Citizen G'kar: Musings on Earth

November 30, 2005

Feds, Supreme Court silence an FBI whistleblower who knew too much

Justice for Sibel Edmunds continues to elude her. She sits on a trememdous amount of information about FBI misconduct regarding 9/11 and perhaps bribery by the current Speaker of the House. Yet the Supreme Court has affirmed that the President can declare any information as an official state secret, without justification, despite compelling arguments to the contrary. Perhaps we will find out what her story is during the next Democratic president. Thanks to King of Zembla for the link.
The latest rebuke to Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI translator who has been trying unsuccessfully to make public what she knows about the FBI’s 9-11-related operations, comes from the Supreme Court.

It has declined to hear her court case, thereby letting stand decisions of the lower courts that enforce a silence imposed upon her by the federal government. The ACLU represented Edmonds. “Sibel Edmonds is a true patriot who deserved her day in court," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson, in an official statement. "We are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not see the ongoing danger of allowing the FBI to hide its blunders behind the 'states secrets' privilege."

Even though its own inspector general has found much of what Edmonds has to say to be correct, the Justice Department--first under Attorney General Ashcroft and now under Attorney General Gonzalez--have invoked the arcane States Secrets law to shut her up. The department simply declared everything in her case secret, in the interest of national security.

Here are some of the revelations the government is trying to cover up, gleaned from earlier interviews:
  • When she was hired by the FBI as a translator after 9-11, Edmonds, a Turkish American born in Iran and fluent in Farsi and Turkish among other languages, discovered an odd network within the FBI where, among other things, relatives of foreign diplomats were working as interpreters. They were translating FBI wiretaps of foreign diplomats suspected of spying. As it turned out, these suspect family members were relatives of the translators--in other words moles working in the translation section.
  • Edmonds found her own initials forged on improper translations of documents--translations she had never seen before.

  • Edmonds was startled when what she considered ill-trained and incompetent interpreters were sent to Guantanamo Bay to translate detainee interviews. For example, one Turkish Kurd was dispatched to interpret Farsi, a language he did not speak.


  • Edmonds learned that a longtime reliable FBI asset who reported on Afghanistan, told FBI agents in April 2001 of Al Qaeda’s plans to attack the U.S.

  • In the course of her work, Edmonds discovered Islamic terrorists might well have become entangled in ongoing international drug and money laundering. She suspects that this knowledge was one of
    the reasons the Justice Department classified everything in her case.

When Edmonds sought to protest these and other irregularities to her superiors in the FBI, she was called a “whore” by her supervising agent, who told her he would next see her in jail. She was dismissed and escorted out of the FBI building. Edmonds
never got a hearing before the 9-11 Commission, though she did have a chance to tell her story, sort of, on the side. A recent federal appeals court hearing on her case was made secret in the interest of national security. All in all, she was cast out as an enemy of the state. To fight back, she has launched a new organization to protect other government whistleblowers.

Why Iraq Has No Army

Though I continue to believe we are obligated to work to improve the situation in Iraq, at this point without regard to our national interest. Bush and the Neo-cons made a mess, now we must take responsibility for our mistakes.
The conventional approach advocated by Bush is to "stay the course" and plan on staying for decades to rebuild Iraq. Clearly, the American people won't wait that long and there is real question as to whether we are still part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The Bush Administration has been pursuing a unilateral course. That policy has failed miserably. Now we must try something else.
Gary Boatwright at Seeing the Forest quotes James Fallows in his article in The Atlantic that effectively outlines the conventional approach and why it won't work.
    "On the current course we will have two options," I was told by a Marine lieutenant colonel who had recently served in Iraq and who prefers to remain anonymous. "We can lose in Iraq and destroy our army, or we can just lose. . . . In Vietnam we just lost," the officer said. "This would be losing with consequences."
Bush's Iraq war was lost the day that Iraq's Army was dismissed.
    But here is the view generally accepted in the military: the war's planners, military and civilian, took the postwar transition too much for granted; then they made a grievous error in suddenly dismissing all members of the Iraqi army; and then they were too busy with other emergencies and routines to think seriously about the new Iraqi army.
This is the fundamental reason why America has already lost the Iraq war:
    "No modern army using conventional tactics has ever defeated an insurgency," Terence Daly told me. Conventional tactics boil down to killing the enemy. At this the U.S. military, with unmatchable firepower and precision, excels. "Classic counterinsurgency, however, is not primarily about killing insurgents; it is about controlling the population and creating a secure environment in which to gain popular support," Daly says.

    From the vast and growing literature of counterinsurgency come two central points. One, of course, is the intertwining of political and military objectives: in the long run this makes local forces like the Iraqi army more potent than any foreigners; they know the language, they pick up subtle signals, they have a long-term stake. The other is that defeating an insurgency is the very hardest kind of warfare. The United States cannot win this battle in Iraq. It hopes the Iraqis can.

    [...]As a matter of unavoidable logic, the United States must therefore choose one of two difficult alternatives: It can make the serious changes—including certain commitments to remain in Iraq for many years—that would be necessary to bring an Iraqi army to maturity. Or it can face the stark fact that it has no orderly way out of Iraq, and prepare accordingly.
I’ve made offhand replies to any number of comments about the differing plans of the Democratic warmongers for “stabilizing” Iraq that they all sounded like terrific fifty years plans. After seeing the nuts and bolts of “stabilizing” Iraq, I think fifty years may be on the low end. I also believe that Bush and the neo-cons knew exactly what they were doing when they dissolved Iraq’s Army. They didn’t want America to leave Iraq for fifty years and they took the one step that guaranteed the United States could not withdraw from Iraq with honor.

There are several hopeful signs that the Bush Iraq policy has changed. Juan Cole outlines the indications.
It is the return of Realism in Washington foreign policy. You need the Iranians, as I maintain, for a soft landing in Iraq? So you do business with the Iranians. This opening may help explain why Ahmad Chalabi went to Tehran before he went to Washington, and why he was given such a high-level (if unphotographed) reception in Washington.

Likewise, it helps explain the Cairo Conference sponsored by the Arab League, the results of which were an effort to reach out to the Sunni Arab guerrillas. The Iraqi government even recognized that it was legitimate for the guerrillas to blow up US troops! This is a startling admission for a government under siege with very few allies. But it recategorizes the Sunni Arab leaders from being terrorists to being a national liberation force. You could imagine dealing with, and bringing in from the cold, mere nationalists. Terrorists are poison.

November 28, 2005

Another Call For Withdrawl And Impeachment

Any good chess player knows that the threat of military response is infinitely more powerful than military action. Once committed, weaknesses become obvious and a calculated response is limited. Bush and the Neo-cons demonstrated their lack of strategic sophistication. I'm no military expert, but I am a fair chess player. The disaster in Iraq was predictable from the beginning.
Another hawk with impeccable credentials as a military expert in Israel has seconded Murtha's call for withdrawal. He goes one big step further however, calling for impeachment and trial for Bush and "all the president's men."
Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest notes:
Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, "the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers."

At Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal points out that there is something we are not hearing about conditions in Iraq.
...van Creveld [appears to be] hearing things about the White House--through his own military-academic and Israeli-security networks--even more terrifying and devastating than I am hearing through my networks.


The Bush administration: worse than you can imagine, even after taking account of the fact that it is worse than you can imagine.

And now the man of the day, Martin van Creveld in Forward Newspaper Online
What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if American forces will be withdrawn, but how soon — and at what cost. In this respect, as in so many others, the obvious parallel to Iraq is Vietnam.


Confronted by a demoralized army on the battlefield and by growing opposition at home, in 1969 the Nixon administration started withdrawing most of its troops in order to facilitate what it called the "Vietnamization" of the country. The rest of America's forces were pulled out after Secretary of State Henry Kissinger negotiated a "peace settlement" with Hanoi. As the troops withdrew, they left most of their equipment to the Army of the Republic of South Vietnam — which just two years later, after the fall of Saigon, lost all of it to the communists. Clearly this is not a pleasant model to follow, but no other alternative appears in sight.


