original
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special CorrespondentFri Apr 14, 4:58 PM ET
The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future.
The new U.S. Embassy also seems as cloaked in secrecy as the ministate in Rome.
"We can't talk about it. Security reasons," Roberta Rossi, a spokeswoman at the current embassy, said when asked for information about the project.
A British tabloid even told readers the location was being kept secret — news that would surprise Baghdadis who for months have watched the forest of construction cranes at work across the winding Tigris, at the very center of their city and within easy mortar range of anti-U.S. forces in the capital, though fewer explode there these days.
The embassy complex — 21 buildings on 104 acres, according to a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report — is taking shape on riverside parkland in the fortified "Green Zone," just east of al-Samoud, a former palace of Saddam Hussein's, and across the road from the building where the ex-dictator is now on trial.
The Republican Palace, where U.S. Embassy functions are temporarily housed in cubicles among the chandelier-hung rooms, is less than a mile away in the 4-square-mile zone, an enclave of American and Iraqi government offices and lodgings ringed by miles of concrete barriers.
The 5,500 Americans and Iraqis working at the embassy, almost half listed as security, are far more numerous than at any other U.S. mission worldwide. They rarely venture out into the "Red Zone," that is, violence-torn Iraq.
This huge American contingent at the center of power has drawn criticism.
"The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country," the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in one of its periodic reports on Iraq.
State Department spokesman Justin Higgins defended the size of the embassy, old and new, saying it's indicative of the work facing the United States here.
"It's somewhat self-evident that there's going to be a fairly sizable commitment to Iraq by the U.S. government in all forms for several years," he said in Washington.
Higgins noted that large numbers of non-diplomats work at the mission — hundreds of military personnel and dozens of FBI agents, for example, along with representatives of the Agriculture, Commerce and other U.S. federal departments.
They sleep in hundreds of trailers or "containerized" quarters scattered around the Green Zone. But next year embassy staff will move into six apartment buildings in the new complex, which has been under construction since mid-2005 with a target completion date of June 2007.
Iraq's interim government transferred the land to U.S. ownership in October 2004, under an agreement whose terms were not disclosed.
"Embassy Baghdad" will dwarf new U.S. embassies elsewhere, projects that typically cover 10 acres. The embassy's 104 acres is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the acreage of Washington's National Mall.
Original cost estimates ranged over $1 billion, but Congress appropriated only $592 million in the emergency Iraq budget adopted last year. Most has gone to a Kuwait builder, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, with the rest awarded to six contractors working on the project's "classified" portion — the actual embassy offices.
Higgins declined to identify those builders, citing security reasons, but said five were American companies.
The designs aren't publicly available, but the Senate report makes clear it will be a self-sufficient and "hardened" domain, to function in the midst of Baghdad power outages, water shortages and continuing turmoil.
It will have its own water wells, electricity plant and wastewaster-treatment facility, "systems to allow 100 percent independence from city utilities," says the report, the most authoritative open source on the embassy plans.
Besides two major diplomatic office buildings, homes for the ambassador and his deputy, and the apartment buildings for staff, the compound will offer a swimming pool, gym, commissary, food court and American Club, all housed in a recreation building.
Security, overseen by U.S. Marines, will be extraordinary: setbacks and perimeter no-go areas that will be especially deep, structures reinforced to 2.5-times the standard, and five high-security entrances, plus an emergency entrance-exit, the Senate report says.
Higgins said the work, under way on all parts of the project, is more than one-third complete.
___
Associated Press news researcher Jennifer Farrar in New York contributed to this report.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Zarqawi, al Qaeda are heading out, U.S. general says�-�World�-�The Washington Times, America's Newspaper
original
Zarqawi, al Qaeda are heading out, U.S. general says
By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 14, 2006
Al Qaeda in Iraq and its presumed leader, Abu Musab Zarqawi, have conceded strategic defeat and are on their way out of the country, a top U.S. military official contended yesterday.
The group's failure to disrupt national elections and a constitutional referendum last year "was a tactical admission by Zarqawi that their strategy had failed," said Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commands the XVIII Airborne Corps.
"They no longer view Iraq as fertile ground to establish a caliphate and as a place to conduct international terrorism," he said in an address at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Gen. Vines' statement came as news broke that coalition and Iraqi forces had killed an associate of Osama bin Laden's during an early morning raid near Abu Ghraib about two weeks ago.
Rafid Ibrahim Fattah aka Abu Umar al Kurdi served as a liaison between terrorist networks and was linked to Taliban members in Afghanistan, Pakistani-based extremists and other senior al Qaeda leaders, the military said yesterday.
In the past six months, al Kurdi had worked as a terrorist cell leader in Baqouba. Prior to that, he had traveled extensively Pakistan, Iran and Iraq and formed a relationship with al Qaeda senior leaders in 1999 while in Afghanistan.
He also had ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, formed while he was in Iran and Pakistan, and joined the jihad in Afghanistan in 1989, the military said. He was killed March 27.
Gen. Vines said the foreign terrorists had made a strategic mistake when they tried to intimidate and deny Iraqis a way to vote.
"I believe Zarqawi discredited himself with the Iraqi people because of his willingness to slaughter Iraqi people," he said.
Huthayafa Azzam, whose father was seen as a political mentor of bin Laden, told reporters in Jordan in early April that Zarqawi had been replaced as head of the terrorist fight in Iraq in an effort to put an Iraqi at the head of the organization.
Azzam said Zarqawi had "made many political mistakes," including excessive violence and the bombing last November of a Jordanian hotel, and as a result was being "confined to military action."
Gen. Vines, who from January 2005 to January 2006 led all coalition forces in Iraq, did not comment on those reports. But he did caution that although the foreign extremists were leaving Iraq "looking for more fertile ground," they could come back.
"The question now is what kind of government is going to be formed and is it going to be credible," he said, acknowledging that Iran had significant influence over Iraq's religious Shi'ite population.
"Iran wants us out, but not too soon -- after a Shi'ite government friendly to Iran is established," Gen. Vines said. "Iran's view is that the current government is not strong enough, and if we pulled out now, there would be a low-level civil war."
Zarqawi, al Qaeda are heading out, U.S. general says
By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 14, 2006
Al Qaeda in Iraq and its presumed leader, Abu Musab Zarqawi, have conceded strategic defeat and are on their way out of the country, a top U.S. military official contended yesterday.
The group's failure to disrupt national elections and a constitutional referendum last year "was a tactical admission by Zarqawi that their strategy had failed," said Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commands the XVIII Airborne Corps.
"They no longer view Iraq as fertile ground to establish a caliphate and as a place to conduct international terrorism," he said in an address at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Gen. Vines' statement came as news broke that coalition and Iraqi forces had killed an associate of Osama bin Laden's during an early morning raid near Abu Ghraib about two weeks ago.
Rafid Ibrahim Fattah aka Abu Umar al Kurdi served as a liaison between terrorist networks and was linked to Taliban members in Afghanistan, Pakistani-based extremists and other senior al Qaeda leaders, the military said yesterday.
In the past six months, al Kurdi had worked as a terrorist cell leader in Baqouba. Prior to that, he had traveled extensively Pakistan, Iran and Iraq and formed a relationship with al Qaeda senior leaders in 1999 while in Afghanistan.
He also had ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, formed while he was in Iran and Pakistan, and joined the jihad in Afghanistan in 1989, the military said. He was killed March 27.
Gen. Vines said the foreign terrorists had made a strategic mistake when they tried to intimidate and deny Iraqis a way to vote.
"I believe Zarqawi discredited himself with the Iraqi people because of his willingness to slaughter Iraqi people," he said.
Huthayafa Azzam, whose father was seen as a political mentor of bin Laden, told reporters in Jordan in early April that Zarqawi had been replaced as head of the terrorist fight in Iraq in an effort to put an Iraqi at the head of the organization.
Azzam said Zarqawi had "made many political mistakes," including excessive violence and the bombing last November of a Jordanian hotel, and as a result was being "confined to military action."
Gen. Vines, who from January 2005 to January 2006 led all coalition forces in Iraq, did not comment on those reports. But he did caution that although the foreign extremists were leaving Iraq "looking for more fertile ground," they could come back.
"The question now is what kind of government is going to be formed and is it going to be credible," he said, acknowledging that Iran had significant influence over Iraq's religious Shi'ite population.
"Iran wants us out, but not too soon -- after a Shi'ite government friendly to Iran is established," Gen. Vines said. "Iran's view is that the current government is not strong enough, and if we pulled out now, there would be a low-level civil war."
On the ground, it's a civil war
On the ground, it's a civil war
DEFINING A CONFLICT
On the ground, it's a civil war
The debate over what to call Iraq's war is lost on many Iraqis as shadowy Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents wage their deadly conflict
By Aamer Madhani
Tribune staff reporter
April 14, 2006
BAGHDAD -- The conflict in Iraq is not marked by front lines or raging battles between warring Iraqi factions. There is no Green Line separating sectarian militias, as in Beirut in the 1970s and 1980s, nor are there clearly defined armies and commanders. But by any measure, Iraqis will tell you that their country is embroiled in what amounts to civil war.
Since the Feb. 22 bombing of the al-Askari mosque, a Shiite shrine in the city of Samarra, waves of suicide bombers have struck other Shiite targets, killing hundreds of civilians. They have been followed by reprisals in the forms of assassinations and kidnappings, with hundreds of Sunni Muslims bound, gagged and shot in the head across Baghdad and surrounding towns.
"We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp. last month. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
The dictionary definition says a civil war involves war between geographical sections or political factions of the same nation. An estimated 30,000 Iraqis have died in violence since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. There are no accurate figures of how many were killed by U.S. troops, but slayings of Iraqis by fellow Iraqis have increased dramatically as the war has progressed.
Many U.S. and Iraqi officials insist that the violence engulfing the country does not constitute civil war. But by any reasonable standard, "the conflict in Iraq is a civil war," said James Fearon, a Stanford University political scientist who specializes in the study of civil conflict. "The rate [of killings] is comparable to Sri Lanka, the Lebanese war and Bosnia," all of which were widely regarded as civil wars.
Larry Diamond, a former adviser to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, said the question is only one of semantics. "You can use whatever language you want to describe it, but the violence is increasing and it is becoming more vengeful and polarized," Diamond said.
Thousands of Iraqi families--about 60,000 people--have fled their homes in the face of intimidation campaigns by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, most of them since the al-Askari bombing, according to the nation's Ministry of Displacement and Migration.
Mubarak warns of civil war
The cycle of sectarian violence has put the entire region on edge. Last weekend, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned that Iraq was close to full-scale civil war, questioned whether the Shiite-dominated government had an unhealthy relationship with Iran and speculated that the situation could further destabilize the already troubled Middle East.
On the ground in Baghdad, U.S. commanders responsible for training and equipping Iraqi security forces acknowledge that the Iraqi police rolls are riddled with members of Shiite militias. These militias are allied with such powerful clerics as Motqada Sadr, who controls the Madhi Army which twice in 2004 fought street battles against U.S. troops in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.
U.S. officials say the militias have a major role in the sectarian attacks.
"We're not stupid. We know for a fact that they're killing people," said Lt. Col. Chris Pease, deputy commander of the U.S. military's police training programs in eastern Baghdad. "We dig the damn bodies out of the sewer all the time. But there's a difference between knowing something and proving something."
Pease said he recently had a conversation with an Iraqi police officer that underscored how vexing the militias have become. Out of earshot of the police officer's commander, Pease said, he asked the young cop to give him an honest analysis of what's going on in the street.
"He said to me, `Do you want me . . . to tell you the truth?'" Pease recalled. "His assessment was that the militias are everywhere ... and his officers weren't going to do anything about that because their units are infiltrated and they know what the cost would be for working against the militias."
Sunni-oriented television stations run messages on news programs, warning viewers not to cooperate with the Shiite-dominated security forces unless the Iraqis are accompanied by U.S. troops. Shiite leaders accuse Sunni politicians of being complicit in insurgent attacks.
The violence is fueled by years of resentment among Shiites for their persecution under the Sunni-dominated regime of Saddam Hussein and by fears among Sunnis that they would be persecuted in turn under a Shiite government.
In a recent internal staff report jointly written for Congress by U.S. Embassy and military officials in Iraq, seven of Iraq's 18 provinces were listed in serious or critical condition in regard to the political, security and economic situation, The New York Times reported Sunday. The U.S. government report, written before the al-Askari bombing, stands in stark contrast with U.S. officials' public assertions that instability is isolated in a few hot spots.
After an attack on the Buratha mosque in Baghdad last week killed more than 80 Shiites, Jalal Eddin al-Sagheer, leader in the Shiite political party Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, accused Sunni leaders of spreading lies about Shiite militias, including allegations that renegade security forces within the Interior Ministry were using the mosque as a torture center.
Since the attack, mourners have gathered daily in the mosque's courtyard. They mourn in front of memorials fashioned from blood-spattered turbans, a burned wheelchair and photographs of men who died in the bombing.
Haji Haider, a spokesman for al-Sagheer, said Sunni leaders are testing the patience of the Shiite masses. "[Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the country's leading Shiite cleric] has told the people to show restraint, but the Sunni politicians are motivating their people to violent action against the Shiite mosques and neighborhoods," Haider said. "How long will the [Shiite] people show restraint?"
For Raad Taha, a Sunni taxi driver, the civil war began when a Shiite acquaintance from his favorite tea shop falsely accused him of being an insurgent responsible for the car bombing deaths of several Shiites.
Eight armed men from the Mahdi Army stormed Taha's apartment about three weeks ago and dragged him away in front of his wife and three young children. They told his terrified wife that they were only taking him to their office to ask him a few questions and would have him back within an hour.
Instead, they held Taha for more than 24 hours in which they beat him and interrogated him. Then they ran him and his family out of their home.
"The Shiites don't want us to live together [with them]," Taha said. "They've made a war against the Sunnis."
Hopes for unity government
U.S. and Iraqi officials have said the civil strife would be eased by the quick formation of a national unity government followed by the disarming of the Shiite militias. But four months after the election of parliament, no government has been formed. Sunnis, Kurds and secular politicians have objected to the Shiite coalition's nominee for prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
Rival factions within the Shiite coalition have also turned against al-Jaafari, publicly stating that he has become too divisive while privately maneuvering to push their own candidates for the top position.
Meanwhile, the Shiite militias have asserted their will.
Along with the Mahdi Army, there is the Badr Organization, founded in Iran and affiliated with the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Sunnis accuse both militias of directing much of the sectarian violence that has plagued the country since the Samarra bombing.
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has said that militias are now a bigger problem than the Sunni-led insurgency. On a recent visit to Baghdad, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that solving the militia problem must be the new government's priority.
But from top officials to the lowest street cop, there appears to be no will to disband the militias.
"It's not the time to ask the militias to put down their arms when we cannot properly provide security," said Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Abdul Rahman al-Yusuf, a Sunni. The general said his national police brigade is 87 percent Shiite and includes some members aligned with the Badr Organization. "When the Iraqi army and police can provide security, then we can tell the militias that it is time to stop."
Despite the obstacles, U.S. troops working with the Iraqi interior forces remain optimistic that they can reduce the influence of militias in the force.
"Training and equipping a force, while knowing that at least some element is infiltrated by militias, is a difficult situation," said Capt. Ryan Lawrence, an intelligence officer with the U.S. Army's 2nd Brigade Special Police Transition Team. "They are putting themselves at great risk and, overwhelmingly, most of these guys are here for the right reason. The younger [police officers] are eager for training and want to be taught to do it the right way."
Other armed Shiites, however, are not doing it the right way. Taha, the Sunni taxi driver, said he was lucky to be freed by his captors.
He said the Mahdi Army militiamen drove him around the capital for several hours before finally taking him to a house in the militia's bastion of Sadr City, a neighborhood in northeastern Baghdad. There they beat him with wood planks and their fists and feet while screaming at him to confess that he was a Sunni terrorist involved in car bombing plots.
During the pummeling, Taha tried to explain that he is indeed a Sunni but not a terrorist. He lived with his Shiite wife in the predominantly Shiite neighborhood of Bayaa for the past 15 years. He was struggling to make ends meet as a taxi driver but he would never kill anyone for all the money in the world, Taha said he told his captors.
His captors brought in a bottle of bleach and razor blades. They told him that if he didn't confess, they would tear him apart and pour the bleach over his wounds. Taha said he told the Mahdi men that they might be able to get him to confess through torture but none of it would be true.
Taha said his hands were bound and he was forced to lie on his side and his captors turned him toward a wall so he could not see them. One of the militiamen told him they were bringing in a witness who had been secretly monitoring him.
The witness said Taha was regularly traveling to a Sunni neighborhood and meeting with insurgents. How was it possible, the voice implored, that a poor man could purchase a car, implying that he was earning money by working for the insurgency.
"It was a man named Hassan that I knew from the tea shop," Taha said. "I screamed out his name and said, `Why are you telling all these lies?' He knows that I was born on Haifa Street [a famous street that runs through a Sunni neighborhood] and was meeting with my old friends. I only had money for the car because I had sold a piece of land that was distributed by Saddam many years back to all the workers at the phone company where I worked."
Taha said the leader among his captors soon determined that he was telling the truth. The Mahdi men turned their questioning on Hassan and sent Taha home in a hired taxi.
As soon as he walked into his apartment, his cell phone rang. One of his Mahdi Army captors was on the line and told Taha to hand the phone to his wife.
Abductors' apology
"He said to her he was sorry that they kept me longer than one hour as they promised her, and we should tell no one about the incident," said Taha, with tears streaming as he recalled the incident. "When she hung up the phone, I told her that we had to leave [the apartment]."
Taha's wife took the three children and is living with her parents in eastern Baghdad. Taha has been staying at the homes of friends and family in western Baghdad, sleeping on their floors. In fear of the Mahdi Army, he won't stay anywhere for more than a couple of nights.
Other families have fared even worse in their run-ins with militias.
Mohammed al-Jubouri, 40, said two nephews were killed by suspected Mahdi Army members in a matter of days last month.
The first, Essa al-Ani, 20, was riddled with bullets only 500 yards from his family home in western Baghdad on March 17, when men wearing the signature black outfits of the Mahdi Army drove through his neighborhood and randomly emptied gun magazines at pedestrians.
The next day, after al-Ani's funeral, al-Jubouri's nephew Ahmed al-Jubouri asked a cousin to drop him across town at a garage where his car was being repaired. It was the last time he was seen alive.
Mohammed al-Jubouri said he and other relatives combed the police stations and hospitals. Finally, at one police station, an officer said he recalled manning a checkpoint with some Mahdi Army officials who had taken a young man matching Ahmed's description into custody.
Three days after he was last seen, Ahmed al-Jubouri's body was found in the morgue. His corpse, with a bullet wound to the head and markings on his inner thighs that appeared to be caused by an electric drill, had been recovered in a trash heap.
"We need to divide the country into three," Mohammed al-Jubouri said. "We cannot live with these people."
- - -
Violence escalates in wake of mosque bombing
The Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite mosque in Samarra triggered a surge in sectarian violence in Iraq that some are calling a civil war. However, Bush administration officials disagree with that assessment.
KEY: SECTARIAN VIOLENCE / NOTABLE QUOTES
Feb. 22
A bomb destroys the golden dome of al-Askari, one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines, in Samarra. At least 25 Sunni mosques in the city are attacked in retaliation.
Feb. 23
More than 100 people die in sectarian violence triggered by the Samarra bombing. Among those killed are several Sunni imams.
Feb. 25
At least 45 are killed in continuing sectarian violence, including the massacre of 13 members of a Shiite family in Baqouba.
Feb. 26
Mortar shells strike a Shiite area of Baghdad, killing at least 10.
Feb. 28
At least 60 die in Baghdad, most of them killed when five bombs detonate in Shiite neighborhoods.
March 3
Suspected Sunni Arab insurgents kill 10 Shiite factory workers near Baqouba.
March 8
The bodies of 18 Sunni men are found stuffed into an abandoned truck in western Baghdad. Many of the victims show signs of torture.
March 12
Bombings at two markets in Baghdad's heavily Shiite Sadr City
Neighborhood kill at least 58.
March 14
Iraqi police announce the discovery of 87 bodies in Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad.
March 17
Nineteen Shiite pilgrims are killed or wounded by bombings and drive-by shootings in Baghdad while traveling to the holy city of Karbala.
March 5
"I do not believe that they're on the verge of civil war."
--Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on NBC's "Meet the Press"
March 13
"I wish I could tell you that the violence is waning and that the road ahead will be smooth. It will not. There will be more tough fighting and more days of struggle, and we will see more images of chaos and carnage in the days and months to come."
--President Bush
March 19
"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. ...
If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
--Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, to the BBC
March 21
"We all recognize ... that there's sectarian violence. But the way
I look at the situation is that the Iraqis took a look and decided not to go to civil war. ...
This is a moment where the Iraqis had a chance to fall apart, and they didn't."
--President Bush
April 6
At least 10 are killed in a car bombing at a Shiite cemetery outside the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf.
April 7
Suicide bombers kill more than 80 at the Shiite Buratha mosque in Baghdad.
April 8
"Is there a civil war? Yes, there is an undeclared civil war that has been there for a year or more.
All these bodies that are discovered in Baghdad, the slaughter of pilgrims heading to holy sites, the explosions, the destruction, the attacks against the mosques are all part of this."
--Iraqi Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal
Thursday (April 13)
A Shiite shrine in Baqouba is destroyed by three explosions. A Sunni Arab politician's brother is assassinated in Baghdad.
Sources: Tribune reports, The White House, Associated Press
Chicago Tribune
----------
COMING SUNDAY
How the U.S. role in Iraq's war raises troubling legal questions.
- - -
About the reporter
Tribune staff reporter Aamer Madhani has made eight reporting trips to Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003, spending more than a year in the country in the process. He has covered the hand-over of sovereignty by the United States, the trial of Saddam Hussein, two national elections and the referendum on the new Iraqi Constitution. He also has covered U.S. troops in the field. Madhani, a native of Forest Park, joined the Tribune in 2001.
DEFINING A CONFLICT
On the ground, it's a civil war
The debate over what to call Iraq's war is lost on many Iraqis as shadowy Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents wage their deadly conflict
By Aamer Madhani
Tribune staff reporter
April 14, 2006
BAGHDAD -- The conflict in Iraq is not marked by front lines or raging battles between warring Iraqi factions. There is no Green Line separating sectarian militias, as in Beirut in the 1970s and 1980s, nor are there clearly defined armies and commanders. But by any measure, Iraqis will tell you that their country is embroiled in what amounts to civil war.
Since the Feb. 22 bombing of the al-Askari mosque, a Shiite shrine in the city of Samarra, waves of suicide bombers have struck other Shiite targets, killing hundreds of civilians. They have been followed by reprisals in the forms of assassinations and kidnappings, with hundreds of Sunni Muslims bound, gagged and shot in the head across Baghdad and surrounding towns.
"We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp. last month. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
The dictionary definition says a civil war involves war between geographical sections or political factions of the same nation. An estimated 30,000 Iraqis have died in violence since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. There are no accurate figures of how many were killed by U.S. troops, but slayings of Iraqis by fellow Iraqis have increased dramatically as the war has progressed.
Many U.S. and Iraqi officials insist that the violence engulfing the country does not constitute civil war. But by any reasonable standard, "the conflict in Iraq is a civil war," said James Fearon, a Stanford University political scientist who specializes in the study of civil conflict. "The rate [of killings] is comparable to Sri Lanka, the Lebanese war and Bosnia," all of which were widely regarded as civil wars.
Larry Diamond, a former adviser to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, said the question is only one of semantics. "You can use whatever language you want to describe it, but the violence is increasing and it is becoming more vengeful and polarized," Diamond said.
Thousands of Iraqi families--about 60,000 people--have fled their homes in the face of intimidation campaigns by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, most of them since the al-Askari bombing, according to the nation's Ministry of Displacement and Migration.
Mubarak warns of civil war
The cycle of sectarian violence has put the entire region on edge. Last weekend, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned that Iraq was close to full-scale civil war, questioned whether the Shiite-dominated government had an unhealthy relationship with Iran and speculated that the situation could further destabilize the already troubled Middle East.
On the ground in Baghdad, U.S. commanders responsible for training and equipping Iraqi security forces acknowledge that the Iraqi police rolls are riddled with members of Shiite militias. These militias are allied with such powerful clerics as Motqada Sadr, who controls the Madhi Army which twice in 2004 fought street battles against U.S. troops in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.
U.S. officials say the militias have a major role in the sectarian attacks.
"We're not stupid. We know for a fact that they're killing people," said Lt. Col. Chris Pease, deputy commander of the U.S. military's police training programs in eastern Baghdad. "We dig the damn bodies out of the sewer all the time. But there's a difference between knowing something and proving something."
Pease said he recently had a conversation with an Iraqi police officer that underscored how vexing the militias have become. Out of earshot of the police officer's commander, Pease said, he asked the young cop to give him an honest analysis of what's going on in the street.
"He said to me, `Do you want me . . . to tell you the truth?'" Pease recalled. "His assessment was that the militias are everywhere ... and his officers weren't going to do anything about that because their units are infiltrated and they know what the cost would be for working against the militias."
Sunni-oriented television stations run messages on news programs, warning viewers not to cooperate with the Shiite-dominated security forces unless the Iraqis are accompanied by U.S. troops. Shiite leaders accuse Sunni politicians of being complicit in insurgent attacks.
The violence is fueled by years of resentment among Shiites for their persecution under the Sunni-dominated regime of Saddam Hussein and by fears among Sunnis that they would be persecuted in turn under a Shiite government.
In a recent internal staff report jointly written for Congress by U.S. Embassy and military officials in Iraq, seven of Iraq's 18 provinces were listed in serious or critical condition in regard to the political, security and economic situation, The New York Times reported Sunday. The U.S. government report, written before the al-Askari bombing, stands in stark contrast with U.S. officials' public assertions that instability is isolated in a few hot spots.
After an attack on the Buratha mosque in Baghdad last week killed more than 80 Shiites, Jalal Eddin al-Sagheer, leader in the Shiite political party Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, accused Sunni leaders of spreading lies about Shiite militias, including allegations that renegade security forces within the Interior Ministry were using the mosque as a torture center.
Since the attack, mourners have gathered daily in the mosque's courtyard. They mourn in front of memorials fashioned from blood-spattered turbans, a burned wheelchair and photographs of men who died in the bombing.
Haji Haider, a spokesman for al-Sagheer, said Sunni leaders are testing the patience of the Shiite masses. "[Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the country's leading Shiite cleric] has told the people to show restraint, but the Sunni politicians are motivating their people to violent action against the Shiite mosques and neighborhoods," Haider said. "How long will the [Shiite] people show restraint?"
For Raad Taha, a Sunni taxi driver, the civil war began when a Shiite acquaintance from his favorite tea shop falsely accused him of being an insurgent responsible for the car bombing deaths of several Shiites.
Eight armed men from the Mahdi Army stormed Taha's apartment about three weeks ago and dragged him away in front of his wife and three young children. They told his terrified wife that they were only taking him to their office to ask him a few questions and would have him back within an hour.
Instead, they held Taha for more than 24 hours in which they beat him and interrogated him. Then they ran him and his family out of their home.
"The Shiites don't want us to live together [with them]," Taha said. "They've made a war against the Sunnis."
Hopes for unity government
U.S. and Iraqi officials have said the civil strife would be eased by the quick formation of a national unity government followed by the disarming of the Shiite militias. But four months after the election of parliament, no government has been formed. Sunnis, Kurds and secular politicians have objected to the Shiite coalition's nominee for prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
Rival factions within the Shiite coalition have also turned against al-Jaafari, publicly stating that he has become too divisive while privately maneuvering to push their own candidates for the top position.
Meanwhile, the Shiite militias have asserted their will.
Along with the Mahdi Army, there is the Badr Organization, founded in Iran and affiliated with the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Sunnis accuse both militias of directing much of the sectarian violence that has plagued the country since the Samarra bombing.
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has said that militias are now a bigger problem than the Sunni-led insurgency. On a recent visit to Baghdad, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that solving the militia problem must be the new government's priority.
But from top officials to the lowest street cop, there appears to be no will to disband the militias.
"It's not the time to ask the militias to put down their arms when we cannot properly provide security," said Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Abdul Rahman al-Yusuf, a Sunni. The general said his national police brigade is 87 percent Shiite and includes some members aligned with the Badr Organization. "When the Iraqi army and police can provide security, then we can tell the militias that it is time to stop."
Despite the obstacles, U.S. troops working with the Iraqi interior forces remain optimistic that they can reduce the influence of militias in the force.
"Training and equipping a force, while knowing that at least some element is infiltrated by militias, is a difficult situation," said Capt. Ryan Lawrence, an intelligence officer with the U.S. Army's 2nd Brigade Special Police Transition Team. "They are putting themselves at great risk and, overwhelmingly, most of these guys are here for the right reason. The younger [police officers] are eager for training and want to be taught to do it the right way."
Other armed Shiites, however, are not doing it the right way. Taha, the Sunni taxi driver, said he was lucky to be freed by his captors.
He said the Mahdi Army militiamen drove him around the capital for several hours before finally taking him to a house in the militia's bastion of Sadr City, a neighborhood in northeastern Baghdad. There they beat him with wood planks and their fists and feet while screaming at him to confess that he was a Sunni terrorist involved in car bombing plots.
During the pummeling, Taha tried to explain that he is indeed a Sunni but not a terrorist. He lived with his Shiite wife in the predominantly Shiite neighborhood of Bayaa for the past 15 years. He was struggling to make ends meet as a taxi driver but he would never kill anyone for all the money in the world, Taha said he told his captors.
His captors brought in a bottle of bleach and razor blades. They told him that if he didn't confess, they would tear him apart and pour the bleach over his wounds. Taha said he told the Mahdi men that they might be able to get him to confess through torture but none of it would be true.
Taha said his hands were bound and he was forced to lie on his side and his captors turned him toward a wall so he could not see them. One of the militiamen told him they were bringing in a witness who had been secretly monitoring him.
The witness said Taha was regularly traveling to a Sunni neighborhood and meeting with insurgents. How was it possible, the voice implored, that a poor man could purchase a car, implying that he was earning money by working for the insurgency.
"It was a man named Hassan that I knew from the tea shop," Taha said. "I screamed out his name and said, `Why are you telling all these lies?' He knows that I was born on Haifa Street [a famous street that runs through a Sunni neighborhood] and was meeting with my old friends. I only had money for the car because I had sold a piece of land that was distributed by Saddam many years back to all the workers at the phone company where I worked."
Taha said the leader among his captors soon determined that he was telling the truth. The Mahdi men turned their questioning on Hassan and sent Taha home in a hired taxi.
As soon as he walked into his apartment, his cell phone rang. One of his Mahdi Army captors was on the line and told Taha to hand the phone to his wife.
Abductors' apology
"He said to her he was sorry that they kept me longer than one hour as they promised her, and we should tell no one about the incident," said Taha, with tears streaming as he recalled the incident. "When she hung up the phone, I told her that we had to leave [the apartment]."
Taha's wife took the three children and is living with her parents in eastern Baghdad. Taha has been staying at the homes of friends and family in western Baghdad, sleeping on their floors. In fear of the Mahdi Army, he won't stay anywhere for more than a couple of nights.
Other families have fared even worse in their run-ins with militias.
Mohammed al-Jubouri, 40, said two nephews were killed by suspected Mahdi Army members in a matter of days last month.
The first, Essa al-Ani, 20, was riddled with bullets only 500 yards from his family home in western Baghdad on March 17, when men wearing the signature black outfits of the Mahdi Army drove through his neighborhood and randomly emptied gun magazines at pedestrians.
The next day, after al-Ani's funeral, al-Jubouri's nephew Ahmed al-Jubouri asked a cousin to drop him across town at a garage where his car was being repaired. It was the last time he was seen alive.
Mohammed al-Jubouri said he and other relatives combed the police stations and hospitals. Finally, at one police station, an officer said he recalled manning a checkpoint with some Mahdi Army officials who had taken a young man matching Ahmed's description into custody.
Three days after he was last seen, Ahmed al-Jubouri's body was found in the morgue. His corpse, with a bullet wound to the head and markings on his inner thighs that appeared to be caused by an electric drill, had been recovered in a trash heap.
"We need to divide the country into three," Mohammed al-Jubouri said. "We cannot live with these people."
- - -
Violence escalates in wake of mosque bombing
The Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite mosque in Samarra triggered a surge in sectarian violence in Iraq that some are calling a civil war. However, Bush administration officials disagree with that assessment.
KEY: SECTARIAN VIOLENCE / NOTABLE QUOTES
Feb. 22
A bomb destroys the golden dome of al-Askari, one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines, in Samarra. At least 25 Sunni mosques in the city are attacked in retaliation.
Feb. 23
More than 100 people die in sectarian violence triggered by the Samarra bombing. Among those killed are several Sunni imams.
Feb. 25
At least 45 are killed in continuing sectarian violence, including the massacre of 13 members of a Shiite family in Baqouba.
Feb. 26
Mortar shells strike a Shiite area of Baghdad, killing at least 10.
Feb. 28
At least 60 die in Baghdad, most of them killed when five bombs detonate in Shiite neighborhoods.
March 3
Suspected Sunni Arab insurgents kill 10 Shiite factory workers near Baqouba.
March 8
The bodies of 18 Sunni men are found stuffed into an abandoned truck in western Baghdad. Many of the victims show signs of torture.
March 12
Bombings at two markets in Baghdad's heavily Shiite Sadr City
Neighborhood kill at least 58.
March 14
Iraqi police announce the discovery of 87 bodies in Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad.
March 17
Nineteen Shiite pilgrims are killed or wounded by bombings and drive-by shootings in Baghdad while traveling to the holy city of Karbala.
March 5
"I do not believe that they're on the verge of civil war."
--Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on NBC's "Meet the Press"
March 13
"I wish I could tell you that the violence is waning and that the road ahead will be smooth. It will not. There will be more tough fighting and more days of struggle, and we will see more images of chaos and carnage in the days and months to come."
--President Bush
March 19
"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. ...
If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
--Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, to the BBC
March 21
"We all recognize ... that there's sectarian violence. But the way
I look at the situation is that the Iraqis took a look and decided not to go to civil war. ...
This is a moment where the Iraqis had a chance to fall apart, and they didn't."
--President Bush
April 6
At least 10 are killed in a car bombing at a Shiite cemetery outside the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf.
April 7
Suicide bombers kill more than 80 at the Shiite Buratha mosque in Baghdad.
April 8
"Is there a civil war? Yes, there is an undeclared civil war that has been there for a year or more.
All these bodies that are discovered in Baghdad, the slaughter of pilgrims heading to holy sites, the explosions, the destruction, the attacks against the mosques are all part of this."
--Iraqi Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal
Thursday (April 13)
A Shiite shrine in Baqouba is destroyed by three explosions. A Sunni Arab politician's brother is assassinated in Baghdad.
Sources: Tribune reports, The White House, Associated Press
Chicago Tribune
----------
COMING SUNDAY
How the U.S. role in Iraq's war raises troubling legal questions.
- - -
About the reporter
Tribune staff reporter Aamer Madhani has made eight reporting trips to Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003, spending more than a year in the country in the process. He has covered the hand-over of sovereignty by the United States, the trial of Saddam Hussein, two national elections and the referendum on the new Iraqi Constitution. He also has covered U.S. troops in the field. Madhani, a native of Forest Park, joined the Tribune in 2001.
Scotsman.com News - UK - Blair refuses to back Iran strike
original
Blair refuses to back Iran strike
BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR
TONY Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community, government sources claimed yesterday.
Amid increasing tension over Tehran's attempts to develop a military nuclear capacity, the Prime Minister has laid bare the limits of his support for President Bush, who is believed to be considering an assault on Iran, Foreign Office sources revealed.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is calling on the United Nations to consider new sanctions against Tehran when the Security Council meets next week to discuss the developing crisis. Blair is expected to support the call for a "Chapter 7" resolution, which could effectively isolate Iran from the international community.
But, in the midst of international opposition to a pre-emptive strike on Tehran, and Britain's military commitments around the world, the government maintains it cannot contribute to a military assault. "We will support the diplomatic moves, at best," a Foreign Office source told Scotland on Sunday. "But we cannot commit our own resources to a military strike."
Meanwhile, a new report on the Iran crisis has warned that neo-conservatives in the Bush administration are on "collision course" with Tehran.
The Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), often referred to as Blair's "favourite think-tank", will appeal for a greater effort to find a diplomatic solution in a report to be published later this week. FPC director Stephen Twigg, formerly a Labour minister, explained: "It is essential UK policy on Iran is well informed... We want to engage with the various reformist elements in Iran, both inside and outside the structures of power.
"There is potential for political dialogue, economic ties and cultural contacts to act as catalysts for the strengthening of civil society in Iran."
