Mass Murder in the Covid Era: The Continuation of Imperialism in ‘The Middle of a Deadly Pandemic’

[Image from the Army recruitment office in Birmingham City Centre]

Introduction

Western governments have been obsessively pushing the narrative that Covid-19 is an extremely dangerous pathogen that is killing millions of people worldwide. People who do not agree with this official narrative have been demonised as murderers. However, Western governments’ policies of killing innocent people abroad have continued unabated despite the alleged ‘deadly pandemic’. Destruction of vital infrastructure such as hospitals and the creation of refugees could only inflame a real pandemic. This continuing imperialist murder in itself thus belies the entire Covid Narrative.

Afghanistan

There are multiple countries in which the US and their allies are continuing a murderous foreign policy. I will start, however, by addressing Afghanistan, as according to the official narrative, the US government ‘ended the war in Afghanistan’ by withdrawing and allowing the Taliban to take over from the US backed government in Kabul.

Even on the official narrative, however, this withdrawal did not take place until mid-2021. In other words, over a year into the alleged ‘deadliest pandemic in a century’. Even according to the official logic, killing people in Afghanistan was fine while people in the West were under lockdowns to ‘save lives’.

And yes, the US government was continuing to murder civilians. On August 29 the US government carried out a drone strike in which 10 civilians were killed. This included a 3-year-old girl.

Yemen

The mass murder of civilians in Yemen has been policy for several years. Saudi Arabia is waging war on the country, with assistance (such as selling weapons and being part of Saudi control centres) from the US and UK governments.

In fact, certain actions taken during the Yemen war have been designed to spread pathogens. According to a study published by the NIH:

The Yemen cholera outbreak has been driven by years of conflict and has now [December 2018] become the largest in epidemiologically recorded history with more than 1.2 million cases since the beginning of the outbreak in April, 2017. 

This hasn’t stopped the coalition bombing cholera treatment centres, however:

A military coalition formally led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and supported by the United States and Britain, bombed a newly constructed cholera treatment in Yemen on Monday, June 11.

The bombing of Yemen has continued throughout the Covid 19 ‘pandemic’. There are multiple examples of this continuing warfare.

This article from November 2021, for example:

This week, dozens of people were killed and injured near the Yemen-Saudi border when U.S.-made warplanes and French-made howitzer cannons fired unabated on many populated border areas in Sadaa and Hajjah — including the Monabeh, Sahar, alSafra, al-Dhaher and Sheda areas. Samer Manea Ali Hussein, a 15-year-old Yemeni boy, was killed along with others on Monday when a French-made howitzer cannon hit a village in the Monabeh region, one of Yemen’s border areas that are subjected to daily bombardment.

Whereas this article highlights the fact that the US is still supporting Saudi bombing campaigns in 2021:

“The United States continues to provide maintenance support to Saudi Arabia’s Air Force given the critical role it plays in Saudi air defense and our longstanding security partnership,” a Pentagon spokesperson told Vox over the weekend.

The maintenance is done through the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Sales program, which means Saudi Arabia pays the US to provide contractors that can maintain the warplanes.

Syria

Another conflict that is still ongoing is that in Syria. The US government has been trying for 10 years to remove Assad from power using proxy forces in Syria. These forces are Islamist extremists who want to impose a Islamist society on secular Syria.

The terrorist forces in Syria have inflicted terrible suffering on Syrian civilians, and Western governments have imposed sanctions which have inflicted further suffering. Many of these sanctions have affected the medical system and the health of the population:

Sanctions have, as I wrote last December, impacted Syria’s ability to import medicines or the raw materials needed to manufacture them, medical equipment, and machines and materials needed to manufacture prosthetic limbs, among other things.

Syria reports that the latest sanctions are already preventing civilians from acquiring “imported drugs, especially antibiotics, as some companies have withdrawn their licenses granted to drug factories,” due to the sanctions.

US troops have continued to maintain an illegal presence in Syria despite the clear opposition of the Assad government and Syrian people to this occupation.

In 2018, Whitney Webb wrote that:

Currently, the U.S. occupies nearly a third of Syrian territory — around 30 percent — including much of the area east of the Euphrates River, encompassing large swaths of the Deir Ezzor, Al-Hasakah and Raqqa regions.

According to this article at least 900 troops remain in Syria as of July 2021. According to the official narrative this is to support the Syrian Democratic Forces fighting ISIS. (In reality the SDF is simply another US proxy designed to weaken and Balkanise Syria). These troops have been accused of plundering resources by the Syrian government (as they happen to be conveniently occupying the areas of Syria that have the most oil).

Israel has also been repeatedly bombing Syria, for example this airstrike in Homs that killed 2 civilians and injured 6 members of the Syrian Arab Army. They are also continuing their presence in the Golan Heights which they have been illegally occupying since 1967.

Palestine

The criminal actions against the Palestinian people by the US backed Israeli government have been happening for decades and are continuing to happen during the alleged pandemic.

For example, in July 2021, the Israeli armed forces attacked Al-Aqsa mosque, an extremely significant site in Islam:

Heavily armed Israeli occupation police forces, making way for illegal settler extremists to storm the site, violently removed Palestinian worshippers from the al-Aqsa mosque compound. The Israeli forces shot tear gas and rubber bullets, as well as other munitions, at elderly worshippers during prayer and proceeded to violently assault unarmed women.

Israeli settler violence has continued, as well as the expansion of settlements.

So What Does This Mean for the Official Covid Narrative?

The continuation of mass murder abroad fatally undermines the Official Covid Narrative. The elite reasons for lockdown were allegedly to keep the population ‘safe from a deadly virus’. Now, the elites are clearly not very concerned about the deaths from a deadly virus among those in Yemen, Afghanistan, and other countries they have continued to bomb and sanction. The Western countries – despite claiming to be spending all their efforts and resources upon ‘fighting Covid-19’ – clearly still have a large amount of resources left over to bomb and kill people abroad.

It goes further than this, however. Their narrative that ‘no-one is safe until all of us are safe’ – referring to the necessity for the whole population of the world to be ‘vaccinated’ against Covid-19 – is in complete contradiction to their actions in places such as Yemen. Destruction of hospital infrastructure and sanctions make it much for difficult to carry out the (in the eyes of the establishment) necessary ‘vaccination’ programs to ensure that we are all ‘safe from the deadly pandemic’. And the fact that Yemen or Syria are far away countries isn’t relevant either – what with the racist fearmongering about ‘variants emerging in India/Africa where people aren’t vaccinated’. If ‘no one is safe until everyone is safe’ why is medical infrastructure in Yemen being destroyed?

The imperialist wars in the Middle East (as well as the previous destruction of Libya) also fuel migration crises. While the governments of the West were putting their populations under house arrest because going out ‘spreads the virus’ they were forcing people to flee their homes due to bombings, thus, on their own narrative, spreading the virus.

Conclusion

There have been no significant changes to the murderous imperialist foreign policy due to the Covid-19 ‘pandemic’. The Covid-19 narrative has been used as a shield to hide these foreign policy decisions by distracting the public. The continuing bombings and sanctions, however, are clear evidence that the elite does not care about the health of the population.

The Myth of Government Incompetence: Part 1 – Imperialism

Introduction

Many supporters of the current powers-that-be often talk about the idea of ‘government incompetence’ when it comes to certain policies. This first part of the article will discuss the idea of imperialist war as an incompetent mistake rather than a criminal act.

Imperialism as an Incompetent Mistake: The Case Of Vietnam

Whenever there is an imperialist conflict, such as in Vietnam or Iraq, liberal pundits write the government actions off as a ‘mistake’. This most often tends to happen after it has become obvious to the general public that the war effort was based on lies. The benevolence of the powers-that-be needs salvaging from the radical critique that their actions were based upon malice, and so the ‘incompetence’ narrative comes into play.

