Coup de tat in Fiji?

There is mixed signals coming from Fiji. What appears to be a successful bloodless military coup is denied by the military man leading the armed forces. Speculation is running high with so few facts available.
smh.com.au

FIJI'S Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase, surrounded by bodyguards at his home in Suva last night, declared he would not resign and that he intended to hold a special cabinet meeting today. Mr Qarase said the military's seizure of weapons yesterday from a special division of the police force was illegal and that it was "a sad day for democracy and the rule of law". He confirmed the military had tried to get into his home to seize weapons they thought were there but were turned away by his bodyguards. He also said he had been summoned to the President's home and that military officers had told him he would have to get out of his car at the gate and walk to the residence, which he refused to do, and he was driven away.
Mr Qarase said he was not afraid of anybody. He agreed he was now in an isolated position and it was a matter of waiting to see "how this develops". "If they have the firepower they can do whatever they like," he said. "We will just wait." Mr Qarase said he would continue to fight for democracy in Fiji. Asked whether he expected foreign intervention, he replied that "our neighbours" had stated publicly that they would not intervene in the affairs of his country.
Fiji was virtually in the hands of the military commander, Commodore Frank Bainimarama, with all police weapons seized and roadblocks around Suva, the capital. The military not only disarmed the Police Tactical Response Division, the country's only armed police unit, but also all bodyguards of ministers, including Mr Qarase's bodyguard. Commodore Bainimarama held a news conference last night in which he said the weapons had been seized to prevent any "dissident" elements from threatening the military or the people. He called on anyone who was contemplating a "criminal act" against the military or the people not to do so. He said it was his intention that the police and military work together and that the weapons had been taken away to prevent any conflict.


As the commodore spoke, truckloads of his soldiers were being dispatched all over Suva, and last night all exits and entry points in the capital were controlled by the military. Commodore Bainimarama declined to say at the news conference whether he was the head of government.

However, government sources in New Zealand and Australia suggest there is shaky support for the military commander within the military, so it seems likely that there will be further changes. New Zealand and Australia are also warning of sanctions should the military seize power.
FT.com

Australian warships are on standby to help with a possible evacuation of Australians left stranded by a military coup. Australia and New Zealand have insisted that they were not planning a military intervention, but warned that Fiji would face sanctions if the military seized power. The crisis in Fiji is particularly bad news for Canberra, which had hoped that its more interventionist policy across the Pacific would help promote stability and democracy in the region.


The standoff in Fiji started a month ago with a dispute over an amnesty proposed by the government for people involved in the last coup in Fiji, in 2000. Mr Bainimarama claimed some of the plotters of that coup have in fact been allowed back in government and that the lenient amnesty would merely reinforce the lawlessness and corruption condoned by Mr Qarase.


On Monday, Alexander Downer, the Australian foreign minister, said Fiji was in the midst of a “tortuously complicated situation.” He suggested that the army’s failure to act decisively reflected internal tensions and “a fair bit of resistance’” to Mr Bainimarama’s efforts to oust the government by military means.

Do One in 32 Americans Belong in Prison?

Is anyone else disturbed by the numbers? Can it really be true that 7 million Americans belong in jail? This is a higher rate of incarceration than most anywhere in the world. I have to conclude that there is something very wrong with a culture that has to lock up so many of it's citizens.
The other telling part is that there is a racial disparity about who is locked up. What does that say about our country? Oh sure there are some who say that white people are more law abiding and so under represented in prison. I work in an urban setting and it is clearly true that there is a racial disparity between those who go to prison. But there is also a racial disparity in family life, in jobs, in neighborhoods, in available services, and most importantly, available resourses to address the issues.
While it may be true that the US is no longer segregated in stores, resturants, and transportation, racial discrimination is still pervasive in America. Indeed, racial prejudice is two sided, both sides see little in common and so turn inward away from the other, creating a self-fulfilling prophesy of distance and alienation. Within urban racial subcultures, many adolescents expect to be excluded from the mainstream and have too many role models that are entangled in drugs, crime, and violence. Kids will find heroes like them. There are too few in the mainstream they can identify with, often because their sub-culture is so far out of the mainstream.
A good example is the "Cool Pose" sub-culture among young adolescent male African Americans. Born out of the despair of distance and opportunities, black kids see the lifestyle

as simply too gratifying to give up. For these young men, it was almost like a drug, hanging out on the street after school, shopping and dressing sharply, sexual conquests, party drugs, hip-hop music and culture, the fact that almost all the superstar athletes and a great many of the nation's best entertainers were black.


Not only was living this subculture immensely fulfilling, the boys said, it also brought them a great deal of respect from white youths. This also explains the otherwise puzzling finding by social psychologists that young black men and women tend to have the highest levels of self-esteem of all ethnic groups, and that their self-image is independent of how badly they were doing in school.


I call this the Dionysian trap for young black men. The important thing to note about the subculture that ensnares them is that it is not disconnected from the mainstream culture. To the contrary, it has powerful support from some of America's largest corporations. Hip-hop, professional basketball and homeboy fashions are as American as cherry pie. Young white Americans are very much into these things, but selectively; they know when it is time to turn off Fifty Cent and get out the SAT prep book.


[...]For young black men, however, that culture is all there is — or so they think. Sadly, their complete engagement in this part of the American cultural mainstream, which they created and which feeds their pride and self-respect, is a major factor in their disconnection from the socioeconomic mainstream.


The tragedy unfolding in our inner cities is a time-slice of a deep historical process that runs far back through the cataracts and deluge of our racist past. Most black Americans have by now, miraculously, escaped its consequences. The disconnected fifth languishing in the ghettos is the remains. Too much is at stake for us to fail to understand the plight of these young men. For them, and for the rest of us.

