Recent Tweets @rumagin
Posts tagged "militarism"


“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion ..  but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”  .. (Samuel P. Huntington)

What cultural logics connect recent confrontations in Ferguson, Gaza, and east Port of Spain? The short answer is militarism, poverty and racism.

Peter Kraska, a professor of justice studies, describes police militarisation as “the process whereby civilian police increasingly draw from, and pattern themselves around, the tenets of militarism and the military model.”

Watching events in Ferguson and elsewhere in the USA it is clear the sale and transfer of billions in weapons and military equipment to police forces around the US has created a militarised police force unable to fathom the concept of community policing.

In Gaza, the Israeli state’s embrace of an ideology of militarism has produced a dire public health crisis. The connection there is not just one of ideology but of training and equipment too. The same gun, projectile, and shell casings, manufactured by the same US companies like Combined Tactical Systems, litter the streets of Ferguson and the rubble of Gaza. While Israeli security forces also trained two law-enforcement agencies in Ferguson.

In east Port of Spain, the state, under the leadership of Captain Griffith is also involved in turning residential areas into militarised zones. The Captain’s answer to those speaking out at the inherent dangers of police and soldiers treating citizens and residents as wartime enemies is east Port of Spain is the safest it has been in years. And women and children can walk securely again.

Conveniently, Griffith leaves out the part about residents jumping from one dire situation to another or how making neighbourhoods into state enforced military zones, and making people live under conditions that feel like occupation, helps in the long term?

The second link between Ferguson, Gaza and east Port of Spain, is a history of poverty. To fail to see the inhabitants of all three as victims of economic injustice, and blame individuals for troublemaking, is to be blind to the context, provocation, and reasons people behave as they do. Crime is often a product of social conditions, and no policing including militarised policing can totally eliminate it.

Poverty for all three areas is structural. This means poverty is a historical legacy, reinforced rather than solved by the state. Whether it’s the 7-year blockade of Gaza, or the underdevelopment of Ferguson and east Port of Spain, the outcomes of intergenerational poverty produce populations and persons in need of support, development and uplifted social conditions. Not more state violence, destruction, and further retreat from social norms

The final link between the three is racism. This is the link that makes sense of why persons in power accept militarisation and poverty in areas they are not from. Racism is easy to see in Gaza and Ferguson. How could events be described otherwise? The Israeli state is founded on racism, while US police statistics illustrate being black there is a different and more dangerous experience than being white.

In T&T we might pause and say the issues found in east Port of Spain are less to do with race and more to do with class. After all the hotspot areas are low income and we have no white majority. Yet that would be an error. Yes these situations are about economic realities but they are patterned by the racist ideologies of their colonial origins.

The sadness about acknowledging connections between confrontations in Ferguson, Gaza and east Port of Spain is no leadership anywhere is willing to recognise that when militarisation, poverty and racism blend we’ve returned to the colonial logic of racist imperialism and white supremacy.

One form of racist supremacy in this new imperialism is the false pride with which leaders look at their supposed interventions. Whether its Netanyahu, Thomas Jackson (the Ferguson police chief), or our own Captain Griffith, the problem to them is always the people in those under siege communities.

That is why the powerful and their military agents dehumanise and mistreat them. Yet these fair-skinned male leaders, and it is always men, are so enamoured of their actions they fail to see the context or consequences of their ideas.

It isn’t the people who are the problem. Lawlessness is a symptom, not the cause. Whether its crime, or looting or riots, these are some ways the powerless take back power. Many might not like such social rebellion but it’s symptomatic of a wider problem sewn into the fabric of modern society.

That problem is the cultural logic of colonialism. Its armed forces, economic looting and white supremacy never completed went away; they just continued along submerged and are back in the open for all to see.

The scourge of gun violence is a disease that now affects every aspect of American life. Each day on average, 35 people in this country are murdered with guns, another 50 kill themselves with guns and 200 more are shot but survive.

That’s 100,000 people a year hit by gunfire in America. Now I assume that after 70 people were shot in a movie theatre and then just a few months later, 20 first graders were murdered with an assault rifle in an elementary school , the absurd gun laws in this country would change but nothing has happened.

The gun lobby in America - led by the NRA - has bullied this nation’s politicians into cowardly supine silence. Even when 20 young children are blown away in their classrooms.

This is a shameful situation that has frankly made me very angry. So angry in fact that some people have criticised me for being too loud, opinionated and even rude when debating the issue of guns but I make no apology for that.

As Sir Winston Churchill said: ‘If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time – a tremendous whack.’

My point is simple: more guns doesn’t mean less crime as the NRA repeatedly says. It means more gun violence, death and profits for the gun manufacturers. And to those who claim my gun control campaigning has been “anti-American”, the reverse is true. I am so pro-American that I want more of you to stay alive.