This article will focus on the Vietnam war as an example of this strategy. This war was waged in order to preferably keep the puppet state elites in power in South Vietnam so that the country could be exploited for natural resources, to destroy the capacity to build an independent, anti-colonial socialist government, and to deter other countries from taking an anti-imperialist path.

However, this conflict has been framed by many as a mistake, an unwinnable quagmire that the US leaders plunged into despite the fact that they knew they could not win. They were simply blinded by ideology or sunk cost fallacy.

One book that discusses government incompetence as a topic is The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman. The definition of ‘folly’ in the book is as follows:

The pursuit of policy contrary to the self-interest of the constituency of the state involved. Self interest is whatever conduces to the to the welfare or the advantage of the body being governed, folly is a policy that in these terms is counter-productive.

The March of Folly, p. 5

Furthermore, the book states that to be perceived as folly the policy must have been pointed out as bad for the state or constituency’s self interest at the time by actors that were there and not just viewed as bad in hindsight.

The book discusses four examples, but this article is only going to address the Vietnam war.

The book discusses the doubts behind the scenes that the Americans could ‘win’ in Vietnam due to the unviability of the South Vietnamese puppet state. Instead, the book argues, they wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives on trying to prop up this puppet state.

Tuchman states that the reasons that American policy makers continued to pursue this policy despite the costs are as follows:

American policy makers took it for granted that on a given aim , especially in Asia, American will could be made to prevail. […] Enemy motivation was a missing element in American calculations[.] […] [R]efusal to credit the evidence and, more fundamentally, refusal to grant stature and fixed purpose to a “fourth rate” Asiatic country were determining factors[.] […] Underestimation was matched by overestimation of South Vietnam, […] Western verbiage equated any non-Communist group with the “free” nations, fostering the delusion that its people were prepared to fight for their “freedom”…

The March of Folly pp. 375-6.

The Reality of Vietnam: Calculated Mass Destruction

We can now return to the question of how we are classifying ‘irrational’ behaviour. The truth is that whether behaviour is rational or irrational is defined by the goal of that behaviour. As outlined above, there were several goals of the Vietnam war. While the goal of propping up the South Vietnamese puppet state failed, the goal of the destruction of Vietnam to prevent the building of an alternative society clearly succeeded to a significant extent.

If we assume malice on the part of the government, the behaviour in Vietnam – of launching constant bombing campaigns, using chemical weapons, and assassination programs such as Phoenix make perfect sense as a measure to attempt to destroy a society.

A few examples.

The defoliation campaign was a devastating crusade against the Vietnamese people. This was achieved through the use of the chemical weapon Agent Orange.

According to Monthly Review:

During the ten years (1961-1971) of aerial chemical warfare in Vietnam, US warplanes sprayed more than 20 million gallons of herbicide defoliants in an operation code-named Ranch Hand.

This had a horrific effect on the environment in Vietnam and thus also upon the population of the country. It destroyed forests and farming land, and ensured the chemical got into the food chain, meaning mass exposure to the toxin. The chemical itself produces birth defects and disabilities and has been demonstrated to do so among both the citizens of Vietnam and US fighters in the imperialist conflict.

The CIA also ran a program in Vietnam called Phoenix.

Phoenix was a systemic attempt to find and kill Vietnamese fighting against the US and its designs. It did this through terror, torture, intelligence-gathering and the relocation (and murder) of the insurgency’s civilian supporters.

This involved the murder of people who supported the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam (known as the ‘Vietcong’ by the Americans). This is still euphemistically termed ‘counterinsurgency’ by supporters of the establishment.

The policy murdered a large number of people in South Vietnam:

By 1971, a US House Operations Subcommittee investigation heard the CIA’s William Colby acknowledge that in three years from 1968, Phoenix killed 20,587 Vietnamese civilians — though the New York Times independently estimated the figure at more like 60,000.

The destabilisation of neighbouring countries also negatively affected Vietnam. Massive bombing campaigns in Cambodia by Richard Nixon helped to lead to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. The Vietnamese government militarily intervened in Cambodia in 1978 and removed Pol Pot from power. The US government started funding Pol Pot after the Vietnamese removed his government from power.

[T]he US had been secretly funding Pol Pot in exile since January 1980. The extent of this support – $85m from 1980 to 1986 – was revealed in correspondence to a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On the Thai border with Cambodia, the CIA and other intelligence agencies set up the Kampuchea Emergency Group, which ensured that humanitarian aid went to Khmer Rouge enclaves in the refugee camps and across the border.

The effects of all of this destruction on the Vietnamese society was to destroy traditional structures, to kill and maim many Vietnamese fighters and citizens, to force the Vietnamese to use their resources for war rather than peaceful construction, and to devastate much of the environment and farming land. This was not an ‘incompetent mistake’ or a ‘quagmire’ but a policy of mass murder.

Conclusion

The concept of government incompetence is not a valid explanation of major policy decisions such as the war in Vietnam. The idea of government incompetence is a shield used by people who defend the powers-that-be in order to cover up their mass murder.

A Critical Assessment of the Feminist Case for Occupying Afghanistan

Introduction

Official narratives coming from the White House and media are stating that American president Joe Biden is fully withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and ending the 20 year war on the country. Many neoconservative pundits are condemning this decision and essentially arguing for permanent occupation. However, another group not associated with neoconservative ideology have also been advancing an argument for the essentially permanent occupation of Afghanistan: feminists. This article will offer a critical assessment of the feminist case for the occupation of Afghanistan.

What is the Feminist Case for Occupation?

Many feminists are making the case that Afghanistan needs to continue to be occupied by Western military forces in order ‘to protect women and girls from the Taliban’. While this commentary is common among war hawks, some individuals who are critical of the mainstream (at least in some respects) are also making this argument.

One example is Marianne Williamson, a critic of some elements of the establishment who nevertheless ran in the Democratic Party Primary in 2019-2020. She posted the following on Twitter, referring to the situation in Afghanistan.

Tolerance of systemic violence against women can’t be justified in the name of anti-imperialism, helping other human beings isn’t “a savior complex,” and leaving the most powerless & desperate people to fend for themselves in the hour of their agony isn’t political sophistication

This kind of sentiment is common among feminist and gender critical accounts, many of whom are anonymous. I am going to discuss three key problems with this argument: historical ignorance, whitewashing war crimes, and reinforcing misleading official narratives.

Problem #1: Historical Ignorance

The first problem with this argument is that it ignores historical context, and particularly the role the West has played in undermining women’s rights in Afghanistan.

On the 27th April 1978, there was a political change of power in Afghanistan, known as the Saur Revolution. This brought left wing groups to power, and they sought sweeping changes to the way Afghan society functioned. One of the ways in which they did this was to get rid of misogynistic laws and to create a more equal legal basis for women.

However, the West opposed the Saur Revolution, because it was a leftist government that would prevent future imperialist exploitation of the country. They sought to destroy this government. They also wanted to bait the Soviet Union into military intervention there and thus create the ‘Soviet Vietnam’ – which would squander Soviet resources and bog them down in an unwinnable conflict.

The US decided to do this by funding reactionary Islamist fighters called the Mujahideen. This CIA operation was known as ‘Operation Cyclone’. The Mujahideen has the same ideology as the Taliban – reactionary, misogynistic, homophobic, and demanding compliance to Islamic law. Not only do they have the same ideology, but some of the same individuals:

Notably, the Taliban’s own top negotiator of this new [Trump] “peace” deal, Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai, was among those trained and armed as part of the Mujahideen force created during Operation Cyclone.

