Paying Tribute to a Spear-Carrier for Soft Power: Condolences to Family of AID Official John Granville
I have yet to see a public comment from either Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or President Bush about the murder of U.S. AID official John Granville in Sudan. US Agency for International Development Henrietta Fore did release this statement -- but Granville's death deserves more extensive attention from our leaders.
I've also done a cursory search of news wires and blogs and have seen no public comment from any of the Democratic or Republican contenders about this death. Nothing from Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, Paul, or any of the rest. If I'm wrong, I would be happy to post any links from commentary made by the candidates.
According to reports, Granville was helping to "distribute 450,000 radios equipped with generator cranks and solar panels, which work in places with no electricity."
Granville served for two years in Cameroon for the Peace Corps and had been in Africa for the last ten years. He represents the kind of person on the front line of American soft power that we can and should feel proud of.
But thus far, there is mostly silence from official quarters and candidates about his work, his life, and his murder. This is a dangerous world -- but while I think that soldiers who fight and fall and/or are injured or maimed should receive their country's support and salute (even though they are on a mission today that they should not be on in Iraq), it is just as important -- perhaps even more so -- to pay tribute to those diplomats, foreign service personnel, USIA, and US AID officials who also pay the ultimate price on behalf of not only their country but for the important causes and people abroad they were serving.
But why the silence?
Are candidates afraid to articulate -- or reiterate -- support for America's paltry foreign aid programs? Or is Granville's death something to address later? Or in the case of some candidates, not at all?
John Granville's death hurts Sudan and the United States -- and saddens me.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
I don't think an Army toast is out of place: absent comrades.
--
Howard
January 2, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
This sad story illustrates an unfortunate consequence of America's war against the Moslem states of Africa and the ME. Even those Americans who go in peace are treated as combatants.
January 2, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a #$%$# break. Your rhetoric is indistinguishable from the jihadist nutcases. Please describe how America is at war with the Muslim states of Africa and the Middle East.
Last I checked, we were engaged in a war in precisely one state in the Middle East (two if you consider Afghanistan part of the ME, although I think most don't) which, even if you consider it criminally misguided, does not in any way rise to the level of a "war against the Moslem states of Africa and the Middle East."
There's a place for over-the-top hyperbole in a debate, but perpetuating the dangerous myth that the US is at war with Islam or at war with the Arab world or at war with the Middle East is not a good place for it.
January 2, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very easy. Besides the US military occupation of a number Gulf states let us go through the list of armed and subversive interventions:
Lebanon 1956, 1982
Iran, 1954 coup
Somalia 1990 and support for current Christian/Ethiopian invasion.
bombing assault on Sudan ca 1995
Iraq of course
current subversions inside Iran
and finally unquestioning backing of every military action by Israel against the westbank and her neighbors for the past half century.
The US is involved in an ongoing war against those Moslem states that resist our authority. Our enemies happen to be Moslems and it is very difficult to counter Jihadist propaganda that the US is not engaged in war against Moslems. I don't agree that that is our intention, but it is a consequence of our policies.
January 2, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There has been occupation of ONE Gulf state. Please name the Gulf state other than Iraq that we have occupied.
The Eisenhower Administration intervened in Lebanon in 1958, not 1956 and that operation was largely considered a success. In 1982, the US was part of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, set up to keep the peace, and they were joined by French, Italian and British troops. They were restricted to Beirut and they left soon after the Marine Barracks bombing in 1983. Hardly an "occupation".
It was 1953, not 1954. And it was instigated primarily by the British, not us. And it certainly didn't result in any invasion or occupation.
A humanitarian response to a severe famine that had the full authorization of the UN. It's hard to see how something like that - where we spent our blood and treasure to help starving people - could be called an occupation. Even then, the size and scope of the American operation came nowhere near anything you could call an occupation.
One cruise missile that destroyed one building. Again, no occupation.
I'll give you Iraq of course. And Iran now - I'm sure there are subversions going on, although not even the craziest of neo-conservatives contemplate an occupation.
