Secret Wars Episode I
In those unfortunate localities, the obviousness of the conflict is probably all too evident. But the real sense in which modern wars are "secret" lies in whether anyone is willing to make a political issue out of them. The real test of secrecy is "has the man on the street in London heard of it?" David Hicks, a terrorist suspect who just pleaded guilty in Guantanamo Bay, will get play because he is Australian. The two dead men in the Chechnyan river "finished off" with a bullet in the head will probably be forever nameless. Known but to God. Or Vladimir Putin. They have not questioned why Mr Clinton refused to arrest Osama bin Laden when he was still in [...] Mr Kerry has not said anything about In short, he has no single plan for the African continent. Your humbled servant did write to the web site of Kerry to ask if they had any plan for 
Shh! There's a war going on, and nobody's to know.
This is the first part of a multi-post series.
wretchard recently mused about "secret wars" that are currently evolving in the international system of states - conflicts which when more closely scrutinised may rival or even exceed the magnitude of severity and cut a greater swathe of destruction of lives and property than relatively more publicised ones:I have often wondered how it was possible to fight a "secret war". Wasn't that a contradiction in terms? Maybe that's just a synonym for wars to which the press don't devote many column inches to. There are a number of "secret wars" raging in the world today. The Congo, Darfur, Waziristan, the Horn of Africa, to name a few.
What of Chechnya, Darfur, Somalia and Waziristan - when the international spotlight has reverted its fickle gaze back to seemingly more pressing predicaments in the Middle East and the Korean peninsula, what actually happens to the nature of the conflict there? If counter-measures are substantially sustainable despite the void in international concern, does that tell us anything about the commitment level of the participants there? Why do transnational progressivists choose crises to publicise and avoid talking about others? Is there an agenda hidden within?
In this burgeoning age of technological advancements in collecting information and disseminating intel, the term "publicised" no longer belongs solely to the domain of huge press corporations or the mainstream media. Embedded reporters do not necessarily need to work for Fox, CNN - in fact, brave souls like Bill Roggio, Bill Ardolino, Michael Yon and Michael Totten have provided us with honest, precise commentary replete with anecdotes of accompanying Iraqi battalions and police forces in their daily security operations. Individual bloggers like them have created a steady following of readers who increasingly rely more on alternative sources of media like blogs instead of traditional MSM for information.
The MSM - typical of capitalist, profit-seeking corporations - obviously has economic interests as one of its top priorities, and sensationalism is a tried and tested trick in the book that is guaranteed to draw in consumers with the same recycled, exaggerated hyperbolic white-washing of the situation replete with sweeping statements and possibly distorted reportage - as witnessed by the Jamil Hussein saga. That is why these embedded civilians such as Roggio and Totten have taken the task upon themselves to delve into these areas of interest - precisely because they capture the riveted attention of the public and are most prone to exploitation and manipulation - and provide alternative - not simply "balanced", mind you: that is progressivist, Fairness-Doctrine talk - perspectives. Michael Yon, for one, reports progress when he sees it, and never hesitates to criticise whenever decline and incompetence is presented in front of his critical eye.
It is still too early to ascertain whether such countervailing forces of alternative media would galvanise and coalesce as effectively as the current configuration in Iraq if the theatre of war were to expand or erupt in other locales - drawing parallels with the rehabilitation of Iraq post-Saddam, establishing local connections and learning the lay of the land in terms of culture and tribal sensitivities is absolutely key to winning the hearts and minds of locals - it is not mere coincidence that locals are key to accurate and reliable information about disruptions in social stability. Forging a dependable presence in any war-ravaged region or locale will require patience and a huge deal of risk, but it is the only way to conduct effective counter-insurgency and avoid a hostile or quiescent population sympathetic to insurgencies.
Which brings me to the logical conclusion: despite widespread displays of vehement international outrage over bloodbaths in the Congo and Darfur; despite the multitude of European nations applying pressure to the respective governments of nations, transnational progressivists have simply not engaged the MSM in these areas - leading to a rather poor understanding of the sensitivities of the conflict. Individuals with proper funding - or bloggers, for that matter - have not been particularly incentivised to attempt to embed themselves in these countries. Is it the absence of a concentrated media spotlight that negates the necessity for bloggers to fact-correct reports from that region? Perhaps it is unrealistic to place so heavy a burden on individuals - let us then consider the Left and its choice not to engage in humanitarian crises like Sudan.
