09/12/14 – Gareth Porter – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, Al Scott here.
If you're like me, you need coffee.
Lots of it.
And you probably prefer it tastes good, too.
Well, let me tell you about Darren's Coffee, company at darrenscoffee.com.
Darren Marion is a natural entrepreneur who decided to leave his corporate job and strike out on his own, making great coffee.
And Darren's Coffee is now delivering right to your door.
Darren gets his beans direct from farmers around the world.
All specialty, premium grade, with no filler.
Hey, the man just wants everyone to have a chance to taste this great coffee.
Darren's Coffee.
Order now at darrenscoffee.com.
Use promo code Scott and save two dollars.darrenscoffee.com.
Boy, am I bad at sticking to these hard breaks, man.
Anyway, went a little overtime there with John Pfeffer, but you can hear the whole thing later on there at scotthorton.org slash interviews.
Now we go to our friend Gareth Porter, also writing for Interpress Service and of course truthout.org.
His last two pieces were studies of Israel's slaughter in the Gaza Strip.
But right now, and I don't think you've written anything about this yet necessarily, Gareth, but I'm just interested in what all you think about what is going on in the land formerly known as Iraq.
And I mean, I guess, well, the question ought to come from the point of view to start, I guess, of Obama's announced strategy.
And then I guess we can break it into pieces starting with the eastern half of the Islamic State in the land formerly known as Iraq first, if you want to do it that way.
And oh, and by the way, welcome to the show.
Hi.
Thanks very much, Scott.
It hasn't been very long, has it?
No.
Well, you know, I like asking you about stuff.
So yeah, the thing of it is Iraq War III starting and Obama did another big announcement.
It's his third or fourth announcement of war with Iraq again.
But so here it is.
But I just wonder what you think of the announcement, because I can't decide whether to laugh or cry.
Well, I think we need to both laugh and cry.
There's no other way to to deal with a situation of yet another war on top of so many others that have been heaped on the American people and the rest of the world.
You know, it's an odd bit of perhaps, you know, world records of wars that I saw just recently that the United States certainly owns the record for successive administrations who have bombed a particular country.
In this case, of course, it's Iraq.
Four straight U.S. administrations have carried out bombing of Iraq.
And that certainly is one of the more precious facts about U.S. wars that very few people are aware of.
And it and it does underline the extremity of the situation.
So so I mean, you know, I'm I'm not I'm not on top of the situation in the sense that I'm following every piece of of journalism that is being published on on the subject.
My my interest has been one of trying to catch up late and episodically.
So so so take my comments as somebody who's not really posing as an expert, but is looking at it more from a distance from the distance that is defined by, you know, having a an overall analysis, obviously, of how and why the United States has gotten into wars based on the nature of the system.
As you know, very well, better than anyone else who's listening to this.
Right.
Yeah, it's you know, it's damn near and I hadn't read all about this or whatever, but it's it's pretty much it's public choice theory kind of thing.
The point being that everybody in government is a person and there is no national interest.
There's only what they think is in their interest.
And that may or may not have anything to do with what's the right thing to do in any given situation, which is why government doesn't work, as Harry Brown said.
That's exactly that's exactly right.
And indeed, you know, it's a guarantee that that the policy will not reflect realities on the ground, but rather will, in fact, reflect a set of interests that are peculiar to the people in power.
And, you know, I mean, if if one is to take a, you know, an adequately wide lens on this problem, you know, I mean, I've emphasized, I think clearly every time we've talked about the subject of primarily a bureaucratic interest of the U.S. war, permanent war state, the national security state.
But but certainly one has to view the political system, domestic political system of the United States as an important element in why we go to war.
And certainly this current war situation is perhaps even more clearly than any other of the recent wars.
Evidence of that, the role that that domestic politics plays in defining interests and policies.
And in this case, I think what we're looking at is the is is the multiple sources of of strong pressure for any administration to respond by, you know, with with a threat and actual use of military force to a very wide range of circumstances.
And I think, you know, you've got the news media clearly playing a role in this.