Wrong in every way. Ever hear of the Suez campaign? You know, the one Eisenhower refused to support? Or 1967, where most of the military equipment was French and American involvement was minimal? Even in 1973, when Israel was at the brink of destruction, the Nixon Administration held out until the last minute to provide support. And if you think the US supported Israel in any material way in 1982, you simply don't know what you are talking about. And since 1982 of course, the actions Israel has taken against its neighbors has been limited to a few raids in Lebanon and Syria that were the direct result of aggression by elements in those countries. And since 2000, Israel has withdrawn from any territory it occupied in Lebanon - which was the proximate cause of the war last year.
This is simply nonsense. Virtually the entire Muslim world "resists our authority". We're in an ongoing war with the entire Muslim world?
The reason it is difficult to counter jihadist propaganda is that Muslims in general and Arabs in particular will believe any nonsense thrown at them that strokes their highly developed sense of victimization and distracts them from doing the hard work of reforming their governments and building their societies. They'd rather whine. This was true well before the Bush Administration. I say this as a severe critic of the Bush Administration approach to the region. The hamfisted diplomacy, the inept bungling - it all is a blot on our reputation.
But it is one thing to lament the ease with which the Muslim world believes that crap and another thing entirely to actually parrot the crap yourself. If you want to make the argument that the Bush policies are hurting our reputation in the Muslim world, then fine - I'll buy that. But just stop blabbering on about our "war against Muslims". It's bullshit.
January 2, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a few points.
We have naval and air bases on land that lies on the Persian Gulf. Perhaps they are not states, maybe emirates or whatever. This is US occupied real estate.
Somailia is the perfect case for why the US military should not be used in a humanitarian role. The other side misinterpreted our good intentions and it was just a short time before we were just another warring tribe among many.
Your characterization of the Arabs comes very close to racist stereotyping -- attitudes like yours that are shared by many Americans are a reason that so many Moslems do not understand our good intentions and over-react by killing good humanitarian workers like Granville.
January 2, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shifting the goalposts here, aren't we? You said "occupation of states" not occupation of real estate. By that definition, we occupy Germany, Japan and Korea as well. Like in those countries, we pay for the privilege of maintaining bases, something those countries support. If you or Muslims consider that "occupation", then you're hallucinating.
It is a shame that it is impossible to discuss the utterly dysfunctional Arab world without being called a racist. I reject that label in the strongest possible terms. It is not racist to describe what is plainly the case, even if it means saying negative things about a group of people. Is it a stereotype? It sure is. I'm sure not ALL Arabs can be described that way. But surely a critical mass of them can. And funnily enough, this is what the Arabs themselves say. Read the UN Development report on the Arab World that came out a few years ago. It said virtually the same thing I did. Read the analysis of virtually any non-Arab observer of that part of the world. They will say the same thing too. This is not to say they don't have any grievances that are legitimate (or at least open to legitimate dispute). Of course they do. It just means that they let those grievances morph into a general sense of victimhood that leaves them vulnerable to any jackass peddling conspiracy theories. Again, this is something THEY THEMSELVES admit.
January 3, 2008 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You'd whine too if there were a repressive US government which got its major support from, let's say, a Muslim government, and you couldn't do anything about it (to put the shoe on the other foot).
Actually, they're doing more than whining, aren't they. Recall 9/11?
January 3, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Brad, but your rhetoric sounds racist to the more enlightened folks around here. You can still make your points but you should chose with more care your words. Otherwise you will be discounted as a redneck, I certainly did when I first saw some of your rantings against Arabs.
January 3, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would disagree that the US military should never be used in a humanitarian role. Clearly, that is not its primary role. In some cases, it may be the only organization that provide a humanitarian service that is part of a broader US policy.
Somalia, as I've mentioned, had a very confused command and mission. In the later phases, including what has been called the First Battle of Mogadishu (Operation Gothic Serpent, or "Blackhawk Down"), only combat units were involved, without appreciable Civil Affairs or Special Forces units specifically trained to work with locals.