It's not just the African American youth, you see it in every urban center. Every neighborhood has it's gang, most often racially based, focused on a very similar variant of the anti-social sub-culture.
Few talk publically about the issue, for fear of stoking the passions of racism, with massive finger pointing across the divide, amplifying the problem. The problem IS the divide. The sooner we recognize we are all part of the same family, the human family, the sooner we'll be able to address these problems. Alienation is fed by rejection. A child who grows up in an overstressed drug abusing household, feels used and deprived of what he needs to grow into a healthy adult. It's pretty hard to imagine life beyond the one he's known. So the cycle begins again.
We are each others best hope. It's only as a community that we can hope to break the cycle. We can't afford financially or culturally the consequential tear in the fabric of our community.
washingtonpost.com

A record 7 million people -- one in every 32 U.S. adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, a Justice Department report released yesterday shows. Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 percent over the previous year, according to the report.


More than 4.1 million people were on probation and 784,208 were on parole at the end of 2005. Prison releases are increasing, but admissions are increasing more.


Men still far outnumber women in prisons and jails, but the female population is growing faster. Over the past year, the female population in state or federal prison increased 2.6 percent and the number of male inmates rose 1.9 percent. By year's end, 7 percent of inmates were women. The gender figures do not include inmates in local jails.


"Misguided policies that create harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenses are disproportionately responsible for the increasing rates of women in prisons and jails," Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group that supports criminal justice reform, said in a statement.


From 1995 to 2003, inmates incarcerated in federal prisons for drug offenses have accounted for 49 percent of total prison population growth.


The study found that racial disparities among prisoners persist. In the 25-29 age group, 8.1 percent of black men -- about one in 13 -- are incarcerated, compared with 2.6 percent of Hispanic men and 1.1 percent of white men. The figures are not much different among women. By the end of 2005, black women were more than twice as likely as Hispanics and more than three times as likely as white women to be in prison.


There were significant changes in some states' prison populations. In South Dakota, the number of inmates increased 11 percent over the past year, more than in any other state. Montana and Kentucky were next, with increases of 10.4 and 7.9 percent, respectively. Georgia had the biggest decrease, losing 4.6 percent of its prison population, followed by Maryland (2.4 percent decrease) and Louisiana (2.3 percent).

Bipartisan Panel Will Urge Pull-back of Troops in Iraq

New York Times has leaked information that the bipartisan panel lead by daddy's chief of staff will effectively repudiate the Bush policy of staying the course in Iraq.
The recommended "pull-back" basically endorces Murtha's proposal without specific time tables. Imagine that!

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final report that will call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq but stop short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal, according to people familiar with the panel’s deliberations.


The report, unanimously approved by the 10-member panel, led by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, is to be delivered to President Bush next week. It is a compromise between distinct paths that the group has debated since March, avoiding a specific timetable, which has been opposed by Mr. Bush, but making it clear that the American troop commitment should not be open-ended. The recommendations of the group, formed at the request of members of Congress, are nonbinding.


A person who participated in the commission’s debate said that unless the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki believed that Mr. Bush was under pressure to pull back troops in the near future, “there will be zero sense of urgency to reach the political settlement that needs to be reached.”


The report recommends that Mr. Bush make it clear that he intends to start the withdrawal relatively soon, and people familiar with the debate over the final language said the implicit message was that the process should begin sometime next year.


The report leaves unstated whether the 15 combat brigades that are the bulk of American fighting forces in Iraq would be brought home, or simply pulled back to bases in Iraq or in neighboring countries. (A brigade typically consists of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.) From those bases, they would still be responsible for protecting a substantial number of American troops who would remain in Iraq, including 70,000 or more American trainers, logistics experts and members of a rapid reaction force.

The Iraqi Quagmire

The author of this Op Ed, Nawaf Obaid, is an adviser to the Saudi government, managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project in Riyadh and an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. While speaking for himself, he represents a growing groundswell of public opinion in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and to a lessor extent Syria.
Turkey, on the other hand, looks at the stepped up terrorist activity of the Kurdish PKK, launching attacks into Turkey from safe havens in Iraq. Meanwhile, Turkish Special Forces remain in Kirkuk where the Kurds are determined to annex into their sphere of influence. Turkey has already threatened to intervene should that happen.
US troops are not helping the situation, but they are preventing a Sunni massacre. How paradoxical is it that our interests now lie with the Sunni minority! Time to switch sides?
The author suggests that the Saudis might raise production to cut the price of oil, handicapping the Iranians. The Iranians would have no choice but to sabatoge Saudi oil fields. Sunnis would certainly respond in kind. The world economy, starved of oil would crash economically. Al Qaeda would have it's way. Sunni countries would have to support any anti-Shia fighters.
The only viable attempt at solution is to bring Syria and Iran to the negotiation table and find a regional source of stability.
washingtonpost.com

One hopes he won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.


Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region.


[...]Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.


Both the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite death squads are to blame for the current bloodshed in Iraq. But while both sides share responsibility, Iraqi Shiites don't run the risk of being exterminated in a civil war, which the Sunnis clearly do. Since approximately 65 percent of Iraq's population is Shiite, the Sunni Arabs, who make up a mere 15 to 20 percent, would have a hard time surviving any full-blown ethnic cleansing campaign.


What's clear is that the Iraqi government won't be able to protect the Sunnis from Iranian-backed militias if American troops leave. Its army and police cannot be relied on to do so, as tens of thousands of Shiite militiamen have infiltrated their ranks. Worse, Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, cannot do anything about this, because he depends on the backing of two major leaders of Shiite forces.


There is reason to believe that the Bush administration, despite domestic pressure, will heed Saudi Arabia's advice. Vice President Cheney's visit to Riyadh last week to discuss the situation (there were no other stops on his marathon journey) underlines the preeminence of Saudi Arabia in the region and its importance to U.S. strategy in Iraq. But if a phased troop withdrawal does begin, the violence will escalate dramatically.


In this case, remaining on the sidelines would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia. To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia's credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran's militarist actions in the region.


To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.

Anbar Belongs to Al Qaeda

A secret US Marine assessment of the prospects for pacification in Anbar Province in Iraq couldn't be more bleak. The reports asserts that they can't be defeated. The population of $1.2 million mostly former residents of hot spots like Falugia and Ramadhi, are impoverished and completely dependent on the Al Qaeda leadership that has usurped civil service infrastructure.
washingtonpost.com

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.


[...]The Marines' August memo, a copy of which was shared with The Washington Post, is far bleaker than some officials suggested when they described it in late summer. The report describes Iraq's Sunni minority as "embroiled in a daily fight for survival," fearful of "pogroms" by the Shiite majority and increasingly dependent on al-Qaeda in Iraq as its only hope against growing Iranian dominance across the capital.


True or not, the memo says, "from the Sunni perspective, their greatest fears have been realized: Iran controls Baghdad and Anbaris have been marginalized." Moreover, most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability.


[...]"Despite the success of the December elections, nearly all government institutions from the village to provincial levels have disintegrated or have been thoroughly corrupted and infiltrated by Al Qaeda in Iraq," or a smattering of other insurgent groups, the report says.

NATO et al Meeting in Latvia Wednesday

On the 29th of November, on Russia's door step in Riga Latvia, two major meetings with related agendas will be held. The first is a NATO summit where heads of government from the 26 States together with Ministers of Defense and senior military brass of the "enlarged" Atlantic Alliance (NATO).
In a little publicized parallel meeting of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) that Eisenhauer warned us about in his fairwell speech, will meet in Riga in a sessions separate only to protect protocol.
In Riga, in defiance of Moscow's concerns about the loyalty of it's bordering countries, NATO will debate including Turkey, Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. Then NATO delegates will smooze with MIC representatives who stand to benefit from the "long war" proposed by Bush to secure oil access.
Meanwhile Georgia is under extreme pressure from Russia to buckle under to maintain energy supplies.
GlobalResearch.ca

The venue is being held in a former Soviet Republic, regrouping for the first time all 26 members of the enlarged NATO, including Poland. It directly challenges Moscow's influence in Eastern and Central Asia. It signifies to Moscow that NATO enlargement is proceeding on Russia's doorstep.


Although Israel will not be represented at the Summit, NATO has developed in the last two years a close working relationship with Tel Aviv, which in practical terms provides Israel with a "de facto associate membership" within the Atlantic Alliance. The NATO Riga Summit will launch NATO's Rome based training program for its Mediterranean partner countries and members of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI). The latter includes a number of Arab countries as well as Israel.


From a US standpoint, this meeting will be used to build a European consensus on America's "long war". The purpose of the meeting is to rally support for the US led military adventure in the Middle East and Central Asia, which is intimately related, from a strategic standpoint, to the battle for oil and oil pipeline corridors.


The US-NATO military build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean as well as Washington's "New Middle East" will be on the agenda.


In parallel with the Summit, a major Security Conference ("The Riga Conference") starting on November 27, will bring together politicians, top military brass, corporate CEOs, defense and foreign policy analysts, "top feeder" media pundits, policy advisers and New World Order academics. (See list of participants below). In many regards, this parallel activity organized by the George Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center is more important from a strategic standpoint than the official Summit venue. Headed by Ronald D. Asmus, a former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, the Transatlantic Center's task on behalf of NATO is to foster "transatlantic dialogue" between the Europe and America as well as actively seek European "cooperation in the broader Middle East and Black Sea regions".


The Conference is intent upon building a consensus within Europe regarding America's military agenda in the broader Middle East.


The European defense sector will be represented by key figures from the Franco-German aerospace conglomerate EADS, Italy's Finemecanica. Lockheed Martin's European President Scott Martin, among others will also be attending. Several members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the US Senate, will be in Riga for the conference together with representatives from major foundations including Soros, Carnegie, Konrad Adenauer and Robert Schuman.


Among the participants are several key figures, who are known to play a behind a scenes role in international affairs, including Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security adviser and the author of The Grand Chessboard, former Mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani and Uzi Arad, formerly Mossad Director of Intelligence and foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Netanyhu, Marc Grossman, now with the Cohen Group, who was Under Secretary of State in GWB's first term in office (2001-2005), Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg of the German Bundestag's Foreign Affairs Committee, adviser to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and a staunch supporter of Israel.


Among the major themes of the Riga Conference are NATO's role in the Middle East, the broader issue of "Energy Security" as well as the enlargement of NATO to include the Ukraine and Georgia. Both of these former Soviet republics on Russia's doorstep are increasingly within the US-NATO geopolitical orbit . They are part of GUUAM, a 1999 military cooperation agreement with NATO. They play a strategic role in the structure of oil pipeline and transport corridors out of the Caspian sea basin.

Panel to Weigh Overture by U.S. to Iran and Syria

It's become increasingly clear that the bipartisan panel put together by James Baker, right hand man for Bush I, is designed to pressure Bush to do something different, not just to advise him. Bush has competing reviews going on with in the Joint Chiefs and his own administration.
And as the article says, he spent hours preaching to the panel about staying the course just two weeks ago.
This man is thick as a brick!
New York Times

A draft report on strategies for Iraq, which will be debated here by a bipartisan commission beginning Monday, urges an aggressive regional diplomatic initiative that includes direct talks with Iran and Syria but sets no timetables for a military withdrawal, according to officials who have seen all or parts of the document.


While the diplomatic strategy appears likely to be accepted, with some amendments, by the 10-member Iraq Study Group, members of the commission and outsiders involved in its work said they expected a potentially divisive debate about timetables for beginning an American withdrawal.


In interviews, several officials said announcing a major withdrawal was the only way to persuade the government of Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to focus on creating an effective Iraqi military force.


Several commission members, including some Democrats, are discussing proposals that call for a declaration that within a specified period of time, perhaps as short as a year, a significant number of American troops should be withdrawn, regardless of whether the Iraqi government’s forces are declared ready to defend the country.


Among the ideas are embedding far more American training teams into Iraqi military units in a last-ditch improvement effort. While numbers are still approximate, phased withdrawal of combat troops over the next year would leave 70,000 to 80,000 American troops in the country, compared with about 150,000 now.


“It’s not at all clear that we can reach consensus on the military questions,” one member of the commission said late last week.


Mr. Bush spent 90 minutes with commission members in a closed session at the White House two weeks ago “essentially arguing why we should embrace what amounts to a ‘stay the course’ strategy,” said one commission official who was present.

