Citizen G'kar: Musings on Earth: 1/1/05

Since January 6th, when Juan Cole first spoke of the Sunni's concern about Shiite power, I've been wondering what their concern was. Since last July I've been writing about how Iran will be the greatest beneficiary of the US invasion of Iraq, since political power will shift to the Shiites. Iran has been flexing its muscles lining up new customers for its oil and marching towards the nuclear club. Truly, I'm sure part of the Sunni's concern is about the dream of a future World Caliphet with Sunni leaders might instead be Shiite leaders. But here Juan's wife(?) Shahin Cole says its mostly about religion.

[Informed Comment]

Guest Editorial: Sunni Anxieties and the Rise of Shiite Power by Shahin M. Cole

Sunni Anxieties and the Rise of Shiite Power

Shahin M. Cole

Iraq after its elections is not out of the woods, and some severe dangers loom ahead. Iraq has had the form of elections, but will it have the substance of democracy? Can candidates who were afraid to reveal their identities before the election now be secure in doing so afterwards? Will not the members of the new parliament become immediate targets for kidnapping and assassination?

Moreover, now comes the hard part of drafting a permanent constitution in a way that meets the expectations of all the major groups in the country. Some substantial portion of them is likely to come away disappointed. What if controversial issues cause the negotiations to bog down? Will the third of the candidates who are women accept the likely attempt of the religious parties to impose religious codes in family law? Can a way be found to mollify the Sunni Arabs, who will be highly underrepresented in the parliament, and the legitimacy of which they are unlikely grant?

Far from seeing the elections as a good thing to be emulated, the Sunni Arab neighbors of Iraq are likely to be alarmed at the rise of Shiite dominance. They will also be disturbed at any close Shiite-American alliance. Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and Salafi fundamentalists elsewhere in the Gulf (including Iraq itself), deeply disapprove of Shiite doctrine and practice.

The Sunni Arab Iraqis declined to vote in any numbers not just because of the poor security situation, but out of conviction. Many feel that you cannot have free and fair elections under foreign military occupation. They would also be within their rights to argue that voting procedures were stacked against them. The interim government allowed Iraqi expatriates who have taken citizenship in other countries to vote. Since most expatriates are Shiites, Kurds and Chaldeans, moreover, allowing expatriates to vote in this election might well be viewed as harming Sunni interests. The US has in the past forbidden its nationals (except, after 1967, those with dual citizenship) to vote in elections in other countries, and has threatened to strip them of their citizenship if they did. Were all Iraqi-Americans who voted actually dual citizens? Is this step a permanent change in US procedure?

The Gulf monarchies are afraid of the Khomeini-inspired trend in Shiism to say that "there can be no kings in Islam." If these Sunni hardliners had an "axis of evil", the Shiites of Iraq and Iran would be in it. Many Sunnis fear Shiite power more than they ever feared Saddam's predations. Many of them also view the United States as an imperial power in the region. A Shiite-American alliance is their worst nightmare, and many of them will see the Iraqi Shiites as puppets of the US. The elections, which the Bush administration sees as the solution to a whole host of problems, have upset the sectarian balance of power in the Middle East, and may well bring new kinds of instability in their train.

The differences and conflicts between the Wahhabi branch of Islam (prevalent in Saudi Arabia and Qatar) and Sunnis (who account for ninety percent of the world's Muslims) are not widely appreciated. Sunnis and Wahhabis have often been at odds. The rise of a Shiite-dominated Iraq supported by American power could well create new alliances between Sunnis and Wahhabis that will radicalize both. The US CIA is already predicting that Iraq is becoming the new training ground for international terrorism.

Juan Cole at Informed Comment, has a great summary article on the Iraqi election. Its much easier to get a balenced view from this column with all the elation in the US press. Well worth reading.

Its hard to believe that so many Americans, as many as 100 million, can be as whacky as this.
Christian-right views are swaying politicians and threatening the environment

Tune in to any of America's 2,000 Christian radio stations or 250 Christian TV stations and you're likely to get a heady dose of dispensationalism, an End-Time doctrine invented in the 19th century by the Irish-Anglo theologian John Nelson Darby. Dispensationalists espouse a "literal" interpretation of the Bible that offers a detailed chronology of the impending end of the world. [...]The reconstructionists (also known as dominionists), a smaller but politically influential sect, put the onus for the Lord's return not in the hands of biblical prophesy but in political activism. They believe that Christ will only make his Second Coming when the world has prepared a place for Him, and that the first step in readying His arrival is to Christianize America. "Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ," writes reconstructionist George Grant. Christian dominion will be achieved by ending the separation of church and state, replacing U.S. democracy with a theocracy ruled by Old Testament law, and cutting all government social programs, instead turning that work over to Christian churches. [...] "World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish," says Grant. "We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less." Only when that conquest is complete can the Lord return.

People under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the Rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a Word? [...] Natural-resource depletion and overpopulation, then, are not concerns for End-Timers -- and nor are other ecological catastrophes, which are viewed by dispensationalists as presaging the Great Tribulation.

I've often wondered if Dubya was stupid. But until now, I had seen his political advisors are pretty savvy. But this move looks like one that could lable the Republican Party as racist for the next generation. Now we await the parade of African American political leaders decrying the President.
Boston.com / News / Nation / Washington / Bush argues his Social Security plan aids blacks

As President Bush prepares to accelerate his sales pitch for overhauling Social Security, he is increasingly wrapping his rhetoric in racial terms. The system, he argues, is ''inherently unfair" to many blacks. The solution, Bush says, is to embrace his plan for private accounts, details of which he may provide in his annual State of the Union address Wednesday. Under a system based on wages, the average monthly Social Security retirement benefit received by African-Americans is $775, compared with $912 for whites. In addition, many blacks never receive the benefits because a disproportionate number die before they are eligible. On average, black males die six years sooner than white males. But some groups representing African-Americans say that Bush's logic is faulty and that creating private accounts would hurt blacks rather than help them. They maintain that Bush is playing a race card to boost his plan.

Update: Have doubts Bush is a racist? Check out this post from Political Strategy.

Here is shocking news about fund misappropriation by guess who, Rummy's department. Thanks to Daily Irrelevant for the heads up.
Military waste under fire / $1 trillion missing

A study by the Defense Department's inspector general found that the Pentagon couldn't properly account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent. A GAO report found Defense inventory systems so lax that the U.S. Army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units. And before the Iraq war, when military leaders were scrambling to find enough chemical and biological warfare suits to protect U.S. troops, the department was caught selling these suits as surplus on the Internet "for pennies on the dollar," a GAO official said.

At least $9 billion of this total lost can be attributed to the Coalition Provisional Government run by Bremer et al. One has to wonder incredible dollars involved lost not just to accounting errors, but to corruption, extra legal activities the Bush Administration is infamous for, and corporate payoffs.
Audit Slams U.S. Handling of Iraqi Funds

The U.S.-led provisional government in charge of Iraq until last summer was unable to properly account for nearly $9 billion in Iraqi funds it was charged with safeguarding, according to a scathing audit report. The Coalition Provisional Authority may have paid salaries for thousands of nonexistent employees in Iraqi ministries, issued unauthorized multimillion-dollar contracts and provided little oversight of spending in possibly corrupt ministries, according to the report by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

Correction; Posted by at February 3, 2005 08:03 PM:
While I see no indication that the report has been withdrawn by Yahoo or the Telegraph, I've heard from a commenter this story has been debunked. A Google search found a Reuters article that contradicts their reports and offers an interview with a spokesperson with the German agency. So I will join others in correcting the record.