While the sense of crisis over Iran has been escalated by the fiery rhetoric between Tehran and the West - particularly Washington - many within the British government are now convinced that the impasse can be resolved by repeating the same sort of painstaking diplomatic activity that returned Libya to the international fold.
The approach contrasts sharply with the strategy employed during the run-up to the war in Iraq, when ministers repeatedly issued grim warnings to Saddam Hussein over the consequences of not falling in line with their demands.
"The only long-term solution to Iran's problems is democracy," said Alex Bigham, co-author of the FPC report. "But it cannot be dictated, Iraq-style, or it will backfire. Iran may seem superficially like Iraq but we need to treat Iran more like Libya. Diplomatic engagement must be allowed to run its course. There need to be bigger carrots as well as bigger sticks."
However, the conciliatory language was not reflected in the approach from Washington, where senior figures in the Bush administration remain keen to stress the danger of Tehran's intentions.
In a declaration aimed at America's allies as much as Iran, Rice claimed the Security Council's handling of the Iranian nuclear issue would be a test of the international community's credibility. "If the UN Security Council says: 'You must do these things and we'll assess in 30 days,' and Iran has not only not done those things, but has taken steps that are exactly the opposite of those that are demanded, then the Security Council is going to have to act."
Rice dismissed Iran's declaration that it is only interested in enriching uranium for use in civil nuclear power facilities, saying the international community must remain focused on the potential military applications of this technology.
"The world community does not want them to have that nuclear know-how and that's why nobody wants them to be able to enrich and reprocess on their territory, getting to the place that they can produce what we call a full-scale nuclear plant to be able to do this," she said.
Rice reiterated that President Bush has not taken any option off the table, including a military response, if Iran fails to comply with the demands of the international community.
Blair refuses to back Iran strike
BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR
TONY Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community, government sources claimed yesterday.
Amid increasing tension over Tehran's attempts to develop a military nuclear capacity, the Prime Minister has laid bare the limits of his support for President Bush, who is believed to be considering an assault on Iran, Foreign Office sources revealed.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is calling on the United Nations to consider new sanctions against Tehran when the Security Council meets next week to discuss the developing crisis. Blair is expected to support the call for a "Chapter 7" resolution, which could effectively isolate Iran from the international community.
But, in the midst of international opposition to a pre-emptive strike on Tehran, and Britain's military commitments around the world, the government maintains it cannot contribute to a military assault. "We will support the diplomatic moves, at best," a Foreign Office source told Scotland on Sunday. "But we cannot commit our own resources to a military strike."
Meanwhile, a new report on the Iran crisis has warned that neo-conservatives in the Bush administration are on "collision course" with Tehran.
The Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), often referred to as Blair's "favourite think-tank", will appeal for a greater effort to find a diplomatic solution in a report to be published later this week. FPC director Stephen Twigg, formerly a Labour minister, explained: "It is essential UK policy on Iran is well informed... We want to engage with the various reformist elements in Iran, both inside and outside the structures of power.
"There is potential for political dialogue, economic ties and cultural contacts to act as catalysts for the strengthening of civil society in Iran."
While the sense of crisis over Iran has been escalated by the fiery rhetoric between Tehran and the West - particularly Washington - many within the British government are now convinced that the impasse can be resolved by repeating the same sort of painstaking diplomatic activity that returned Libya to the international fold.
The approach contrasts sharply with the strategy employed during the run-up to the war in Iraq, when ministers repeatedly issued grim warnings to Saddam Hussein over the consequences of not falling in line with their demands.
"The only long-term solution to Iran's problems is democracy," said Alex Bigham, co-author of the FPC report. "But it cannot be dictated, Iraq-style, or it will backfire. Iran may seem superficially like Iraq but we need to treat Iran more like Libya. Diplomatic engagement must be allowed to run its course. There need to be bigger carrots as well as bigger sticks."
However, the conciliatory language was not reflected in the approach from Washington, where senior figures in the Bush administration remain keen to stress the danger of Tehran's intentions.
In a declaration aimed at America's allies as much as Iran, Rice claimed the Security Council's handling of the Iranian nuclear issue would be a test of the international community's credibility. "If the UN Security Council says: 'You must do these things and we'll assess in 30 days,' and Iran has not only not done those things, but has taken steps that are exactly the opposite of those that are demanded, then the Security Council is going to have to act."
Rice dismissed Iran's declaration that it is only interested in enriching uranium for use in civil nuclear power facilities, saying the international community must remain focused on the potential military applications of this technology.
"The world community does not want them to have that nuclear know-how and that's why nobody wants them to be able to enrich and reprocess on their territory, getting to the place that they can produce what we call a full-scale nuclear plant to be able to do this," she said.
Rice reiterated that President Bush has not taken any option off the table, including a military response, if Iran fails to comply with the demands of the international community.
The Pentagon Preps for Iran
The Pentagon Preps for Iran
The Pentagon Preps for Iran
By William M. Arkin
Sunday, April 16, 2006; B01
Does the United States have a war plan for stopping Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons?
Last week, President Bush dismissed news reports that his administration has been working on contingency plans for war -- particularly talk of the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against Tehran -- as "wild speculation." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld chimed in, calling it "fantasyland." He declared to reporters that "it just isn't useful" to talk about contingency planning.
But the secretary is wrong.
It's important to talk about war planning that's real. And it is for Iran. In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass de struction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations" against Iran that military sources confirm now exists in draft form.
None of this activity has been disclosed by the U.S. military, and when I wrote about Iran contingency planning last week on The Washington Post Web site, the Pentagon stuck to its dogged position that "we don't discuss war plans." But it should.
The diplomatic effort directed at Iran would be mightily enhanced if that country understood that the United States is so serious about deterring the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons that it would be willing to go to war to stop that quest from reaching fruition.
Iran needs to know -- and even more important, the American public needs to know -- that no matter how many experts talk about difficult-to-find targets or the catastrophe that could unfold if war comes, military planners are already working hard to minimize the risks of any military operation. This is the very essence of contingency planning.
I've been tracking U.S. war planning, maintaining friends and contacts in that closed world, for more than 20 years. My one regret in writing about this secret subject, especially because the government always claims that revealing anything could harm U.S. forces, is not delving deeply enough into the details of the war plan for Iraq. Now, with Iran, it's once again difficult but essential to piece together the facts.
Here's what we know now. Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change.
The core TIRANNT effort began in May 2003, when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran. TIRANNT has since been updated using post-Iraq war information on the performance of U.S. forces. Meanwhile, Air Force planners have modeled attacks against existing Iranian air defenses and targets, while Navy planners have evaluated coastal defenses and drawn up scenarios for keeping control of the Strait of Hormuz at the base of the Persian Gulf.
A follow-on TIRANNT Campaign Analysis, which began in October 2003, calculated the results of different scenarios for action against Iran to provide options for analyzing courses of action in an updated Iran war plan. According to military sources close to the planning process, this task was given to Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, now commander of CENTCOM, in 2002.
The Marines, meanwhile, have not only been involved in CENTCOM's war planning, but have been focused on their own specialty, "forcible entry." In April 2003, the Corps published its "Concept of Operations" for a maneuver against a mock country that explores the possibility of moving forces from ship to shore against a determined enemy without establishing a beachhead first. Though the Marine Corps enemy is described only as a deeply religious revolutionary country named Karona, it is -- with its Revolutionary Guards, WMD and oil wealth -- unmistakably meant to be Iran.
Various scenarios involving Iran's missile force have also been examined in another study, initiated in 2004 and known as BMD-I (ballistic missile defense -- Iran). In this study, the Center for Army Analysis modeled the performance of U.S. and Iranian weapons systems to determine the number of Iranian missiles expected to leak through a coalition defense.
The day-to-day planning for dealing with Iran's missile force falls to the U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha. In June 2004, Rumsfeld alerted the command to be prepared to implement CONPLAN 8022, a global strike plan that includes Iran. CONPLAN 8022 calls for bombers and missiles to be able to act within 12 hours of a presidential order. The new task force, sources have told me, mostly worries that if it were called upon to deliver "prompt" global strikes against certain targets in Iran under some emergency circumstances, the president might have to be told that the only option is a nuclear one.
Contingency planning for a bolt-out-of-the-blue attack, let alone full-fledged war, against Iran may seem incredible right now. But in the secretive world of military commands and war planners, it is an everyday and unfortunate reality. Iran needs to understand that the United States isn't hamstrung by a lack of options. It needs to realize that it can't just stonewall and evade its international obligations, that it can't burrow further underground in hopes that it will "win" merely because war is messy.
On the surface, Iran controls the two basic triggers that could set off U.S. military action. The first would be its acquisition of nuclear capability in defiance of the international community. Despite last week's bluster from Tehran, the country is still years away from a nuclear weapon, let alone a workable one. We may have a global strike war plan oriented toward attacking countries with weapons of mass destruction, but that plan is also focused on North Korea, China and presumably Russia. The Bush administration is not going to wait for a nuclear attack. The United States is now a first-strike nation.
The second trigger would be Iran's lashing out militarily (or through proxy terrorism) at the United States or its allies, or closing the Strait of Hormuz to international oil traffic. Sources say that CENTCOM and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have developed "flexible deterrent options" in case Iran were to take such actions.
One might ask how these options could have any deterrent effect when the government won't talk about them. This is another reason why Rumsfeld should acknowledge that the United States is preparing war plans for Iran -- and that this is not just routine. It is specifically a response to that country's illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons, its meddling in Iraq and its support for international terrorism.
Iran needs to know that the administration is dead serious. But we all need to know that even absent an Iranian nuke or an Iranian attack of any kind, there is still another catastrophic scenario that could lead to war.
In a world of ready war plans and post-9/11 jitters, there is an ever greater demand for intelligence on the enemy. That means ever greater risks taken in collecting that intelligence. Meanwhile, war plans demand that forces be ready in certain places and on alert, while the potential for WMD necessitates shorter and shorter lead times for strikes against an enemy. So the greater danger now is of an inadvertent conflict, caused by something like the shooting down of a U.S. spy plane, by the capturing of a Special Operations or CIA team, or by nervous U.S. and Iranian forces coming into contact and starting to shoot at one another.
The war planning process is hardly neutral. It has subtle effects. As militaries stage mock attacks, potential adversaries become presumed enemies. Over time, contingency planning transforms yesterday's question marks into today's seeming certainty.
warkin@igc.org
William M. Arkin writes the Early Warning blog for washingtonpost.com and is the author of "Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the 9/11 World" (Steerforth Press).
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
The Pentagon Preps for Iran
By William M. Arkin
Sunday, April 16, 2006; B01
Does the United States have a war plan for stopping Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons?
Last week, President Bush dismissed news reports that his administration has been working on contingency plans for war -- particularly talk of the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against Tehran -- as "wild speculation." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld chimed in, calling it "fantasyland." He declared to reporters that "it just isn't useful" to talk about contingency planning.
But the secretary is wrong.
It's important to talk about war planning that's real. And it is for Iran. In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass de struction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations" against Iran that military sources confirm now exists in draft form.
None of this activity has been disclosed by the U.S. military, and when I wrote about Iran contingency planning last week on The Washington Post Web site, the Pentagon stuck to its dogged position that "we don't discuss war plans." But it should.
The diplomatic effort directed at Iran would be mightily enhanced if that country understood that the United States is so serious about deterring the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons that it would be willing to go to war to stop that quest from reaching fruition.
Iran needs to know -- and even more important, the American public needs to know -- that no matter how many experts talk about difficult-to-find targets or the catastrophe that could unfold if war comes, military planners are already working hard to minimize the risks of any military operation. This is the very essence of contingency planning.
I've been tracking U.S. war planning, maintaining friends and contacts in that closed world, for more than 20 years. My one regret in writing about this secret subject, especially because the government always claims that revealing anything could harm U.S. forces, is not delving deeply enough into the details of the war plan for Iraq. Now, with Iran, it's once again difficult but essential to piece together the facts.
Here's what we know now. Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change.
The core TIRANNT effort began in May 2003, when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran. TIRANNT has since been updated using post-Iraq war information on the performance of U.S. forces. Meanwhile, Air Force planners have modeled attacks against existing Iranian air defenses and targets, while Navy planners have evaluated coastal defenses and drawn up scenarios for keeping control of the Strait of Hormuz at the base of the Persian Gulf.
A follow-on TIRANNT Campaign Analysis, which began in October 2003, calculated the results of different scenarios for action against Iran to provide options for analyzing courses of action in an updated Iran war plan. According to military sources close to the planning process, this task was given to Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, now commander of CENTCOM, in 2002.
The Marines, meanwhile, have not only been involved in CENTCOM's war planning, but have been focused on their own specialty, "forcible entry." In April 2003, the Corps published its "Concept of Operations" for a maneuver against a mock country that explores the possibility of moving forces from ship to shore against a determined enemy without establishing a beachhead first. Though the Marine Corps enemy is described only as a deeply religious revolutionary country named Karona, it is -- with its Revolutionary Guards, WMD and oil wealth -- unmistakably meant to be Iran.
Various scenarios involving Iran's missile force have also been examined in another study, initiated in 2004 and known as BMD-I (ballistic missile defense -- Iran). In this study, the Center for Army Analysis modeled the performance of U.S. and Iranian weapons systems to determine the number of Iranian missiles expected to leak through a coalition defense.
The day-to-day planning for dealing with Iran's missile force falls to the U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha. In June 2004, Rumsfeld alerted the command to be prepared to implement CONPLAN 8022, a global strike plan that includes Iran. CONPLAN 8022 calls for bombers and missiles to be able to act within 12 hours of a presidential order. The new task force, sources have told me, mostly worries that if it were called upon to deliver "prompt" global strikes against certain targets in Iran under some emergency circumstances, the president might have to be told that the only option is a nuclear one.
Contingency planning for a bolt-out-of-the-blue attack, let alone full-fledged war, against Iran may seem incredible right now. But in the secretive world of military commands and war planners, it is an everyday and unfortunate reality. Iran needs to understand that the United States isn't hamstrung by a lack of options. It needs to realize that it can't just stonewall and evade its international obligations, that it can't burrow further underground in hopes that it will "win" merely because war is messy.
On the surface, Iran controls the two basic triggers that could set off U.S. military action. The first would be its acquisition of nuclear capability in defiance of the international community. Despite last week's bluster from Tehran, the country is still years away from a nuclear weapon, let alone a workable one. We may have a global strike war plan oriented toward attacking countries with weapons of mass destruction, but that plan is also focused on North Korea, China and presumably Russia. The Bush administration is not going to wait for a nuclear attack. The United States is now a first-strike nation.
The second trigger would be Iran's lashing out militarily (or through proxy terrorism) at the United States or its allies, or closing the Strait of Hormuz to international oil traffic. Sources say that CENTCOM and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have developed "flexible deterrent options" in case Iran were to take such actions.
One might ask how these options could have any deterrent effect when the government won't talk about them. This is another reason why Rumsfeld should acknowledge that the United States is preparing war plans for Iran -- and that this is not just routine. It is specifically a response to that country's illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons, its meddling in Iraq and its support for international terrorism.
Iran needs to know that the administration is dead serious. But we all need to know that even absent an Iranian nuke or an Iranian attack of any kind, there is still another catastrophic scenario that could lead to war.
In a world of ready war plans and post-9/11 jitters, there is an ever greater demand for intelligence on the enemy. That means ever greater risks taken in collecting that intelligence. Meanwhile, war plans demand that forces be ready in certain places and on alert, while the potential for WMD necessitates shorter and shorter lead times for strikes against an enemy. So the greater danger now is of an inadvertent conflict, caused by something like the shooting down of a U.S. spy plane, by the capturing of a Special Operations or CIA team, or by nervous U.S. and Iranian forces coming into contact and starting to shoot at one another.
The war planning process is hardly neutral. It has subtle effects. As militaries stage mock attacks, potential adversaries become presumed enemies. Over time, contingency planning transforms yesterday's question marks into today's seeming certainty.
warkin@igc.org
William M. Arkin writes the Early Warning blog for washingtonpost.com and is the author of "Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the 9/11 World" (Steerforth Press).
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
US Colonel Apologizes to Iraq for Devastation of Babylon
original
By Rupert Cornwell
The Independent UK
Saturday 15 April 2006
In an act of at least partial contrition, an officer in charge of the US military occupation of Babylon in 2003 and 2004 has offered to make a formal apology for the destruction his troops wrought on the ancient site.
Colonel John Coleman, former chief of staff for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq, said yesterday that if the head of the Iraqi antiquities board wanted an apology, "if it makes him feel good, we can certainly give him one".
For more than a millennium, Babylon was one of the great cities of antiquity. It reached its greatest glory in the early 6th century BC, as the capital of Nebuchadnezzar II, builder of the celebrated Hanging Gardens.
Babylon declined and fell into ruin after it was conquered by the Persians under Cyrus the Great in around 538BC. But no devastation seems to have matched that inflicted by US troops and their Polish allies after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Saddam himself had not helped. He had much of the ancient site rebuilt and developed as a tourist site as part of efforts to portray himself as Nebuchadnezzar's modern successor and turn Mesopotamia once more into a regional superpower. He built a contemporary ziggurat-shaped palace nearby and carved out an underground car park among archeological deposits.
But after entering Babylon in April 2003, coalition forces turned the site into a base camp, flattening and compressing tracts of ruins as they built a helicopter pad and fuel stations. The soldiers filled sandbags with archeological fragments and dug trenches through unexcavated areas, while tanks crushed slabs of original 2,600-year-old paving.
"All of these things have combined to do a lot of damage to what is one of the most important, sensitive archeological sites in the whole world," John Curtis, curator of the British Museum's Near East department, said last year.
Col Coleman's repentance was qualified. "If it wasn't for our presence," he told the BBC, "what would the state of those archeological ruins be?" - a repeat of the US claim that had its forces not occupied ancient Babylon, the site would have been laid waste by looters.
"Is there a price for the presence? Sure there is," he declared. "I'll just say that the price, had the presence not been there, would have been far greater."
After US and Polish troops left in 2004, the first restoration plans for Babylon were drawn up. Last November Unesco, the United Nations' cultural and scientific organisation, said it would be carrying out some initial repair work, and setting up a photographic registry of the site.
The work, in which France, Britain, Poland, the US, Iraq, Japan, Italy and the Netherlands are also involved, is being co-ordinated by the German Archaeological Institute, under the direction of the Iraqi authorities and Unesco.
But Babylon is not the only point of archaeological controversy in a country with an estimated 10,000 sites. In a separate complaint, the Iraqi Ministry for Tourism and Antiquities has demanded that US troops pull out of the city of Kish, which dates back 5,000 years, accusing American forces of damaging the precious archaeological site.
It accused the soldiers of preventing anyone from entering the city to assess damage. There has been no comment from the US military.
At least six Iraqi policeman died and up to 39 others were missing yesterday after insurgents ambushed a police convoy near a US base, officials said. Separately, a suicide car bomber outside Basra wounded four British soldiers at the Shuaiba military base, and killed at least one civilian.
Archaeological Cost of Invasion
* US Marines from the First Expeditionary Force first set up camp in Babylon in April 2003
* Soldiers filled protective sandbags with sand containing ancient artefacts
* 2,600-year-old pavements were crushed by heavy military vehicles
* Landing helicopters caused structural damage to some of the city's ancient buildings and sandblasted fragile bricks in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar
* Archaeologists say gravel brought in to build car parks and helipads has contaminated key sites
* US troops have also been accused of causing damage to the 5,000-year-old city of Kish by the Iraqi Ministry for Tourism and Antiquities
-------
By Rupert Cornwell
The Independent UK
Saturday 15 April 2006
In an act of at least partial contrition, an officer in charge of the US military occupation of Babylon in 2003 and 2004 has offered to make a formal apology for the destruction his troops wrought on the ancient site.
Colonel John Coleman, former chief of staff for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq, said yesterday that if the head of the Iraqi antiquities board wanted an apology, "if it makes him feel good, we can certainly give him one".
For more than a millennium, Babylon was one of the great cities of antiquity. It reached its greatest glory in the early 6th century BC, as the capital of Nebuchadnezzar II, builder of the celebrated Hanging Gardens.
Babylon declined and fell into ruin after it was conquered by the Persians under Cyrus the Great in around 538BC. But no devastation seems to have matched that inflicted by US troops and their Polish allies after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Saddam himself had not helped. He had much of the ancient site rebuilt and developed as a tourist site as part of efforts to portray himself as Nebuchadnezzar's modern successor and turn Mesopotamia once more into a regional superpower. He built a contemporary ziggurat-shaped palace nearby and carved out an underground car park among archeological deposits.
But after entering Babylon in April 2003, coalition forces turned the site into a base camp, flattening and compressing tracts of ruins as they built a helicopter pad and fuel stations. The soldiers filled sandbags with archeological fragments and dug trenches through unexcavated areas, while tanks crushed slabs of original 2,600-year-old paving.
"All of these things have combined to do a lot of damage to what is one of the most important, sensitive archeological sites in the whole world," John Curtis, curator of the British Museum's Near East department, said last year.
Col Coleman's repentance was qualified. "If it wasn't for our presence," he told the BBC, "what would the state of those archeological ruins be?" - a repeat of the US claim that had its forces not occupied ancient Babylon, the site would have been laid waste by looters.
"Is there a price for the presence? Sure there is," he declared. "I'll just say that the price, had the presence not been there, would have been far greater."
After US and Polish troops left in 2004, the first restoration plans for Babylon were drawn up. Last November Unesco, the United Nations' cultural and scientific organisation, said it would be carrying out some initial repair work, and setting up a photographic registry of the site.
The work, in which France, Britain, Poland, the US, Iraq, Japan, Italy and the Netherlands are also involved, is being co-ordinated by the German Archaeological Institute, under the direction of the Iraqi authorities and Unesco.
But Babylon is not the only point of archaeological controversy in a country with an estimated 10,000 sites. In a separate complaint, the Iraqi Ministry for Tourism and Antiquities has demanded that US troops pull out of the city of Kish, which dates back 5,000 years, accusing American forces of damaging the precious archaeological site.
It accused the soldiers of preventing anyone from entering the city to assess damage. There has been no comment from the US military.
At least six Iraqi policeman died and up to 39 others were missing yesterday after insurgents ambushed a police convoy near a US base, officials said. Separately, a suicide car bomber outside Basra wounded four British soldiers at the Shuaiba military base, and killed at least one civilian.
Archaeological Cost of Invasion
* US Marines from the First Expeditionary Force first set up camp in Babylon in April 2003
* Soldiers filled protective sandbags with sand containing ancient artefacts
* 2,600-year-old pavements were crushed by heavy military vehicles
* Landing helicopters caused structural damage to some of the city's ancient buildings and sandblasted fragile bricks in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar
* Archaeologists say gravel brought in to build car parks and helipads has contaminated key sites
* US troops have also been accused of causing damage to the 5,000-year-old city of Kish by the Iraqi Ministry for Tourism and Antiquities
-------
The Big Wink
original
By URI AVNERY
"Advance and be recognized!" the recruit on sentry duty calls out when he hears somebody approaching. "Sergeant Johns!" comes the answer.
"Advance and be recognized!" the sentry calls again. "I told you already, I'm Sergeant Johns!" comes the answer.
"Advance and be recognized!" the sentry calls for the third time. "What do you think you are doing, you idiot!" the sergeant shouts.
"Those are my orders," the recruit replies, "To call 'advance and be recognized' three times and then to shoot."
This is an old British army joke. It also happens to be the program of the government that is being formed in Israel.
Every Israeli government must have "Basic Guidelines". True, they are not binding. All our governments have violated their Basic Guidelines on many occasions. But tradition and good manners demand that there be Basic Guidelines and that they be put on the table of the Knesset, together with the coalition agreements that set out the division of the spoils, the really important bit.
The true aim of the Basic Guidelines is to attract those whom the Prime Minister wants to have in his government, and to repel all others.
A true leader will want to set up a coalition that will enable him to realize his vision. But a Prime Minister who is a politician--and nothing but a politician--is simply interested in a coalition that makes life easier for himself.
Ehud Olmert is of the second kind. He wants to lie in the middle of the bed, between a rightist partner and a leftist one, preferably of roughly equal size. That will provide him with a stable government. When promoting a "leftist" cause, his party's ministers, together with the leftist ministers, will have a majority in the cabinet without their rightist colleagues; when promoting a "rightist' agenda, he will have a majority without the leftists. Simple logic.
At present, it's an easy matter. The leftist partner will be Labor (probably with 6 ministers), the rightist will be composed of Shas, the Orthodox and the Lieberman party (probably 7 ministers together). The Pensioners (probably 2 ministers) will be in the middle. The Kadima ministers (probably 10) will always be able to construct a majority for the government, sometimes with the rightists, sometimes with the leftists. Olmert hopes that this will make life easy for him for the entire period of the new Knesset, until November 2010.
The Basic Guidelines will reflect this goal. They must make it possible for Amir Peretz, Eli Yishai and Avigdor Liebermann to join a government that will include real leftists, extreme religious fundamentalists and complete fascists.
Even the prophet Isaiah did not dare to dream of that. His ambitions were satisfied by the wolf lying down with the lamb.
Isaiah knew that this vision could come true only after the appearance of the Messiah. Olmert, far from being a Messiah, is only a clever politician. He has to do without divine intervention.
Lieberman wants Israel to be free of Arabs--Araber-rein in German. For this end he is ready to relinquish whole areas of Israel which are inhabited by Arab citizens, annexing, in return, large stretches of the West Bank. Amir Peretz, in contrast, wants to accord full equality to Israel's Arab citizens. Peretz wants to conduct negotiations with the Palestinian authority, Lieberman wants to destroy it. The Orthodox demand that the state pay forever for the upkeep of tens of thousands of Yeshiva (religious seminary) students, who do not want to work at all. Labor wants to raise the wages of productive workers. And so on, infinitely. And Olmert himself wants, of course, to realize his "Convergence Plan", which means that Israel will "unilaterally" fix its "permanent borders", without agreement and partnership with the Palestinians.
What to do? One has to stitch together Basic Guidelines that everyone can agree to. Impossible? On the contrary. Nothing easier. One needs only a good Jewish lawyer--and we have plenty of these.
In the Basic Guidelines, no mention of the "Convergence Plan" will be made, neither will the word "unilaterally" occur. They will say only that the government will act according to the speech made by Olmert after the closing of the ballots on election day. That is supposed to satisfy everyone.
* * *
There are now three camps in Israel:
(a) Those who want real negotiations with the Palestinians in order to realize the Two-States solution.
(b) Those who want a "unilateral" withdrawal, with the intent of annexing parts of the West Bank and leaving what's left to the Palestinians, after removing any settlements there.
(c) Those who oppose such a "unilateral" withdrawal, under the pretext that it "gives" the Palestinians territories without getting anything in return. That doesn't mean that they actually want to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, but, on the contrary, that they want to avoid giving up any territory at all.
Amir Peretz belongs to the first camp, Olmert to the second, Lieberman and Shas to the third. The Basic Guidelines must satisfy them all.
How? The answer lies in the British joke.
The Basic Guidelines will say that first of all, Israel will call upon the Palestinians to make peace based on the Two-State Solution. Only after it becomes clear that there is no partner for such a peace, will Israel take its fate in its own hands (meaning: fix its borders unilaterally). In his election day speech, Olmert addressed Mahmoud Abbas directly, with resounding pathos, offering to start peace negotiations.
(That reminds me of something: After the 1956 war, a friend of mine interrogated a high-ranking Egyptian prisoner, who told him that they used to listen to David Ben-Gurion's speeches on the radio. Every time Ben-Gurion announced that "We are stretching out our hands for peace", the Egyptians put their forces on high alert. In a way, it's an Israeli inversion of the Roman proverb si vis pacem, para bellum--if you want peace, prepare for war.)
Olmert's offer to Mahmoud Abbas is accompanied with a huge wink for the Israeli public. Everybody understands that this is a phase we have to pass through before coming to the real thing. It is a multi-purpose maneuver: to provide Peretz with a fig-leaf when he is asked to support unilateral steps, to satisfy the Americans when they are requested to agree to the annexation of large parts of the West Bank, and also to give Lieberman and Shas a year or two to enjoy themselves in the government, before Olmert starts implementing the Convergence Plan (if that ever happens).
Notice: Nobody, but absolutely nobody, is discussing the offer to Mahmoud Abbas, while everybody is talking about the annexation that will come afterwards.
Like that British sentry: Call once, twice, a third time--and then shoot.
* * *
Still, there remains the question: how can Amir Peretz and his colleagues sit in the government together with a person like Lieberman?
Lieberman is a man of the extreme-extreme Right. He could give lessons to Jean-Marie Le Pen and Joerg Haider. He is the sole leader of his party, his talk is violent and brutal, his message racist. He openly proclaims that his aim is to get all the Arab citizens out of Israel.
Before the elections, Peretz promised that he would not sit in the government with Lieberman. Since then two things have happened:
First, the leader of the left-wing Meretz party, Yossi Beilin, invited Lieberman to a well-publicized breakfast at his home, consuming (according to the gleeful reporters) "juicy herrings" and enthusiastically lauding Lieberman's personal qualities. In this way he accorded legitimization to this person, who until then was considered beyond the political pale.
Then, after the elections, an even more disgraceful thing happened. Peretz' people declared that he, not Olmert, was going to head the next government. It was to be a "social coalition", without Kadima. Simple arithmetic shows that such a coalition must include not only Shas, but also the National Union, the settlers' party that competes with Lieberman in racism. This ploy conferred legitimacy on the entire racist right. If extremists like Benny Eilon and Effi Eitam are kosher, why not Lieberman?
How could this happen to Peretz? It was clearly a hasty reaction to the behavior of Kadima. Immediately after the elections, Olmert should have called Peretz and proclaimed him his favored partner. Instead, Olmert's people started to humiliate Peretz and declare him unfit for the post of Minister of Finance, which he craved. Furious, Peretz started the move in order to get back at Olmert and frighten him. Understandable, but unforgivable. It was a personal response, and one which has caused huge damage. It has legitimized Lieberman as a candidate for membership in the government. It has also infuriated the Arab citizens and created the impression that Peretz may not be such a staunch fighter for peace after all.
All this is worrisome. True, the next government could hardly be worse than the Likud government. The question is whether it will be much better. But surely it will be adept at winking in all directions.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is one of the writers featured in The Other Israel: Voices of Dissent and Refusal. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's hot new book The Politics of Anti-Semitism. He can be reached at: avnery@counterpunch.org.
By URI AVNERY
"Advance and be recognized!" the recruit on sentry duty calls out when he hears somebody approaching. "Sergeant Johns!" comes the answer.
"Advance and be recognized!" the sentry calls again. "I told you already, I'm Sergeant Johns!" comes the answer.
"Advance and be recognized!" the sentry calls for the third time. "What do you think you are doing, you idiot!" the sergeant shouts.
"Those are my orders," the recruit replies, "To call 'advance and be recognized' three times and then to shoot."
This is an old British army joke. It also happens to be the program of the government that is being formed in Israel.
Every Israeli government must have "Basic Guidelines". True, they are not binding. All our governments have violated their Basic Guidelines on many occasions. But tradition and good manners demand that there be Basic Guidelines and that they be put on the table of the Knesset, together with the coalition agreements that set out the division of the spoils, the really important bit.
The true aim of the Basic Guidelines is to attract those whom the Prime Minister wants to have in his government, and to repel all others.
A true leader will want to set up a coalition that will enable him to realize his vision. But a Prime Minister who is a politician--and nothing but a politician--is simply interested in a coalition that makes life easier for himself.
Ehud Olmert is of the second kind. He wants to lie in the middle of the bed, between a rightist partner and a leftist one, preferably of roughly equal size. That will provide him with a stable government. When promoting a "leftist" cause, his party's ministers, together with the leftist ministers, will have a majority in the cabinet without their rightist colleagues; when promoting a "rightist' agenda, he will have a majority without the leftists. Simple logic.
At present, it's an easy matter. The leftist partner will be Labor (probably with 6 ministers), the rightist will be composed of Shas, the Orthodox and the Lieberman party (probably 7 ministers together). The Pensioners (probably 2 ministers) will be in the middle. The Kadima ministers (probably 10) will always be able to construct a majority for the government, sometimes with the rightists, sometimes with the leftists. Olmert hopes that this will make life easy for him for the entire period of the new Knesset, until November 2010.
The Basic Guidelines will reflect this goal. They must make it possible for Amir Peretz, Eli Yishai and Avigdor Liebermann to join a government that will include real leftists, extreme religious fundamentalists and complete fascists.
Even the prophet Isaiah did not dare to dream of that. His ambitions were satisfied by the wolf lying down with the lamb.
Isaiah knew that this vision could come true only after the appearance of the Messiah. Olmert, far from being a Messiah, is only a clever politician. He has to do without divine intervention.
Lieberman wants Israel to be free of Arabs--Araber-rein in German. For this end he is ready to relinquish whole areas of Israel which are inhabited by Arab citizens, annexing, in return, large stretches of the West Bank. Amir Peretz, in contrast, wants to accord full equality to Israel's Arab citizens. Peretz wants to conduct negotiations with the Palestinian authority, Lieberman wants to destroy it. The Orthodox demand that the state pay forever for the upkeep of tens of thousands of Yeshiva (religious seminary) students, who do not want to work at all. Labor wants to raise the wages of productive workers. And so on, infinitely. And Olmert himself wants, of course, to realize his "Convergence Plan", which means that Israel will "unilaterally" fix its "permanent borders", without agreement and partnership with the Palestinians.
What to do? One has to stitch together Basic Guidelines that everyone can agree to. Impossible? On the contrary. Nothing easier. One needs only a good Jewish lawyer--and we have plenty of these.
In the Basic Guidelines, no mention of the "Convergence Plan" will be made, neither will the word "unilaterally" occur. They will say only that the government will act according to the speech made by Olmert after the closing of the ballots on election day. That is supposed to satisfy everyone.
* * *
There are now three camps in Israel:
(a) Those who want real negotiations with the Palestinians in order to realize the Two-States solution.
(b) Those who want a "unilateral" withdrawal, with the intent of annexing parts of the West Bank and leaving what's left to the Palestinians, after removing any settlements there.
(c) Those who oppose such a "unilateral" withdrawal, under the pretext that it "gives" the Palestinians territories without getting anything in return. That doesn't mean that they actually want to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, but, on the contrary, that they want to avoid giving up any territory at all.
Amir Peretz belongs to the first camp, Olmert to the second, Lieberman and Shas to the third. The Basic Guidelines must satisfy them all.
How? The answer lies in the British joke.
The Basic Guidelines will say that first of all, Israel will call upon the Palestinians to make peace based on the Two-State Solution. Only after it becomes clear that there is no partner for such a peace, will Israel take its fate in its own hands (meaning: fix its borders unilaterally). In his election day speech, Olmert addressed Mahmoud Abbas directly, with resounding pathos, offering to start peace negotiations.
(That reminds me of something: After the 1956 war, a friend of mine interrogated a high-ranking Egyptian prisoner, who told him that they used to listen to David Ben-Gurion's speeches on the radio. Every time Ben-Gurion announced that "We are stretching out our hands for peace", the Egyptians put their forces on high alert. In a way, it's an Israeli inversion of the Roman proverb si vis pacem, para bellum--if you want peace, prepare for war.)
Olmert's offer to Mahmoud Abbas is accompanied with a huge wink for the Israeli public. Everybody understands that this is a phase we have to pass through before coming to the real thing. It is a multi-purpose maneuver: to provide Peretz with a fig-leaf when he is asked to support unilateral steps, to satisfy the Americans when they are requested to agree to the annexation of large parts of the West Bank, and also to give Lieberman and Shas a year or two to enjoy themselves in the government, before Olmert starts implementing the Convergence Plan (if that ever happens).
Notice: Nobody, but absolutely nobody, is discussing the offer to Mahmoud Abbas, while everybody is talking about the annexation that will come afterwards.
Like that British sentry: Call once, twice, a third time--and then shoot.
* * *
Still, there remains the question: how can Amir Peretz and his colleagues sit in the government together with a person like Lieberman?
Lieberman is a man of the extreme-extreme Right. He could give lessons to Jean-Marie Le Pen and Joerg Haider. He is the sole leader of his party, his talk is violent and brutal, his message racist. He openly proclaims that his aim is to get all the Arab citizens out of Israel.
Before the elections, Peretz promised that he would not sit in the government with Lieberman. Since then two things have happened:
First, the leader of the left-wing Meretz party, Yossi Beilin, invited Lieberman to a well-publicized breakfast at his home, consuming (according to the gleeful reporters) "juicy herrings" and enthusiastically lauding Lieberman's personal qualities. In this way he accorded legitimization to this person, who until then was considered beyond the political pale.
