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:
June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
Steve Horn
Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits
Rob Hager
Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States
Norman Pollack
Economic Nationalism vs. Globalization: Janus-Faced Monopoly Capital
Binoy Kampmark
Railroaded by the Supreme Court: the US Problem with Immigration
Howard Lisnoff
Of Kiddie Crusades and Disregarding the First Amendment in a Public Space
Vijay Prashad
Economic Liberalization Ignores India’s Rural Misery
Caroline Hurley
We Are All Syrians
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and a Confederacy of Lampreys: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail