1901, but between then and roughly 1930 the Colonial Office of the British government had considerable legal sway if they chose to use it, and the GG was appointed on their advice. The Australian National identity of the pre-WWII period was very much that of proud (white) sons of empire etc etc, but in 1930 the Australian Prime Minister insists on ‘advising’ the king on the next GG, and the next year the Statute of Westminster 1931 is passed, which establishes the legislative independence of, among other countries, Australia (but, because Australia is a federation of states, there is still some doubt about who has the power to do what exactly at which level of government).

Onward to 1975 and The Dismissal. Gough Whitlam of the Labor Party is the Prime Minister, and, the left having been out of power for some time, is moving quickly to institute a bunch of social reforms (RIP, sir, thanks for introducing public health care and treating the aboriginal population with a modicum of decency). The right-leaning Liberal party is seething over this, and, because they control the Senate, block supply for expenditure in an attempt to force an election in the House Of Reps. Whitlam counters with an election for the Senate and goes to the Governor General for his approval, because elections are called by the PM with the authorisation of the GG. The GG informs Whitlam that he has been dismissed as the PM, and the GG has invited the leader of the opposition to be acting PM instead. This is TECHNICALLY something the GG can do as the queen’s representative, but it’s against the spirit of democracy. It becomes a huge scandal the periodically bubbles along for years, and the reason this is relevent to the question of republicanism in Australia is the Palace Letters — correspondence between the GG and the Queen/their various offices and staff. The Queen claimed that these letters were private or personal correspondence, and thus not able to be released as a matter of public record, which caused a lot of speculation as to whether Whitlam had been dismissed on the orders of the Queen. This went on for years, and last year they were released. Long story short, the Queen did not explicitly know or authorise the dismissal, but there’s a lot of ‘theoretically, if’ in the letters, and it certainly seems like the Queen and her office were keeping closer tabs on Australian politics than was thought at the time. There’s also a conspiracy theory that the CIA staged the dismissal because Whitlam was making overtures to China, buuuuut if that’s the case then no evidence has come to light. In any case, no one wants that sort of scandal, and there are efforts made to distance the role of the GG from that of the monarch, and both from any practical power.

Onward again to 1986, the Australia Act 1986 is passed in both Australia and the UK, confirming that Australia is legislatively independent from the UK, and that the Queen of Australia is a legally distinct position from the Queen of the UK (see: James VI and I, etc). This is very similar to the 1931 Statute, but clarified that this independence exists on a state level as well as a federal level, in order to prevent states from appealing to the UK to overrule the federal government (as with Western Australia’s attempted succession in 1933).

Onward again and most recently: the 1999 Republic Referendum, aka my earliest political opinion. Labor proposed a referendum in honour of the centenary of federation. The Prime Minister in power was a Liberal (you may remember them as the party who stole the government in the dismissal). There was A LOT of debate over how, in the event of Australia becoming a republic, we would resolve the issue of the powers of the executive. Would we have an American style presidency (the Clinton impeachment was happening around this this time, FYI) or something more like the supposedly-detached monarchy represented by the GG? The proposal that eventually went to the people was a president appointed by the Prime Minister + 2/3rds of both the Senate and the House of Reps, who could be dismissed by the PM. This was a fairly unpopular take for a bunch of different reasons, not least because it managed to give the Head of State an implied mandate without actually being elected, and it was defeated by 54.4%. So, no Republic, and unfortunately, for those of us who do favour revisiting the question, it’s mostly seen as either unimportant or settled, or both. Whomp-whomp.

For my part, if we’re getting a referendum any time soon, I’d prefer it to be on section 44 of the constitution, which bars people with (potential) foreign allegiances from standing for election, which is frankly ridiculous in a country where nearly 30% of the population was born overseas and something like half the population potentially has at least dual citizenship.

[plsbyallmeans]

14 of Hillary Clinton's Major Accomplishments

Hillary Clinton's accomplishments have been centered around health care, the military, and families, especially women and children. The first two affect the economy because health care and defense are the two biggest expenses in the federal budget. The combined costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and military spending are $1.757 trillion or 42% of total government spending.

Key Takeaways

As First Lady, Hilary Clinton worked tirelessly to introduce legislation helping at risk populations

As a Senator, she helped give health benefits to the first responders of the 9/11 attacks and those serving in the National Guard.

As Secretary State was instrumental in getting the raid to go after Osama bin Laden approved.

First Lady

Hillary chaired the Task Force on Health Care Reform that drafted the 1993 Health Security Act. Although Congress didn't pass it, it laid the groundwork for the Affordable Care Act. It also cleared the way for the Children's Health Insurance Program.1 She worked with Senators Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch who sponsored the bill. It received $24 billion, paid for by a 15-cent tax on cigarettes. She added $1 billion for an outreach program to help states publicize the program and sign up recipients. It provides health care to more than eight million children.

In 1994, she championed the Violence Against Women Act.2 That provides financial and technical assistance to states to help them develop programs that stop domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. In 1995, she also helped create the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women.

She supported the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. Representative Nancy Johnson, a Republican, sponsored the bill. It facilitates the adoption of foster children.3 It also allows states and local agencies greater flexibility on how to spend federal funds.

She lobbied Congress for the 1999 Foster Care Independence Act.4 Senators John Chafee, R-RI, and Tom DeIay, R-TX, sponsored the bill. The Act almost doubled federal spending for programs that help teenagers leave foster care after they turn 18. The programs help them complete their education, find jobs, and become self-sufficient.

U.S. Senator

Urged ratification of the START treaty in 2010.5 The treaty limits the United States and Russia to 1,550 strategic deployed nuclear warheads.6 That's down from 2,200. It limits the number of deployed heavy nuclear bombers and missiles to 800. That's down from 1,600. Russia was already within those limits, but the United States was not. The treaty went into effect in 2011, will be fully implemented by 2018, and will remain in force until 2028.

Introduced the Pediatric Research Equity Act with Senator Mike DeWine, R-OH.7 This law requires drug companies to research how their products affect children. The Act changed drug labeling to disclose safety and dosage for children. That's lowered the danger of over-dosage for children with chronic diseases like epilepsy and asthma.

Worked with fellow New York Democrat, Senator Chuck Schumer, to get $21 billion in federal aid to help New York rebuild after the 9/11 attacks.8 She wrote the bill to get health care coverage for 9/11 first responders. That included health research related to the attacks. The rescue operations forced many police and firefighters into early retirement with debilitating chronic injuries and illnesses. Her successor, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, got the bill passed.

Worked with Republicans to achieve full military health benefits to National Guard members and reservists.9 Expanded Family Medical Leave Act to families with wounded veterans.

Secretary of State

Took the lead on drafting and negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Once ratified, it would increase U.S. exports by $123.5 billion annually by 2025.10 Industries that benefit the most include electrical, autos, plastics, and agriculture.

Successfully concluded bilateral trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama in 2011. The Korea agreement removed almost 80% of tariffs and increased exports by $10 billion. The Colombia agreement expanded U.S. exports by $1.1 billion.

Negotiated ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in 2012.11

Called for the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.12 Sided with CIA Director Leon Panetta who first told her it was possible. Overcame opposition from Vice-President Biden and Defense Secretary Robert Gates who were worried about political backlash if the raid failed.

Pushed the United Nations to impose sanctions on Iran in 2010. That created a recession in Iran. The economy shrank 6.6% in 2012 and 1.9% in 2013. That's because they cut Iran's oil exports in half. Clinton was personally involved in these diplomatic efforts and pushed them publicly.13 The sanctions made Iran agree to stop building nuclear weapons in 2015.

Instrumental in negotiating the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Accord.14 15 The developed and major developing nations agreed to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial level. They also agreed to pay $100 billion a year by 2020 to assist poor countries affected the most by climate change.

Timeline and Additional Accomplishments

1977: Founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.16 It did research and educate the public on children's issues. Joined Rose Law Firm. Appointed by President Carter to chair the board of the Legal Services Corporation.

1979 to 1982: First Lady of Arkansas during Governor Clinton's Administration. Became first woman partner of Rose Law Firm.

1982 to 1992: First Lady of Arkansas. Chaired Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, which created new state school standards. Founded Arkansas Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youth. Helped created Arkansas' first neonatal intensive care unit. On the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital and the Legal Services and Children's Defense Fund. Corporate board member of TCBY and Lafarge. First female board member of Wal-Mart from 1986 to 1992. Chaired American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession from 1987 to 1991. Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983. Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.

1993 to 2001: First Lady during the Clinton administration. Chair of the Task Force on National Healthcare Reform. She continued to be a leading advocate for expanding health insurance coverage, ensuring children are properly immunized, and raising public awareness of health issues. She was the first First Lady with a postgraduate degree.

2000 to 2008: U.S. Senator from New York. Senate Committees: Armed Services; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Environment and Public Works; Budget; Aging. Member of Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. She also led the charge on the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Equity Act.

2009 to 2013: U.S. Secretary of State in the Obama administration. Opened Chinese markets to U.S. companies.

Amadeo, Kimberly. "14 of Hillary Clinton's Major Accomplishments." ThoughtCo, Aug. 26, 2020, thoughtco.com/hillary-clinton-s-accomplishments-4101811.

[tanadrin]

How /did/ things change after 2001? I was born in that year and everyone says it was different before, but I've never really gotten a sense of how.