Lebanon Leader Assasinated - Middle East Continues to Destabilize

The name Gemayel is one of the most reviled across all of south Lebanon. Pierre, whose father still leads the Christian Militia Phalange, continued the tradition of being a lightning rod for controversy as part of the government coalition ruling Lebanon in it's move away from Syrian influence. The assasination was immediately blamed on Syria, but that is not entirely clear. Many benefit from his death, including others in his coalition, Hezbollah, and perhaps Syria.
Could Bashar really benefit from this death with all the negative pressure from the west, particularly the US and France? With his profile rising in the region, in part due to the victory of Hezbollah against Israel, he's been called into negotiations with Iraq and Iran to attempt to stabilize Syria's eastern border, perhaps he views he can spend some political capital on consolidating influence in Lebanon.
washingtonpost.com

One of Lebanon's most pronounced political crises in a generation slid into bloodshed Tuesday when assailants showered gunfire on a car carrying an anti-Syrian politician and scion of the country's most prominent Christian family, killing him and a bodyguard and pushing Lebanon a step closer to civil strife.


The assassination of Pierre Gemayel, a divisive figure in a country riven by sectarian tension, underlined the lack of red lines in the escalating struggle over Lebanon's political future that has followed this summer's war between Hezbollah and Israel. The struggle is crucial not only to the often zero-sum calculations of Lebanese politics but also to the regional ambitions of the United States, Iran, Syria and Israel.


"We will not allow assassins to control Lebanon's destiny and its people's future," Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said.


The shots along a busy street that killed Gemayel, the industry minister, reverberated across Beirut as dusk fell. In the city's Shiite Muslim south, where Gemayel was among the most reviled of Christian politicians, occasional gunfire erupted in celebration and some residents expressed satisfaction at his death. Across town, in Christian East Beirut, his supporters set fires in protest along usually busy intersections, sending smoke eddying over emptied streets. At the hospital where he was taken, scores gathered in the lobby and parking lot. Some hurriedly spoke into phones. Their eyes red, women sobbed and men wailed with grief.


"We want revenge!" a few shouted. "We want revenge!"


"I have one wish," Gemayel's father, former president Amin Gemayel, told them after nightfall, "that tonight be a night of prayer to contemplate the meaning of this martyrdom and how to protect this country. I call on all those who appreciate Pierre's martyrdom to preserve his cause and for all of us to remain in the service of Lebanon. We don't want reactions and revenge."

Israel Has Been Stealing Land From Palestinians

Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank have been controversial for many years. At times previous US presidents have urged restraint in building settlements.
How could the Israeli's find land on which to build in an area occupied by Arabs for hundreds of years? The Israeli have always stated the land was abandoned. However, there have been rumors for years that Israelis have driven the owners from the land and then seized it as abandoned.
Now however, an Israeli peace group called Peace Now has obtained documentation of the secret practice of seizing land that had not been abandoned, long covered up by the Israeli government.
May the truth come to roost on the Likudniks. May the American public condemn seizing Palestinian land and demand razing of settlements on Palestinian property.
washingtonpost.com

An Israeli advocacy group has found that 39 percent of the land used by Jewish settlements in the West Bank is private Palestinian property, which the organization contends is a violation of international and Israeli law guaranteeing property rights in the occupied territories.

Here is a summary of the Reports" href="http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&fld=191&docid=2024">Peace Now Settlement Report. The full report is here.

The majority of settlements have been constructed either entirely or partially on private Palestinian land

• For the first time Peace Now is able to prove, that despite the State and settler’s claims, the majority of the settlements in the West Bank have been constructed on private Palestinian land and not on State land.


• 130 settlements were constructed either entirely or partially on private Palestinian land


• Around 60 thousand dunams of the land used by the settlements is actually private Palestinian land


• Private Palestinian land accounts for 40% of land used for settlements


• Construction of settlements of private Palestinian land is illegal according to the Supreme Court ruling, (Elon More precedent of 1979), and thus cannot be authorized. The result is that not only were the outposts constructed in an illegal manner, but also a large number of the veteran settlements were established on private Palestinian land and are thus illegal.


• The data presented here has been hidden by the State for many years, for fear that the revelation of these facts could damage it’s international relations. Only recently did Peace Now manage to obtain this material.


• Conclusion: For many years the state of Israel has been seizing thousands of dunams of private Palestinian land in order to construct settlements. The claim by the State and settlers that the settlements have been constructed on state land is misleading and false. The vast majority of settlement construction was done against the law of the land and the Supreme Court ruling and therefore unauthorized.

On a moral note this report paints a picture of the Israeli state acting in “daylight robbery” of Palestinian land and handing it over to Israeli settlers. The State has been taking advantage of the weakened status of the Palestinians in order to steal their land.

Avoiding Impeachment With Top-Secret Torture

The shear gall of this administration is astounding. Now they want to forbid the revelation of torture of unlawful combatants tried in military tribunals. So both the evidence and the means of obtaining it would therefore be forbidden to be revealed. The tribunals become little more than a rubber stamp for the arbitrary arrests and detentions that have repeatedly been demonstrated to include innocents time and time again. This is not to say some are not guilty.
But if there is to be credibility for the justice handed out by the tribunals, or the defendants appeals to federal court on their unlawful combatant status, there must be openness. Bush intends no such thing. He knows he's lied to the American people. Torture has been a routine practice since 9/11, much of it clearly illegal. He doesn't want to be impeached.
washingtonpost.com

BURIED WITHIN a recent government brief in the case of Guantanamo Bay inmate Majid Khan is one of the more disturbing arguments the Bush administration has advanced in the legal struggles surrounding the war on terrorism. Mr. Khan was one of the al-Qaeda suspects who was detained in a secret prison of the CIA and subjected to "alternative" interrogation tactics -- the administration's chilling phrase for methods most people regard as torture. Now the government is arguing that by subjecting detainees to such treatment, the CIA gives them "top secret" classified information -- and the government can then take extraordinary measures to keep them quiet about it. If this argument carries the day, it will make virtually impossible any accountability for the administration's treatment of top al-Qaeda detainees. And it will also ensure that key parts of any military trials get litigated in secrecy.