You know, we've all seen how it works, that that the majority of of journalists who are covering national security are, if anything, to the right towards the more militarist side of the equation than the current administration.
We've seen that pattern over and over again.
It started, I remember, with Iraq when when Obama made the first moves toward trying to withdraw U.S. troops.
The New York Times and other news media were on top of that, like flies on you know what, and very critical in their coverage of Obama and very supportive of the military.
And I think that is that's one of the factors.
Another factor, of course, is the Republican Party, you know, has become so explicitly a war party over the years that, you know, we can take for granted what their response is going to be in every situation.
Although, of course, the you know, there there is a certain tendency now within Republicans, particularly in the House, to begin to question some of the military engagements, certainly Afghanistan being being a case in point.
But anyway, you know, the political political party system registering the power of military industrial complex clearly, as well as this prestige and power of the national security state in general and the military services in particular, is is a major source of pressure on any administration to to respond with with the use of force.
So that's that's a very significant element in the explanation for how we got to where we are today.
Yeah.
Well, this is why I've been able to predict this thing going back since the beginning of this year, really, since at least Fallujah.
I don't know what I was saying a year ago.
Probably good stuff, too.
Well, yeah, I wrote in the Future Freedom Foundation about the rise of the caliphate for the July issue.
I wrote it in April or May that they've just declared they changed the name because this was before Nusra said, no, we're not going with you.
We're staying separate.
But the way I wrote it was they just changed the name to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
And then it was easy to tell that, of course, there's a giant power vacuum in western Iraq as well as eastern Syria.
And if these guys, you know, they are they are already a de facto state in that lawless territory.
They're the most powerful people there.
And it's I said the the rise of Osama bin Laden and George W.
Bush's ridiculous fantasy of an Islamo fascist caliphate come to life in real life.
And I've been saying that, you know, of course, this is why they will be sending in the army and the Marine Corps probably before Halloween, if not Thanksgiving, because even Obama is not going to wait for Hillary or Jeb either.
Even Obama is going to absolutely have to dislodge an outright bin Laden night caliphate state where this guy Baghdadi might as well be bin Laden, basically, and declaring that he has a country of his own that he's the autocrat of for for all the reasons you listed in more just like peer pressure, basic PR electoral politics.
Like you're saying reasons that just cannot be allowed to stand.
Doesn't matter if that's their policy is to actually create this to take Iran down a peg in the first place or not.
It's now gone too far.
And so now they got to switch back the other way.
And what a damn mess.
And now we're out of time for this segment.
But we'll be back with more Gareth Porter in just a minute.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here for the Council for the National Interest at Council for the National Interest.
CNI stands against America's negative role in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The war parties relentless push to bomb Iran and the roles played by twisted Christian Zionism and neocon engineered Islamophobia and justifying it all.
But they can't do it without you support CNI's push to straighten out America's crooked course.
Check out the Council for the National Interest at Council for the National Interest dot org and click donate under about us at the top of the page.
All right, guys, welcome back.
I'm talking with Gareth Porter.
Let me just say here real quick.
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention I didn't have time to earlier.
I forgot that Jack Goldsmith, who aided and abetted many of Bush's crimes, has written a thing for Time magazine flabbergasted at Obama's refusal to recognize the authority of Congress to even authorize much less declare a war in a constitutional sense.
It's really something else to behold from even the point of view of one of Bush's worst lawyers.
He wasn't as bad as the worst of them, but he was pretty damn bad on on spying and indefinite detention and lots of other things.
So read that coming from him.
It's one of those very authoritative kind of a confirmation bias sort of a thing there now.
So let me ask you, Gareth, what do you think would be the American government and all the other interest groups and whatever?
What would be their attitude and relationship toward Iran if Israel wasn't in the picture?
Well, it would be much more easygoing, I think.
I think that it would be still one of being attracted to the idea of Iran as an adversary in some sense, simply because of the lucrative nature of that position for the national security state, for the for the Pentagon and the military services in particular, simply because, you know, very big part of their pitch to Congress and the public.