It is difficult for me to emphasize just how different the world you see on the evening news is now, from what it was like before 2001, at least as I remember it. There’s a scene in Farscape, where after years of trying to get home, the astronaut protagonist John Crichton finally makes it back to Earth with his alien friends in tow, and when he’s reunited with his father, he’s shocked to discover his dad has gone from this optimistic, forward-looking, hopeful dreamer to a nervous, jingoistic conservative. His attitude is basically, “yes, there’s dangerous aliens out there who may or may not be trying to kill us--but the galaxy is a place full of wonders you’ve never dreamed of.” His father, in the meantime, has retreated from his hopes for a science-fiction future, and views his new alien friends with suspicion.

It’s not a subtle metaphor, but it’s true. The 90s--at least in the US, at least as I remember them--were a relentlessly optimistic period. Even if things were not yet at their ideal state, there was very much a sense they were heading there; politics was mostly down to what exact flavor of the neoliberal consensus you preferred, Clinton or Bush, and the international triumph of liberal democracy was either a fait accompli (cf. the erstwhile USSR), or just around the corner (cf. hopes for China’s liberalization in the wake of market reforms). Yes, in retrospect, this was kind of a dumb world view. If you actually lived in Russia in the 90s--to say nothing of the Balkans--it was a rough decade, and a lot of the relentless optimism of the period in the United States was down to the privileged position we viewed the world from.

The blunting of that optimism--the reminder that we were still embedded in history, and the final triumph of everything good and just was not foreordained--would not in itself have been a catastrophe. Terrorism was not a strange concept in the 90s, and even Al-Qaeda-style terrorism had its predecessors in attacks on American ships and embassies. 9/11 itself was confusing and chaotic and sad, but 9/11 wasn’t the catastrophe. The catastrophe came after, in how we responded.

I think something broke in America between 1945 and 1991. Something shifted, in a nasty way we didn't realize while we were occupied with communism and stagflation and the civil rights movement. I don't mean to say that America before 1945 was the Good Guys. But the American state and the American political class viewed the world with... humility? Like, sure, the can-do Yankee spirit before 1945 had its own special kind of arrogance (and greed, and hideous bigotry), but it still thought of the world in terms of obligations we owed other countries. By the time the Cold War ended, and the US was the sole remaining superpower, that wasn't how we viewed the world. It was still sort of how we told each other, and our children, what the world was like. We certainly talked a big game about democracy and human rights. But as soon as that principled stance was tested, we folded like a cheap suit. What we should have done after 9/11 was what we had done after every terrorist incident in or against the United States before then: treated it like the major crime it was, sent a civilian agency like the FBI in to investigate, and pursue the perpetrators diplomatically. What we did instead was treat it like the opening salvo of a war--in fact, invented a war to embed it within, to give ourselves narrative justification for that stance--and crank every element of paranoid jingoism instantly up to 11. It has never abated since.

Some of this is the little things. The TSA and the Department of Homeland Security--a name I thought was creepy Orwellian shit right from the get-go. The terror alert levels. (God! remember those?) The fact that airport security--despite being just as ineffective today as it was on September 12--is still routinely humiliating and invasive and just a total waste of everybody’s time. Some of it is the big things. The way security, and the need for security, trumps all other demands including the state’s obligation to protect civil rights. And the fact that this just isn’t even up for debate anymore. 9/11, as Chomsky presciently observed, was a boon for authoritarians everywhere. Suddenly, “counterterrorism” was the magic word that let you get away with anything, like “anti-communism” twenty years prior. At the most extreme end, this led to things like anti-atheism laws being promulgated in Saudi Arabia in the name of “counterterrorism,” but you don’t have to go that absurd to find ways in which the security state has fostered authoritarianism. In every aspect of our lives, this new, fearful outlook on the world justified a gradual ratcheting down of freedom, the gradual empowerment of petty tyrants everywhere, and the weak protests, fading into silence, of people who still believed in liberty as an important organizing principle for modern society. It wasn’t even that you’d get called a terrorist-sympathizer or anything that blatant. It just ceased to be regarded as important. It wasn’t that you were wrong, or misguided, or evil. You were just a non-serious person, someone whose opinion was clearly irrelevant, whose head was permanently in the clouds, if you thought that stuff still mattered. And that never went away.

And I think a big part of what changed between 1945 and 1991 was that the US started to believe its own jingoism. When did this start? Vietnam? Earlier? Korea? I don’t know. It’s hard to pinpoint, given that my understanding of the cultural zeitgeist of the decades before I was born mostly came from my dad’s old Doonesbury collections. I don’t know how to describe what we became--what we, hideously, revealed ourselves to be--except as a kind of machismo. A kind of ruthless, General Ripper-esque us-versus-them psychosis that gripped us where the Soviets were concerned, and never let up. And we still believe it. It still infects every atom of our political discourse. We don’t question the necessity of drone strikes, only who to drone strike and how much. We don’t really question the massive powers we’ve afforded the executive branch to wage war and conduct espionage--including kidnappings and torture--and we’ve kind of forgotten that we still have a prison camp in Cuba full of people who have never been convincted of any crime. In a way, we lost faith in law entirely: by God, we couldn’t try terrorists in American courts! (Why not? What’s wrong with American courts? Don’t we have faith in our own laws, at least?) No, justice wasn’t a matter for the law to decide anymore. Justice was a matter for the military only: justice came in the form of strength of arms. Ergo, shooting Bin Laden in the head and calling that justice; ergo, Jack Bauer; ergo, blowing up Yemeni weddings. Keep America Safe. I can’t begin to tell you how alienating and horrifying so much of the last 20 years has been, if the most consequential news stories of your childhood were the OJ Simpson murders and a discussion of the President’s cum stain.

In my opinion, the seminal text of the post-9/11 world was released in the year 2000. In the original Deus Ex video game, the year is 2150, and the world is a dark, depressing place. You, the game’s hero, work (initally) for a UN counterterrorism agency while a plague ravages the world. You hunt terrorists whose existence has provided the justification for an authoritarian crackdown on dissidents everywhere. You visit a Hong Kong firmly under the control of the CCP, you fight genetically engineered mutants created by huge businesses run amok, FEMA (no DHS then) controls the federal government, and, it turns out later in the game, the bombing of the Statue of Liberty that precipitated the creation of your organization was a false-flag attack used to justify its existence in the first place. Drones patrol the streets of NYC, and the whole thing is steeped in late-90s militia movement-style conspiracy theories about the Illuminati and the New World Order, that look weirdly out of place now that these things are more clearly aligned in the popular consciousness with right wing extremism, when back then they were just seen as kooky weirdos in Montana--but every year since then, we’ve been inching closer and closer to that world, and you know what? It wigs me out a little.

In 2000, Deus Ex was an absurdity, a fever dream of cyberpunk and early-internet conspiracism. It’s a shame that tonally speaking it’s been dead on for the two decades after. But honestly, I think the biggest thing that’s changed about the world since 2001 is our cultural capacity for optimism. I don’t mean in a sentimental way--although if you compare other texts heavily influenced by the post-2001 political milieu, you definitely see a sharp contrast with the optimism of cultural artifacts from earlier eras; science fiction was hit especially hard in this area (cf. RDM’s version of Battlestar Galactica). But I also mean this in a political/ideological sense. We cease to imagine that the world can be made better. We cease to imagine the possibilities that are afforded to us if we are willing to strive for our ideal society, even if we, personally, may never reach it. We make deals with the devil, we let the CIA violate the constitution and federal law six ways from Sunday, we don’t question the prevailing political-economic consensus even if it’s setting the planet on fire and pitching us headlong toward social disaster, because we forgot what it was to feel like those sunlit uplands we’ve been hoping for were just around the corner.

In the same way that my Catholic faith was eventually done in because the ethical principles I was taught were at odds with the manifest monstrosity of the organization that taught them to me and the metaphysics it espoused, my patriotism and my faith in America was done in because when I was a schoolkid, I really did believe that democracy and human rights and equality under the law were important. Some people probably had their illusions--if they ever had any--about the US government stripped away long ago, but I was a white kid from a reasonably prosperous part of town, so it took until the 2000s and my growing political awareness to realize just how flimsy these principles were when they were put to any kind of test. It made me angry; it still makes me angry. I was raised to believe there are some principles that are important enough that you don’t compromise them ever, no matter how scared or worried you are. Just as I was old enough to understand what was going on on the evening news, the United States betrayed everything I had been taught the United States stood for. And as a nation, we never turned back; we never apologized; we never repented. America, as an abstract entity, never was what I thought it was as a kid. But I think it could still become that, if it tried. Alas, very few people seem to believe such a thing is possible anymore. Most days, I’m not sure I do, either.

[drapeau-rouge]

Petty-bourgeois Revolutionism and Reformism

Originally appeared in Communist Viewpoint, May-June 1970. By Don Currie.

Fundamentally, petty-bourgeois theories of "reform and revolution" objectively serve capitalism. The petty bourgeoisie as a middle class is undergoing rapid destruction in the advanced capitalist countries. Under the hammer blows of monopoly it vacillates between the monopoly bourgoiesie and the working class—hence its ideology is vacillating, contradictory, inconsistent and unscientific. The working class and the Communist Party always seek the support of the non-working-class strata of the population in the struggle against the common enemy, monopoly.