The trouble is that at least some of the secrets the government is trying to protect are the very techniques used against people such as Mr. Khan -- and its means of protecting them is to muzzle him about what the CIA did to him. CIA official Marilyn A. Dorn said in an affidavit that Mr. Khan might reveal "the conditions of detention and specific alternative interrogation procedures." In other words, grossly mistreating a detainee now justifies keeping him quiet.


[...]The problem with this argument is not just its Kafkaesque sheen. If the courts accept it, it would have vast practical implications. The integrity of any military trials of the high-value detainees will depend on their excluding evidence obtained by unduly coercive means. By the logic of the government's argument, however, all of that litigation will have to take place in secret. Detainees are also supposed to be able to appeal their status as enemy combatants to the federal appeals court here in Washington. The government's logic would all but assure that the bulk of any such appeal would be secret as well. So accepting this theory would mean that no claim of torture could be resolved in a transparent and accountable fashion. Given the importance of open trials for the high-value detainees, it's hard to imagine a principle that would more thwart the effort to bring them credibly to justice.

Will Hezbollah Rule Lebanon?

Since Hezbollah essentially defeated the Israeli Army in it's invasion into Lebanon, Hezbollah has been full of themselves. At some point they were promising to make their win in the battle field pay off politically. Now seems to be the time.
A coalition of Druze, Sunni, and some northern Christian leaders support the anti-Syria pro US government. But since their allies best buddy bombed most of Lebanon to the stone age, leaving millions of cluster bomblets where children can find them, this coalition has been weakened. And General Aoun, for his own reasons, joined forces with the pro-Syrian Shi'ites swinging the balence of power.
Israel, some say at the US encouragement has defeated itself at it's northern border, taking on a conflict for which it wasn't prepared to pay the cost. Sound familiar? Bush and his buddies are making the world safe for militant Salafi, the philosophical base behind Al Qaeda, and Shi'a extremists. And now they want to take on Iran?
washingtonpost.com

In a deepening crisis that has paralyzed Lebanese politics, the leader of Hezbollah urged his well-organized followers to prepare for mass protests aimed at toppling the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.


The order by Hasan Nasrallah, given in a speech Saturday that was broadcast Sunday, was the latest in a test of wills between Hezbollah and a government that Nasrallah dismissed as more representative of the U.S. ambassador than Siniora.


More than a simple political standoff in an always fractious country, many see the escalating struggle as perhaps the most decisive in Lebanon in a generation. It may determine which forces guide the country for years ahead: the coalition around Siniora that draws its strength from the country's Sunni Muslims, Druze and some Christians and has aligned itself with the United States and Europe, or Hezbollah's Shiite Muslim constituency, backed by Iran and Syria, and its Christian allies represented by a former Lebanese general.


As is common here, many see the struggle as a proxy battle involving the United States, Israel, Syria and Iran.


[...]Supporters of Siniora's government, critical of Hezbollah's role in starting the war this summer, have gone back and forth over whether they will greet protests with their own demonstrations. They view Hezbollah's campaign as effectively a coup d'etat aimed at derailing the international tribunal and ensuring that Hezbollah retains its weapons.


Still living in the shadow of a 15-year civil war that ended in 1990, many Lebanese worry about the potential for violence if the crisis heads to the streets, where each movement has draped neighborhoods in the iconography and symbolism of its own view of history.

For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel Is ‘God’s Foreign Policy’

Israel is so desperate for support, they ally with a bigoted yet powerful fundamentalist Christian movement in the US despite their belief that the Nation of Israel will sacrifice itself in Armageddon in preparation for the Rapture, so that true believers can ascend directly to heaven.
If it weren't for the belief in the end times, these "Christians" in name only would be calling for new pogroms against the Jews for being the Christ killer.
New York Times

As Israeli bombs fell on Lebanon for a second week last July, the Rev. John Hagee of San Antonio arrived in Washington with 3,500 evangelicals for the first annual conference of his newly founded organization, Christians United For Israel.


[...]Now, in tandem with the Israeli government, many evangelical Christians have focused on a new villain, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Evangelical broadcasters and commentators have seized on Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comments questioning the Holocaust and calling for the abolition of the Israeli state. And many evangelicals now talk of the Iranian leader as a “mortal threat” to Israel.


Some evangelical leaders say they are wary of reports that a panel including former Secretary of State James A. Baker III might recommend negotiating with Iran about the future of Iraq. “It certainly bothers me,” said Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and one of the most influential conservative Christians. “That has the same kind of feel to it as the British negotiating with Germany, Italy and Japan in the run up to World War II.”


At rallies this fall for Christian conservative voters, Dr. Dobson sometimes singled out Mr. Ahmadinejad as a reason to go to the polls, arguing that Democrats could not be trusted to face down such dangers. “Hitler told everybody what he was going to do, and Ahmadinejad is saying exactly what he is going to do,” Dr. Dobson explained. “He is talking genocide.”


The same name, with many pronunciations, comes up repeatedly on Christian talk radio shows, said Gary Bauer, a Christian conservative political organizer. “I am not sure there is a foreign leader who has made a bigger splash in American culture since Khrushchev, certainly among committed Christians,” he said.


Mr. Hagee, for his part, said Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comments about Israel and the Holocaust were part of what motivated him to found Christians United For Israel late last year. Since the fight with Hezbollah, Mr. Hagee said, he is doing all he can to keep the pressure on United States officials to take a hard line with Iran.


[...]Evangelicals’ support for Israel, of course, is far from uniform. Mr. Hagee is an author of several books about the interpretation of biblical prophecies. He says he believes the Bible assigns Israel a pivotal role as a harbinger of the second coming. Citing passages from Revelation and Ezekiel, he argues that conflict between Israel and Iran may be a sign that that time is approaching.


[...]Dr. Dobson, along with some other evangelicals, has expressed disappointment with what he saw as the Bush administration’s pressure on Israel to sign the cease-fire that ended the fight.


“They began by saying they had to take a hard line, by saying they would support Israel and they ended up urging them to compromise and go home,” Dr. Dobson said. “All that is going to do is allow everybody to reload. That didn’t solve anything.” (Mr. Hagee said that he believed the administration gave Israel “ample time” but that Israel erred by not “unleashing the full might of its ground troops” until it was too late.)


[...]The Israeli government temporarily cut off ties with the Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson after he suggested that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s stroke might have been God’s punishment for withdrawing from territory that belonged to the Biblical Israel. But then Mr. Robertson flew to Israel during the fight with Hezbollah. In a gesture of reconciliation, the Israeli government recently worked with him to film a television commercial to attract Christian tourists.

Hell On Earth

Human suffering at a scale found in Lagos Nigeria is beyond the comprehension of most westerners. Indeed, the inhabitants of Lagos may well have no concept of what they are surviving. Or they wouldn't be....
In the context of no rules, limited resources, and too large population, the human community devolves into that which created the story Lord of the Flies. The strong live off and consume the weak.
But the spirit of the human even faced with impossible conditions is forever hopeful. We must respect and share what we can with all such noble humans.
How to Save the World

Lagos is a city that most of its own residents acknowledge to be hell on Earth, but still struggle and scrape through each day with the grim determination to survive and, just maybe, buck all the odds and climb out of destitution. This is a city of staggering inequality and inequity, with a Gini index nearing a 'perfect' 1.0 -- almost all the wealth is held by a tiny minority of corrupt officials, criminals and mob leaders, and corruption and crime pervades all economic activity. This is a city of horrific and constant violence and the threat of violence -- dead and mutilated human bodies are ignored the way we ignore roadkill. This is a city of absolute hierarchy -- everyone is in thrall to those (ogas, -- literally 'masters') one step higher in the pyramid, from whom they get 'security' and a chance at the few pitiful jobs, and to whom they pay 90% of what they earn. This pyramid is entirely unofficial, but ironclad -- the cost of disregarding it is often your life. The struggle to survive is a 24/7 ordeal, so that, as one of the people in Packer's report puts it, in Lagos, "if you sit down, you die".


This is a city that doesn't have slums, it is a slum, all fifteen million people in every quarter of the city. It is a city where garbage and sewage and toxic waste is everywhere, where clean running water and flush toilets are virtually non-existent. Where disease is everywhere and ever-threatening. Where pollution is so bad that residents' faces are grey. Where police, authorities and gangs all extort money from anyone who wants anything or dares to enter their turf. Where fuel dumps and waste fuel spills lit afire constantly light up the night and choke the lungs with toxins. Where the only significant change from year to year are the endless streams of new immigrants and the building husks left behind from rampant arson. Where most of the population sleeps outdoors, often surrounded by mosquitos, garbage and sewage. Where gang wars between Moslems and Christians, often precipitated by trivial events, kill thousands.


Packer says "the human misery of Lagos not only overwhelms one's senses and sympathy but also seem irreversible". He quotes a city district senior administrator who describes the city as "an impending disaster...a powder keg...it's just going to boil over" as it grows to 23 million people by 2015, and by another million a year after that.


When Packer asked the editor of the city's largest newspaper what keeps the people of Lagos going, when they have no homes, no basic government services, no utilities, no jobs, and no order or security, he replies "They never believe there's no chance". Religion is big business in Lagos, and the people not only cling to the hope of salvation in the afterlife, they cling to the promise of capitalism and civilization that if they work hard enough they will succeed in pulling themselves out of their desperate situation. Both promises seem leaps of impossible faith, since there is no evidence anywhere to support either of them. This, it seems, is the nature of humanity -- no matter how far we fall from the grace of a joyful, easy, natural life, no matter how grim and brutal and full of pain and suffering our lives are, we plug on, never seeing how far we are from where we once were, never giving up, never becoming so full of grief for what we have lost, and forgotten, as to diminish our faith that, despite the fact that what we have been doing has got us into desperate straits, doing a little bit more of it will somehow get us out, lead us to salvation.

The Risk of Regional War In The Middle East

Incoming Democrats have a challenge to pull off a phased withdrawl from Iraq. The entire region is headed for conflagration across the entire oil producing area including sabatoge of each other's oil facilities.
The prospects of Shi'a-Sunni war is a chilling prospect that may well grow out of the US invasion of Iraq. It's very likely that the US would have to change sides in the war to counter the raw military power of Iran. The only real possible solution is bringing all parties to the table. I don't think we have a president who will do that.
washingtonpost.com

As Iraq's neighbors grapple with the various ideas put forward for solving the country's problems, they uniformly shudder at one proposal: dividing Iraq into separate regions for Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, and then speeding the withdrawal of U.S. forces.


"To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale," Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, said Oct. 30 at a conference in Washington. "Since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited."


"When the ethnic-religious break occurs in one country, it will not fail to occur elsewhere, too," Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told Germany's Der Spiegel newsweekly recently. "It would be as it was at the end of the Soviet Union, only much worse. Large wars, small wars -- no one will be able to get a grip on the consequences."


In an analysis published last month by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Obaid said sectarian conflicts could make Iraq a battleground for the region.


Obaid described widespread interference by Iranian security forces within Iraq. He urged Saudi Arabia, which is building a 560-mile wall on its border with Iraq, to warn Iran "that if these activities are not checked," Saudi Arabia "will be forced to consider a similar overt and covert program of its own."


In Damascus, a Syrian analyst close to the Assad government warned that other countries would intervene if Iraq descended into full-scale civil war. "Iran will get involved, Turkey will get involved, Saudi Arabia, Syria," said the analyst, who spoke on condition he not be identified further.


"Regional war is very much a possibility," said Hiltermann, the analyst for the International Crisis Group. Iraq's neighbors "are hysterical about Iranian strategic advances in the region," he said.


U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad last month ranked Syria and Iran with al-Qaeda in Iraq, one of the country's principal Sunni Arab insurgent groups, in terms of destabilizing influences in Iraq. Despite that assessment, the United States has not held substantive talks with Syria regarding Iraq since 2004 or with Iran since the war began in 2003.


Diplomats and analysts increasingly are urging the Bush administration to reach out to both countries as part of a regional approach to quelling Iraq's troubles. Former secretary of state James A. Baker III, leader of a panel preparing a set of policy recommendations for the Bush administration, already has endorsed the idea of seeking the help of Iran and Syria.