A spokesman for the Federal Labour Office said that if job seekers said they were prepared to work as, for example, dancers in strip bars, advisers could put them in touch with any suitable employers, but vacancies would not be displayed in job centres.
He also stressed job centres would not look for prostitutes on behalf of brothels, nor offer sex industry jobs to people who hadn't specifically mentioned it as an area of interest.
Speculation has grown over recent weeks that Germany's new welfare reforms, obliging the long-term unemployed to take any available job or risk losing their benefits, could lead to women being offered jobs in the sex industry.

[the Daily Irrelevant]

[Quote:]

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services" at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year. Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners who must pay tax and employee health insurance were granted access to official databases of jobseekers. The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe. She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile" and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job including in the sex industry or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

[...]

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits." Miss Garweg said that women who had worked in call centres had been offered jobs on telephone sex lines. At one job centre in the city of Gotha, a 23-year-old woman was told that she had to attend an interview as a "nude model", and should report back on the meeting. Employers in the sex industry can also advertise in job centres, a move that came into force this month. A job centre that refuses to accept the advertisement can be sued.

Incredible! One would hope the bureaucracy in Germany will rethink their policies and make an exception for certain professions. I will look forward to a follow-up article on this.

Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Torture Chicks Gone Wild" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/opinion/30dowd.html?incamp=article_popular_2">NY Times > Opinion : Torture Chicks Gone Wild

A female military interrogator who wanted to turn up the heat on a 21-year-old Saudi detainee who allegedly had taken flying lessons in Arizona before 9/11 removed her uniform top to expose a snug T-shirt. She began belittling the prisoner - who was praying with his eyes closed - as she touched her breasts, rubbed them against the Saudi's back and commented on his apparent erection. After the prisoner spat in her face, she left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist suggested she tell the prisoner that she was menstruating, touch him, and then shut off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.
"The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," Mr. Saar recounted, adding: "She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee. As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred. She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward," breaking out of an ankle shackle. "He began to cry like a baby," the author wrote, adding that the interrogator's parting shot was: "Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself." A female civilian contractor kept her "uniform" - a thong and miniskirt - on the back of the door of an interrogation room, the author says.

Who are these women? Who allows this to happen? Why don't the officers who allow it get into trouble? Why do Rummy and Paul Wolfowitz still have their jobs?

Maureen Doud has a good question. Where is the Christian Right outcry? Could it be they aren't really Christians? Or maybe they are Christian when its convenient.
I'm sure Bush will disavow any knowledge. Gonzales will probably still be approved as Attorney General even though he helped design the legal argument for such methods. I'm sure neither had this sort of behavior in mind when they openned the door. But they clearly have the responsibility for openning that door. They said anything short of permanent harm was Ok. Of course that didn't include permanent psychological harm because ignorant folks like, Dubya, think that is just a reflection of weak character.
When will this Country step up and hold the ringleaders accountable?

A new book, COLLAPSE: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond, has numerous reviews on-line including one from the NY Times. The book is about why ancient societies, including the Anasazi of the American Southwest and the Viking colonies of Greenland, as well as modern ones such as Rwanda, have fallen apart. The book offers a heads up about what might happen to the western republics if we ignore the lessons of history. The NY Times writer, GREGG EASTERBROOK, appears to be unfairly critical of what he calls the "conclusions" of the book. He complains the book is not an objective scientific presentation of the data. Diamond clearly has an agenda that everyone can see. He wants to send a wake up call to the West. Why would he pull the punch and say, well we may avoid the problem anyway? That would amount to defeating his purpose. You can read an interview with the author here. The complete review by David Brin is here. This is an excerpt from the book:

"Are parallels between past and present sufficiently close that the collapses of the Easter Islanders, Henderson Islanders, Anasazi, Maya, and Greenland Norse offer lessons for the modern world? At first, a critic, noting obvious differences, might be tempted to object, 'It's ridiculous to suppose that the collapses of all those ancient peoples could have broad relevance today, especially to the modern U.S. Those ancients didn't enjoy the wonders of modern technology, which benefits us and which lets us solve problems by inventing new environment-friendly technologies. Those ancients had the misfortune to suffer from the effects of climate change. They behaved stupidly and ruined their own environment by doing obviously dumb things, like cutting down their forests, overharvesting wild animal sources of protein, watching their topsoil erode away, and building cities in dry areas likely to run short of water. They had foolish leaders who didn't have books and so couldn't learn from history, and who embroiled them in expensive and destabilizing wars, who cared only about staying in power, and didn't pay attention to problems at home. They got overwhelmed by desperate starving immigrants, as one society after another collapsed, sending floods of economic refugees to tax the resources of societies that weren't collapsing. In all those respects, we moderns are fundamentally different from those primitive ancients, and there is nothing that we could learn from them. Especially we in the U.S., the richest and most powerful country in the world today, with the most productive environment and wise leaders and strong loyal allies and only weak insignificant enemies -- none of those bad things could possible apply to us.'"

[the Daily Irrelevant]

[Quote:]

The U.S. Air Force is playing a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Iran's ayatollahs, flying American combat aircraft into Iranian airspace in an attempt to lure Tehran into turning on air defense radars, thus allowing U.S. pilots to grid the system for use in future targeting data, administration officials said.

"We have to know which targets to attack and how to attack them," said one, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The flights, which have been going on for weeks, are being launched from sites in Afghanistan and Iraq and are part of Bush administration attempts collect badly needed intelligence on Iran's possible nuclear weapons development sites, these sources said, speaking on condition of strict anonymity.

"These Iranian air defense positions are not just being observed, they're being 'templated', an administration official said, explaining that the flights are part of a U.S. effort to develop "an electronic order of battle for Iran" in case of actual conflict.

Dangerous game indeed. Apparently, the US is writing off Iraq and giving the country to the Shiites and minimizing the risk by destabilizing the Iranian government. Special forses all over Iraq seeking targets and homegrown spies and aircraft to test defenses and identify targets from the air. Certainly sounds like US imperialism has set its sights on a new target.

[the Daily Irrelevant]

More picturesâ€¦

After all the chaos, over 100,000 Iraqi dead, around 30,000 US casualties including medical discharges for stress related illnesses, millions of Iraqi's will risk their lives to vote. It is certainly true that the vote would not have happened with Sadaam in power. But I await the Iraqi people's assessment of whether the change is worth the cost. Perhaps we will find out in the next couple years what they really think. Their assessment will likely be reflected in long-range foreign relations with America. My hunch is that relations will be cordial at best and feelings will be ambivalent. It will be decades before Iraq is rebuilt.

[The Agonist]

Soros Says Greenspan Lost Credibility Helping Bush Michael McKee | New York | January 29 Bloomberg - George Soros, the billionaire investor, said Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has lost credibility for driving the benchmark U.S. interest rate to a four-decade low and advocating tax cuts that Soros said caused the U.S. budget deficit to balloon.
[...]
"Greenspan lost credibility with me when he became too political,'' said Soros, 74, in an interview today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "He tried to push interest rates further down in order to help the re-election campaign, and also reached out beyond his sphere of competence by advocating tax cuts which then led to the current deficit.''

Indeed, all of Economic policy with this administration has been driven by politics rather than economic logic. Certainly, this abusing the US economy will come back to haunt us at some point. All this squandering of our children's future was initiated in the interest of a personal vendetta of revenge for Bush and a neo-con grandiose adventure. History will not treat Dubya well.