At a time of rising mass movements in which the working class is beginning to assert its leading role, the ruling classes in the advanced capitalist countries require a variety of forms and forces to fight scientific socialism and the Communist movement. Petty-bourgeois theories penetrate the working-class movement disguised as neo-Marxism and perform a service to the monopoly bourgeoisie by engaging and oppoinsg Marxism-Leninism. The proponents of anti-communism consciously utilize and manipulate these trends since they all espouse anti-Sovietism. Herein lies the great value of the petty-bourgeois "revolutionary and reformist" ideologists to the monopoly bourgeoisie.

The opportunism of the petty-bourgeois ideologists lies in their worship of spontaneity, contempt and fear of the working class. At best they indulge in a superficial critique of capitalism, but do not seek to change it fundamentally through struggle to transfer political power to the working class and its allies—the dictatorship of the proletariat. They strive to stand between the working class and the monopoly bourgeoisie. The effect of petty-bourgeois ideology within the working-class movement is to maintain the working class as an appendance of the bourgeois parties and to divert the working class from the Marxist-Leninist vanguard parties.

The proponents of petty-bourgeois theories of "reform and revolution" are becoming more active and are assuming new forms. There has been a coalescence, an interpenetration and identity of views between revisionist trends, various forms of petty-bourgeois revolutionism and petty-bourgeois reformism in Canada.

On the face of it these anti-Marxist trends appear to have differences. These differences, however, are not on fundamentals. On fundamnetal questions of bourgeois ideology there is agreement.

On what basic questions is there agreement among petty-bourgeois revolutionists, reformists and revisionists? First of all, tehre is the rejection of the fundamental question of Marxism-Leninism, i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat and the leading role of the Marxist-Leninist vanguard party. They all counterpose leninism to Marxism and deny that Leninism is Marxism in the era of the world-wide transition from capitalist to socialism, in the era of the socailist revolution and the building of socialism.

In the July 1969 issue of Canadian Dimension, Professor Eugene Genovese, Professor of History at Sir George Williams University in Montreal, declared, "Leninism, a brilliant success in underdeveloped countries, has been a dismal half-century failure throughout the advanced capitalist world . . . the American left must find a third way or forever wander about in despair and impotence."

The "third" anti-Leninist way is being diligently sought after by the petty-bourgeois ideologists. What this "third way" should be was offered by Herbert Marcuse, the oracle of the "New Left" and darling of the CIA. Marcuse's system of views is a non-class, anti-Marxist view. Marcuse asserts that there are no exploited classes, only "repressed" majorities. He calls upon this "repressed" majority to "carry out a radical change, revolution in and against highly developed technically advanced society." This call for revolution is without distinction equally applied to socialist as well as to capitalist countries. Marcuse is rabidly anti-Soviet and advocates "libertarian socialism." Marcuse blandly dismisses the working class as the motive force for revolutionary change, declaring that "it is to a great extent integrated into the system." According to eMarcuse the motive force for "radical change" is the amorphous "repressed majority" led by the "New Left." The need for a Communist Party is declared by Marcuse to be outmoded. "What we can envisage is not this large centralized and coordinated movement but local and regional political action against specific grievances—which will depend on political guidance and direction by militant leading minorities."

This elitist, profoundly reactionary theory is popularly known by the pseudonym "New Left." It is the ideology of the petty-bourgeois reformists and assorted self-styled revolutonaries who attempt to lead these movements in the direction of deaf and accomodation to capitalism. (It is not to be confused with the mass movements that are arising in capitalist coutnries directed against monopoly rule.)

The "New Left" is not new and it is not left. It is a variety of petty-bourgeois ideology in the period of sharpening class battles in the advanced capitalist countries. It arises objectively as a result of the continuing destruction of the petty bourgeoisie. It is the world outlook of a doomed class—hence it is despairing, anarchist, adventurous and inconsistent.

Prior to the anti-monopoly movements in the advanced capitalist countries, especially in the U.S.A., assuming the mass character they have now reached, petty-bourgeois reformism and revolutionism was confined to the universities and to small sects in the labour movement. As the crisis within the advanced capitalist countrise deepens and socialism and Marxism-Leninism become a point of attraction for the masses, petty-bourgeois revolutionism leaves the confines of the universities and attempts to penetrate the labour movement. It seeks to lead the working class away from struggle into opportunist and adventurous dead ends.

The defeat of the sally of imperialism in Czechoslovakia was a powerful setback to petty-bourgeois revolutionism everywhere in teh world. It was in Czechoslovakia where all of these tendencies emerged as united anti-socialist force, encouraged, aided and abetted by imperialism in a vain attempt to resurrect bourgeois democracy. It is interesting to note in passing that large numbers of the more prominent "New Left" leaders from North American "happened" to be in Czechoslovakia coincidentally within the August 1968 events.

Among these was James Harding, Canadian "New Leftist" who was interviewed in the student-radical journal New Generation of  which he is an associated editor. Harding said that the Czech "reformers" aimed at three goals: 1. Special status for the Slovak people; 2. Abolition of the centralized power of the Communist Party to be replaced by a socialist pluralism and 3. Adoption of a Yugoslav type economy. "I strongly favor the first two," Harding declared.

Harding's gratuitous support for the Czech "reformers" reflected the position of the main tendency within the "New Left" movement at the time. In essence it threw its support behind anti-Sovietism, anti-communism, bourgeois nationalism and reaction all down the line and was diametrically opposed to the fundamental interests of the Czechoslovak people.

Gustav Husak in the January 1970 issue of World Marxist Review replied to all such "friends" of Czechoslovakia and their theories of a "reformed" socialism:

"It is to Lenin's credit that he smashed the theories of spontaneity advocated by all kinds of opportunists who held forth about capitalist automatically growing into socialism. Lenin substantiated the need for the Communist Party actively to influence the historical process. Our Czechoslovak experience corroborated the soundness of Lenin'st eachings on the need for a new kind of revolutionary party, the vehicle for revolutionary class consciousness, for a party that will be the leading political force in socialism and the organizer of the masses."

The identify of views between revisionism and "New Leftism" is borne out by Gustav Husak's description of the attitude of the Right tendency in the leadership of the party:

"The former party leadership, or ratehr its Right-opportunist-minded section, made no effort to show that Leninism as a class doctrine makes a distinction between capitalist society and socialist society, that there can be no return to the model of bourgeois democvracy because socialism is based on public ownership of the means of production, that its class and social structure differ from the class structure of any capitalist state . . . In capitalist society power is in the hands of the bourgeoisie and is used against the exploited. In socialist society, on the contrary, all power is in the hands of the working people, headed by the working class."

". . . That is why our party cannot and will not unite on the basis of an accentuated national exclusiveness, that is, nationalism; cannot and will not unite on the basis of anti-Sovietism. On the contrary, the only correct Marxist-Leninist way to unity of our party is unification based on the scientific world outlook of the working class, building a mature socialist society in our country based on proletarian internationalism and socialist patriotism, on the principles of close cooperation and friendship with the Soviet Union and other socialist states and with the international Communist and working-class movement."

This is the answer of the whole international Communist movement to the attempt of the imperialist forces, in collusion with and with the active assistance of the petty-bourgeois reformist forces to mount an attack on socialism from within.

Petty-bourgeois reformism and organized labour

The setback of the petty-bourgeois theories of "democratization of socialism," "libertarian socialism," "the students as the new revolutionary vanguard" has compelled further refining of petty-bourgeois revolutionary theories. The Guardian, U.S. petty-bourgeois radical-paper, sees strength in the basic weakness of "New Leftism" in its rejection of Marxism-Leninism. The Guardian declared, "The great strength of the New Left has come from its ability to change course when the demands of the political struggle indicate change."

The petty-bourgeois radicals in Canada are trying to turn their recent defeats in victory by centring more attention of the organized labour movement. This is a more dangerous tendency since the leadership of this trend in Canada is spearheaded by a group of petty-bourgeois reformist intellectuals who hold prominent positions in the New Democratic Party.

The emergence of the petty-bourgeois reformist group at the last convention of the NDP has been hailed in the bourgeois press as the emergence of a new socialist party.

Marxists do base their assessment of political movements on what these movements say about themselves and much less on what the capitalist press says about them. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada greeted the emergence of the "Manifesto" of the group. It is a reflection of the growth of militancy in the trade unions which is finding reflection in the NDP. This development takes place on the background of the growing rank-and-file criticism of the policy of the right-wing social-democratic leadership of the trade union movement which has pursued a cold-war class-collaborationist course within the unions throughout the entire post-war period. This old encrusted leadership rose to power during the advent of the cold war and aided and abetted the anti-Communist campaigns within the unions. Today more and more Canadian unions are wiping out anti-Communist clauses in union rules and demanding militant bargaining, more political action to defend the right to strike, picket and organize, and counter the state-monopoly drive to impose an incomes policy on the working class with a program expressing the interests of the working people.

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada statement wanred that the manifest of the Watkins group evades "the central question of genuine socialist policy," the attitude to the state and working-class power, the leading role of the working class in bringing about social change, the overriding necessity of working-class and trade union unity and unity of the left in the struggle to achieve it. "Needless to say the struggle for genuine socialist policies cannot succeed around anti-Communist banners," the Central Committee declared.

The group, known as the Watkins group after its best-known spokesman, Melville Watkins, declares in its manifesto: "A central objective of Canadian socialism must be to further the democratization process in industry. The Canadian trade union movement throughout its history has waged a democratic battle against so-called rights and prerogatives of ownership and management. It has achieved the important moral and legal victory of providing the working men an effective say in what their wages will be."