Then, after the elections, an even more disgraceful thing happened. Peretz' people declared that he, not Olmert, was going to head the next government. It was to be a "social coalition", without Kadima. Simple arithmetic shows that such a coalition must include not only Shas, but also the National Union, the settlers' party that competes with Lieberman in racism. This ploy conferred legitimacy on the entire racist right. If extremists like Benny Eilon and Effi Eitam are kosher, why not Lieberman?
How could this happen to Peretz? It was clearly a hasty reaction to the behavior of Kadima. Immediately after the elections, Olmert should have called Peretz and proclaimed him his favored partner. Instead, Olmert's people started to humiliate Peretz and declare him unfit for the post of Minister of Finance, which he craved. Furious, Peretz started the move in order to get back at Olmert and frighten him. Understandable, but unforgivable. It was a personal response, and one which has caused huge damage. It has legitimized Lieberman as a candidate for membership in the government. It has also infuriated the Arab citizens and created the impression that Peretz may not be such a staunch fighter for peace after all.
All this is worrisome. True, the next government could hardly be worse than the Likud government. The question is whether it will be much better. But surely it will be adept at winking in all directions.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is one of the writers featured in The Other Israel: Voices of Dissent and Refusal. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's hot new book The Politics of Anti-Semitism. He can be reached at: avnery@counterpunch.org.
The Ghost of Shinseki--The General Who Was Sent Out to Pasture for Being Right
original
By THADDEUS HOFFMEISTER
Close to three years have passed since he last roamed the corridors of the Pentagon's inner ring, but remnants of his leadership style and philosophy--standing up for what you believe in--can still be found in the military culture. Arguably, this trait should be present in all military leaders; however, as of late it appears to be in short supply.
In 2003, he bucked the trend of 'yes-men' and offered his own candid assessment of what was needed in Iraq. His prophetic predictions about Iraq were unfortunately ignored and now haunt those responsible for planning and executing the war.
If not for his disagreement with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he probably would have been relegated to a mere footnote in history, not that his career was unremarkable. Quite the contrary, anyone who rises to the rank of Army Chief of Staff has been truly a remarkable soldier, especially if you are the first Japanese-American to achieve this feat and have overcome a serious physical injury (while serving in Vietnam he lost a foot stepping on a land mine).
However, his dust-up with Rumsfeld is what most remember. While lacking the cinematic flair and drama associated with the Truman-McArthur firing, it rested on the same basic premise--civilian control of the military. Where McArthur was relieved for aggressively pushing the expansion of the Korean War, Shinseki was eased out early for not pushing the Iraq War aggressively enough.
As most will recall, Shinseki was one of the few, if not the only high ranking active duty military leader in 2003 to challenge the Department of Defense's assessment of Iraq. Knowing that the Army would be responsible for the brunt of any warfighting or peacekeeping, he questioned the proposed troop levels. In testimony before Congress, he stated that the Iraq operation would require "several hundred thousand troops."
Despite incurring the wrath of the civilian neocons, Shinseki never withdrew his statement and instead replied that "he responded with his best military judgment." Presumably, one based on 38 years of Active Military service to include a stint as Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans. In Bosnia, where Shinseki served as Commander of the Stabilization Force, NATO used 50,000 service members to police a population of 5 million people. Iraq's population in 2003 was over 26 million people.
Never one to willingly accept criticism, Rumsfeld responded to Shinseki's congressional testimony by saying that "the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces . . . is far off the mark." Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz went on to say that those numbers are "wildly off the mark," and offered the following reasons why:
(1) no history of ethnic strife in Iraq;
(2) Americans would be welcomed as liberators; and
(3) countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction.
Wolfowitz, wrong on all three points, was eventually promoted to the World Bank. Meanwhile, Shinseki was sent out to pasture early with the premature announcement of his replacement.
Had the President's May 1, 2003 mission accomplished statement been accurate, the falling out between Shinseki and his civilian bosses would have pretty much gone unnoticed. However, the mission wasn't accomplished. Iraq is worse off and continues along a path to Civil War. More and more questions are being raised about the war's execution and planning both inside and outside of the military.
Recently, several senior military officers have called for Rumsfeld's resignation. General Anthony Zinni, who previously led the Central Command, said that Rumsfeld and others should step down for their mistakes in Iraq. Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold expressed concern about Rumsfeld's influence on war planning, in particular his emphasis on assigning fewer troops to the invasion--echoing the 2003 sentiments of Shinseki. Maj. Gen. Batiste believes that by placing too few forces in the war zone, Rumsfeld helped create the Abu Grahib abuse scandal--putting too much responsibility on incompetent officers and undertrained troops.
While maybe not the panacea for this ill conceived modern-day Madison's War, it is now painfully obvious that more initial troops would have at the minimum: (1) increased stability in the fledgling government; (2) decreased looting; (3) diminished destruction of valuable infrastructure; and (4) lessoned the likelihood that militant clerics would fill the power vacuum left by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Clearly, all of Shinseki's ideas and decisions as Chief of Staff were not as prescient or on point as his prediction about Iraq. The jury is still out on the berets and the Crusader artillery system was not worth saving, despite his claims to the contrary. Nor is it accurate to say that Rumsfeld has failed in his duties as Secretary of Defense, few can argue with his skill in transforming and modernizing the military. However, on the biggest issue facing the military and the country Shinseki, not Rumsfeld, was right on the money.
Thaddeus Hoffmeister was an Active Duty Captain in the Army when General Shinseki was the Army Chief of Staff.
By THADDEUS HOFFMEISTER
Close to three years have passed since he last roamed the corridors of the Pentagon's inner ring, but remnants of his leadership style and philosophy--standing up for what you believe in--can still be found in the military culture. Arguably, this trait should be present in all military leaders; however, as of late it appears to be in short supply.
In 2003, he bucked the trend of 'yes-men' and offered his own candid assessment of what was needed in Iraq. His prophetic predictions about Iraq were unfortunately ignored and now haunt those responsible for planning and executing the war.
If not for his disagreement with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he probably would have been relegated to a mere footnote in history, not that his career was unremarkable. Quite the contrary, anyone who rises to the rank of Army Chief of Staff has been truly a remarkable soldier, especially if you are the first Japanese-American to achieve this feat and have overcome a serious physical injury (while serving in Vietnam he lost a foot stepping on a land mine).
However, his dust-up with Rumsfeld is what most remember. While lacking the cinematic flair and drama associated with the Truman-McArthur firing, it rested on the same basic premise--civilian control of the military. Where McArthur was relieved for aggressively pushing the expansion of the Korean War, Shinseki was eased out early for not pushing the Iraq War aggressively enough.
As most will recall, Shinseki was one of the few, if not the only high ranking active duty military leader in 2003 to challenge the Department of Defense's assessment of Iraq. Knowing that the Army would be responsible for the brunt of any warfighting or peacekeeping, he questioned the proposed troop levels. In testimony before Congress, he stated that the Iraq operation would require "several hundred thousand troops."
Despite incurring the wrath of the civilian neocons, Shinseki never withdrew his statement and instead replied that "he responded with his best military judgment." Presumably, one based on 38 years of Active Military service to include a stint as Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans. In Bosnia, where Shinseki served as Commander of the Stabilization Force, NATO used 50,000 service members to police a population of 5 million people. Iraq's population in 2003 was over 26 million people.
Never one to willingly accept criticism, Rumsfeld responded to Shinseki's congressional testimony by saying that "the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces . . . is far off the mark." Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz went on to say that those numbers are "wildly off the mark," and offered the following reasons why:
(1) no history of ethnic strife in Iraq;
(2) Americans would be welcomed as liberators; and
(3) countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction.
Wolfowitz, wrong on all three points, was eventually promoted to the World Bank. Meanwhile, Shinseki was sent out to pasture early with the premature announcement of his replacement.
Had the President's May 1, 2003 mission accomplished statement been accurate, the falling out between Shinseki and his civilian bosses would have pretty much gone unnoticed. However, the mission wasn't accomplished. Iraq is worse off and continues along a path to Civil War. More and more questions are being raised about the war's execution and planning both inside and outside of the military.
Recently, several senior military officers have called for Rumsfeld's resignation. General Anthony Zinni, who previously led the Central Command, said that Rumsfeld and others should step down for their mistakes in Iraq. Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold expressed concern about Rumsfeld's influence on war planning, in particular his emphasis on assigning fewer troops to the invasion--echoing the 2003 sentiments of Shinseki. Maj. Gen. Batiste believes that by placing too few forces in the war zone, Rumsfeld helped create the Abu Grahib abuse scandal--putting too much responsibility on incompetent officers and undertrained troops.
While maybe not the panacea for this ill conceived modern-day Madison's War, it is now painfully obvious that more initial troops would have at the minimum: (1) increased stability in the fledgling government; (2) decreased looting; (3) diminished destruction of valuable infrastructure; and (4) lessoned the likelihood that militant clerics would fill the power vacuum left by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Clearly, all of Shinseki's ideas and decisions as Chief of Staff were not as prescient or on point as his prediction about Iraq. The jury is still out on the berets and the Crusader artillery system was not worth saving, despite his claims to the contrary. Nor is it accurate to say that Rumsfeld has failed in his duties as Secretary of Defense, few can argue with his skill in transforming and modernizing the military. However, on the biggest issue facing the military and the country Shinseki, not Rumsfeld, was right on the money.
Thaddeus Hoffmeister was an Active Duty Captain in the Army when General Shinseki was the Army Chief of Staff.
Exporting 'Democracy' – Importing Trouble- by Justin Raimondo
original
Exporting 'Democracy' – Importing Trouble
Why we ought to mind our own business
by Justin Raimondo
Editor's note: The following is the text of a speech delivered to the Yale Political Union on April 13. On this occasion, the Union debated the topic: "Resolved: America should not use force to export democracy."
I have to say, it's rather odd to be debating this point at such a late date. With Iraq falling to pieces in front of our eyes, with the death squads of the American-installed Shi'ite regime roaming the streets of Baghdad kidnapping and slaughtering their enemies, with the corrupt kleptocracy we helped install in Kurdistan imprisoning writers for criticizing the authorities – in the face of all this evidence, is the question even debatable?
Just as the claims of phrenology are no longer taken seriously by scientists or the thinking public, so the claims of the democracy-exporters ought to be thrown in the trash bin, along with the bones of "Piltdown Man." Why debate a theory, when the evidence of its complete failure is all around us?
"Democracy" is what the neoconservative ideologues who lied us into war talk about when they want to divert attention away from their real motives. The only question now is: what were their real motives? But we'll get to that later. Meanwhile, let us go back in a time machine and pretend, for a moment, that the idea of exporting democracy by force has not already been totally discredited. Let us take it seriously, if only for the sake of argument, and examine just why it never made sense to begin with.
The proposition breaks down into basically two issues:
(1) Is it possible? And (2) is it desirable?
I will focus, here, on the first question, because I assume I am not speaking to a libertarian audience. If I were speaking to such an audience, I would assume the absolute undesirability of democracy as an axiom, since libertarians, of course – believing as they do in a system of absolute private property rights and individual liberty – oppose democracy in all its forms. This axiom, however, is not shared by most of you, and I shall spare you a long lecture on the utter incompatibility of liberty and democracy, which, aside from its necessary length, would not be half as interesting as a discussion of how and why the neocons' democracy project failed, and had to fail.
It is more interesting, at least to me, because it demonstrates important philosophical differences between the neoconservatives and an earlier generation of Old Right conservatives who are appalled at the hubris of our foreign policy. The shared perspective of libertarians and conservatives on how societies work – or don't work – suggests the impossibility of treating political culture like a suit of clothing that can be worn by anyone – and even forcibly imposed – rather than a mindset that has to be, in large part, inherited.
The neoconservative foreign policy project – succinctly summed up by the president as the goal of "ending tyranny in our world" – is closer, in theory and in practice, to the spirit of Marxism than to anything vaguely resembling conservatism, or, indeed, any ideology born on American soil. That is entirely appropriate, of course, since the leftist roots of neoconservatism are well known, and it is clear that, as much as they talk about patriotism and "pro-Americanism," their real roots spring from a bulb planted not by Jefferson, but by Trotsky.
Libertarians and Old Right conservatives are also brought together by a common analysis of the potential economic consequences of a system of "benevolent global hegemony," as Bill Kristol characterizes the democratist ideal. The policy of exporting "democracy" by force overestimates the available resources we can devote to what is, by definition, a Sisyphean task. Empires are a losing proposition: as the now-forgotten Old Right author and polemicist Garet Garrett once pointed out, the American Empire represents a peculiar and historically unique form of imperialism, one in which "everything goes out, and nothing comes in." Unlike most empires of the past, which sought to extract wealth in the form of tribute from subject provinces, we pour money and resources into our conquests, a project that goes under the general rubric of "nation-building." And all of this, you can be sure, costs a pretty penny: playing God doesn't come cheap.
The cost of George W. Bush's global democratization project – $300 billion so far, and slated to surpass the $1 trillion mark before it's over – is so out of proportion to its possible benefits that it is hard to see how it could be justified on any terms. One is hard pressed to imagine how anyone who calls himself or herself a conservative could possibly endorse it. And yet this hardly begins to exhaust the myriad ways in which the neoconservative foreign policy project violates every known precept of conservatism.
The imperial project is the road to bankruptcy, not only financially but also in every other sense. It overestimates the available resources we can reasonably devote to the task, just as it underestimates the danger posed to the maintenance of our own liberal democracy here at home.
The central paradox of the democracy-exportation scheme is that as we ramp up attempts to spread our system to the far corners of the globe, we subvert the foundations of the constitutional order right here on the home front. War, as Randolph Bourne memorably put it, is the health of the state. The growth of state power always and inevitably makes a "great leap forward" as we prepare for the conflict. A state of perpetual war – in a struggle that will take, as the president avers, a full generation – means the exponential growth of government beyond anything we have experienced. We aren't just talking about "Big Government," as the conservatives like to term it: we are talking about humongous government. It's no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that this supposedly "conservative" regime is claiming the power to read our e-mails and listen in on our phone conversations, and sees the president as having powers equivalent to a king. The absurdity of expanding state power in America while purporting to shrink it in, say, Iraq and Afghanistan, should be obvious – except, of course, to those who today call themselves "conservatives," and are anything but.
Another obvious point – at least, one that ought to be obvious to self-described "conservatives" – is that the cultural basis of democratic liberalism cannot be created overnight. As the neoconservative defector and former Iraq war cheerleader Francis Fukuyama has pointed out, the neoconservative hostility to government social-engineering projects on American soil somehow got lost in the rush to invade Iraq and transform the Middle East.
A core conservative principle is that culture reigns supreme: all efforts to override long-entrenched customs and mores by government fiat are bound to fail. This is as true in the Middle East as it is in Appalachia, and yet the neocons, who started out as critics of the "Great Society" projects of the 1960s, are now surpassing the Left in the naked ambition of their world-transforming foreign policy prescriptions. Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan want to achieve "benevolent global hegemony" – when we can't even assert hegemony over our own borders, or New Orleans at flood tide. We must protect the "government" of the Shi'ite theocracy in Baghdad when we can't even assure our own people that they are reasonably safe from a repeat of 9/11.
I trust you'll forgive me if I keep going back to Garet Garrett, a now largely unknown writer whose career as a writer spanned nearly the entire arc of American development, and two world wars – from the lighthearted days of the so-called New Era, in the 1920s, through the darkest days of the 1930s, to the first frost of the Cold War years. In 1951, as he surveyed the rise of an American Empire, he wrote a paragraph at the end of one of his last polemics that is so prescient, so on target, that it seems to mock us down through the years:
"How now, thou American, frustrated crusader, do you know where you are?
"Is it security you want? There is no security at the top of the world.
"To thine own self a liberator, to the world an alarming portent, do you know where you are going from here?"
That was written at the very moment the Cold War began to cast its long shadow over the world, and yet, today, it rings truer than ever. It could have been written yesterday. The only difference being that now we know there is no security at the top of the world – indeed, there is much less than in Garrett's day.
Good old Garrett. An early editor of the New York Times, a prolific novelist, and an editorial writer for the Saturday Evening Post, he saw what was coming, and tried to warn against it: he was defeated by his own obscurity, and by a conservative movement that was already morphing into a militaristic cult, under the leadership of the editorial staff of National Review and the Goldwater Right.
Like Cassandra, his clear-eyed vision of the future was fated to be met with universal skepticism and even disdain. Today, Garrett's writings – in 1956, fairly representative of conservative thinking – must seem positively subversive to "movement" conservatives, and certainly "anti-American" – the favorite epithet of the Rush Limbaughs, the Anne Coulters, the David Frums of today's lobotomized conservative movement. Large portions of the movement's brain – including especially those parts related to memory and self-concept – have been removed, and something else implanted. Here is not the place to analyze just what is going on there; suffice to say that Lew Rockwell of the Mises Institute calls it "red-state fascism," a characterization that neatly sums up the program and origins of neoconservatism in power.
The irony of a "conservative" regime that offers us Big Government at home and perpetual war abroad has been noted by more than a few. A number of conservative and libertarian writers have made the point that imperialism corrupts our political system, distorts the constitutional balance of power in favor of the imperial presidency, and otherwise intrudes on the constitutional protections that are the core of our system. And yet there is a deeper level of corruption that has set in here, a cultural decadence that is not just a question of personal mores and values, but one that permeates every aspect of American life.
The ancient Greeks rightly thought hubris a great sin, one always swiftly and cruelly punished by the gods, and yet this is the spirit that animates our rulers and energizes our elites. Since these people set the tone for the culture, their conceit and overweening arrogance trickles down, as it were, into popular culture, where it is absorbed and reflected in the cruelty and vulgarity of everyday life. Even the capacity for pleasure becomes coarsened, so that only the most extreme stimulation – shocking violence, outrageous ostentation, an exaggerated self-regard bordering on self-parody – has the power to move us. It may seem a bit of a stretch to attribute this to American foreign policy, and yet Empire is a mindset as well as a political and economic system. It has a certain way of looking at the world, a perspective unique to itself, and this generates a cultural ethos that shapes everything from late night television to the doctrine of preemptive war. The shopkeepers, artisans, and yeoman farmers of a Jeffersonian republic see the world very differently than the world-weary courtiers of an Imperial Court and their degraded and discontented plebeians. The stern republican virtues of patriotism and parsimony have given way to the extravagant corruption of the New Rome, and the public, immersed in their own private corruption, view it all with a cynical tolerance. In the general atmosphere of moral laxity, the seeds of corruption germinate quickly and in such luxuriant abundance that the effect is overwhelming. The old culture is swept away in no time, and the results aren't pretty to behold.
The cultural consequences of imperialism are all around us, some of them obvious – like the number of disabled vets begging in the streets, so zonked out on drugs and the memory of combat that they cannot care for themselves – and some of them less so. One heretofore unnoticed effect is the immigration crisis, which Congress is now wrestling with. Now, it makes perfect sense that a global empire – especially one committed to "democracy" – should have open borders. Imperial Rome conferred citizenship on its conquered subjects, with all the rights and privileges that entailed, and one wonders how America – which the neocons like to call an "empire of liberty" – can do less. So to those conservatives who are now saying that it's time to close the borders and crack down on immigration, one has to ask: how will you do it? How will you prevent the subjects of the Empire from aspiring to live in the imperial metropolis? How will you rule them and then turn them back?
Another paradox of Empire is that our best efforts to transform the culture of foreign peoples will result in our own transformation. We can have an Empire, or we can have secure borders: we cannot have both. This is one aspect of the foreign policy debate that most conservatives have not thought through. Do they want a multicultural empire with porous borders, or will they try to preserve the last remnants of their old, relatively homogenous republic? We will see.
There is another sense in which the paradox of American power works against the ambitions of "democratic" imperialism. A military campaign to impose democracy at gunpoint would undermine the very democratic forces we claim to support. By tying these forces to U.S. foreign policy and making them, in effect, elements of a "Democratic International" under Washington's leadership, we provoke a nationalist response and marginalize the proponents of liberalism.
If we look at the Soviet model – of a Communist International made up of servile national Communist parties in every country, which served as the Russian foreign ministry's amen corner – we can see that it pretty closely approximates how what George Bush calls his "global democratic revolution" operates. American commissars impose a party line on their local clients, as in the case of Iraq's prospective prime minister. If the American ambassador nixes his nomination to the post, Jaafari is out. And this, mind you, is being done in the name of exporting "democracy"! It sounds like something the Stalinists might have done in Eastern Europe 60 years ago: instead, it is happening in the American-occupied Middle East.
The tragedy of American foreign policy is that it lures and sucks in many of the most genuine advocates of freedom, who take the ideology of democratic imperialism seriously and at face value. They look to the U.S. government and those on its payroll for real leadership in the fight to free their own societies from the yoke of tyranny and the weight of centuries. The price of their allegiance is to be characterized – rightly, in many cases – as quislings, stand-ins for the Americans, who prop up their front men with money as well as force of arms. In Iraq, for example, nationalist opposition to the occupation is channeled into radical anti-liberal currents, such as the Sadrists. The process is similar to what is occurring on a worldwide scale, as American aggression swells the ranks of terrorist groupings, such as al-Qaeda.
The final paradox of American power, the one that piles irony on top of tragedy, is that it strengthens our enemies, and boomerangs. Speaking of the Palestinian insurgency, the military historian Martin van Creveld generalized the lesson that should have been learned by the Israelis but wasn't:
"Basically it's always a question of the relationship of forces. If you are strong, and you are fighting the weak for any period of time, you are going to become weak yourself. If you behave like a coward then you are going to become cowardly – it's only a question of time. The same happened to the British when they were here … the same happened to the French in Algeria … the same happened to the Americans in Vietnam … the same happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan … the same happened to so many people that I can't even count them."
And, as we see, the same thing is happening to the Americans in Iraq, where, he accurately predicted, the occupiers would be run out by jeering "liberated" Iraqis.
How, at this point, anyone can continue to have faith in the Bush Doctrine and its neoconservative version of "liberation theology" is a testament to the blinding power of ideology to sustain an illusion indefinitely, against all evidence and in the face of much suffering and bloodshed. Even the recanters, such as Fukuyama and Andrew Sullivan, refuse to take much responsibility for their advocacy of a futile crusade. The former never mentions the subject of personal responsibility, after having signed one of the earliest letters calling for an invasion. And while the latter admits he feels "shame," there is no humility accompanying his admission, no acknowledgment that the invasion and occupation are wrong in principle, and that the problems we've encountered are not due to imperfect implementation.
The inherent problems of a campaign to export democracy, either at gunpoint or by any other governmental means, are manifold, and yet one that has only recently begun to be discussed is particularly relevant to our present situation. If we look at what U.S. policy has actually wrought, rather than the abstract pronouncements of intent, we can see that "democracy" of any recognizable sort – recognizable, that is, to Americans – has absolutely nothing to do with our foreign policy. In Iraq, we have installed a Shi'ite theocracy that lionizes the late Ayatollah Khomeini and looks to Iran as a model for the region. Throughout the Gulf emirates, we have allied ourselves with tyrants, and in North Africa, too, we are backing the killers – in Morocco, Egypt, and Tunisia, as well as in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Pakistan. So what game are we playing? What's the objective behind the "democratic" rhetoric, which only a fool, an opportunist on the make – or a very desperate man – would take at face value?
The idea that we are trying to "drain the swamp" where terrorism breeds by injecting a healthy dose of democratic chlorine to cleanse the place of totalitarian vermin does not pass the empirical test, because the exact opposite is happening. In response to U.S. military intervention, the vermin are multiplying far beyond the numbers they would normally achieve. We are Osama bin Laden's best recruiting agents: as Michael Scheuer, the former CIA analyst and author of the best-selling Imperial Hubris, put it, we are al-Qaeda's "one indispensable ally."
Assuming, for the moment, that al-Qaeda has not successfully infiltrated the Bush administration and bent American foreign policy to bin Laden's nefarious purposes, we have to ask: why? Why is U.S. policy, not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East, in such obvious contravention to America's actual interests?
Two scholars who have recently asked this question have come up with a controversial, albeit incontrovertible, answer: the pro-Israel lobby, which has worked tirelessly and with remarkable success to shape American foreign policy as if Israeli and American interests were identical – which they are not. As John Mearsheimer, the noted "realist" professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a now-famous "working paper" for the Kennedy School:
"The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state?"
Answer: The Lobby. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), now embroiled in a spy case, is rated the second heaviest hitter in the world of Washington lobbyists, second only to the AARP but ahead of the powerful gun lobby. Israel garners more foreign aid from the U.S. than any other recipient, and, what's more, enjoys near unconditional political and military support from the U.S., in return for – nothing. Instead, they sell arms to the Chinese, spy on us, and otherwise thumb their noses at all attempts to rein them in and effect some kind of peaceful compromise in the occupied territories.
Rather than follow the conventional wisdom, both left and right, and ascribe American behavior in the region exclusively or even primarily to the desire to control the oil fields, Mearsheimer and Walt point to the influence of the Lobby in making sure American policy serves Israeli interests. Indeed, in their view, the entire democracy-building project functions as little more than a bulldozing expedition designed to level as many Arab regimes in the Middle East as possible. In this view, the war in Iraq is part of a larger region-wide campaign to make the Middle East safe for Israel.
The authors of the Kennedy School paper trace the by now familiar genealogy of the neoconservative ascension to power, and detail how the neocons – devoted to Israel as a matter of high principle – honeycombed the present administration, taking key positions and insinuating themselves into the councils of state, particularly in the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President. The all-pervasive influence of the Lobby does much to explain the direction of U.S. foreign policy in the post-9/11 era, and this dominance, in order to be effective, had to be masked, at least somewhat.
Which leads us to another reason why the export of democracy is a bad policy, which does not serve our real interests: It lends itself too easily to manipulation by special interest groups with an agenda. Just as millions of immigrants will move to the imperial metropolis to seek their fortunes, so their governments won't be far behind: the same was true of Rome, which sent supplicants to petition the Emperor and arbitrate local disputes in favor of one or another of the disputants. Rhodes lobbied against Cappadocia, while Rome's allies took up the cause of civilizing the barbarians from Germany to Central Asia, in return for special privileges and payoffs. Eventually, barbarian mercenaries patrolled the frontiers of the Roman Empire, in place of Roman legionnaires, and, one day, they marched on Rome and sacked the place. Whether that is our destiny, too, remains purely speculative, of course – but the many uses of an imperialistic policy to various foreign lobbies ought to be fairly obvious.
The idea that the U.S. can or should impose its own system – or a local version of it, adapted to regional realities – is a dangerous fantasy dressed up to look like a policy, a snare and a delusion. It pretends to be a doctrine of the most exalted idealism, when, in reality, it masks the most venal motives, nearly all of them hidden, aside from being designed to enrich its advocates. It is no accident that the War Party's most outspoken champions, such as Richard Perle, stood to personally profit from the interventionist policies they fought for and defended. Follow the money is a reliable rule of thumb as far as these things go, and the democracy-promotion business is certainly no exception.
But that's just the gravy: the main course is regime change for its own sake, as a pure expression of American power. Whether it is done directly, by the exertions of the U.S. military, or indirectly, via such propaganda outfits as the National Endowment for Democracy and other U.S. government agencies, the goal is the same: projecting American hegemony beyond its present frontiers, until all possible rivals are eliminated. A de facto global state, enforcing what the internationalists call a "new world order," as George Bush Sr. once put it, is the ultimate goal of our rulers. That this represents a threat to American patriots, as well as to the patriots of every other nation on earth, is a realization that may dawn too late on conservatives in the U.S. – but better late than never.
In gaining the whole world, will we lose our souls in the process, along with our national identity? This is the greatest danger of our present foreign policy, one that lies behind all the other questions and objections to interventionism. The temptation of Empire may prove irresistible to our elites, who are, in any event, too drunk with power and their own self-importance to care about the long-term consequences of their policies, and in no position to lead us out of our present crisis. We will, in the end, be struck down by our own hubris: pride, as the old saw put it, goeth before a fall. They can't say, however, that they weren't warned…
Exporting 'Democracy' – Importing Trouble
Why we ought to mind our own business
by Justin Raimondo
Editor's note: The following is the text of a speech delivered to the Yale Political Union on April 13. On this occasion, the Union debated the topic: "Resolved: America should not use force to export democracy."
I have to say, it's rather odd to be debating this point at such a late date. With Iraq falling to pieces in front of our eyes, with the death squads of the American-installed Shi'ite regime roaming the streets of Baghdad kidnapping and slaughtering their enemies, with the corrupt kleptocracy we helped install in Kurdistan imprisoning writers for criticizing the authorities – in the face of all this evidence, is the question even debatable?
Just as the claims of phrenology are no longer taken seriously by scientists or the thinking public, so the claims of the democracy-exporters ought to be thrown in the trash bin, along with the bones of "Piltdown Man." Why debate a theory, when the evidence of its complete failure is all around us?
"Democracy" is what the neoconservative ideologues who lied us into war talk about when they want to divert attention away from their real motives. The only question now is: what were their real motives? But we'll get to that later. Meanwhile, let us go back in a time machine and pretend, for a moment, that the idea of exporting democracy by force has not already been totally discredited. Let us take it seriously, if only for the sake of argument, and examine just why it never made sense to begin with.
The proposition breaks down into basically two issues:
(1) Is it possible? And (2) is it desirable?
I will focus, here, on the first question, because I assume I am not speaking to a libertarian audience. If I were speaking to such an audience, I would assume the absolute undesirability of democracy as an axiom, since libertarians, of course – believing as they do in a system of absolute private property rights and individual liberty – oppose democracy in all its forms. This axiom, however, is not shared by most of you, and I shall spare you a long lecture on the utter incompatibility of liberty and democracy, which, aside from its necessary length, would not be half as interesting as a discussion of how and why the neocons' democracy project failed, and had to fail.
It is more interesting, at least to me, because it demonstrates important philosophical differences between the neoconservatives and an earlier generation of Old Right conservatives who are appalled at the hubris of our foreign policy. The shared perspective of libertarians and conservatives on how societies work – or don't work – suggests the impossibility of treating political culture like a suit of clothing that can be worn by anyone – and even forcibly imposed – rather than a mindset that has to be, in large part, inherited.
The neoconservative foreign policy project – succinctly summed up by the president as the goal of "ending tyranny in our world" – is closer, in theory and in practice, to the spirit of Marxism than to anything vaguely resembling conservatism, or, indeed, any ideology born on American soil. That is entirely appropriate, of course, since the leftist roots of neoconservatism are well known, and it is clear that, as much as they talk about patriotism and "pro-Americanism," their real roots spring from a bulb planted not by Jefferson, but by Trotsky.
Libertarians and Old Right conservatives are also brought together by a common analysis of the potential economic consequences of a system of "benevolent global hegemony," as Bill Kristol characterizes the democratist ideal. The policy of exporting "democracy" by force overestimates the available resources we can devote to what is, by definition, a Sisyphean task. Empires are a losing proposition: as the now-forgotten Old Right author and polemicist Garet Garrett once pointed out, the American Empire represents a peculiar and historically unique form of imperialism, one in which "everything goes out, and nothing comes in." Unlike most empires of the past, which sought to extract wealth in the form of tribute from subject provinces, we pour money and resources into our conquests, a project that goes under the general rubric of "nation-building." And all of this, you can be sure, costs a pretty penny: playing God doesn't come cheap.
The cost of George W. Bush's global democratization project – $300 billion so far, and slated to surpass the $1 trillion mark before it's over – is so out of proportion to its possible benefits that it is hard to see how it could be justified on any terms. One is hard pressed to imagine how anyone who calls himself or herself a conservative could possibly endorse it. And yet this hardly begins to exhaust the myriad ways in which the neoconservative foreign policy project violates every known precept of conservatism.
The imperial project is the road to bankruptcy, not only financially but also in every other sense. It overestimates the available resources we can reasonably devote to the task, just as it underestimates the danger posed to the maintenance of our own liberal democracy here at home.
The central paradox of the democracy-exportation scheme is that as we ramp up attempts to spread our system to the far corners of the globe, we subvert the foundations of the constitutional order right here on the home front. War, as Randolph Bourne memorably put it, is the health of the state. The growth of state power always and inevitably makes a "great leap forward" as we prepare for the conflict. A state of perpetual war – in a struggle that will take, as the president avers, a full generation – means the exponential growth of government beyond anything we have experienced. We aren't just talking about "Big Government," as the conservatives like to term it: we are talking about humongous government. It's no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that this supposedly "conservative" regime is claiming the power to read our e-mails and listen in on our phone conversations, and sees the president as having powers equivalent to a king. The absurdity of expanding state power in America while purporting to shrink it in, say, Iraq and Afghanistan, should be obvious – except, of course, to those who today call themselves "conservatives," and are anything but.
Another obvious point – at least, one that ought to be obvious to self-described "conservatives" – is that the cultural basis of democratic liberalism cannot be created overnight. As the neoconservative defector and former Iraq war cheerleader Francis Fukuyama has pointed out, the neoconservative hostility to government social-engineering projects on American soil somehow got lost in the rush to invade Iraq and transform the Middle East.
A core conservative principle is that culture reigns supreme: all efforts to override long-entrenched customs and mores by government fiat are bound to fail. This is as true in the Middle East as it is in Appalachia, and yet the neocons, who started out as critics of the "Great Society" projects of the 1960s, are now surpassing the Left in the naked ambition of their world-transforming foreign policy prescriptions. Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan want to achieve "benevolent global hegemony" – when we can't even assert hegemony over our own borders, or New Orleans at flood tide. We must protect the "government" of the Shi'ite theocracy in Baghdad when we can't even assure our own people that they are reasonably safe from a repeat of 9/11.
I trust you'll forgive me if I keep going back to Garet Garrett, a now largely unknown writer whose career as a writer spanned nearly the entire arc of American development, and two world wars – from the lighthearted days of the so-called New Era, in the 1920s, through the darkest days of the 1930s, to the first frost of the Cold War years. In 1951, as he surveyed the rise of an American Empire, he wrote a paragraph at the end of one of his last polemics that is so prescient, so on target, that it seems to mock us down through the years:
"How now, thou American, frustrated crusader, do you know where you are?
"Is it security you want? There is no security at the top of the world.
"To thine own self a liberator, to the world an alarming portent, do you know where you are going from here?"
That was written at the very moment the Cold War began to cast its long shadow over the world, and yet, today, it rings truer than ever. It could have been written yesterday. The only difference being that now we know there is no security at the top of the world – indeed, there is much less than in Garrett's day.
Good old Garrett. An early editor of the New York Times, a prolific novelist, and an editorial writer for the Saturday Evening Post, he saw what was coming, and tried to warn against it: he was defeated by his own obscurity, and by a conservative movement that was already morphing into a militaristic cult, under the leadership of the editorial staff of National Review and the Goldwater Right.
Like Cassandra, his clear-eyed vision of the future was fated to be met with universal skepticism and even disdain. Today, Garrett's writings – in 1956, fairly representative of conservative thinking – must seem positively subversive to "movement" conservatives, and certainly "anti-American" – the favorite epithet of the Rush Limbaughs, the Anne Coulters, the David Frums of today's lobotomized conservative movement. Large portions of the movement's brain – including especially those parts related to memory and self-concept – have been removed, and something else implanted. Here is not the place to analyze just what is going on there; suffice to say that Lew Rockwell of the Mises Institute calls it "red-state fascism," a characterization that neatly sums up the program and origins of neoconservatism in power.
The irony of a "conservative" regime that offers us Big Government at home and perpetual war abroad has been noted by more than a few. A number of conservative and libertarian writers have made the point that imperialism corrupts our political system, distorts the constitutional balance of power in favor of the imperial presidency, and otherwise intrudes on the constitutional protections that are the core of our system. And yet there is a deeper level of corruption that has set in here, a cultural decadence that is not just a question of personal mores and values, but one that permeates every aspect of American life.
The ancient Greeks rightly thought hubris a great sin, one always swiftly and cruelly punished by the gods, and yet this is the spirit that animates our rulers and energizes our elites. Since these people set the tone for the culture, their conceit and overweening arrogance trickles down, as it were, into popular culture, where it is absorbed and reflected in the cruelty and vulgarity of everyday life. Even the capacity for pleasure becomes coarsened, so that only the most extreme stimulation – shocking violence, outrageous ostentation, an exaggerated self-regard bordering on self-parody – has the power to move us. It may seem a bit of a stretch to attribute this to American foreign policy, and yet Empire is a mindset as well as a political and economic system. It has a certain way of looking at the world, a perspective unique to itself, and this generates a cultural ethos that shapes everything from late night television to the doctrine of preemptive war. The shopkeepers, artisans, and yeoman farmers of a Jeffersonian republic see the world very differently than the world-weary courtiers of an Imperial Court and their degraded and discontented plebeians. The stern republican virtues of patriotism and parsimony have given way to the extravagant corruption of the New Rome, and the public, immersed in their own private corruption, view it all with a cynical tolerance. In the general atmosphere of moral laxity, the seeds of corruption germinate quickly and in such luxuriant abundance that the effect is overwhelming. The old culture is swept away in no time, and the results aren't pretty to behold.
The cultural consequences of imperialism are all around us, some of them obvious – like the number of disabled vets begging in the streets, so zonked out on drugs and the memory of combat that they cannot care for themselves – and some of them less so. One heretofore unnoticed effect is the immigration crisis, which Congress is now wrestling with. Now, it makes perfect sense that a global empire – especially one committed to "democracy" – should have open borders. Imperial Rome conferred citizenship on its conquered subjects, with all the rights and privileges that entailed, and one wonders how America – which the neocons like to call an "empire of liberty" – can do less. So to those conservatives who are now saying that it's time to close the borders and crack down on immigration, one has to ask: how will you do it? How will you prevent the subjects of the Empire from aspiring to live in the imperial metropolis? How will you rule them and then turn them back?
Another paradox of Empire is that our best efforts to transform the culture of foreign peoples will result in our own transformation. We can have an Empire, or we can have secure borders: we cannot have both. This is one aspect of the foreign policy debate that most conservatives have not thought through. Do they want a multicultural empire with porous borders, or will they try to preserve the last remnants of their old, relatively homogenous republic? We will see.
There is another sense in which the paradox of American power works against the ambitions of "democratic" imperialism. A military campaign to impose democracy at gunpoint would undermine the very democratic forces we claim to support. By tying these forces to U.S. foreign policy and making them, in effect, elements of a "Democratic International" under Washington's leadership, we provoke a nationalist response and marginalize the proponents of liberalism.
If we look at the Soviet model – of a Communist International made up of servile national Communist parties in every country, which served as the Russian foreign ministry's amen corner – we can see that it pretty closely approximates how what George Bush calls his "global democratic revolution" operates. American commissars impose a party line on their local clients, as in the case of Iraq's prospective prime minister. If the American ambassador nixes his nomination to the post, Jaafari is out. And this, mind you, is being done in the name of exporting "democracy"! It sounds like something the Stalinists might have done in Eastern Europe 60 years ago: instead, it is happening in the American-occupied Middle East.
The tragedy of American foreign policy is that it lures and sucks in many of the most genuine advocates of freedom, who take the ideology of democratic imperialism seriously and at face value. They look to the U.S. government and those on its payroll for real leadership in the fight to free their own societies from the yoke of tyranny and the weight of centuries. The price of their allegiance is to be characterized – rightly, in many cases – as quislings, stand-ins for the Americans, who prop up their front men with money as well as force of arms. In Iraq, for example, nationalist opposition to the occupation is channeled into radical anti-liberal currents, such as the Sadrists. The process is similar to what is occurring on a worldwide scale, as American aggression swells the ranks of terrorist groupings, such as al-Qaeda.
The final paradox of American power, the one that piles irony on top of tragedy, is that it strengthens our enemies, and boomerangs. Speaking of the Palestinian insurgency, the military historian Martin van Creveld generalized the lesson that should have been learned by the Israelis but wasn't:
"Basically it's always a question of the relationship of forces. If you are strong, and you are fighting the weak for any period of time, you are going to become weak yourself. If you behave like a coward then you are going to become cowardly – it's only a question of time. The same happened to the British when they were here … the same happened to the French in Algeria … the same happened to the Americans in Vietnam … the same happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan … the same happened to so many people that I can't even count them."
And, as we see, the same thing is happening to the Americans in Iraq, where, he accurately predicted, the occupiers would be run out by jeering "liberated" Iraqis.
How, at this point, anyone can continue to have faith in the Bush Doctrine and its neoconservative version of "liberation theology" is a testament to the blinding power of ideology to sustain an illusion indefinitely, against all evidence and in the face of much suffering and bloodshed. Even the recanters, such as Fukuyama and Andrew Sullivan, refuse to take much responsibility for their advocacy of a futile crusade. The former never mentions the subject of personal responsibility, after having signed one of the earliest letters calling for an invasion. And while the latter admits he feels "shame," there is no humility accompanying his admission, no acknowledgment that the invasion and occupation are wrong in principle, and that the problems we've encountered are not due to imperfect implementation.
The inherent problems of a campaign to export democracy, either at gunpoint or by any other governmental means, are manifold, and yet one that has only recently begun to be discussed is particularly relevant to our present situation. If we look at what U.S. policy has actually wrought, rather than the abstract pronouncements of intent, we can see that "democracy" of any recognizable sort – recognizable, that is, to Americans – has absolutely nothing to do with our foreign policy. In Iraq, we have installed a Shi'ite theocracy that lionizes the late Ayatollah Khomeini and looks to Iran as a model for the region. Throughout the Gulf emirates, we have allied ourselves with tyrants, and in North Africa, too, we are backing the killers – in Morocco, Egypt, and Tunisia, as well as in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Pakistan. So what game are we playing? What's the objective behind the "democratic" rhetoric, which only a fool, an opportunist on the make – or a very desperate man – would take at face value?
The idea that we are trying to "drain the swamp" where terrorism breeds by injecting a healthy dose of democratic chlorine to cleanse the place of totalitarian vermin does not pass the empirical test, because the exact opposite is happening. In response to U.S. military intervention, the vermin are multiplying far beyond the numbers they would normally achieve. We are Osama bin Laden's best recruiting agents: as Michael Scheuer, the former CIA analyst and author of the best-selling Imperial Hubris, put it, we are al-Qaeda's "one indispensable ally."
Assuming, for the moment, that al-Qaeda has not successfully infiltrated the Bush administration and bent American foreign policy to bin Laden's nefarious purposes, we have to ask: why? Why is U.S. policy, not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East, in such obvious contravention to America's actual interests?
Two scholars who have recently asked this question have come up with a controversial, albeit incontrovertible, answer: the pro-Israel lobby, which has worked tirelessly and with remarkable success to shape American foreign policy as if Israeli and American interests were identical – which they are not. As John Mearsheimer, the noted "realist" professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a now-famous "working paper" for the Kennedy School:
"The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state?"
Answer: The Lobby. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), now embroiled in a spy case, is rated the second heaviest hitter in the world of Washington lobbyists, second only to the AARP but ahead of the powerful gun lobby. Israel garners more foreign aid from the U.S. than any other recipient, and, what's more, enjoys near unconditional political and military support from the U.S., in return for – nothing. Instead, they sell arms to the Chinese, spy on us, and otherwise thumb their noses at all attempts to rein them in and effect some kind of peaceful compromise in the occupied territories.
Rather than follow the conventional wisdom, both left and right, and ascribe American behavior in the region exclusively or even primarily to the desire to control the oil fields, Mearsheimer and Walt point to the influence of the Lobby in making sure American policy serves Israeli interests. Indeed, in their view, the entire democracy-building project functions as little more than a bulldozing expedition designed to level as many Arab regimes in the Middle East as possible. In this view, the war in Iraq is part of a larger region-wide campaign to make the Middle East safe for Israel.
The authors of the Kennedy School paper trace the by now familiar genealogy of the neoconservative ascension to power, and detail how the neocons – devoted to Israel as a matter of high principle – honeycombed the present administration, taking key positions and insinuating themselves into the councils of state, particularly in the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President. The all-pervasive influence of the Lobby does much to explain the direction of U.S. foreign policy in the post-9/11 era, and this dominance, in order to be effective, had to be masked, at least somewhat.
Which leads us to another reason why the export of democracy is a bad policy, which does not serve our real interests: It lends itself too easily to manipulation by special interest groups with an agenda. Just as millions of immigrants will move to the imperial metropolis to seek their fortunes, so their governments won't be far behind: the same was true of Rome, which sent supplicants to petition the Emperor and arbitrate local disputes in favor of one or another of the disputants. Rhodes lobbied against Cappadocia, while Rome's allies took up the cause of civilizing the barbarians from Germany to Central Asia, in return for special privileges and payoffs. Eventually, barbarian mercenaries patrolled the frontiers of the Roman Empire, in place of Roman legionnaires, and, one day, they marched on Rome and sacked the place. Whether that is our destiny, too, remains purely speculative, of course – but the many uses of an imperialistic policy to various foreign lobbies ought to be fairly obvious.
The idea that the U.S. can or should impose its own system – or a local version of it, adapted to regional realities – is a dangerous fantasy dressed up to look like a policy, a snare and a delusion. It pretends to be a doctrine of the most exalted idealism, when, in reality, it masks the most venal motives, nearly all of them hidden, aside from being designed to enrich its advocates. It is no accident that the War Party's most outspoken champions, such as Richard Perle, stood to personally profit from the interventionist policies they fought for and defended. Follow the money is a reliable rule of thumb as far as these things go, and the democracy-promotion business is certainly no exception.
But that's just the gravy: the main course is regime change for its own sake, as a pure expression of American power. Whether it is done directly, by the exertions of the U.S. military, or indirectly, via such propaganda outfits as the National Endowment for Democracy and other U.S. government agencies, the goal is the same: projecting American hegemony beyond its present frontiers, until all possible rivals are eliminated. A de facto global state, enforcing what the internationalists call a "new world order," as George Bush Sr. once put it, is the ultimate goal of our rulers. That this represents a threat to American patriots, as well as to the patriots of every other nation on earth, is a realization that may dawn too late on conservatives in the U.S. – but better late than never.
In gaining the whole world, will we lose our souls in the process, along with our national identity? This is the greatest danger of our present foreign policy, one that lies behind all the other questions and objections to interventionism. The temptation of Empire may prove irresistible to our elites, who are, in any event, too drunk with power and their own self-importance to care about the long-term consequences of their policies, and in no position to lead us out of our present crisis. We will, in the end, be struck down by our own hubris: pride, as the old saw put it, goeth before a fall. They can't say, however, that they weren't warned…
The Generals' Revolt - by Pat Buchanan
original
The Generals' Revolt
by Patrick J. Buchanan
In just two weeks, six retired U.S. Marine and Army generals have denounced the Pentagon planning for the war in Iraq and called for the resignation or firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who travels often to Iraq and supports the war, says that the generals mirror the views of 75 percent of the officers in the field, and probably more.
This is not a Cindy Sheehan moment.
This is a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the U.S. armed forces by senior officers once responsible for carrying out the orders of that leadership. It is hard to recall a situation in history where retired U.S. Army and Marine Corps generals, almost all of whom had major commands in a war yet underway, denounced the civilian leadership and called on the president to fire his secretary for war.
As those generals must be aware, their revolt cannot but send a message to friend and enemy alike that the U.S. high command is deeply divided, that U.S. policy is floundering, that the loss of Iraq impends if the civilian leadership at the Pentagon is not changed.
The generals have sent an unmistakable message to Commander in Chief George W. Bush: Get rid of Rumsfeld, or you will lose the war.
Columnist Ignatius makes that precise point:
"Rumsfeld should resign because the administration is losing the war on the home front. As bad as things are in Baghdad, America won't be defeated there militarily. But it may be forced into a hasty and chaotic retreat by mounting domestic opposition to its policy. Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration's arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap. He is a spent force ..."
With the exception of Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command who opposed the Bush-Rumsfeld rush to war, the other generals did not publicly protest until secure in retirement. Nevertheless, they bring imposing credentials to their charges against the defense secretary.
Major Gen. Paul Eaton, first of the five rebels to speak out, was in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004. He blames Rumsfeld for complicating the U.S. mission by alienating our NATO allies.
Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs up to the eve of war, charges Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith with a "casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions – or bury the results."
Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Division in Iraq, charges that Rumsfeld does not seek nor does he accept the counsel of field commanders. Maj. Gen. John Riggs echoes Batiste. This directly contradicts what President Bush has told the nation.
Maj. Gen. Charles J. Swannack, former field commander of the 82nd Airborne, believes we can create a stable government in Iraq, but says Rumsfeld has mismanaged the war.
As of Good Friday, the Generals' Revolt has created a crisis for President Bush. If he stands by Rumsfeld, he will have taken his stand against generals whose credibility today is higher than his own.
But if he bows to the Generals' Revolt and dismisses Rumsfeld, the generals will have effected a Pentagon putsch. An alumni association of retired generals will have dethroned civilian leadership and forced the commander in chief to fire the architect of a war upon which not only Bush's place in history depends, but the U.S. position in the Middle East and the world. The commander in chief will have been emasculated by retired generals. The stakes could scarcely be higher.
Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, dismissal of Rumsfeld in response to a clamor created by ex-generals would mark Bush as a weak if not fatally compromised president. He will have capitulated to a generals' coup. Will he then have to clear Rumsfeld's successor with them?
Bush will begin to look like Czar Nicholas in 1916.
And there is an unstated message of the Generals' Revolt. If Iraq collapses in chaos and sectarian war, and is perceived as another U.S. defeat, they are saying: We are not going to carry the can. The first volley in a "Who Lost Iraq?" war of recriminations has been fired.
In 1951, Gen. MacArthur, the U.S. commander in Korea, defied Harry Truman by responding to a request from GOP House leader Joe Martin to describe his situation. MacArthur said the White House had tied his hands in fighting the war.
Though MacArthur spoke the truth and the no-win war in Korea would kill Truman's presidency, the general was fired. But MacArthur was right to speak the truth about the war his soldiers were being forced to fight, a war against a far more numerous enemy who enjoyed a privileged sanctuary above the Yalu river, thanks to Harry Truman.
In the last analysis, the Generals' Revolt is not just against Rumsfeld, but is aimed at the man who appointed him and has stood by him for three years of a guerrilla war the Pentagon did not predict or expect.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
The Generals' Revolt
by Patrick J. Buchanan
In just two weeks, six retired U.S. Marine and Army generals have denounced the Pentagon planning for the war in Iraq and called for the resignation or firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who travels often to Iraq and supports the war, says that the generals mirror the views of 75 percent of the officers in the field, and probably more.
This is not a Cindy Sheehan moment.
This is a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the U.S. armed forces by senior officers once responsible for carrying out the orders of that leadership. It is hard to recall a situation in history where retired U.S. Army and Marine Corps generals, almost all of whom had major commands in a war yet underway, denounced the civilian leadership and called on the president to fire his secretary for war.
As those generals must be aware, their revolt cannot but send a message to friend and enemy alike that the U.S. high command is deeply divided, that U.S. policy is floundering, that the loss of Iraq impends if the civilian leadership at the Pentagon is not changed.
The generals have sent an unmistakable message to Commander in Chief George W. Bush: Get rid of Rumsfeld, or you will lose the war.
Columnist Ignatius makes that precise point:
"Rumsfeld should resign because the administration is losing the war on the home front. As bad as things are in Baghdad, America won't be defeated there militarily. But it may be forced into a hasty and chaotic retreat by mounting domestic opposition to its policy. Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration's arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap. He is a spent force ..."
With the exception of Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command who opposed the Bush-Rumsfeld rush to war, the other generals did not publicly protest until secure in retirement. Nevertheless, they bring imposing credentials to their charges against the defense secretary.
Major Gen. Paul Eaton, first of the five rebels to speak out, was in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004. He blames Rumsfeld for complicating the U.S. mission by alienating our NATO allies.
Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs up to the eve of war, charges Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith with a "casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions – or bury the results."
Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Division in Iraq, charges that Rumsfeld does not seek nor does he accept the counsel of field commanders. Maj. Gen. John Riggs echoes Batiste. This directly contradicts what President Bush has told the nation.
Maj. Gen. Charles J. Swannack, former field commander of the 82nd Airborne, believes we can create a stable government in Iraq, but says Rumsfeld has mismanaged the war.
As of Good Friday, the Generals' Revolt has created a crisis for President Bush. If he stands by Rumsfeld, he will have taken his stand against generals whose credibility today is higher than his own.
But if he bows to the Generals' Revolt and dismisses Rumsfeld, the generals will have effected a Pentagon putsch. An alumni association of retired generals will have dethroned civilian leadership and forced the commander in chief to fire the architect of a war upon which not only Bush's place in history depends, but the U.S. position in the Middle East and the world. The commander in chief will have been emasculated by retired generals. The stakes could scarcely be higher.
Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, dismissal of Rumsfeld in response to a clamor created by ex-generals would mark Bush as a weak if not fatally compromised president. He will have capitulated to a generals' coup. Will he then have to clear Rumsfeld's successor with them?
Bush will begin to look like Czar Nicholas in 1916.
And there is an unstated message of the Generals' Revolt. If Iraq collapses in chaos and sectarian war, and is perceived as another U.S. defeat, they are saying: We are not going to carry the can. The first volley in a "Who Lost Iraq?" war of recriminations has been fired.
In 1951, Gen. MacArthur, the U.S. commander in Korea, defied Harry Truman by responding to a request from GOP House leader Joe Martin to describe his situation. MacArthur said the White House had tied his hands in fighting the war.
Though MacArthur spoke the truth and the no-win war in Korea would kill Truman's presidency, the general was fired. But MacArthur was right to speak the truth about the war his soldiers were being forced to fight, a war against a far more numerous enemy who enjoyed a privileged sanctuary above the Yalu river, thanks to Harry Truman.
In the last analysis, the Generals' Revolt is not just against Rumsfeld, but is aimed at the man who appointed him and has stood by him for three years of a guerrilla war the Pentagon did not predict or expect.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Berlusconi\'s \'strange comedy\' leaves him out on a limb
original
From Monsters and Critics.com
By Carola Frentzen
Apr 15, 2006, 19:00 GMT
Rome - Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was out on a limb Saturday in his ongoing fight to cling to power. The incumbent has been giving non-stop interviews to the Italian media, calling press conferences and even writing letters to the country\'s biggest selling newspaper, the Corriere della Sera.
But even Berlusconi\'s coalition partners seem weary and unwilling to support his lust for power any longer. Not a single one of his former ministers has made any comment on the wrangling: even Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini, who otherwise follows Berlusconi like a shadow and is considered his closest advisor, seemed to have been swallowed up by the ground.
Justice Minister Roberto Castelli has now gone so far as to criticize publicly the prime minister\'s behaviour. Berlusconi had proposed a short-term coalition with the centre-left alliance in his letter to the Corriere della Sera, following the motto, \'Better to have some power than none at all.\'
Castelli is annoyed that Berlusconi did not discuss the proposal with any of his coalition allies. With unilateral actions like these, the prime minister is dismantling the centre-right House of Freedoms coalition.
Meanwhile, the victorious centre-right coalition is taking the absurd situation very calmly: Romano Prodi merely said that Berlusconi should accept the left\'s win in the elections and cease this \'strange comedy.\'
\'It is time for our opponents without further uncertainties to acknowledge the victory of the coalition which has the honour of governing the country,\' Prodi said.
Although more recently Prodi has shown signs of being irritated at having a proper victory party ruined by Berlusconi\'s talk of \'electoral fraud.\'
In numerical terms, a victory for the right is no longer even possible: Prodi did indeed only take control of parliament by a margin of 25,000 votes, but a recount of 2,100 ballot papers currently underway could not change that result.
Where Berlusconi gets his proverbial self-confidence and perennial optimism from is a mystery to his coalition partners. \'I would be prepared to be prime minister once again, and I am waiting anxiously - like half of Italy - for the results to finally come out,\' was the last thing the multi-millionaire said, adding that his coalition was the \'moral victor\' in the elections.
A \'strange comedy\' indeed.
© 2006 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
© Copyright 2003 - 2005 by monstersandcritics.com.
This notice cannot be removed without permission.
From Monsters and Critics.com
By Carola Frentzen
Apr 15, 2006, 19:00 GMT
Rome - Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was out on a limb Saturday in his ongoing fight to cling to power. The incumbent has been giving non-stop interviews to the Italian media, calling press conferences and even writing letters to the country\'s biggest selling newspaper, the Corriere della Sera.
But even Berlusconi\'s coalition partners seem weary and unwilling to support his lust for power any longer. Not a single one of his former ministers has made any comment on the wrangling: even Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini, who otherwise follows Berlusconi like a shadow and is considered his closest advisor, seemed to have been swallowed up by the ground.
Justice Minister Roberto Castelli has now gone so far as to criticize publicly the prime minister\'s behaviour. Berlusconi had proposed a short-term coalition with the centre-left alliance in his letter to the Corriere della Sera, following the motto, \'Better to have some power than none at all.\'
Castelli is annoyed that Berlusconi did not discuss the proposal with any of his coalition allies. With unilateral actions like these, the prime minister is dismantling the centre-right House of Freedoms coalition.
Meanwhile, the victorious centre-right coalition is taking the absurd situation very calmly: Romano Prodi merely said that Berlusconi should accept the left\'s win in the elections and cease this \'strange comedy.\'
\'It is time for our opponents without further uncertainties to acknowledge the victory of the coalition which has the honour of governing the country,\' Prodi said.
Although more recently Prodi has shown signs of being irritated at having a proper victory party ruined by Berlusconi\'s talk of \'electoral fraud.\'
In numerical terms, a victory for the right is no longer even possible: Prodi did indeed only take control of parliament by a margin of 25,000 votes, but a recount of 2,100 ballot papers currently underway could not change that result.
Where Berlusconi gets his proverbial self-confidence and perennial optimism from is a mystery to his coalition partners. \'I would be prepared to be prime minister once again, and I am waiting anxiously - like half of Italy - for the results to finally come out,\' was the last thing the multi-millionaire said, adding that his coalition was the \'moral victor\' in the elections.
A \'strange comedy\' indeed.
© 2006 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
© Copyright 2003 - 2005 by monstersandcritics.com.
This notice cannot be removed without permission.
Bush's Secret War
Hullabaloo
by digby
Colonel Sam Gardiner is the retired colonel who taught at the National War College, the Air War College and the Naval Warfare College and who found more than 50 instances of demonstrably false stories planted in the press in the run up to the war, back in 2003. He was just on CNN:
CLANCY: Well, Colonel Gardiner, from what you're saying, it would seem like military men, then, might be cautioning, don't go ahead with this. But what are the signs that are out there right now? Is there any evidence of any movement in that direction?
GARDINER: Sure. Actually, Jim, I would say -- and this may shock some -- I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way.
CLANCY: Why?
GARDINER: And let me say this -- I'm saying this carefully. First of all, Sy Hersh said in that article which was...
CLANCY: Yes, but that's one unnamed source.
GARDINER: Let me check that. Not unnamed source as not being valid.
The way "The New Yorker" does it, if somebody tells Sy Hersh something, somebody else in the magazine calls them and says, "Did you tell Sy Hersh that?" That's one point.
The secretary[sic] point is, the Iranians have been saying American military troops are in there, have been saying it for almost a year. I was in Berlin two weeks ago, sat next to the ambassador, the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA. And I said, "Hey, I hear you're accusing Americans of being in there operating with some of the units that have shot up revolution guard units."
He said, quite frankly, "Yes, we know they are. We've captured some of the units, and they've confessed to working with the Americans."
The evidence is mounting that that decision has already been made, and I don't know that the other part of that has been completed, that there has been any congressional approval to do this.
My view of the plan is, there is this period in which some kinds of ground troops will operate inside Iran, and then what we're talking about is the second part, which is this air strike.
CLANCY: All right. You lay this whole scenario, but there are still a lot of caution flags that one would see out here.
GARDINER: Sure. True.
CLANCY: If they do decide on a military option...
GARDINER: Right?
CLANCY: ... what's the realistic chance of success? What's your -- your prognosis for that kind of reaction here?
GARDINER: Yes. Let me give you two answers to that. First of all, the chance of getting the facilities and setting back the program, I think the chances go from maybe two years to actually accelerating the program. You know, we could cause them to redouble their efforts. That's on one side.
The other side is this sort of horizontal escalation by the Iranians.
My assessment is -- and it's because of regime problems at home -- that if we strike, they're likely to want to blame Israel. Now that's -- because that sells well at home.
Blaming Israel means that there's a chance that we could see Hezbollah, Hamas targeting Israel. We could very easily see this thing escalate into a broader Middle East war, particularly when you add Muslim rage.
You know, if you take the cartoon problem and multiply it times a hundred -- you know, the Danish cartoons, you could see how we could end up very quickly with a very serious problem in the Middle East.
CLANCY: Former U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner. Not a very rosy outlook here. A man who thinks the decision may have already been made.
Thank you for being with us.
GARDINER: Certainly.
My tin foil hat is beeping and honking like crazy right now. These generals coming forward is huge.
I really think it's possible that Bush and Rummy have already got a secret war going on, one that has not been revealed to congress in any form. It's designed that way. Bush is not going to fire Rummy --- he can't. He's already committed himself to this thing. This could be the ultimate action of the unitary executive.
by digby
Colonel Sam Gardiner is the retired colonel who taught at the National War College, the Air War College and the Naval Warfare College and who found more than 50 instances of demonstrably false stories planted in the press in the run up to the war, back in 2003. He was just on CNN:
CLANCY: Well, Colonel Gardiner, from what you're saying, it would seem like military men, then, might be cautioning, don't go ahead with this. But what are the signs that are out there right now? Is there any evidence of any movement in that direction?
GARDINER: Sure. Actually, Jim, I would say -- and this may shock some -- I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way.
CLANCY: Why?
GARDINER: And let me say this -- I'm saying this carefully. First of all, Sy Hersh said in that article which was...
CLANCY: Yes, but that's one unnamed source.
GARDINER: Let me check that. Not unnamed source as not being valid.
The way "The New Yorker" does it, if somebody tells Sy Hersh something, somebody else in the magazine calls them and says, "Did you tell Sy Hersh that?" That's one point.
The secretary[sic] point is, the Iranians have been saying American military troops are in there, have been saying it for almost a year. I was in Berlin two weeks ago, sat next to the ambassador, the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA. And I said, "Hey, I hear you're accusing Americans of being in there operating with some of the units that have shot up revolution guard units."
He said, quite frankly, "Yes, we know they are. We've captured some of the units, and they've confessed to working with the Americans."
The evidence is mounting that that decision has already been made, and I don't know that the other part of that has been completed, that there has been any congressional approval to do this.
My view of the plan is, there is this period in which some kinds of ground troops will operate inside Iran, and then what we're talking about is the second part, which is this air strike.
CLANCY: All right. You lay this whole scenario, but there are still a lot of caution flags that one would see out here.
GARDINER: Sure. True.
CLANCY: If they do decide on a military option...
GARDINER: Right?
CLANCY: ... what's the realistic chance of success? What's your -- your prognosis for that kind of reaction here?
GARDINER: Yes. Let me give you two answers to that. First of all, the chance of getting the facilities and setting back the program, I think the chances go from maybe two years to actually accelerating the program. You know, we could cause them to redouble their efforts. That's on one side.
The other side is this sort of horizontal escalation by the Iranians.
My assessment is -- and it's because of regime problems at home -- that if we strike, they're likely to want to blame Israel. Now that's -- because that sells well at home.
Blaming Israel means that there's a chance that we could see Hezbollah, Hamas targeting Israel. We could very easily see this thing escalate into a broader Middle East war, particularly when you add Muslim rage.
You know, if you take the cartoon problem and multiply it times a hundred -- you know, the Danish cartoons, you could see how we could end up very quickly with a very serious problem in the Middle East.
CLANCY: Former U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner. Not a very rosy outlook here. A man who thinks the decision may have already been made.
Thank you for being with us.
GARDINER: Certainly.
My tin foil hat is beeping and honking like crazy right now. These generals coming forward is huge.
I really think it's possible that Bush and Rummy have already got a secret war going on, one that has not been revealed to congress in any form. It's designed that way. Bush is not going to fire Rummy --- he can't. He's already committed himself to this thing. This could be the ultimate action of the unitary executive.
Reuters AlertNet - IRAQ: Women were more respected under Saddam, say women's groups
13 Apr 2006 08:11:15 GMT
Source: IRIN
original
BAGHDAD, 13 April (IRIN) - According to the findings of a recent survey by local rights NGOs, women were treated better during the Saddam Hussein era – and their rights were more respected – than they are now.
"We interviewed women in the country and met with local NGOs dealing with gender issues to develop this survey, which asked questions about the quality of women's life and respect for their rights," said Senar Muhammad, president of Baghdad-based NGO Woman Freedom Organisation. "The results show that women are less respected now than they were under the previous regime, while their freedom has been curtailed."
According to the survey, women's basic rights under the Hussein regime were guaranteed in the constitution and – more importantly – respected, with women often occupying important government positions. Now, although their rights are still enshrined in the national constitution, activists complain that, in practice, they have lost almost all of their rights.
Women's groups point to the new government, many members of which take a conservative view when it comes to the role of women. "When we tell the government we need more representation in parliament, they respond by telling us that, if well-qualified women appear one day, they won't be turned down," said Senar. "Then they laugh at us."
Government officials disagree saying that women's political views are respected and that they are better represented in government than was the case during the previous regime.
"They occupy important positions in our ministries, positions which Saddam never gave them. But they have to understand that some posts, such as the presidential one, are difficult for women because of security problems, said government spokesperson Laith Kubba.
Female activists, on their part, agree with the survey's results.
"Before the US-led invasion in 2003, women were free to go to schools, universities and work, and to perform other duties," Senar added. "Now, due to security reasons and repression by the government, they're being forced to stay in their homes."
The new constitution, approved in October 2005, makes Shari'a [Islamic Law] the primary source of national law. According to Senar, however, Shari'a has been misinterpreted by elements within the government and by certain religious leaders, which has resulted in the frequent denial of women's rights. This is particularly the case in matters pertaining to divorce, she said.
Iman Saeed, spokesperson for another women's NGO that helped conduct the survey but which prefers anonymity for security reasons, said that some religious leaders have also begun insisting that women wear the veil. "Many husbands now force their wives to wear the veil, just because a sheikh [religious teacher] said so," Iman said.
Some religious leaders say that the wearing of the veil is obligatory for Muslim women and that because of sectarian violence women should stay at home to look after their children.
"Women should stay at home with their families. Participating in politics will distance them from their kids," said Sheikh Marouf Abdel-Kader, a religious leader at one of the mosques in Baghdad.
Women represent roughly 60 percent of the population. Despite a 25-percent representative presence in parliament, however, they are seldom entrusted with high government positions, while their contribution to political debate is rarely taken seriously. "When US troops entered Iraq, we thought it would be a great opportunity for Iraqi women to begin having their voices heard," said Senar. "But we were wrong – the opposite has happened, and we're losing ground by the day."
The survey also highlighted the increase in unemployment levels among Iraqi women since 2003. "Female unemployment is now twice as high as that for males, while female poverty has also increased," said Iman. "In addition, the number of widows – already high as a result of the Iran-Iraq war [in the 1980s] – has increased since the US invasion, making the situation worse."
Authors of the survey urged Washington and international organisations to pressure Baghdad to leave more decision-making positions to women. "The current leaders don't think of us as potential presidents or vice-presidents, arguing that women can't hold such important posts," said Shams Yehia, a professor at Baghdad University who helped conduct the survey. "We appeal to all bodies to force the Iraqi government to give us our rights back."
IRIN news
Source: IRIN
original
"According to the survey, women's basic rights under the Hussein regime were guaranteed in the constitution and – more importantly – respected, with women often occupying important government positions."
...
"Before the US-led invasion in 2003, women were free to go to schools, universities and work, and to perform other duties," Senar added. "Now, due to security reasons and repression by the government, they're being forced to stay in their homes."
BAGHDAD, 13 April (IRIN) - According to the findings of a recent survey by local rights NGOs, women were treated better during the Saddam Hussein era – and their rights were more respected – than they are now.
"We interviewed women in the country and met with local NGOs dealing with gender issues to develop this survey, which asked questions about the quality of women's life and respect for their rights," said Senar Muhammad, president of Baghdad-based NGO Woman Freedom Organisation. "The results show that women are less respected now than they were under the previous regime, while their freedom has been curtailed."
According to the survey, women's basic rights under the Hussein regime were guaranteed in the constitution and – more importantly – respected, with women often occupying important government positions. Now, although their rights are still enshrined in the national constitution, activists complain that, in practice, they have lost almost all of their rights.
Women's groups point to the new government, many members of which take a conservative view when it comes to the role of women. "When we tell the government we need more representation in parliament, they respond by telling us that, if well-qualified women appear one day, they won't be turned down," said Senar. "Then they laugh at us."
Government officials disagree saying that women's political views are respected and that they are better represented in government than was the case during the previous regime.
"They occupy important positions in our ministries, positions which Saddam never gave them. But they have to understand that some posts, such as the presidential one, are difficult for women because of security problems, said government spokesperson Laith Kubba.
Female activists, on their part, agree with the survey's results.
"Before the US-led invasion in 2003, women were free to go to schools, universities and work, and to perform other duties," Senar added. "Now, due to security reasons and repression by the government, they're being forced to stay in their homes."
The new constitution, approved in October 2005, makes Shari'a [Islamic Law] the primary source of national law. According to Senar, however, Shari'a has been misinterpreted by elements within the government and by certain religious leaders, which has resulted in the frequent denial of women's rights. This is particularly the case in matters pertaining to divorce, she said.
Iman Saeed, spokesperson for another women's NGO that helped conduct the survey but which prefers anonymity for security reasons, said that some religious leaders have also begun insisting that women wear the veil. "Many husbands now force their wives to wear the veil, just because a sheikh [religious teacher] said so," Iman said.
Some religious leaders say that the wearing of the veil is obligatory for Muslim women and that because of sectarian violence women should stay at home to look after their children.
"Women should stay at home with their families. Participating in politics will distance them from their kids," said Sheikh Marouf Abdel-Kader, a religious leader at one of the mosques in Baghdad.
Women represent roughly 60 percent of the population. Despite a 25-percent representative presence in parliament, however, they are seldom entrusted with high government positions, while their contribution to political debate is rarely taken seriously. "When US troops entered Iraq, we thought it would be a great opportunity for Iraqi women to begin having their voices heard," said Senar. "But we were wrong – the opposite has happened, and we're losing ground by the day."
The survey also highlighted the increase in unemployment levels among Iraqi women since 2003. "Female unemployment is now twice as high as that for males, while female poverty has also increased," said Iman. "In addition, the number of widows – already high as a result of the Iran-Iraq war [in the 1980s] – has increased since the US invasion, making the situation worse."
Authors of the survey urged Washington and international organisations to pressure Baghdad to leave more decision-making positions to women. "The current leaders don't think of us as potential presidents or vice-presidents, arguing that women can't hold such important posts," said Shams Yehia, a professor at Baghdad University who helped conduct the survey. "We appeal to all bodies to force the Iraqi government to give us our rights back."
IRIN news
'US to Pressure Turkey in Case of a War on Iran'
original
By Cihan News Agency
Published: Friday, April 14, 2006
zaman.com
The US will put great pressure on Turkey, especially on the Turkish army, to lend its support in the eventuality of a US war on Iran, said Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Award winning journalist of the New Yorker magazine.
Speaking to the Turkish private NTV channel in Washington, Hersh commented on the possibilities and effects of a US war on Iran.
Hersh claimed that such a war would drag Turkey into instability, as it would the rest of the world. He said there was even a possibility of a civil war which would inflame the Kurdish problem. Hersh said that in case of a war on Iran, the US would request Turkey and the Turkish army to do what the majority of the Turkish people would not support.
"There will be a critical question for Turkey as well as for other countries in the Middle East - i.e. On which side are you?" remarked Hersh.
For further information please visit http://www.cihannews.com
By Cihan News Agency
Published: Friday, April 14, 2006
zaman.com
The US will put great pressure on Turkey, especially on the Turkish army, to lend its support in the eventuality of a US war on Iran, said Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Award winning journalist of the New Yorker magazine.
Speaking to the Turkish private NTV channel in Washington, Hersh commented on the possibilities and effects of a US war on Iran.
Hersh claimed that such a war would drag Turkey into instability, as it would the rest of the world. He said there was even a possibility of a civil war which would inflame the Kurdish problem. Hersh said that in case of a war on Iran, the US would request Turkey and the Turkish army to do what the majority of the Turkish people would not support.
"There will be a critical question for Turkey as well as for other countries in the Middle East - i.e. On which side are you?" remarked Hersh.
For further information please visit http://www.cihannews.com
Report: Rumsfeld Directed Sexual Degradation of Detainee
original
New Report: Rumsfeld 'Personally Involved' In Torture Allegations at Gitmo
ThinkProgress.com
Friday 14 April 2006
Salon reports new evidence that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was intimately involved in prisoner abuse at the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
According to a Dec. 20, 2005 Army inspector general's report on Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commanding general in charge of Gitmo, Rumsfeld approved an interrogation plan for Mohammed al-Kahtani, the alleged 20th hijacker:
In a sworn statement to the inspector general, [Lt. Gen. Randall] Schmidt described Rumsfeld as "personally involved" in the interrogation and said that the defense secretary was "talking weekly" with Miller.