But I’ve made my point. I’ve given it a tremendous whack. Now it’s down to you. It’s your country; these are your gun laws. And the senseless slaughter will only end when enough Americans stand together and cry: Enough!

I look forward to that day.

Piers Morgan (not generally a fan but i agree with these words.)
Journalists should ask a specific question: since these programs began operation shortly after September 11th, how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicion less surveillance that could not be gained via any other source? Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to achieve that, and ask yourself if it was worth it. Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we’ve been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.
Edward Snowden

The recent revelations in the Washington Post and UK Guardian concerning the US Government’s ‘Prism’ program raise the question, when is a conspiracy theory not a conspiracy theory?

For a long time some persons around the world claimed the US government was monitoring all our electronic communications in a Big Brother quest for world domination. Without evidence this belief was labelled a conspiracy theory, those with such beliefs disparaged as cuckoo.

Now there is evidence the US government is involved with monitoring (or at least recording for future analysis) much of the electronic information each of us produces. Does this new evidence dissolve the conspiracy theory? 

First some facts. What is a conspiracy theory? Conspiracy theories correlate to times of social anxiety. They give meaning to dramatic and vague occurrences. Providing narrative to the relations between events, individuals, and larger social institutions.

Conspiracy theories fall under the study of myths and rely on a cultural logic that says the absence of evidence is evidence. From an anthropological perspective conspiracy theories – or narratives concerning plots, hatched by a real or imaginary power and groups – are universal. Found in all cultures and stages of human history.

The cargo cults of Melanesia and the millennialist movements of colonial societies such as the Ghost Dance of Native Americans and the Xhosa cattle-killing of South Africa, are good examples to look up.

Now before anyone thinks it is only crazies or the exotic who believe in conspiracy theories it’s worth recognising that the “War on Terror” itself is a conspiracy theory produced and embraced by the US political class.

Any discussion of the long history of US atrocities, policies, and the destabilisation of elected foreign Governments during the 20th century was and is ignored. Instead Bush and his cronies fed the world a story about a singular demonised enemy – Al Qaida – out to attack American exceptionalism. First led by Saddam, and then Osama. 

Under Prism the enemy could now be any of us. Even people who believe they have nothing to hide. By recording our electronic communications the US Government can now take that information, search through everything we’ve ever done, and paint any of us as villains.

Who’s crazy now? The US Government is itself lost in a conspiracy theory about the rest of the world, all potentially out to get them. That isn’t necessarily a surprise. Academics have been writing about a “paranoid style of American politics” since the 1960s.

The thing about conspiracy theories then is that they leave us with an explanation of events that is more often than not rooted in paranoia rather than hard evidence. As such, a useful way to understand conspiracy theories is as fissures to identify power struggles in society over meaning and morality.

So rather than Obama as Dr Evil, or the complete innocence of the US Government, conspiracy theories suggest we should be looking somewhere in between for truth(s).

For example, which is more likely, that the US Government believes they act in their country’s interests, or that a group of people – including everyone in the NSA, FBI, CIA etc. – is engaged in a vast conspiracy for their own benefit (or Dr Evil’s), with no one on the inside ever exposing it? Not even Edward Snowden.

The problem the US Government has and in particular its various wings like the NSA, is they cannot be the judges of their own actions. Their oversight must be transparent. Yet due to the secret nature of its business supposedly no one else can monitor them.

So the NSA grew its power, always believing, as it was the good guy, anyone seeking to restrict it needed to be opposed. All in the public interest of course. In other words the NSA drank their own Kool Aid and became both architect and purveyor of conspiracy theories.

This brings us back to the question, “when is a conspiracy theory not a conspiracy theory?” A conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy theory when it is the cultural logic directing realpolitik.

Once paranoid myth making becomes the engine of political action Governments no longer make decisions based on evidence, instead they run on evidence of things unseen, using fear and moral panic to maintain power.

Philosophically, it raises a similar analogy to that scientific story about turtles and “infinite regress”. But instead of the complexity of the cosmos resting on “turtles all the way down”; we see the complexity of the endless War on Terror rests on conspiracy theories all the way down.

Dr Dylan Kerrigan is an anthropologist at UWI, St Augustine


Back in November this column described and illustrated the creeping militarism of everyday life in the Caribbean. From computer games and fashion to the war on drugs and foreign military aid it showed how the Caribbean and in particular our own society is moving in one direction: increased militarisation with all the attendant dangers to our freedoms, safety, and everyday lives that this involves.

One concern about increased militarism in the Caribbean was what it meant for law enforcement in T&T and the blurring of the boundary between policing and military operations. Most specifically, when a State becomes more militarised so do those it deems criminals, not to mention the wider culture of the society itself.

There is no better example of this than the US where something academics call the “permanent war economy” seeps into everything, including the majority of public- and privately-funded scientific research, technological advancement, entertainment and policing. Furthermore, lobbyists connected with the arms industry and its limitless subsidiaries now drive much political decision-making.

Nowhere is this better documented than in Andrew Feinstein’s formidable book, The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade. For more than ten years now the US has been embroiled in the war on terror. President Obama’s military drones rain down missiles on suspected terrorists daily.

And so it has come to pass that similar drones to those used in the war on terror are being tested and proposed as tools for local policing at home. The Orwellian dystopia of the future is already knocking at the door. All this brings us to our own situation. Minister Jack Warner has a portfolio to attend to. Tackling our crime situation is obviously a difficult job and remedies are desperately needed.

However, the suggestions that the military should—outside of exceptional circumstances—be given the same arrest powers as the police smells of short-termism and a lack of concern for the long-term consequences to wider local culture and society. A military with police powers is not a long-term fix. The cynic might suggest it is a short-term push to lower crime figures in a quest for re-election.

Here is a simple list of some objections to the minister’s proposal.
1) The military is trained in the use of deadly force, and to respond to natural disasters; they are not trained in dealing with everyday, normal situations, the law, or criminal evidence.
2) It creates opportunities for those in political power to use the military against their opponents.
3) It undermines any confidence the public has in the police force and could produce discontent between the police and the army.
4) There is no body or commission the public can turn to should military personnel abuse their new powers.
5) There are massive legal implications.

Another issue the minister’s proposal obscures—yet again—are the high levels of corruption that plague our nation and which contribute greatly to general lawlessness. If those with the money, connections, and political sway get away with breaking the law, it is no surprise that those with little money, connections, and political sway see law-breaking as a successful strategy for getting what they might deem is theirs. Gangsterism, after all, knows no class boundaries.

Will the minister’s army of 1,000 also be going after those higher-class members of society who break the law or is the proposed offensive only aimed at low income members of our society who in many situations could point to historical and cumulative disadvantages against certain areas and social groups?

Neo-colonialism isn’t some fancy academic term; it is the reality of our modern nation. It is the legacy bequeathed to us from our colonial past, and the structural reality of racism, classism, corruption and nepotism that abounds.

Our economy, social structure, and political set-up are all remnants of the system set up and left by others. It has always been up to us to remake that but the Caribbean countries were sadly left divided by race, class and ethnicity, and tied to the inevitable consequences of that.

To disconnect our crime problem from the larger historical process and claim we can fix the problem by putting the military permanently on the streets will not make our society better or even safer in the long term. Rather, it will stretch the already existing divisions between rich and poor, making our society more dangerous, and undermine our democracy itself.

Whether we are talking the invasion of Grenada in 1983, our war-torn colonial history, various armies on the ground in Haiti, or US military bases like Guantanamo, the Caribbean’s story is marked by a history of militarism.

In her book Bases of Empire, anthropologist Catherine Lutz notes that as of 2007, there were 77 US military bases of varying sizes, from massive to small, found across the Caribbean.

Today, the war on drugs is an example of regional militarisation, with Britain and the US conducting operations all over the Caribbean using high-tech military equipment in operations with catchy names like Operation Weed Eater.

This war is not only about eradicating drugs but it is also about something anthropologists call the “permanent war economy.” This economy is wide and has many facets. One in particular that affects small island nations is the economic aid that accompanies continued acceptance and participation in the war.

This aid comes in the form of military equipment, intelligence expansion, new surveillance and security technologies, and propaganda systems. It also provides a constant drive for some of the richer countries like T&T to purchase more and more military hardware, connecting their oil and gas capital straight to the war economy.

It is quite normal for our Minister of National Security to speak—without anyone questioning his logic—that it’s sensible to embrace the US-led war on drugs and purchase six naval vessels from the Colombian Government. Just like the previous Government was happy to spend billions on OPVs. Someone might want to take note that the largest consumer market for these drugs is the US and perhaps joining a war driven by the lifestyle of another nation is silly in the first place.

The sadness is that it’s as if the western world is only moving in one direction: increased militarisation. Hopes of a move toward demilitarisation as Seymour Melman—the US economist who wrote about the damaging social costs of military spending—once discussed, seem less and less likely.

In cultural terms, this overt military footing seeps into everyday life. It becomes embedded in everyday language and symbols. We describe gangs as militarist organisations. Young people demand to play the latest computer war games from Black Ops to Medal of Honour. Media—TV, film, music, sport and all the rest—are saturated with military themes. And insecurity becomes something only to be tackled through increases in military personnel and equipment.

Think about law enforcement in T&T. During the SoE it was the army conducting a lot of police operations. And recently the Minister of National Security asked citizens to apply to the Defence Force in order to protect national security. There’s also the Multi Agency Maritime Task Force, comprising coast guard, police, army, and customs officers, again blurring the boundaries between policing and military operations.

By the end of the next year we are promised the entire country will be under CCTV surveillance, as if that’s indisputably a good thing.

Yet, as the State becomes more militarised, so too does the whole of society, including those the State deems criminals. That AK-47s are a more regular weapon in our poorest areas is an example of a militarised drug industry. That our private security industries also take on the semblance of military organisations with CCTV systems, guard dogs, high-tech security systems and military-style outfits is another example of militarism.

In a presentation a few years ago, Prof Rhoda Reddock pointed out this new culture of insecurity leads to armies being seen as saviours and opens the risk for a reduction in our human rights. Normal, peaceful communities become bloodthirsty, seeking revenge and punishment. Meanwhile, the demands for security extend distance between the rich and poor, as only some can afford to protect themselves through private security firms.

Where does this militarised society lead? On the one hand it’s clear some sort of army for defence is legitimate and can be useful in economic terms. Yet on the other side, what is too much? Have we not passed that mark? Can we go back? Are there really no other ways to organise our society than to curtail freedoms and become more militarised? And what sort of future is that?

• Dylan Kerrigan is an anthropologist at UWI, St Augustine

Sending social scientists to study local populations in the company of armed troops amid active hostilities will not produce scientifically reliable information. Just as important are the long-term consequences of this approach. Embedding anthropologists with combat brigades undermines their independence and duty not to harm populations — requirements that are the linchpins of anthropological ethics. Calling embedded anthropologists “social scientists” does not solve the problem…The association’s Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with the U.S. Security and Intelligence Communities concluded unanimously that “when ethnographic investigation is determined by military missions, not subject to external review, where data collection occurs in the context of war, integrated into the goals of counterinsurgency, and in a potentially coercive environment — all characteristic factors of the HTS concept and its application — it can no longer be considered a legitimate professional exercise of anthropology.”


War on Iran.

Moi: If anyone in Washington has an ounce of sense, we will avoid this sure-fire disaster.

I hope they avoid it too but the posturing gives me the impression the US government will got to war with Iran in 2012 - probably with support from Europe. The current movement of troops and equipment to Israel may also be considered a warning sign. Let’s not forget 2012 is going to be economic disaster for most nations so Disaster/Military capitalism will be rolled out to distract and accumulate. 

(via amodernmanifesto)

Obama on Manning: “He Broke the Law.” So Much for that Trial?

President Barack Obama made stunning accusations about accused Wikileaks whistleblower PFC Bradley Manning, directly asserting that Manning “broke the law.” Apparently the President of the United States of America and a self-described Constitutional scholar does not care that Manning has yet to be tried or convicted for any crime.

In a discussion yesterday with Logan Price, a Bradley Manning supporter who was part of a group of activists who sang a song during the President’s San Francisco fundraiser, President Obama flatly stated that Bradley Manning “dumped” documents and that “he broke the law.” A rough transcript follows, provided by UK Friends of Bradley Manning:

OBAMA: So people can have philosophical views [about Bradley Manning] but I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source [basis]… That’s not how the world works.

And if you’re in the military… And I have to abide by certain rules of classified information. If I were to release material I weren’t allowed to, I’d be breaking the law.

We’re a nation of laws! We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law.

[Q: Didn’t he release evidence of war crimes?]

OBAMA: What he did was he dumped

[Q: Isn’t that just the same thing as what Daniel Ellsberg did?]

OBAMA: No it wasn’t the same thing. Ellsberg’s material wasn’t classified in the same way.

This is the President of the United States speaking about a US military soldier detained for almost a year on charges of leaking classified (but not top secret, the level of files released by Ellsberg) documents. Manning’s lawyer is considering considered (corrected: his transfer made the writ moot) filing a writ of habeus corpus for the length of time and totality of abuse suffered by Manning while in military custody.

President Obama has already made up his mind. He thinks Manning “broke the law.” It’s no wonder he considered Manning’s abuse to “meet our basic standards” when he thinks Manning is already guilty.

This is vile.

As a reminder: the Pentagon plans to hold Manning indefinitely. Might as well, since they think he’s guilty already.




A soldier remembers the world less dumber….

 I will reblog this whenever I see it.


It’s kind of funny that the existence of the war and the new TSA regulations are a reaction to an overblown fear.  Actually, I should retract part of that statement.  It’s not funny at all.