For the last two or three decades, particularly the last two decades, has been, oh, Iran has has been trying to get ICBMs that can reach Europe and ultimately the United States.
And therefore, we have to have an anti-missile defense system in the United States.
And by the way, let's sell that to our allies and friends around the world as well.
That's all very lucrative.
And of course, we know that it's particularly lucrative in the Middle East, where the Pentagon's been very successful in selling particularly the Saudis and the UAE on anti-missile defense systems and offensive weapons as well.
I mean, you know, the Saudis had signed up for a deal in 2010 that is estimated to be over a decade or two worth 150 to 200 billion dollars.
So this is not chicken feed.
This is this is real money.
And this is the kind of thing that certainly inclines the Pentagon not to be too hasty to end the the relationship of enmity with with Iran.
So it's it's complicated.
No question about it.
I just want to point out that there are some facets in the situation that would stand in the way of of making up with Iran and have have been in the way of making up with Iran in the past, apart from the Israeli connection.
Sure.
But but now what about.
Well, for example, my favorite footnote along these lines is Obama's very candid discussion with Corporal Goldberg in The Atlantic magazine in 2012 that the reason that we're supporting the bin Laden night rebels.
He didn't call him that.
But, yeah, in Syria is because, yeah, regime change against Assad will help take Iran down a peg.
And wouldn't that be nice?
And they barely even pretend to care about the poor little Syrian people and whatever nonsense responsibility to protect and whatever.
It's all about politics.
It's sure does seem to be all about Israel.
And this at a time where Obama is trying to pursue a nuclear deal, which, as we've discussed, probably more than any two people in America have discussed, means the end of the biggest outstanding fake but still huge outstanding issue between the United States and Iran that doing away with this as they seem to be trying to do now by forging this final nuclear deal.
That would mean, you know, at least it could be the beginning of a whole new, different and better and more peaceful relationship with Iran, if not outright friendship or sock puppet dictatorship type relationship like in the past.
It could be the beginning.
But, of course, as as you know, only too well.
We're by no means out of the woods.
Even if we do reach agreement, the Israeli factor as well as the, you know, the the bureaucratic interest factor still persists and and that will persist beyond the Obama administration.
So, so the politics of this will roll on and on.
And, you know, who knows how that's going to interact with the obvious.
I mean, the reality factor is pushing the United States toward cooperation with Iran.
No question about it.
Reality on the ground makes that the most obvious choice of Middle East policy, I would say, since the beginning of the Cold War.
But but that doesn't mean that it will be grasped fully by any means and maybe not much at all.
So we have to wait and see.
But I don't want to go that far.
I don't want to be allies with him.
I just want to be friends.
But I sure as hell don't want America flying air cover for the Quds Force trying to attack Sunnis in Iraq.
That just makes our problems with these guys worse.
Yeah, I just I said cooperate with with Iran.
And I thought that leaves a great deal of room for for for a lot of different types of cooperation without without military military alliance de facto or de jure.
But I want to come back to to the point that you began with about the the nature of this present engagement in Iraq.
And and in the future, clearly in Syria as well.
I mean, it seems to me that that the big picture in this case is a remarkable situation.
That is, no other war in which the United States has become involved has had so remarkably remarkably unanimous judgment on the part of every part of the political spectrum in this country that there's no way that this can work.
And I mean, this is this is a situation which surely marks the low point in in US national security policy because in the past, at least there were, I think, people in the administration and And in the political elites who who hoped and therefore believe that this could be successful.
But today I think it's a fair statement to make that nobody really believes this.
This is a job absolutely astonishing situation.
And I mean, I was just reading before we before we started the program.
The think tank called the Institute for the Study of War, which of course is a neoconservative institution.
Kimberly Kagan, who's married.
Kagan's wife runs it.
And they have just put out a analysis today or maybe was last night that that says quite directly that there is no.
I don't remember the exact wording, but there's no direct route to an acceptable outcome.
In this in this conflict.
In other words, there's no way that this can succeed.
They're saying, I mean, of course, they don't put it that that strongly but but that if you if you want to read between the lines.