Whereas North Vietnam at least had a government with which it was possible to arrange a cease-fire, in Iraq the opponent consists of shadowy groups of terrorists with no central organization or command authority. And whereas in the early 1970s equipment was still relatively plentiful, today's armed forces are the products of a technology-driven revolution in military affairs. Whether that revolution has contributed to anything besides America's national debt is open to debate. What is beyond question, though, is that the new weapons are so few and so expensive that even the world's largest and richest power can afford only to field a relative handful of them.


Therefore, simply abandoning equipment or handing it over to the Iraqis, as was done in Vietnam, is simply not an option. And even if it were, the new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese army was. For all intents and purposes, Washington might just as well hand over its weapons directly to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.


Clearly, then, the thing to do is to forget about face-saving and conduct a classic withdrawal.


Handing over their bases or demolishing them if necessary, American forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From Baghdad they will have to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there back to Kuwait, where the whole misguided adventure began. When Prime Minister Ehud Barak pulled Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, the military was able to carry out the operation in a single night without incurring any casualties. That, however, is not how things will happen in Iraq.


Not only are American forces perhaps 30 times larger, but so is the country they have to traverse. A withdrawal probably will require several months and incur a sizable number of casualties. As the pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge — if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice like it or not.


[...]For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins. MORE

Finally someone has said it. Since my expertise in military history isn't very deep, if I could see the debacle we were headed for as we sent our troops to Iraq, then it must be a huge one. But for an noted military historian to say that nothing in 2000 years has been an equivalent military folly is stunning. How could all those "experts" in the US stand-by and let it happen? Of course many stood up, many were tossed from their jobs for doing so, but many more in the public eye have relatively immunity to the massive retaliation for which the Bush Administration is noted. Most notable is Powell. It's the Powell Doctrine that first predicted disaster for Gulf War II. Loyalty is more important than thousands of deaths, a defeated and demoralized military, loss of prestige and credibility world-wide? And all that excludes losing the war against Islamic extremists and empowering Iran to go nuclear. A strong presence in Afghanistan with the threat of response would have had a chance to contain Iran's ambitions.
I think we may still have some capability to influence conditions in the Middle East and yes, even contain Iran. But the window to influence events is closing rapidly as our military continues to deteriorate on the ground. I'm convinced that this is the compelling truth that has moved Murtha and van Creveld to step up and call for withdrawal. Van Creveld, I suspect, rightly notes the folly of pursuing any war without support of voters and the absolute unforgivable sin of destroying the functioning ability and reputation of the US Army and Marines. No, history will not think well of Bush and the Neo-cons.

November 27, 2005

Big Brother is Watching

Big Brother Bush is making steady progress taking away our rights to privacy. The government can search your financial and other records including your weblog and put together a circumstantial case against you, freeze your assets using secret evidence, arrest you and hold you without an attorney indefinately. Big Brother says your employer can regulated your private behavior.

A "Wall" was created between foreign intelligence investigations and domestic criminal investigations. The idea was to prevent the kind of secret dossiers being kept on American citizens during J. Edgar Hoover's tenure in the FBI. Those files, under a program called COINTELPRO, were obtained without informing the citizen being watched even though there was no evidence of a crime. The "Wall" was largely the result of a misunderstanding of what appears to have been a very difficult law to understand. The extreme right wing has used the Clinton Administration's experiences with the "Wall" as justification to remove the wall to enable law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share information. But do we really want government spying on citizens just because their beliefs are outside of what the current FBI administration calls "mainstream"?

The Department of Homeland Security has had difficulty making wise choices on domestic spying. The department did not include well-known right-wing groups on their list of adversaries with a history of violence, while left-wing groups, that are known for only destruction of property. The list includes the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) that promote nonviolence toward human life. Several groups with recent high-profile terror prosecutions, including the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation and Florida professor Sami al-Arian, were left off the list.

Obsidian Wings does a good analysis of the WaPo updating our lost of privacy. Thanks to Gary Boatwright from Seeing the Forest for the link.
    "Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be based on probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. This is not the general rule under FISA [the statute creating the requirements for domestic surveillance by intelligence agencies]: surveillance under FISA is permitted based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, irrespective of whether the target is suspected of engaging in criminal activity. However, if the target is a "U.S. person," there must be probable cause to believe that the U.S. person's activities may involve espionage or other similar conduct in violation of the criminal statutes of the United States. Nor may a U.S. person be determined to be an agent of a foreign power "solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.""

So: FISA warrants do not require any evidence of actual criminal activity, and might seem to be in conflict with the Fourth Amendment. The reason they have been held not to be unconstitutional is simply that they are not supposed to be used for criminal investigations; for this reason, I'm not sure this new proposal, according to which intelligence agencies would be allowed to use FISA searches to conduct criminal investigations, is not itself unconstitutional. But it gets worse: as of 2002:

    "The FISA review court was created by Congress along with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 1978 to authorize search and surveillance warrants for foreign intelligence targets. The review court has never convened because the lower court, known as the FISA court, has never turned down a government surveillance request. The court has approved approximately 13,000 applications since its inception. And just once, in 1997, the government withdrew a request that the court had found deficient."

That's right: as of 2002, only one request for a warrant had been deemed inadequate. Ever. Moreover, since no one has to inform the object of a FISA warrant that that warrant exists, people do not generally get to challenge them. Everything about it is secret.

The 'wall' separating intelligence agencies from law enforcement agencies existed because of the different purposes for which the two collect information, and the different rules to which they are subject. The wall was never impermeable: information obtained through FISA warrants can be, and has been, used in criminal trials. But it exists for a very good reason: to allow intelligence agencies to collect information on agents of foreign powers without allowing them to spy on citizens more generally, and to prevent the government from using FISA warrants, with their looser rules, whenever it can't get a normal warrant.

Giving intelligence agencies the power to carry out criminal investigations against US civilians would gut the wall entirely. And it would do so without overcoming the one real drawback of the wall: the fact that some information cannot be shared between agencies. The proposals to grant greater powers to intelligence agencies simply seem to multiply the number of agencies that can investigate citizens, not to ensure that those agencies share information with one another. (One of the many questions I have about these proposals is: why do we need another agency empowered to do criminal investigations in the US? Doesn't the FBI suffice?)

[From WaPo:]
    Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the data-sharing amendment would still give the Pentagon much greater access to the FBI's massive collection of data, including information on citizens not connected to terrorism or espionage. The measure, she said, "removes one of the few existing privacy protections against the creation of secret dossiers on Americans by government intelligence agencies." She said the Pentagon's "intelligence agencies are quietly expanding their domestic presence without any public debate.""

Typical of the Bushies to eliminate all debate on losing our civil liberties.

November 26, 2005

Jobs Are About Healthcare?

People forget Republicans aren't in favor of more jobs at good wages. They want to decrease the cost of doing business to keep profits high. Globalization plays right into their hands. Here is an interesting twist on Republican preference for private healthcare. If we had national healthcare, perhaps GM wouldn't be in such bad shape. From Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal is a quote from Krugman's NY Times editorial. He always seems to find a way to make economics compelling.
But job losses at General Motors are part of the broader weakness of U.S. manufacturing... that offers workers decent wages and benefits. And some of that weakness reflects two big distortions in our economy: a dysfunctional health care system and an unsustainable trade deficit.... If the United States had national health insurance, G.M. would be in much better shape than it is... tying health insurance to employment... systematically discourages the creation of good jobs, the type of jobs that come with good benefits.... G.M.'s health care costs are so high in part because of the inefficiency of America's fragmented health care system. We spend far more per person on medical care than countries with national health insurance, while getting worse results.


About the trade deficit... a reorientation of our economy away from industries that export or compete with imports, especially manufacturing, to industries that are insulated from foreign competition, such as housing. Since 2000, we've lost about three million jobs in manufacturing, while membership in the National Association of Realtors has risen 50 percent. The trade deficit isn't sustainable... one of these days the easy credit will come to an end... we'll have to reorient our economy back toward producing things we can export or use to replace imports. And that will mean pulling a lot of workers back into manufacturing. So the rapid downsizing of manufacturing since 2000 - of which G.M.'s job cuts are a symptom - amounts to dismantling a sector we'll just have to rebuild a few years from now.

Abramoff Probe Expanding

Influence peddling is as old as politics. The difference in America is that it is illegal. This time it's the Republicans with their hands in the cookie jar, and the stakes appear much higher. Abramoff has been associated with mafia style murders. Not that he pulled the trigger, but an associate of an business partner did.
Think Progress
“A Justice Department investigation into possible influence-peddling by prominent Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is examining his dealings with four lawmakers, more than a dozen current and former congressional aides and two former Bush administration officials,” the Wall Street Journal reports. Lawmakers under scrutiny include Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT).

November 25, 2005

Bush Wanted to Did Bomb al-Jazeera?

It would appear the British government is taking very seriously the initially doubted leak of a memo by the Daily Mirror stating Bush talked of bombing the home offices of Al-Jazeera.
Guardian Unlimited
Fears that fresh revelations about disputes between Tony Blair and George Bush on the Iraq conflict could damage Downing Street's intimate relationship with the White House prompted this week's unprecedented threat by the attorney general to use the Official Secrets Act against national newspapers.


Senior MPs, Whitehall officials and lawyers were agreed yesterday that Lord Goldsmith had "read the riot act" to the media because of political embarrassment caused by a sensitive leak of face-to-face exchanges between the prime minister and the US president in the White House in April 2004. He acted after the Daily Mirror said a memo recorded a threat by Mr Bush to take "military action" against the Arabic TV station al-Jazeera. Mr Blair replied that that would cause a big problem, reported the Mirror. David Keogh, a former Cabinet Office official, has been charged under the secrets act with sending the memo on the Blair-Bush conversation to Leo O 'Connor, researcher to the former Labour MP Tony Clarke. Mr Keogh and Mr O'Connor will appear before Bow Street magistrates next week.


The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair took place at a time when Whitehall officials, intelligence officers, and British military commanders were expressing outrage at the scale of the US assault on the Iraqi city of Falluja, in which up to 1,000 civilians are feared to have died. Pictures of the attack shown on al-Jazeera had infuriated US generals. The government was also arguing with Washington about the number of extra British troops to be sent to Iraq at a time when it was feared they would be endangered by what a separately leaked Foreign Office memo called "heavy-handed" US military tactics.


There were UK anxieties that US bombing in civilian areas in Falluja would unite Sunnis and Shias against British forces. The criticism came not only from anti-war MPs, but from Mr Blair's most senior military, diplomatic, and intelligence advisers. When Mr Blair met Mr Bush in Washington, military advisers were urging the prime minister to send extra forces only on British terms. General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the army, said while British troops had to fight with the Americans, "that does not mean we must be able to fight as the Americans".

While some have argued Bush was joking, it's also very possible that he was speak whimsically about what he'd like to do. Afterall, Al-Jazeera has regularly given world media coverage to the shadiest enemies of the US. Of course, most of the media companies in the world would jump at the chance. What concerns me the most is that the US has had two "accident" involving bombing well known field offices of Al Jazeera. The Daily Mirror said Bush told Blair on April 16, 2004> that he wanted to target Al Jazeera.
In 2001, the station's Kabul office was hit by a US missle.
BBC News
The Kabul offices of the Arab satellite al-Jazeera channel have been destroyed by a US missile. "This office has been known by everybody, the American airplanes know the location of the office, they know we are broadcasting from there," said Al-Jazeera Managing Director Mohammed Jasim al-Ali. The Qatar-based satellite channel, which gained global fame for its exclusive access to Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban, announced that none of its staff had been wounded.

Then in 2003 Al Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a U.S. air strike on Al-Jazeera's Baghdad office. The United States has denied deliberately targeting the station.
The Hindu
Reporters Without Borders expressed outrage at the U.S. bombing of the Baghdad office of the pan-Arab TV station Al-Jazeera that killed one of its journalists, cameraman Tarek Ayoub, and wounded another. The nearby premises of Abu Dhabi TV were also damaged. ``We strongly condemn this attack on a neighbourhood known to include the offices of several TV stations,'' said the secretary-general, Robert Manard, in a letter to Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of the U.S. military operations in Iraq. ``To ensure the safety of its journalists, Al-Jazeera's management has been careful to inform the Americans of the exact location of its crews right from the start of the war. The U.S. army cannot therefore claim it did not know where the Baghdad offices were. ``Did it at least warn the journalists about an imminent bombing? The outcome was predictable: yet another journalist was killed covering this very deadly war for the media,'' Mr. Manard said. He called on Gen. Franks to make a serious and thorough investigation of who was responsible for the attack and why it was carried out. An Al-Jazeera journalist who was in Baghdad until a few days ago told Reporters Without Borders that "it couldn't've been a mistake. "We've told the Pentagon where all our offices are in Iraq and hung giant banners outside them saying `TV.'''Ayoub, a Jordanian who was the station's permanent correspondent in Amman, was sent to strengthen the team in Iraq when the war broke out. He was seriously wounded in the attack and died soon afterwards.

I find it hard to believe that a huge banner visible from the air wouldn't have deterred a precision airstrike of a building surrounded by friendly and civilian buildings. Some people might agree with the Administration targetting a "propaganda" instrument of the enemy. I'd call it an immoral act, even a war crime. And it clearly violates international law.

November 24, 2005

Thanks Dubya

Look how our Asian allies think of us since Iraq. Thanks George.
insightmag.com
The overwhelming assessment by Asian officials, diplomats and analysts is that the U.S. military simply cannot defeat China. It has been an assessment relayed to U.S. government officials over the past few months by countries such as Australia, Japan and South Korea. This comes as President Bush wraps up a visit to Asia, in which he sought to strengthen U.S. ties with key allies in the region.


Most Asian officials have expressed their views privately. Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara has gone public, warning that the United States would lose any war with China.


"In any case, if tension between the United States and China heightens, if each side pulls the trigger, though it may not be stretched to nuclear weapons, and the wider hostilities expand, I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives," Mr. Ishihara said in an address to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.


Mr. Ishihara said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent" and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack. Indeed, he asserted that China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Asian and American cities—even at the risk of a massive U.S. retaliation.

November 23, 2005

The Secret Overpowering Influence of the Military Industrial Complex

We were warned by Eisenhower about the military industrial complex (MIC) in 1961. America promptly forgot his warning. Political leaders benefited working both government policy positions and lucrative corporate contractors. Ultimately, government policy is made by those who benefit from the policy. Many of our leaders believe what's good for Halliburton, is good for America. Most of the leadership in this adminstration will end there government service sometime in the next three years and rejoin the MIC.
This is a must read article. It's first in a set of 3 articles the author will write for Buzzflash.com. The following is an excerpt focused on recent warnings of the MIC by political insiders. Heads up America, your democracy is in grave danger.
Maureen Farrell
A couple years ago, historian Chalmers Johnson predicted that thanks to the "entrenched interests" of the military-industrial complex, the United States can look forward to a future of perpetual war, increased propaganda, fewer Constitutional rights, and a bloated executive branch. America, he warned, "will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787" unless there is a "revolutionary rehabilitation of American democracy."


[...]By late 2005, when Andy Rooney played a segment of Eisenhower's speech on CBS' 60 Minutes, the implications were evident: "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist," Eisenhower said in 1961. "Well, Ike was right. That's just what's happened," Rooney remarked.


[...]"What has become of the American people that they permit the despicable practices of tyrants to be practiced in their name?" former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts recently asked. "The Bush administration is in violation of the US Constitution, the rule of law, the Geneva Convention, the Nuremberg Standard, and basic humanity. It is a gang of criminals," he wrote.