[The Agonist]

Glaciers Shrinking in a Warming World - Charles J. Hanley | Chacaltaya Glacier, Bolivia | January 29 - AP -
CHACALTAYA GLACIER, Bolivia - Up and down the icy spine of South America, the glaciers are melting, the white mantle of the Andes Mountains washing away at an ever faster rate. "Look. You can see. Chacaltaya has split in two," scientist Edson Ramirez said as he led a visitor up toward a once-grand ice flow high in the thin air of the Bolivian cordillera. In the distance below, beneath drifting clouds, sprawled 2-mile-high La Paz, a growing city that survives on the water running off the shoulders of these treeless peaks. Chacaltaya, a frozen storehouse of such water, will be gone in seven to eight years, said Ramirez, a Bolivian glaciologist, or ice specialist. "Some small glaciers like this have already disappeared," he said as melting icicles dripped on nearby rock, exposed for the first time in millennia. "In the next 10 years, many more will." They'll disappear far beyond Bolivia. From Alaska in the north, to Montana's Glacier National Park, to the great ice fields of wild Patagonia at this continent's southern tip, the "rivers of ice" that have marked landscapes from prehistory are liquefying, shrinking, retreating. In east Africa, the storied snows of Mount Kilimanjaro are vanishing. In the icebound Alps and Himalayas of Europe and Asia, the change has been stunning. From South America to south Asia, new glacial lakes threaten to overflow and drown villages below. In the past few years, space satellites have helped measure the global trend, but scientists such as Rajendra K. Pachauri, a native of north India, have long seen what was happening on the ground. "I know from observation," Pachauri told a reporter at an international climate conference in Argentina. "If you go to the Himalayan peaks, the rate at which the glaciers are retreating is alarming. And this is not an isolated example. I've seen photographs of Mount Kilimanjaro 50 years ago and now. The evidence is visible."

"Ample" evidence indicates that global warming is causing glaciers to retreat worldwide, reports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-sponsored network of climate scientists led by Pachauri. Global temperatures rose about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the 20th century. French glaciologists working with Ramirez and other scientists at La Paz's San Andres University estimate that the Bolivian Andes are warming even faster, currently at a half-degree Fahrenheit per decade. The warming will continue as long as "greenhouse gases," primarily carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, accumulate in the atmosphere, say the U.N. panel and other authoritative scientific organizations. Continued...

There is a complete archive of Global Warming articles at Enlightenment Bulletin Board.

[The Agonist]

04:56:46
Tehran, Jan 30 - Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani announced Iran's readiness to 'renovate and strengthen Lebanon's defense industry' during a meeting with his Lebanese counterpart Abdulrahim Murad who arrived here Sunday for a four-day visit. Shamkhani hailed the visit, saying it indicates the two countries' perception of the regional developments and the need for creation of a united regional (front) against common threats. "Iran believes one of the effective ways in confronting expansionist ambitions of the world arrogance and the Zionist regime is to strengthen convergence and unity among regional countries," he said.

Condemning Israel's threats and 'insinuous moves' against regional countries, especially Lebanon, Shamkhani said, "the Islamic Republic of Iran calls on the international community to intervene and end repeated violation of Lebanon's sovereignty by the Zionists." The Lebanese Defense Minister expressed his satisfaction with the visit, describing Iran's role in helping establish peace and stability in the region as pivotal and outstanding. Murad outlined the prevailing situation in the region and stressed the need for solidarity among Muslim nations to fend off existing threats of the world arrogance. The Lebanese minister described expansion of bilateral cooperation between Tehran and Beirut as indispensable, saying that establishment of enduring peace and stability in the region is impossible without their cooperation.

Murad's visit is Lebanon's response to an official visit by Shamkhani to Beirut and Damascus last February, which included conclusion of an agreement for defense and military cooperation with Damascus.

Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News NetworkSponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.

The Sunni's concern about a Shiite Cresent stretching from Iran through Iraq, Syria, to Lebanon appears to be becoming a reality. I wish I understood the Sunni's concern. Only Iran appears to be inclined towards theocracy. Could the issue be political influence? The Arabs have always dreamt of leading the Islamic world. Perhaps they fear the Mullahs of Iran will become that uniting force? Shiites have always been better organized because their Mullahs carried political as well as religious influence. Even though they may swear off a political position, like Sistani in Iraq, people follow their fatwas as if they are edits from Allah himself.

We're very lucky our Earth has the ability to correct some of the things we do to it. Ozone depletion would have killed us if we hadn't changed our ways. I wonder what other insidious thing we are doing to ourselves with a disaster looming in our future?

[BBC News | Science/Nature | World Edition]

Arctic ozone may drop to new low
By Richard Black BBC environment correspondent

A healthy ozone layer is important to all northern species
The coming weeks could bring the most severe thinning of the ozone layer over northern Europe since records began. The conditions are being driven by unusual weather in the high atmosphere above the Arctic, says the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit. The stratosphere, where the ozone layer lies, has seen its coldest winter for 50 years; there have also been an unusually large number of clouds. These factors hasten the rate at which man-made chemicals destroy ozone. "The meteorological conditions we are now witnessing resemble and even surpass the conditions of the 1999-2000 winter, when the worst ozone loss to date was observed," said Dr Neil Harris, from the Cambridge University-based unit.

Broken balance

Ozone is a molecule that is composed of three oxygen atoms. It is responsible for filtering out harmful ultra-violet radiation (less than 290 nanometres) from the Sun. The molecule is constantly being made and destroyed in the stratosphere, which exists from about 10km to 40km above the Earth. In an unpolluted atmosphere, this cycle of production and decomposition is in equilibrium. But a number of human-produced chemicals, such as the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used as refrigerants, in aerosol sprays, as solvents and in foam-blowing agents, have risen into the stratosphere where they are broken down by the Sun's rays. Chlorine atoms released from these chemicals then act as catalysts to decompose ozone.

Long return

At the moment, the area where the ozone layer is particularly thin is constrained by winds, which to some extent isolate the Arctic from the rest of the global climate system. Scientists say this natural barrier will break down in the coming weeks, and the low ozone area will spread southwards over northern Europe, including the UK. This will mean more of the Sun's ultra-violet rays reaching ground level, potentially increasing the risk of skin cancer. The incidence of malignant melanoma, the worst kind of skin cancer, is rising; but to what extent that has been caused by decades of ozone depletion is far from clear. "We will watch the development closely from day to day, and will inform the public and our authorities if the situation becomes worrying," said Dr Harris. The use of ozone-depleting chemicals is now restricted by an international treaty, the Montreal Protocol; but it may be half a century before levels of these chemicals have fallen sufficiently in the atmosphere to allow the northern ozone layer to be fully repaired.

Cheney, flanked by his wife and Israeli President Moshe Katsav at the Holocaust memorial event.

Photo Credit: Herbert Knosowski -- AP
Related Article: Dick Cheney, Dressing Down

After I talked about the Democratic Party appealing to a centrist voter, I continue to be ambivalent. Then this article from Political Strategy came my way and I can't avoid its common sense.
Political Strategy - Politics, Strategies, Tactics, News and Opinion

This is what the republicans did right:

Create radio and cable ratings success with "Fire and Brimstone"

Maintain disciplined and consistent message among members

Built media/propaganda infrastructure with think tanks, Fox News and AM Hate-radio

This is what the Democrats have done wrong in the past, but are now correcting:

Create radio and cable ratings failure with "policy complexity" and "milquetoast personalities"

Maintained fractured message with little unity

Failed to build a media/propaganda infrastructure

Here is an extremely important article from Juan Cole about the insanity in this Administration.

[Informed Comment]

Feith Resigns Under Pressure of Investigations

Douglas Feith, the number three man at the Pentagon who went there from the pro-Likud Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Project for a New American Century, will leave the Pentagon as of this summer. Feith's office is the subject of an FBI investigation as well as two Congressional investigations, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Feith helped set up an Office of Special Plans in the Near East and South Asia desk of the Pentagon to cherry-pick Iraq intelligence and create a case for Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and having operational links with al-Qaeda. At one point, contrary to Federal law, Feith's people actually briefed officials in the Executive on intelligence. Feith sent David Wurmser from the Office of Special Plans, once its work was well under way, over to the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, so that he could stove pipe OSP analyses into the VP's office and thence directly to the president, doing an end run around the CIA and the State Department Intelligence and Research division.

