Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Who Benefits From American Declarations?

by BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

Over two thousand years ago the Roman judge Lucius Cassius coined the phrase ‘cui bono?’, meaning loosely ‘who benefits?’, and was quoted approvingly by Cicero because the thrust of the question was intended to improve justice.  As a principled man of law (then, as now, a regrettably unusual species), Lucius Cassius wished to determine who would benefit, directly or – sometimes more importantly– indirectly, from an occurrence.

Which brings us to modern-day so-called ‘statesmen’.  When they make pronouncements they consider to be important – who benefits?

So far as prominent international figures are concerned, one is naturally drawn to the conclusion that the beneficiary of their declarations should be their own country.   But if the speaker has lost touch with reality, then there might not be national benefit :  when they make extreme statements there can be profit for others,  even if only in terms of amusement. And there might be major and totally unintended gains by some very peculiar people.

Take the case of Admiral Mike Mullen, the US Chairman of the joint Chiefs of Staff, a man who now sheds his uniform with the dubious distinction that he has done more than any other person to establish the United States of America as an enemy of Pakistan.

That’s quite an achievement.  It is a truly catastrophic accomplishment.  But one wonders who actually benefitted from his declaration that:

“In choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy the government of Pakistan, and most especially the Pakistani Army and ISI, jeopardizes not only the prospect of our strategic partnership, but Pakistan’s opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate, regional influence.”

Mullen declared that the government of Pakistan planned and engineered attacks that killed Americans.  He says he has “credible intelligence” that this is so.  Now :  while the exact circumstances may be unlike  those involving the murder of citizens of Pakistan committed by the CIA operative Raymond Davis, who indubitably killed two people and was then allowed to leave the country because the President of the US ordered he go free (to be arrested on charges of thuggery in Nevada a few days ago, we now hear), there is a curious comparability.  President Obama again interfered;  this time declaring, in reference to Mullen’s affirmation about the alleged relationship between the so-called Haqqani Network and the elected government of Pakistan, that  “The intelligence is not as clear as we might like in terms of what exactly that relationship is.”  In other words :  Mullen was talking garbage.

In spite of what has been said by Obama and his secretary of state and the usual US “intelligence sources” to try to repair the immense damage done by Mullen’s jabbering, there remains the question of :  who benefits?  Obviously it wasn’t America or Pakistan ; so who could it have been?  Sure, India smacked its collective lips and wallowed in self-righteous indignation – which was understandable – but there was no actual advantage to India as a nation.  The anti-Pakistan lobby in the US Congress enjoyed a hand-on-heart-style session of sanctimony, but didn’t gain anything tangible from the debacle.

So:  cui bono?

As usual, it was the enemies of the US and Pakistan who reaped the harvest sown by off-the-wall pronouncements.  The Taliban and all the other loonies were awarded a propaganda victory they couldn’t possibly have contrived themselves.  It fell in their lap, courtesy of a man who has a common-sense quotient of a standard-size rabbit.

Then there is US ambassador Ryan Crocker in Kabul, who doesn’t mind his embassy being attacked by fanatical barbarians.  This sounds ridiculous, but it isn’t, because Mr Crocker described the assault as being  “not a very big deal,”  although it was “a hard day for the embassy and my staff.”   Mr Crocker considered the attack to be merely “harassment.”  Did he know that eleven Afghan civilians and five Afghan policemen were killed in the attack?

Perhaps he was indeed aware that so many Afghans had been killed, and chose to regard their deaths as being “no big deal.”  In fact, one is drawn to the conclusion that it wasn’t a big deal in the eyes of any foreigners in Afghanistan, because no foreigners were killed.  If there had been five American soldiers killed, instead of five Afghan policemen,  would Mr Crocker have considered the attack “No Big Deal”?   If eleven US civilians had been killed, instead of eleven Afghans, would the attack have been “No Big Deal”?

So who could possibly have benefited from his absurd statement?  Not his own country, to be sure – and certainly not Afghanistan.

And who would gain from the equally preposterous pronouncement by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the Kabul attack was “cowardly”?