I mean, it's very clear that that they're acknowledging that they don't see any way that this can lead to success.
I mean, they talk about the necessity for an iterative process.
In other words, we just have to keep going.
Endlessly is the way I would read it the way I would interpret it.
Yeah, exactly.
Just like John McCain says, well, we never should have left.
But just like he also says, we had to stay for 100 years in order to keep a lid on all the instability we created.
That that is the hard line neoconservative position that that the United States should be ready in more than one place in the world to remain at war indefinitely for without any end in sight.
And that's perfectly fine with them because they're the winners.
Because this is a matter of winners and losers.
And the neocons represent the winners in the war game.
Of course, that's how you get your think tank funded.
Just drop a line over to Exxon and Lockheed and they'll hook you up.
Now.
So I wonder what you think of this.
I'll try to say it as brief as I can.
But I'm concerned not in a warmonger propaganda kind of way.
But I am concerned in actually the opposite way that ISIS might want to attack American interests, even inside the United States, if they have to, in order to get Obama to send the army and the Marines.
Because unless you lose, war is the health of the state.
And fighting against the Americans is good PR for them.
And it helps along that goal of finally bankrupting the empire.
But I said that to Jonathan Landay and he said, no, no, no, because the whole split here is the near far enemy split.
And these guys have said they're tired of waiting.
They don't want to fight the far enemy and wait till the American empire finally bankrupts itself.
They want to declare a caliphate now, which made me think, well, geez, I wonder if that's that much more incentive for Al Qaeda to try to attack us in order to get us to go back over there in order to, one, continue their policy of leading us to bankruptcy.
But two, proving their case that they are the jihadis people should love, not ISIS, because they're the ones who are smart and know that you can't declare a caliphate.
God dang it, bumper music.
That you can't declare a caliphate before you finally have gotten rid of the Americans first.
So I'm thinking in either way, if we if our government intervenes any more than they already have, especially that this is really going to put Americans at risk, maybe for both of these groups of terrorist kooks.
But then again, maybe I'm a little bit of a paranoid type.
What do you think about that?
No, I think that's an excellent point.
It's a very good question.
We don't we don't know with with certainty at this point what the answer is.
But I would tend to go with with what Landay is saying for a couple of reasons.
One, I think that, you know, Al Qaeda is is not at this point a contender for, you know, the loyalties of broad strata of Islamic groups.
Followers, particularly abroad.
I think the the idea that that this is a is an Islamic State has appealed to people who feel the need for something like this.
And so, so I think that the point that he makes is a valid one.
And I think that, you know, a number of people have made the observation that the real danger here to US security is not that the That ISIS or ISO is is planning to attack the United States, but rather that one of the one or more presumably more than one of the people who volunteered from Europe and from or if the United States will have the idea themselves of trying to take direct action against The, the United States.
I think that's much more of a threat and it is a very serious threat.
No question about it.
And I think the the point that has to be made very strongly here is that that the US intervention in In in Iraq and Syria will increase clearly the likelihood that that's that's going to be happening, that that is what will be in the minds of many of the Islamic volunteers from Europe and the United States.
Yeah.
Well, that's the thing of it is we can't count on the federal or the national police agencies or intelligence agencies to keep these guys out.
And of course, the threat of them coming over here somehow becomes the excuse to intervene over there rather than the number one reason not to at this point.
In fact, you know, let me ask you this because this sure seems to me and of course, I'm for abolishing the US government and its entire military and every last employee.
So I'm not, you know, obviously I have my biases and I'm not budging on them.
However, I also think I'm right that the best way to defeat ISIS right now really from a utilitarian point of view only is for the US to stay the hell as far away from it as possible because they're surrounded by enemies, including the Sunnis that they've conquered and are attempting to voice their totalitarian rule on and that actually there are only, you know, maybe a couple of tens of thousands of fighters at the most.
And that the Bata Brigade, the Peshmerga, the PKK commies, Assad, they can take them if Obama will just stop financing the rebels in Syria and, you know, that by that route and just let things be that these guys will burn themselves out and be done and gone in in much less time and without turning them against the American people.