Former President Jimmy Carter also voiced concern. "Everywhere you go, people ask, "What has happened to the United States of America?" he said, referring to international reaction to America's evolving stance on human rights, the environment and the separation of church and state.


The most striking criticism has come from Bush administration exiles, however. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, recently offered a scathing critique, confirming reports that a "cabal" led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had "hijacked foreign policy" and that this cabal's "insular and secret workings" led to "decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a democracy."


With government insiders now sounding such alarms, concerns cannot be attributed to the New World Order fringe. It's clear that something is amiss -- something that's eroding our character, our reputation and our values. How did this come about? Just how far have we strayed from our democratic ideals?

The Man Who Sold The War In Iraq

As time goes on, more and more of the real story behind the Bush Administration propaganda machine run out of Dick Cheney's office through the Office of Special Plans. Use of propaganda is forbidden by the Smith-Mundt Act to be used against the American people. Of course, this President is above the law.
Thomas Leavitt at Seeing the Forest posted a link to a Rolling Stone article detailing a private CIA then Pentagon contractor who, at $300 an hour, had a major hand in creating the false basis for the Iraqi war by creating the Iraqi National Congress and selecting and assisting Chalabi as it's leader. Leavitt points out, this consultant had:
access to intelligence at the highest levels (probably better than most members of Congress) participating in policy shaping decisions at the highest levels... and a military/intelligence complex that has been thoroughly privatized and outsourced and has absolutely no compunctions about manipulating public opinion by any means necessary. An utterly corrupt government that does not trust the goodwill and common sense of the American people one whit.

RollingStone.com
[John] Rendon is a man who fills a need that few people even know exists. Two months before al-Haideri took the lie-detector test, the Pentagon had secretly awarded him a $16 million contract to target Iraq and other adversaries with propaganda. One of the most powerful people in Washington, Rendon is a leader in the strategic field known as "perception management," manipulating information -- and, by extension, the news media -- to achieve the desired result. His firm, the Rendon Group, has made millions off government contracts since 1991, when it was hired by the CIA to help "create the conditions for the removal of Hussein from power." Working under this extraordinary transfer of secret authority, Rendon assembled a group of anti-Saddam militants, personally gave them their name -- the Iraqi National Congress -- and served as their media guru and "senior adviser" as they set out to engineer an uprising against Saddam. It was as if President John F. Kennedy had outsourced the Bay of Pigs operation to the advertising and public-relations firm of J. Walter Thompson.


"They're very closemouthed about what they do," says Kevin McCauley, an editor of the industry trade publication O'Dwyer's PR Daily. "It's all cloak-and-dagger stuff."


Although Rendon denies any direct involvement with al-Haideri, the defector was the latest salvo in a secret media war set in motion by Rendon. In an operation directed by Ahmad Chalabi -- the man Rendon helped install as leader of the INC -- the defector had been brought to Thailand, where he huddled in a hotel room for days with the group's spokesman, Zaab Sethna. The INC routinely coached defectors on their stories, prepping them for polygraph exams, and Sethna was certainly up to the task -- he got his training in the art of propaganda on the payroll of the Rendon Group. According to Francis Brooke, the INC's man in Washington and himself a former Rendon employee, the goal of the al-Haideri operation was simple: pressure the United States to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.


As the CIA official flew back to Washington with failed lie-detector charts in his briefcase, Chalabi and Sethna didn't hesitate. They picked up the phone, called two journalists who had a long history of helping the INC promote its cause and offered them an exclusive on Saddam's terrifying cache of WMDs.


[...]The key element of Rendon's INC operation was a worldwide media blitz designed to turn Hussein, a once dangerous but now contained regional leader, into the greatest threat to world peace. Each month, $326,000 was passed from the CIA to the Rendon Group and the INC via various front organizations. Rendon profited handsomely, receiving a "management fee" of ten percent above what it spent on the project. According to some reports, the company made nearly $100 million on the contract during the five years following the Gulf War.


[...]Never before in history had such an extensive secret network been established to shape the entire world's perception of a war. "It was not just bad intelligence -- it was an orchestrated effort," says Sam Gardner, a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College. "It began before the war, was a major effort during the war and continues as post-conflict distortions."


[...]In the first weeks following the September 11th attacks, Rendon operated at a frantic pitch. "In the early stages it was fielding every ground ball that was coming, because nobody was sure if we were ever going to be attacked again," he says. "It was 'What do you know about this, what do you know about that, what else can you get, can you talk to somebody over here?' We functioned twenty-four hours a day. We maintained situational awareness, in military terms, on all things related to terrorism. We were doing 195 newspapers and 43 countries in fourteen or fifteen languages. If you do this correctly, I can tell you what's on the evening news tonight in a country before it happens. I can give you, as a policymaker, a six-hour break on how you can affect what's going to be on the news. They'll take that in a heartbeat."


The Bush administration took everything Rendon had to offer. Between 2000 and 2004, Pentagon documents show, the Rendon Group received at least thirty-five contracts with the Defense Department, worth a total of $50 million to $100 million.


[...]Last year, he attended a conference on information operations in London, where he offered an assessment on the Pentagon's efforts to manipulate the media. According to those present, Rendon applauded the practice of embedding journalists with American forces. "He said the embedded idea was great," says an Air Force colonel who attended the talk. "It worked as they had found in the test. It was the war version of reality television, and for the most part they did not lose control of the story." But Rendon also cautioned that individual news organizations were often able to "take control of the story," shaping the news before the Pentagon asserted its spin on the day's events.


"We lost control of the context," Rendon warned. "That has to be fixed for the next war." MORE

November 22, 2005

Sharon Leaves Likud!

Juan Cole has stunning news about Sharon, the man indicted for war crimes. Perhaps the man has tired of war.
Informed Comment
Sharon has left the Likud because it is too fascistic even for him! The party's highly authoritarian politburo was an albatross around Sharon's neck. Its strident insistence on continuing to steal Palestinian land and never trading land for peace would have accelerated the engorgement of the West Bank by Israel and the consequent transformation of Israel into a binational state. You can't annex the West Bank without getting a couple of million Palestinians into the bargain. The very hard line Likudniks would deal with that prospect by just ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, but Sharon is enough a man of the world to know that the US (and especially Condi), the European Union, and the Muslim world would never put up with that Milosevic-like war crime.

The potential of a coalition government isolating and marginalizing Likud is the most encouraging news from Israel I have heard in a long time.

Gambling With the US Dollar; The Interest Rate Gambit

Today in Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal there is a link to his upcoming article in The Economist's Voice. He presents a cohesive analysis of the debate about the stability of the world economy in view of America’s huge current-account deficit. The question is, who is going to be pinched? I think the Bush Administration strategy is to pinch the US worker and the world economies that export to the US and the US worker will suffer the consequences if the Bush Administration gets it's way. Here is the essense of the debate.
J. Bradford DeLong (2005) "Divergent Views on the Coming Dollar Crisis", The Economists' Voice: Vol. 2: No. 5, Article 1.
International finance economists see a far bleaker future. They see the end of large-scale dollar-purchase programs by central banks leading not only to a decline in the dollar, but also to a spike in U.S. long-term interest rates, both nominal and real, which will curb consumption spending immediately and throttle investment spending after only a short lag.


But, according to the domestically oriented macroeconomists, this devaluation is not a large problem for the United States. (However, it is a very big problem for economies that export to the United States.) As the dollar’s value declines, U.S. exports will become more attractive to foreigners and American employment will rise, with labor re-allocated to the newly-vibrant export sector. It will be like what happened in Britain after it abandoned its exchange-rate peg and allowed the pound to depreciate relative to the Deutschmark, or what happened in the U.S. in the late 1980’s, when the dollar depreciated against the pound, the Deutschmark, and—most importantly—the Japanese yen.