"The thing is, because Iran and Syria both have spoiling power in Iraq, if you could neutralize them," it would ease some of the many pressures within Iraq, Hiltermann said. But he said the two countries may demand a mighty trade-off: for Syria, U.S. help with its biggest stated aim, winning back the Golan Heights from Israel; for Iran, U.S. compromise over its nuclear program.

Musharraf Believes the War with the Taliban Is Lost

PINR has a disturbing analysis that tells us that perhaps Iraq is not the only disaster in the Middle East. Pakistani President Musharraf has always been a reluctant player in the war. His continued tenure as leader of Pakistan comes begrudgingly from the Pashtun tribes on the border with Afghanistan. They are the supporters of the Taliban. Indeed, the Pakistani intelligence service has consistently been supporting the Taliban to ensure stability on it's western border so it can attend to the real threat from India. Indeed, Pakistan intelligence is likely behind nuclear technology in the hands of Iran and North Korea.
What's most disturbing is that a respected independent think tank NOW thinks Musharraf has given up on Afghanistan.

Musharraf's thinking can be seen in his recent decision to make peace with tribal leaders in North Waziristan Agency and his attempt to make peace with tribal leaders in Bajaur Agency, the latter of which fell apart as outside forces likely pressured Musharraf to attack those with whom he was negotiating. Based upon these decisions, it is clear that Musharraf believes that international efforts to exclude the Taliban from political power in Afghanistan will fail. [See: "Intelligence Brief: Musharraf Struggles Against Tribal Militants"]


As part of this assessment, Islamabad recognizes that it cannot afford to lose political influence with the Pashtun tribes on the border. For instance, if the Taliban and its Pashtun supporters are not defeated in Afghanistan, then the movement will flourish. For Pakistan, which is most concerned about its eastern front with India, it would be a strategic blunder to spark an insurgency in the west.


Therefore, Islamabad's dealing with tribal militants displays its revised assessment that the Taliban will not be defeated in Afghanistan. The reason, however, that Islamabad continues to launch occasional strikes against tribal leaders, such as the incident that recently occurred in Bajaur Agency, is because Islamabad is still subject to its interest of cooperating with the United States and its allies in the "war on terrorism." Pakistan, therefore, is forced to follow dual policies which are, at some moments, contradictory.


If Musharraf were to cease attacks against tribal militants, it could force the United States and N.A.T.O. to launch autonomous attacks in Pakistani territory in order to neutralize threats that Islamabad refuses to handle. For the United States and N.A.T.O., it is clear that much of the Taliban's support and recruitment base is in Pakistan's tribal and frontier regions.


If U.S.-led cross-border attacks were to occur, it could spell the death knell of Musharraf's grip on power. Musharraf already faces domestic unrest over his cooperation with the United States, and his failure to prevent the United States and its allies from attacking Pakistani territory would make him extremely unpopular at home and could cause his very own power base, the military, to unseat him.


Therefore, Musharraf and the rest of the government in Islamabad are forced to walk a tightrope in the handling of Pashtun elements in the border region. Until it becomes clear which side is going to prevail -- either Kabul agrees to some form of a government power-sharing role with the resurgent Taliban, or the U.S.-led coalition turns the tide on the Taliban insurgency -- Islamabad will continue to pursue these contradictory policies.

Boycott of Hamas Government in Palestine Ends

The fortunes of the US in the Middle East are declining. Unequivocal support of Israel will lead to a hostile Middle East. The Arab League signals it sees the Bush Administration as biased against them. Death of a family of Palestinian means nothing against the perception of safety and working to secure safety in Israel.
Lobbing shells and cluster bombs into residential residential neighborhoods is ok if they are just Arabs. As Bolton says, believing anything less is anti-semitic.
Aljazeera.Net

Arab countries have agreed to lift the financial blockade on the Palestinians after the US vetoing of a draft United Nations resolution condemning the recent Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip. Amr Moussa, the Arab League secretary-general, said at a meeting of the organisation in Cairo on Sunday: "There will be no compliance with any restriction imposed ... The Arab banks have to transfer money [to the Palestinians]. "Our message is loud and clear to those who take unfriendly positions against Arabs."


[...]Arab foreign ministers also called for a peace conference to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "according to international resolutions and the principal of 'land for peace'." The Arab League wants Hamas to endorse a 2002 initiative that calls for peace in exchange for land seized by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war - the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.


[...]John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN, said the Arab-backed resolution was "biased against Israel and politically motivated".

Changing Course in the Middle East?

Blair, who far from a blind supporter of Bush's lead, has started a new initiative that may well have some progress. He correctly views the entire Middle East as geographically overlapping interacting theaters of conflict. Going for a comprehensive peace plan is the way to go. Otherwise, each feeds the turmoil and armaments in the other. I've heard rumor that Jimmy Carter has a book coming out on the same topic. Perhaps we can have a joint process unlike anything the Bush Administration has attempted.
But so far, Bush shows little inclination to do anything but stonewall. The Petty song "Won't back down..." rings in my head. The macho meatheads solution to any problem is stand your ground. It doesn't require any thinking or humility.
washingtonpost.com

President Bush came under new pressure yesterday at home and abroad to alter his policies in the Middle East. British Prime Minister Tony Blair pushed for a broader Arab-Israeli peace initiative to help stabilize Iraq, while the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee pledged to take a hard line on seeking early troop withdrawals.


Bush offered little indication that he is planning to adjust his approach, telling reporters gathered in the Oval Office that "the best military options depend upon the conditions on the ground" in Iraq. The president also met for more than an hour with former secretary of state James A. Baker III, former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) and other members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which is looking to chart a new course in the war.


The day's events underscored the rapidly evolving political landscape for the White House, which finds itself trying to balance the desire for change voiced by the electorate last Tuesday with the president's frequently stated conviction that the United States must remain engaged militarily in Iraq until the government there can maintain its own security.


The White House will also have to deal with a Congress controlled by Democrats, a difference highlighted by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) as he outlined the new agenda of the Armed Services Committee, which for the past four years has been largely deferential to Bush's conduct of the war. Levin said he plans to step up the committee's activities, reviewing the state of military readiness and conducting more oversight of such issues as the rendition of terrorism suspects to countries suspected of practicing torture.