The militants’ strike on the US compound in Kabul was barbaric, lunatic and ferocious.  But when six fanatics mount an attack knowing they are not going to survive it – and manage to fight off several hundred defenders and their helicopter gunships for a day and a half before being killed – they are certainly not cowards.  The description may have pleased some of the US media and the dwindling number of foreign supporters of the war in Afghanistan, but there is never any gain to be made by using the word ‘coward’, because it is a basic principle of propaganda that insults never work.  So who benefited?

The only beneficiaries from the “not a very big deal” by “cowardly” assailants were the insurrectionists in Afghanistan, whose savagery in that essentially savage country is considered no worse than that wreaked by foreign soldiers.

Congratulations, Mullen, Crocker and Clinton.  You’ve done an immense amount to set back your country’s cause in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the evil loony beards are laughing at you and gathering recruits like there’s no tomorrow.  So before you open your mouths next time, you might want to consider asking yourselves:  “cui bono?”

Brian Cloughley’s website is www.beecluff.com

Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay sur Cure, France.

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

Weekend Edition
September 30, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Henry Giroux
Thinking Dangerously in the Age of Normalized Ignorance
Stanley L. Cohen
Israel and Academic Freedom: a Closed Book
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Can Russia Learn From Brazil’s Fate? 
Andrew Levine
A Putrid Election: the Horserace as Farce
Mike Whitney
The Biggest Heist in Human History
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Sick Blue Line
Rob Urie
The Twilight of the Leisure Class
Vijay Prashad
In a Hall of Mirrors: Fear and Dislike at the Polls
Alexander Cockburn
The Man Who Built Clinton World
John Wight
Who Will Save Us From America?
Pepe Escobar
Afghanistan; It’s the Heroin, Stupid
W. T. Whitney
When Women’s Lives Don’t Matter
Howard Lisnoff
What was Missing From The Nation’s Interview with Bernie Sanders
Julian Vigo
“Ooops, I Did It Again”: How the BBC Funnels Stories for Financial Gain
Jeremy Brecher
Dakota Access Pipeline and the Future of American Labor
Binoy Kampmark
Pictures Left Incomplete: MH17 and the Joint Investigation Team
Andrew Kahn
Nader Gave Us Bush? Hillary Could Give Us Trump
Steve Horn
Obama Weakens Endangered Species Act
Dave Lindorff
US Propaganda Campaign to Demonize Russia in Full Gear over One-Sided Dutch/Aussie Report on Flight 17 Downing
John W. Whitehead
Uncomfortable Truths You Won’t Hear From the Presidential Candidates
Ramzy Baroud
Shimon Peres: Israel’s Nuclear Man
Brandon Jordan
The Battle for Mercosur
Murray Dobbin
A Globalization Wake-Up Call
Jesse Ventura
Corrupted Science: the DEA and Marijuana
Richard W. Behan
Installing a President by Force: Hillary Clinton and Our Moribund Democracy
Andrew Stewart
The Democratic Plot to Privatize Social Security
Daniel Borgstrom
On the Streets of Oakland, Expressing Solidarity with Charlotte
Marjorie Cohn
President Obama: ‘Patron’ of the Israeli Occupation
Norman Pollack
The “Self-Hating” Jew: A Critique
David Rosen
The Living Body & the Ecological Crisis
Joseph Natoli
Thoughtcrimes and Stupidspeak: Our Assault Against Words
Ron Jacobs
A Cycle of Death Underscored by Greed and a Lust for Power
Uri Avnery
Abu Mazen’s Balance Sheet
Kim Nicolini
Long Drive Home
Louisa Willcox
Tribes Make History with Signing of Grizzly Bear Treaty
Art Martin
The Matrix Around the Next Bend: Facebook, Augmented Reality and the Podification of the Populace
Andre Vltchek
Failures of the Western Left
Ishmael Reed
Millennialism or Extinctionism?
Frances Madeson
Why It’s Time to Create a Cabinet-Level Dept. of Native Affairs
Laura Finley
Presidential Debate Recommendations
José Negroni
Mass Firings on Broadway Lead Singers to Push Back
Leticia Cortez
Entering the Historical Dissonance Surrounding Desafinados
Robert J. Burrowes
Gandhi: ‘My Life is My Message’
Charles R. Larson
Queen Lear? Deborah Levy’s “Hot Milk”
David Yearsley
Bring on the Nibelungen: If Wagner Scored the Debates
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]