Having a Likudnik as the number three man in the Pentagon is a nightmare for American national security, since Feith could never be trusted to put US interests over those of Ariel Sharon. In the build-up to the Iraq War, Feith had a phalanx of Israeli generals visiting him in the Pentagon and ignored post-9/11 requirements that they sign in. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was a vocal advocate of a US war against Iraq, who "put pressure" on Washington about it. (If Sharon wanted a war against Iraq, why didn't he fight it himself instead of pushing it off on American boys?)

Feith has been questioned by the FBI in relation to the passing by one of his employees of confidential Pentagon documents to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which in turn passed them to the Israeli embassy. The Senate Intelligence Committee is also investigating Feith. There seems little doubt that he operated in the Pentagon in such a way as to produce false and misleading "intelligence," that he created an entirely false impression of Iraqi weapons capabilities and ties to al-Qaeda, and that he is among the chief facilitators of the US war in Iraq.

Feith is clearly resigning ahead of the possible breaking of major scandals concerning his tenure at the Department of Defense, which is among the more disgraceful cases of the misleading of the American people in American history.

There are several downsides to Feith's departure, as welcome as it is for anyone who cares about US security in particular. The first is that now we probably have to see him forever on cable news channels as one of those dreary neocon talking heads flogged by the American Enterprise Institute, a far rightwing "think tank" funded by cranky rich people to obscure the truth. Another is that his departure now may help keep Bush from being blamed for his shady dealings in intelligence "analysis."

It is important to note that what is objectionable about Feith is a) his playing fast and loose with the truth, producing poor intelligence analysis that has been shown to be completely false and b) his doing so on behalf of not only American nationalist aspirations but also on behalf of a non-American political party, the Likud coalition of Israel, which desired to destroy the Oslo peace process initiated by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (and which was therefore on the same side of this issue as the fanatic who assassinated Rabin). There is no objection to Americans having multiple identities or love for more than one country. Someone of Serbian heritage would make a perfectly good Pentagon administrator. But you wouldn't want a vehement supporter of Slobodon Milosevic as the number three man in the Pentagon. It is ideological dual loyalty that is dangerous. Mere sentiment based on multiple ethnic identities is not dual loyalty, and hyphenated Americans mostly have other countries they wish well (and rightly so).

It is also important to underline that only a small minority of American Jews support the Likud Party or its policies, and that a majority of Jewish Americans opposed the Iraq war. In short, the problematic nature of Feith's tenure at the Department of Defense must not be made an excuse for any kind of bigotry.

I've come to have a lot of respect for Steven Roach's opinions. He's a systemic thinker who sees the economy as worldwide and constantly dynamic and in rather perilous condition. He generally finds himself disagreeing with the Bush Administration and Greenspan these days.
Morgan Stanley

Most thought that a sharply weaker dollar held the key to the global adjustment process. I argued this perception needed to be qualified -- that dollar depreciation was a necessary but not sufficient condition for global rebalancing (see my 14 January dispatch, â€œThe Dollar Canâ€™t Do It Aloneâ€). With Americaâ€™s import volumes currently running more than 50% larger than exports, I view the trade gap as, first and foremost, a problem of excess domestic demand. And barring a credible program of deficit reduction from Washington -- unfortunately, an entirely reasonable assumption -- the only way to temper Americaâ€™s consumption binge, in my view, is through higher real interest rates. The combination of a weaker dollar and higher real rates fits the global rebalancing script to a tee. The currency realignment changes the worldâ€™s relative price structure -- precisely what macro prescribes for a lopsided world. But the risk is it only sparks a shift in the mix between foreign and domestic production that leaves US aggregate demand largely unchanged. Only by raising real interest rates will American consumers rein in the excesses of asset-dependent demand.

[...]

The Davos consensus felt that conclusion spelled a sustained period of sharply higher energy and industrial materials prices. As one senior mining executive said, â€œWe are at the beginning of a structural bull market in materials and energy like the 1950s and 1960s.â€ The point was made repeatedly that the mix of global demand was shifting increasingly to the energy- and materials-intensive Chinas and Indias of the world. Focused on industrialization, urbanization, and (eventually, in the case of India) infrastructure, the growth dynamic in both of these major developing economies is widely expected to remain biased toward ever-greater energy and raw materials demand. Given the shortfall of new incremental supply in the past 20 years, the Davos crowd embraced the notion that the world was re-entering an era of permanently higher commodity prices. My challenge to this conclusion came on the point as to whether China, India, and others in the developing world should truly be considered an autonomous source of incremental demand in the global economy. To the extent that these economies remain wedded largely to export-led growth models, they may be nothing more than a levered play on the American consumer -- the principal engine on the demand side of the global economy. Should US private consumption ever falter -- admittedly, a long-standing concern of mine -- then the so-called â€œnatural demandâ€ for energy and other raw materials might mysteriously vanish into thin air. The Davos consensus viewed the China factor as sustainable and real -- with lasting impacts on sharply elevated pricing in the commodity complex. In my view, until this conclusion is stress-tested by the long overdue adjustment of the American consumer, the jury is still out on this key point.

His first point is the interest rates are artificially low given the falling dollar worldwide. The Fed has been supporting these artificially low interest rates, the results have lead to a more volatile investment climate with stable investments showing flat returns, investors venture into riskier territory.
His second point is that the demand factor in the US that produces trade imbalence is not stable. If demand were to fall stateside, the apparently permanently high priced energy and commodities may just collapse when Chinese production drops in response. He thinks the assumption of permanently higher oil and other commodity prices needs to be stress tested.
All in all, it appears the world economy is in fragile condition. The rapid growth in China and India may just be an artifact of the artificially lower interest rates. When the balence is corrected by the Fed or a crashing dollar, the world could see a recession.

[UNDERNEWS]

STEVE SCHLICH, NAKED WASHINGTON - In February 2002, the Justice Department spent $8,000 on curtains to cover up one Art Deco aluminum breast. At that rate, it would cost millions to censor the hundreds of private parts on public display in Washington, D.C.-and none of them are real. The whole concept is offensive to me. . . like pulling a burka over free speech. But rather than scream about it. . . I flew to Washington and photographed over a hundred different subjects around the capital-mostly outdoor sculpture. The place is a virtual den of iniquity! In a leisurely single day, you can visit:

- The Court of Neptune, where a gallery of anatomically correct nymphs and tritons cavort in spraying water and full public view

- The Boy Scout Memorial, where an oversized naked man stalks a fully-clothed scout a few hundred feet from the White House

- The Library of Congress, where tastefully lurid art covers the walls and ceilings, featuring bare breasts and provocative titles such as â€œCorrupt Legislationâ€ and â€œAnarchy"

Sad thing about it is our nations art is indeed under assault and at risk by the religious and ideological zealots.

[UNDERNEWS]

NATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW - Justice Virginia Bell, of the NSW Supreme Court, has called for the internet to be purged of any material likely to prejudice a trial in order to prevent jurors conducting their own investigations into cases on which they are sitting, according to The Australian. The judge made the proposal at a conference of Supreme and Federal court judges from across Australia, but there were apparently few takers. Independent research by jurors is already illegal in Australia.

Judge Bell said prosecutors should comb the internet for potentially prejudicial material -- such as archives of stories mentioning persons involved in criminal cases -- and tell Australian ISPs to render the information inaccessible. ISPs suggested that was impossible, according to the story, because much of the material was likely to reside on offshore servers -- such as search engines like Google and independent archives of newspapers, not to mention the internet archival project's comprehensive attempt to mirror the entire internet. But Judge Bell contends that anyone serving up such material could be subject to contempt of court proceedings, regardless of where they were located.

Her position has some history in Australia. The High Court found in a 2002 defamation case -- Gutnick v Dow Jones -- that internet articles are published where they are read. That could bring the New York Times within the jurisdiction of an Australian court for defamation purposes -- and possibly for criminal contempt proceedings.

Next thing we'll hear is China is charging and sentencing the webmaster of a Chinese History website in absentia for sedition. Freedom of speech has been enhanced world wide by the web. We certainly don't want to undermine the progress made. I certainly hope someone takes on this one on in the International Courts.

Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Winning Cases, Losing Voters" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/opinion/26starr.html?ex=1107838800&en=69c2843054a49d61&ei=5070">The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Winning Cases, Losing Voters

To be sure, Democrats were right to challenge segregation and racism, support the revolution in women's roles in society, to protect rights to abortion and to back the civil rights of gays. But a party can make only so many enemies before it loses the ability to do anything for the people who depend on it. For decades, many liberals thought they could ignore the elementary demand of politics - winning elections - because they could go to court to achieve these goals on constitutional grounds. The great thing about legal victories like Roe v. Wade is that you don't have to compromise with your opponents, or even win over majority opinion. But that is also the trouble. An unreconciled losing side and unconvinced public may eventually change the judges. And now we have reached that point. The Republicans, with their party in control of both elected branches - and looking to create a conservative majority on the Supreme Court that will stand for a generation - see the opportunity to overthrow policies and constitutional precedents reaching back to the New Deal. That prospect ought to concentrate the liberal mind. Social Security, progressive taxation, affordable health care, the constitutional basis for environmental and labor regulation, separation of church and state - these issues and more hang in the balance. Under these circumstances, liberal Democrats ought to ask themselves a big question: are they better off as the dominant force in an ideologically pure minority party, or as one of several influences in an ideologically varied party that can win at the polls? The latter, it seems clear, is the better choice.

I've been torn by debate about the core values of the Democratic Party. My views are varied across the spectrum. But my values are very similar to those of the traditional Democratic Party.
The Republicans have shown us that the extreme right wing of their party can sell themselves largely by deceiving the American people that they are compassionate conservatives who support American workers, work to create jobs, and ensure the American way of life for all Americans. Those of us who pay attention know that this is all false. The Republican party is so blatently laissez faire (no regulation) business policy, paying off corporate friends with millions in profits from government contracts and redirect social service dollars from traditional providers to pay back their Christian Right-wing supporters. They talk about protecting the environment, but they dismantle protections at every turn.
Taken as a whole, the American voter (lets call him Joe Sixpack) is centrist. We can see clearly that he is not ready for gay marriage, legalizing marijuana, thinks at least some of his taxes are wasted, and thinks criminals need punishment rather than rehabilitation. You don't hear our candidates advocating legalized marijuana, raising taxes on the middle class, or redecorating jails to make them more humane. But we got sucked into cutting our throats on gay marriage. Joe simply doesn't think gays should be married in the eyes of the state.
Joe also wants the government out of his bedroom and really doesn't care with whom the neighbor sleeps. He also doesn't want his right to speak his mind or make choices on how he lives his life dictated by the government. He wants government to reasonably honest about the important things. He doesn't want to go to war unless there is no other choice.
We could do as the Republicans do, appeal to the emotional issues of the day and mislead Mr. Sixpack to vote Democratic. Then by saying all the right things he wants to hear, and then we could adopt policies with a left-wing tilt while talking a centrist line. Frankly, I think that is the only way the liberal values of the party will be implemented in the near future.
The alternative is to appeal to the silent majority, the centrist voter who is constantly pulled one way or the other during election campaigns, Joe Sixpack and his family.
Our traditional American values have been under attack by extremists who wish to curtail liberty. Anyone of us could be arrested and held without charges or access to a lawyer just because someone thinks we might have terrorist ties. American values include family values, but today family values have been cited to actively discriminated against just because of how they choose to live their life. The American worker is seeing more work hours, fewer benefits, higher costs, and a falling standard of living unprecedented in the past two generations.
While income taxes have fallen modestly for Joe, property taxes, Social Security taxes and user fees have increased to the point it more than offsets income tax cuts. More of Joe's friends and family are without medical insurance than at any time in generations. There are more homeless, more unemployed, more people living in poverty without hope than Joe has seen in decades. Republican government has squandered the financial future of our children because of their excesses of today. And they are risking the environmental future of mother earth in the interest of short-term profit that benefits only a few.
There are plenty of issues the majority of voters can agree upon. We can't expect to stand on ideology alone and win elections. And we can't expect the Courts to ensure ideology anymore, because we have lost too many elections. We can't keep losing without losing the credibility of the Democratic Party. We have to decide what is more important. Ideological purity, educating vs misleading the average voter, and/or winning Democratic majority in Congress.

If you think the US robust economy drives the world, think again. Our pre-eminent position is about to usurped. China first, with India just a couple years behind.
China Passes U.S. In Trade With Japan (washingtonpost.com)

China overtook the United States as Japan's largest trading partner last year, the latest sign of Beijing's rising economic clout and the role that the booming Chinese market plays in boosting the global economy. Exports and imports between Japan and China, including Hong Kong, reached $213 billion in 2004, accounting for 20.1 percent of Japan's total trade, according to a Japanese government report released yesterday. Trade between Japan and the United States was $197 billion, or 19 percent of total Japanese exports and imports.

U.S. Faces 'Pivotal Moment' on Clean-Air Regulations (washingtonpost.com)

Republicans touted Bush's "Clear Skies" legislation, which aims to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury by 70 percent -- but not until after 2018. Subcommittee Chairman George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) told reporters after the hearing that GOP leaders plan to press for a full committee vote as soon as mid-February so they can bring the bill to the floor. He added that if they cannot pass the bill in six months, they will consider it dead. Democrats and public health advocates oppose the measure, saying it would do nothing to curb emissions linked to global warming and would undermine existing air quality standards and enforcement tools. Under the Clean Air Act, they argue, the administration could demand pollution cuts as steep as 90 percent by 2008, and the health benefits would far outweigh the costs to industry. "You're telling us more than 20,000 premature deaths a year . . . and we're going to reduce this pollution by 2 to 3 percent a year? That just doesn't make sense," said Eric Schaeffer, who resigned as head of the EPA's enforcement division in 2002 and now directs the Environmental Integrity Project, an advocacy group.

Looks like the Bush administration is grand standing its totally inadequate regulation of the Clean Air Act. This is a big win for Industry, at the cost of the lives of 20,000 Americans per year. Have any doubts about who is important to this President?

[The Agonist]

Pentagon Prepares to Rethink Focus on Conventional Warfare | Bradley Graham | January 26 WaPo - The Pentagon has drafted terms for an ambitious reshaping of U.S. forces that would put less emphasis on waging conventional warfare and more on dealing with insurgencies, terrorist networks, failed states and other nontraditional threats, according to senior defense officials and others familiar with the confidential planning.

Now this is a move I can support... but I would have supported this move back in 2001 when Afghanistan presented a legitimate threat. And if Bush had pursued this reasonable course, we wouldn't have a new training ground for terrorists under our noses and would have had a chance to contain the danger of Islamist Jihad against the US. Now we just spread it all over Iraq and the world.

Senator Dayton asks an interesting question. By asserting lying in politics is immoral, he puts on the table an issue that is on every voters mind.
Democrats Criticize Rice Over Iraq War (washingtonpost.com)

Too many Republican senators allow Bush's top aides "to get away with lying," said Sen. Mark Dayton, a Democrat who opposed the war and will face reelection next year in the swing state of Minnesota. "Lying to Congress, lying to our committees and lying to the American people. It's wrong, it's immoral." The only way to stop it, Dayton said, is to keep the administration from promoting officials "who have been instrumental in deceiving Congress and the American people, and regrettably that includes Dr. Rice."

Everyone seems to lie at one time or another, including our politicians. Some businesses seemed to be based on misleading people. Everyone seems to accept some level of less than honest discourse in their lives.
In politics, certainly withholding the truth protects national security. Sometimes misleading people accomplishes an honest open political objective. But when a policy maker deliberately misleads the Congress and the American people to accomplish a hidden agenda, then maybe lies are unacceptable even from politicians. I think America could benefit from a dialogue about honesty in politics.

While I don't agree with the conclusionProgressive Ink! has a great quote that should help awaken the masses of the danger in our midst.

The biggest threat to our democracy is the merging of corporate and political power - an act convincingly referred to as â€œcorporatismâ€ by Benito Mussolini who concretely stated, â€œFascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.â€

Updated 1/26/05: I didn't express myself very well yesterday. I think the greatest danger to our democracy is erosion of the separation of church and state. I do think there is a great risk in bringing corporations into government discourse like Bush has, and a huge danger if they get much further.
Corporations currently employ most of us. They have an important role in this country. They do have a vested interest and power that needs to be contained so that they are forced to serve their community. They're power needs to be contained so they are no more represented than any other special interest group with large numbers of members. That's why the laissez faire business policies of Bush can never work in the long run. But I don't see Corporations as the greatest danger. They are an 800 lbs gorilla that need to be caged, but well fed.
And while I'm tempted by the Greens and find I agree more with Nader than Kerry, realistically we have to place our vote where it will do something more than the performance of a symbolic act. I want the Republicans vanquished!

News
The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world - and it is remarkably brief. In as little as 10 years, or even less, their report indicates, the point of no return with global warming may have been reached.
The report, Meeting The Climate Challenge, is aimed at policymakers in every country, from national leaders down. It has been timed to coincide with Tony Blair's promised efforts to advance climate change policy in 2005 as chairman of both the G8 group of rich countries and the European Union.
And it breaks new ground by putting a figure - for the first time in such a high-level document - on the danger point of global warming, that is, the temperature rise beyond which the world would be irretrievably committed to disastrous changes. These could include widespread agricultural failure, water shortages and major droughts, increased disease, sea-level rise and the death of forests - with the added possibility of abrupt catastrophic events such as "runaway" global warming, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, or the switching-off of the Gulf Stream.

Sometimes it appears to me as if Sharon doesn't want peace. He wants to humiliate as many Palestinians as possible and enrich himself and Israel at Palestinian expense in anyway he can. This policy and the timing of its acknowledgement is designed to undermine the peace process. There is no doubt in my mind. The Palestinians have to want peace so badly they will have to accept repeated humiliations to get it. I'll be amazed if Abbas can pull it off.
International > Middle East > Palestinians Fear East Jerusalem Land Grab" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/international/middleeast/25mideast.html?ex=1107674000&ei=1&en=e8c6fb332057586d">The New York Times > International > Middle East > Palestinians Fear East Jerusalem Land Grab

The Israeli government secretly approved a measure last summer that says it can seize land in East Jerusalem owned by Palestinians who live elsewhere, the government and a lawyer for the Palestinians said Monday. The lawyer said the decision could affect hundreds of Palestinian property owners and thousands of acres of land. "This is state theft, pure and simple," said Hanna Nasser, the mayor of neighboring Bethlehem, home to many of the Palestinians who could lose land they own in Jerusalem. The mayor linked the Israeli decision to the West Bank separation barrier that Israel is building in the same area. "When Israel started building this wall, they stopped letting people use this land," he said.

Bush's buddies in Saudi Arabia are at it again. I wonder how many of the insurgents in Iraq are Saudi. I wonder how many of our troops have died or been injured because Bush won't stand up to his family's long time friends.

[The Agonist]

Saudi Clerics Point Militants Toward IraqScheherezade Faramarzi | London | January 24 AP - Fundamentalist Islamic leaders in Saudi Arabia are telling militants intent on fighting "infidels" to join the insurgency in Iraq instead of taking up Osama bin Laden's call to oust the Saudi royal family at home, say Saudi dissidents who monitor theological edicts coming out of the kingdom. "If they preach that there ought to be absolutely no jihad, they would lose credibility and support among their followers. So what they do is preach jihad - not in Saudi Arabia, but in Iraq," said Abdul-Aziz Khamis, a Saudi human rights activist in London. Saudi clerics such as Al-Odeh and al-Hawali have issued several fatwas saying jihad is legitimate in Iraq. Al-Hawali also opposes beheading foreign hostages for political reasons, even though he supports it from a religious point of view, said Khamis. Al-Odeh was among 26 clerics who called for jihad in Iraq last year. more at link

Any doubts on whether we are losing the war on terror? Take a look at a new crackdown on increasing recruitment of terrorists.

[The Agonist]

Militant Imams Under Scrutiny Across Europe - Don Van Natta Jr. & Lowell Bergman with Souad Mekhennet | London & Frankfurt | January 25 Sheik Abu Hamza al-Masri, then the leader of the Finsbury Parkmosque, speaking to followersat the rally in London in August 2002 (Ian Waldi/Reuters) NYT - After eavesdropping for months on his nightly sermons broadcast on the internet in praise of the Sept. 11 hijackers and of suicide bombings, Scotland Yard said last week that it was investigating Sheik Sheik Omar Bakri Muhammad, a 46-year-old Syrian-born cleric, the leader of Al Muhajiroun, Britain's largest Muslim group, and officials are exploring whether they can deport him. "We're fed up with him," said a senior British official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "He needs to be stopped, or he needs to go." The more aggressive approach toward Sheik Omar is part of an increasing effort to monitor and restrict militant imams in Britain and across Europe. Authorities have stepped up surveillance of militant mosques in several countries, including Germany and France. French officials deported an imam this month after officials said he was inspiring men to join the jihad. One major concern, officials say, is that more heated religious rhetoric is encouraging young men to leave home to fight in Iraq. Posted stories on recent activity in Germany: on mosque raids here and on arrests here.

If you have any doubts about the Cold War re-igniting, read this very familiar story that could be dated from the 60's and 70's:

[The Agonist]

Mr Assad wants to increaseeconomic contacts with Russia - (photo: AP) Syrian leader defiant on missiles - January 25 BBC - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has defended his country's right to purchase Russian anti-aircraft missiles despite protests from Israel. The prospect of such a sale has angered Israel and made the US threaten Russia with sanctions. The US state department has warned that Russia could face sanctions if any sale of military equipment to Syria goes ahead.

Looks like there are very significant developments in Israel. Hamas is willing to accept Fatah's long standing position on peace with Israel.
Thanks to Kur5hin.org for the heads up on this one.
Haaretz - Israel News

Hamas has distributed a document outlining a joint Palestinian leadership program in which the organization, for the first time in its existence, unequivocally recognizes the 1967 borders and adopts the main principle guiding Fatah: the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

But are they really close to a settlement? Basically, what appears to be the Palestinian offer is a return to borders after the 1967 War. Israel has been rejecting that solution for years. They believe those borders are indefensible. In 1994, Israeli Prime Minister Barak offered to withdraw from 100% of the Gaza Strip and 95-97% of the West Bank, that is, to the 1967 border with minor modifications.
Since then however, the Israelis have been building a wall that is well within the 1967 borders because it attempts to bring many settlements in the West Bank into proposed Israeli border.
In 1995 Abbas under his alias Abu Mazen negotiated a plan that looks interestingly very similar to the map of the wall under construction. Maybe they are closer to a settlement than it appears at first glance. But as I said before, the agreement on the right to return is also critical. See below:

The Wall --------------------- Abu Mazen Plan

Not only can we not win the war on terror the way we are going, we can't win the war in Iraq, but the Bush administration policies based on reports from his own intelligence consultants, Islamist recruitment to the Jihad against America is accelerating.
Bangledesh is just the sort of place where the Jihad will grow in the future. This article does a great job of explaining how it is happening.
Magazine > The Next Islamist Revolution?" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/23/magazine/23BANG.html?ex=1107463938&ei=1&en=40a2becb0f7ba9ca">The New York Times > Magazine > The Next Islamist Revolution?