Rumsfeld developed an interrogation plan that required the Gitmo detainee to "stand naked in front of a female interrogator, was accused of being a homosexual, and was forced to wear women's underwear and to perform 'dog tricks' on a leash." Schmidt said that the open-ended policies Rumsfeld approved, and that the apparent lack of supervision of day-to-day interrogations permitted the wide-scale abuse to take place.
The report contradicts Rumsfeld's earlier statements.
The people down there at Guantanamo Bay, under the President's orders, have been treated humanely and they should be treated humanely…There's no torture going on down there and there hasn't been. [WPHT-AM Philadelphia, 6/21/05]
And let there be no doubt, the treatment of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay is proper, it's humane, it's appropriate, and it is fully consistent with international conventions. No detainee has been harmed, no detainee has been mistreated in any way. [DoD Briefing, 1/22/02]
Only relatively low-ranking military officials have been punished but the abuse of detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere started at the top.
-------
New Report: Rumsfeld 'Personally Involved' In Torture Allegations at Gitmo
ThinkProgress.com
Friday 14 April 2006
Salon reports new evidence that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was intimately involved in prisoner abuse at the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
According to a Dec. 20, 2005 Army inspector general's report on Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commanding general in charge of Gitmo, Rumsfeld approved an interrogation plan for Mohammed al-Kahtani, the alleged 20th hijacker:
In a sworn statement to the inspector general, [Lt. Gen. Randall] Schmidt described Rumsfeld as "personally involved" in the interrogation and said that the defense secretary was "talking weekly" with Miller.
Rumsfeld developed an interrogation plan that required the Gitmo detainee to "stand naked in front of a female interrogator, was accused of being a homosexual, and was forced to wear women's underwear and to perform 'dog tricks' on a leash." Schmidt said that the open-ended policies Rumsfeld approved, and that the apparent lack of supervision of day-to-day interrogations permitted the wide-scale abuse to take place.
The report contradicts Rumsfeld's earlier statements.
The people down there at Guantanamo Bay, under the President's orders, have been treated humanely and they should be treated humanely…There's no torture going on down there and there hasn't been. [WPHT-AM Philadelphia, 6/21/05]
And let there be no doubt, the treatment of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay is proper, it's humane, it's appropriate, and it is fully consistent with international conventions. No detainee has been harmed, no detainee has been mistreated in any way. [DoD Briefing, 1/22/02]
Only relatively low-ranking military officials have been punished but the abuse of detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere started at the top.
-------
Friday, April 14, 2006
Defense & Security Symposium With Free Exhibition Runs April 17-21 in Orlando
original
SPIE Defense & Security Symposium With Free Exhibition Runs April 17-21 in Orlando
Largest Nonclassified Exhibition of Infrared Imaging Equipment, Sensors and Optical Components in the United States
BELLINGHAM, WA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 04/14/2006 -- SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering today announced the April 17 opening of the Defense & Security Symposium 2006 in Orlando, Florida. The free exhibition runs April 18-20, showcasing new technology and innovative products from over 420 companies serving the defense and homeland security industry. A career fair occurs April 18-19, with recruiters from leading technology organizations. This is the largest assembly in the United States of open conferences, courses and exhibitors in the field of imaging, sensors and optical engineering for defense, military and homeland security applications.
Over 2,200 technical papers will be presented by leading scientists, researchers and engineers who will unveil breakthroughs in optics, sensors, signal processing and infrared imaging. Many of these technologies enable systems and personnel to see the unseen, recognize threats and manage information to improve safety and effectiveness.
Within this field, the SPIE Defense and Security Symposium (DSS) is the largest exhibition in the United States and has been held in Orlando for more than 10 years. Over 420 companies will show the latest innovations (including 120 new products announced at DSS) in technology categories including:
* infrared sources, detectors and systems
* sensors and sensor networks
* electronic imaging
* optics components, filters/coatings and systems
* high-speed imaging
* lasers
* optical design software
* optical detectors
* optical test and measurement equipment
* camera and CCD components
* optoelectronic devices
* fiber lasers
* innovative displays, including night vision systems.
Given the need for continuous learning in the fast changing world of technology, SPIE is offering 55 technical courses on topics including Sensor Networks, Signal and Image Processing, Law Enforcement and Homeland Security, Optical and Optomechanical Engineering, Multisensor Information Fusion, Target Acquisition and Recognition, Modeling and Simulation, GPS Technology, Laser Sensing and Systems, Tactical Sensors and Imagers, Infrared Systems Engineering and Thermosense.
A new "industry perspectives" program runs April 19 and 20 as a forum for business and engineering discussions focused on the future directions of commercial technology. These sessions are free for all attendees, including technical conference attendees, exhibitors and exhibition hall visitors. Executives from DoD, DARPA, civilian agencies and the commercial sector will address the following topics:
* DARPA/MTO Photonics Overview
* The Future of Terahertz Imaging
* The Future of Fiber Lasers
* The Future of Infrared Imaging
* The Future of Hyperspectral Imaging
"Technology leaders from government, academia and industry come to DSS in Orlando to see the latest research and new products that use optics and photonics for defense, security and spin-off applications. Everyone here is working to accelerate discovery, development and distribution of solutions," said Janice Walker, Director of Events at SPIE. "These are the people who push the frontiers of possibility in response to the imaging, sensor and analysis requirements of military and civilian agencies. The presentations, product information and personal networking provide immediate payback for attendees."
DSS technical conferences offer groundbreaking presentations, organized into program tracks such as:
* Technologies for Homeland Security and Law Enforcement
* Infrared (IR) Sensors and Systems Engineering
* Tactical Sensors and Imagers
* Laser Sensors and Systems
* Battlespace Technologies
* Space Technologies and Operations
* Displays including flexible displays, rugged PDAs and head-mounted systems
* Modeling and Simulation
* Intelligent and Unmanned Systems
* Sensor Data Exploitation and Target Recognition
* Information Fusion, Data Mining
* Information Networks Security
* Signal, Image and Neural Net Processing
* Communications and Networking Technologies and Systems
With thousands of presentations at DSS spanning discovery, development and distribution of defense and security technology, this meeting has become recognized as a "must-attend" event for both researchers and industry. "By providing a forum to review requirements and results, we help university, government and industry brainpower push the outer edge of technology and take it to the next level," added Walker.
Specific applications of technology being discussed include imaging systems that can "see through" walls, futuristic robotic vehicles and sensors for border security, new ways to inspect cargo and identify underwater threats in harbors, nonlethal weapons, recognition of chemical plumes, self-lubricating films using nanotechnology, wireless sensor networks, biometric technology for human identification, nanoscale sensors, space applications, helmet-mounted displays and night vision goggles. Many sessions are devoted to information retrieval, data mining, face recognition, new displays and integrated intelligent microsystems that push the limits.
Well over 100 presentations are related to unmanned systems, including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and robots on the ground for border security, search and rescue, and military operations. Capping presentations on these new R&D achievements is a special evening session Wednesday 19 April called the DARPA Grand Challenge. Larry Stotts, Deputy Director of the DARPA Advanced Technology Office, will review a unique program to accelerate autonomous ground vehicle technology that could be used to someday save lives on the battlefield. DARPA awarded a $2 million prize to a team from Stanford University, who fielded a remote-controlled vehicle that completed a 140-mile course in the Mojave Desert. Possible commercial spin-offs from this type of work include collision avoidance, automated road sign recognition and durable remote control systems. Stotts will provide an insider's view of the Grand Challenge program including goals, results and stories of the innovators who took part in the great race.
Another major theme at DSS is use of spaceborne sensors for both military and civilian applications. According to Program Chair Peter Tchoryk, CEO of Michigan Aerospace Corp., "The idea behind Responsive Space is for the government to be able to launch satellites 'on demand' when the need arises, rather than using today's timelines measured in months or years. Our session is intended to foster an exchange of ideas related to accelerating that process -- from the payload, satellite, and launch perspectives. Topics may include component and systems technology developments, infrastructure, testing, and operational issues that must ultimately be addressed to create responsive space architecture and enhance joint warfighting capability."
Sensing and prediction of natural phenomena is of great general interest, particularly hurricanes. "The majority of media coverage associated with the Federal response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has focused on what went wrong. The 'Algorithms and Technologies for Multispectral, Hyperspectral, and Ultraspectral Imagery XII Conference' has a special session entitled 'The Use of Civil Remote Sensing in Improving Hurricane Forecasting and Assisting Emergency Responders,'" said Conference Chair Sylvia Shen, The Aerospace Corp. "Here we will show how civilian remote sensing has a leading role in improving our ability to cope with natural disasters such as these. We will tell the story of what went right, highlighting improved prediction of the paths of both hurricanes, as well as the ability to use currently available U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emergency response airborne remote sensing technology to perform rapid needs assessment and mitigate potentially dangerous situations on the ground for regional on-scene commanders and emergency responders."
SPIE conferences are filled with presentations that highlight the innovations and new techniques that will change the world. One example, a Plenary Presentation by Prof. James Franson, Johns Hopkins Univ., is titled "Quantum computing using linear optics and hybrid approaches." According to Eric Donkor, Univ. of Connecticut and Chair of the Quantum Information and Computation Conference, "Quantum computing is a fast emerging technology that is expected to revolutionize computer technology and information delivery across our information-driven society, in areas including health care, banking and commerce, bioinformatics, internet security, cryptosystems, and national security. Articles on quantum computing are increasingly appearing in the print media such as the New York Times, as well as in trade journals. Prof. Franson is one of the world's leading authorities in Quantum Computing and his presentation will shed light on the status and trends on the subject."
SPIE also offers a free SPIEWorks career fair from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on April 18 and 19 with recruiters from BAE Systems, Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Goodrich, Lockeed Martin, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Northrop Grumman, PennState Electo-Optics Center and TEXTRON Systems.
For further information on this or other SPIE events, go to http://spie.org/conferences/programs/06/dss/ with onsite registration available at the Gaylord Palms Resort and Convention Center, Orlando, Florida.
About SPIE
SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering is a not-for-profit professional society that has become the largest international force for the exchange, collection and dissemination of knowledge in optics, photonics and imaging. Founded in 1955, SPIE organizes technical conferences around the world and publishes journals, books and proceedings, with technical papers available for download via the SPIE Digital Library. See http://spie.org/ for more details.
SPIE Defense & Security Symposium With Free Exhibition Runs April 17-21 in Orlando
Largest Nonclassified Exhibition of Infrared Imaging Equipment, Sensors and Optical Components in the United States
BELLINGHAM, WA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 04/14/2006 -- SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering today announced the April 17 opening of the Defense & Security Symposium 2006 in Orlando, Florida. The free exhibition runs April 18-20, showcasing new technology and innovative products from over 420 companies serving the defense and homeland security industry. A career fair occurs April 18-19, with recruiters from leading technology organizations. This is the largest assembly in the United States of open conferences, courses and exhibitors in the field of imaging, sensors and optical engineering for defense, military and homeland security applications.
Over 2,200 technical papers will be presented by leading scientists, researchers and engineers who will unveil breakthroughs in optics, sensors, signal processing and infrared imaging. Many of these technologies enable systems and personnel to see the unseen, recognize threats and manage information to improve safety and effectiveness.
Within this field, the SPIE Defense and Security Symposium (DSS) is the largest exhibition in the United States and has been held in Orlando for more than 10 years. Over 420 companies will show the latest innovations (including 120 new products announced at DSS) in technology categories including:
* infrared sources, detectors and systems
* sensors and sensor networks
* electronic imaging
* optics components, filters/coatings and systems
* high-speed imaging
* lasers
* optical design software
* optical detectors
* optical test and measurement equipment
* camera and CCD components
* optoelectronic devices
* fiber lasers
* innovative displays, including night vision systems.
Given the need for continuous learning in the fast changing world of technology, SPIE is offering 55 technical courses on topics including Sensor Networks, Signal and Image Processing, Law Enforcement and Homeland Security, Optical and Optomechanical Engineering, Multisensor Information Fusion, Target Acquisition and Recognition, Modeling and Simulation, GPS Technology, Laser Sensing and Systems, Tactical Sensors and Imagers, Infrared Systems Engineering and Thermosense.
A new "industry perspectives" program runs April 19 and 20 as a forum for business and engineering discussions focused on the future directions of commercial technology. These sessions are free for all attendees, including technical conference attendees, exhibitors and exhibition hall visitors. Executives from DoD, DARPA, civilian agencies and the commercial sector will address the following topics:
* DARPA/MTO Photonics Overview
* The Future of Terahertz Imaging
* The Future of Fiber Lasers
* The Future of Infrared Imaging
* The Future of Hyperspectral Imaging
"Technology leaders from government, academia and industry come to DSS in Orlando to see the latest research and new products that use optics and photonics for defense, security and spin-off applications. Everyone here is working to accelerate discovery, development and distribution of solutions," said Janice Walker, Director of Events at SPIE. "These are the people who push the frontiers of possibility in response to the imaging, sensor and analysis requirements of military and civilian agencies. The presentations, product information and personal networking provide immediate payback for attendees."
DSS technical conferences offer groundbreaking presentations, organized into program tracks such as:
* Technologies for Homeland Security and Law Enforcement
* Infrared (IR) Sensors and Systems Engineering
* Tactical Sensors and Imagers
* Laser Sensors and Systems
* Battlespace Technologies
* Space Technologies and Operations
* Displays including flexible displays, rugged PDAs and head-mounted systems
* Modeling and Simulation
* Intelligent and Unmanned Systems
* Sensor Data Exploitation and Target Recognition
* Information Fusion, Data Mining
* Information Networks Security
* Signal, Image and Neural Net Processing
* Communications and Networking Technologies and Systems
With thousands of presentations at DSS spanning discovery, development and distribution of defense and security technology, this meeting has become recognized as a "must-attend" event for both researchers and industry. "By providing a forum to review requirements and results, we help university, government and industry brainpower push the outer edge of technology and take it to the next level," added Walker.
Specific applications of technology being discussed include imaging systems that can "see through" walls, futuristic robotic vehicles and sensors for border security, new ways to inspect cargo and identify underwater threats in harbors, nonlethal weapons, recognition of chemical plumes, self-lubricating films using nanotechnology, wireless sensor networks, biometric technology for human identification, nanoscale sensors, space applications, helmet-mounted displays and night vision goggles. Many sessions are devoted to information retrieval, data mining, face recognition, new displays and integrated intelligent microsystems that push the limits.
Well over 100 presentations are related to unmanned systems, including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and robots on the ground for border security, search and rescue, and military operations. Capping presentations on these new R&D achievements is a special evening session Wednesday 19 April called the DARPA Grand Challenge. Larry Stotts, Deputy Director of the DARPA Advanced Technology Office, will review a unique program to accelerate autonomous ground vehicle technology that could be used to someday save lives on the battlefield. DARPA awarded a $2 million prize to a team from Stanford University, who fielded a remote-controlled vehicle that completed a 140-mile course in the Mojave Desert. Possible commercial spin-offs from this type of work include collision avoidance, automated road sign recognition and durable remote control systems. Stotts will provide an insider's view of the Grand Challenge program including goals, results and stories of the innovators who took part in the great race.
Another major theme at DSS is use of spaceborne sensors for both military and civilian applications. According to Program Chair Peter Tchoryk, CEO of Michigan Aerospace Corp., "The idea behind Responsive Space is for the government to be able to launch satellites 'on demand' when the need arises, rather than using today's timelines measured in months or years. Our session is intended to foster an exchange of ideas related to accelerating that process -- from the payload, satellite, and launch perspectives. Topics may include component and systems technology developments, infrastructure, testing, and operational issues that must ultimately be addressed to create responsive space architecture and enhance joint warfighting capability."
Sensing and prediction of natural phenomena is of great general interest, particularly hurricanes. "The majority of media coverage associated with the Federal response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has focused on what went wrong. The 'Algorithms and Technologies for Multispectral, Hyperspectral, and Ultraspectral Imagery XII Conference' has a special session entitled 'The Use of Civil Remote Sensing in Improving Hurricane Forecasting and Assisting Emergency Responders,'" said Conference Chair Sylvia Shen, The Aerospace Corp. "Here we will show how civilian remote sensing has a leading role in improving our ability to cope with natural disasters such as these. We will tell the story of what went right, highlighting improved prediction of the paths of both hurricanes, as well as the ability to use currently available U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emergency response airborne remote sensing technology to perform rapid needs assessment and mitigate potentially dangerous situations on the ground for regional on-scene commanders and emergency responders."
SPIE conferences are filled with presentations that highlight the innovations and new techniques that will change the world. One example, a Plenary Presentation by Prof. James Franson, Johns Hopkins Univ., is titled "Quantum computing using linear optics and hybrid approaches." According to Eric Donkor, Univ. of Connecticut and Chair of the Quantum Information and Computation Conference, "Quantum computing is a fast emerging technology that is expected to revolutionize computer technology and information delivery across our information-driven society, in areas including health care, banking and commerce, bioinformatics, internet security, cryptosystems, and national security. Articles on quantum computing are increasingly appearing in the print media such as the New York Times, as well as in trade journals. Prof. Franson is one of the world's leading authorities in Quantum Computing and his presentation will shed light on the status and trends on the subject."
SPIE also offers a free SPIEWorks career fair from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on April 18 and 19 with recruiters from BAE Systems, Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Goodrich, Lockeed Martin, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Northrop Grumman, PennState Electo-Optics Center and TEXTRON Systems.
For further information on this or other SPIE events, go to http://spie.org/conferences/programs/06/dss/ with onsite registration available at the Gaylord Palms Resort and Convention Center, Orlando, Florida.
About SPIE
SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering is a not-for-profit professional society that has become the largest international force for the exchange, collection and dissemination of knowledge in optics, photonics and imaging. Founded in 1955, SPIE organizes technical conferences around the world and publishes journals, books and proceedings, with technical papers available for download via the SPIE Digital Library. See http://spie.org/ for more details.
Britain took part in mock Iran invasion
original
Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill
Saturday April 15, 2006
The Guardian
British officers took part in a US war game aimed at preparing for a possible invasion of Iran, despite repeated claims by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, that a military strike against Iran is inconceivable.
The war game, codenamed Hotspur 2004, took place at the US base of Fort Belvoir in Virginia in July 2004.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman played down its significance yesterday. "These paper-based exercises are designed to test officers to the limit in fictitious scenarios. We use invented countries and situations using real maps," he said.
The disclosure of Britain's participation came in the week in which the Iranian crisis intensified, with a US report that the White House was contemplating a tactical nuclear strike and Tehran defying the United Nations security council.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who sparked outrage in the US, Europe and Israel last year by calling for Israel to be wiped off the face of the Earth, created more alarm yesterday. He told a conference in Tehran in support of the Palestinians: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
The senior British officers took part in the Iranian war game just over a year after the invasion of Iraq. It was focused on the Caspian Sea, with an invasion date of 2015. Although the planners said the game was based on a fictitious Middle East country called Korona, the border corresponded exactly with Iran's and the characteristics of the enemy were Iranian.
A British medium-weight brigade operated as part of a US-led force.
The MoD's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which helped run the war game, described it on its website as the "year's main analytical event of the UK-US Future Land Operations Interoperability Study" aimed at ensuring that both armies work well together. The study "was extremely well received on both sides of the Atlantic".
According to an MoD source, war games covering a variety of scenarios are conducted regularly by senior British officers in the UK, the US or at Nato headquarters. He cited senior military staff carrying out a mock invasion of southern England last week and one of Scotland in January.
However, Hotspur took place at a time of accelerated US planning after the fall of Baghdad for a possible conflict with Iran. That planning is being carried out by US Central Command, responsible for the Middle East and central Asia area of operations, and by Strategic Command, which carries out long-range bombing and nuclear operations.
William Arkin, a former army intelligence officer who first reported on the contingency planning for a possible nuclear strike against Iran in his military column for the Washington Post online, said: "The United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking."
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The foreign secretary has made his position very clear that military action is inconceivable. The Foreign Office regards speculation about war, particularly involving Britain, as unhelpful at a time when the diplomatic route is still being pursued."
After the failure of a mission to Tehran on Thursday by Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Russia announced a diplomatic initiative yesterday. It is to host a new round of talks in Moscow on Tuesday with the US, the EU and China.
Pentagon planned for Tehran conflict with war game involving UK troops
Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill
Saturday April 15, 2006
The Guardian
British officers took part in a US war game aimed at preparing for a possible invasion of Iran, despite repeated claims by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, that a military strike against Iran is inconceivable.
The war game, codenamed Hotspur 2004, took place at the US base of Fort Belvoir in Virginia in July 2004.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman played down its significance yesterday. "These paper-based exercises are designed to test officers to the limit in fictitious scenarios. We use invented countries and situations using real maps," he said.
The disclosure of Britain's participation came in the week in which the Iranian crisis intensified, with a US report that the White House was contemplating a tactical nuclear strike and Tehran defying the United Nations security council.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who sparked outrage in the US, Europe and Israel last year by calling for Israel to be wiped off the face of the Earth, created more alarm yesterday. He told a conference in Tehran in support of the Palestinians: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
The senior British officers took part in the Iranian war game just over a year after the invasion of Iraq. It was focused on the Caspian Sea, with an invasion date of 2015. Although the planners said the game was based on a fictitious Middle East country called Korona, the border corresponded exactly with Iran's and the characteristics of the enemy were Iranian.
A British medium-weight brigade operated as part of a US-led force.
The MoD's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which helped run the war game, described it on its website as the "year's main analytical event of the UK-US Future Land Operations Interoperability Study" aimed at ensuring that both armies work well together. The study "was extremely well received on both sides of the Atlantic".
According to an MoD source, war games covering a variety of scenarios are conducted regularly by senior British officers in the UK, the US or at Nato headquarters. He cited senior military staff carrying out a mock invasion of southern England last week and one of Scotland in January.
However, Hotspur took place at a time of accelerated US planning after the fall of Baghdad for a possible conflict with Iran. That planning is being carried out by US Central Command, responsible for the Middle East and central Asia area of operations, and by Strategic Command, which carries out long-range bombing and nuclear operations.
William Arkin, a former army intelligence officer who first reported on the contingency planning for a possible nuclear strike against Iran in his military column for the Washington Post online, said: "The United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking."
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The foreign secretary has made his position very clear that military action is inconceivable. The Foreign Office regards speculation about war, particularly involving Britain, as unhelpful at a time when the diplomatic route is still being pursued."
After the failure of a mission to Tehran on Thursday by Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Russia announced a diplomatic initiative yesterday. It is to host a new round of talks in Moscow on Tuesday with the US, the EU and China.
Sharon loses title of prime minister
original
Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:23 PM ET
By Ori Lewis
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Ariel Sharon's tenure as Israeli prime minister formally ended at midnight (2100 GMT) on Friday, 100 days after he was incapacitated by a massive stroke.
At the same moment, Sharon's long-time deputy, Ehud Olmert, formally took on the title of acting Israeli prime minister.
Olmert won last month's general election as head of the Kadima party which was formed last year by Sharon. He is in the process of forming a new coalition government.
Under Israeli law, a prime minister's incapacitation is deemed permanent after 100 days and his title and powers are revoked for good.
Sharon, 78, has been in a coma in a Jerusalem hospital since suffering a massive hemorrhagic stroke on Jan 4. He underwent several brain operations in the initial days of his hospitalization but never regained consciousness.
Olmert, who was vice premier at the time of Sharon's stroke, immediately assumed his powers and was named interim premier.
At a special session last Tuesday, the Israeli cabinet voted unanimously to designate 60-year-old Olmert the acting prime minister. The vote was brought forward because of the week-long Passover holiday which began on Wednesday.
The title change from "interim" to "acting" does not alter Olmert's powers of office.
Olmert, whose Kadima party won the most parliamentary seats in Israel's March 28 general election, will take the full fledged title of prime minister in the coming weeks if the new government he is currently forming is sworn in as expected.
"I very much hope that today's decision will be in effect for just a short period," Olmert told the cabinet on Tuesday. "I hope ... we will be able to bring a new government to parliament for approval as quickly as possible," he added.
Olmert has pledged to set Israel's borders with or without Palestinian agreement, through evacuation of isolated Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and the strengthening of major settler blocs in the territory.
Sharon is expected to be moved soon to a long-term care facility, or back home to his ranch in southern Israel under medical supervision.
For decades, the former army general was a key figure in shaping the Middle East. Long seen as an archetypal hawk and champion of the settler movement, he was first elected prime minister in 2001.
In his second term, Sharon made an about-face, pulling Israeli settlers and soldiers out of the occupied Gaza Strip last year.
The dramatic move, marking the first time Israel has dismantled settlements on land Palestinians want for a state, stirred a far-right revolt in his Likud party, leading him to form Kadima.
Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:23 PM ET
By Ori Lewis
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Ariel Sharon's tenure as Israeli prime minister formally ended at midnight (2100 GMT) on Friday, 100 days after he was incapacitated by a massive stroke.
At the same moment, Sharon's long-time deputy, Ehud Olmert, formally took on the title of acting Israeli prime minister.
Olmert won last month's general election as head of the Kadima party which was formed last year by Sharon. He is in the process of forming a new coalition government.
Under Israeli law, a prime minister's incapacitation is deemed permanent after 100 days and his title and powers are revoked for good.
Sharon, 78, has been in a coma in a Jerusalem hospital since suffering a massive hemorrhagic stroke on Jan 4. He underwent several brain operations in the initial days of his hospitalization but never regained consciousness.
Olmert, who was vice premier at the time of Sharon's stroke, immediately assumed his powers and was named interim premier.
At a special session last Tuesday, the Israeli cabinet voted unanimously to designate 60-year-old Olmert the acting prime minister. The vote was brought forward because of the week-long Passover holiday which began on Wednesday.
The title change from "interim" to "acting" does not alter Olmert's powers of office.
Olmert, whose Kadima party won the most parliamentary seats in Israel's March 28 general election, will take the full fledged title of prime minister in the coming weeks if the new government he is currently forming is sworn in as expected.
"I very much hope that today's decision will be in effect for just a short period," Olmert told the cabinet on Tuesday. "I hope ... we will be able to bring a new government to parliament for approval as quickly as possible," he added.
Olmert has pledged to set Israel's borders with or without Palestinian agreement, through evacuation of isolated Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and the strengthening of major settler blocs in the territory.
Sharon is expected to be moved soon to a long-term care facility, or back home to his ranch in southern Israel under medical supervision.
For decades, the former army general was a key figure in shaping the Middle East. Long seen as an archetypal hawk and champion of the settler movement, he was first elected prime minister in 2001.
In his second term, Sharon made an about-face, pulling Israeli settlers and soldiers out of the occupied Gaza Strip last year.
The dramatic move, marking the first time Israel has dismantled settlements on land Palestinians want for a state, stirred a far-right revolt in his Likud party, leading him to form Kadima.
Some OK curbing rights to fight terrorism: poll
by Catherine Tymkiw
original
The Quinnipiac University poll surveyed voters about how the police handled protestors during the 2004 Republican National Convention, where thousands of demonstrators were arrested. Most of the charges were later dismissed.
Forty-nine percent of voters thought the police were too aggressive with protestors, according to the poll. Yet 29% of those surveyed said it would be okay to limit civil rights.
"A lot of New Yorkers think the police might have crossed the civil liberties line in controlling protestors," said Maurice Carroll, director of Quinnipiac's polling institute, but they do approve "a couple of control techniques."
The New York City Police Department is installing 505 surveillance cameras in high-crime neighborhoods and areas considered potential terrorist targets and 80% of respondents said that's a good idea.
A majority of poll respondents gave a thumbs-up to the police: 72% of residents said they approve of the job the NYPD is doing. Seventy-five percent said they're doing a good job protecting their neighborhoods and 65% think the city is a "somewhat safe" place to live.
The results mirror a recent survey by Marist College that found 41% of voters think New York is a safer city since Mayor Michael Bloomberg started his first term.
From April 4 to 10, Quinnipiac surveyed 1,316 New York City registered voters, with a margin of error of +/- 2.7%. Marist surveyed 654 registered city voters from March 23 to 27.
©2006 Crain Communications Inc.
original
Nearly a third of New York City voters say it is okay for the government to violate civil liberties in order to prevent terrorist acts, according to a poll released Thursday.
The Quinnipiac University poll surveyed voters about how the police handled protestors during the 2004 Republican National Convention, where thousands of demonstrators were arrested. Most of the charges were later dismissed.
Forty-nine percent of voters thought the police were too aggressive with protestors, according to the poll. Yet 29% of those surveyed said it would be okay to limit civil rights.
"A lot of New Yorkers think the police might have crossed the civil liberties line in controlling protestors," said Maurice Carroll, director of Quinnipiac's polling institute, but they do approve "a couple of control techniques."
The New York City Police Department is installing 505 surveillance cameras in high-crime neighborhoods and areas considered potential terrorist targets and 80% of respondents said that's a good idea.
A majority of poll respondents gave a thumbs-up to the police: 72% of residents said they approve of the job the NYPD is doing. Seventy-five percent said they're doing a good job protecting their neighborhoods and 65% think the city is a "somewhat safe" place to live.
The results mirror a recent survey by Marist College that found 41% of voters think New York is a safer city since Mayor Michael Bloomberg started his first term.
From April 4 to 10, Quinnipiac surveyed 1,316 New York City registered voters, with a margin of error of +/- 2.7%. Marist surveyed 654 registered city voters from March 23 to 27.
©2006 Crain Communications Inc.
Molly Ivins | White House Whopper Becomes Instant Classic
original
By Molly Ivins
Creator's Syndicate
Thursday 13 April 2006
Personally, I think this is a really good time not to keep up. The more you try, the less sense it makes, although getting us used to having it all make no sense at all may be an extremely sneaky Karl Rove ploy to justify the war in Iraq. Hard to say.
The latest development to which the only appropriate response is, "Huh," is the news that the "mobile weapons labs" introduced to us by President Bush before the war as conclusive evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were not evidence - conclusive or otherwise - of WMD and were not, in fact, mobile weapons labs.
The only thing new here is the news that George W. Bush likely knew a couple of days before he talked about them in public that the Defense Intelligence Agency had found they were not mobile weapons labs.
OK, given everything we already know about the lies before the war, this is not particularly startling - although I do think it's long past time we stopped referring to the campaign of disinformation and false information that we were fed as anything but lies. No, the startling and funny part of the "mobile weapons lab" lie is the administration's defense of it, which is so batty it's an instant classic.
According to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, the DIA report debunking the "weapons labs" is "a complex intelligence white paper and it's ... one derived from highly classified information (and) takes a substantial amount of time to coordinate and to run through a declassification process."
If I understand what McClellan is saying, Bush leaked bad information from a classified intelligence report because there wasn't enough time for the contradictory DIA report to go through a declassification process. All of which would make more sense if we hadn't just gone through this Valerie Plame episode, where the White House says if the president leaked it, then it's legal to leak it. No problem, the president can declassify at will, they said. I don't know about you, but none of it is becoming clearer for me. Does anyone understand why we have to bomb Iran yet?
Meanwhile, Congress can't figure out how to do a deal on immigration. I'd like to stick my two cents in here to say the reason that deal fell apart and the reason it won't come back together is because of American business, which hires the illegals and donates the campaign money. Bless your sweet heart if you think the deal came unglued over the Republicans ignoring their base or some other political problem. Money, my friends, talks, and bull walks. Look at who wants illegal workers here. Look at who controls Congress.
Courtesy of the Daou Report on salon.com, I found this item on a blog called The Shape of Days, about the recent demonstrations: "There's really no other way to say it: Being here is weird. To be surrounded by a crowd of thousands of people, all of whom look alike, none of whom look like me, many of whom are decorated with our flag, none of whom are speaking our language, on our national Mall ... it's a surreal experience. Despite my best judgment and best intentions, I feel the inklings of xenophobia bubbling up inside. This place isn't for me; I don't belong here. It's time to go."
I suppose this citizen deserves credit for honesty, but I'm so much more amazed by his or her provincialism. I feel one of those rants about suburbia coming on. Never been in a public place before surrounded by people who speak a different language and look different from you? Can you live in a city and not have experienced that?
I was high just from seeing them all-500,000 in Dallas! Of course, most of us know the immigrants are there-it's just so interesting to see them en masse. If you've ever wondered what this country would be like without illegal workers, now you've got the answer. It would come to a halt.
Let me point out again, I don't have a dog in this fight. There are just some things I know from living in Texas all my life. One is, don't bother to build a fence. Two is, if you want to stop illegal immigrants, stop the people who hire them-quit punishing people who come because there are jobs. Three, this border has always been porous, and it has always worked to the advantage of the United States.
If you want to do the smart thing and look for a long-term solution, try fixing NAFTA and helping with economic development in Mexico. Meantime, I could do without the drivel about how these people are so different. Of course they're not. Try getting out a little more.
--------
Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who Let the Dogs In?
By Molly Ivins
Creator's Syndicate
Thursday 13 April 2006
Personally, I think this is a really good time not to keep up. The more you try, the less sense it makes, although getting us used to having it all make no sense at all may be an extremely sneaky Karl Rove ploy to justify the war in Iraq. Hard to say.
The latest development to which the only appropriate response is, "Huh," is the news that the "mobile weapons labs" introduced to us by President Bush before the war as conclusive evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were not evidence - conclusive or otherwise - of WMD and were not, in fact, mobile weapons labs.
The only thing new here is the news that George W. Bush likely knew a couple of days before he talked about them in public that the Defense Intelligence Agency had found they were not mobile weapons labs.
OK, given everything we already know about the lies before the war, this is not particularly startling - although I do think it's long past time we stopped referring to the campaign of disinformation and false information that we were fed as anything but lies. No, the startling and funny part of the "mobile weapons lab" lie is the administration's defense of it, which is so batty it's an instant classic.
According to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, the DIA report debunking the "weapons labs" is "a complex intelligence white paper and it's ... one derived from highly classified information (and) takes a substantial amount of time to coordinate and to run through a declassification process."
If I understand what McClellan is saying, Bush leaked bad information from a classified intelligence report because there wasn't enough time for the contradictory DIA report to go through a declassification process. All of which would make more sense if we hadn't just gone through this Valerie Plame episode, where the White House says if the president leaked it, then it's legal to leak it. No problem, the president can declassify at will, they said. I don't know about you, but none of it is becoming clearer for me. Does anyone understand why we have to bomb Iran yet?
Meanwhile, Congress can't figure out how to do a deal on immigration. I'd like to stick my two cents in here to say the reason that deal fell apart and the reason it won't come back together is because of American business, which hires the illegals and donates the campaign money. Bless your sweet heart if you think the deal came unglued over the Republicans ignoring their base or some other political problem. Money, my friends, talks, and bull walks. Look at who wants illegal workers here. Look at who controls Congress.
Courtesy of the Daou Report on salon.com, I found this item on a blog called The Shape of Days, about the recent demonstrations: "There's really no other way to say it: Being here is weird. To be surrounded by a crowd of thousands of people, all of whom look alike, none of whom look like me, many of whom are decorated with our flag, none of whom are speaking our language, on our national Mall ... it's a surreal experience. Despite my best judgment and best intentions, I feel the inklings of xenophobia bubbling up inside. This place isn't for me; I don't belong here. It's time to go."
I suppose this citizen deserves credit for honesty, but I'm so much more amazed by his or her provincialism. I feel one of those rants about suburbia coming on. Never been in a public place before surrounded by people who speak a different language and look different from you? Can you live in a city and not have experienced that?
I was high just from seeing them all-500,000 in Dallas! Of course, most of us know the immigrants are there-it's just so interesting to see them en masse. If you've ever wondered what this country would be like without illegal workers, now you've got the answer. It would come to a halt.
Let me point out again, I don't have a dog in this fight. There are just some things I know from living in Texas all my life. One is, don't bother to build a fence. Two is, if you want to stop illegal immigrants, stop the people who hire them-quit punishing people who come because there are jobs. Three, this border has always been porous, and it has always worked to the advantage of the United States.
If you want to do the smart thing and look for a long-term solution, try fixing NAFTA and helping with economic development in Mexico. Meantime, I could do without the drivel about how these people are so different. Of course they're not. Try getting out a little more.
--------
Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who Let the Dogs In?
Early Warning by William M. Arkin - washingtonpost.com
Early Warning by William M. Arkin - washingtonpost.com
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
Domestic Military Intelligence Is Back
Code Name of the Week: Cornerstone
Yesterday, Walter Pincus reported in The Washington Post about the Defense Department's Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), certainly one of the more mysterious Pentagon agencies, and one that is at the center of the Defense Department's expanded programs aimed at gathering and analyzing intelligence within the United States.
Proposals, Pincus said,"would transform CIFA from an office that coordinates Pentagon security efforts -- including protecting military facilities from attack -- to one that also has authority to investigate crimes within the United States such as treason, foreign or terrorist sabotage or even economic espionage."