A perfect counterexample to Somalia (a UN operation with a convoluted set of missions and chains of command) is the Berlin Airlift, when the Soviets cut off all land routes to Berlin and it could only be supplied by air. Keeping West Berlin out of Soviet hands was an important foreign policy example. The mission was clearly defined, did have British and French components, and succeeded in its specific goal. Perhaps ironically, the service award for participants is called the Humanitarian Service Medal. Even today, the name of Gail Halvorsen will bring smiles to Berliners.
Not only were there insufficient commercial freight airlines to have performed a fraction of the job, but the only bases available were under military control. Further, the cargo aircraft were sometimes threatened by Soviet aircraft, and pilots with combat experience were preferred under such circumstances. On occasion, they needed fighter escort.
In other cases, such as the recent tsunamis in the Pacific, being able to operate from an aircraft carrier was critical during the period when all land facilities were out of service. Perhaps you will agree that it is reasonable to use military forces for the short-term, until more conventional civilian organizations both can mobilize and physically get into the disaster area.
Scattered around the world are various medical research facilities run by military agencies, such as Navy Medical Research Unit 2 in Cairo. It operates closely with the Egyptians, but also in the region, with a mission that both helps the locals but also protects against biological threats; NAMRU-2 identified Rift Valley Fever and has, so far, kept it out of the Americas. Should there be an outbreak of something of the threat of the 1918-20 influenza pandemic, it may be that military units may be the only ones that can reach an outbreak and contain it, providing medical service.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 3, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
BtD,
Syvanen of course mis-spoke, the US is not at war with THE Moslem states of Africa and the ME, but remove the "the" and it makes perfect sense. The US is at war with Iraq and Iran (virtually), and has supported Israel's aggression against Lebanon in the ME. In Africa the US has supported (e.g. with naval gunfire) its client Ethiopia in the invasion and occupation of Somalia. Add these to the brutal US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, which is extremely unpopular in the Muslim world, and it makes all US reprentatives potentil enemies of the Muslim people.
Syvanen's valid point is that these military activities have made the US extremely unpopular in Muslim countries, and when US employees suffer retribution as a result of bellicose US activities it is a sad story, as is the case in Muslim Sudan.
According to a recent Pew Global attitudes report: The image of the United States has declined in most parts of the world. Favorable ratings of America are lower in 26 of 33 countries for which trends are available. The U.S. image remains abysmal in most Muslim countries in the Middle East and Asia, and continues to decline among the publics of many of America's oldest allies. Favorable views of the U.S. are in single digits in Turkey (9%) and have declined to 15% in Pakistan.
Unfavorable views of the US (%):
Lebanon 52, Kuwait 46, Indonesia 66, Malaysia 69, Egypt 78, Jordan 78, Morocco 56, Pakistan 68, Palestine 86, Turkey 83
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256
January 2, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, it seems USAID is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of agencies.
I've seen Republicans decry the agency as giving away American dollars to undeserving countries. And, I've seen Democrats decry the agency as a promoter for globalization.
With its paltry funding and seemingly controversial client-states, its no wonder why USAID tends to be ignored.
Still, John Granville should be remembered and honored for the work he did.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
January 2, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you top Immtech being listed by the State Department as being one of the rogue companies doing business with terrorist sponsors because it was paying for clinical trials in Darfur of a cure for brain rot ("trypanosomiasis") with funds supplied by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?
That disease seems to be going around.
Best, Terry
January 2, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Africa is in turmoil and understandably so. Following WWI the continent was carved up and subsequently, and continually, raped by primarily France, Britain, Italy and Belgium.
The victims of rape rarely if ever forget the faces of their perpetrators. Unfortunately for John Granville, he had one of those faces.
It's been a long time between the end of WWI and today. How long will it be before the people of Iraq forget our faces.
January 2, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
USAID has long been noticed as a cover for the US INTELL SERVICES.
recognizing that reality, you might understand how a USAID operative becomes targeted for elimination with extreme prejudice.
