7/31/07
7/28/07
Must-Read article on martial law
As we go about our daily lives -- our shopping, our escapist movie watching, and even our protesting and political organizing -- we need to be aware that there is a real risk that it could all blow up, and that we could find ourselves facing armed, uniformed troops at our doors.
Bruce Fein isn't an alarmist. He says he doesn't see martial law coming tomorrow. But he is also realistic. He says, "This is all sitting around like a loaded gun waiting to go off. I think the risk of martial law is trivial right now, but the minute there is a terrorist attack, then it is real. And it stays with us after Bush and Cheney are gone, because terrorism stays with us forever." (It may be significant that Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for president, has called for the revocation of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq, but not of the earlier 2001 AUMF, which Bush claims makes him commander in chief of a borderless, endless war on terror.)
Great Discussion of Al Qaeda and Iraq
For one of the best discussions I've heard yet on Al Qaeda and Iraq check out this episode of Bill Moyers Journal. He interviews Fawaz a. Gerges, a scholar with extensive knowledge of the Middle East, and Brian Fishman, a member of the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy.
Here is a transcript.
1933 coup and the F-word in America?
The BBC reports on a plot to overthrow the government by... who?... you guessed it, Prescott Bush et al. (W's grandfather). (must-not-miss)
David Swanson has a wonderful commentary and a startaling history lesson here.
Why you should be proud to be a partisan
Jane Hamsher pens a really inspiring and touching story on why you should be proud to be a 'partisan.'
The need to fight right now to restore the Constitution and end the war is strong, and that means some people are going to have to take a stand against a ruthless and intractable opponent. We need to rally behind them and acknowledge their heroism rather than stand back and allow others to tear them down as “partisans” for their willingness to do so.
Because sometimes fighting is the right thing to do.
7/27/07
Psychoanalysis Of a Madman
Ray McGovern in other members of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity with the assistance of Dr. Justin Frank have just released a report entitled, "Dangers of a Cornered George Bush." It is a must-read and frankly when of the most unsettling I have come across in recent time. Here is a synopsis,n this special memorandum, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) collaborated with psychiatrist Justin Frank, author of Bush on the Couch, to assess the potential dangers and possible countermeasures available to constrain Bush:
Echoing many of my posts on this blog, this article shed slight of the very real danger that Bush will attack Iran. Dr. Frank adds in his analysis,
George W. Bush is without conscience, and it would require a lengthy series of clinical sessions to find out what happened to it. By identifying himself as all good and on the side of right, he has been able to vanquish any guilt, any sense of doing wrong.
...George W. Bush seems also to be without shame. He expresses no regret or embarrassment about his failure to help Katrina victims, or to tell the truth. He says whatever he thinks people want to hear, whether it be “stay the course” or “I’ve never been about ‘stay the course.’” He does whatever he wants.
He lies—not just to us, but to himself as well. What makes lying so easy for Bush is his contempt—for language, for law, and for anybody who dares question him.
...
His certitude that he is right gives him carte blanche for destructive behavior. He has always had a sadistic streak: from blowing up frogs, to shooting his siblings with a b-b-gun, to branding fraternity pledges with white-hot coat hangers.
His comfort with cruelty is one reason he can be so jocular with reporters when talking about American casualties in Iraq. Instead of seeing a president in anguish, we watch him publicly joking about the absence of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, in the vain search for which so many young Americans died.
And looks at the following contingencies,
Scenario A: Destructive Attack on the Green Zone
Scenario B: Israeli Attack on Nuclear Targets in Iran.
But What if Impeachment Begins?
Scenario C: Congress Cuts War Funding This Fall
I cannot recommend this article enough, it is a must read. Continue reading here.
7/26/07
Peak Oil
$100 a barrel of oil in the coming months? via Bloomberg
July 23 (Bloomberg) -- The $100-a-barrel oil that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said would prevail by 2009 may be only a few months away.
Jeffrey Currie, a London-based commodity analyst at the world's biggest securities firm, says $95 crude is likely this year unless OPEC unexpectedly increases production, and declining inventories are raising the chances for $100 oil. Jeff Rubin at CIBC World Markets predicts $100 a barrel as soon as next year.
BusinessWeek chimes in with the piece titled "From Peak Oil To Dark Age?," here is an excerpt:
Peak oil refers to the point at which world oil production plateaus before beginning to decline as depletion of the world's remaining reserves offsets ever-increased drilling. Some experts argue that we're already there, and that we won't exceed by much the daily production high of 84.5 million barrels first reached in 2005. If so, global production will bump along near these levels for years before beginning an inexorable decline.CNN profiles a billionaire investor discussing what he perceives as the next issue.
What would that mean? Alternatives are still a decade away from meeting incremental demand for oil. With nothing to fill the gap, global economic growth would slow, stop, and then reverse; international tensions would soar as nations seek access to diminishing supplies, enriching autocratic rulers in unstable oil states; and, unless other sources of energy could be ramped up with extreme haste, the world could plunge into a new Dark Age. Even as faltering economies burned less oil, carbon loading of the atmosphere might accelerate as countries turn to vastly dirtier coal.
GIVEN SUCH UNPLEASANT possibilities, you'd think peak oil would be a national obsession. But policymakers can hide behind the possibility that vast troves will be available from unconventional sources, or that secretive oil-exporting nations really have the huge reserves they claim. Yet even if those who say that the peak has arrived are wrong, enough disturbing omens—for example, declining production in most of the world's great oil fields and no new superfields to take up the slack—exist for the issue to merit an intense international focus.
The reality is that it will be here much sooner for the U.S.—in the form of peak oil exports. Since we import nearly two-thirds of the oil we consume, global oil available for export should be our bigger concern. Fast-growing domestic consumption in oil-exporting nations and increasing appetites by big importers such as China portend tighter supplies available to the U.S., unless world production rises rapidly. But output has stalled. Call it de facto peak oil or peak oil lite. It means the U.S. is entering an age when it will have to scramble to maintain existing import levels.
Educate yourself at this site, The Oil Drum, which provides an introductory overview.
Then watch these videos:
A short (15 minutes) new segment from Australia that provides a basic outline.
A documentary from Ireland that's very well made.
A Patriot Speaks (UPDATED)
I forgot about posting this article after reading it but it's well work it.
Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.
for more on the cover-up plus allegations of murder click here or here.
Mary Tillman lets her thoughts be heard today after the news broke.
For the best story of Pat Tillman's life I have come across yet, checkout this Sports Illustrated piece on him.
Tillman's comrade clarifies the story on his last moments.
7/25/07
7/24/07
Three short (<10 minutes) interviews that will explain why Iran is NOT a threat to the US
First, Click here for a 12 minute interview with Dr. Gordon Prather,
Nuclear physicist Dr. Gordon Prather debunks the War Party’s claims about Iran’s nuclear program.
Then click here for a 5 minute interview with Juan Cole,
Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan, debunks the War Party’s claim that the president of Iran has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.”
Lastly, and most importantly, Click here to hear the 10 minute interview with Philip Giraldi.
Former CIA counter-terrorism officer and Antiwar.com columnist Philip Giraldi debunks the War Party’s claims that Iran backs al Qaeda, explains U.S. support for the terrorist groups Mujahadeen-e-Khalq and Jundullah against Iran, and the two most likely circumstances in which Cheney will use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them.
The Impetus To Withdraw
Recently, the former director of the NSA under the Reagan administration, General William Odom, wrote an essay calling for a strategic change in Iraq. Specifically, Democrats should frame the notion of “supporting the troops” as withdrawing them.
General Odom goes on to say that Congress should withhold funding of the war if the president does not comply. What’s more, he advocates impeachment if Mr. Bush tries to “extort” Congress into funding the war.
Isn’t General Odom emboldening the terrorists by setting timetables for withdrawal?
Nonsense, experts say. This is confirmed by ex-CIA analysts like Michael Scheuer, who warn that our continued presence in Iraq greatly exacerbates the threat of terrorism. According to Mr. Scheuer, the invasion of Iraq “broke the back of our counterterrorism efforts” and validated every claim that bin Laden spread to his followers.[i]
As the LA Times opined, “Osama bin Laden's plan was to get the U.S. to overreact and overreach itself. With the invasion of Iraq, Bush fell slap-bang into that trap.”[ii]
Fellow CIA analyst Bruce Riedel adds in Foreign Affairs that Al Qaeda has welcomed and celebrated the US invasion as an opportunity to kill Americans and pursue its ‘bleed-to-bankruptcy’ strategy.[iii],[iv] With more than 3600 US dead and spending at the rate of $14 million an hour, we are certainly assisting Al Qaeda in both goals.[v]
But if we withdraw, won’t Al Qaeda follow us home, as the president and others has repeatedly warned?[vi] After all, we are fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here, as Mr. Bush has repeatedly claimed.
The new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that was recently released is evidence that both these claims are fallacious. Fred Kaplan of Slate and professor of Middle East history Juan Cole offer the following argument derived from the NIE.[vii],[viii] ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ (AQI), an affiliate Salifi Jihadist group in Iraq that has threatened attacks on US soil, is one of the main factors for the NIE to conclude that the United States is “in a heightened threat environment.” AQI didn’t exist in Iraq under Saddam’s rule prior to the US intervention and only came into power long after the occupation, empowered by anti-American opposition to the invasion. Therefore, the US invasion is at least partially responsible for AQI’s emergence, as many intelligence officials warned. AQI would not exist had it not been for President Bush’s war.
As Mr. Kaplan concludes, not only is the President’s argument wrong, the exact opposite is true – “that because we're fighting them in Iraq, we are more likely to face them here.” Mr. Kaplan and others conclude that this is the reason why the US should start withdrawing from Iraq.
Surely though, a US withdrawal would embolden Al Qaeda as supporters of the war like Senator John McCain have claimed. It would give Al Qaeda a permanent base from which to launch attacks.
Analysts like Riedel concede that indeed Al Qaeda will take credit for a US withdrawal, but quickly point out “Al Qaeda's own propaganda indicates that it fears the Shiites' wrath after the United States' departure more than it fears what would happen if the Americans stayed.”ii
The recent Washington Post article by Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks states that most experts agree that Al Qaeda will not likely take over Iraq, noting that while the group is particularly lethal, military officials report it is only a responsible for 15% of the attacks in Iraq.
What about the moral responsibility we bear to the Iraqis? Surely, there will be a power vacuum once the United States withdraws and a likely genocide.
In truth, the genocide has already begun. West Baghdad is being “cleansed” according to Colonel Patrick Lang and the United States and we don’t have the numbers to control it.[ix] As General Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War said in March, “"Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now…Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again.”[x]
Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke adds, “All the things they say will happen are already happening. Iraq is already a base for terrorists; there is already a civil war. We've got 150,000 troops there now and we can't stop it.” Moreover, journalist Nir Rosen describes the current situation as “complete anarchy,” echoing Mr. Ricks’ description of Iraq as resembling the Hobbesian ‘state of nature.’ix
The president was briefed about this reality as far back as November 2006 when CIA director Michael Hayden said, “the inability of the government to govern seems irreversible.”[xi]
In regards to the responsibility we owe to the Iraqis, first consider these sad and undeniable truths; several hundred thousand Iraqis have been killed so far as a result of the US invasion, nearly 2 million refugees have fled Iraq, of which the US has accepted less than 200 in fiscal year 2006-07[xii], and an average of 55 Iraqis are killed every day due to the sectarian violence.[xiii] That is a monumental debt which we cannot repay.
If we do have a responsibility now, surely it is to follow the will of the Iraqi people. If spreading ‘democracy’ is so highly valued in this administration, then it should listen to the Iraqis. The overwhelming majority (more than 70%) want a timetable for US led forces to withdraw, including more than 90% of Sunnis, the group most likely to be persecuted by the majority Shia.[xiv] The Prime Minister has also expressed his view that American forces can “withdraw anytime they want,” a sentiment shared by the majority of the Parliament, which backed a bill favoring US withdrawal back in May.[xv],[xvi]
As for our country, in a July USA Today/Gallup poll, more than 70% support withdrawal for all but a limited number of US troops by April 1 of next year.[xvii] Moreover, according to Think Progress, 60% of those who participated in a Military.com poll (the largest military and veteran membership group) favored troop withdrawal as well.[xviii]
So what happens after withdrawal?
DeYoung and Ricks report that Iraq could separate into three autonomous entities due to a withdrawal, citing a recent “war game” simulation carried out for the military. Senator Joe Biden -- whose son is in the Army and likely headed to Iraq next year -- is a longtime advocate of the three-state solution. There will have to be intense regional diplomacy, unlike anything this administration has offered. He warns however, that without such a political solution and dramatic change in the near future, the likely result will be much, much more catastrophic than the situation at hand.
How much more catastrophic can things get if there is not dramatic change? Vastly more, experts say. Zbigniew Brzezinski warns
If the war continues without any American willingness to accommodate regionally and to pull out, the Iraq War will be extended to Iran. And if we get involved in a war with Iran, that raises the prospect of a twenty-year-long involvement in protracted violence in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and probably Pakistan. I'm not a prophet, but if the president doesn't change course, then the more grim prognosis is a likely one.x
Nir Rosen fears
…borders changing, governments falling. Lebanon is already on the precipice. Throughout the region, government officials are terrified. Nobody knows how to stop it. This is World War III. How far will it spread? Anywhere there are Islamic movements, like in Somalia, in Sudan, in Yemen. Pakistan has always had Sunni-Shia fighting. The flow of Iraqi refugees will at some point affect Europe.
General Tony McPeak envisages the worst-case scenario
The worst case? Iraq's Sunnis begin to be backed into a corner, then the Sunni governments -- Jordan, Saudi Arabia -- jump in. Israel sees that it's threatened by these developments. Once the Israelis get involved, then everybody piles on. And you've got nuclear events going off in the Middle East. That would be about as bad as it could get.x
In conclusion, Mr. Riddell and former national security adviser Samuel Berger opine
A clear US commitment to a complete, irreversible withdrawal from Iraq may now be the only way to develop a regional concert of powers that could work with Iraqis to try to stabilise the country and cauterise the conflict.
The continuing US and British occupation is a roadblock to that co-operation. The galvanising impact of a decision to depart unequivocally can be the last best chance at preventing the conflict from boiling over beyond Iraq to the whole region. How we design and implement our departure is our last significant remaining leverage.[xix]
The grim consensus is there are no good answers. One thing is clear, those who advocate President Bush’s ‘stay the course’ strategy are clearly leading this nation on a perilous path against the will of both nation’s populous. The tragedy of the entire Iraq debacle is that withdrawal remains at best, the least disastrous of all options.
7/22/07
7/21/07
[before] the next 9/11
For starters, let's acknowledge the fact that currently there are laws that were signed by Bush that will give him dictatorial powers in the event of the next terrorist attack or essentially any emergency in which he decides to claim this power. That is undebatable. It is a fact. Here is an analysis, as well as here (excerpt below) and you can read here for the official script. The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
the president determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the president can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."
Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.
For an excellent concise version of this post read Deborah's post here, who writes, read thisHere in Oregon, some people were sufficiently worried about the executive order that they asked US representative Peter DeFazio to look into whether anything sinister was lurking in order's classified portions, which describe in detail how the executive branch would run the government after a major disaster. DeFazio asked the White House to have those classified portions delivered for viewing in a special secured room at the Capitol building — a request that he's definitely entitled to make as a member of the House's Homeland Security Committee. After initially giving the nod to DeFazio's request, something — no one knows what — changed at the White House, and permission to see the classified documents was withdrawn.
A good case could be made that the White House's refusal of DeFazio's request is just another example of the Dubya/Cheney regime's penchant for secrecy. Or maybe it's just another case of the prez giving Congress the finger. But maybe the reason that the White House doesn't want these documents to be seen by anyone outside the prez's immediate circle is that there is something sinister hidden in Dubya's executive order.
We must impeach the President and Vice President of the United States, and we must begin proceedings to do so immediately, not just for the purpose of exacting a punitive remedy, but also toward enacting a vitally important preventive measure--one that may be the only available means by which to protect the country from the impending imposition of martial law at home as well as the declaration of war against Iran and possibly other countries in the Middle East.
Now stay with me here...
Former Reagan official Paul Craig Roberts makes a pretty compelling case on why he thinks Impeachment is urgently needed before the next 9/11. It goes as follows:
From Raw Story article
Republicans are on the verge of being decimated in 2008 for the 'stay the course' policy and for backing Bush.
Democrats don't want to rock the boat because they know this and are just waiting until the next elections when they will clean up.
As Roberts says, "the problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that Cheney and Rove and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts, or it assumes that they are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his fling.'
He believes that 'something is in the works' that will rally the country around the flag again and reinforce the whole "war on terror" nationalistic fervor, once again pushing people to the Republicans.
Not convinced that Our Country is capable of such a heinous act? Think again, all great nations have a history of 'false-flag' events to satisfy an agenda. As ABC reported in 2001,
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
Just look at what Chertoff said about 'gut feelings,'
And Dennis Milligan, chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party sounding thrilled about the next 9/11
“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Milligan said.
And especially Santorum in a radio interview,
RS: "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events,"
HH: I hope you’re right.
I mean what the fuck is that? Who the hell says that kind of thing, "between now and November."
It all makes sense when you listen to his interview, which I pasted below. You really owe it to yourself to listen to it if you click nothing else on this page!
Paul Craig Roberts interview on Air America
Then there's the Halliburton/KBR Detention centers described here by the NYT, and here by truthout.
More here on the logic of impeachment by the same lawyer who wrote the articles against Clinton.
Heres the latest at Huff Post.
This is my prior post on Martial Law and what could be coming,
These people are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States ... and we're going to have no one to blame but ourselves." -- Michael Scheuer, former head of the C.I.A.'s bin Laden unit, to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, February 19, 2007
Once you have digested that little bundle of joy, try to tackle this, seemingly pulled out of 1984 , describing a prelude for a police state.
Bush is now free to declare martial law in response to a natural disaster, a pandemic or a terrorist attack. The congress is powerless to stop him.
Also, Bush recently signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which allows the president to arbitrarily declare citizens and non citizens “enemy combatants” and imprison them indefinitely without charge. The new law gives Bush the authority to disregard the Geneva Conventions and the 8th amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment and apply “harsh interrogation” which may include torture. The act effectively repeals habeas corpus, the cornerstone of American jurisprudence and the Bill of Rights.
The Military Commissions Act cannot coexist with the US Constitution; the two are mutually exclusive.
Don't think it could happend here? Maybe, maybe not, but this fellow seems to think it could.
Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
The NYT documents how he has already implented the legal justification for such changes, as I noted in my previous post.
A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law
Paul Slansky shows why the alarm bells are ringing like the summer of 2001 and asks where the hell everyone's outrage is.
Remember how you watched Richard Clarke testifying before Congress in 2004 and wished his warnings had been taken seriously in 2001? Well, it's déjà vu all over again. The people who know what's going on - the experts who have no hidden agendas beyond sounding alarms and getting the truth out - are frightened. And if they're frightened, so should we be.Furthermore, former CIA analyst Bruce Reidel warns,
We have been warned. Al Qaeda is still "determined to strike in U.S." Michael Scheuer is the new Richard Clarke, and he says they're going to set off a nuke here. And if we know it, Bush and Cheney know it, every congressman and senator knows it, and everyone in the media knows it. And yet it's not a big story. Hello? Government people? Media people? I live in L.A. and I'm terrified. You live in New York and Washington, the two likeliest targets. Why aren't you shrieking in the streets?
It's time for citizen action the likes of which this country has never seen. Don't just contact your congressman, contact every congressman, and every senator. Barrage the radio talk show hosts and the reporters and pundits who are failing to bring this subject to the center of the national debate. Demand that hearings be held at which Michael Scheuer and others like him are given a public forum to tell us what they know, what they fear, and what our "leaders" should be and aren't doing to protect us.
The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a "false-flag" operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception.
And it should not consider a military operation against Iran, as doing so would only strengthen al Qaeda's hand -- much as the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have.
Call Nancy Pelosi and tell her to IMPEACH NOW at (202) 225-0100.
7/20/07
Rumblings about Pakistan
Bush's Next War of Aggression by Gordon Prather
Suppose Bush's next war of aggression is against Pakistan.
A few days ago, some dirty guys ambushed a Pakistani military convoy somewhere "near the Afghan border," killing 17 Pakistani troops.
The Bush-Cheney White House immediately demanded that our "ally," Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf, establish control of those "tribal" areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan over which he obviously now has little, if any, control.
Spokesman Tony Snow even threatened attacks against – and invasion of – Pakistan because "it is clearly of the utmost importance to go in there and deal with the problem in the tribal areas."
A pretty compelling case is made here by Spook in the Machine.
There's more evidence here at the Next Hurrah, with more speculation about Pakistan here, and the Guardian report discussing Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Here is the latest on why it would be catastrophic.
Fears are growing the U.S. may be planning to attack Pakistan's "autonomous" tribal region bordering Afghanistan.
Any U.S. attack on Pakistan would be a catastrophic mistake.
First, air and ground assaults will succeed only in widening the anti-U.S. war and merging it with Afghanistan's resistance to western occupation.
Second, Pakistan's army officers who refuse to be bought may resist a U.S. attack on their homeland, and overthrow the man who allowed it, Gen. Musharraf. A U.S. attack would sharply raise the threat of anti-U.S. extremists seizing control of strategic Pakistan and marginalize those seeking return to democratic government.
Third, a U.S. attack on the tribal areas could re-ignite the old movement to reunite Pashtun parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan into independent "Pashtunistan." That could begin unravelling fragile Pakistan, leaving its nuclear arsenal up for grabs.
.
Breaking- US Not Ruling Out Pakistan Strike.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. would consider military force if necessary to stem al-Qaida's growing ability to use its hideout in Pakistan to launch terrorist attacks, a White House aide said Sunday.
The president's homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend, said the U.S. was committed first and foremost to working with Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, in his efforts to control militants in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. But she indicated the U.S. was ready to take additional measures.
"Just because we don't speak about things publicly doesn't mean we're not doing things you talk about," Townsend said, when asked in a broadcast interview why the U.S. does not conduct special operations and other measures to cripple al-Qaida.
"Job No. 1 is to protect the American people. There are no options off the table," she said.
7/19/07
More Iraq
Idaho Senator admits it's all about oil after all.
From How Lost the War Is by former Ambassador Peter Galbraith,
Indeed, Vietnam is the image many Americans have of defeat in Iraq. Al-Qaeda would overrun the Green Zone and the last Americans would evacuate from the rooftop of the still unfinished largest embassy in the world. President Bush feeds on this imagery. In his May 5, 2007, radio address to the nation, he explained:
If radicals and terrorists emerge from this battle with control of Iraq, they would have control of a nation with massive oil reserves, which they could use to fund their dangerous ambitions and spread their influence. The al Qaeda terrorists who behead captives or order suicide bombings would not be satisfied to see America defeated and gone from Iraq. They would be emboldened by their victory, protected by their new sanctuary, eager to impose their hateful vision on surrounding countries, and eager to harm Americans.But there will be no Saigon moment in Iraq. Iraq's Shiite-led government is in no danger of losing the civil war to al-Qaeda, or a more inclusive Sunni front. Iraq's Shiites are three times as numerous as Iraq's Sunni Arabs; they dominate Iraq's military and police and have a powerful ally in neighboring Iran. The Arab states that might support the Sunnis are small, far away (vast deserts separate the inhabited parts of Jordan and Saudi Arabia from the main Iraqi population centers), and can only provide money, something the insurgency has in great amounts already.
Iraq after an American defeat will look very much like Iraq today -- a land divided along ethnic lines into Arab and Kurdish states with a civil war being fought within its Arab part. Defeat is defined by America's failure to accomplish its objective of a self-sustaining, democratic, and unified Iraq. And that failure has already taken place, along with the increase of Iranian power in the region.
Developments
Raw Story reports that 70 congressmen in the house tell Bush that they will not fund the war unless it includes a plan for complete withdrawal.
Crooks and Liars has video of Keith Olbermann's Special Comment. As usual, it is a must-see.In a rare show of defiance, a large group of mostly House Democrats sent a letter to the White House saying that they will not support any military funding for Iraq unless it includes a complete withdrawal of combat troops, reports Politico's "The Crypt" blog.
..."This is a big development," writes Josephine Hearn. "Earlier this year, liberals grudgingly voted for Iraq funding bills because they didn't want to give Nancy Pelosi a defeat. Now it seems that their patience has run out."
Digby has a great piece on College Republicans, including Max Blumenthal's video.
Deeper into fascism we go with the passage of this new executive order.
7/18/07
ABC news goes inside the 'surge'
Think Progress has video of what a few soldiers think of the 'search'
Spc. Gabriel Vassell told Smith, "…We have people up there in Congress with the brain of a 2-year-old who don't know what they are doing, they don't experience it. I challenge the president or anyone who has us for 15 months to ride alongside me. I'll do another 15 months if he comes out here and rides alomg with me every day. I'll do 15 more months. They don't even have to pay me extra."
7/16/07
Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, and why withdrawal is prudent
Firstly here is a panel of 9 experts discussing why the war is lost (I suggest you read the whole thing here),
The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but -- surge or no surge -- the United States has already lost. That's the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."
Those on the panel -- including diplomats, counterterror analysts and a former top military commander -- agree that President Bush's attempt to secure Baghdad will only succeed in dragging out the conflict, creating something far beyond any Vietnam-style "quagmire." The surge won't bring an end to the sectarian cleansing that has ravaged Iraq, as the newly empowered Shiite majority seeks to settle scores built up during centuries of oppressive rule by the Sunni minority. It will do nothing to defuse the powder keg that an independence-minded Kurdistan, in Iraq's northern provinces, poses to the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran, which have long brutalized their own Kurdish separatists. And it will only worsen the global war on terror.
"Our invasion and occupation has created a cauldron that will continue to draw in the players in the Middle East for the foreseeable future," says Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden. "By taking out Saddam, we have allowed the jihad to move 1,000 kilometers west, where it can project its power, its organizers, its theology into Turkey -- and from Turkey into Europe."
How bad will things get in Iraq -- and what price will the world ultimately pay for the president's decision to prolong the war? To answer those questions, we asked our panel to sketch out three distinct scenarios for Iraq: the best we can hope for, the most likely outcome and the worst that could happen.
The Foreign Affairs artiicle re: al Qaeda, Iran, and Iraq. here is a snippet:
The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a "false-flag" operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception.
...
Al Qaeda would especially like a full-scale U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran, which would presumably oust the Shiite regime in Tehran, further antagonize Muslims worldwide, and expand al Qaeda's battlefield against the United States so that it extends from Anbar Province in the west to the Khyber Pass in the east. It understands that the U.S. military is already too overstretched to invade Iran, but it expects Washington to use nuclear weapons. Baghdadi has told Sunnis in Iran to evacuate towns close to nuclear installations.
...Iraq is, of course, another critical battlefield in the fight against al Qaeda. But it is time to recognize that engagement there is more of a trap than an opportunity for the United States. Al Qaeda and Iran both want Washington to remain bogged down in the quagmire. Al Qaeda has openly welcomed the chance to fight the United States in Iraq. U.S. diplomacy has certainly been clumsy and counterproductive, but there is little point in reviewing the litany of U.S. mistakes that led to this disaster. The objective now should be to let Iraqis settle their conflicts themselves. Rather than reinforce its failures, the United States should disengage from the civil war in Iraq, with a complete, orderly, and phased troop withdrawal that allows the Iraqi government to take the credit for the pullout and so enhance its legitimacy.
No doubt al Qaeda will claim a victory when the United States leaves Iraq. (It already does so at the sheer mention of withdrawal.) But it is unlikely that the Islamic State of Iraq will fare well after the occupation ends... (Al Qaeda's own propaganda indicates that it fears the Shiites' wrath after the United States' departure more than it fears what would happen if the Americans stayed.)
With that in mind we shoulkd ask, Is Israel about to attack Iran?
Then, the latest case for withdrawal here,
Next, a British General , commander of the SAS saying Americians are the British enpire and the iraqi's are fighting their own revolutionary war and,
And feel free to browse more of my archived articles here on Iran and Iraq, and the "war on terra."
UPDATE: The Post has a good article on the predicted effects of withdrawal here.
If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.
That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."
...
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), also a White House hopeful, finds a different message in the Vietnam retreat. Saying that Baghdad would become "Saigon revisited," he warned that "we will be lifting American personnel off the roofs of buildings in the Green Zone if we do not change policy, and pretty drastically."
...White is among many Middle East experts who think that the United States should leave Iraq sooner rather than later, but differ on when, how and what would happen next. Most agree that either an al-Qaeda or Iranian takeover would be unlikely, and say that Washington should step up its regional diplomacy, putting more pressure on regional actors such as Saudi Arabia to take responsibility for what is happening in their back yards.
Many regional experts within and outside the administration note that while there is a range of truly awful possibilities, it is impossible to predict what will happen in Iraq -- with or without U.S. troops.
UPDATE II: Senator Levin asked why he thinks withdrawal is the right answer, via NO QUARTER
JUDY WOODRUFF: And what about the fate, Senator, of those Iraqis who have been supportive -- of Iraqi civilians in general, and particularly those who have been supportive of the U.S. mission?
SEN. CARL LEVIN: The current course is endangering the people of Iraq continually. It's the current course which isn't working; it's the current course which has led to huge slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It's that course which has to change.
...
JUDY WOODRUFF: And just to broaden that out, Senator, the notion that there is maybe some moral responsibility on the part of the United States, because it was the United States who came in over four years ago, who has led this war in Iraq, participated in this war, and now to pull out, what responsibility does the U.S. have to the people of that country?
SEN. CARL LEVIN: I think we've got a huge responsibility. The way this government went in, the way the Bush administration went in unilaterally, arrogantly, the way in which we didn't wait for the U.N. to give its support to what we were doing, the way we did in the first Gulf War, there's a huge moral responsibility.
And we have a huge responsibility to the Iraqi refugees. There are now four million Iraqi refugees, half in the country who've been moved out of their homes, the other half outside of the Iraq. And you bet we have a moral responsibility.
And the bigger responsibility here rests with the Iraqi political leaders. And since, by their own words, by everybody's agreement there is no military solution, there's only a political solution, we shouldn't wait any longer to force the Iraqi leaders to undertake that political solution.
...
JUDY WOODRUFF: And just finally, Senator, when you are as convinced as you sound you are, what makes you know you have the right answer on Iraq?
SEN. CARL LEVIN: I don't know I have the right answer. There's been too much arrogance, as far as I'm concerned, floating around this town for anybody to say they "know" the right answer in Iraq. All we can do is use our best judgment as to what will change the direction in Iraq.
But do I know that what I'm saying is true? No, I believe it after a huge amount of thought, and concern, and discussion, and debate. I'm absolutely convinced what our military leaders are convinced, that there is no military solution. If you accept that, and there's a consensus there's no military solution in Iraq, once you accept that, if there's only a political solution, then the question is: Why wait? Why wait until someone makes another report in September to us about a military situation, which is what we're expecting in September? Why wait for more American lives to be lost?
UPDATE III: Senator Joe Biden offers what seems to be the most knowledgeable assessment and "solution" for the civil war in Iraq.
...well, look, here's my problem, Judy. When you listen to a lot of Democrats, they say, "Let's leave and hope for the best, because maybe that will get the Iraqis to come to their senses." And you hear the president say, "Just do more of the same and hand it off to the next guy." None of them offer a political solution.
What is the political solution? As General Hayden said -- and I want to quote him, the head of the CIA -- he said, "The inability of the central government to govern is irreversible." I've been saying that for three years. The fatal fundamental strategic flaw everybody is making is to think that there's any combination of actions we could take to generate a strong central government, representing all of the factions in Baghdad that was trusted by the Iraqi people. It will not happen in your lifetime or mine.
...JUDY WOODRUFF: And what responsibility do you think the United States has to the people of Iraq after it leaves, whether there's a U.S. troop force left or not?
SEN. JOE BIDEN: It has a serious responsibility it will not be able to meet. It will not be able to meet. Let's be honest with one another, Judy. When the American forces leave, absent a political accommodation among the parties, with the international community signing onto it, which is the reason why it could be enforced, just like it was in Bosnia, without that, what's going to happen?
You're going to see the fraction -- you're going to see four or five major Sunni militias killing each other. You're going to see -- I mean, Shia. You're going to see a couple in Anbar province. God only knows what happens between Barzani and Talabani in the north with the Kurds. So you're going to see chaos, and there's going to be a lot of people that will die.
But the flip of it is, there's not enough American forces, absent a political settlement, to prevent that from happening. And one thing the American people won't tolerate, Judy, they will not tolerate losing their sons and daughters just to keep things from getting worse. They'll tolerate losing their sons and daughters if you're making things considerably better and safer for America and the region in the long run.
7/14/07
hate in America (updated)
It is astounding to believe that this kind of worldview is tolerated in America but I guess when you have a white supremacist like Ann Coulter selling tons of books, it's not so surprising. here is a snippet,
Of course, we need to execute some of these people," I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. "A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country," she says. "Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get." She squints at the sun and smiles. " Then things'll change.
Larisa has more here,
Of coarse, because the Army is essentially broken due to this administration's hubris, white supremacists of all shapes and sizes and infiltrated our military (including a high prevalence and special operations according to Stan Goff)in alarming numbers.
Read this report by the Southern poverty Law Center for more.
The New York Times also had a follow-up article on the matter here.
The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members."
...The defense secretary at the time, William Perry, said the rules were meant to leave no room for racist and extremist activities within the military. But the report said Mr. Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, Wash., had said that he had provided evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year, but that only two had been discharged. He also said there was an online network of neo-Nazis.
"They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military," he said. "Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in Iraq."
...
The Southern Poverty Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former Special Forces officer who was the alliance's "military unit coordinator."
"Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war," he wrote. "It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.' "
He concluded: "As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood."
UPDATED: CBS on gang activity in the Army.
A thought
A commentor over at Hullabaloo wonders,
Where are the general strikes? Where are the masses of people on the streets demanding impeachment? Where are the people conducting passive resistance? Where are the people marching on the corporate media headquarters? We sit on our collective asses blogging because we are either to frightened, too disorganized or too lazy. The blogs serve the elites as a usful relief valve.
By becoming a consumer culture we have become nothing more than subjects rather than citizens with responsibilities to society.
A thought on apathy
"Where are the general strikes? Where are the masses of people on the streets demanding impeachment? Where are the people conducting passive resistance? Where are the people marching on the corporate media headquarters? We sit on our collective asses blogging because we are either to frightened, too disorganized or too lazy. The blogs serve the elites as a usful relief valve."-- Expat
Asked blogger on Hullabaloo asks this on the coming war with Iran,
Please read this post by Arthur Silber, outlining the current problem with the liberal/progressive movement vis-à-vis Iran, Iraq, military commissions act, et al.
I also listen to a number of liberal talk shows. Over the last few years, I have never heard anything similar on the liberal shows. Never. Not about the Military Commissions Act (see both "'Thus the World Was Lost'" and "America, Now Without the Revolution"), not about the Roberts, Alito or Gonzales nominations, not about ending the immoral and criminal occupation of Iraq -- and not about preventing an attack on Iran.
Not on any of these issues. Never. Nor have I ever seen a similar kind of effort on the liberal and progressive blogs. Never. Every once in a while, the liberal blogs will urge action on perhaps on a single day, maybe two -- and then the issue vanishes until some new development (not brought about by the bloggers themselves) might catapult it into public consciousness again. Such tactics are sporadic, severely limited in time and scope, very infrequent, and completely ineffective.
But much more significantly: do the liberals and progressives seriously object to an attack on Iran? The Congressional Democrats obviously don't. Do the liberal writers and bloggers? To judge from their actions, it doesn't appear they do either -- and certainly not when compared to the recent sustained assault mounted by conservatives.
I can only conclude that most liberals and progressives care only about maintaining and expanding their control and power, and that they are determined not to "rock the boat" too much before 2008. Never mind that the world may be entirely changed by that time, never mind that war may be spreading out of control and that our economy may be in free fall -- or that martial law may have been imposed. If we should survive until the fall of 2008 without the worst happening, it will not be because of anything the liberals have done, for they will have done nothing if they continue their current pattern of behavior. And if they win in 2008, that will only be a repeat of 2006: they will win because of the profound nausea and revulsion directed at the Republicans, and not because of a positive alternative offered by the Democrats. Certainly with regard to Iran, the Washington Democrats offer no alternative: they repeat the Republican propaganda in its entirety.
On this matter, I would be pleased and even thrilled, far beyond my capacity to express it, to be proven wrong. So go ahead, liberals and progressives: prove me wrong. Please.
Prove me wrong today. And tomorrow, and the next day. Prove me wrong for the coming 18 months, and even beyond that.
Prove me wrong. I beg you.
Darfur spirals into anarchy
McClatchy reports,
Now there's a new set of problems: Few people know who's attacking or why. Armed groups are breaking off and recombining according to the tactical advantage that day. Aid agencies and peacekeepers are at greater risk than ever.
"One of the problems with the security situation at this point - it is not two sides fighting against each other," Andrew Natsios, President Bush's special envoy to Sudan, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April. "It's anarchy."
Inspiration
Listen to this and ask yourself what you will as or say the next time our country is attacked, "What should I be doing" or "tell me what to do."
7/13/07
On Hubris and Iraq
So I just finished this interview of Ray McGovern, former CIA intelligence agent of more than 20 years, and I'm amazed (not really though) just how absolutely hubristic the current administration is. It is a very illuminating interview. Recalling his organization, Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity, sent a memorandum to the president before the Iraq invasion in 2003 stating clearly that such an act would ensure "overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists for the indefinite future, far from eliminating the threat, it would enhance it exponentially."
This however, is not news to those inside the intelligence community. Retired chief of the bin Laden unit at the CIA Michael Scheuer asserts that the invasion of Iraq "broke the back of our counterterrorism efforts" and validated everything bin Laden professed to his followers.
Moreover, fellow CIA analyst Bruce Riedel writes in Foreign Affairs that Al Qaeda is welcomed and celebrated the opportunity to kill Americans and pursue its 'bleed-to-bankruptcy' strategy, a strategy that has been openly professed by Al Qaeda.
NBC reporter Richard Engel spoke recently from Lebanon where he met with Al Qaeda members inspired. You can watch the interview here. What was their main motivating factor for trying to attack the West? "IT'S ALL ABOUT IRAQ" in Engel's own words.
Even as early as 2006, we learned, the director of the CIA briefed the president that the instability in Iraq seems "irreversible."
Again, these are Realpolitik arguments with only the United States' national interests in mind.
What about the fact that we as the aggressor nation have no right imposing our will on our victim? Oh yeah, we are the US of A and when we do it it's for democracy and liberty.
Nevertheless, the Iraqis want us out, in fact al Maliki essentially told us that we can leave at anytime. TPM notes,
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.Hmmmmm.Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters earlier this week that a U.S. withdrawal would make Iraq's chaos worse, but Maliki dismissed his concerns, saying, "We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want." In other words, "We can take it from here."
Kevin Drum noted the other day, "Both the American public and the Iraqi public want us to leave Iraq. However, both the American government and the Iraqi government want us to stay. So we're staying. This is called 'democracy promotion.'"
As Reidel writes,
But it is time to recognize that engagement there is more of a trap than an opportunity for the United States. Al Qaeda and Iran both want Washington to remain bogged down in the quagmire. Al Qaeda has openly welcomed the chance to fight the United States in Iraq. U.S. diplomacy has certainly been clumsy and counterproductive, but there is little point in reviewing the litany of U.S. mistakes that led to this disaster. The objective now should be to let Iraqis settle their conflicts themselves. Rather than reinforce its failures, the United States should disengage from the civil war in Iraq, with a complete, orderly, and phased troop withdrawal that allows the Iraqi government to take the credit for the pullout and so enhance its legitimacy.
No doubt al Qaeda will claim a victory when the United States leaves Iraq. (It already does so at the sheer mention of withdrawal.) But it is unlikely that the Islamic State of Iraq will fare well after the occupation ends. Anbar and adjacent Sunni provinces have little water, few other natural resources, and no access to the outside world except through hostile territory. The Shiites and the Kurdish militias will have no compunction about attacking the Islamic State of Iraq. (Al Qaeda's own propaganda indicates that it fears the Shiites' wrath after the United States' departure more than it fears what would happen if the Americans stayed.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
