Posted under Interventionism
The latest example of how the all-purpose condemnation of “racism” can be applied to any act or policy the speaker dislikes is a real doozy. Afghanistan’s ambassador doesn’t like what he sees in his backyard, as resistance to the US-led invasion stiffens and NATO resolve withers. Poor fellow could end up picking poppies (or worse!) if the NATO-installed puppet government he works for can’t hold on to power. And without popular support, the Afghan puppet government can’t stand on its own, so it must have more NATO troops to prop it up. To spur NATO forces to action, the Afghan ambassador accuses them of the most unforgivable shortcoming of New-Age Western man:
Afghanistan’s ambassador to the United States attacked Western governments fighting in and providing billions in aid to his country, saying that those who claim the international community is not winning the war against extremists there “should know that they never fully tried.”
“We never asked to be the 51st state,” Ambassador Said T. Jawad said, a reference to a suggestion last month by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) that the United States should concentrate on “realistic goals” and its “original mission” of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.
“To suggest that Afghans do not deserve peace, pluralism and human rights is wrong and racist,” Jawad said.
The notion that opposing a US-led invasion is “racist” is nothing new. Condi Rice once judged critics of the Neocon fantasy of reconstructing Iraq into a Jeffersonian republic as “racist.” But now that idea is being used to control us.
DC projects a self-image to the rest of the world as the purest, most secularly sacred force for doing good on the planet. So any criticism of its actions, or any limitation on its power, is wrong-headed, retrograde, or just plain evil. It’s a reputation than can intimidate critics both domestic and foreign. But that reputation can be turned on its owner to manipulate him, too, as the esteemed and increasingly nervous Afghan ambassador illustrates.