January 2, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's oil there, isn't there?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html
I wonder how many solar panels you could buy
for 3 trillion dollars(the amount that this
administration has socked this country into
debt to have their 'fun')?
January 2, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
450,000 radios is a lot of radios. There are about ten million (non-Muslim) people in southern Sudan, and about 30 million (Muslim) people in the north. They are currently living under a peace agreement after a north/south civil war.
USAID has set up a radio broadcast service in southern Sudan "to promote peace and development through the reporting of accurate, balanced news / current events and through programming that focuses on civic education/governance, various educational issues, and culture/entertainment."
http://ict.usaid.gov/details.php?agree_id=886
"Accurate, balanced news"--an American tradition. Sure. "Peace and development", uh-huh.
Perhaps this radio service with its US propaganda, and the concomitant distribution of radio receivers, angered the dominant northern Sudanese. And perhaps the silence is meant to avoid attracting attention to US activities in Sudan. Just speculating.
edit
from the web:
The United States government has almost perfected a method of intervention that is able to penetrate and infiltrate all sectors of civil society in a country which it deems to be of economic and strategic interest. In the case of Venezuela, this strategy began to take form in 2002, with the increase in financing of sectors of the opposition via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the opening of an Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) of USAID in Caracas.
The work of USAID and its OTI in Venezuela has led to a deepening of the counterrevolutionary subversion in the country. Up until June 2007, more than 360 “scholarships” have been granted to social organisations, political parties, communities and political projects in Venezuela through Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), a company contracted by USAID, which opened an office in the El Rosal sector of Caracas in June 2002. From the centre of Caracas, the DAI/USAID has given more than US$11,575,509 to these 360 groups and projects in Venezuela, under the program “Venezuela: Initiatives for the Construction of Trust” (VICC).
http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2007/09/usaid-in-bolivia-and-venezuela-silent.html
We thought that USAID was building water and sewer systems and here they are in the propaganda and subversion business, or "soft power". "Diplomats"
January 2, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
BradtheDad said: (Speaking of the foreign involvement in the overthrow of Mossadegh)
While it is my understanding that the concept may have originated with the British, (and that they supplied original funding) the evidence from NYT Stephen Kinzer, Kermit Roosevelt's own 1979 book, and what the CIA has released, the 1953 plot (Operation Ajax in CIA codespeak) was otherwise essentially a US endeavor, run by Kermit. Norman Schwartzkopf, Sr. (father of Stormin' Norman)also was involved, training the forces to support the Shah, as he had done earlier during WWII. Also let's not forget that the British took their case of Iranian nationalization of Iranian (U.K.?/AIOC?) oil to the International Court of Justice at the Hague and lost.
What is the point in continuing our "cold war" and empire ,in minimizing our involvement in internal foreign affairs, and parsing whether our more covert form of "disguised" occupation was "actual" occupation? When we supply the arms to establish just whi a foreign government is (I would include Saudi Arabia and Kuwait here as well), it IS occupation in my book (and apparently in the eyes of the native population, whose opinions count the most). What is to be gained by parsing words?
In my opinion, until the present generation that gave us the cold war, nuclear primacy, and American Empire dies off, we are locked in to an obsolete and self-destructing paradigm of the past.
January 3, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a longstanding agreement within the USGovernment and in our relations with foreign governments that Peace Corps and USAID officials are NOT to serve in any intelligence capacity or to conduct any covert operations. This is necessary to protect the civilians who volunteer or work for both. This is rigidly adhered to. Operations such as supporting democracy in Venezuala and other countries are done in the sunshine, usually through local organizations. Countries have the option to not permit the activities. Russia has done so and I believe that Indonesia may have in the past. However, many of our own citizens, well-trained by Hollywood and dime novels, consider virtually any American living and working overseas, for any reason, to be CIA. While this may be good entertainment, it does serious damage to our diplomacy and the efforts of those who do put their lives at risk to improve the lives of others.
BTW candidates seldom like to mention foreign aid. Americans are grossly ill-informed on the subject. Very few realize that we give very little foreign aid in absolute terms or relative to other countries and that the top recipient of that aid is Israel, a country that is not exactly poverty-stricken.