Well, CIFA already has these authorities, has its own agents, and collects information on common American citizens under the guise of "sabotage" and "force protection" threats to the military. Since 9/11, functions that were previously intended to protect U.S. forces overseas from terrorism and protecti U.S. secrets from spies have been combined in one super-intelligence function that constitutes the greatest threat to U.S. civil liberties since the domestic spying days of the 1970's.
On May 2, 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz signed a memorandum (large pdf) directing the military to collect and report "non-validated threat information" relating to U.S. military forces, installations or missions. His memorandum followed from the establishment of the Domestic Threat Working Group after 9/11, the intent of which was to create a mechanism to share low-level domestic "threat information" between the military and intelligence agencies.
- Non-specific threats
- Surveillance
- Elicitation
- Test of security
- Unusual repetitive activity
- Bomb threats
- Other suspicious activity
According to a classified Standing Joint Force Headquarters-North document on "intelligence sharing" dated July 20, 2005, and obtained exclusively by this washingtonpost.com blogger, collection of intelligence on U.S. persons is allowed by military intelligence units if there is a reason to believe the U.S. person is:
- "Connected to international terrorist activities;
- Connected to international narcotics;
- Connected to foreign intelligence;
- A threat to DoD installations, property, or persons; or,
- The subject of authorized counterintelligence."
Under well-worn intelligence oversight rules, military intelligence units are restricted from collecting information concerning "U.S. persons," but the post 9/11 reality is these restrictions are increasingly meaningless.
What is more, the post 9/11 redefinition of "counter-intelligence" opens the way for the military to conduct domestic surveillance. Military law enforcement organizations such as the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), the Army Criminal Investigations Division (CID) and its domestic counter-intelligence brigade, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) have increasing domestic duties that straddle the world between "counter-intelligence" and law enforcement, and are the main sources for TALON reporting to CIFA.
Ever since 1998, when Secretary of Defense William Cohen went crazy building up a cover-your-ass force protection policy, the law enforcement arms have increasingly moved from traditional counter-intelligence missions of going after enemy spies to going after, well, whomever they deem as a "threat" to the military. Overseas, this makes sense, but in the United States, the counter-intelligence/force protection loophole is ripe for abuse.
The "counter-intelligence" function of CIFA itself is couched to encompass "force protection," according to DOD Directive Number 5105.67, "Counterintelligence Field Activity (DoD CIFA)," February 19, 2002. What is more, the directive states that "in carrying out the mission of these elements, the Director of the DoD CIFA may employ law enforcement personnel, in whole or in part, as appropriate, to carry out the DoD CIFA's law enforcement functions…"
CIFA is charged with correlating TALON information with all-source intelligence and providing "fused" products. In this regard, fused products are raw law enforcement and FBI reports relating to suspected domestic terrorism, NSA intercepts, and CIA and military intelligence reports that might bear upon domestic security.
Cornerstone is the new repository for this combined intelligence and TALON threat reporting. It originated in May 2000, when Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre established a requirement to track foreign visitors to DOD installations. Post 9/11, the database came to encompass not intelligence and investigative leads to support foreign visitor tracking, but also "insider threat" information, counter-intelligence, law enforcement support, counter-terrorism, and force protection. Under a new program -- Project Voyager -- the Cornerstone database is being improved to support coordination with local, state and federal law enforcement.
When one looks at the seven TALON reporting categories, it is clear that what is to be collected is broad enough to encompass virtually anything the military feels is a threat. "Non-specific threats" and "other suspicious activity" can be interpreted to include just about anything.
Ask questions of a military person about their tour in Iraq, protest about the presence of military recruiters on campus or at the Mall, engage in lawful protest against the Iraq war, and you could find yourself in the Cornerstone database, forever a "suspect." Tomorrow I'll write about how this is really happening.
CIFA not only manages the Cornerstone database, but it also "makes the determination whether to release information about U.S. persons to analysts." In other words, CIFA as both a "counter-intelligence" and law enforcement arm of the Pentagon bridges between two worlds, and is allowed to obtain and store information about American citizens. I hope that there are a lot of lawyers on the staff.
And there's the rub. One can hardly find out who the director of this organization is, let alone how many people work there are what they are really doing.
Code Name of the Week: Divine Strake
original
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
Weapons Test or Divine Provocation?
In the tricky world of deterrence, where the United States is pressuring Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for a promise of the rule of law and implied security, do we really need divine intervention?
The United States is set conduct its largest ever conventional explosives test in June by detonating a 700 ton mass of fuel oil. The test will gauge the American ability to attack enemy underground facilities associated with weapons of mass destruction. The brilliant minds at the Pentagon call this test "Divine Strake."
The Washington Post's whiz bang story on Friday about the planned detonation has provoked a small firestorm.
Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said in a statement he is concerned that a test of this magnitude will have an adverse effect on his state, particularly after a Defense Department spokesman said that the test at the Nevada Test Site will put a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas for the first time in decades.
Others -- such as the Federation of American Scientists -- have focused on the mock nuclear bunker buster character of the 700 ton explosion (the largest regular conventional bomb in the U.S. arsenal is ONE ton).
And then there's the name.
Divine Strake is a Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)/Department of Energy test in support of the Tunnel Target Defeat advanced concept technology demonstration.
The June 2 planned test is to be an open air, high explosive detonation on top of an existing tunnel complex in Area 16 of the Nevada Test Site. The limestone geological properties of the U16b tunnel accurately simulate the characteristics of a foreign hardened and deeply buried target (HDBT).
Divine Strake will detonate up to 700 tons (635 metric tons) of heavy ammonium nitrate fuel oil-emulsion (known as heavy ANFO), a blasting agent, placed in a charge hole about 32 feet in diameter and 36 feet deep, located above the U16b tunnel. Some 300 pounds of C-4 explosive will be used to initiate the detonation (overall, the test is about 593 tons TNT equivalent).
A stairwell with a hatch installed will be constructed in the tunnel and computer equipment will be placed in the tunnel -- in additional to the diagnostic computers, cameras, etc. -- to gauge the fragility of computer and electronics in such an attack. According to the Department of Energy's "environmental assessment" of the test,
"Potential adversaries of the United States are increasingly using tunnels and underground bunkers, collectively designated hardened and deeply buried targets (HDBTs), as part of their defensive strategies. These types of facilities are used for command and control, storage of munitions (including weapons of mass destruction, and long-range missiles), modern air defenses, a variety of tactical weapons, wartime refuge for national leaders, and a multitude of other offensive and defensive military uses. In order to deny an adversary the ability to use these capabilities against its forces, the U.S. military must have the ability to defeat HDBTs. To defeat these facilities and the assets they protect, the United States must have the capability to find, detect, characterize the potential targets, and then to plan, attack, and assess the results of such attacks."
By the way, a strake in aerodynamics is an object mounted on the fuselage of an airplane to improve airflow.
In the world of the U.S. military, everything has a reason, a regulation, an acronym, a hierarchy.
In 1975, in order to put some regimentation into the use of code words and unclassified nicknames in the military, the Joint Chiefs of Staff introduced the computerized Code Word, Nickname, and Exercise Term System (called NICKA), a system for assigning names to military operations, exercise, tests, weapons, you name it.
NICKA assigns each Defense Department command and agency a series of two-letter alphabetic sequences, requiring each “first word” of a nickname to begin with a letter pair. In the NICKA then, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, formerly the Defense Special Weapons Agency is assigned the "DI" letter block, from which they derive names for their activities: Dial, Diamond, Digger, Dimming, Dipole, Direct, Dingo, Divine and others, hence Divine Strake.
Though the current Joint Chiefs regulation relating to NICKA name assignments is classified, we know that a nickname must consist of two separate words, the first beginning with the two letter block assigned to the entity, the second a random word selected by the command or agency.
A 1997 NICKA regulation lays out the criteria for naming:
(2) Nicknames improperly selected can be counter-productive. A nickname must be chosen with sufficient care to ensure that it does not:
(a) Express a degree of bellicosity inconsistent with traditional American ideals or current foreign policy;
(b) Convey connotations offensive to good taste, or derogatory to a particular group, sect, or creed;
(c) Convey connotations offensive to our allies or other Free World Nations;
(d) Detract from the perceived relevance of the operation."
(3) The following shall not be used as nicknames:
… (b) Combination of words including the words "project,” "exercise,” or "operation;”
(c) Words which may be used correctly either as a single word or as two words, such as moonlight; or
(d) Exotic words, trite expressions, or well-known commercial trademarks.
Does it need to be spelled out any clearer that nicknames shouldn't be political or religious or politically incorrect, that it makes no sense, given the gigantic universe of words available (my Code Names book contained over 3,500 names currently in use), to have an entire test series devoted to weapons of mass destruction testing that uses the "Divine" moniker?
And it is a series: In addition to Divine Strake, the DTRA has conducted or is planning to conduct, I've now learned, tests and experiments called Divine Buffalo, Divine Invader, Divine Helcat, Divine Kingfisher, Divine Umpire, Divine Zorro, Divine Warhawk, Divine Albatross, and my favorite Divine Hates, a test, according to DTRA documents, that will gauge "WMD production and storage tunnel complex functional defeat." That would something like destruction in English.
In September 2001, right after 9/11, when no doubt the highest paid person in the Pentagon named the upcoming operation in Afghanistan "Infinite Justice" -- U.S. Central Command is actually assigned the "IN" two-letter block -- a media uproar ensued when Muslim scholars and clerics objected to the name on the grounds that infinite justice can only by dispense by Allah. The operation nickname was changed to "Enduring Freedom."
Do we really need "Divine" anything to name our military activities? Of course there is a possibility that "Divine Strake" will be abandoned and the brilliant minds will come up with something even worse.
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
Weapons Test or Divine Provocation?
In the tricky world of deterrence, where the United States is pressuring Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for a promise of the rule of law and implied security, do we really need divine intervention?
The United States is set conduct its largest ever conventional explosives test in June by detonating a 700 ton mass of fuel oil. The test will gauge the American ability to attack enemy underground facilities associated with weapons of mass destruction. The brilliant minds at the Pentagon call this test "Divine Strake."
The Washington Post's whiz bang story on Friday about the planned detonation has provoked a small firestorm.
Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said in a statement he is concerned that a test of this magnitude will have an adverse effect on his state, particularly after a Defense Department spokesman said that the test at the Nevada Test Site will put a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas for the first time in decades.
Others -- such as the Federation of American Scientists -- have focused on the mock nuclear bunker buster character of the 700 ton explosion (the largest regular conventional bomb in the U.S. arsenal is ONE ton).
And then there's the name.
Divine Strake is a Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)/Department of Energy test in support of the Tunnel Target Defeat advanced concept technology demonstration.
The June 2 planned test is to be an open air, high explosive detonation on top of an existing tunnel complex in Area 16 of the Nevada Test Site. The limestone geological properties of the U16b tunnel accurately simulate the characteristics of a foreign hardened and deeply buried target (HDBT).
Divine Strake will detonate up to 700 tons (635 metric tons) of heavy ammonium nitrate fuel oil-emulsion (known as heavy ANFO), a blasting agent, placed in a charge hole about 32 feet in diameter and 36 feet deep, located above the U16b tunnel. Some 300 pounds of C-4 explosive will be used to initiate the detonation (overall, the test is about 593 tons TNT equivalent).
A stairwell with a hatch installed will be constructed in the tunnel and computer equipment will be placed in the tunnel -- in additional to the diagnostic computers, cameras, etc. -- to gauge the fragility of computer and electronics in such an attack. According to the Department of Energy's "environmental assessment" of the test,
"Potential adversaries of the United States are increasingly using tunnels and underground bunkers, collectively designated hardened and deeply buried targets (HDBTs), as part of their defensive strategies. These types of facilities are used for command and control, storage of munitions (including weapons of mass destruction, and long-range missiles), modern air defenses, a variety of tactical weapons, wartime refuge for national leaders, and a multitude of other offensive and defensive military uses. In order to deny an adversary the ability to use these capabilities against its forces, the U.S. military must have the ability to defeat HDBTs. To defeat these facilities and the assets they protect, the United States must have the capability to find, detect, characterize the potential targets, and then to plan, attack, and assess the results of such attacks."
By the way, a strake in aerodynamics is an object mounted on the fuselage of an airplane to improve airflow.
In the world of the U.S. military, everything has a reason, a regulation, an acronym, a hierarchy.
In 1975, in order to put some regimentation into the use of code words and unclassified nicknames in the military, the Joint Chiefs of Staff introduced the computerized Code Word, Nickname, and Exercise Term System (called NICKA), a system for assigning names to military operations, exercise, tests, weapons, you name it.
NICKA assigns each Defense Department command and agency a series of two-letter alphabetic sequences, requiring each “first word” of a nickname to begin with a letter pair. In the NICKA then, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, formerly the Defense Special Weapons Agency is assigned the "DI" letter block, from which they derive names for their activities: Dial, Diamond, Digger, Dimming, Dipole, Direct, Dingo, Divine and others, hence Divine Strake.
Though the current Joint Chiefs regulation relating to NICKA name assignments is classified, we know that a nickname must consist of two separate words, the first beginning with the two letter block assigned to the entity, the second a random word selected by the command or agency.
A 1997 NICKA regulation lays out the criteria for naming:
(2) Nicknames improperly selected can be counter-productive. A nickname must be chosen with sufficient care to ensure that it does not:
(a) Express a degree of bellicosity inconsistent with traditional American ideals or current foreign policy;
(b) Convey connotations offensive to good taste, or derogatory to a particular group, sect, or creed;
(c) Convey connotations offensive to our allies or other Free World Nations;
(d) Detract from the perceived relevance of the operation."
(3) The following shall not be used as nicknames:
… (b) Combination of words including the words "project,” "exercise,” or "operation;”
(c) Words which may be used correctly either as a single word or as two words, such as moonlight; or
(d) Exotic words, trite expressions, or well-known commercial trademarks.
Does it need to be spelled out any clearer that nicknames shouldn't be political or religious or politically incorrect, that it makes no sense, given the gigantic universe of words available (my Code Names book contained over 3,500 names currently in use), to have an entire test series devoted to weapons of mass destruction testing that uses the "Divine" moniker?
And it is a series: In addition to Divine Strake, the DTRA has conducted or is planning to conduct, I've now learned, tests and experiments called Divine Buffalo, Divine Invader, Divine Helcat, Divine Kingfisher, Divine Umpire, Divine Zorro, Divine Warhawk, Divine Albatross, and my favorite Divine Hates, a test, according to DTRA documents, that will gauge "WMD production and storage tunnel complex functional defeat." That would something like destruction in English.
In September 2001, right after 9/11, when no doubt the highest paid person in the Pentagon named the upcoming operation in Afghanistan "Infinite Justice" -- U.S. Central Command is actually assigned the "IN" two-letter block -- a media uproar ensued when Muslim scholars and clerics objected to the name on the grounds that infinite justice can only by dispense by Allah. The operation nickname was changed to "Enduring Freedom."
Do we really need "Divine" anything to name our military activities? Of course there is a possibility that "Divine Strake" will be abandoned and the brilliant minds will come up with something even worse.
Exporting 'Democracy' – Importing Trouble- by Justin Raimondo
Exporting 'Democracy' – Importing Trouble- by Justin Raimondo
| Exporting 'Democracy' – Importing Trouble Why we ought to mind our own business |
| by Justin Raimondo |
| Editor's note: The following is the text of a speech delivered to the Yale Political Union on April 13. On this occasion, the Union debated the topic: "Resolved: America should not use force to export democracy." I have to say, it's rather odd to be debating this point at such a late date. With Iraq falling to pieces in front of our eyes, with the death squads of the American-installed Shi'ite regime roaming the streets of Baghdad kidnapping and slaughtering their enemies, with the corrupt kleptocracy we helped install in Kurdistan imprisoning writers for criticizing the authorities – in the face of all this evidence, is the question even debatable? Just as the claims of phrenology are no longer taken seriously by scientists or the thinking public, so the claims of the democracy-exporters ought to be thrown in the trash bin, along with the bones of "Piltdown Man." Why debate a theory, when the evidence of its complete failure is all around us? "Democracy" is what the neoconservative ideologues who lied us into war talk about when they want to divert attention away from their real motives. The only question now is: what were their real motives? But we'll get to that later. Meanwhile, let us go back in a time machine and pretend, for a moment, that the idea of exporting democracy by force has not already been totally discredited. Let us take it seriously, if only for the sake of argument, and examine just why it never made sense to begin with. The proposition breaks down into basically two issues: (1) Is it possible? And (2) is it desirable? I will focus, here, on the first question, because I assume I am not speaking to a libertarian audience. If I were speaking to such an audience, I would assume the absolute undesirability of democracy as an axiom, since libertarians, of course – believing as they do in a system of absolute private property rights and individual liberty – oppose democracy in all its forms. This axiom, however, is not shared by most of you, and I shall spare you a long lecture on the utter incompatibility of liberty and democracy, which, aside from its necessary length, would not be half as interesting as a discussion of how and why the neocons' democracy project failed, and had to fail. It is more interesting, at least to me, because it demonstrates important philosophical differences between the neoconservatives and an earlier generation of Old Right conservatives who are appalled at the hubris of our foreign policy. The shared perspective of libertarians and conservatives on how societies work – or don't work – suggests the impossibility of treating political culture like a suit of clothing that can be worn by anyone – and even forcibly imposed – rather than a mindset that has to be, in large part, inherited. The neoconservative foreign policy project – succinctly summed up by the president as the goal of "ending tyranny in our world" – is closer, in theory and in practice, to the spirit of Marxism than to anything vaguely resembling conservatism, or, indeed, any ideology born on American soil. That is entirely appropriate, of course, since the leftist roots of neoconservatism are well known, and it is clear that, as much as they talk about patriotism and "pro-Americanism," their real roots spring from a bulb planted not by Jefferson, but by Trotsky. Libertarians and Old Right conservatives are also brought together by a common analysis of the potential economic consequences of a system of "benevolent global hegemony," as Bill Kristol characterizes the democratist ideal. The policy of exporting "democracy" by force overestimates the available resources we can devote to what is, by definition, a Sisyphean task. Empires are a losing proposition: as the now-forgotten Old Right author and polemicist Garet Garrett once pointed out, the American Empire represents a peculiar and historically unique form of imperialism, one in which "everything goes out, and nothing comes in." Unlike most empires of the past, which sought to extract wealth in the form of tribute from subject provinces, we pour money and resources into our conquests, a project that goes under the general rubric of "nation-building." And all of this, you can be sure, costs a pretty penny: playing God doesn't come cheap. The cost of George W. Bush's global democratization project – $300 billion so far, and slated to surpass the $1 trillion mark before it's over – is so out of proportion to its possible benefits that it is hard to see how it could be justified on any terms. One is hard pressed to imagine how anyone who calls himself or herself a conservative could possibly endorse it. And yet this hardly begins to exhaust the myriad ways in which the neoconservative foreign policy project violates every known precept of conservatism. The imperial project is the road to bankruptcy, not only financially but also in every other sense. It overestimates the available resources we can reasonably devote to the task, just as it underestimates the danger posed to the maintenance of our own liberal democracy here at home. The central paradox of the democracy-exportation scheme is that as we ramp up attempts to spread our system to the far corners of the globe, we subvert the foundations of the constitutional order right here on the home front. War, as Randolph Bourne memorably put it, is the health of the state. The growth of state power always and inevitably makes a "great leap forward" as we prepare for the conflict. A state of perpetual war – in a struggle that will take, as the president avers, a full generation – means the exponential growth of government beyond anything we have experienced. We aren't just talking about "Big Government," as the conservatives like to term it: we are talking about humongous government. It's no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that this supposedly "conservative" regime is claiming the power to read our e-mails and listen in on our phone conversations, and sees the president as having powers equivalent to a king. The absurdity of expanding state power in America while purporting to shrink it in, say, Iraq and Afghanistan, should be obvious – except, of course, to those who today call themselves "conservatives," and are anything but. Another obvious point – at least, one that ought to be obvious to self-described "conservatives" – is that the cultural basis of democratic liberalism cannot be created overnight. As the neoconservative defector and former Iraq war cheerleader Francis Fukuyama has pointed out, the neoconservative hostility to government social-engineering projects on American soil somehow got lost in the rush to invade Iraq and transform the Middle East. A core conservative principle is that culture reigns supreme: all efforts to override long-entrenched customs and mores by government fiat are bound to fail. This is as true in the Middle East as it is in Appalachia, and yet the neocons, who started out as critics of the "Great Society" projects of the 1960s, are now surpassing the Left in the naked ambition of their world-transforming foreign policy prescriptions. Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan want to achieve "benevolent global hegemony" – when we can't even assert hegemony over our own borders, or New Orleans at flood tide. We must protect the "government" of the Shi'ite theocracy in Baghdad when we can't even assure our own people that they are reasonably safe from a repeat of 9/11. I trust you'll forgive me if I keep going back to Garet Garrett, a now largely unknown writer whose career as a writer spanned nearly the entire arc of American development, and two world wars – from the lighthearted days of the so-called New Era, in the 1920s, through the darkest days of the 1930s, to the first frost of the Cold War years. In 1951, as he surveyed the rise of an American Empire, he wrote a paragraph at the end of one of his last polemics that is so prescient, so on target, that it seems to mock us down through the years: "How now, thou American, frustrated crusader, do you know where you are? "Is it security you want? There is no security at the top of the world. "To thine own self a liberator, to the world an alarming portent, do you know where you are going from here?" That was written at the very moment the Cold War began to cast its long shadow over the world, and yet, today, it rings truer than ever. It could have been written yesterday. The only difference being that now we know there is no security at the top of the world – indeed, there is much less than in Garrett's day. Good old Garrett. An early editor of the New York Times, a prolific novelist, and an editorial writer for the Saturday Evening Post, he saw what was coming, and tried to warn against it: he was defeated by his own obscurity, and by a conservative movement that was already morphing into a militaristic cult, under the leadership of the editorial staff of National Review and the Goldwater Right. Like Cassandra, his clear-eyed vision of the future was fated to be met with universal skepticism and even disdain. Today, Garrett's writings – in 1956, fairly representative of conservative thinking – must seem positively subversive to "movement" conservatives, and certainly "anti-American" – the favorite epithet of the Rush Limbaughs, the Anne Coulters, the David Frums of today's lobotomized conservative movement. Large portions of the movement's brain – including especially those parts related to memory and self-concept – have been removed, and something else implanted. Here is not the place to analyze just what is going on there; suffice to say that Lew Rockwell of the Mises Institute calls it "red-state fascism," a characterization that neatly sums up the program and origins of neoconservatism in power. The irony of a "conservative" regime that offers us Big Government at home and perpetual war abroad has been noted by more than a few. A number of conservative and libertarian writers have made the point that imperialism corrupts our political system, distorts the constitutional balance of power in favor of the imperial presidency, and otherwise intrudes on the constitutional protections that are the core of our system. And yet there is a deeper level of corruption that has set in here, a cultural decadence that is not just a question of personal mores and values, but one that permeates every aspect of American life. The ancient Greeks rightly thought hubris a great sin, one always swiftly and cruelly punished by the gods, and yet this is the spirit that animates our rulers and energizes our elites. Since these people set the tone for the culture, their conceit and overweening arrogance trickles down, as it were, into popular culture, where it is absorbed and reflected in the cruelty and vulgarity of everyday life. Even the capacity for pleasure becomes coarsened, so that only the most extreme stimulation – shocking violence, outrageous ostentation, an exaggerated self-regard bordering on self-parody – has the power to move us. It may seem a bit of a stretch to attribute this to American foreign policy, and yet Empire is a mindset as well as a political and economic system. It has a certain way of looking at the world, a perspective unique to itself, and this generates a cultural ethos that shapes everything from late night television to the doctrine of preemptive war. The shopkeepers, artisans, and yeoman farmers of a Jeffersonian republic see the world very differently than the world-weary courtiers of an Imperial Court and their degraded and discontented plebeians. The stern republican virtues of patriotism and parsimony have given way to the extravagant corruption of the New Rome, and the public, immersed in their own private corruption, view it all with a cynical tolerance. In the general atmosphere of moral laxity, the seeds of corruption germinate quickly and in such luxuriant abundance that the effect is overwhelming. The old culture is swept away in no time, and the results aren't pretty to behold. The cultural consequences of imperialism are all around us, some of them obvious – like the number of disabled vets begging in the streets, so zonked out on drugs and the memory of combat that they cannot care for themselves – and some of them less so. One heretofore unnoticed effect is the immigration crisis, which Congress is now wrestling with. Now, it makes perfect sense that a global empire – especially one committed to "democracy" – should have open borders. Imperial Rome conferred citizenship on its conquered subjects, with all the rights and privileges that entailed, and one wonders how America – which the neocons like to call an "empire of liberty" – can do less. So to those conservatives who are now saying that it's time to close the borders and crack down on immigration, one has to ask: how will you do it? How will you prevent the subjects of the Empire from aspiring to live in the imperial metropolis? How will you rule them and then turn them back? Another paradox of Empire is that our best efforts to transform the culture of foreign peoples will result in our own transformation. We can have an Empire, or we can have secure borders: we cannot have both. This is one aspect of the foreign policy debate that most conservatives have not thought through. Do they want a multicultural empire with porous borders, or will they try to preserve the last remnants of their old, relatively homogenous republic? We will see. There is another sense in which the paradox of American power works against the ambitions of "democratic" imperialism. A military campaign to impose democracy at gunpoint would undermine the very democratic forces we claim to support. By tying these forces to U.S. foreign policy and making them, in effect, elements of a "Democratic International" under Washington's leadership, we provoke a nationalist response and marginalize the proponents of liberalism. If we look at the Soviet model – of a Communist International made up of servile national Communist parties in every country, which served as the Russian foreign ministry's amen corner – we can see that it pretty closely approximates how what George Bush calls his "global democratic revolution" operates. American commissars impose a party line on their local clients, as in the case of Iraq's prospective prime minister. If the American ambassador nixes his nomination to the post, Jaafari is out. And this, mind you, is being done in the name of exporting "democracy"! It sounds like something the Stalinists might have done in Eastern Europe 60 years ago: instead, it is happening in the American-occupied Middle East. The tragedy of American foreign policy is that it lures and sucks in many of the most genuine advocates of freedom, who take the ideology of democratic imperialism seriously and at face value. They look to the U.S. government and those on its payroll for real leadership in the fight to free their own societies from the yoke of tyranny and the weight of centuries. The price of their allegiance is to be characterized – rightly, in many cases – as quislings, stand-ins for the Americans, who prop up their front men with money as well as force of arms. In Iraq, for example, nationalist opposition to the occupation is channeled into radical anti-liberal currents, such as the Sadrists. The process is similar to what is occurring on a worldwide scale, as American aggression swells the ranks of terrorist groupings, such as al-Qaeda. The final paradox of American power, the one that piles irony on top of tragedy, is that it strengthens our enemies, and boomerangs. Speaking of the Palestinian insurgency, the military historian Martin van Creveld generalized the lesson that should have been learned by the Israelis but wasn't: "Basically it's always a question of the relationship of forces. If you are strong, and you are fighting the weak for any period of time, you are going to become weak yourself. If you behave like a coward then you are going to become cowardly – it's only a question of time. The same happened to the British when they were here … the same happened to the French in Algeria … the same happened to the Americans in Vietnam … the same happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan … the same happened to so many people that I can't even count them." And, as we see, the same thing is happening to the Americans in Iraq, where, he accurately predicted, the occupiers would be run out by jeering "liberated" Iraqis. How, at this point, anyone can continue to have faith in the Bush Doctrine and its neoconservative version of "liberation theology" is a testament to the blinding power of ideology to sustain an illusion indefinitely, against all evidence and in the face of much suffering and bloodshed. Even the recanters, such as Fukuyama and Andrew Sullivan, refuse to take much responsibility for their advocacy of a futile crusade. The former never mentions the subject of personal responsibility, after having signed one of the earliest letters calling for an invasion. And while the latter admits he feels "shame," there is no humility accompanying his admission, no acknowledgment that the invasion and occupation are wrong in principle, and that the problems we've encountered are not due to imperfect implementation. The inherent problems of a campaign to export democracy, either at gunpoint or by any other governmental means, are manifold, and yet one that has only recently begun to be discussed is particularly relevant to our present situation. If we look at what U.S. policy has actually wrought, rather than the abstract pronouncements of intent, we can see that "democracy" of any recognizable sort – recognizable, that is, to Americans – has absolutely nothing to do with our foreign policy. In Iraq, we have installed a Shi'ite theocracy that lionizes the late Ayatollah Khomeini and looks to Iran as a model for the region. Throughout the Gulf emirates, we have allied ourselves with tyrants, and in North Africa, too, we are backing the killers – in Morocco, Egypt, and Tunisia, as well as in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Pakistan. So what game are we playing? What's the objective behind the "democratic" rhetoric, which only a fool, an opportunist on the make – or a very desperate man – would take at face value? The idea that we are trying to "drain the swamp" where terrorism breeds by injecting a healthy dose of democratic chlorine to cleanse the place of totalitarian vermin does not pass the empirical test, because the exact opposite is happening. In response to U.S. military intervention, the vermin are multiplying far beyond the numbers they would normally achieve. We are Osama bin Laden's best recruiting agents: as Michael Scheuer, the former CIA analyst and author of the best-selling Imperial Hubris, put it, we are al-Qaeda's "one indispensable ally." Assuming, for the moment, that al-Qaeda has not successfully infiltrated the Bush administration and bent American foreign policy to bin Laden's nefarious purposes, we have to ask: why? Why is U.S. policy, not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East, in such obvious contravention to America's actual interests? Two scholars who have recently asked this question have come up with a controversial, albeit incontrovertible, answer: the pro-Israel lobby, which has worked tirelessly and with remarkable success to shape American foreign policy as if Israeli and American interests were identical – which they are not. As John Mearsheimer, the noted "realist" professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a now-famous "working paper" for the Kennedy School: "The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state?" Answer: The Lobby. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), now embroiled in a spy case, is rated the second heaviest hitter in the world of Washington lobbyists, second only to the AARP but ahead of the powerful gun lobby. Israel garners more foreign aid from the U.S. than any other recipient, and, what's more, enjoys near unconditional political and military support from the U.S., in return for – nothing. Instead, they sell arms to the Chinese, spy on us, and otherwise thumb their noses at all attempts to rein them in and effect some kind of peaceful compromise in the occupied territories. Rather than follow the conventional wisdom, both left and right, and ascribe American behavior in the region exclusively or even primarily to the desire to control the oil fields, Mearsheimer and Walt point to the influence of the Lobby in making sure American policy serves Israeli interests. Indeed, in their view, the entire democracy-building project functions as little more than a bulldozing expedition designed to level as many Arab regimes in the Middle East as possible. In this view, the war in Iraq is part of a larger region-wide campaign to make the Middle East safe for Israel. The authors of the Kennedy School paper trace the by now familiar genealogy of the neoconservative ascension to power, and detail how the neocons – devoted to Israel as a matter of high principle – honeycombed the present administration, taking key positions and insinuating themselves into the councils of state, particularly in the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President. The all-pervasive influence of the Lobby does much to explain the direction of U.S. foreign policy in the post-9/11 era, and this dominance, in order to be effective, had to be masked, at least somewhat. Which leads us to another reason why the export of democracy is a bad policy, which does not serve our real interests: It lends itself too easily to manipulation by special interest groups with an agenda. Just as millions of immigrants will move to the imperial metropolis to seek their fortunes, so their governments won't be far behind: the same was true of Rome, which sent supplicants to petition the Emperor and arbitrate local disputes in favor of one or another of the disputants. Rhodes lobbied against Cappadocia, while Rome's allies took up the cause of civilizing the barbarians from Germany to Central Asia, in return for special privileges and payoffs. Eventually, barbarian mercenaries patrolled the frontiers of the Roman Empire, in place of Roman legionnaires, and, one day, they marched on Rome and sacked the place. Whether that is our destiny, too, remains purely speculative, of course – but the many uses of an imperialistic policy to various foreign lobbies ought to be fairly obvious. The idea that the U.S. can or should impose its own system – or a local version of it, adapted to regional realities – is a dangerous fantasy dressed up to look like a policy, a snare and a delusion. It pretends to be a doctrine of the most exalted idealism, when, in reality, it masks the most venal motives, nearly all of them hidden, aside from being designed to enrich its advocates. It is no accident that the War Party's most outspoken champions, such as Richard Perle, stood to personally profit from the interventionist policies they fought for and defended. Follow the money is a reliable rule of thumb as far as these things go, and the democracy-promotion business is certainly no exception. But that's just the gravy: the main course is regime change for its own sake, as a pure expression of American power. Whether it is done directly, by the exertions of the U.S. military, or indirectly, via such propaganda outfits as the National Endowment for Democracy and other U.S. government agencies, the goal is the same: projecting American hegemony beyond its present frontiers, until all possible rivals are eliminated. A de facto global state, enforcing what the internationalists call a "new world order," as George Bush Sr. once put it, is the ultimate goal of our rulers. That this represents a threat to American patriots, as well as to the patriots of every other nation on earth, is a realization that may dawn too late on conservatives in the U.S. – but better late than never. In gaining the whole world, will we lose our souls in the process, along with our national identity? This is the greatest danger of our present foreign policy, one that lies behind all the other questions and objections to interventionism. The temptation of Empire may prove irresistible to our elites, who are, in any event, too drunk with power and their own self-importance to care about the long-term consequences of their policies, and in no position to lead us out of our present crisis. We will, in the end, be struck down by our own hubris: pride, as the old saw put it, goeth before a fall. They can't say, however, that they weren't warned… |
Stolen military data for sale in Afghanistan - Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com
Stolen military data for sale in Afghanistan - Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com
Portable computer drives peddled at bazaar outside Bagram Air Base
Updated: 7:31 p.m. ET April 13, 2006
WASHINGTON - Just outside the main gate of the huge U.S. military base in Bagram, Afghanistan, shopkeepers at a bazaar peddle a range of goods, including computer drives with sensitive — even secret information — stolen from the base.
This week, an NBC News producer, using a hidden camera, visited the bazaar and bought a half dozen of the memory drives the size of a thumb known as flash drives. On them, NBC News found highly sensitive military information, some which NBC will not reveal.
“This isn't just a loss of sensitive information,” says Lt. Col. Rick Francona (ret.), an NBC News military analyst. “This is putting U.S. troops at risk. This is a violation of operational security.”
Some of the data would be valuable to the enemy, including:
# Names and personal information for dozens of DOD interrogators;
# Documents on an “interrogation support cell” and interrogation methods;
# IDs and photos of U.S. troops.
With information like this, “You could cripple our U.S. intelligence collection capability in Afghanistan,” says Francona.
Among the photos of Americans are pictures of individuals who appear to have been tortured and killed, most too graphic to show. NBC News does not know who caused their injuries. The Pentagon would not comment on the photos.
The tiny computer memories are believed to have been smuggled off base by Afghan employees and sold to shopkeepers. Whoever buys one can simply plug it into another computer, and in a couple of minutes, see thousands of files.
Other reporters have bought drives at the bazaar containing classified information, including names and photos of Afghans spying for the U.S. and maps revealing locations of radar used to foil mortar attacks.
“This is simply appalling,” says Col. Ken Allard (ret.), an NBC News military analyst. “You've got a situation in which the U.S. is going to be forced to change an awful lot of its operational techniques.”
Thursday, the base commander said he's ordered an investigation into activities at the bazaar and into procedures supposed to keep sensitive secrets secure.
Lisa Myers is NBC’s senior investigative correspondent.
Portable computer drives peddled at bazaar outside Bagram Air Base
Updated: 7:31 p.m. ET April 13, 2006
WASHINGTON - Just outside the main gate of the huge U.S. military base in Bagram, Afghanistan, shopkeepers at a bazaar peddle a range of goods, including computer drives with sensitive — even secret information — stolen from the base.
This week, an NBC News producer, using a hidden camera, visited the bazaar and bought a half dozen of the memory drives the size of a thumb known as flash drives. On them, NBC News found highly sensitive military information, some which NBC will not reveal.
“This isn't just a loss of sensitive information,” says Lt. Col. Rick Francona (ret.), an NBC News military analyst. “This is putting U.S. troops at risk. This is a violation of operational security.”
Some of the data would be valuable to the enemy, including:
# Names and personal information for dozens of DOD interrogators;
# Documents on an “interrogation support cell” and interrogation methods;
# IDs and photos of U.S. troops.
With information like this, “You could cripple our U.S. intelligence collection capability in Afghanistan,” says Francona.
Among the photos of Americans are pictures of individuals who appear to have been tortured and killed, most too graphic to show. NBC News does not know who caused their injuries. The Pentagon would not comment on the photos.
The tiny computer memories are believed to have been smuggled off base by Afghan employees and sold to shopkeepers. Whoever buys one can simply plug it into another computer, and in a couple of minutes, see thousands of files.