The implication of the statement is that the exploitation of the working class has ceased except for its exclusion from having a say over the introduction of technological change. If this were achieved, the working class would have competed the struggle for socialism. "What is needed," claims Anthony Carew, research director for a large Canadian rail union, a Watkins supporter and advocate of "industrial democracy," "is a system of industrial democracy which will parallel our political democracy." Ed Broadbent, NDP Memebr of Parliament, goes further and claims such a reform would mean the winning of socialism. Broadbent claims, "A socialist society is one in which there is direct or indirect democratic control in all institutions which have a major effect on a man's life . . ."

The petty-bourgeois reformist theory of industrial democracy, also referred to as "workers' control," is an attempt to deny the objective nature of the class struggle, the necessity of overthrowing capitalism and the establishing of socialism. It is a wholly reformist view of the road to socialism. It is the reflection of the propaganda of the monopoly bourgeoisie that modern capitalism has done away with classes and class struggle and has overcome the fundamental contradction between social production and private appropriation. The fact that petty-bourgeois reformist leaders of the trade union movement peddle this view doesn't make it any less reactionary and wrong.

One of the authors of the manifesto, Charles Taylor, vice-president of the NDP, outlines a theory of classes in no way dissimilar to that of Marcuse except for the jargon used. In contrast to Marcuse's assertion that the working class has been "integrated into the bourgeoisie," Taylor asserts that the big line of division in society is "between the majority who participate in the affluent society and the one-quarter of the population who live in or below the poverty line." The effect of the attempt by the reformists to divert the attention of the trade union movement to the fight for "industrial democracy" is many-sided and full of pitfalls for the working class.

To raise the slogan of "industrial democracy" at a time of intensification of the attack by monopoly on the living standards of the working class detracts and weakens the wage movement.

The reformist claim that to direct the trade union movement to teh struggle for "worker control" now is a revolutionary proposal and will by itself lead to the rise of socialist consciousness is a denial of the srength and need for the scientific theory of Marxism-Leninism to triumph among the most advanced sections of the working class and of the need for the Communist Party guided by scientific socialism to lead the struggle for socialism. Socialism cannot arise automatically from the struggles by the trade unions for reforms. Socialism can only be achieved by a revolutionary struggle for power which transfers political power from the capitalis class to the working class.

A telling criticism of these petty-bourgeois reformist theories was given by Gus Hall, general secretary of the Communist Party of the U.S.A., to their 19th convention and deserves wide discussion among trade unionists. Comrade Hall said: "Now we should be clear that we are for higher economic demands. We are for taking away the prerogatives the bosses should never have had to begin with.

"But we must ask: What is the effect of demands in the area of what is called control off the process of production when the question of ownership of industry is not on the order of the day? When demands for workers' control are related to questions of change of ownership of industry from private to public, there are no problems. Now some will say 'If that is the problem, why not throw in the idea of take-over?' But that of course is nonsense unless the objective conditions are ripe for it. The idea that simply demanding control will create the objective conditions is no less nonsense."

"Demands for control which are made when the objective conditions are not at the level for a take-over tend to turn into their opposite. They are demands for control over industries that will continue to be privately owned and will continue to operate for private profit. Under these conditions, they become demands for class partnership. They are based on the concept of labour and management operating the plant smoothly together. Even the struggle for such demands tends to create the partnership concept.

"Some ideologists on the 'New Left' have now raised the question fo the fight against management prerogvatives as being 'revolutionary' in nature, seeking to set this issue against other important demands of the workers, especially wage demands. Some even go to the extent of describing the struggle for higher wages as corrupting and exerting an anti-revolutionary influence on workers and the trade union movement.

"The Communist Party rejects such doctrines. Both the struggle for higher wages and the struggle against management prerogatives are struggles for reforms. Inherent in both struggles is the possibility of increasing the class consciousness and socialist consciousness of the working class, if Communist and other class-conscious wrokers are in tehse struggles and exert such influence."

It is the Communists that give the mass movements of the people a revolutionary orientation. It is Marxism-Leninism in action, the organized purposeful activity of the vanguard party that can join reforms to the struggle for socialism. Any description, analysis or policy that divorces the Communist Party from the working class, which fails to take into account the role the Marxist-Leninist party must play at every stage of the struggle lands in the camp of petty-bourgeois reformism or revolutionism.

The fact that many would-be revolutionaries advocate petty-bourgeois theories with the best of intentions only points up the challgenge to the Communists to win all those who are seeking a revolutionary alternative to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism.

"The big bourgeois is case-hardened; he knows that under capitalism a democratic republic, like every other form of state, is nothing but a machine for the suppression of the proletariat . . . The petty bourgeois, owing to his economic position and his conditions of life generally, is less able to appreciate this truth, and even cherishes the illusion that a democratic republic implies 'pure democracy,' 'a free people's state,' the non-class or super-class rule of the people, a pure manifestion of the will of the people, and so on and so forth." - V.I. Lenin

[dhperfect]

Ernesto "Che" Guevara June 14, 1928 – October 9, 1967 was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, physician, author, guerrilla leader, diplomat, and military theorist. A major figure of the Cuban Revolution, his stylized visage has become a ubiquitous countercultural symbol of rebellion and global insignia in popular culture.

As a young medical student, Guevara traveled throughout South America and was radicalized by the poverty, hunger, and disease he witnessed. His burgeoning desire to help overturn what he saw as the capitalist exploitation of Latin America by the United States prompted his involvement in Guatemala's social reforms under President Jacobo ?rbenz, whose eventual CIA-assisted overthrow at the behest of the United Fruit Company solidified Guevara's political ideology. Later, in Mexico City, he met Ra?l and Fidel Castro, joined their 26th of July Movement, and sailed to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma, with the intention of overthrowing U.S.-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista. Guevara soon rose to prominence among the insurgents, was promoted to second-in-command, and played a pivotal role in the victorious two-year guerrilla campaign that deposed the Batista regime.

Following the Cuban Revolution, Guevara performed a number of key roles in the new government. These included reviewing the appeals and firing squads for those convicted as war criminals during the revolutionary tribunals, instituting agrarian land reform as minister of industries, helping spearhead a successful nationwide literacy campaign, serving as both national bank president and instructional director for Cuba's armed forces, and traversing the globe as a diplomat on behalf of Cuban socialism. Such positions also allowed him to play a central role in training the militia forces who repelled the Bay of Pigs Invasion and bringing the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles to Cuba which precipitated the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Additionally, he was a prolific writer and diarist, composing a seminal manual on guerrilla warfare, along with a best-selling memoir about his youthful continental motorcycle journey. His experiences and studying of Marxism–Leninism led him to posit that the Third World's underdevelopment and dependence was an intrinsic result of imperialism, neocolonialism, and monopoly capitalism, with the only remedy being proletarian internationalism and world revolution. Guevara left Cuba in 1965 to foment revolution abroad, first unsuccessfully in Congo-Kinshasa and later in Bolivia, where he was captured by CIA-assisted Bolivian forces and summarily executed.

Guevara remains both a revered and reviled historical figure, polarized in the collective imagination in a multitude of biographies, memoirs, essays, documentaries, songs, and films. As a result of his perceived martyrdom, poetic invocations for class struggle, and desire to create the consciousness of a "new man" driven by moral rather than material incentives, he has evolved into a quintessential icon of various leftist movements. Time magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century, while an Alberto Korda photograph of him, titled Guerrillero Heroico (shown), was cited by the Maryland Institute College of Art as "the most famous photograph in the world".

[dan6085]

The United States has a long and complex history of involvement in regime changes, coups, and failed coups around the world. Below is a detailed account of the top 25 such events, reflecting the geopolitical strategies, ideological battles, and sometimes controversial actions taken by the U.S. government.

### 1. **Iran (1953)**

- **Operation Ajax**: The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized the Iranian oil industry, which threatened Western oil interests. The Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was reinstated with increased powers.

### 2. **Guatemala (1954)**

- **Operation PBSUCCESS**: The U.S. helped overthrow democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz, whose land reforms threatened American business interests, particularly the United Fruit Company. This led to decades of civil strife.

### 3. **Cuba (1961)**

- **Bay of Pigs Invasion**: A failed attempt by the U.S. to overthrow Fidel Castro. The CIA-trained Cuban exiles were quickly defeated by Cuban forces, leading to a major embarrassment for the U.S. government.

### 4. **Vietnam (1963)**

- **Assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem**: The U.S. supported a coup that resulted in the assassination of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, who had become increasingly unpopular and autocratic.

### 5. **Brazil (1964)**

- **Overthrow of João Goulart**: The U.S. supported a military coup that deposed President João Goulart, fearing his leftist policies would lead Brazil towards communism.

### 6. **Chile (1973)**

- **Coup against Salvador Allende**: The U.S., through the CIA, supported the military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet, which resulted in the overthrow and death of the democratically elected Marxist President Salvador Allende.

### 7. **Dominican Republic (1965)**

- **Intervention in Civil War**: The U.S. intervened in the Dominican Civil War to prevent a potential communist government from taking power, ultimately supporting the military government that emerged.

### 8. **Greece (1967)**

- **Colonels' Coup**: The U.S. supported the military junta that took power in Greece, fearing the rise of leftist elements in the country.