Is the U.S. vulnerable to a full-blown dollar crisis? Why are international finance economists scared and jittery, but domestically-oriented macroeconomists much less concerned?


To be sure, international finance economists also see U.S. exports
benefiting as the value of the dollar declines, but the lags in demand are such that the export boost will come a year or two after the decline in consumption and investment spending. Eight to ten million workers in America will have to shift employment from services and construction into exports and import-competing
goods. This cannot happen overnight. And during the time needed for this labormarket adjustment, structural unemployment will rise.
Moreover, there may be a financial panic: large financial institutions with short-term liabilities and long-term assets will have a difficult time weathering a large rise in long-term dollar-denominated interest rates. This mismatch can cause
financial stress and bankruptcy just as easily as banks’ local-currency assets and dollar liabilities caused stress and bankruptcy in the Mexican and East Asian crises of the 1990’s and in the Argentinean crisis of this decade.


When international finance economists sketch this scenario, domestically oriented macroeconomists respond that it sounds like a case of incompetent monetary policy. Why should the Federal Reserve allow long-term interest rates to spike just because other central banks have ceased their dollar-purchase programs? Should not the Fed step in and replace them with its own purchases of long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, thereby keeping long-term interest rates at a level
conducive to full employment?


To this, international finance economists respond that the Fed will not wish to do so. When forced to choose between full employment and price stability, the international finance economists say that the Fed will choose price stability, because its institutional memory of the 1970s, when inflation ran rampant, remains very strong. A fall in the value of the dollar raises import prices, and thus is as an inflationary shock to the supply side of the economy just as the oil shocks of the 1970s were. The Fed today puts preserving its inflation-fighting credibility as priority one. The Fed will want to raise, not lower, interest rates; to sell, not buy, bonds; and thus to reinforce rather than damp the interest rate rise coming from the shift in the exchange rate.

Although I'm not an economist, I have great faith in a principle of wide disagreements with which many are familiar. The truth always lies between. Both the domestic and the international economists are right and wrong. The Fed has never been too worried about unemployment as long as there is a risk of inflation. However, they will not allow large financial institutions to panic either. They will instead balance the risk of inflation with a floating cap on high interest rates.
Meanwhile, China and Japan will not allow their economies to suffer under a falling dollar. They will continue to purchase dollars at a rapid although reduced rate, as much as their economies will allow.
The US imports the lion's share of the world's international trade, exporting a relative small proportion of it's imports. Meanwhile, the US is steadily borrowing most of the world's surplus income. The US consumer has been saving next to nothing and running up his own debt. The US consumer like the US government, is living well beyond it's means.
There is a reason for this consumer debt. Wages have stagnated and show all signs of begining to fall. Consumers have developed an sense of entitlement to a standard of living that appears to be unsustainable in the future. The cost of living will continue to rise driven by increasing interest rates and inflation, while wages fall because of the worldwide competition of Globalization.
The US worker is probably the least resilient of those involved. As interest rates rise the housing price bubble will deflate or collapse, depending on the speed of the interest rate increase. Workers will be saddled with mortgages that will not pay off upon selling the homes. Foreclosures will skyrocket, bankers will acquire property like mad. Mortgage equities, largely owned by pension funds will crash. The pension fund crisis will be universal and the US worker will be left without a retirement income beyond Social Security, just as it is a target for cutting.
The Fed and the international bankers in China and Japan will ride the teeter totter, while the American worker sees his buying power dip drastically at first when unemployment peaks, followed by re-employment at a lower wage. The US economy will resurge in a much better competitive position in the international market but in a world with a slower growth pattern and higher worldwide chronic unemployment.
And what happens if some part of this balancing act panics and turns the wrong way? Worldwide ecomonic chaos could be the result.

Breaking News: Iraqi Factions Seek Timetable for U.S. Pullout

It looks like my prediction will come true. The Iraqi government will have to ask US troops to leave. And they are gearing up to do just that. They're timetable seems pretty much in line with the Democrats.
New York Times
For the first time, Iraq's political factions on Monday collectively called for a timetable for withdrawal of foreign forces, in a moment of consensus that comes as the Bush administration battles pressure at home to commit itself to a pullout schedule.


The announcement, made at the conclusion of a reconciliation conference here backed by the Arab League, was a public reaching out by Shiites, who now dominate Iraq's government, to Sunni Arabs on the eve of parliamentary elections that have been put on shaky ground by weeks of sectarian violence.


About 100 Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, many of whom will run in the election on Dec. 15, signed a closing memorandum on Monday that "demands a withdrawal of foreign troops on a specified timetable, dependent on an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces," the statement said.


"The Iraqi people are looking forward to the day when foreign forces will leave Iraq, when its armed and security forces will be rebuilt and when they can enjoy peace and stability and an end to terrorism," it continued.


[...]On Monday, Iraq's interior minister, Bayan Jabr, said American-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, adding that the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the United Nations Security Council earlier this month could be the last, The Associated Press reported.


"By mid-next year, we will be 75 percent done in building our forces, and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," Mr. Jabr told Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news channel.


The Monday statement offered Shiite politicians concessions, too, by condemning terrorism against Shiites, condemning trumped-up theological arguments for attacks on Shiites, and legitimizing the political process that has made Shiite leaders the dominant political force in Iraq.


[...]of the sides that were especially sensitive have opened up with the support of the Arab League," said Sheik Humam Hamoudi, a Shiite who headed the Iraqi constitution-drafting committee. "We now clearly see that Sunnis have entered politics, and this meeting won't change that."


"If this meeting did anything, it was to comfort the Arabs and the Iraqi Sunnis about the whole process," he added. "The solution first is that Sunnis enter politics, then they enter government, then we deliver services to their areas, and then we build a strong government."


The statement also called for the release of all prisoners who had not been charged or were deemed innocent, and asked Arab League members to cancel Iraq's debts and assist in building Iraqi security forces.


Perhaps the biggest winner of the meeting was the 22-member Arab League itself, which has entered the political scene in Iraq hoping to repeat its success in 1989, when it brokered an end to Lebanon's 15-year civil war in a similar conference. MORE

Of course, the Bush Administration has a better plan and sees their timetable as not connected to the "sovereign" Iraqi government:
In Washington, Justin Higgins, a State Department spokesman, said, "The United States supports the basic foundation of the conference and we certainly support ongoing discussion among Iraq's various political and religious communities."


But regarding troop withdrawal, he said: "Multinational forces are present in Iraq under a mandate from the U.N. Security Council. As President Bush has said, the coalition remains committed to helping the Iraqi people achieve security and stability as they rebuild their country. We will stay as long as it takes to achieve those goals and no longer." MORE

November 21, 2005

When Is a Chemical Weapon Not a Chemical Weapon

It would appear that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon believed it is using tactics in the Iraqi war in violation of international law. The Bush Administration was planning to go to war with Iraq since it was sworn into office in 1991. It refused to support the International Criminal Court because it fully intended to violate international law in propagating this war with Iraq. Specifically, The international court will try individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and other war crimes. So it would appear the Bush Administration fully intended to propagate a war in a way that even allies might consider war crimes.
I believe a voluntary war is immoral. Targeting civilians voluntarily is also immoral in my book. Some weapons effectively exterminate all living things in a target area. White phosphorus (WP) is one such weapon. The Pentagon has admitted using WP in Fallugah. Whether WP is a chemical weapon or not, is not as important to me as it is to the International Criminal Court given the Geneva Convention banning chemical weapons.
What the Pentagon believes is a chemical weapon is important in view of international law. Contrary to recent news releases, the Pentagon has called WP a "chemical weapon" when used by Saddam. Hat tip to Seeing the Forest
Think Progress
To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren’t technically “chemical weapons.”


The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions” that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.”


But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature. A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:
    IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS […] IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991

November 20, 2005

What Can We Learn From the French Riots?

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about the riots in France after reading an inspiring article by Doug Ireland. I stopped by his blog this morning and found an impressive follow up article analyzing the disturbing French response.
Doug Ireland
Unfortunately, not a single major political figure or party supports adopting an affirmative action policy -- and it is unlikely to happen any time in the near future. Affirmative action runs counter to that "archaic republican discourse" which, in asserting all French citizens are "equal," refuses to recognize race or ethnicity as the basis for any government action --and which even prevents the government from gathering statistics based on race or ethnicity, making the socio-economic and educational progress of minorities impossible to measure, and rendering them officially invisible for all intents and purposes. (Unofficially, of course, people of color are routinely targeted by the police on the basis of ethnicity, and frequently discriminated against by government agencies.)


It wasn't until the 13th day of the rebellion -- when arson, vandalism, and rioting, which had begun in the suburban ghettos of Paris, had spread right across the country... that the French government finally reacted. The aristocratic Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin (right) at last went on television to announce the government's response to the racism and social rot that had caused the rebellion: repression. The conservative government of President Jacques Chirac declared a state of emergency, using a 1955 law passed during France's colonial war in Algeria that permits the imposition of a Taistoi curfew and suspension of civil liberties, including those of the press, and permits detention without trial, the use of military tribunals and bans on public meetings. The Syndicat des avocats and the Syndicat de la magistrature (the lawyers' and judges' unions) issued a cry of alarm, denouncing the "disastrous war logic" inherent in invoking the law. Pointing out that this law was not even used in the May 1968 student-worker rebellions, their joint statement said: "Stopping the violence and re-establishing order in the suburbs is a necessity. But must that imply submitting them to emergency legislation inherited from the colonial period? We know where the cycle of provocation and repression leads.... The ghettos have no need of a state of emergency. They desperately need justice, respect, and equality."


[...]The ghetto youths' violence was already diminishing significantly when the state of emergency was declared -- even as anti-Arab incidents reflected the sharp increase in racism which the rebellion had motored. In the waning days of the youth rebellion, three mosques were firebombed within days: two Molotov cocktails were thrown into a mosque in Carpentras at the hour of prayer, when the house of worship was filled with the faithful -- and France's largest mosque (left), in Lyon (France's second-largest city), was firebombed, as was a mosque in a ghetto suburb in the Loire.


The curfew authorized by the state of emergency was imposed by prefects -- who are closer to the situation on the ground than their Paris-based masters -- in only 6 of France's 92 departments. Clearly, the prefects thought it a useless and needlessly provocative measure when aimed solely at the ghetto youth. But among the repressive measures adopted by the government was the punishing of parents for the alleged crimes of their children, including curfew violations. For example, on the 13th night of the rioting, the prime time newscast on France 2 public television profiled the arrest of a single mother of four -- a simple, working-class Pakistani woman overwhelmed by the task of raising her large brood alone. Her crime? Her 16-year-old son had been arrested for crouching behind a car, which -- the police claimed -- he was about to set aflame (even though no incendiary equipment was found on the youth.) "I can make him behave when he's at home," the woman weeped, "but when he's in the street with his pals I have no control over him" The woman was hauled off in front of her minor children, incarcerated, sentenced to a training course in how to control her kids, and finally released. Every ghetto kid in France who saw this (and repeated similar arrests) on TV could easily imagine his own mother being carried off in a police paddy wagon -- a sure prescription for further bitterness and alienation from authority. Such repressive actions may have contributed to ending the riots -- which were already sputtering out -- but at what social cost?

It strikes me that the problems in France are not unique to that country. Immigrants and their children born to European and American citizenry, even if educated, have a difficult time finding jobs. "Here in Denmark, a last name that is not Olsen or Rasmussen is not going to get your CV noticed." According to WorldNetDaily,
there are more than 14 million Muslims in the European Union. The Central Institute's Islam Archives in Soest, Germany, says the number of Muslims in Europe has increased by 800,000 over the last two years, reports the German evangelical news agency IDEA. The institute’s director, Salim Abdullah, says that among the 25 EU states, France has the highest number of Muslims – 5.5 million – followed by Germany with 3.2 million, the United Kingdom with 1.5 million and Italy with 1 million.

Meanwhile falling birth rates have created the economic necessity of increasing immigration. This trend is likely to increase on coming years as ethnic European populations actually start to shrink in size.
Europe has a long history of racism. Anti-semitism has been around since the Middle Ages. Twentieth century racism in Europe has manifested in its most perverse forms, from Nazism that murdered 6 million Jews, to still widely held beliefs that eugenics and Social Darwinism are not immoral. Europe is a relatively small area of land that has seen many conflicts over the centuries over trade and resources mixed with volatile belief in the superiority of one's national identities and ethnicity. Though technically not racism, the passions ignited were no less explosive and results bloody. neo-Nazism is on the rise in Europe with racism, violence and neo-nationalism incorporated into social norms in some communities. Violence is on the rise all over Europe. Extreme right-wing politicians have had much greater success in recent times. Backlash towards immigration is supporting new laws limiting entry.
Muslim immigrants have been less than welcomed. A recent economic downturn has increased unemployment, disproportionately for minorities. Socially and economically unwelcome, Muslims began in the 1980's to renew their ties to Islam as a source of strength, social and political organization.
There is no call for jihad or violence and the message is delivered by local citizens, not outside agitators. Yet the message is radical: People who are different are held in contempt. Mingling with mainstream society is frowned upon. Society should be founded on one religion: Islam. Magnified by the power of demographics, messages like [this] are presenting a profound challenge to Europe's secular democracies.


[...]some of Europe's Muslims are drifting off into separate troubled societies. In some European cities, nearly half of Muslim youths drop out of high school and unemployment rates are high. Racism is on the rise, helping to drive Muslims back into their communities. The situation was crystallized in a report last year by the French domestic intelligence agency, which surveyed 630 communities with a heavy concentration of Muslim migrants. Half of them, the report said, are "ghettoized" along religious lines.


In Paris, this parallel society is centered in a string of suburbs along the capital's northern and eastern fringes. There, amid housing projects slapped up a generation ago to accommodate a booming immigrant population, the signs of fundamentalist Islam are on the rise. Women who don't wear head scarves are harassed. People who consume food or beverages during the month of fasting, Ramadan, are publicly criticized. And some families refuse to let women be treated by male doctors or nurses.


This development is a paradox to many sociologists, who figured that such behavior was confined to newcomers who brought it with them. With time, the theory went, immigrants would moderate their views. Instead, it is Europe's second- and third-generation Muslims who are the most radical. "Often young Muslims in the West are unmoored from their traditional beliefs and ripe for recruitment by radicals," says Olivier Roy, a leading expert on political Islam and an adviser to the French government.


[...]Instead of integrating Muslims, this all-embracing form of Islam [native to Muslim countries and without competition in isolated suburbs], builds a cocoon in which people have little contact with mainstream society, she says. Education is often stunted and the chance of professional success limited, Dounia Bouzar, a prominent French Muslim social scientist says. "It's a vision of society that separates people into two camps, Islamic and non-Islamic," says Ms. Bouzar. "They have a need to Islamicize everything."


[...]In France, foreign youths from predominantly Muslim countries have a particularly high rate of unemployment. Rates for ages 15-29: Foreigners from North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa and Turkey 40 percent Foreigners (all nationalities) 26 percent French by birth 16 percent French by naturalization 15 percent.

Many observers have worried that France signaled the beginnings of Jihad in Europe. Extreme right-wing pundits have been quick to see the worst through their paranoid filters. At Captain's Quarters, the author takes reports of rioter coordination by cell phones and instant messaging as proof of Al Qaeda in Europe.
[...]both American and French media sources warned of coordinated Islamist action against France in the weeks before the riot. [...]That prelude certainly seems more than a mere coincidence to me. Within six weeks of the GSPC announcement, we see a massive and coordinated uprising originating from the ghettoes in which Algerian and other Muslim refugees and their families live.