Foreign journalists in Bangladesh are followed by intelligence agents; people that reporters interview are questioned afterward. Nonetheless, it is possible to travel through Bangladesh and observe the increased political and religious repression in everyday life, and to verify the simple remark by one journalist there: ''We are losing our freedom.'' The global war on terror is aimed at making the rise of regimes like that of the Taliban impossible, but in Bangladesh, the trend could be going the other way. In Bangladesh, ''Islam is becoming the legitimizing political discourse,'' according to C. Christine Fair, a South Asia specialist at the United States Institute of Peace, a nonpartisan, federally financed policy group in Washington. ''Once you don that religious mantle, who can criticize you? We see this in Pakistan as well, where very few people are brave enough to take the Islamists on. Now this is happening in Bangladesh.'' The region, Fair added, has become a haven where jihadis can move easily and have access to a friendly infrastructure that allows them to regroup and train.

Basie has some possibly good news from Israel.

[Basie!]

The AP's Lara Sukhtian, based in the Gaza bureau, reports today on a startling and promising new development in the relations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Israeli military is willing to suspend operations against Palestinian militants if they call off attacks, Israeli leaders said Sunday, signaling a shift in position that could help pave the way toward a cease-fire after more than four years of fighting.

The announcement, by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, came as Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said he was closing in on a truce deal with Islamic militants and called on Israel to respond positively to a truce.

Abbas has been in Gaza since last Tuesday pressuring militant groups to halt their attacks on Israeli targets. Abbas hopes a truce will lead to the resumption of peace talks.

It sounds like both sides are finally weary enough to begin speaking with one another in earnest, a requisite for any real peace plan. Though the negotiations are only in their early stages, today's news could herald a first step towards peace between these two peoples.

The problem is I've seen no press saying anything about the Hamas position. I have seen references to "some militant groups" were still demanding a complete Israeli withdrawl from the West Bank and the right of Palestinian refuges to return to Israel. These two issues are non-starters among Likudniks. Sharon will have to be willing to compromise on the West Bank and the right to return. That would make the price on Sharon's head huge!

The Washington Post has confirmed many of Seymour Hersh assertions. But the article seems to have a different twist. They seem to be downplaying both the secrecy and the unusual nature of the operation, even justifying it as strengthening Rummy's hand.
Secret Unit Expands Rumsfeld's Domain (washingtonpost.com)

The Pentagon, expanding into the CIA's historic bailiwick, has created a new espionage arm and is reinterpreting U.S. law to give Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld broad authority over clandestine operations abroad, according to interviews with participants and documents obtained by The Washington Post. The previously undisclosed organization, called the Strategic Support Branch, arose from Rumsfeld's written order to end his "near total dependence on CIA" for what is known as human intelligence. Designed to operate without detection and under the defense secretary's direct control, the Strategic Support Branch deploys small teams of case officers, linguists, interrogators and technical specialists alongside newly empowered special operations forces.

[...]

Under Title 50, all departments of the executive branch are obliged to keep Congress "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities." The law exempts "traditional . . . military activities" and their "routine support." Advisers said Rumsfeld, after requesting a fresh legal review by the Pentagon's general counsel, interprets "traditional" and "routine" more expansively than his predecessors. "Operations the CIA runs have one set of restrictions and oversight, and the military has another," said a Republican member of Congress with a substantial role in national security oversight, declining to speak publicly against political allies. "It sounds like there's an angle here of, 'Let's get around having any oversight by having the military do something that normally the [CIA] does, and not tell anybody.' That immediately raises all kinds of red flags for me. Why aren't they telling us?"

A couple reads of the following article reveals a pattern suggesting the Whitehouse has decided to "conventionalize" its new secret war capability. They've leaked enough information and left out controversial details to distract us from their real intent. Iran is not mentioned. But certainly, it is one of the states with emerging threats the new Strategic Support Branch is designed to deal with.
The unnamed Republican makes the point of this article. "Why aren't they telling us?" Its a rhetorical question. The reason is obvious to anyone in the know; now the Defense Department can carry out a secret war and disavow involvement carrying out all kinds of activities no one would approve of.

Remember Bush's promise to free the women of Afghanistan from their bonds under the Taliban? He lied. In his defense I'm sure he hoped it would happen, but he had no intention of making sure it did. While there are more girls in school than ever before, women are still sent to prison for running away from their husbands.
Afghan women still in chains under Karzai - [Sunday Herald]

Sharifa Daadekhodaâ€™s two-year-old daughter, Krishma, has never seen the outside world. She was born in prison and sheâ€™ll be at least three when she is released. Her motherâ€™s crime? Running away from home. Sharifa was 12 years old when she was forced to marry a 30-year-old man. He immediately began prostituting her, but Sharifa was too ashamed to tell her family and he would beat her if she complained. After three years she gained enough confidence to run away but was caught 15 minutes from her parentâ€™s house by the Taliban. As a woman travelling on her own, unaccompanied by a male family member, she was committing a crime. When the Taliban realised she was also fleeing her husband she was instantly imprisoned. She was released after six months but forced to return to her husband. A year later she fled and was caught again, receiving a longer sentence â€“ only this time her captors had been installed by the American-led coalition. In President Hamid Karzaiâ€™s Afghanistan, women are still imprisoned for running away from home.

[the Daily Irrelevant]

An Iraqi girl screamed Tuesday after her parents were killed when American soldiers fired on their car when it failed to stop, despite warning shots, in Tal Afar, Iraq. The military is investigating the incident.

[the Daily Irrelevant]

When questioned about her personal relationship with the president, Condoleezza Rice was uncharacteristically candid in her assessment.

ROFLMAO!!!

Last week, I wrote about a Reuters article about this upcoming release of The New Yorker. The latest issue of the magazine was released today and the article is outstanding. The author, Seymour Hersh, details the results of an investigation he's been doing about what he calls the new war on terrorism. Obviously there are no sources, but the story line something I'd believe from the Bush Administration.
It seems Bush had a hidden agenda behind the bill consolidating control over the military and intelligence communities. The CIA has been effectively taken out of the intelligence and covert operations business. Now they are going to be â€œfacilitators of policyâ€ directly answerable to Bush and Cheney. The new CIA Director is purging the Company of disloyal administrators and restructuring its role.
Amazingly, Bush thinks the election was a referendum on his Middle East policy. Within the Administration, the election is seen as reaffirming the ideas and power of the neo-conservatives.
Rumsfeld is staying on as the foil, the expendable one if plans go wrong. Rumfeld will be in charge of a new war on terror. Bypassing the CIA and itâ€™s Congressional oversight, Special Forces now has the assignment to do â€œblack reconnaissanceâ€, basically intelligence and covert operations under a new label to keep is all secret and away from Congressional oversight laws.
The Administration blames the failure in Iraq on the CIA. So now they think without the pissants in the Company, Rumsfeld wonâ€™t make the mistakes made in Iraq. Now the target is Iran.
Special Forces has been in Iran since last summer. They are looking for nuclear, chemical, missile and other conventional military sites and command infrastructure. Theyâ€™re gathering targeting information, Meanwhile, the Pentagon is rewriting the battle plan for the invasion of Iran.
The Bush Administration has been using the guise of cooperating with the Europeans negotiating with Iran as cover for his actions. They now expect the negotiations will collapse. Many western intelligence agencies see Iran three to five years away from an operational nuclear weapon. Bush figures he has three years to get the job done assuming the Iranians donâ€™t get help from another nuclear power. The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much military infrastructure as possible.
All of this is happening with unprecedented cooperation between the US and Israel and Pakistan.
Rummy gets a global free-fire zone to use his new authority for covert action that is not attributable to anyone, has no oversight, and no accountability.
Likely objectives
1. Stop or delay Iranian nuclear efforts
2. Topple the Mullahs and install a sympathetic regime exploiting the student protesters and those that support them.
3. Make moot the Shiite control in Iraq since its support from Iran is deposed.
The risks:
1. A missile attack on Israel using Hezbollah drones for recon.
2. Iran gets nuclear sooner than expected.
3. The US blows it militarily again and the Mullahs and the whole population of Iran is radicalized.
4. Al Qaeda has now united with Iraqi Islamists and Baathist Sunnis. Iran could become their sponsor.
5. The Iranian populous rallies around the Mullahs. The nuclear ambition is very popular.
6. The military is ill equipped for intelligence gathering and blow their job as badly or worse than the CIA.
Clearly this Administration appears to be continuing the losing high stakes gambit of â€œspreading democracyâ€, code words for spreading US coercive power, in the Middle East. I really donâ€™t think Bush has the competence on this team to pull it off. The worst case scenario is that US interests in the Middle East are rebuffed at every turn, and Israel is in more danger than itâ€™s ever been.