### 9. **Cambodia (1970)**

- **Lon Nol Coup**: The U.S. supported General Lon Nol's coup against Prince Norodom Sihanouk, who had maintained a policy of neutrality in the Vietnam War.

### 10. **Laos (1960s-1970s)**

- **Secret War**: The U.S. conducted a covert war in Laos, supporting the Royal Lao Government against the Pathet Lao and North Vietnamese forces.

### 11. **Chile (1964)**

- **Election Meddling**: Before the 1973 coup, the CIA covertly funded anti-Allende candidates and propaganda in the 1964 election, contributing to Eduardo Frei's victory.

### 12. **Iran (1980)**

- **Nojeh Coup Attempt**: The U.S. allegedly supported an unsuccessful coup attempt to overthrow the Islamic Republic shortly after the 1979 revolution.

### 13. **Afghanistan (1980s)**

- **Support for Mujahideen**: The U.S. provided significant support to Afghan Mujahideen fighters opposing the Soviet-backed government, which ultimately led to the withdrawal of Soviet troops.

### 14. **Nicaragua (1980s)**

- **Contras**: The U.S. supported Contra rebels in their efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government, which was aligned with the Soviet Union and Cuba.

### 15. **Grenada (1983)**

- **Operation Urgent Fury**: The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow the Marxist government after a coup and internal power struggle, citing the protection of American citizens and stopping the spread of communism.

### 16. **Panama (1989)**

- **Operation Just Cause**: The U.S. invaded Panama to depose military dictator Manuel Noriega, who was involved in drug trafficking and had previously been a CIA asset.

### 17. **Haiti (1994)**

- **Operation Uphold Democracy**: The U.S. intervened to restore democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide after he was deposed in a military coup.

### 18. **Iraq (2003)**

- **Invasion of Iraq**: The U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq, toppling Saddam Hussein under the pretext of eliminating weapons of mass destruction and spreading democracy, although no such weapons were found.

### 19. **Honduras (2009)**

- **Coup against Manuel Zelaya**: The U.S. was accused of supporting the ousting of President Manuel Zelaya, though official involvement remains disputed.

### 20. **Libya (2011)**

- **NATO Intervention**: The U.S. played a key role in the NATO-led intervention that resulted in the overthrow and death of Muammar Gaddafi during the Libyan Civil War.

### 21. **Ukraine (2014)**

- **Euromaidan Protests**: The U.S. supported pro-democracy protests that led to the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, who had strong ties to Russia.

### 22. **Venezuela (2002)**

- **Failed Coup against Hugo Chávez**: The U.S. was accused of supporting a short-lived coup against President Hugo Chávez, though it officially denied involvement.

### 23. **Syria (2010s)**

- **Support for Rebels**: The U.S. provided support to various rebel groups fighting against the Assad regime during the Syrian Civil War, part of a broader strategy to counter Iranian and Russian influence.

### 24. **Egypt (2013)**

- **Support for Military Coup**: The U.S. implicitly supported the military coup that deposed President Mohamed Morsi, the first democratically elected leader in Egypt's history.

### 25. **Bolivia (2019)**

- **Ouster of Evo Morales**: The U.S. was accused of supporting the political crisis and subsequent resignation of President Evo Morales, who had won a contested election.

These events highlight the U.S.'s extensive and often controversial role in global politics, driven by a mix of ideological battles, strategic interests, and economic considerations. Each intervention has left a lasting impact on the respective countries, with varying outcomes ranging from democratic transitions to prolonged instability and conflict.

[bm2ab]

Arrivals & Departures 14 June 1928 – 09 October 1967 Ernesto "Che" Guevara 

Ernesto "Che" Guevara (/tʃeɪ ɡəˈvɑːrə/; Spanish: [ˈtʃe ɣeˈβaɾa]; 14 June 1928 – 09 October 1967) was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, physician, author, guerrilla leader, diplomat, and military theorist. A major figure of the Cuban Revolution, his stylized visage has become a ubiquitous countercultural symbol of rebellion and global insignia in popular culture.

As a young medical student, Guevara traveled throughout South America and was radicalized by the poverty, hunger, and disease he witnessed. His burgeoning desire to help overturn what he saw as the capitalist exploitation of Latin America by the United States prompted his involvement in Guatemala's social reforms under President Jacobo Árbenz, whose eventual CIA-assisted overthrow at the behest of the United Fruit Company solidified Guevara's political ideology. Later in Mexico City, Guevara met Raúl and Fidel Castro, joined their 26th of July Movement, and sailed to Cuba aboard the yacht Granma with the intention of overthrowing U.S.-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista. Guevara soon rose to prominence among the insurgents, was promoted to second in command and played a pivotal role in the victorious two-year guerrilla campaign that deposed the Batista regime.

Following the Cuban Revolution, Guevara performed a number of key roles in the new government. These included reviewing the appeals and firing squads for those convicted as war criminals during the revolutionary tribunals, instituting agrarian land reform as minister of industries, helping spearhead a successful nationwide literacy campaign, serving as both national bank president and instructional director for Cuba's armed forces, and traversing the globe as a diplomat on behalf of Cuban socialism. Such positions also allowed him to play a central role in training the militia forces who repelled the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and bringing Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles to Cuba, which preceded the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Additionally, Guevara was a prolific writer and diarist, composing a seminal manual on guerrilla warfare, along with a best-selling memoir about his youthful continental motorcycle journey. His experiences and studying of Marxism–Leninism led him to posit that the Third World's underdevelopment and dependence was an intrinsic result of imperialism, neocolonialism and monopoly capitalism, with the only remedy being proletarian internationalism and world revolution. Guevara left Cuba in 1965 to foment revolution abroad, first unsuccessfully in Congo-Kinshasa and later in Bolivia, where he was captured by CIA-assisted Bolivian forces and summarily executed.

Guevara remains both a revered and reviled historical figure, polarized in the collective imagination in a multitude of biographies, memoirs, essays, documentaries, songs, and films. As a result of his perceived martyrdom, poetic invocations for class struggle, and desire to create the consciousness of a "new man" driven by moral rather than material incentives, Guevara has evolved into a quintessential icon of various leftist movements. In contrast, his ideological critics on the right accuse him of authoritarianism and sanctifying violence against his political opponents. Despite disagreements on his legacy, Time magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century, while an Alberto Korda photograph of him, titled Guerrillero Heroico (shown), was cited by the Maryland Institute College of Art as "the most famous photograph in the world".

[theculturedmarxist]

       5 February 2020  

The day-long delay in the reporting of voting results from Monday night’s Iowa Democratic caucuses is an unprecedented event, even by the sordid standards of American capitalist politics.

For some 20 hours after an estimated 175,000 people had participated in caucus meetings, the Iowa Democratic Party refused to report a single vote, claiming technical difficulties in the app used to report the precinct caucus totals to party headquarters.

When partial vote totals were finally released at 4 p.m. Tuesday, local time in Des Moines, it was for only 62 percent of the nearly 1,800 precinct caucuses. State party chairman Troy Price refused to explain how the 62 percent had been selected, or what distinguished these from the 38 percent not yet reported. He brushed aside repeated questions about when a final count would be ready.

Whatever the specific intentions of the Iowa state party leaders, every action they have taken in the caucus crisis has been to the detriment of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and to the benefit of former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg. The former naval intelligence officer has been declared the winner of the caucuses by the media because, in the results tabulated for 62 percent of precincts, he placed first in the obscure category of “state delegate equivalents,” the metric highlighted by the state party.

In the same tabulation, Sanders won the most votes, both in the initial count and in the second round after “unviable” candidates—those with less than 15 percent support—had been eliminated. Moreover, much of the unreported vote is from college and factory towns where the Vermont senator posted his best results. It is quite possible that Sanders will also lead in delegate equivalents once a final count is reported.

In previous Iowa caucuses, results were tabulated and made public within two hours of voters arriving at the precinct. The candidates proclaimed the winner in the last four contested Iowa caucuses all went on to win the party’s nomination: Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, Barack Obama in 2008 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. But there were no media headlines Monday night and Tuesday morning about Bernie Sanders winning the most votes in Iowa in 2020.

Nor were there blaring headlines about the debacle for former Vice President Joe Biden, once the presumed frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, who finished a poor fourth in the tally reported Tuesday afternoon. Biden may actually finish as low as fifth in the final count, since Senator Amy Klobuchar trailed him by only a small margin.

It is impossible to say at this point exactly what is behind the delay in reporting from Iowa. However, the claim that all that is involved is a “glitch” in a reporting app—produced by a highly-connected Democratic Party technology company—raises more questions than it answers. The media, which readily swallows incredible tales about Russian “meddling” in American politics, was quick to denounce any questioning of the motives for the delay as a “conspiracy theory.”

The whole process is highly suspect and suspicious, ripe for political manipulation. The delay in the Iowa results, moreover, followed by only a couple of days the cancellation of a final poll by the Des Moines Register, after the Buttigieg campaign complained that at least one caller for the telephone survey had omitted their candidate’s name. The highly influential poll was expected to show a sizeable Sanders lead across the state.

It would be naive to separate the alleged “technical glitches” in the Iowa vote reporting from the broader political context. The weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses were dominated by a concerted campaign against Sanders, which included the intervention of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and other figures in the party establishment, as well as the corporate media, all claiming that the nomination of a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” would have disastrous consequences.

This anti-Sanders campaign demonstrates that the Democratic Party establishment is just as hostile as Donald Trump to the rising militancy in the working class and the growing support for socialism among both working people and youth. It is not Sanders himself, but this shift to the left among the broad masses that is a nightmare for all factions of the capitalist ruling elite.

The Democratic primary campaign has seen the formation of two groups of candidates—a left wing headed by Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren, and a right wing comprised of Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar. Each has drawn the support of about half the party’s prospective voters.

The US ruling class makes use of the two groups of candidates for different purposes. The Sanders-Warren wing is to contain the leftward movement among workers and youth and divert it back within the confines of the two-party system. The Biden-Buttigieg-Klobuchar wing is to wield the real power within the party, take the nomination, and serve as the replacement for Trump if the ruling class determines that such a change is necessary.

The evident crisis of the Biden campaign has led to increasingly heavy-handed efforts to develop some other alternative for the right-wing faction: the huge fundraising for Buttigieg, the media boomlet for Klobuchar, and, most importantly, the entry into the race of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, whose entire campaign is aimed at supplanting Biden and blocking the nomination of Sanders or Warren.

Significantly, after the scale of the Biden debacle in Iowa became clear, Bloomberg, who has already spent more than $300 million on campaign ads, announced that he would double his ad buys and double his paid staff in the run-up to the “Super Tuesday” primaries and caucuses on March 3. Bloomberg could well spend $1 billion of his $58 billion fortune to secure for himself enough delegates to play a major role in the Democratic nominating convention.

The events surrounding the Iowa caucuses demonstrate the bankruptcy of Sanders’ claim that it is possible to reform the Democratic Party and even turn it into a vehicle for social reform and a weapon to combat the political influence of the billionaires. The truth is that, no less than the Republican Party, the Democratic Party is a political institution of the capitalist class. There is no more chance of “reforming” the Democratic Party than of “reforming” the CIA, the Pentagon or Wall Street itself.

The role of Sanders in 2020 is not fundamentally different from the part he played in 2016, when his “insurgent” campaign ended in his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, the chosen candidate of the bankers and the CIA.

His response to the attempt of the Iowa Democratic Party to rig the caucus result was notably low key. He told reporters that it was “not fair” to suggest that the procedure followed by the state party might be suspect.

His closest campaign aide, Jeff Weaver, denounced the Biden campaign for questioning the conduct of the state party. “I do want to urge people in the interest of not discrediting the party, that folks who are just trying to delay the return of this because of their relative positioning in the results, last night, I think that’s a bit disingenuous,” Weaver said. “Those results should be rolled out as we get them.”

The complacency being promoted by the Sanders campaign is staggering. The fact is that on February 4, no one knew the results of the first contest for the Democratic presidential nomination. One can easily envision a situation where on November 4, only nine months from now, the results of the US presidential election as a whole were unknown, or under challenge, or being openly defied by a president who has repeatedly declared his intention to stay in office well beyond the constitutional two-term limit.

What is most significant about the crisis over the Iowa caucuses is what it says about the level of crisis within the state apparatus. The United States seems incapable of running an election. As the Democratic Party primaries begin, the Trump impeachment is about to end, a process that has revealed extraordinary conflicts within the ruling class over foreign policy.

Underlying everything is a level of social antagonism that cannot be adjudicated electorally. Social tensions are so extreme that the traditional mechanisms of democracy are breaking down.

Whatever the outcome, whoever is selected as the Democratic Party nominee, it will resolve nothing. Every effort of the working class to advance its interests within this process is futile.

There is only one campaign in the 2020 elections that seeks to alert the American people to these dangers and mobilize the working class and youth in a political struggle against the capitalist class in defense of jobs, living standards and democratic rights, and in opposition to imperialist war. That is the campaign of the Socialist Equality Party and its candidates Joseph Kishore for president and Norissa Santa Cruz for vice president.

Patrick Martin

[yeltsinsstar]

Some of the US interventions in the Middle-East since 1945

1949: Syria:

The democratically elected government of Shukri al-Quwatli was overthrown by a junta led by the Syrian Army chief of staff at the time, Husni al-Za'im, who became President of Syria on April 11, 1949. Za'im had extensive connections to CIA operatives.

1952: Egypt

Project FF  or Fat Fucker was a Central Intelligence Agency project in Egypt, aimed at pressuring King Farouk into  political reforms. The project was masterminded by CIA Director Allen Dulles, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, CIA operative Kermit "Kim" Roosevelt Jr., and CIA Station Chief in Cairo Miles Copeland, Jr. However, due to the unwillingness of Farouk to change, the project moved to support his overthrow, and Roosevelt secretly met with the Free Officers Movement, which overthrew Farouk in a coup d'état led by General Mohammed Naguib and Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser on 23 July 1952.

1953: Iran

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, (known in Iran as the "28 Mordad coup") was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on August 19, 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom (under the name "Operation Boot") and the United States (under the name "TPAJAX Project").

1956–1957: Syria 

In 1956 Operation Straggle was a coup plot against Syria. The CIA made plans for a coup for late October 1956 to topple the Syrian government. The plan entailed takeover by the Syrian military of key cities and border crossings. The plan was postponed when Israel invaded Egypt in October 1956 and US planners thought their operation would be unsuccessful at a time when the Arab world is fighting "Israeli aggression." The operation was uncovered and American plotters had to flee the country. 

In 1957 Operation Wappen was a coup plan against Syria. A second coup attempt the following year called for assassination of key senior Syrian officials, staged military incidents on the Syrian border to be blamed on Syria and then to be used as pretext for invasion by Iraqi and Jordanian troops, an intense US propaganda campaign targeting the Syrian population, and "sabotage, national conspiracies and various strong-arm activities" to be blamed on Damascus. This operation failed when Syrian military officers paid off with millions of dollars in bribes to carry out the coup revealed the plot to Syrian intelligence. The U.S. Department of State denied accusation of a coup attempt and along with US media accused Syria of being a "satellite" of the USSR.

There was also an assassination plot later, called "The Preffered Plan", in 1957 against many leaders in Syria. There would be a Free Syria committee set up and outside invasion would be encouraged. However this plan was never put through 

1958: Lebanon 

The U.S. launched Operation Blue Bat in July 1958 to intervene in the 1958 Lebanon crisis. This was the first application of the Eisenhower Doctrine, according to which the U.S. was to intervene to protect regimes it considered threatened by international communism. The goal of the operation was to bolster the pro-Western Lebanese government of President Camille Chamoun against internal opposition and threats from Syria and Egypt. 

1959: Iraq

The October 1959 assassination attempt on Iraqi Prime Minister Abd al-Karim Qasim involving a young Saddam Hussein and other Ba'athist conspirators may have been a collaboration between the CIA and Egyptian intelligence. (There are conflicting reports on this one.)

1963: Iraq 

Similar conflicting reports over US involvement in the February 1963 Iraqi coup.

1972–1975: Iraq 

The U.S. secretly provided millions of dollars for the Kurdish insurgency supported by Iran against the Iraqi government. The U.S. role was so secret even the US State Department and the U.S. "40 Committee," created to oversee covert operations, were not informed. The troops of the Kurdish Democratic Party were led by Mustafa Barzani. Notably, unbeknownst to the Kurds, this was a covert regime change action the US wanted to fail, intended only to drain the resources of the country. The U.S. abruptly ceased support for the Kurds in 1975 and, despite Kurdish pleas for help, refused to extend even humanitarian aid to the thousands of Kurdish refugees created as a result of the collapse of the insurgency.

(Note that Trump’s betrayal of the Kurds is not the first time the US has done so).

1977–1988: Pakistan 

Operation Fair Play was the code name for the 5 July 1977 coup by Pakistan Chief of Army Staff General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, overthrowing the government of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The coup itself was bloodless, and was preceded by social unrest and political conflict between the ruling leftist Pakistan Peoples Party government of Bhutto, and the right-wing Islamist opposition Pakistan National Alliance which accused Bhutto of rigging the 1977 general elections. In announcing the coup, Zia promised "free and fair elections" within 90 days, but these were repeatedly postponed on the excuse of accountability and it was not until 1985 that ("party-less") general elections were held. Zia himself stayed in power for eleven years until his death in a plane crash.

The coup was a watershed event in the Cold War and in the history of the country. The coup took place nearly six years after the 1971 war with India which ended with the secession of East Pakistan as Bangladesh. The period following the coup saw the "Islamisation of Pakistan" and Pakistan's involvement with the Afghan Mujahideen (funded by US and Saudi Arabia) in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

1979–1989: Afghanistan 

In what was known as "Operation Cyclone," the U.S. government secretly provided weapons and funding for a collection of warlords and several factions of Jihadi guerrillas known as the Mujahideen of Afghanistan fighting to overthrow the Afghan government and the Soviet military forces that supported it. Although Operation Cyclone officially ended in 1989 with the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, U.S. government funding for the Mujahideen continued through 1992, when the Mujahideen overran the Afghan government in Kabul. 