Mr. Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith, writes:
[There has been] massive Muslim immigration into Europe without assimilation. Would the new European Muslims accept European pluralism? That was assumed -- betraying a shocking naivete and ignorance of what Islam has historically taught about the nature of society and the proper relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. The problem is not racism, but precisely a clash of civilizations, or a clash between two radically opposing views of how society should be ordered.

Fortunately, even some conservative writers have a clearer head and broader perspective. Gregory Djerejian at THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH writes a good analysis without being specific about solutions.
[...]the now even more apparent alienation of disaffected youth grappling with high unemployment, endemic racism and feelings of 'otherness'--all these bad tidings have now culminated in a very dramatic break-down of basic law and order through significant swaths of France.


Now, I am not one who believes that some pan-Eurabian intifada is in the offing, or that the implications of these riots rival 9/11, or that Shamil Basayev's guerilla tactics are being adopted off la Place de la Republique--as breathless, under-informed 'commentary' has it in some quarters of the blogosphere. But we certainly have a pivot point here, one where the ruling elite's inefficacy and ineptness is being laid crudely bare for all the world to see. They have been tone-deaf and caught off guard by the depth of the alienation in their midst, and it has now caught them very much unawares and seemingly clueless on how next to respond.


[...]The scope of the problem is quite daunting, as this excerpt from a Washington Post article makes clear:
    While French politicians say the violence now circling and even entering the capital of France and spreading to towns across the country is the work of organized criminal gangs, the residents of Le Blanc-Mesnil know better. Many of the rioters grew up playing soccer on Rezzoug's field. They are the children of baggage handlers at nearby Charles de Gaulle International Airport and cleaners at the local schools. "It's not a political revolution or a Muslim revolution," said Rezzoug. "There's a lot of rage. Through this burning, they're saying, 'I exist, I'm here.' "


    Such a dramatic demand for recognition underscores the chasm between the fastest growing segment of France's population and the staid political hierarchy that has been inept at responding to societal shifts. The youths rampaging through France's poorest neighborhoods are the French-born children of African and Arab immigrants, the most neglected of the country's citizens. A large percentage are members of the Muslim community that accounts for about 10 percent of France's 60 million people.


    One of Rezzoug's "kids" -- the countless youths who use the sports facilities he oversees -- is a husky, French-born 18-year-old whose parents moved here from Ivory Coast. At 3 p.m. on Saturday, he'd just awakened and ventured back onto the streets after a night of setting cars ablaze. "We want to change the government," he said, a black baseball cap pulled low over large, chocolate-brown eyes and an ebony face. "There's no way of getting their attention. The only way to communicate is by burning."



It is indeed sad when a country's citizens have become so removed from an esprit of fellow-feeling with their common citizens that they must lash out in anarchic fashion to get attention and communicate. But this is where France now finds itself, as it wakes up Monday morning wondering where the tumult and mayhem may hit next. No, what is needed now is honesty and straight-shooting and a real sense of urgency. The violence the roving gangs of youth are engaging in is borne of various causes and grievances. This profound alienation needs to be analyzed, to be sure. And at the end of the day, while there is some room for jihadist radicals to play on these sentiments to lure more towards piety, the book and perhaps terror--what this is really about is not some religiosity-infused intifada on the Seine but bread and butter issues of jobs and racism. Sarkozy is right that so called positive discrimination (affirmative action), at least in calibrated fashion, needs to be experimented with. But he is also at least equally right that criminals, even young ones just 18, must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Stoking mayhem cannot be rewarded. Such 'chantage'-like tactics should not be in the cards. And yet, there is reason for some of the fury, and I'd hazard most of it stems from unemployment in the 30% zone among many in their early 20s. This is likely the largest variable that must be addressed head-on, but also, let us be honest here, the feelings of 'otherness' that stem from largely North African communities believing they are viewed by many as, more or less, barbarians at the gates--too near the prim and proper bourgeois districts of the fabled capital.


[...]It's more a tragic result of a Hobbesian, gritty life in satellite towns devoid of hope and jobs and dignity--where youth feel disenfranchised, unmoored, without a nation really. Indeed, too many of the young see themselves as 93'ers (the postal code most afflicted by the violence to date)--before they are Frenchmen. Somehow, this must change. Part of such change must be ensuring that moderate Islamic tenets are allowed a place at the table in modern France. Part of it is dealing with the racial aspects of ensuring Arabs and Africans are not thought of as second class citizens. Part of it is jobs, obviously. And a sense of dignity. But there must also be a sense of responsibility in all of this. Not just cries about rights, in other words. A nation that takes in immigrants, provides housing and welfare and other assistance, will not sit contently while it is spat on in return. Charges of ingratitude, even if unfair, will ratchet up. And openings for the far right, it is not hard to see, will therefore present themselves.


It is little wonder that Jean Marie le Pen, of course, has been quick to issue this rather fiery statement:
    The government is fatally incapable of facing the insurrectionary situation that is reverberating through the anarchic zones, because the government itself is the primarily responsible party, and the entire political class with it. This government is not even capable of maintaining an appearance of cohesion. These internal ruptures are for the insurrectionists an enticement to profit from the too obvious fragility that, in a time of crisis, becomes a grave peril for all of society. Because, through the agents and symbols of the state, it's France herself that is attacked, by hordes that the so-called anti-racial laws prevent us from designating as foreigners. As for the sad Sarkozy clones that, to give themselves publicity, stroll around the burned suburbs whilst reciting in 'play back' the positions of the National Front, their protestations are indecent and low.

The west has serious problems with disenfranchised minorities we are increasingly dependent on to work in our service and manufacturing jobs. People have been assimilating into America for a very long time. However, what is changing is the amount of culture shock the immigrant must face. Moving to America today from Somalia, Kenya or Nigeria involves absorbing a change whose breadth is significantly more challenging than the Irish potato farmer faced more than a century ago. Jews world-wide have found difficulty integrating into most cultures, found a particularly good match in the business, service, and industry oriented Americans. Despite maintaining significant social segregation, they have all but disappeared as an identifiable minority.
The challenge of assimilation is much greater when there is obvious visual identification as witness by African Americans for hundreds of years. Social integration appears to be necessary, including inter-marrying to begin successful integration. That solution had been blocked for many years by social pressures that only now seem to be lifting. It will be several generations before we see significant progress I fear.
Muslim immigrant bring an expectation of continued social segregation and are much less prepared for assimulation into well paying jobs. Add to that their visual difference makes a triple challenge and is sure to prolong the integration. Social pressures from the Patriot Act and the increased suspicion since 9/11 threaten to further isolate and prolong the process.
The West needs re-examine their tolerance for and institutional barriers to diversity. Institutional prejudice in this era where ideology, dogma and tactical and strategic methodology fly across international barriers via the Internet feeds a volatile mix of social disenfranchisement and dreams of jihad in Muslim communities worldwide.

November 18, 2005

What To Do About Iraq

Bush began his Administration in January 2001 with National Security Council discussions focused on regime change in Iraq, planning an invasion and invisioning the occupation process and components, including the distribution of oil wealth. Clearly this is not simple contingency planning, because the planning involved the highest levels of the Administration: George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Iraqi National Congress, Colin Powell, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill, and Richard B. Myers. Facts such as these make Bush recent assertions that the decision was made with Congress using the same intelligence whole inadequate. Not even some of his defenders believe he was telling the truth about Iraq.
This week, Democrats have been offered an opportunity to step out of their silent support for the war in Iraq. One of the Democratic hawks from blue collar 12th Congressional District in Pennsylvania surrounding Pittsburgh, John Murtha, a retired and highly decorated Marine veteran says its time to get the troops out of Iraq now. In reviewing the discussion on both sides of the argument about what to do in Iraq, it's clear there is very little understanding of Murtha's point.
Congressman John Murtha - Press Releases
Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.


My plan calls:
  • To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

  • To create a quick reaction force in the region.

  • To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.

  • To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

Meteor Blades at The Next Hurrah has some well placed statements in support of Murtha and then joins the debate on the right course in Iraq.
Congressman John Murtha’s stunning remarks Thursday may have finally broken the logjam of posturing, triangulating, and hemming and hawing that has plagued certain Democrats ever since the Dubyanocchio Administration let it be publicly known that the United States was going into Iraq 41 months ago. That is, if those Dems can keep from being cowed by anti-American pissants like this one. For smacking down such creatures, all they need follow is Murtha’s superb roundhouse kick to the head of chickenhawk Cheney.


Not that we’ll necessarily see a complete withdrawal from Iraq in six months or even a year. George Walker Bush still has 1158 days to serve. But Murtha, the decorated Marine, has left other far more liberal Democrats with no further excuse for continuing to shy away from discussing the inevitable: America will leave Iraq before that country is democratized, rebuilt or even stabilized because efforts to do so have failed. Even if the Administration was to yield in its obstinacy and change course along the lines suggested by, say, General Wesley Clark, it’s too late to turn the situation around.

I don't see Murtha saying this at all. I see him supporting something close to the strategy laid out by Juan Cole last August. Cole called for a redeployment of US troops to a supporting role, the use of special forces advisors and air support in the model of Afghanistan. Presumably, the Iraqi government would need some time to build a coalition force amongst the various Shiite and Kurdish militias. This would very likely involve partitioning up parts of the country by assigning the militias geographically. Iraq would be left without an invasive force for the Sunni provinces, something will allow the Sunni's some breathing space to consider their political options. Naturally there would be an expectation that the US troops would be gradually drawn down, but not until the status quo is stabilized for some time. Contrary to what many Republicans are shrieking, there is no "cut and run" philosophy, it's simply a disengagement and repositioning of US troops to a position they could be called upon to defend the Iraqi government if necessary.
Meteor Blades then launches into a discussion comparing the positions of two generals who have been opponents of Bush's Iraqi strategies from two different points of view. He presents General Wesley Clark position and General William Odom both from August of 2005. Now that it's November, I suspect Clarke anyway is reconsidering his view in response to Murtha. Clarke seems to rule out disengagement but working on the training and support of Iraqi army, and political and diplomatic emphasis. Odorn, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, believes the war is lost and we should go home and give Iraq to the insurgents. I don't hear anyone else advocating this position which is truly a "cut and run" strategy. But he does suggest some good talking points for Democrats.
Ask This > What’s wrong with cutting and running?" href="http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00129">Nieman Watchdog
Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration's case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don't see it that way. They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army.


As I wrote several years ago, "the Pentagon's post-Cold War force structure is so maritime heavy and land force weak that it is firmly in charge of the porpoises and whales while leaving the land to tyrants." The Army, some of the Air Force, the National Guard, and the reserves are now the victims of this gross mismatch between military missions and force structure. Neither the Bush nor the Clinton administration has properly "supported the troops." The media could ask the president why he fails to support our troops by not firing his secretary of defense.

Ok, so these are complex talking points, but why haven't I heard them before? I'm interested in the complex arguments. The Dems have been sitting on their hands. The Dems need substance to counter Bush character assasination.

Profiteers in American Blood

Besides Halliburton, there are other corporate allies of Bush and the Neocons ambitions. Eisenhower in his Fairwell speech to the nation in 1961 warned us the growing power of the military-industrial complex. During the Bush Administration, we have witnessed Eisenhower fears come to fruit.
"He who forgets history is bound to repeat it." - Winston Churchill
Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address January 17, 1961
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.


We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. MORE

Bush is no statesman. He has conspired to undermine the very principles of freedom he is sworn to defend. The forces of the rich and powerful drive government and foreign policy. Our tax dollars and the tax dollars of our children are poured by the billions into the wealthy's pockets, in a grand giveaway. It's no coincident that the amount of tax cuts and giveaways to the rich are on the order of all of the tax dollars taken from the rich through income and corporate taxes since the New Deal policies of FDR. We need to learn in detail how they have done this, so they will never do so ever again.
Corporations like Halliburton and Carlyle group have incredible influence on foreign policy in the United States. You can see from the article below, they strive for influence throughout the world to further market their wares. Thanks to Seeing the Forest for a link to this article on corporate ties to foreign policy makers. Former political officials retire to consult as policy analysts to current political officials and corporate think tanks.
SFGate.org
The Carlyle Group, as in a secretive Washington, D.C., investment firm managing some $14 billion in assets, including stakes in a number of defense- related companies. Carlyle counts among its chieftains former Defense Secretary (and deputy CIA Director) Frank Carlucci, former Secretary of State James Baker and, most notably, former President George Bush. Until October, the Carlyle Group also maintained financial ties with none other than the family of Osama bin Laden, but those links were severed when it was agreed that the relationship was becoming a tad embarrassing for all concerned.


[...]The Carlyle Group has cultivated and enjoyed a decidedly low profile for the past 14 years. Yet it has succeeded in attracting to its ranks not just a who's who of Republican bigwigs but also a dazzling array of international politicos.


John Major, the former British prime minister, is a Carlyle adviser, as are former Philippine President Fidel Ramos and former Thai Premier Anand Panyarachun. So is a former president of Germany's Bundesbank and a former head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


Connected? That's an understatement where Carlyle is concerned. And because the Carlyle Group remains privately held, it is not required to disclose details of its investments or business activities. It is commonly known, though, that the firm favors the defense and aerospace sectors, with a wide array of investments in Pentagon affiliates. "Their defense holdings are quite extensive," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a Washington public interest law firm. "Because of their investments, they are a major contractor for the Pentagon." Among Carlyle's holdings is United Defense Industries, a maker of armed vehicles and weapons, which filed in October 2001 to raise up to $300 million in an initial public offering of its shares.


Judicial Watch filed suit last week to obtain documents shedding light on Carlyle business activities undertaken by President Bush's father, who reportedly met with bin Laden's family in Saudi Arabia at least twice prior to the Sept. 11 attacks. He also has had dealings with a variety of foreign governments. "The appearance is awful," Fitton said. "For the father of our current president to be doing business with foreign governments, there is a clear conflict of interest."


Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman said the elder Bush does little more than give speeches on Carlyle's behalf when abroad and does not call up his son to lobby for Carlyle's business interests. Ullman also said there is nothing improper about the Carlyle Group's phenomenal political connections throughout the world. "These are all former government officials who have chosen to team with us in various capacities," he said. "I stress the fact that they are former government officials."


Critics of the Carlyle Group have grown increasingly vocal in recent weeks, particularly over the perception that a private organization with unmistakable links to the White House is benefiting from America's military action in Afghanistan.

November 17, 2005

Wilson Wacks Woodward

Reuter's has a quote from Joseph Wilson again stepping in for his wife and making the same point I made yesterday about Woodward's self serving statements about Plame when he had a vested interest in the outcome. Reuters has some rather interesting facts to go along with Wilson's statements. Thanks to Shakespeare's Sister for the link.
Joseph Wilson, the husband of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame, called on Thursday for an inquiry by The Washington Post into the conduct of journalist Bob Woodward, who repeatedly criticized the leak investigation without disclosing his own involvement.


"It certainly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. He was taking an advocacy position when he was a party to it," Wilson said.


[…]Wilson, a former ambassador turned White House critic, told Reuters that The Washington Post should reveal the name of Woodward's source, and conduct an inquiry to determine why he withheld the information for more than two years from his editors and the federal prosecutor. Before publicly disclosing his involvement in the leak case on Wednesday, Woodward was a frequent critic of Fitzgerald's investigation in television and radio appearances. Woodward has described the case as laughable and Fitzgerald's behavior as "disgraceful" and has referred to him as "a junkyard dog."


One day before Libby was charged, Woodward said he saw no evidence of criminal intent.

Woodward has been playing with fire. Fitzgerald the "junkyard dog" may just have something with which to bite Woodward.