Other reporters have bought drives at the bazaar containing classified information, including names and photos of Afghans spying for the U.S. and maps revealing locations of radar used to foil mortar attacks.
“This is simply appalling,” says Col. Ken Allard (ret.), an NBC News military analyst. “You've got a situation in which the U.S. is going to be forced to change an awful lot of its operational techniques.”
Thursday, the base commander said he's ordered an investigation into activities at the bazaar and into procedures supposed to keep sensitive secrets secure.
Lisa Myers is NBC’s senior investigative correspondent.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
The Lobby and the Bulldozer: Mearsheimer, Walt and Corrie
original
By Norman Solomon
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Thursday 13 April 2006
Weeks after a British magazine published a long article by two American professors titled "The Israel Lobby," the outrage continued to howl through mainstream US media.
A Los Angeles Times op-ed article by Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot helped to set a common tone. He condemned a working paper by professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that was excerpted last month in the London Review of Books.
The working paper, Boot proclaimed, is "nutty." And he strongly implied that the two professors - Mearsheimer at the University of Chicago and Walt at Harvard - are anti-Semitic.
Many who went on the media attack did more than imply. On April 3, for instance, the same day that the Philadelphia Inquirer reprinted Boot's piece from the Los Angeles Times, a notably similar op-ed appeared in the Boston Herald under the headline "Anti-Semitic Paranoia at Harvard."
And so it goes in the national media echo chamber. When a Johns Hopkins University professor weighed in last week on the op-ed page of the Washington Post, the headline was blunt: "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic." The piece flatly called the Mearsheimer-Walt essay "kooky academic work" - and "anti-Semitic."
But nothing in the essay is anti-Semitic.
Some of the analysis from Mearsheimer and Walt is arguable. A number of major factors affect Uncle Sam's Middle East policies in addition to pro-Israel pressures. But no one can credibly deny that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, where politicians know that they can criticize Israel only at their political peril.
Overall, the Mearsheimer-Walt essay makes many solid points about destructive aspects of US support for the Israeli government. Their assessments deserve serious consideration.
For several decades, to the present moment, Israel's treatment of Palestinian people has amounted to methodical and despicable violations of human rights. Yet criticism of those policies from anyone (including American Jews such as myself) routinely results in accusations of anti-Jewish bigotry.
The US media reaction to the essay by professors Mearsheimer and Walt provides just another bit of evidence that they were absolutely correct when they wrote: "Anyone who criticizes Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy - an influence AIPAC celebrates - stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-Semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America's 'Jewish Lobby.' In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It's a very effective tactic: anti-Semitism is something no one wants to be accused of."
Sadly, few media outlets in the United States are willing to confront this "very effective tactic." Yet it must be challenged. As the London-based Financial Times editorialized on the first day of this month: "Moral blackmail - the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and US support for it will lead to charges of anti-Semitism - is a powerful disincentive to publish dissenting views. It is also leading to the silencing of policy debate on American university campuses, partly as the result of targeted campaigns against the dissenters."
The Financial Times editorial noted: "Reflexes that ordinarily spring automatically to the defense of open debate and free enquiry shut down - at least among much of America's political elite - once the subject turns to Israel, and above all the pro-Israel lobby's role in shaping US foreign policy."
The US government's policies toward Israel should be considered on their merits. As it happens, that's one of the many valid points made by Mearsheimer and Walt in their much-vilified essay: "Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the US to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel's long-term interests as well."
But without open debate, no significant change in those policies can happen. That inertia - stultifying the blood of the body politic by constricting the flow of information and ideas - is antithetical to the kind of democratic discourse that we deserve.
Few other American academics have been willing to expose themselves to the kind of professional risks that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt took by releasing their provocative paper. And few other American activists have been willing to expose themselves to the kind of risks that Rachel Corrie took when she sat between a Palestinian home and a Caterpillar bulldozer in Gaza three years ago.
The bulldozer, driven by an Israeli army soldier on assignment to demolish the home, rolled over Corrie, who was 23 years old. She had taken a nonviolent position for human rights; she lost her life as a result. But she was rarely praised in the same US media outlets that had gone into raptures over the image of a solitary unarmed man standing in front of Chinese tanks at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
In sharp contrast to the high-tech killers who run the Israeli military apparatus and the low-tech killers who engage in suicide bombings, Rachel Corrie put her beliefs into practice with militant nonviolence instead of carnage. She exemplified the best of the human spirit in action; she was killed with an American-brand bulldozer in the service of a US-backed government.
As her parents, Cindy and Craig Corrie, said in a statement on her birthday a few weeks after she died: "Rachel wanted to bring attention to the plight of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories, a people she felt were largely invisible to most Americans."
In the United States, the non-stop pro-Israel media siege aims to keep them scarcely visible.
Norman Solomon is the author of the new book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: WarMadeEasy.com.
-------
By Norman Solomon
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Thursday 13 April 2006
Weeks after a British magazine published a long article by two American professors titled "The Israel Lobby," the outrage continued to howl through mainstream US media.
A Los Angeles Times op-ed article by Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot helped to set a common tone. He condemned a working paper by professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that was excerpted last month in the London Review of Books.
The working paper, Boot proclaimed, is "nutty." And he strongly implied that the two professors - Mearsheimer at the University of Chicago and Walt at Harvard - are anti-Semitic.
Many who went on the media attack did more than imply. On April 3, for instance, the same day that the Philadelphia Inquirer reprinted Boot's piece from the Los Angeles Times, a notably similar op-ed appeared in the Boston Herald under the headline "Anti-Semitic Paranoia at Harvard."
And so it goes in the national media echo chamber. When a Johns Hopkins University professor weighed in last week on the op-ed page of the Washington Post, the headline was blunt: "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic." The piece flatly called the Mearsheimer-Walt essay "kooky academic work" - and "anti-Semitic."
But nothing in the essay is anti-Semitic.
Some of the analysis from Mearsheimer and Walt is arguable. A number of major factors affect Uncle Sam's Middle East policies in addition to pro-Israel pressures. But no one can credibly deny that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, where politicians know that they can criticize Israel only at their political peril.
Overall, the Mearsheimer-Walt essay makes many solid points about destructive aspects of US support for the Israeli government. Their assessments deserve serious consideration.
For several decades, to the present moment, Israel's treatment of Palestinian people has amounted to methodical and despicable violations of human rights. Yet criticism of those policies from anyone (including American Jews such as myself) routinely results in accusations of anti-Jewish bigotry.
The US media reaction to the essay by professors Mearsheimer and Walt provides just another bit of evidence that they were absolutely correct when they wrote: "Anyone who criticizes Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy - an influence AIPAC celebrates - stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-Semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America's 'Jewish Lobby.' In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It's a very effective tactic: anti-Semitism is something no one wants to be accused of."
Sadly, few media outlets in the United States are willing to confront this "very effective tactic." Yet it must be challenged. As the London-based Financial Times editorialized on the first day of this month: "Moral blackmail - the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and US support for it will lead to charges of anti-Semitism - is a powerful disincentive to publish dissenting views. It is also leading to the silencing of policy debate on American university campuses, partly as the result of targeted campaigns against the dissenters."
The Financial Times editorial noted: "Reflexes that ordinarily spring automatically to the defense of open debate and free enquiry shut down - at least among much of America's political elite - once the subject turns to Israel, and above all the pro-Israel lobby's role in shaping US foreign policy."
The US government's policies toward Israel should be considered on their merits. As it happens, that's one of the many valid points made by Mearsheimer and Walt in their much-vilified essay: "Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the US to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel's long-term interests as well."
But without open debate, no significant change in those policies can happen. That inertia - stultifying the blood of the body politic by constricting the flow of information and ideas - is antithetical to the kind of democratic discourse that we deserve.
Few other American academics have been willing to expose themselves to the kind of professional risks that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt took by releasing their provocative paper. And few other American activists have been willing to expose themselves to the kind of risks that Rachel Corrie took when she sat between a Palestinian home and a Caterpillar bulldozer in Gaza three years ago.
The bulldozer, driven by an Israeli army soldier on assignment to demolish the home, rolled over Corrie, who was 23 years old. She had taken a nonviolent position for human rights; she lost her life as a result. But she was rarely praised in the same US media outlets that had gone into raptures over the image of a solitary unarmed man standing in front of Chinese tanks at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
In sharp contrast to the high-tech killers who run the Israeli military apparatus and the low-tech killers who engage in suicide bombings, Rachel Corrie put her beliefs into practice with militant nonviolence instead of carnage. She exemplified the best of the human spirit in action; she was killed with an American-brand bulldozer in the service of a US-backed government.
As her parents, Cindy and Craig Corrie, said in a statement on her birthday a few weeks after she died: "Rachel wanted to bring attention to the plight of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories, a people she felt were largely invisible to most Americans."
In the United States, the non-stop pro-Israel media siege aims to keep them scarcely visible.
Norman Solomon is the author of the new book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: WarMadeEasy.com.
-------
The Raw Story | On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say
original
Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: Thursday April 13, 2006
The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say.
One of the operational assets being used by the Defense Department is a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which is being “run” in two southern regional areas of Iran, both bordering Pakistan. They are Balucistan, a Sunni stronghold, and Khuzestan, a Shia region where a series of recent attacks has left many dead and hundreds injured in the last three months.
One former counterintelligence official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information, describes the Pentagon as pushing MEK shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The drive to use the insurgent group was said to have been advanced by the Pentagon under the influence of the Vice President’s office and opposed by the State Department, National Security Council and then-National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice.
“The MEK is run by a brother and sister who were given bases in northern Baghdad by Saddam,” the intelligence official told RAW STORY. “The US army secured a key MEK facility 60 miles northwest of Baghdad shortly after the 2003 invasion, but they did not secure the MEK and let them basically be because [then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz was thinking ahead to Iran.”
Another former intelligence official added that the US military had detained as many as 3,500 members of MEK at Iraq’s Camp Ashraf since the start of the war, including the highest level ranking MEK leaders. Ashraf is about 60 miles west of the Iranian border.
This intelligence official, wishing to remain anonymous, confirmed the policy tensions and also described them as most departments on one side and the Pentegon on the other.
“We disarmed [the MEK] of major weapons but not small arms. [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was pushing to use them as a military special ops team, but policy infighting between their camp and Condi, but she was able to fight them off for a while,” said the intelligence official. According to still another intelligence source, the policy infighting ended last year when Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure from Vice President Cheney, came up with a plan to “convert” the MEK by having them simply quit their organization.
“These guys are nuts,” this intelligence source said. “Cambone and those guys made MEK members swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them.”
Stephen Cambone is the Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence. His office did not return calls for comment.
Recent bomb attacks in Iran have been linked to former Baathist group
Eight killed in Iran bomb attacks
Bomb blasts hit Iran oil cities
Bomb blasts rock Iran
According to all three intelligence sources, military and intelligence officials alike were alarmed that instead of securing a known terrorist organization, which has been responsible for acts of terror against Iranian targets and individuals all over the world – including US civilian and military casualties – Rumsfeld under instructions from Cheney, began using the group on special ops missions into Iran to pave the way for a potential Iran strike.
“They are doing whatever they want, no oversight at all,” one intelligence source said.
Indeed, Saddam Hussein himself had used the MEK for acts of terror against non-Sunni Muslims and had assigned domestic security detail to the MEK as a way of policing dissent among his own people. It was under the guidance of MEK ‘policing’ that Iraqi citizens who were not Sunni were routinely tortured, attacked and arrested.
Although the specifics of what the MEK is being used for remain unclear, a UN official close to the Security Council explained that the newly renamed MEK soldiers are being run instead of military advance teams, committing acts of violence in hopes of staging an insurgency of the Iranian Sunni population.
“We are already at war,” the UN official told RAW STORY.
Asked how long the MEK agents have been active in the region under the guidance of the US military civilian leadership, the UN official explained that the clandestine war had been going on for roughly a year and included unmanned drones run jointly by several agencies.
In a stunning repeat of pre-war Iraq activities, the Bush administration continues to publicly call for action and pursue diplomatic solutions to allegations that Iran is bomb-ready. Behind the scenes, however, the administration is already well underway and engaged in ground operations in Iran.
The British, however, are less enthused about a strike in Iran. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has called an American strike on Iran “inconceivable,” while Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he’s keeping all his options open. Asked about the MEK, a senior British intelligence official said that the Brits are not yet sure of what the situation on Iran’s southern border is, but vehemently condemned any joint activity with the terrorist organization.
“We don’t know who precisely is carrying out those attacks in the south but we believe it is MEK,” the British official said.
When asked if the US military is running the MEK, the source was careful to indicate that while there is a US unit in Iran gathering information, it’s difficult to say if they are in any way involved with MEK.
“The people who are inside Iran are from a US Special mission unit,” the source explained. “They are called by codenames, but would not be involved in the bomb blasts. They want to get in, get the intelligence and go out with anyone knowing they have been there. But the bomb blasts might be diversions away from the operations by this US special mission unit. The British are definitely not involved in any of this.”
Moreover, the British official expressed that any operations with MEK would violate their own military code and would absolutely not be tolerated.
“We have very strict rules and can’t go consorting with terrorists," the official added. "We did it in Northern Ireland. No more.”
Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: Thursday April 13, 2006
The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say.
One of the operational assets being used by the Defense Department is a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which is being “run” in two southern regional areas of Iran, both bordering Pakistan. They are Balucistan, a Sunni stronghold, and Khuzestan, a Shia region where a series of recent attacks has left many dead and hundreds injured in the last three months.
One former counterintelligence official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information, describes the Pentagon as pushing MEK shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The drive to use the insurgent group was said to have been advanced by the Pentagon under the influence of the Vice President’s office and opposed by the State Department, National Security Council and then-National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice.
“The MEK is run by a brother and sister who were given bases in northern Baghdad by Saddam,” the intelligence official told RAW STORY. “The US army secured a key MEK facility 60 miles northwest of Baghdad shortly after the 2003 invasion, but they did not secure the MEK and let them basically be because [then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz was thinking ahead to Iran.”
Another former intelligence official added that the US military had detained as many as 3,500 members of MEK at Iraq’s Camp Ashraf since the start of the war, including the highest level ranking MEK leaders. Ashraf is about 60 miles west of the Iranian border.
This intelligence official, wishing to remain anonymous, confirmed the policy tensions and also described them as most departments on one side and the Pentegon on the other.
“We disarmed [the MEK] of major weapons but not small arms. [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was pushing to use them as a military special ops team, but policy infighting between their camp and Condi, but she was able to fight them off for a while,” said the intelligence official. According to still another intelligence source, the policy infighting ended last year when Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure from Vice President Cheney, came up with a plan to “convert” the MEK by having them simply quit their organization.
“These guys are nuts,” this intelligence source said. “Cambone and those guys made MEK members swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them.”
Stephen Cambone is the Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence. His office did not return calls for comment.
Recent bomb attacks in Iran have been linked to former Baathist group
Eight killed in Iran bomb attacks
Bomb blasts hit Iran oil cities
Bomb blasts rock Iran
According to all three intelligence sources, military and intelligence officials alike were alarmed that instead of securing a known terrorist organization, which has been responsible for acts of terror against Iranian targets and individuals all over the world – including US civilian and military casualties – Rumsfeld under instructions from Cheney, began using the group on special ops missions into Iran to pave the way for a potential Iran strike.
“They are doing whatever they want, no oversight at all,” one intelligence source said.
Indeed, Saddam Hussein himself had used the MEK for acts of terror against non-Sunni Muslims and had assigned domestic security detail to the MEK as a way of policing dissent among his own people. It was under the guidance of MEK ‘policing’ that Iraqi citizens who were not Sunni were routinely tortured, attacked and arrested.
Although the specifics of what the MEK is being used for remain unclear, a UN official close to the Security Council explained that the newly renamed MEK soldiers are being run instead of military advance teams, committing acts of violence in hopes of staging an insurgency of the Iranian Sunni population.
“We are already at war,” the UN official told RAW STORY.
Asked how long the MEK agents have been active in the region under the guidance of the US military civilian leadership, the UN official explained that the clandestine war had been going on for roughly a year and included unmanned drones run jointly by several agencies.
In a stunning repeat of pre-war Iraq activities, the Bush administration continues to publicly call for action and pursue diplomatic solutions to allegations that Iran is bomb-ready. Behind the scenes, however, the administration is already well underway and engaged in ground operations in Iran.
The British, however, are less enthused about a strike in Iran. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has called an American strike on Iran “inconceivable,” while Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he’s keeping all his options open. Asked about the MEK, a senior British intelligence official said that the Brits are not yet sure of what the situation on Iran’s southern border is, but vehemently condemned any joint activity with the terrorist organization.
“We don’t know who precisely is carrying out those attacks in the south but we believe it is MEK,” the British official said.
When asked if the US military is running the MEK, the source was careful to indicate that while there is a US unit in Iran gathering information, it’s difficult to say if they are in any way involved with MEK.
“The people who are inside Iran are from a US Special mission unit,” the source explained. “They are called by codenames, but would not be involved in the bomb blasts. They want to get in, get the intelligence and go out with anyone knowing they have been there. But the bomb blasts might be diversions away from the operations by this US special mission unit. The British are definitely not involved in any of this.”
Moreover, the British official expressed that any operations with MEK would violate their own military code and would absolutely not be tolerated.
“We have very strict rules and can’t go consorting with terrorists," the official added. "We did it in Northern Ireland. No more.”
northdenvernews.com - U.S. renegs on Chemical Weapons agreement
northdenvernews.com - U.S. renegs on Chemical Weapons agreement
Written by Staff
Wednesday, 12 April 2006
from the office of Senator Wayne Allard
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colorado) said Wednesday that the Department of Defense has officially notified Congress that the demilitarization of chemical weapons stored at the Pueblo Depot and other sites around the country will not be completed in time to comply with either the 2007 deadline or the five-year extension provided under the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty.
"I am very disappointed because, if the work at Pueblo had continued uninterrupted over the past two years, it might have been possible for at least the Pueblo Depot site to have been completed in time for the 2012 extended treaty deadline, although work might have remained unfinished at the other sites" Senator Allard said.
"As it stands now, the Department of Defense is reporting that only 66 percent of the U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons will have been destroyed by the extended treaty deadline," Senator Allard said.
Under the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, a signatory must notify the governing body of the Convention, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, of its inability to comply with the 2007 treaty deadline one year in advance. The Department of State is expected to do so in the next two weeks. The Chemical Weapons Convention provides for a one-time five-year extension for those states unable to comply with the 2007 treaty deadline. The notification sent by the Department of Defense to Congress yesterday indicates that the Department will not be able to comply with either the 2007 or the 2012 extended deadline.
Under Section 1521 of Title 50 of the U.S. code (50 USC 1521), the Department of Defense is required by law to notify Congress if the treaty deadline is not going to be met.
"Unfortunately, the Department did not provide any clear indication of a schedule for completion of the Pueblo project, in particular, and all the other demilitarization sites in general," Senator Allard said. "I'll be working to make sure that the Department of Defense isn't using the treaty as a way to back out of its commitments to Pueblo or the other sites."
"Since our obligations under the CWC Treaty will no longer be motivating the Department, we will need to step up our efforts to ensure the Department does not lose sight of the importance of the chem-demil program," said Senator Allard. "The last thing we want is for Department to think it can allow these projects to drag on forever."
On a positive note, President Bush's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the two Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) programs under development, one at the Pueblo Depot in Colorado and the other at the Blue Grass Depot in Kentucky, totaled $350 million.
"On the one hand, this year's budget request was a significant step forward. But, as always, the proof is in the pudding. The DoD's future funding request is the place where we are really short and where the greatest fight will surely take place," said Senator Allard. "If the department comes through with a substantial future funding request this summer, then I will feel a lot better about this project and the department's commitment to it."
Last year Senator Allard and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) added a provision to the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental Appropriations Act that ensured that the $372.3 million in funding budgeted in earlier years would not be transferred from Pueblo or Blue Grass to other sites. In addition, it directed the Department of Defense to send at least $100 million to the ACWA sites within four months of the bill's enactment, and prohibited the Department from conducting a study on the transportation of chemical weapons across state lines. That direction was fulfilled in September of 2005 when the Department of Defense provided $96 million for Pueblo and $4 million for Blue Grass.
Written by Staff
Wednesday, 12 April 2006
from the office of Senator Wayne Allard
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colorado) said Wednesday that the Department of Defense has officially notified Congress that the demilitarization of chemical weapons stored at the Pueblo Depot and other sites around the country will not be completed in time to comply with either the 2007 deadline or the five-year extension provided under the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty.
"I am very disappointed because, if the work at Pueblo had continued uninterrupted over the past two years, it might have been possible for at least the Pueblo Depot site to have been completed in time for the 2012 extended treaty deadline, although work might have remained unfinished at the other sites" Senator Allard said.
"As it stands now, the Department of Defense is reporting that only 66 percent of the U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons will have been destroyed by the extended treaty deadline," Senator Allard said.
Under the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, a signatory must notify the governing body of the Convention, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, of its inability to comply with the 2007 treaty deadline one year in advance. The Department of State is expected to do so in the next two weeks. The Chemical Weapons Convention provides for a one-time five-year extension for those states unable to comply with the 2007 treaty deadline. The notification sent by the Department of Defense to Congress yesterday indicates that the Department will not be able to comply with either the 2007 or the 2012 extended deadline.
Under Section 1521 of Title 50 of the U.S. code (50 USC 1521), the Department of Defense is required by law to notify Congress if the treaty deadline is not going to be met.
"Unfortunately, the Department did not provide any clear indication of a schedule for completion of the Pueblo project, in particular, and all the other demilitarization sites in general," Senator Allard said. "I'll be working to make sure that the Department of Defense isn't using the treaty as a way to back out of its commitments to Pueblo or the other sites."
"Since our obligations under the CWC Treaty will no longer be motivating the Department, we will need to step up our efforts to ensure the Department does not lose sight of the importance of the chem-demil program," said Senator Allard. "The last thing we want is for Department to think it can allow these projects to drag on forever."
On a positive note, President Bush's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the two Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) programs under development, one at the Pueblo Depot in Colorado and the other at the Blue Grass Depot in Kentucky, totaled $350 million.
"On the one hand, this year's budget request was a significant step forward. But, as always, the proof is in the pudding. The DoD's future funding request is the place where we are really short and where the greatest fight will surely take place," said Senator Allard. "If the department comes through with a substantial future funding request this summer, then I will feel a lot better about this project and the department's commitment to it."
Last year Senator Allard and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) added a provision to the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental Appropriations Act that ensured that the $372.3 million in funding budgeted in earlier years would not be transferred from Pueblo or Blue Grass to other sites. In addition, it directed the Department of Defense to send at least $100 million to the ACWA sites within four months of the bill's enactment, and prohibited the Department from conducting a study on the transportation of chemical weapons across state lines. That direction was fulfilled in September of 2005 when the Department of Defense provided $96 million for Pueblo and $4 million for Blue Grass.
Terror Watch: Is Pentagon Creating a Secret Police Force? - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com
Terror Watch: Is Pentagon Creating a Secret Police Force? - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com
America’s Secret Police?
Intelligence experts warn that a proposal to merge two Pentagon intelligence units could create an ominous new agency.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 6:18 p.m. ET April 12, 2006
April 12, 2006 - A threatened turf grab by a controversial Pentagon intelligence unit is causing concern among both privacy experts and some of the Defense Department’s own personnel.
An informal panel of senior Pentagon officials has been holding a series of unannounced private meetings during the past several weeks about how to proceed with a possible merger between the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), a post-9/11 Pentagon creation that has been accused of domestic spying, and the Defense Security Service (DSS), a well-established older agency responsible for inspecting the security arrangements of defense contractors. DSS also maintains millions of confidential files containing the results of background investigations on defense contractors’ employees.
The merger was initially suggested by a government commission set up to recommend military base closures last year. The commission said that the Pentagon could achieve some savings by relocating both CIFA, now housed in a building near Washington’s Reagan National Airport and DSS, headquartered in nearby Alexandria, Va. The panel suggested moving the two agencies to the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Va., where FBI training and laboratory facilities are also based.
The Base Realignment and Closure Commission also suggested that the Pentagon could “disestablish” CIFA and DSS and “consolidate their components into the Department of Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency.”
Pentagon officials began discussions about merging the two after the commission issued its recommendations. An initial round of meetings about the merger, however, failed to come up with a plan. In the meantime, CIFA, a mysterious and secretive unit created in 2002 and charged with making Defense counterintelligence efforts more effective, became the subject of two public controversies.
The first erupted late in 2005 when documents surfaced indicating that CIFA (whose mission, according to its own officials, is supposed to be limited to analysis of counterintelligence data produced by other agencies) was discovered to have put together a database that included reports on anti-administration demonstrators, including peace activists protesting alleged “war profiteering.” (NEWSWEEK’s Michael Isikoff reported on this in depth earlier this year in this story.) CIFA and Pentagon officials subsequently assured Congress in writing that CIFA’s activities would be more carefully focused in the future on genuine potential terror threats to defense facilities and personnel and that data collected on legitimate peaceful protestors would be destroyed.
Another controversy over CIFA took hold during the corruption scandal surrounding former San Diego congressman Randall (Duke) Cunningham, who before he resigned in disgrace earlier this year, had been a member of both the House Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee. Federal prosecutors alleged Cunningham used his congressional influence to direct CIFA to grant defense contracts to a company called MZM. Earlier this year, Cunningham and MZM’s former president, Mitchell Wade, both pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges. (The CIFA contracting probe has been covered in depth by investigative blogs Warandpiece.com and TPMMuckracker.com, as well as The Washington Post.) Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Gregory Hicks said the CIFA contracting issue was the focus of a continuing “review by appropriate organizations within the Department [of Defense] and it would be premature to discuss any possible outcomes of that review.”
As stories about the CIFA scandals circulated earlier this year, talk about merging the controversial unit with the less controversial DSS appeared to stall. But in the past few weeks, Pentagon officials said, such discussions have regained momentum, with an informal committee led by Robert Rogalski, a deputy to Stephen Cambone, the under secretary of Defense for intelligence, meeting regularly to discuss the agencies’ consolidation.
But both Pentagon insiders and administration critics remain queasy about the merger idea. Some veteran officials recall that DSS itself became the subject of unwelcome public attention during the Clinton administration when political appointees in the Pentagon press office got hold of the DSS security file on Linda Tripp, the disgruntled bureaucrat who blew the whistle on President Clinton’s relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The file contained reports about an embarrassing incident from Tripp’s past that were leaked to the media. The Pentagon Inspector General investigated, and security procedures surrounding the security files supposedly were improved.
Both Pentagon insiders and privacy experts fear that if CIFA merges with, or, in effect, takes over DSS, there would be a weakening of the safeguards that are supposed to regulate the release of the estimated 4.5 million security files on defense-contractor employees currently controlled by DSS. Those files are stored in a disused mine in western Pennsylvania.
According to one knowledgeable official, who asked for anonymity because of the extreme sensitivity of the subject, since its creation CIFA has on at least a handful of occasions requested access to the secret files stored in the mine without adequate explanation. As a result, the source said, DSS rejected the requests. A merger between CIFA and DSS would weaken those internal controls, the source said.
A CIFA merger with DSS could also alter the job responsibilities of the 280 inspectors employed by DSS to inspect security arrangements and procedures at defense contractors’ offices. According to the official source, these inspectors are responsible for making sure that contractors have taken proper measures to protect classified information. But if DSS merges with CIFA, there are fears that CIFA will pressure the DSS inspectors to expand their mandate to include inspecting contractors to see if they are protecting information that could be considered “sensitive but unclassified”—a term the Bush administration has tried to use to expand restrictions on access to government records. Security professionals regard that expansion as too elastic and open to misinterpretation. By acquiring control of the DSS inspector force, a merged CIFA-DSS would also have something that CIFA at the moment claims not to have, which is a force of field investigators. Today CIFA has to rely for raw field reports on other defense and military intelligence agencies, such as branches of Army, Navy and Air Force intelligence.
Defense analyst and Washington Post blogger Bill Arkin, who first brought allegations about CIFA’s domestic spying to light, says that in its efforts to trying eliminate waste and better coordinate intelligence activities, “we are creating an American military secret police that is clearly acquiring way too much information and way too much power.”
But Cindy McGovern, a spokeswoman for DSS, maintains that even if CIFA does merge with DSS, officials will not be able to get access to secret security files unless they have a “legitimate need and we verify that ... People who have access to these records need to have a verified need, a legitimate bona fide need.” Asked how many times CIFA requests for access to DSS files were turned down because of lack of adequate justification, McGovern said she did not have that information at hand. Hicks, the Pentagon spokesman, said there was “no clear answer” to this question, adding: “There are protocols in place to request information that CIFA follows, but there is no quick grasp as to how many times or instances that has been sought.”
In an e-mail to NEWSWEEK, Hicks added: “The Defense Security Service takes the release of personnel files and the information contained therein very seriously ... For the purposes of disclosure and disclosure accounting, the Department of Defense is considered a single agency. Notwithstanding, disclosures of DSS records within DOD are only authorized when a justifiable official need for the information exists. These same safeguards would apply in the event of a merger with CIFA.”
America’s Secret Police?
Intelligence experts warn that a proposal to merge two Pentagon intelligence units could create an ominous new agency.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 6:18 p.m. ET April 12, 2006
April 12, 2006 - A threatened turf grab by a controversial Pentagon intelligence unit is causing concern among both privacy experts and some of the Defense Department’s own personnel.
An informal panel of senior Pentagon officials has been holding a series of unannounced private meetings during the past several weeks about how to proceed with a possible merger between the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), a post-9/11 Pentagon creation that has been accused of domestic spying, and the Defense Security Service (DSS), a well-established older agency responsible for inspecting the security arrangements of defense contractors. DSS also maintains millions of confidential files containing the results of background investigations on defense contractors’ employees.
The merger was initially suggested by a government commission set up to recommend military base closures last year. The commission said that the Pentagon could achieve some savings by relocating both CIFA, now housed in a building near Washington’s Reagan National Airport and DSS, headquartered in nearby Alexandria, Va. The panel suggested moving the two agencies to the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Va., where FBI training and laboratory facilities are also based.
The Base Realignment and Closure Commission also suggested that the Pentagon could “disestablish” CIFA and DSS and “consolidate their components into the Department of Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency.”
Pentagon officials began discussions about merging the two after the commission issued its recommendations. An initial round of meetings about the merger, however, failed to come up with a plan. In the meantime, CIFA, a mysterious and secretive unit created in 2002 and charged with making Defense counterintelligence efforts more effective, became the subject of two public controversies.
The first erupted late in 2005 when documents surfaced indicating that CIFA (whose mission, according to its own officials, is supposed to be limited to analysis of counterintelligence data produced by other agencies) was discovered to have put together a database that included reports on anti-administration demonstrators, including peace activists protesting alleged “war profiteering.” (NEWSWEEK’s Michael Isikoff reported on this in depth earlier this year in this story.) CIFA and Pentagon officials subsequently assured Congress in writing that CIFA’s activities would be more carefully focused in the future on genuine potential terror threats to defense facilities and personnel and that data collected on legitimate peaceful protestors would be destroyed.
Another controversy over CIFA took hold during the corruption scandal surrounding former San Diego congressman Randall (Duke) Cunningham, who before he resigned in disgrace earlier this year, had been a member of both the House Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee. Federal prosecutors alleged Cunningham used his congressional influence to direct CIFA to grant defense contracts to a company called MZM. Earlier this year, Cunningham and MZM’s former president, Mitchell Wade, both pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges. (The CIFA contracting probe has been covered in depth by investigative blogs Warandpiece.com and TPMMuckracker.com, as well as The Washington Post.) Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Gregory Hicks said the CIFA contracting issue was the focus of a continuing “review by appropriate organizations within the Department [of Defense] and it would be premature to discuss any possible outcomes of that review.”
As stories about the CIFA scandals circulated earlier this year, talk about merging the controversial unit with the less controversial DSS appeared to stall. But in the past few weeks, Pentagon officials said, such discussions have regained momentum, with an informal committee led by Robert Rogalski, a deputy to Stephen Cambone, the under secretary of Defense for intelligence, meeting regularly to discuss the agencies’ consolidation.
But both Pentagon insiders and administration critics remain queasy about the merger idea. Some veteran officials recall that DSS itself became the subject of unwelcome public attention during the Clinton administration when political appointees in the Pentagon press office got hold of the DSS security file on Linda Tripp, the disgruntled bureaucrat who blew the whistle on President Clinton’s relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The file contained reports about an embarrassing incident from Tripp’s past that were leaked to the media. The Pentagon Inspector General investigated, and security procedures surrounding the security files supposedly were improved.
Both Pentagon insiders and privacy experts fear that if CIFA merges with, or, in effect, takes over DSS, there would be a weakening of the safeguards that are supposed to regulate the release of the estimated 4.5 million security files on defense-contractor employees currently controlled by DSS. Those files are stored in a disused mine in western Pennsylvania.
According to one knowledgeable official, who asked for anonymity because of the extreme sensitivity of the subject, since its creation CIFA has on at least a handful of occasions requested access to the secret files stored in the mine without adequate explanation. As a result, the source said, DSS rejected the requests. A merger between CIFA and DSS would weaken those internal controls, the source said.
A CIFA merger with DSS could also alter the job responsibilities of the 280 inspectors employed by DSS to inspect security arrangements and procedures at defense contractors’ offices. According to the official source, these inspectors are responsible for making sure that contractors have taken proper measures to protect classified information. But if DSS merges with CIFA, there are fears that CIFA will pressure the DSS inspectors to expand their mandate to include inspecting contractors to see if they are protecting information that could be considered “sensitive but unclassified”—a term the Bush administration has tried to use to expand restrictions on access to government records. Security professionals regard that expansion as too elastic and open to misinterpretation. By acquiring control of the DSS inspector force, a merged CIFA-DSS would also have something that CIFA at the moment claims not to have, which is a force of field investigators. Today CIFA has to rely for raw field reports on other defense and military intelligence agencies, such as branches of Army, Navy and Air Force intelligence.
Defense analyst and Washington Post blogger Bill Arkin, who first brought allegations about CIFA’s domestic spying to light, says that in its efforts to trying eliminate waste and better coordinate intelligence activities, “we are creating an American military secret police that is clearly acquiring way too much information and way too much power.”
But Cindy McGovern, a spokeswoman for DSS, maintains that even if CIFA does merge with DSS, officials will not be able to get access to secret security files unless they have a “legitimate need and we verify that ... People who have access to these records need to have a verified need, a legitimate bona fide need.” Asked how many times CIFA requests for access to DSS files were turned down because of lack of adequate justification, McGovern said she did not have that information at hand. Hicks, the Pentagon spokesman, said there was “no clear answer” to this question, adding: “There are protocols in place to request information that CIFA follows, but there is no quick grasp as to how many times or instances that has been sought.”
In an e-mail to NEWSWEEK, Hicks added: “The Defense Security Service takes the release of personnel files and the information contained therein very seriously ... For the purposes of disclosure and disclosure accounting, the Department of Defense is considered a single agency. Notwithstanding, disclosures of DSS records within DOD are only authorized when a justifiable official need for the information exists. These same safeguards would apply in the event of a merger with CIFA.”
ANSA.it - News in English - Prodi confirms withdrawal from Iraq
ANSA.it - News in English - Prodi confirms withdrawal from Iraq
Prodi confirms withdrawal from Iraq![[foto]](http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/med/f578ffb5bf9f4d8e3e2916e319c6462c.jpg)
Centre-left leader also stresses commitment to EU (ANSA) - Rome, April 12 - Centre-left leader Romano Prodi confirmed on Wednesday that his coalition intended to pull Italian troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006 and to push for a softer European line on Hamas .
In a series of comments to the media on his foreign policy objectives, the former European Commission chief also confirmed that he would be more pro-Brussels and less pro-Washington than Premier Silvio Berlusconi .
Much of the foreign interest in Prodi's foreign policy focused on Italy's involvement in Iraq. The country did not take part in the US-led war but sent troops later for peacekeeping and reconstruction .
Prodi and the centre left opposed Italian involvement from the start. "We will withdraw our troops from Iraq in agreement with the Baghdad government and we will send a civilian contingent to help with the reconstruction," he said in an article in French daily Le Monde .
Pressed to say exactly when the troops would come home, Prodi later told Italian television that the Berlusconi government had already said soldiers would be pulled out by the end of 2006 .
"We will respect that deadline," he said .
But his hard-left allies in Rome appeared to see this as not soon enough. "We have to arrange for an immediate withdrawal," said Marco Rizzo of the Italian Communists' Party .
In an interview with Arab satellite television al Jazeera, Prodi was quizzed about the Mideast peace process and the European Union's attitude to Hamas, the militant movement which won Palestinian elections earlier this year .