1994–2000: Iraq (post Gulf War)

The CIA launched DBACHILLES, a coup d'état operation against the Iraqi government, recruiting Ayad Allawi, who headed the Iraqi National Accord, a network of Iraqis who opposed the Saddam Hussein government, as part of the operation. The network included Iraqi military and intelligence officers but was penetrated by people loyal to the Iraqi government. Also using Ayad Allawi and his network, the CIA directed a government sabotage and bombing campaign in Baghdad between 1992 and 1995, against targets that—according to the Iraqi government at the time—killed many civilians including people in a crowded movie theater. The CIA bombing campaign may have been merely a test of the operational capacity of the CIA's network of assets on the ground and not intended to be the launch of the coup strike itself. The coup was unsuccessful, but Ayad Allawi was later installed as prime minister of Iraq by the Iraq Interim Governing Council, which had been created by the U.S.-led coalition following the March 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. As a non-covert measure, the U.S. in 1998 enacted the "Iraq Liberation Act," which states, in part, that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," and appropriated funds for U.S. aid "to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations."

2003 to present: Iraq 

 The USA invades Iraq after falsely claiming Iraqi involvement in 9-11 and that they possessed weapons of mass destruction. See: Iraq War 

2006–07: Palestinian territories 

The U.S. government pressured the Fatah faction of the Palestinian leadership to topple the Hamas government of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. The Bush Administration was displeased with the government that the majority of the Palestinian people elected in the January Palestinian legislative election of 2006. The U.S. government set up a secret training and armaments program that received tens of millions of dollars in Congressional funding, but also, like in the Iran-contra scandal, a more secret Congress-circumventing source of funding for Fatah to launch a bloody war against the Haniyeh government. The war was brutal, with many casualties and with Fatah kidnapping and torturing civilian leaders of Hamas, sometimes in front of their own families, and setting fire to a university in Gaza. When the government of Saudi Arabia attempted to negotiate a truce between the sides so as to avoid a wide-scale Palestinian civil war, the U.S. government pressured Fatah to reject the Saudi plan and to continue the effort to topple the Haniyeh government. Ultimately, the Haniyeh government was prevented from ruling over all of the Palestinian territories, with Hamas retreating to the Gaza strip and Fatah retreating to the West Bank.

2006–present: Syria 

Since 2006, the State Department has funneled at least $6 million to the anti-government satellite channel Barada TV, associated with the exile group Movement for Justice and Development in Syria. This secret backing continued under the Obama administration, even as the US publicly rebuilt relations with Bashar Al-Assad. 

This was followed by intervention in the Syrian Civil War, in part to combat ISIS/ISIL, with the USA supporting Syrian & Iraqi Kurdish forces. The US, under the Trump administration then abandoned the Syria Kurds to a Turkish intervention in 2019.

2007: Iran

In 2007, the Bush administration requested and received funding from Congress for covert actions in Iran that, according to a presidential finding that Bush signed, had the goal of undermining Iran's religious leadership. 

2011: Libya

The United States has been active in post-2011 Libya with the military carrying out sporadic airstrikes and raids in the country, predominantly against Islamist groups. 

2015–present: Yemen

The U.S. has been supporting the intervention by Saudi Arabia in the Yemeni Civil War. The Yemeni Civil War began in 2015 between two sides, each claiming at that time to support the legitimate government of Yemen.

The U.S. military provides targeting assistance and intelligence and logistical support for the Saudi-led bombing campaign, including aerial refueling. The US also provides weapons and bombs, including, according to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, cluster bombs outlawed in much of the world and used by Saudi Arabia in the conflict. The United States also supports the war effort on the ground with Green Berets on the Yemen border with Saudi Arabia tasked initially to help the Saudis secure the border and later expanded to help locate and destroy Houthi ballistic missile caches and launch sites in what Senator Tim Kaine called a “purposeful blurring of lines between train and equip missions and combat.” The US has been criticized for providing weapons and bombs knowing that Saudi bombing has been indiscriminately targeting civilians and violating the laws of war.

[bountyofbeads]

https://apnews.com/e47ad98af595835b0570e6af3f278976

He is afraid of double agents.

"The bleak news on Monday that the CIA extracted a top source from Russia, while disturbing, should come as no surprise." https://t.co/bIPPxzjyLA

"Putin is extremely risk averse and almost never fires anyone. For him to sack the PM and change the constitution four years before his term is up suggests he’s deeply afraid of something. What that is, we have still to find out." Bill Browder

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev submitted his resignation to President Vladimir Putin, hours after the leader's state of the nation address on the need for reforms to the Cabinet and constitution.

Putin announces constitutional reform, his PM steps down

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV | Published January 15, 2020 9:55 AM ET | AP | Posted January 15, 2020 |

MOSCOW (AP) — President Vladimir Putin accepted the resignation of his prime minister Wednesday after proposing constitutional amendments that could herald his intention to carve out a position that would let him stay at Russia’s helm after his presidency ends.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who served as a placeholder president in 2008-2012 to allow Putin to observe term limits, said in televised comments that he needed to resign in light of his mentor’s proposed changes in government.

Putin thanked Medvedev for his work and appointed him as the deputy head of the presidential Security Council.

In his state of the nation address earlier in the day, Putin suggested amending the constitution to allow lawmakers to name prime ministers and Cabinet members. The authority to make those appointments currently belongs to Russia’s president.

“It will increase the role of parliament and parliamentary parties, powers and independence of the prime minister and all Cabinet members,” Putin told an audience of top officials and lawmakers.

At the same time, Putin argued that Russia would not remain stable if it were governed under a parliamentary system. The president should retain the right to dismiss the prime minister and Cabinet ministers, to name top defense and security officials, and to be in charge of the Russian military and law enforcement agencies, he said.

Putin emphasized that constitutional changes must be put to a nationwide vote.

Putin’s current term expires in 2024, and Russia’s political elites have been abuzz with speculation about his future plans.

The 67-year-old Putin has remained at the helm for more than 20 years — longer than any other Russian or Soviet leader since Josef Stalin. He will have to step down after his term ends under the current law, which limits the president to two consecutive terms.

Political analyst Kirill Rogov said that Putin’s proposals indicate his intention to remain in charge while re-distributing powers between various branches of government.

“Such a model resembling the Chinese one would allow Putin to stay at the helm indefinitely while encouraging rivalry between potential successors,” Rogov said on Facebook.

Alexei Navalny, the most prominent Russian opposition leader, tweeted that the president’s speech signaled Putin’s desire to continue calling the shots after his term ends.

“The only goal of Putin and his regime is to stay in charge for life, having the entire country as his personal asset and seizing its riches for himself and his friends,” Navalny alleged.

Putin served two presidential terms in 2000-2008 before shifting into the prime minister’s seat for four years to observe the term limit. Medvedev kept his seat warm and then stepped down after just one term to allow his mentor to reclaim the top job in 2012. While in office, Medvedev raised the presidential term from four to six years.

While Putin continued calling the shots during Medvedev’s presidency, he wasn’t quite happy with his performance. He was particularly critical of Medvedev’s decision to give the green light to the Western air campaign over Libya in 2011 that led to the ouster and the killing of long-time dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Medvedev’s decision to step down after one term to let Putin return to the presidency also sparked massive protests in Moscow in 2011-2012 in a major challenge to the Kremlin.

Observers speculated that Putin may stay in charge after 2024 by shifting into the prime minister’s seat after increasing the powers of parliament and the Cabinet and trimming presidential authority.

Political analyst Dmitry Oreshkin said Putin’s speech made it clear he was pondering the move to premiership.

“Putin is advancing the idea of keeping his authority as a more powerful and influential prime minister while the presidency will become more decorative,” Oreshkin said.

Other potential options include a merger with neighboring Belarus that would create a new position of the head of a new unified state — a prospect rejected by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko.

In his address, Putin said the constitution must also specify the authority of the State Council consisting of regional governors and top federal officials.

Some analysts have theorized that Putin may try to continue pulling the strings as head of the council after stepping down as president in 2024.

Putin also emphasized the need to amend the constitution to give it a clear priority over international law.

“The requirements of international law and treaties and decisions of international organs can only be valid on the territory of Russia as long as they don’t restrict human rights and freedoms and don’t contradict the constitution,” he said.

He also said that the constitution must be tweaked to say that top government officials aren’t allowed to have foreign citizenship or residence permits.

Putin focused his state of the nation address on the need to encourage population growth by offering additional subsidies to families that have children.

The Russian leader said that Russia would remain open for cooperation with all countries while maintaining a strong defense capability to fend off potential threats.

He added that new weapons systems would protect Russia’s security “for decades ahead.”

“For the first time in history, we aren’t trying to catch up with anyone,” Putin said. “On the contrary, other leading nations are yet to develop the weapons that Russia already has.”

*********

Russian prime minister submits resignation to Putin

By Associated Press | Published January 15, 2020 9:00 AM ET | AP | Posted January 15, 2020 |

MOSCOW (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed a constitutional overhaul Wednesday to boost the powers of parliament and the Cabinet, a move signalling Putin’s intention to carve out a new position for himself after his current term ends.

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev submitted his resignation hours after Putin discussed the constitutional amendments during his state of the nation address.

The Russian leader thanked Medvedev for his service but said the prime minister’s Cabinet had failed to fulfill all of its objectives. In televised remarks, Putin said Medvedev would take up a new position as a deputy head of the presidential Security Council.

Medvedev, a longtime close associate of Putin’s, has served as Russia’s prime minister since 2012. He spent four years before that as president in 2008-2012, becoming a placeholder when Putin had to switch into the prime minister’s office because of constitutional term limits on the presidency.

Medvedev obediently stepped down after just one term as president and let Putin reclaim the top job in what was widely seen as cynical political maneuvering and triggered massive protests in Moscow

Putin asked the member’s of Medvedev’s Cabinet to keep working until a new Cabinet is formed.

Medvedev’s resignation followed Putin’s annual state of the nation address earlier Wednesday. During his speech, the Russian leader proposed amending the constitution to increase the powers of prime ministers and Cabinet members.

The proposed move is seen as part of Putin’s efforts to carve out a new position of power for himself to stay at the helm after his current term as president ends in 2024.

(‎1/‎15/‎2020 4:33 PM)

Russian news agencies said Putin thanked Medvedev for his work. They said that Putin will name Medvedev as deputy of the presidential Security Council.

(‎1/‎15/‎2020 4:33 PM)

Putin asked Medvedev’s Cabinet to keep working until the new Cabinet is formed

(‎1/‎15/‎2020 4:34 PM)

Medvedev, a longtime close associate of Putin, has served as Russia’s prime minister since 2012 after serving as president for four years in 2008-2012.

(‎1/‎15/‎2020 4:36 PM)

Putin thanked Medvedev for his work but noted that his Cabinet has failed to fulfill all the objectives that were set.

(‎1/‎15/‎2020 4:38 PM)

Medvedev’s resignation followed Putin’s annual state of the nation address earlier Wednesday, in which the Russian leader proposed tweaking the constitution to increase the powers of prime ministers and Cabinet members. The move is seen as part of Putin’s efforts to carve out a new position of power for himself to stay at the helm after his current term ends in 2024

*********

[violaslayvis]

The alleged support by the United States of wealthy landowners, business leaders, and their organizations tied to the [2008] violent uprising in eastern Bolivia has led U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg’s expulsion from La Paz and the South American government’s demands that the United States stop backing the illegitimate rebellion. Goldberg had met with some of these right-wing opposition leaders just a week before the most recent outbreak of violence against the democratically elected government of Evo Morales, who won a recall referendum in August with over 67% of the popular vote.

U.S. subversion has assumed several forms since the leftist indigenous leader became president in 2005. For example, the U.S. embassy — in violation of American law — repeatedly asked Peace Corps volunteers, as well as an American Fulbright scholar, to engage in espionage, according to news reports.

Bolivia gets approximately $120 million in aid annually from the United States. It’s an important supplement for a country of nine million people with an annual per capita income of barely $1,000. Presidential Minister Juan Ramón Quintana has accused the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) of using some of this money to support a number of prominent conservative opposition leaders as part of a “democracy initiative” through the consulting firm Chemonics International.

A cable from the U.S. Embassy in Bolivia last year revealed a USAID-sponsored “political party reform project” to “help build moderate, pro-democracy political parties that can serve as a counterweight to the radical MAS or its successors” (MAS stands for Movimiento al Socialismo, the party to which Morales belongs.). Despite numerous requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act, the Bush administration refuses to release a list of all the recipient organizations of USAID funds.

The history of U.S. intervention in support for rightist elements in Bolivia is long. The United States was the major foreign backer of the dictatorial regime of René Barrientos, who seized power in a 1964 military coup. The CIA and U.S. Special Forces played a key role in suppressing a leftist peasant uprising that followed, including the 1967 murder of Ernesto “Che” Guevara, a key leader in the movement.

When leftist army officer Juan José Torres came to power in October of 1970, the Nixon administration called for his ousting. When an attempted coup by rightist general Hugo Bánzer Suárez was threatened by a breakdown in the plotters’ radio communications, the U.S. Air Force made their radio communications available to them. Though this first attempted takeover was crushed, Bánzer was able to seize power by August of the following year in a bloody uprising, also with apparent U.S. support. Thousands of suspected leftists were executed in subsequent years.

The United States largely supported Bánzer and subsequent dictators in the face of a series of protests, general strikes and other largely nonviolent pro-democracy uprisings, which eventually led to the end of military rule by 1982 and the coming to office of the left-leaning president Hernán Siles Zuazo. The United States refused to resume economic aid, however, until the government enacted strict neoliberal austerity measures.

[palomahill]

While many of us are working to ensure that the Occupy movement will have a lasting impact, it’s worthwhile to consider other countries where masses of people succeeded in nonviolently bringing about a high degree of democracy and economic justice. Sweden and Norway, for example, both experienced a major power shift in the 1930s after prolonged nonviolent struggle. They “fired” the top 1 percent of people who set the direction for society and created the basis for something different.

Both countries had a history of horrendous poverty. When the 1 percent was in charge, hundreds of thousands of people emigrated to avoid starvation. Under the leadership of the working class, however, both countries built robust and successful economies that nearly eliminated poverty, expanded free university education, abolished slums, provided excellent health care available to all as a matter of right and created a system of full employment. Unlike the Norwegians, the Swedes didn’t find oil, but that didn’t stop them from building what the latest CIA World Factbook calls “an enviable standard of living.”

Then I began to learn that the Swedes and Norwegians paid a price for their standards of living through nonviolent struggle. There was a time when Scandinavian workers didn’t expect that the electoral arena could deliver the change they believed in. They realized that, with the 1 percent in charge, electoral “democracy” was stacked against them, so nonviolent direct action was needed to exert the power for change.

In both countries, the troops were called out to defend the 1 percent; people died. Award-winning Swedish filmmaker Bo Widerberg told the Swedish story vividly in Ådalen 31, which depicts the strikers killed in 1931 and the sparking of a nationwide general strike. (You can read more about this case in an entry by Max Rennebohm in the Global Nonviolent Action Database.)

The Norwegians had a harder time organizing a cohesive people’s movement because Norway’s small population—about three million—was spread out over a territory the size of Britain. People were divided by mountains and fjords, and they spoke regional dialects in isolated valleys. In the nineteenth century, Norway was ruled by Denmark and then by Sweden; in the context of Europe Norwegians were the “country rubes,” of little consequence. Not until 1905 did Norway finally become independent.

When workers formed unions in the early 1900s, they generally turned to Marxism, organizing for revolution as well as immediate gains. They were overjoyed by the overthrow of the czar in Russia, and the Norwegian Labor Party joined the Communist International organized by Lenin. Labor didn’t stay long, however. One way in which most Norwegians parted ways with Leninist strategy was on the role of violence: Norwegians wanted to win their revolution through collective nonviolent struggle, along with establishing co-ops and using the electoral arena.

In the 1920s strikes increased in intensity. The town of Hammerfest formed a commune in 1921, led by workers councils; the army intervened to crush it. The workers’ response verged toward a national general strike. The employers, backed by the state, beat back that strike, but workers erupted again in the ironworkers’ strike of 1923–24.

The Norwegian 1 percent decided not to rely simply on the army; in 1926 they formed a social movement called the Patriotic League, recruiting mainly from the middle class. By the 1930s, the League included as many as 100,000 people for armed protection of strike breakers—this in a country of only 3 million!

The Labor Party, in the meantime, opened its membership to anyone, whether or not in a unionized workplace. Middle-class Marxists and some reformers joined the party. Many rural farm workers joined the Labor Party, as well as some small landholders. Labor leadership understood that in a protracted struggle, constant outreach and organizing was needed to a nonviolent campaign. In the midst of the growing polarization, Norway’s workers launched another wave of strikes and boycotts in 1928.

The Depression hit bottom in 1931. More people were jobless there than in any other Nordic country. Unlike in the U.S., the Norwegian union movement kept the people thrown out of work as members, even though they couldn’t pay dues. This decision paid off in mass mobilizations. When the employers’ federation locked employees out of the factories to try to force a reduction of wages, the workers fought back with massive demonstrations.

Many people then found that their mortgages were in jeopardy. (Sound familiar?) The Depression continued, and farmers were unable to keep up payment on their debts. As turbulence hit the rural sector, crowds gathered nonviolently to prevent the eviction of families from their farms. The Agrarian Party, which included larger farmers and had previously been allied with the Conservative Party, began to distance itself from the 1 percent; some could see that the ability of the few to rule the many was in doubt.

By 1935, Norway was on the brink. The Conservative-led government was losing legitimacy daily; the 1 percent became increasingly desperate as militancy grew among workers and farmers. A complete overthrow might be just a couple years away, radical workers thought. However, the misery of the poor became more urgent daily, and the Labor Party felt increasing pressure from its members to alleviate their suffering, which it could do only if it took charge of the government in a compromise agreement with the other side.

This it did. In a compromise that allowed owners to retain the right to own and manage their firms, Labor in 1935 took the reins of government in coalition with the Agrarian Party. They expanded the economy and started public works projects to head toward a policy of full employment that became the keystone of Norwegian economic policy. Labor’s success and the continued militancy of workers enabled steady inroads against the privileges of the 1 percent, to the point that majority ownership of all large firms was taken by the public interest. (There is an entry on this case as well at the Global Nonviolent Action Database.)

The 1 percent thereby lost its historic power to dominate the economy and society. Not until three decades later could the Conservatives return to a governing coalition, having by then accepted the new rules of the game, including a high degree of public ownership of the means of production, extremely progressive taxation, strong business regulation for the public good and the virtual abolition of poverty. When Conservatives eventually tried a fling with neoliberal policies, the economy generated a bubble and headed for disaster. (Sound familiar?)

Labor stepped in, seized the three largest banks, fired the top management, left the stockholders without a dime and refused to bail out any of the smaller banks. The well-purged Norwegian financial sector was not one of those countries that lurched into crisis in 2008; carefully regulated and much of it publicly owned, the sector was solid.

by George Lakey