The fact that Western countries were more than willing to support Islamic fundamentalism when it suited them geopolitically demonstrates that the idea of promoting women’s rights is a Western fraud.

Problem #2: Whitewashing Western War Crimes

The feminist case for occupation of Afghanistan also has has an (implicit) tenet that Western intervention is basically benign. This ignores the reality of war crimes committed in Afghanistan. This narrative essentially erases the war crimes from existence.

We know about the multitude of offenses committed by Western troops and companies in Afghanistan due to the Afghan war logs and US diplomatic cables, material leaked by whistleblower Chelsea Manning to Wikileaks journalist Julian Assange.

This information showed the reality of the war, and its unwelcome disclosure led to the imprisonment and torture of Manning and Assange.

Let’s look at some examples. One crime that was discovered thanks to the disclosure of these documents involved the Dyncorp corporation. The business had helped arrange ‘dancing boys’ for Afghan warlords – meaning underage boys to be raped by these warlords as part of Afghan traditional practices.

The Afghan puppet government was concerned about the exposure of this fact, as the cable refers to the ‘Kunduz Dyncorp problem’.

On the Kunduz Regional Training Center (RTC) DynCorp event of April 11 (reftel), Atmar reiterated his insistence that the U.S. try to quash any news article on the incident or circulation of a video connected with it. He continued to predict that publicity would “endanger lives.” He disclosed that he has arrested two Afghan police and nine other Afghans as part of an MoI investigation into Afghans who facilitated this crime of “purchasing a service from a child.” 

This is far from the only crime perpetrated in Afghanistan. Here is one example that involved the Polish contingent:

The day centered around consequence management plans and actions regarding the PBG [Polish Battle Group] mortar incident in Waza Kwah (Naghar Khel village) yesterday evening which killed 6 LN [Local Nationals] and wounded 3 LN. A detailed report is in the Political section.

The detailed report goes on to clarify that 4 of the people killed were children. When addressed, the village said:

The crowd was flabbergasted at how the CF [Coalition Forces] could fire on a village with women, children and old men without cause (i.e. no fire coming from the village) using mortars in an attempt to hit Taliban insurgents instead of coming up to the village and questioning the owners on the presence of insurgents.

This is just one example of civilians being killed during this conflict.

Problem #3: Failing to Question the Official Narrative

Uncritically believing what the mainstream media reports is a terrible idea, given that they twist the truth on any and every topic.

The first point that can be raised regarding official narratives is that the argument that ‘we need to remain in Afghanistan to protect the women and girls’ is itself an official narrative. A CIA document, leaked to Wikileaks, about shoring up support for war in France and Germany states that:

Afghan women could serve as ideal messengers in humanizing the ISAF role in combating the Taliban because of women’s ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory. Outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women to share their stories with French, German, and other European women could help to overcome pervasive skepticism among women in Western Europe toward the ISAF mission.

Furthermore, the way that the media presents the Afghanistan withdrawal itself is highly misleading. In an article for OffGuardian, Kit Knightly points out the continuing presence of mercenary forces in Afghanistan, and the fact that air strikes will continue. Knightly concludes:

“Private security firms” will carry out “targeted anti-terrorist operations”, or “precision strikes” will take out “known international criminals”…but no one will use the word “war”.

The US troops might be leaving the borders of Afghanistan, but the Imperial influence will remain, the corporate exploitation will continue, the fire will still fall from the sky, and there will be no peace.

Conclusion

The war in Afghanistan is a conflict that has always been about geopolitical and economic motivations, for example, the profits to be made from rare earth metals and opium. The framing of human rights is merely a shield for these fundamental interests. To argue that we need to remain in Afghanistan ‘to protect women and girls’ ignores those killed in Western war crimes and how the West sought to undermine women’s rights in Afghanistan, as well as uncritically affirming misleading narratives about reality on the ground.