January 3, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Israel is the top recipient "per capita."
The country that (used to) get the most money (my info may be somewhat outdated) is Egypt. Iraq may have outdone Egypt if you consider the money spent to keep our army occupying it as "foreign aid." Somehow I don't think the man on the street in Iraq would see it that way. Then again, I doubt the Egyptians appreciate us very much either.
Jan
January 3, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could someone help me out with definitions here? The bulk of payments to Israel and Egypt, IIRC, is under "Foreign Military Sales" (FMS) grants, which is from DoD, not AID. Are FMS part of the foreign aid total?
Forgive me, but you've given me a strange mental image of "per capita", with everyone in Liechtenstein or Tuvalu getting their own Humvee.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 3, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm working on it. this site:
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
breaks it down, but we contribute $14,600+ PER ISRAELI PER YEAR
That is what per capita means. Go to the website to find out how it is distributed, but from what I see it is grants, and interest; not anything to do with military stuff, which is NOT even documented at all. So including the military, just how much are we paying out to each Israeli? It boggles the mind.
Egypt has received $50 Billion. That is 50,000,000,000 DOLLARS since 1975. 1.3 billion dollars a year in military aid and another 800,000 + dollars for economic aid yearly. Well, at least we know we can count on the Egyptians to be our best buds, right? http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html
And we deny health insurance to our own citizens?
What does Liechtenstein have to do with this? Humvees? What are you talking about? What definitions do you want?
Jan
January 3, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only two countries I've ever dealt with, with regards to my four years of working alongside USAID for export purposes, were Egypt and Turkey. Even then, the tenders were never for military, secondary or strategic purposes.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
January 3, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel historically has been just about 2x what we have given to Egypt. For far fewer people. With no strings attached.
January 4, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
i assume that fred c's rating indicates that he is too young to know much about usaid being used as a cover for amerikan imperialist fascist bastids operating overseas. or perhaps fred c is older and used to be one of those fascist bastids.
danny mitrione was perhaps one of the best known. subject of a movie. teaching torture and death squadism to the repressive[militarist] oligarchical regimes of south amerika.
in the 1960's, usaid personnel[acting not unlike mitrione] were all involved in suppressing trade union movements, anti-fascist movements throughout what we called the "third world".
usaid coverts were all over the mass murders of anti-imperialists in sukarno's indonesia[1965?] for instance.
in 1963, the father of my best friend, a retired colonel in the usmc, was employed by usaid. his assignment was bolivia. his mission? to assist the bolivian police forces in eliminating trade unionist and nativist[indian]individuals who were intent on eliminating the spanish-derived, oligarchy.
now, who did he interface with in bolivia? who was it that he instructed as to the targets of the usa that were to be eliminated?
i always thought it to be the acme of irony. here was this marine colonel, who rose to that rank as a squadron commander in the pacific theater in WW2, working with a notable[but secreted] ex-french nazi to suppress anti-fascism in bolivia.
oh, and who was that guy he worked with? perhaps you will recall the name - klaus barbie, head of the bolivian gestapo. and in a former life, the head of the french gestapo in vichy france. a vile monster. who usaid had no problems working with in its efforts to snuff anti-imperialists, anti-fascists in bolivia.
from its inception, usaid was intended to be a cover for "spooks". not all usaid personnel were "spooks". but all usaid personnel knew that there were "spooks" on the payroll. just as all usa legation personnel knew that there were "spooks" serving under foreign service cover[military attache was the no brainer, but there was at least one other using a supposedly more benign title - agricultural attache, for instance].
so, fred c, when an individual attached to usaid becomes terminated with extreme prejudice, i want you to recognize that someone has figured out that the individual is more than a usaid employee. that he is a fascist bastid who may be engaged in an operation to destabilize a sovereign nation. that makes such an individual a combatant. if you have no gitmo to sequester such an individual, a bullet is the best defence.
sic semper tyrannis
January 3, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink