Citizen G'kar: Musings on Earth

November 22, 2005

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.

May Bill O'Reilly Crash and Burn

Bill O'Reilly has never been thought of as a diplomatic guy. He's FOX's version of a political attack dog. But these statements take the cake. Because San Francisco voters passed a resolution urging public high schools and colleges to prohibit on-campus military recruiting. It would seem to me that exposing their kids in high school is a parents perogative. With parents paying a large proportion of the tuition, I suppose it's their right to ask colleges for their interests to be represented. But O'Reilly makes one if his most intemporate statements.
Media Matters
Criticizing a ballot measure passed by 60 percent of San Francisco voters urging public high schools and colleges to prohibit on-campus military recruiting, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly declared on the November 8 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show,
    "[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off-limits to you, except San Francisco."

From the November 8 broadcast of Fox News' The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
    O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."


    And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

The 210-foot Coit Tower was dedicated in 1933 and contains a museum and murals that depict working life in 1930s California.

BlondeSense adds her support to the boycott drive led by Daily KOS. This guy deserves whatever he gets.
You must, if you value democracy, write letters telling the advertisers that you will not use their products since they sponsor a radio program that supports terrorism against one of the US' greatest cities.


O'Reilly's Sponsors:
tom.bryant@tempurpedic.com,
bob@insure.com,
kellyd@emigrant.com,
david.rubinger@equifax.com,
brian@lifequotes.com,
bthoms@insure.com,
emigrantdirect@emigrant.com,
marketing@tempurpedic.com


Westwood One syndicates O'Reilly's radio program. Do write to them.
Shane Coppola, President: shane_coppola@westwoodone.com
Paul Gregrey, Advertising Director: paul_gregrey@westwoodone.com
David Hillman, General Counsel: david_hillman@westwoodone.com

November 16, 2005

Liberalism Is the Core of Democracy and Freedom... Really!

THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH quotes from Packer's Assassins' Gate (p. 59):
If the war against radical Islamism must ultimately be a war for liberalism, the West's own history should be taken as cautionary. Liberalism didn't suddenly appear "one scorching July day in France in 1789," Leon Wieseltier...told me. It was a "violent rupture" after centuries of conflict within Western theocracy and autocracy. Liberalism is, by definition, difficult and destabilizing. It shouldn't be undertaken with missionary zeal. The attempt to bring it to the theocratic and autocratic Middle East from outside, by force, on the simple faith that people everywhere long to be free, end of story--this was a profoundly unliberal idea. "If there's one thing that liberalism has no time for, it's an eschatological view," Wieseltier said. "Liberalism is an essentially anti-eschatological view of the world. And now that various people have woken up to the rough political and philosophical realities of most of the world, the idea that the United States must send it troops everywhere to fix the world once and for all is stupid. They want a final answer. They want it over. And there is no final answer. There's slow, steady, fitful progress toward a more decent and democratic world."

The Republicans have made the world liberalism such a dirty word, know one remembers what it really means. So here is what Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary says:
liberalism


[...]


a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity


b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard


c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

The first definition talks about the freedom of thought despite the apparent constricting dogma of Christianity. That sounds an awful lot like Freedom of Religion. The second is an economic perspective that any self-respecting Republican would agree with. Finally, the philosophy is consistent with the constitution as stated in its Preamble.
As George Packer points out, democracy can't be exported without changing the fundamental nature of the cultures involved. Respect and optimism for humanity doesn't spontaneously awaken from a dictatorship. It takes time to nurture and grow, and decades to mature. The utter stupidity and naivety of Wolfowitz is mind boggling.

Woodward's Methane Bomb

When Woodward talk loosely about Wilson on Larry King two weeks ago, his stink factor went sky high in my book. He was suggesting Wilson was making too big a deal about the outing of his wife Plame. He also said that Plame's job at CIA was widely known in the press corps that worked around CIA. First of all, there is significant evidence of damage done. Secondly, too many Bush apologists really think a Special Prosecutor hand picked by the Bush Attorney General's Office would actually make a big deal out of a "technical" Plame outing. I'm sure Fitzgerald's career would crash and burn if it were to come out that allegations in the Libby indictment was really weren't espionage because everyone knew she was a spy anyway. It is clear to me, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist has been bought out by Bush in exchange for getting deeply inside the Bush White House.
Now he's grabbing headlines again with a move that appears self-serving again.
Here is highlights from today's Washington Post article.
Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case that a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed. In a more than two-hour deposition, Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that the official casually told him in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and that he did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive, according to a statement Woodward released yesterday.