Political expediency comes to mind, though it might seem too vague and reckless a reason to simply foist on and generalise about the left. As elie b. smith opines on AfricanPath:
Just like Iraq is a politically exploitative issue for Pelosi, Murtha and their Defeatocrat minions, Sudan is simply not that controversial for the left to risk engaging in for fear of being accused of failing to do anything substantially contributive in terms of remedying the crisis. Congress does have the powers necessary to introduce legislation to support economic sanctions against the Sudanese government, but why isn't the left doing so - preferring to instead waste funds away in earmarks and pork while depriving our troops of the necessary funding to keep them alive?
Of course, why would one expect the transnational progressivist movement to adopt such a stance when it is fiercely protective of so-called "women's rights" to genital mutilation and self-selective abortion - one of the regions being Africa? Drawing attention to the crisis in Darfur would only bring unwanted criticism of the progressivist defence for such issues. Better to keep everything under wraps and focus on issues that "matter" - in other words, those that buy or burn votes.
Labels:
Transnational Progressivism
3 spoke up:
I offer up the solutions to such things! Yes! I have had it with those who cry about Darfur and such places, and always, always, *always* want Government to do it for them. Why, the solution is time-honored, tested and even within the bounds of what can be understood by the rock-hardest skulled.
Extremely simple!
If the Government has limited funds, manpower, and such, plus it has Foreign Policy in place to decry such things but not the means to do one whit about it, what does the activist do? Take to the streets, mayhap, and wail onwards about how humanitarian causes are not being addressed by the fine Nation?
No.
Do It Yourself.
Perectly Constitutional as proven in the Spanish Civil War and by any number of Americans before and since going into far off places in the planet to put their lives on the line to fight to protect people they believed deserved liberty and freedom. I will throw some money into the kitty!
And provide a complete set of works of George Orwell... pay particular attention to one of them... it may teach you something. And if you die there, I shall duly morn your loss in the great fight for liberty and freedom, even if I think you were a damned fool to do so!
Get off the street.
Get off the cameras.
Get trained.
Fight the good fight.
Stop the yakking and start the doing.
That is if you *really* believe in human rights and freedom.
The Nation is currently busy helping 50 million people to get democracy started. Call again later when it isn't so busy.
The disconnect between walking the walk and talking the talk for transnational progressivists bewailing the "heartless indifference" of the government is startling, though not necessarily unexpected.
One has to wonder when NGOs and lobby groups arrive in sheer force at summits - they are natural sources of personnel and resources to exploit and tap into for transnational progressivists in order to address the agenda in mind; yet they wrack their collective brainpower thinking how exactly to stir up even more vehement backlash against the government, blatantly stirring the pot so as to distract others from questioning the exact purpose of existence of these entities: to undermine the Nation-State and exact vengeance on it through burdening every fault of other actors on it.
Obviously, they have not deemed it as urgently pressing enough as the Iraq war to contemplate risking their lives for it, unlike Roggio, Totten, Ardolino and Yon, to name a few brave individuals who have taken it upon themselves to get the reportage done by themselves. But let us not demand that the ultimate sacrifice must be made in order to prove their commitment or intentions. Instead, let us see if in the future, transnational progressivism will progress (no pun intended) beyond simple blame-pushing, finger-pointing vitriolic spiels.
Or expose them for the shameless limelight-hoggers that they are.
It is being able to do that walking of the talk that actually makes me respect the old Communists that went to fight in Spain... and the various others who also did the right thing by their lights. Americans, interestingly enough, have been going overseas to help other Nations fight since the founding of the Nation. Again, Michael Oren's book gives mention of numerous individuals and recounts a number of interesting tales of those people from the US, both private Citizens and Citizens who had been soldiers, going over to fight in Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ottoman Empire, Egypt...
These Transnationalists are cut from very flimsy stuff to be unable to meet up to what their Communist forebearers bore in fighting overseas for their beliefs. They can't even be bothered to pool their money and hire mercenaries to fight *for them*! Also a respectable way to go, and would give good visibility and recognition to mercenary companies. But, no, even that is beyond the pale for them... rather exhaust Nation States in fruitless, feckless fights when those threatening to build Empire are being opposed.
I do start to wonder just how suicidal they are, in this. It is starting to become a death cult, wishing for the fall of Nations so that Empire may rise and kill off most of humanity before it.
Truly I respect the committed Communists for fighting for their beliefs as Citizens gone overseas. I disagree with their outlook, to this day, but I give them my resepect and admiration. Tranzis appear to be a weaker form of Jello compared to Congress.
Post a Comment