Why do "they" hate us? — consider the white, inanity-spewing face of the American ambassador to Niger

18 April 2019

If you don't a "get" this — your intercultural IQ may be zero

Yesterday, I watched PBS do its customary part to support American imperialism. This time in Africa.

In a "report" about the United States building a huge new drone-murder base in Niger, PBS dutifully trotted out the party line:

For smugglers, human traffickers, and non-state terrorist organizations — the remote expanses can . . . be inviting for moving fighters and weapons through the region.

But despite the cautionary title — about the "controversial" nature of the topic . . .

PBS included no genuinely significant mention, as to why the above themes might not be valid — or even remotely fixable — American concerns.

For his part

Four-star (Africa Command) General Thomas Waldhauser — who cuts a very fine command figure — said, in the American military's characteristically analysis-lacking, but semantically attractive way:

One way to characterize Niger would be is, they have been a good partner in a very, very bad neighborhood.

One has to admire Waldhauser's crafty, analysis-rejecting metaphor

Who wouldn't jump to save the neighborhood?

No one substantively challenged the General's implied conclusion that Niger is America's existential business.

Note

For two other representative examples of US military speech that goes nowhere that is realistically intelligent, see here and here.

And then, there was the US ambassador to Niger

Male, white and comfortable.

And unfortunately — as assessed from the most likely international Islamic perspective — "fat-ass" pontificating that:

I think it's in our interest to help a willing partner such as Niger to fight them here, rather for us to be forced to fight them closer to the homeland.

If you are Muslim, black or brown and poor

And you have watched your family being blown up by the equivalent of American robots in the sky:

you just might focus on the Ambassador's provocatively alien physical appearance

and

his complacently arrogant verbal delivery

as legitimate targets

for syncretizing a hatred

for "those"

presumably "Christian"

American imperialists.

PBS reinforced Ambassador Eric Whitaker's (irritatingly silly) conclusion with . . .

. . . video clips of ragtag bands of Toyota truck-driving "terrorists" milling around.

We are (thus) asked to infer that

These purported evildoers are "gonna" (for sure) commandeer some American aircraft carriers (or something conveniently similar) and float (or wing) over to here.

Presumably, along with their faithful, but raggedy Toyotas.

And do so, in rifle-toting herds large enough to give the New York Police Department a minor (pre-coffee) morning headache.

Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

Your logic — and your non-existent knowledge of the United States' genuine national interests — would appall anyone possessing a capacity for even minimal thinking.

An aside — about PBS's sly propagandizing

PBS's sole anti-imperialist was the uncommonly intelligent and admirably restrained Salih Booker.

His unemotional cerebral delivery would put most insomniacs and PBS-watchers to sleep.

I suspect that Booker was also chosen specifically because he is brown and named Salih. Everyone he was implicitly critiquing (on the multiple imperialists' side) was chest-pounding American white.

Now think about this:

Who among good American "wannabe" terrorist-crushers is going to listen to an rationally mild and cautionary brown guy named Salih?

Objectivity-pretending propagandists like to pick the one opposition guy — whom no one will listen to — just because he is a visually and emotionally obvious "outsider". ("He ain't like us, Maude.")

In choosing foreseeably unpersuasive opposition, we move the propaganda line along.

Lamestream propagandists craft these pretense-of-objectivity ploys all the time. It's part of their Goebbels trade.

The moral? — American strategic stupidity has assumed Biblical proportions

Must be something in the United States' water, hubris-laden ego, or its plundering oligarchical cowardice.

Hopefully someday, our smarter and more humane descendants will use our extinguished pseudo-civilization as worthy parable for a bad example.

As retired US Army major, Danny Sjursen put it:

Our country no longer fights for any tangible, measurable goal.

Wars aren’t linked to discernible threats.

Fear sells wars which are fought based on the twin demons of the military welfare state and a toxic martial cult infusing our politics.

We don’t fight in Afghanistan because we must, but because we can;

the Taliban doesn’t fight in Afghanistan [because] they hate us, but because we are there.

It is the perfect formula for forever war.

PeteFree.com

Why do "they" hate us? — consider the white, inanity-spewing face of the American ambassador to Niger