Smells to me that he's just bolstering his statements to Larry King. Woodward doesn't want the sales of his books on the Bush Administration to founder if this investigation spreads and leads to more indictments throughout the White House. The information for his book could become part of the evidence or could be written off as whitewashed facts in an administration struggling to cover-up.
Emptywheel at The Next Hurrah says:
I think Woodward's source is Dick. As someone over at Jane's place reminded (again, I'm looking through the haloscan swamps to find it), Dick was reportedly given a set of questions at just about the time of the indictment. If that really happened (remember, most of the Libby indictment week rumors have proven to be false), then one of the questions would almost certainly be "Did you share information about Plame with any journalist?"


And why would Dick admit he had?


While I don't think this leak exonerates Libby in an Espionage charge, I do think it exonerates Dick in an Espionage charge. It provides Dick with a very credible witness that Dick didn't pass on Plame's classified status--even though he knew it at the time (remember, Dick had already told Libby that Plame was DO, a spy). In any case, if it was Dick, I think he's still got a whole heap of trouble. But I think he may avoid going down himself on Espionage charges.

As usually, Emptywheels thoughts make a lot of sense and seem to explain predictions that Cheney will "retire" when the heat gets too close.
However, then my thought was about Hadley who allegedly told friends he expected to be indicted. Then, surprise! The Raw Story has a scoop.
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was the senior administration official who told Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA officer, attorneys close to the investigation and intelligence officials tell RAW STORY.


Testifying under oath Monday to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Woodward recounted a casual conversation he had with Hadley, these sources say. Hadley did not return a call seeking comment.

Whoever is the source will play out pretty soon. But the Fitzgerald investigation appears to be headed for a long run.

November 15, 2005

Grover Norquist’s Leaky Bathtub

DHinMI has another very interesting post about prospects for the Democrats in the upcoming election in 2006. He hit one hot button of mine. The promise of a disturbing history of economic sabotage yet to unfold. The Bush Administration has planted several booby-traps in our economy that may well enable them to accomplish their long range goal of shrinking the Federal government at the expense of the poor most of all, but also the middle class.
The Next Hurrah
The political trends seem to be converging in ways that suggest that Grover Norquist will not achieve his goal of reducing government to a size where he could “drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” And for abetting Norquist’s’ pursuit of his insane and megalomaniacal dream, the Republican party is on the verge of losing control of Congress and losing the benefits of the (mistaken) perception that they have had momentum and popular support behind their unending attacks on government and governance. Just as George W. Bush and Karl Rove let Grover Norquist get his hands on government and he dragged it to the bathroom to drown it, America appears to have pulled the plug from the tub.

Unfortunately, too much water may have already run out of the tub. Grover Norquist had an idea that caught on with conservatives a long time ago, long enough for them to have improved on the idea. It started with Ronald Reagan. He decided he would make sure that America's appetite for government spending would be forever squelched by a plan that might also help Reagan with his other great ambition, winning the Cold War by escalating the arms race until the Soviet Union economy collapsed. It's called "starving the beast". Bill Moyers spoke of the plan in June of 2004.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan tried to warn us 20 years ago, when he predicted that President Ronald Reagan's real strategy was to force the government to cut domestic social programs by fostering federal deficits of historic dimensions.

But then Bill Clinton did what no Democrat was ever expected to do, he balanced the Federal Budget without significantly raising income taxes. That was a major setback for the foes of big government. So when Bush took office, he was determined to further Reagan's policies. Then 9/11 presented him with an historic opportunity. He would spend the US economy so deep in debt that no matter what happened in future elections, there would be so much owed in the National Debt, government would have to dramatically increase taxes or shrink the Federal budget just to allow payment of interest on the colossal outstanding loan. John Podesta understands the problem. He was the last chief of staff to serve under Clinton and currently heads the Center for American Progress. He was quoted in a January 2005 New York Times Magazine article, "Breaking the Code" by Nicholas Confessore.
Podesta has little faith in the conservatives' trickle-down approach. He also says it is bad economic policy -- "fatally flawed," as he put it. "We're already seeing the current account deficit increase by $600 billion a year," he continued. "People are mortgaged to the hilt. The middle class is now being fundamentally squeezed. They've gotten no benefit from the tax reduction. G.D.P. growth is going almost all to corporate profits. And we're creating an overall economic circumstance in which the dollar is certain to drop, interest rates are certain to rise and growth over the long term looks kind of sketchy." To understand why the G.O.P. has pursued such a policy, Podesta argues, you have to look at the political dividends, not the economic ones. "What are the structural elements of what they are trying to do with the tax code?" he began, busying himself at a small coffee machine. "I would say there are three. One is to eliminate taxation on wealth and investment. Second is to create a revenue stream that aims at a government the size of which we haven't seen almost since before the Depression." Already, he points out, the government takes in far less than it spends, forcing the Bush administration to borrow billions of dollars to cover the revenue lost from cutting taxes. "Three is that if you build in taxation only on wage income, you have massive resistance by the middle class to letting those taxes rise. So you've kind of locked in three structural components that end up being highly beneficial to wealthy people, and I think, from a conservative governance point of view, create not just restraint on the growth of government, but essentially pressure to downsize the government."

Raising taxes on the middle class will be a tough road to hoe. Raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations during the coming sustained economic "correction" (read "recession" or even "depression") is contrary to wise fiscal policy. Raising taxes during a recession prolongs or even worsens the downturn. Globalization is coming home to the American worker. So far wages have just stagnated. Already however, we're seeing bankrupt airlines demanding staggering rollbacks of wages and benefits. New jobs go overseas everyday because labor is cheap. If we simply raise trade tariffs to make American goods competitive at home, inflation will spin us deeper in recession.
Soon we will discover how well Bush and his cronies have done their dirtiest deed of all. They have deliberately sabotaged the health of the American economy to further their narrow elitist interests: lining the pockets of the rich and ensuring a weak central government that can't compete with the power and influence of mega multi-national corporations. May they burn in a historical hell fire.

Democratic Strategy: Staking Out Our Turf

The Dems are reving up. And look who? Our illustrious House Minority Leader!
The Next Hurrah
As part of a Democratic strategy for the coming year, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is giving a speech today at the National Press Club laying out a strategy to retain America's competitiveness and leadership in the areas of science and technology. The strategy will call for energy independence within 10 years, nationwide broadband service, increased funding for science and engineering education and a greater federal coimmitment to funding basic research. Pelosi notes that other countries are following the American blueprint of leadership in science and technology. "As others have copied our blueprint we have departed from it." In a sharp break with the Republican Congress, Pelosi promises that if the Democrats take back Congress, the government will stop interfering with sound scientific judgments and will double many research programs. In particular, Pelosi highlights the need for a stepped-up program of "high-risk, high-reward, revolutionary energy technologies." Finally, in a call reminiscent of the post-Sputnik National Defense Education Act, Pelosi calls for 100,000 new scientists, engineers and mathematicians over the next four years through increased spending for education, as well as scholarships and grants for students, to boost competitiveness.


[...]Perhaps most importantly, Pelosi has put the Democrats squarely on the side of science and progress. The Republican War on Science is more than just the latest chapter in American anti-intellectualism, a rerun of George Wallace's indictment of "pointy headed intellectuals." Given problems such as global warming, avian flu, and energy depletion, it threatens our survival as a nation and as a species. In more immediate terms, a promise for more support for science may further peel off votes among professionals and entrepreneurial/libertarian types repelled by the GOP, bringing us one step closer to taking Congress.

Now lets talk about Returning to American Values. Maybe Jimmy Carter's book will help.

November 14, 2005

Bush On the Ropes

Shakespeare's Sister appropriately compares two recent polls. The Americans who have not been paying attention have their heads up. What's to keep them from burying their head in the sand again?
The Nov. 9 NBC/WSJ poll showed that 57% of Americans believe Bush deliberately misled them in making his case for the war, and Zogby’s Nov. 4 poll showed that 53% of Americans want Congress to consider impeaching Bush if he did deliberately mislead the public. If the situation in Iraq doesn’t significantly improve and thereby rekindle support for the war (an unlikely event, by any deduction), support will instead continue to dwindle—and that means more and more former gung-ho supporters are going to be looking for someone to blame, which could mean real trouble for Bush.


That’s the problem with kingmakers—they can be a king’s undoing, too.

So far the tax cuts for the wealthy have kept the mainstream Republican happy. I have to wonder how long that will last. Certainly not every Republican is a closet fascist. From Seeing the Forest, we have Stephen Crockett, a radio talkshow host described as moderate conservative sounds the call to arms in State Power & Conservative Ideology:
It is increasingly apparent that there is an important ideological conflict going on in the modern conservative movement between supporters of increased state power and supporters of limited government.


. . . The Bush Republicans advocate a “neo-con” approach to state power that critics fear is a potential creeping fascist ideology disguised as conservatism. Secret prisons, torture and unlimited detention in prisons without trial are all examples of policies supported by the Bush Republican that outrage both traditional conservatives and civil libertarians.


Traditional conservatives rely on the rule of law instead of personal rule by a strong leader or leadership group. The Bush Republicans seem to believe that anything the Bush Administration wants to do should be permitted because they claim that they should be trusted not to abuse the power of their offices.


Traditional conservatives believe that the system of checks and balances should be strong enough to survive good or bad White House or Congressional leaders. The Bush Republicans seem to view the checks and balances system devised by our Founding Fathers as obstacles to imposing their views on our government and nation.

A large number of Republicans have had their heads in the sand too. They seem to be counting their gold pieces still. But some have been awakened. Hopefully more will follow.

November 13, 2005

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda’s Robespierre

DHinMI at The Next Hurrah has a great article on Zarqawi. However, I think he along with most of the world tends to buy the hype created by the news media and the Bush Administration spin masters looking for someone to focus on as a bad guy in Iraq. How much of the information in the press is true is unclear. But there are some hints that imply differences that few seem to notice.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi has typically been represented as a lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, when in fact he’s probably more aptly described as a Jihadist “fellow traveler,” with many common goals but important differences.

He's on the mark on this observation. The connections with Al Qaeda may well have been an after thought by a man wanting to grab media attention while pursuing what maybe different goals.
Zarqawi dropped out of school at 17. He arrived in Afghanistan in 1989, just in time to see the Soviets retreat back north. He does not appear to have undergone much tutelage in Islamist theory. After leaving Afghanistan he spears to have circulated through European Jihadi circles before landing in a Jordanian prison from 1992 to 1999 for plotting to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy. Upon release he went to Afghanistan, but instead of joining with Al Qaeda, he set up a rival training operation. Instead of planning sophisticated attacks in Western locales, or networking with Jihadis throughout Western Europe to work on financing and logistics, Zarqawi focused instead on more guerrilla-oriented tactics. Rather than bin Laden or Zawahiri, [Zarqawi] lacked any theoretical sophistication, but was known as a fierce, brutal but charismatic tactical leader of guerrilla insurgency, [who] espouses a regeneration of the Caliphate, of neccesity by violent means.

Intelligence seems to be an oxymoron in Washington, especially during the run up to the invasion of Iraq. But every source I've seen believes Zarqawi received medical treat in Baghdad in 2002, with or without the knowledge of Saddam. It seems likely Saddam's hold on power was tenuous, so he was busy retaining power. Its unlikely Saddam would approve what apparently happened next. During Zarqawi's stay in Baghdad, some number of his associates set up a base of operations in the capital to move people, money and supplies throughout the country in support of Ansar al-Islam, ideologically, s rigid Salafi Sunni Muslim group, based in Kurdistan outside of Saddam's influence. Salafis consider Shiite Muslims to be apostates, a people who have rejected Islam and blasphemers in that they worship their Imams as if they are idols in the image of Allah. The combination of Ansar al-Islam and Zarqawi's Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad became Ansar al-Sunna. Ansar al-Sunna claimed responsibility for sending suicide bombers to PUK and KDP headquarters in Erbil, detonating themselves almost simultaneously, killing 109 people in February 2004.
Zarqawi has acted consistent with his allegiance to Salafi beliefs. Later renaming his group to Al Qaeda in Iraq, he declared war on Shiites, decimated Kurdish leadership, and recruited significant numbers of Salafi Sunnis in Iraq, Jordan and Syria, and their cousins, Saudi Wahhabis, to support his goal of civil war. Its not clear Zarqawi is still alive, but his organization surely is. Although Al Qaeda in Iraq may wish to dominate Iraq again, presumably they are more realistically committed to a partition of Iraq intending to include very likely oil wells around Kirkuk.
DHinMI continues:
Zarqawi doesn't appear to care that the actions he sanctions, leads or claims were the work of his organization are often deplored by fellow Muslims. It's too soon to determine whether the Amman bombings will diminish his stature in the Arab and Muslim societies. But like fellow beheader Robespierre in the French Revolution, Stalin and Mao during their purges, or the deranged Khmer Rouge who perpetrated a savage, enormous class genocide in Cambodia, Zarqawi seems to be moving into a stage where he believes it's more important to pursue his vision of societal and culture-wide cleansing of impure elements, even if it results in the deaths of innocents.

As rabid Salafi, he and/or his organization, Al Qaeda in Iraq, believe they know what Islam is supposed to be and see apostates among Sunnis as well as Shiite. They have enemies in Jordan as well as Iraq. I believe Al Qaeda in Iraq has a regional perspective. It's goals are focused on the Salafi areas of western Iraq, eastern Jordan and Syria. They are seeking to further their own goals, not a pan Islamic movement. Once they've reached their goals, they will be more than willing to join the pan Islamic Caliphate Jihad.

Bush Is Self Destructing

Unless Bush does a stunning about face in tactics, he seems likely to do more damage to himself. Right now it doesn't appear that he has a clue how to pick of the pieces. He sees the honorable position of "staying the course" or as the song says, "I won't back down" will ultimately win the day. He's been singing this song every week since 2000 and its worked. Clearly, since 60% of Americans don't trust him, the same tune simply isn't going to work. In fact, it's self defeating. Laura Rozen in War and Piece makes good assessment:
...isn't the last thing the Bush administration can afford more of now is the appearance of a cover up of how it used pre-war intelligence? From a sheer politics point of view, isn't Bush just going to look more and more dishonest and unethical to voters? More like Cheney? Won't it just feed the very real and measurable public sentiment that they've got something they're anxious to hide? They can maneuver all they want to continue to stall and obstruct Phase II, but when the public doesn't trust them or their proxies in Congress, don't they in a real political sense all lose? I'm no political strategist, but it seems to me the message for the Democrats gets easier and easier: Cover up. Sham investigation. Dragging their feet.


And don't underestimate the related political threat to Cheney and the Bush White House coming from McCain. This guy looks like the shining white knight on all the big picture stuff compared to the Bush White House, and I suspect he is immensely, immensely appealing not only to independents and the stray Democrat, but to plenty of Republicans who don't feel good about the Bush narrative any more on the war, on torture, on ethics, on corruption (remember the Abramoff stuff?), on national security, on national unity. Just as the public has really totally lost confidence in the Bush White House, is this very visible far more appealing potential alternative -- and what is McCain most out front on now? The fact that the White House wants the CIA to have a torture exemption. Not exactly a winning side for the Bush administration. It doesn't help the White House that McCain's chief adversary on this is none other than Cheney himself, who is most associated in the American public mind with discredited Iraq intelligence pronouncements, hiding out in bunkers, and his office's role in outing a CIA officer to the media.

It would appear his usual support from Rove and Cheney isn't in place. He seems to have decided to distance himself from those two. Or, Rove is similarly disinclined to take his head out of the sand where he's been hiding from a Fitzgerald indictment. Or the rumors that Bush is coming apart might be true and he is no longer listening to anyone.
But what can Bush do? The Governator just may have a method that will work. From The Next Hurrah:
Fresh from his trouncing at the hands of the California voters last week, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger displayed a refreshing bit of candor and responsibility this week. In a series of statements, he accepted blame for the special election debacle, in which all of the propositions he backed lost by margins from 5% to 24%; he acknowledged that the voters wanted problems to be solved in Sacramento and not at the ballot box; he admitted that his demeaning characterizations of opponents had backfired; and he promised to work with legislators and critics, backing his words with fence-mending deeds. This stands in sharp contrast to president Bush, who continued to paint critics of his failed Iraq war as traitors who are trying to rewrite history.


[...]Unlike Arnold, Bush has left himself no way to change, no opportunity to embrace and work with his opposition, because to do so would expose what must remain hidden. Not only can Bush not pivot like Arnold, he cannot clean house like Ronald Reagan after Iran-Contra, unless he replaces not just his Defense Secretary but his Vice-President. Is Bush facing the fate of that other late-but-not-lamented California politician who he so much resembles, Richard Nixon?

Yes, it seems that Bush is headed down the road of the President most like him, Richard Nixon. Will he be impeached? Giving his actions right now, if he continues to self destruct, it looks more and more likely the Republicans will have to do something to repair the political damage Bush has done to their careers. Could Republicans turn on him and impeach him just to show how much better they are than he is? I can dream....

Monotheism and Holy War (al-Qaeda in Iraq) Strikes in Jordan

Informed Comment
Jordanian authorities have captured Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi, the wife of suicide bomber Ali Hussein Ali al-Shamari, who detonated his belt bomb at the Radisson in Amman. She turns out to be the sister of the Anbar leader of the Monotheism and Holy War (al-Qaeda in Iraq), who was killed at some point in Fallujah. His name was Thamir al-Rishawi


So this Amman operation really does seem to have come out of Zarqawi's group, rather than just using that group as a cover, as is so often done inside Iraq.


Ms. al-Rishawi's husband was from the Shamar tribe, the same large and important clan to which vice president Ghazi al-Yawir belongs. Shamar had benefited from the old Baath order, and was deeply entwined with it, and is a major locus of resistance to the new order imposed by the Americans. Reuters reported back in April of 2003, "Some media reports have said members of Saddam's family fled to Syria during the war and were later sent back to Iraq, where they were being sheltered by the Shamar tribe."

It would appear that Zarqawi’s organization Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad is alive and well, whether Zarqawi is or not. The woman's confession betrays nothing we didn't already know about suicide bombers. But it did provide proof of where she came from (Ramadi) and possible motivation for the act (connections with Baathists and relatives lost in Fallujah and the subsequent destruction of their home town and presumably further losses). I suspect she will be treated to one of those torturous interrogations for which the Jordanian authorities are known.
What is interesting is the timing of the attack. Cole talks about the meanderings of the Saddam's family and their period of sanctuary with the Shamar tribe. The Euphrates River valley that flows from Husaybah through Al Qa'im, to Ramadi and Fallujah, has been a major route for supplying the insurgency. Families for generations have traveled across the border into Syria and Jordan. Many family members resettled in the bordering countries. So there is a family and likely tribal basis to the travel across the border. I can't help but wonder if the US/Iraqi military offensive in Husaybah is related to the bombing.

November 12, 2005

The Decline of a Super Power?

It appears to be a slow news Saturday, so everyone is doing reviews of where we are, where we've been, where we're going. Perhaps the most important issue facing the US today is the state of the economy, something everyone seems to ignore, maybe because things are so bad, no one wants to look at it.
Harry Hutton has a very interesting list of prices. There is a hidden inflation factor in packaging with astonishing consequences.
Barrel of crude- $59
Barrel of Evian water- $500
Barrel of orange juice (London prices)- $927
Barrel of Hewlett-Packard printer ink- $470,638

Perhaps we have more income, but the marketplace has found even more ways to eat it up. So effectively the US middle class income has stagnated. We have more expensive tastes and toys, but we're less able to find time to express our new preferences, because we're working longer hours, and commuting longer distances.
Worldwide, the US economy seems to be teetering on the edge of some sort of fundamental change. Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal quotes from the NY Times.
    The United States trade deficit widened by a surprisingly large 11 percent in September, reflecting both a surge in energy imports after Hurricane Katrina and a steep drop in airplane exports because of a strike, the government reported yesterday. The trade gap with China also set a record. The United States imported $66.1 billion more in goods and services than it exported in the month, breaking the record of $60.4 billion set in February, the Commerce Department reported. The trade deficit in the first nine months of the year totaled $529.8 billion, about 18 percent higher than in the first nine months of 2004. That figure itself was up 21 percent over the period in 2003.... "One-third of the widening of the deficit is the oil bill, and aircraft sales explains most of the rest," said Carl Weinberg, chief global economist at High Frequency Economics, a research firm.

    "Only with very weak U.S. growth or a major drop in the U.S. dollar will the trade deficit improve on a sustained basis," said Ethan Harris, chief United States economist for Lehman Brothers. "The reason you need these dramatic movements is that the U.S. has, according to almost every study, an incredible appetite for imports."... "If the Chinese abandon our Treasury market, we would see an enormous jump in interest rates," Mr. Harris said, "and, of course, if we stop buying their products their economy is going to go into recession." The Chinese government reported yesterday that its October trade surplus with the rest of the world jumped to a record $12 billion in October. It had a total trade surplus of $80.4 billion for the first 10 months of the year, 2.5 times the figure for the period last year

The time we have to get the U.S. trade account unwedged is limited. We don't know how long we have before we enter the webzone, but we have a year less than we had last November.

It's not clear what DeLong means by the "webzone", but one of his commenters suggests a scenario I've been writing about and referencing for a time.
The slow decline of the US I see as inevitable. The graceful acceptance I see as highly unlikely. One could view Iraq as exactly what this sort of process might look like. Consider Suez in 1956. If Britain had not been through WW2, that's the sort of thing they might have gone to war over. And, of course, they would have won the war, but at some cost. Likewise I imagine the US will just keep over extending itself, occasionally kicking the sh_t out of some small country to make itself feel good, while, every day, the rest of the world gets on with the business of building a world that does not require, and is protected from, the US. (cf China doing booming business with Iran.)

I think that the risk of further aggressive actions in the face of decline is very high. Ronald Reagon tapped on the dissastisfaction of the middle class, and Bush renewed that link. Americans are frustrated for very complex reasons. My own personal beliefs focus on the creation of greed and product demand by advertising, combined with the shifting of wealth to the upper class. We are no longer as well off as many of our parents, despite having dramatically increase our income in this baby boomer generation. So the support for living on credit is massive.
The excess and chaos continues. King of Zembla posts on the biggest debtor nation in the world:
Our eminent colleague Richard Cranium of the All Spin Zone toasts the Bush administration for passing a couple of extraordinary milestones:
    President George W. Bush and the current administration have now borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 U.S. presidents combined, which the Blue Dog Coalition in the House of Representatives called “astounding.”


    Throughout the first 224 years (1776-2000) of our nation’s history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions according to the U.S. Treasury Department. In the past four years alone (2001-2005), the Bush Administration has borrowed a staggering $1.05 trillion.

And:
    The Commerce Department reported Thursday that September's trade deficit was a record $66.1 billion, 11.4 percent higher than August and much worse than economists had been forecasting. Analysts blamed much of the rise on hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which shut down production at Gulf Coast refineries and pushed oil prices to record highs. The trade deficit so far this year is running at a record annual rate of $706 billion, putting it on track to far surpass the old record of $617.6 billion set last year.


    Critics say the deficit is the result of the Bush administration pushing free trade agreements that reduce the cost of products for U.S. consumers but send American jobs overseas, where labor costs are lower. The United States has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since mid-2000.

We'd like to join the celebration too, if we may by saluting President Bush for achieving a downright gaudy 36% approval rating in the latest Fox News Poll.

Bush's popularity crash seems to be the only good news.

November 11, 2005

Will the Spy Chalabi Become Prime Minister of Iraq?

Deputy Prime Minister Chalabi has been hobknobbing with the high rollers with interests in Iraq.
Salon.com
Chalabi provided copious amounts of false intelligence to the United States in the late 1990s and through the run-up to the Iraq war. The defectors, con men and crooks he supplied to the CIA and the Pentagon made all sorts of extravagant and ridiculous claims that were eagerly swallowed by the hawks in the Bush administration.

One source, known as "Curveball," alleged that Iraq had mobile biological weapons labs, which is a contradiction in terms. One can only imagine what would have happened to Saddam's biologists, experimenting with dangerous microbes, when the trailer had a flat tire or hit a pothole. Chalabi's source nevertheless succeeded in getting such absurdities included in Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003.

Chalabi was convicted of massive bank fraud in Jordan in the early 1990s. He was given millions by the State Department and the CIA for the overthrow of Saddam, funds he never properly accounted for. When those agencies dropped him as a result, he cultivated contacts in the Pentagon instead.

In the spring of 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputies, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, had a secret plan to install Ahmed Chalabi as a soft dictator of Iraq and to arrange some sort of phony elections that would make it look as though he had a mandate. Larry Diamond, in his book "Squandered Victory," writes that their plan was foiled by the State Department, which found out about it. The State Department convinced George W. Bush that it would be a disaster, and he agreed to send to Iraq a former State Department official, Paul "Jerry" Bremer to forestall such Pentagon flights of fancy.

By the spring of 2004, serious charges were launched against Chalabi, presumably at Bremer's behest. He was accused of passing top-secret information to the Iranian government: that the United States had broken Iranian encryption codes. That is, before Chalabi allegedly spilled the beans, U.S. intelligence had deep access to what Iranian government officials said among themselves. After the Chalabi incident, Iran became more opaque to the United States, which already struggled to find out about what was going on inside the country. Chalabi was also charged with having in his possession counterfeit bills.

Chalabi is a spy and a crook. The US needed the access to Iranian intelligence the codes provided. Chalabi showed his real loyalty to himself by currying favor to Iran. If you track his actions in this post, you can see his modis operenti. He plays both sides to curry favor and support from everyone and plays a quiet game behind the scenes by kickbacks, embezzlement, and outright theft. Clearly he is angling for access to the Iraqi oil fields so he can skim profits off the top. If Wolfowitz had successed in installing him as a dictator in Iraq, he would have kept it as long as he could and taken billions. He already have many millions of taxpayers dollars in his stash.
Could Chalabi come to power in Iraq? If the Shiite religious parties get a majority in Parliament, the post will certainly go to a UIA member. Chalabi and his backers may hope, however, that the United Iraqi Alliance will fall short of a majority this time. If so, it will need to form a coalition, and Chalabi may hope that he will be acceptable to all members of the resulting government. That is, he would emerge as a minority prime minister but with the acquiescence of much bigger parties.

[...]That Chalabi, a wily schemer and convicted crook, should continue his sleazy attempts to get control of Iraq's billions in petroleum revenues is completely unsurprising. That a scandal-ridden Bush administration should warmly welcome the fraudster to Washington yet again and have him hobnob with top officials shows profound disrespect for U.S. troops risking their lives in Iraq. Chalabi lied to and manipulated the American public, reportedly passed top-secret information to Iran, and for a while allied with Muqtada al-Sadr. Officials in the administration are apparently hoping that the American public won't notice that they are playing the same old games, with U.S. foreign policy and with Iraq. As we know all too well by now, they are disastrous games.

Disrespectful to our troops it is, but the reason the Bush Administration feels comfortable working with him is that they are cut from the same cloth. Crooks work well with other crooks.

November 10, 2005

Tweaking Intelligence to Justify A War

Emptywheel post today at The Next Hurrah suggests a paper trail that may well document a conspiracy to defraud the United States in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion. Conspiracy to defraud is one possible strategy to an impeachment of Bush I posted about last month.
Condi mentioned such early drafts in a press conference the week before the Plame leak. But the SSCI never got to see those early drafts. Instead, they had to take Robert Joseph's word that early drafts didn't include references to Niger.

There's less debate whether there were early drafts of Powell's speech. Indeed, Murray Waas not only tells us there were early drafts, but he tells us why the SSCI didn't receive those drafts: Scooter Libby, with the assistance of David Addington, refused to turn them over, against the counsel of the White House.
    Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.

    Among the White House materials withheld from the committee were Libby-authored passages in drafts of a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered to the United Nations in February 2003 to argue the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq, according to congressional and administration sources. The withheld documents also included intelligence data that Cheney's office -- and Libby in particular -- pushed to be included in Powell's speech, the sources said.

The drafts of these documents, more than the finished speeches, will reveal how the Bush Administration (save Powell) was twisting intelligence. Indeed, they'll delineate precisely what the Bush Administration wanted to claim--and what the CIA and Powell's staff removed during the vetting process. By looking at the drafts, then, we'll know precisely how the Administration--as opposed to the CIA--politicized intelligence.

Getting the White House to turn over documents was one of the issues that turned the first phase of the probe into such a nasty issue in the first place. I have no great hope the White House is going to be any more forthcoming now than they were two years ago (although, Scooter Libby isn't around to obstruct the Senate's investigation anymore). But if the committee can't get the drafts of these speeches, they're only skimming the surface. The real evidence of how the White House politicized intelligence is bound to be in those early drafts. Which is why we're probably never going to learn about them.

Now if Cheney, Libby and Addington all withheld the documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee, perhaps there was a conspiracy to cover-up the fraud. But one would expect the paper trail to pass through multiple hands in Cheney's, Condi's, and Bush's office. Multiple drafts and collaborating evidence could very well prove the case of fraud. No wonder Cheney, Libby and Addington didn't want them seen.