Bush Pledges to Spread Freedom (washingtonpost.com)

George Walker Bush took the oath of office for a second term yesterday and laid out one of the most expansive manifestos ever offered from an inaugural podium as he dedicated his presidency to spreading democracy and freedom "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." In the first wartime inauguration ceremony in more than three decades, Bush vowed to transform U.S. foreign policy to make human rights the defining priority, arguing that only liberty would "break the reign of hatred and resentment" that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that seared his first term. From now on, Bush said, relations with "every ruler and every nation" will be predicated on how they treat their own people, a profound break from traditional U.S. policy and from the Bush administration's practices in his first term, when it worked with repressive governments in the war against terrorism. In his doctrine for the next four years, Bush presented the United States as a beacon for the subjugated around the world and promised to confront the despots who enchain them.

Doublethink Dubya is still in office. He may think he can learn from experience, but the basic problems stay the same.
Now he wants to "ending tyranny in our world" and "break the reign of hatred and resentment". Of course that over looks the fact he has replaced one tyranny for another in Iraq and spread the reign of hatred and resentment all over the world with his optional war in Iraq and he and his henchmen's very undiplomatic comments and behavior. I recall, "They're either with us, or their with the terrorists" and "old Europe" and "the great American crusade", all of which were incredibly stupid statements that spread hate and resentment that will be around for generations.
In another one of his patented stupid moves, Bush initiates an about face on in foreign policy. Now he's going to review all of his international relationships. '...relations with "every ruler and every nation" will be predicated on how they treat their own people'.
There is one VERY important principle in foreign policy. There needs to be a clear continuity and a gradual and logical flow of the public face of policy that reflects well thought out and stable judgements. This principle applies between terms and one administration to another. Dramatic changes make diplomats and politicians worldwide very nervous. Human rights has been a center piece of American policy for many years. Bush stepped away from human rights in his first administration, now he reverses himself. No one is going to believe there has been any change from these empty words.
He has managed to handicap his new Secretary of State probably for the rest of his term in office. The world sees again, this Administration is incapable of continuity and consistency. And Bush speaks with no credibility or moral authority. You can't negotiate relationships without predictibility and credibility.
Par for the course for Doublethink Dubya.

This man knows his stuff. And Rice doesn't. She made a complete fool of herself in the hearings. His criticism of her statements on Iran are most telling.

[Informed Comment]

Rice Doublespeak at Senate

The transcript of the Rice/Boxer exchange is worth reading in full. Rice's performance is breathtakingly bad, and Boxer has all the quotes and facts at her fingertips. The issue is that Condoleeza Rice engaged in demagoguery before the Iraq war. She invoked the image of a mushroom cloud over the United States. But George Tenet had told her the evidence was weak in that regard. The State Department Intelligence and Research division thought the whole nuclear bit was far-fetched. But Rice kept on saying these alarmist things nevertheless.

In the end, Rice falls back on the same brain-dead rhetorical strategy as George W. Bush. Saddam was a threat because he is intrinsically evil. He is so evil that he can be a threat even though all he had in his arsenal were those spitballs toward which Zell Miller showed such derision at the Republican National Convention. Saddam was a threat to the region, she says. She is still saying this now, today. Saddam was not a threat to the region in 2002. That is ridiculous. Iraq was also not a threat to the US. This turns out to be the Achilles Heel of any doctrine of preemptive war. It would require, in order to be justified, much better intelligence than is usually available on the capabilities and intensions of the enemy. Rice still won't admit this, which means she may drag us into further wars with further gross mistakes in judgment.

On Wednesday, Rice testified again. Now aware that Senator Boxer and others were complaining about her rigidity, she finally admitted that the US had made some serious errors in Iraq. But the example she gave, of reconstruction work, was disingenuous. Actually the US companies working in relatively safe places like Basra and Sulaymaniyah have done very good reconstruction work. She seems to be trying to find some mistake she could admit to, which would actually be the mistake of the private sector and not of the Bush adminsitration! For an incoming Secretary of State not to be willing to recognize that Iraq is a mess in part because of US policies is to translate the realm of politics into some sort of fantasyland. And in a way, that is what has been happening in US politics since Reagan was elected and Peggy Noonan began writing those syrupy speeches.

Senators Chafee and Biden urged Rice to try to engage Iran. Biden suggested she tell Bush that dropping some bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities and then hoping that the young people in blue jeans would toss out the mullas was probably not going to work. [What a hoot!] Biden has developed this wonderful sardonic sense of what exactly the Bush administration ideologues are thinking, and is able to puncture these insubstantial balloons masterfully, building on decades of experience in foreign affairs.

Rice responded concerning Iran that it was hard to have an engagement with a country that wanted to see Israel destroyed. It is such a simple-minded thing to say. Uh, let me see. In the 1980s wasn't it the Khomeini regime that sold Israel petroleum in exchange for spare parts for its American weaponry? Wasn't it the Israelis who put Reagan up to the Iran-Contra scandal by suggesting that the US ship TOWs to Iran in return for an end to the Lebanese hostage crisis? Even when it was more radical, and despite all the rhetoric, Iran was willing to deal with Israel in ways that helped the latter enormously.

It is true that some Iranian leaders, like Rafsanjani, say frightening things about Israel. But Rafsanjani has no executive power, and when he was president he didn't actually act on such sentiments. The point of engaging the Iranian regime would be to gradually ween it away from such extremism. Iran hasn't launched any aggressive wars in the region, or threatened to use weapons of mass destruction, unlke some other countries (the US had full diplomatic relations with Iraq in the 1980s at a time when it had done both of these things.) I am very uncomfortable in having US national security policy and diplomacy dictated by how politicians in a country talk about our non-Nato allies (with whom, by the way, we do not even have a mutual defense pact). And I am very suspicious that now that Iraq is a basket case, all of a sudden Ariel Sharon is calling on the US to attack Iran.

If Rice is going to be a successful Secretary of State, she simply has to get back control of US foreign policy from the Likudniks in the Bush administration.

Citizen G'kar: Musings on Earth

January 31, 2005

January 30, 2005

January 29, 2005

January 28, 2005

January 27, 2005

January 26, 2005

January 25, 2005

January 24, 2005

January 23, 2005

January 22, 2005

January 21, 2005

January 20, 2005

Search This Blog

Pages

Babylon 5 Links

Followers

About Me

Blog Archive

Quotes

Tag Cloud