Levin also served notice that he intends to take a strong line on withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, telling reporters that he thinks a slim majority of the Senate may back his call for a "phased redeployment" of more than 140,000 U.S. troops.


"We had 40 senators who voted that way essentially six months ago, roughly, and there may be 50 or 51 senators that will vote that way now," Levin said at a news conference, referring to a bill that would call on the president to inform the Iraqi government that U.S. forces would begin leaving Iraq in four to six months.


In London, meanwhile, Blair suggested a desire for a more aggressive Western initiative to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a key to tamping down violence in the region, a recommendation that is also reportedly under consideration by the Iraq Study Group. Blair said that resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute, stabilizing Lebanon and pressuring Iran to halt its support of militants are key to helping reduce bloodshed in Iraq.


"A major part of the answer to Iraq lies not in Iraq itself but outside it, in the whole of the region where the same forces are at work, where the roots of this global terrorism are to be found, where the extremism flourishes," said Blair, Bush's closest international ally on Iraq.

Iraq Is Disintegrating; Now What?

Iraq as we know it is falling apart. The only question now is if we can facilitate an outcome that does not lead to a regional war. Now that the US Government has been handed a mandate to change course in Iraq, the question is what to do. With the independent Leiberman in the mix of the new majority, support for the war in the Senate may remain at 50%. This may be sufficient to force a compromise between the President and Democratic leaders. Monica Duffy Toft at washingtonpost.com says it comes down to whose side do we pick to support in military outcome that seems inevitable. Civil war in Iraq, means regional war, whether it be by proxy or involving bordering countries. Turkey and Iran are committed to containing the Kurdish threat. The Sunnis in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are very concerned about a Shi'ite Cresent stretching from Iran to Lebanon, threatening to stir unreset in their Shi'a minorities.
Monica makes no hint that she gets this dynamic, she just talks about how war historically leads to the most stable outcome. How jaded is that? War could lead to sabotage at 20% of the world's oil sources and destroy the world economy.

Some 3 1/2 years after the U.S. invasion, most scholars and policy analysts accept that Iraq is now in a civil war. But many policymakers have not been willing to face up to the consequences. The key question is how Iraq will be stabilized. It is an important question, because the stability and prosperity of a post-civil-war state depends in large measure on how the war ends. The fighting can stop in a variety of ways -- by military victory or negotiated settlement. Historically speaking, military victories have been the most common and have most often led to lasting resolutions. So while a negotiated settlement may seem the most desirable end point, this resolution is frequently short-lived even with third-party support.


A negotiated settlement is what the United States has attempted to implement for the past two years in Iraq, and it is failing. The process of writing and adopting a constitution and electing a president and parliament were all designed to give each of Iraq's communities a say in the government. Although the Kurds and the Shiites participated fully in the process, the Sunnis did not. Consequently, the Sunnis do not see the government as representing, much less protecting, their interests. Although the Kurds participated in the formation of the government, they have maintained their distance while strengthening their own militia. The trend lines in Iraq are toward a continuation of this fragmentation. So the argument in favor of a sustained U.S. presence to help enforce a peace settlement ignores both the situation there and past precedent.


Military victories, by contrast, historically result in the most stable outcomes. The reason is that typically a strong faction with a robust military is preserved. In these instances, problems with democratization, governance and political institutions certainly remain, but the state that survives retains its monopoly on the legitimate use of force and is able to leverage that legitimacy to stabilize and institute peace. Only after peace is achieved can issues of democracy, development and justice be dealt with.

Iraqi Civil War: The Bush Legacy

The news continues to get bad in Iraq. Shia leaders want the Iraqi Army unleashed by the US. In response, Sunni leaders threaten to quit the government and take up arms.
There seems to be no hope of avoiding all out Civil War. The Shia leaders will actively sabatoge any progress towards a strong central government, preferring a strong southern Iraqi Shia province. Saudi Arabia decries this solution because that places Iranian agents on it's borders. The Saudis will continue to support the insurgency for that reason alone. The Sunnis will fight as long has they are faced with landlocked oil deprived poverty. The Kurds won't share the oil riches of Kirkuk. The Turks and their Iraqi brethern will not tolerate an oil rich Kurdish state on it's borders.
The only solution possible is to put the Iraqis and their neighbors in charge of the solution. There will be civil war, regional war or not. More US casualties will not serve any purpose. It's time to force a local solution.
The other solution is to forever forbid pre-emptive and voluntary war by the US. War only serves when there is no other option. There were plenty of options in dealing with Iraq. I'm convinced if Bush had stayed out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea would be no where near the threat they are today. The threat of war is MUCH more of a deterent than any direct action.
Guardian Unlimited

A stunning new death count emerged Thursday, as Iraq's health minister estimated at least 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war - about three times previously accepted estimates.


Moderate Sunni Muslims, meanwhile, threatened to walk away from politics and pick up guns, while the Shiite-dominated government renewed pressure on the United States to unleash the Iraqi army and claimed it could crush violence in six months.


After Democrats swept to majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld resigned, Iraqis appeared unsettled and seemed to sense the potential for an even bloodier conflict because future American policy is uncertain. As a result, positions hardened on both sides of the country's deepening sectarian divide.


Previous estimates of Iraq deaths held that 45,000-50,000 have been killed in the nearly 44-month-old conflict, according to partial figures from Iraqi institutions and media reports. No official count has ever been available, and Health Minister Ali al-Shemari did not detail how he arrived at the new estimate of 150,000, which he provided to reporters during a visit to the Austrian capital. But later Thursday, Hassan Salem, of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, said the 150,000 figure included civilians, police and the bodies of people who were abducted, later found dead and collected at morgues run by the Health Ministry. SCIRI is Iraq's largest Shiite political organization and holds the largest number of seats in parliament.

Election Night Shenanagens

Alternet has the low down on continued attempts at organized voter fraud. Anyone who thinks our way of life is not threatened need to consider the past two presidential elections.