What do you think about that?
I think you're probably right, Scott.
I don't know the answer, but certainly what we do know is that that US military force is not going to work.
That much is clear.
It's this is the perfect example of if there is ever going to be one of precisely that point that that the use of military force by the United States is not only bound to be a failure, but will be counterproductive.
You know, I don't need to point out to your listeners the abundant evidence from the past decades of how US military force has been such a disaster for this country.
And so, I mean, you know, I think the question is, you know, we just we don't know how long it's going to take.
I mean, this this state will eventually burn itself out, will disappear.
Of that, I have no doubt.
And it's going to have to happen because of a long process that takes place within those countries, not because an outside power comes in and destroys the Islamic State.
And as somebody pointed out, it was Andrew Bacevich actually, even if we could succeed in absolutely destroying ISIS or ISIL by military force, it wouldn't make much difference because something else would quickly arise to replace it in the present circumstances.
And that, I think, is a point that simply underlines the reality that the US does not have the answer, cannot provide the wherewithal to destroy this entity.
It has to happen within those countries and it's going to take time.
There is no easy way to accomplish this.
And I think that I think we should acknowledge that explicitly.
And I think that should be part of the position of those who are posed strongly to this war.
That, you know, the answer is not how we can and should defeat ISIL.
The answer is that, you know, it's not going to happen in the short run.
It's going to take time and we don't have the answer.
Yep.
Sounds right.
All right.
Well, with that, we're over time and I'll let you go about your day.
But I sure appreciate your time on the show as always, Gareth.
Thanks as always, Scott.
Good to be on.
All right, y'all.
That's the great Gareth Porter, Interpress Service, IPSnews.net, Truthout.org.
And the book is Manufactured Crisis, debunking every last shred of BS about Iran's nuclear program.
That's not the actual subtitle, but pretty close.
Hey, all.
Scott Horton here.
It's always safe to say that one should keep at least some of your savings in precious metals as a hedge against inflation.
And if this economy ever does heat back up and the banks start expanding credit, rising prices could make metals a very profitable bet.
Since 1977, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. has been helping people buy and sell gold, silver, platinum, and palladium.
And they do it well.
They're fast, reliable, and trusted for more than 35 years.
And they take Bitcoin.
Call Roberts and Roberts at 1-800-874-9760 or stop by rrbi.co.
Man, you need some new stickers for the back of your truck.
Scott Horton here for LibertyStickers.com.
Aren't you sick and tired of everyone else being wrong about everything all the time?
Well, now you can tell them all what's right with some stickers from LibertyStickers.com.
At LibertyStickers.com, they're against everything, so you know they're good on your issue, too.
Whether it's the wars, police, state, gun laws, the left and right of the president, LibertyStickers.com has hundreds of choices so you can find just the right words to express your opposition and contempt for those who would violate your rights.
That's LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here for the Future of Freedom, the monthly journal of the Future of Freedom Foundation at fff.org.
Since 1989, FFF has been pushing an uncompromising moral and economic case for peace, individual liberty, and free markets.
Sign up now for the Future of Freedom, featuring founder and president Jacob Horenberger, as well as Sheldon Richmond, James Bovard, Anthony Gregory, Wendy McElroy, and many more.
It's just $25 a year for the print edition, $15 per year to read it online.
That's fff.org slash subscribe.
And tell them Scott sent you.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
First, I want to take a second to thank all the show's listeners, sponsors, and supporters for helping make this show what it is.
I literally couldn't do it without you.
And now I want to tell you about the newest way to help support this show.
Whenever you shop at Amazon.com, stop by ScottHorton.org first.
And just click the Amazon logo on the right side of the page.
That way, the show will get a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
It won't cost you an extra cent.
And it's not just books.
Amazon.com sells just about everything in the world except cars, I think.
So whatever you need, they've got it.
Just click the Amazon logo on the right side of the page at ScottHorton.org or go to ScottHorton.org slash Amazon.