"I will work in Europe for a new position on the Palestinian government and I'm paying close attention to Hamas's signals of openness," Prodi said .
The EU this month cut direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, saying Hamas must recognise the right of Israel to exist and acknowledge past peace agreements .
In other interviews, the centre-left leader was keen to stress his desire to overcome a rift which Berlusconi's pro-American line had provoked between Italy on the one side and France and Germany on the other. Berlusconi has been one of President George W.Bush's staunchest allies in Europe and the two have developed a warm personal relationship .
Prodi said that his first international engagement as premier was likely to be the EU summit in June. Referring to his coalition's avowed commitment to Europe, he told French radio that it was "as if things were arranged like that on purpose" .
"Italy's neighbours have reason to be happy. At least now they have a reliable partner with an undoubted commitment to Europe," he wrote in Le Monde .
Prodi confirms withdrawal from Iraq
Centre-left leader also stresses commitment to EU (ANSA) - Rome, April 12 - Centre-left leader Romano Prodi confirmed on Wednesday that his coalition intended to pull Italian troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006 and to push for a softer European line on Hamas .In a series of comments to the media on his foreign policy objectives, the former European Commission chief also confirmed that he would be more pro-Brussels and less pro-Washington than Premier Silvio Berlusconi .
Much of the foreign interest in Prodi's foreign policy focused on Italy's involvement in Iraq. The country did not take part in the US-led war but sent troops later for peacekeeping and reconstruction .
Prodi and the centre left opposed Italian involvement from the start. "We will withdraw our troops from Iraq in agreement with the Baghdad government and we will send a civilian contingent to help with the reconstruction," he said in an article in French daily Le Monde .
Pressed to say exactly when the troops would come home, Prodi later told Italian television that the Berlusconi government had already said soldiers would be pulled out by the end of 2006 .
"We will respect that deadline," he said .
But his hard-left allies in Rome appeared to see this as not soon enough. "We have to arrange for an immediate withdrawal," said Marco Rizzo of the Italian Communists' Party .
In an interview with Arab satellite television al Jazeera, Prodi was quizzed about the Mideast peace process and the European Union's attitude to Hamas, the militant movement which won Palestinian elections earlier this year .
"I will work in Europe for a new position on the Palestinian government and I'm paying close attention to Hamas's signals of openness," Prodi said .
The EU this month cut direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, saying Hamas must recognise the right of Israel to exist and acknowledge past peace agreements .
In other interviews, the centre-left leader was keen to stress his desire to overcome a rift which Berlusconi's pro-American line had provoked between Italy on the one side and France and Germany on the other. Berlusconi has been one of President George W.Bush's staunchest allies in Europe and the two have developed a warm personal relationship .
Prodi said that his first international engagement as premier was likely to be the EU summit in June. Referring to his coalition's avowed commitment to Europe, he told French radio that it was "as if things were arranged like that on purpose" .
"Italy's neighbours have reason to be happy. At least now they have a reliable partner with an undoubted commitment to Europe," he wrote in Le Monde .
Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away
Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away
New York Times
April 13, 2006
Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away
By WILLIAM J. BROAD, NAZILA FATHI and JOEL BRINKLEY
Western nuclear analysts said yesterday that Tehran lacked the skills, materials and equipment to make good on its immediate nuclear ambitions, even as a senior Iranian official said Iran would defy international pressure and rapidly expand its ability to enrich uranium for fuel.
The official, Muhammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran's atomic energy organization, said Iran would push quickly to put 54,000 centrifuges on line — a vast increase from the 164 they said Tuesday that they had used to enrich uranium to levels that could fuel a nuclear reactor.
Still, nuclear analysts called the claims exaggerated. They said nothing had changed to alter current estimates of when Iran might be able to make a single nuclear weapon, assuming that is its ultimate goal. The United States government has put that at 5 to 10 years, and some analysts have said it could come as late as 2020.
Iran's announcement brought criticism from several Western Nations and to a lesser degree from Russia and China. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for "strong steps" against Iran, using the country's clear statement of defiance to persuade reluctant countries like Russia and China to support tough international penalties. But Russian officials said they had not changed their opposition to such penalties. Nuclear analysts said Iran's boast that it had enriched uranium using 164 centrifuges meant that it had now moved one small but significant step beyond what it had been ready to do nearly three years ago, when it agreed to suspend enrichment while negotiating the fate of its nuclear program.
"They're hyping it," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, a private group that monitors the Iranian nuclear program. "There's still a lot they have to do." Anthony H. Cordesman and Khalid R. al-Rodhan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington called the new Iranian claims "little more than vacuous political posturing" meant to promote Iranian nationalism and a global sense of atomic inevitability.
The nuclear experts said Iran's claim on Wednesday that it would mass-produce 54,000 centrifuges echoed boasts that it made years ago. Even so, they noted, the Islamic state still lacked the parts and materials to make droves of the highly complex machines, which can spin uranium into fuel rich enough for use in nuclear reactors or atom bombs.
It took Tehran 21 years of planning and 7 years of sporadic experiments, mostly in secret, to reach its current ability to link 164 spinning centrifuges in what nuclear experts call a cascade. Now, the analysts said, Tehran has to achieve not only consistent results around the clock for many months and years but even higher degrees of precision and mass production. It is as if Iran, having mastered a difficult musical instrument, now faces the challenge of making thousands of them and creating a very large orchestra that always plays in tune and in unison.
On Wednesday, Mr. Saeedi, the Iranian nuclear official, said Iran was moving rapidly toward its atomic goals. "We will expand uranium enrichment to industrial scale at Natanz," he was quoted as saying by the ISNA student news agency in a reference to Iran's main enrichment facility. Mr. Saeedi said Iran would start operating the first of 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz by late 2006, with further expansion to 54,000 centrifuges. "We have no problem in doing that," he told ISNA. "We just need to increase our production lines."
The news from Iran, which holds 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, has made oil markets very nervous in recent days and contributed to a spike in oil prices to nearly $70 a barrel on Tuesday. Oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange closed at $68.62 a barrel yesterday, just $2 short of their record after Hurricane Katrina.
Since the beginning of the year, the diplomatic crisis has prompted fears that Iran might be tempted to restrict its oil sales, provoking a price spike that would cause economic havoc around the world. Iranian officials have repeatedly said they might use their country's "oil weapon" in a confrontation with the West. But, as is often the case in Iranian politics, such statements were just as rapidly offset by more reassuring comments from the Oil Ministry that Iran would not use its oil exports as a bargaining chip with the West.
More realistically, many traders fear that any international penalties against Iran might hurt Iran's oil industry, slow investments, or remove sorely needed barrels from oil-hungry markets.
The Russian stance against penalties highlighted the obstacles Washington faces in its effort to force a halt to Iran's nuclear program. A senior aide to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said yesterday that any effort to employ broad penalties against Tehran would backfire because "Iran's current president will use them for his benefit, and he will use them to consolidate public opinion around him."
The United States is urging members of the United Nations Security Council to approve travel and financial restrictions on Iran's leaders, and administration officials view Russia, which has close trade ties to Iran, as the linchpin of those efforts.
Secretary of State Conodoleezza Rice said yesterday that the Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Iran to change course. "The Security Council will need to take into consideration this move by Iran," she said about Tuesday's announcement. "It will be time when it reconvenes on this case for strong steps to make certain that we maintain the credibility of the international community."
In Iran on Tuesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced in an elaborate ceremony that Iranian scientists had enriched uranium to 3.5 percent — a level of purity that, if enough could be made, might fuel a nuclear reactor. While Iran hailed the step as a first, the nuclear experts said Tehran had in fact been doing periodic enrichment experiments with centrifuges for seven years, since 1999.
Amid the tensions, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, arrived in Tehran yesterday for talks with Iranian nuclear officials. Despite the provocative nature of Iran's statements, he still held out hope that the government could be persuaded to compromise. "We hope to convince Iran to take confidence-building measures including suspension of uranium enrichment activities until outstanding issues are clarified," Dr. ElBaradei told journalists at the Tehran airport, Reuters reported.
Iran's state-run television was dominated by programs about the atomic claim in what seemed like an organized effort to mobilize public support for the nuclear program. One channel showed a reporter stopping people on the street to ask if they had bought pastry to celebrate the news. Another showed nuclear sites and uranium mines. Television news said schools celebrated the success and rebroadcast the announcement of Iran's president hailing the enrichment step.
While Iran has sharply raised its atomic claims in the past two days, nuclear analysts said it appeared to be roughly where it was expected to be on the road to learning how to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, and still had years of work ahead of it to attain its ambitious goals.
Mr. Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security said he was not surprised that the Iranians had got a group of 164 centrifuges up and running and had begun to introduce uranium gas into them for enrichment.
"There's still a lot they have to do," he said, to perfect the operation of the cascade of centrifuges. A report that he and his colleagues made public late last month suggested that Iran would need 6 to 12 months to master that process, and Mr. Albright said in an interview that he stood by that rough estimate as accurate.
His March report said Iran had parts for perhaps 1,000 or 2,000 centrifuges beyond the ones already in operation, and that Iran is not likely to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon until 2009 at the earliest.
Several Western nations criticized Iran's recent announcements as needlessly provocative.
Foreign Minister Jack Straw of Britain said they were "deeply unhelpful," and his German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said Iran was "going in precisely the wrong direction." Russia and China joined the chorus, but their criticisms were qualified.
"For China, we are concerned about the events and the way things are developing," said Wang Guamgya, China's ambassador to the United Nations. But he added, "In spite of this, I believe diplomatic efforts are still under way."
In Moscow, a Foreign Ministry spokesman called Iran's push to expand uranium enrichment "a step in the wrong direction."
But Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov later tempered that. He inveighed against any possible military action against Iran and advised against a rush to judgment, saying Iran had "never stated that it is striving to possess nuclear weapons."
Jad Mouawad contributed reporting from New York for this article.
* Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
New York Times
April 13, 2006
Analysts Say a Nuclear Iran Is Years Away
By WILLIAM J. BROAD, NAZILA FATHI and JOEL BRINKLEY
Western nuclear analysts said yesterday that Tehran lacked the skills, materials and equipment to make good on its immediate nuclear ambitions, even as a senior Iranian official said Iran would defy international pressure and rapidly expand its ability to enrich uranium for fuel.
The official, Muhammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran's atomic energy organization, said Iran would push quickly to put 54,000 centrifuges on line — a vast increase from the 164 they said Tuesday that they had used to enrich uranium to levels that could fuel a nuclear reactor.
Still, nuclear analysts called the claims exaggerated. They said nothing had changed to alter current estimates of when Iran might be able to make a single nuclear weapon, assuming that is its ultimate goal. The United States government has put that at 5 to 10 years, and some analysts have said it could come as late as 2020.
Iran's announcement brought criticism from several Western Nations and to a lesser degree from Russia and China. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for "strong steps" against Iran, using the country's clear statement of defiance to persuade reluctant countries like Russia and China to support tough international penalties. But Russian officials said they had not changed their opposition to such penalties. Nuclear analysts said Iran's boast that it had enriched uranium using 164 centrifuges meant that it had now moved one small but significant step beyond what it had been ready to do nearly three years ago, when it agreed to suspend enrichment while negotiating the fate of its nuclear program.
"They're hyping it," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, a private group that monitors the Iranian nuclear program. "There's still a lot they have to do." Anthony H. Cordesman and Khalid R. al-Rodhan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington called the new Iranian claims "little more than vacuous political posturing" meant to promote Iranian nationalism and a global sense of atomic inevitability.
The nuclear experts said Iran's claim on Wednesday that it would mass-produce 54,000 centrifuges echoed boasts that it made years ago. Even so, they noted, the Islamic state still lacked the parts and materials to make droves of the highly complex machines, which can spin uranium into fuel rich enough for use in nuclear reactors or atom bombs.
It took Tehran 21 years of planning and 7 years of sporadic experiments, mostly in secret, to reach its current ability to link 164 spinning centrifuges in what nuclear experts call a cascade. Now, the analysts said, Tehran has to achieve not only consistent results around the clock for many months and years but even higher degrees of precision and mass production. It is as if Iran, having mastered a difficult musical instrument, now faces the challenge of making thousands of them and creating a very large orchestra that always plays in tune and in unison.
On Wednesday, Mr. Saeedi, the Iranian nuclear official, said Iran was moving rapidly toward its atomic goals. "We will expand uranium enrichment to industrial scale at Natanz," he was quoted as saying by the ISNA student news agency in a reference to Iran's main enrichment facility. Mr. Saeedi said Iran would start operating the first of 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz by late 2006, with further expansion to 54,000 centrifuges. "We have no problem in doing that," he told ISNA. "We just need to increase our production lines."
The news from Iran, which holds 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, has made oil markets very nervous in recent days and contributed to a spike in oil prices to nearly $70 a barrel on Tuesday. Oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange closed at $68.62 a barrel yesterday, just $2 short of their record after Hurricane Katrina.
Since the beginning of the year, the diplomatic crisis has prompted fears that Iran might be tempted to restrict its oil sales, provoking a price spike that would cause economic havoc around the world. Iranian officials have repeatedly said they might use their country's "oil weapon" in a confrontation with the West. But, as is often the case in Iranian politics, such statements were just as rapidly offset by more reassuring comments from the Oil Ministry that Iran would not use its oil exports as a bargaining chip with the West.
More realistically, many traders fear that any international penalties against Iran might hurt Iran's oil industry, slow investments, or remove sorely needed barrels from oil-hungry markets.
The Russian stance against penalties highlighted the obstacles Washington faces in its effort to force a halt to Iran's nuclear program. A senior aide to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said yesterday that any effort to employ broad penalties against Tehran would backfire because "Iran's current president will use them for his benefit, and he will use them to consolidate public opinion around him."
The United States is urging members of the United Nations Security Council to approve travel and financial restrictions on Iran's leaders, and administration officials view Russia, which has close trade ties to Iran, as the linchpin of those efforts.
Secretary of State Conodoleezza Rice said yesterday that the Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Iran to change course. "The Security Council will need to take into consideration this move by Iran," she said about Tuesday's announcement. "It will be time when it reconvenes on this case for strong steps to make certain that we maintain the credibility of the international community."
In Iran on Tuesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced in an elaborate ceremony that Iranian scientists had enriched uranium to 3.5 percent — a level of purity that, if enough could be made, might fuel a nuclear reactor. While Iran hailed the step as a first, the nuclear experts said Tehran had in fact been doing periodic enrichment experiments with centrifuges for seven years, since 1999.
Amid the tensions, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, arrived in Tehran yesterday for talks with Iranian nuclear officials. Despite the provocative nature of Iran's statements, he still held out hope that the government could be persuaded to compromise. "We hope to convince Iran to take confidence-building measures including suspension of uranium enrichment activities until outstanding issues are clarified," Dr. ElBaradei told journalists at the Tehran airport, Reuters reported.
Iran's state-run television was dominated by programs about the atomic claim in what seemed like an organized effort to mobilize public support for the nuclear program. One channel showed a reporter stopping people on the street to ask if they had bought pastry to celebrate the news. Another showed nuclear sites and uranium mines. Television news said schools celebrated the success and rebroadcast the announcement of Iran's president hailing the enrichment step.
While Iran has sharply raised its atomic claims in the past two days, nuclear analysts said it appeared to be roughly where it was expected to be on the road to learning how to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, and still had years of work ahead of it to attain its ambitious goals.
Mr. Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security said he was not surprised that the Iranians had got a group of 164 centrifuges up and running and had begun to introduce uranium gas into them for enrichment.
"There's still a lot they have to do," he said, to perfect the operation of the cascade of centrifuges. A report that he and his colleagues made public late last month suggested that Iran would need 6 to 12 months to master that process, and Mr. Albright said in an interview that he stood by that rough estimate as accurate.
His March report said Iran had parts for perhaps 1,000 or 2,000 centrifuges beyond the ones already in operation, and that Iran is not likely to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon until 2009 at the earliest.
Several Western nations criticized Iran's recent announcements as needlessly provocative.
Foreign Minister Jack Straw of Britain said they were "deeply unhelpful," and his German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said Iran was "going in precisely the wrong direction." Russia and China joined the chorus, but their criticisms were qualified.
"For China, we are concerned about the events and the way things are developing," said Wang Guamgya, China's ambassador to the United Nations. But he added, "In spite of this, I believe diplomatic efforts are still under way."
In Moscow, a Foreign Ministry spokesman called Iran's push to expand uranium enrichment "a step in the wrong direction."
But Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov later tempered that. He inveighed against any possible military action against Iran and advised against a rush to judgment, saying Iran had "never stated that it is striving to possess nuclear weapons."
Jad Mouawad contributed reporting from New York for this article.
* Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Bloomberg.com: Germany
Bloomberg.com: Germany
Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says (Update2)
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.
Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.
``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.
Rademaker was reacting to a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. That announcement defies demands by the UN Security Council that Iran shut down its nuclear program this month.
The U.S. fears Iran is pursuing a nuclear program to make weapons, while Iran says it is intent on purely civilian purposes, to provide energy. Saeedi said 54,000 centrifuges will be able to enrich uranium to provide fuel for a 1,000-megawat nuclear power plant similar to the one Russia is finishing in southern Iran, AP reported.
``It was a deeply disappointing announcement,'' Rademaker said of Ahmadinejad's statement.
Weapons-Grade Uranium
Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use. The process involves placing uranium hexafluoride gas in a series of rotating drums or cylinders known as centrifuges that run at high speeds to extract weapons grade uranium.
Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.
``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said.
While the U.S. has concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Rademaker said ``there certainly has been no decision on the part of my government'' to use force if Iran refuses to obey the UN Security Council demand that it shuts down its nuclear program.
Rademaker is in Moscow for a meeting of his counterparts from the Group of Eight wealthy industrialized countries. Russia chairs the G-8 this year.
China is concerned about Iran's decision to accelerate uranium enrichment and wants the government in Tehran to heed international criticism of the move, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations said.
Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says (Update2)
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.
Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.
``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.
Rademaker was reacting to a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. That announcement defies demands by the UN Security Council that Iran shut down its nuclear program this month.
The U.S. fears Iran is pursuing a nuclear program to make weapons, while Iran says it is intent on purely civilian purposes, to provide energy. Saeedi said 54,000 centrifuges will be able to enrich uranium to provide fuel for a 1,000-megawat nuclear power plant similar to the one Russia is finishing in southern Iran, AP reported.
``It was a deeply disappointing announcement,'' Rademaker said of Ahmadinejad's statement.
Weapons-Grade Uranium
Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use. The process involves placing uranium hexafluoride gas in a series of rotating drums or cylinders known as centrifuges that run at high speeds to extract weapons grade uranium.
Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.
``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said.
While the U.S. has concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Rademaker said ``there certainly has been no decision on the part of my government'' to use force if Iran refuses to obey the UN Security Council demand that it shuts down its nuclear program.
Rademaker is in Moscow for a meeting of his counterparts from the Group of Eight wealthy industrialized countries. Russia chairs the G-8 this year.
China is concerned about Iran's decision to accelerate uranium enrichment and wants the government in Tehran to heed international criticism of the move, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations said.
Early Warning by William M. Arkin - washingtonpost.com
Early Warning by William M. Arkin - washingtonpost.com
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
Despite Denials, U.S. Plans for Iran War
The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has been conducting theater campaign analysis for a full scale war with Iran since at least May 2003, responding to Pentagon directions to prepare for potential operations in the "near term."
The campaign analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," posits an Iraq-like maneuver war between U.S. and Iranian ground forces and incorporates lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom.
In addition to the TIRANNT effort and the Marine Corps Karona invasion scenario I discussed yesterday, the military has also completed an analysis of Iran's missile force (the "BMD-I" study), the Defense Intelligence Agency has updated "threat data" for Iranian forces, and Air Force planners have modeled attacks against "real world" Iranian air defenses and targets to establish new metrics. What is more, the United States and Britain have been conducting war games and contingency planning under a Caspian Sea scenario that could also pave the way for northern operations against Iran.
After new reports of intensified planning for Iran began to circulate over the weekend, the President dismissed the news as "wild speculation."
On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld similarly called media speculation about Iran war planning as "fantasyland."
Asked at a Pentagon new conference whether he had in recent days, weeks or month, asked the Joint Staff or CENTCOM to "update, refine, [or] modify the contingencies for possible military options against Iran," Rumsfeld said: "We have I don't know how many various contingency plans in this department. And the last thing I'm going to do is to start telling you or anyone else in the press or the world at what point we refresh a plan or don't refresh a plan, and why. It just isn't useful."
I beg to differ, Mr. Secretary.
World pressure and American diplomacy would be mightily enhanced if Iran understood that the United States was indeed so serious about it acquiring nuclear weapons it was willing to go to war over it. What is more, the American public needs to know that this is a possibility.
Think the U.S. military isn't serious about war with Iran?
Since at least 2003, in response to a number of directives from Secretary Rumsfeld and then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, the military services and Pentagon intelligence agencies have been newly working on a number of "near term" and "near-year" Iranian contingency studies in support of CENTCOM war planning efforts.
These studies, war games, and modeling efforts have been the first step in shifting the bulk of planning from almost exclusive focus on Iraq to Iran. At CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida, at Army and Air Force CENTCOM support headquarters in Georgia and South Carolina, and at service analysis and operations research organizations like the Army Concepts Analysis Agency in Bethesda, a monumental effort has been underway to "build" an Iran country baseline for war planning.
Under the TIRANNT campaign analysis program, Army organizations, together with CENTCOM headquarters planners, have been examining both near term and "out year" scenarios for war with Iran, covering all aspects of a major combat operation from mobilization and deployment of forces through post-war "stability" operations after regime change.
The core TIRANNT effort itself began in May 2003, when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data sets needed for theater level (large scale) scenario analysis in support of updated war plans. Successive iterations of TIRANTT efforts have updated "blue," (United States), "green," (coalition), and "threat" databases with post-Iraq war information.
The follow-on TIRANNT Campaign Analysis (TIRANNT-CA), which began in October 2003, has calculated the results of different campaign scenarios against Iran to provide options for "courses of action" analysis. According to military sources close to the planning process, in 2002-2003, the CENTCOM commander, Gen. John Abizaid was directed to develop a new "strategic concept" for Iran war planning and potential courses of action for Secretary of Defense and Presidential review.
Parallel with the TIRANNT and TIRANNT-CA analysis, Army and CENTCOM planners have also been undertaking the "TOY study." TOY stands for TIRANNT Out-Year, and posits a U.S.-Iran war in the year 2011. Under the TOY modeling effort, Army division-sized formations as currently organized are sent up against real world models of Iranian ground units. The results are compared to the same engagements when fought by newly reorganized Army brigade combat teams who fight independent of a strict divisional hierarchy. The product gauges not only the impact of military "transformation" efforts in the Army but also the most propitious timing for war.
Under a separate "BMD-I study," for ballistic missile defense - Iran, the Army Concepts Analysis Agency has modeled the performance of U.S. and Iranian weapon systems to determine the number of missiles expected to "leak through" a coalition missile defense in the 2005 (current) time frame. The BMD-I study has not only looked at U.S. Patriot surface-to-air missile performance and optimum placement to protect U.S. and coalition forces, but also the results of combined air, cyber warfare and missile defense operations to disable Iranian command and control capabilities and missiles on the ground before Iran can fire them.
In July 2004, U.S. and British Army planners also met at Fort Belvoir to play the Hotspur 2004 war game, a 2015 timeframe Caspian Sea scenario examining deployment of forces, movement to "contact" with the enemy, and "decisive" operations. A U.K. medium weight brigade operated subordinate to U.S. forces and the game included an assessment of lessons learned in U.S.-British interoperability during similar operations in southern Iraq.
The extremely complex Caspian Sea scenario has become the standard non-Asian platform for education, training and force development in the Army. The current 2005 "high resolution" version model provides analysts with the ability to manipulate thousands of entities using tens of thousands of combat orders to simulate all aspects of major combat operations. The scenario not only has variable "physical battlespace" including urban terrain, but an adaptive enemy, allowing analysis of not just standard military operations but also complex counter-insurgency activity.
In February 2005, after a similar flurry of news reporting on U.S. military options for Iran, the Deputy Commander of CENTCOM Lt. Gen. Lance Smith was asked at a Pentagon briefing if the Tampa based command was in any kind of heightened state of planning when it comes to Iran.
"We plan everything," Smith responded. "We have a requirement on a regular basis to update plans. We try to keep them current, particularly if -- you know, if our region is active. But I haven't been called into any late-night meetings at, you know, 8:00 at night, saying, 'Holy cow, we got to sit down and go plan for Iran.'"
Throughout mid-2002, when a similar public debate about an Iraq war plan swirled in the news, Secretary Rumsfeld, Myers, and then CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks insisted that there were no "war plans," that they hadn't been asked to prepare a war plan, that no decisions had been made, that no war plan sat on the President's desk.
It would take a doctoral dissertation to wade through the chronology of statements and actions to sort out the specifics of the truth, but here is the reality: Iraq war planning consumed the government inner circle all through this period and the government made a knee jerk decision -- never really thoughtfully reviewed -- not to speak about it. "We don't discuss war plans," the mantra goes. And it is dead wrong.
It seems today we face a similar problem with Iran. The President of the United States insists that all options are on the table while the Secretary of Defense insists it "isn't useful" to discuss American options.
I think this sends the wrong message to Tehran. Contingency planning for a full fledged war with Iran may seem incredible right now, and Iran isn't Iraq. But Iran needs to understand that the United States isn't hamstrung by a lack of options, Iran needs to know that it can't just stonewall and evade international inspections, that it can't burrow further underground in hopes of "winning" because war is messy.
As I've said before in these pages, I don't believe that the United States is planning to imminently attack Iran, and I specifically don't think so because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and it hasn't lashed out militarily against anyone.
But the United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking.
It is not in our interests to have Tehran not understand this. The military options currently on the table might not be good ones, but Iran shouldn't make decisions based upon a false view. Two so-called "experts" are quoted in The Washington Post today saying that there are no options, that there is no Plan B, that the United States will just live with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. They are fundamentally wrong about the options, and misunderstand the Bush administration as well.
But most important, this constant drum beat in the newspapers and the media sends the wrong message to Iran. This is why Secretary Rumsfeld should be saying that the U.S. is preparing war plans for Iran, and that the United States views the situation so seriously that it would be willing to risk war if Iran acquired nuclear weapons or lashed out against the U.S. or its friends. The war planning moreover, Rumsfeld needs to add, is not just routine, it is not just what military's do all the time. It is specifically related to Iran, to its illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons, to its meddling in Iraq and support for international terrorism.
Iran needs to know the facts and the American public need to know the facts. But most important, the American public needs to hear the facts about American war plans, military options and preparedness from the government so that they can understand where we are and decide whether they think the threat from Iran justifies the risks of another war.
Is 'Al Qaeda' the modern incarnation of 'Emmanuel Goldstein'?
Is 'Al Qaeda' the modern incarnation of 'Emmanuel Goldstein'?
"...we know they're out there looking for ways to develop deadlier weapons to use against us, that they'd like to get their hands on a nuclear weapon if they could, or anthrax, or some kind of deadly biological agent. And if they're succeed in that, and they are able to launch an attack against us, obviously, the casualties of 9/11 will be seen small by comparison."
Wanted: Enemy to Justify $344 Billion War Budget
AlertNet, September 4, 2001
You may know some despicable characters, but are they mean enough to apply for this job posting?
ENEMY WANTED. Serious enemy needed to justify Pentagon budget increase. Defense contractors desperate. Interested enemies send letter and photo or video (threatening, ok) to Enemy Search Committee, Priorities Campaign, 1350 Broadway, NY, NY, 10018.
Is 'Al Qaeda' the Modern
Incarnation of 'Emmanuel Goldstein'?
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." |  Is "Al Qaeda" the modern incarnation of "Emmanuel Goldstein", the arch-villain manufactured by the state to rule the population with fear? Is it really far-fetched? If one can accept a real terrorist organization willing to kill people for their political aims, is a fake terror organization willing to kill people for their political aims any less possible. Once you accept that there can be one group of people willing to commit acts of terror you must accept that there can be a second group equally willing to commit acts of terror to blame on the first group. |
"...we know they're out there looking for ways to develop deadlier weapons to use against us, that they'd like to get their hands on a nuclear weapon if they could, or anthrax, or some kind of deadly biological agent. And if they're succeed in that, and they are able to launch an attack against us, obviously, the casualties of 9/11 will be seen small by comparison."Stop and think for a minute. Do the acts of terror accomplish anything for the group that is blamed for the terror? Does terror achieve their ends, obtain the results they want? Or isn't it obvious that the acts of terror are actually achieving the objectives of those who claim to be the victims of the terror, to gain them sympathy and political alliances?
History is full of rulers who used fake terror on their own populations to create consent for their policies. The US is known to have actually planned for such fake terror to create support for an invasion of Cuba. And, it is now well established that FDR not only allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to happen, but goaded the Japanese into it to get a reluctant US into WW2.
Then there is the infamous "Lavon Affair" in which Israelis bombed British and American targets and left evidence to frame Arabs. According to ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky, Israel suckered the US into attacking Libya with fake radio messages.The US told other nations as early as March 2001 of a plan to invade Afghanistan in October 2001. Isn't it interesting that the "terrorists" struck on 9-11, perfectly in time to create the public anger Bush needed to carry out the already-planned already-announced war?
Who is running Al Qaeda? Who benefits from their activities? Bush got his oil war, and Sharon gets a green light to kill Palestinians and steal their land.
Who really benefits? That's who is running Al Qaeda.
Capitol Hill Blue' The Rant: Partisans: America's REAL enemy
Capitol Hill Blue' The Rant: Partisans: America's REAL enemy
By DOUG THOMPSON
Apr 13, 2006, 09:08
I don't like partisanship, political or ideological, and I don't like the partisans who follow political parties or ideological affiliations. I consider all partisans - Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, right or left - to be my enemies and enemies of my country.
Political parties and ideological groups today are dominated by extremists who insist in absolute lockstep by those who belong to their party or cause. Individual thought is verboten. Debate is forbidden. Disagreement becomes grounds from expulsion.
Democrats and Republicans owe their souls to the special interest groups that provide money and votes. These groups require strict adherence to a narrow set of views with no room for compromise.
But government in a country founded on the premise of diversity and individual rights cannot function without compromise, without debate and without a search for common ground. When any leader or political party believes their way is the only way and dismisses any dissenting point of view, government grounds to a halt - paralyzed by the lockstep that grips Congress and too many state governments today.
The problem is political extremism from both sides. The problem is a system that places allegiance to a cause or a party above the common good and the best interests of a country.
If you consider yourself a Democrat or a Republican, then you are part of the problem and cannot be part of the solution. As long as you think of your role in partisan political terms you contribute to the extremism that is destroying this country.
As soon as anyone starts a sentence with "I'm a Democrat" or "I'm a Republican," I tune them out because I know their position is colored by their bias towards one end of the political spectrum or another. They allow the partisan political pap that spills out of the mouths of their leaders like diarrhea to control their thought process and their lives. They unrealistically believe in their own superiority over others who think differently because they buy into the fantasy that their party's beliefs are better than the opposition.
In truth, no one has the answers because a system that puts a political agenda ahead of the nation's best interest is both self-serving and self-destructive.
Want to change the system? Start by changing yourself first? Renounce your political party and the corrupt system it supports. Stop calling yourself a Democrat or a Republican or a conservative or a liberal or right-wing or left-wing.
Start calling yourself an American, one who realizes that Americans, by nature, have different points of view and different ideas on what's wrong with this country and what may be necessary to fix it.
Listen to those points of view. Consider them. Don't dismiss them as crazy just because they happen to be different from your own.
Then try talking to, not yelling at, those who might disagree with you and search for common ground. You might be surprised at what you find.
It's a small step but a first one that we all must take before we can begin working together as Americans to solve the problems that will, if ignored, destroy this country.
© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue
"Political parties and ideological groups today are dominated by extremists who insist in absolute lockstep by those who belong to their party or cause. Individual thought is verboten. Debate is forbidden. Disagreement becomes grounds from expulsion."
By DOUG THOMPSON
Apr 13, 2006, 09:08
I don't like partisanship, political or ideological, and I don't like the partisans who follow political parties or ideological affiliations. I consider all partisans - Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, right or left - to be my enemies and enemies of my country.
Political parties and ideological groups today are dominated by extremists who insist in absolute lockstep by those who belong to their party or cause. Individual thought is verboten. Debate is forbidden. Disagreement becomes grounds from expulsion.
Democrats and Republicans owe their souls to the special interest groups that provide money and votes. These groups require strict adherence to a narrow set of views with no room for compromise.
But government in a country founded on the premise of diversity and individual rights cannot function without compromise, without debate and without a search for common ground. When any leader or political party believes their way is the only way and dismisses any dissenting point of view, government grounds to a halt - paralyzed by the lockstep that grips Congress and too many state governments today.
The problem is political extremism from both sides. The problem is a system that places allegiance to a cause or a party above the common good and the best interests of a country.
If you consider yourself a Democrat or a Republican, then you are part of the problem and cannot be part of the solution. As long as you think of your role in partisan political terms you contribute to the extremism that is destroying this country.
As soon as anyone starts a sentence with "I'm a Democrat" or "I'm a Republican," I tune them out because I know their position is colored by their bias towards one end of the political spectrum or another. They allow the partisan political pap that spills out of the mouths of their leaders like diarrhea to control their thought process and their lives. They unrealistically believe in their own superiority over others who think differently because they buy into the fantasy that their party's beliefs are better than the opposition.
In truth, no one has the answers because a system that puts a political agenda ahead of the nation's best interest is both self-serving and self-destructive.
Want to change the system? Start by changing yourself first? Renounce your political party and the corrupt system it supports. Stop calling yourself a Democrat or a Republican or a conservative or a liberal or right-wing or left-wing.
Start calling yourself an American, one who realizes that Americans, by nature, have different points of view and different ideas on what's wrong with this country and what may be necessary to fix it.
Listen to those points of view. Consider them. Don't dismiss them as crazy just because they happen to be different from your own.
Then try talking to, not yelling at, those who might disagree with you and search for common ground. You might be surprised at what you find.
It's a small step but a first one that we all must take before we can begin working together as Americans to solve the problems that will, if ignored, destroy this country.
© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue
Iran One Step Closer To Nukes
Iran One Step Closer To Nukes
Iran One Step Closer To Nukes
by Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor
Washington (UPI) Apr 13, 2006
Just days after strong rumors of a possible preemptive U.S. and/or Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities circulated like wildfire around the Washington Beltway, Iran announced it has taken its nuclear program forward.
Iran One Step Closer To Nukes
 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad waves to well-wishers as his helicopter prepares to leave the city of Khaf, near the holy city of Mashhad in northeastern Iran, 12 April 2006. A defiant Iran basked in the glory of a major breakthrough in its nuclear programme today, challenging the UN Security Council and shrugging off a broadside of international condemnation. After the Islamic republic's hardline president announced regime scientists had crossed a milestone by successfully enriching uranium to make nuclear fuel, a top military commander declared his country was unstoppable. AFP PHOTO/IRNA/STR |
UPI International Editor
Washington (UPI) Apr 13, 2006
Just days after strong rumors of a possible preemptive U.S. and/or Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities circulated like wildfire around the Washington Beltway, Iran announced it has taken its nuclear program forward.
"Uranium enrichment has been achieved," boasted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Tuesday to a jubilant crowd gathered in Mashhad, during a speech televised for the world to see. This latest step in Iran's nuclear program brings the Islamic Republic that much closer to acquiring nuclear weapons.
"I think this is significant; the world must take this very seriously," Alireza Jafarzadeh, president of Strategic Policy Consulting and a former Washington spokesman for Iran's parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, told United Press International.
"This confirms what I have been warning," said Jafarzadeh. "Ahmadinejad's task was to give the regime its first nuclear bomb. And he is going ahead," said the Iranian dissident.
"This also confirms that by April 28 -- the day Iran has to comply with the demands of the International Atomic Energy Agency -- he (Ahmadinejad) has no intentions to comply."
Ahmadinejad's speech can also be perceived as a slap across the face to the world community -- particularly to the United States, the European Union and Russia, whose diplomats have tried to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club.
"Nothing will stop Ahmadinejad and the regime from getting the bomb," said Jafarzadeh. The only thing that can stop Iran's nuclear weapons program, says Jafarzadeh, is for the international community to strike at the Achilles' heel of the regime. And that is to empower the opposition. "The opposition can help. Empower the opposition before Ahmadinejad gets the bomb," pleaded Jafarzadeh.
Iran achieved uranium enrichment for the first time by using its 164 centrifuges from its Natanz facility, according to the Iranian news agency IRNA, who quoted the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh.
Aqazadeh said they produced uranium "enriched to 3.5 percent."
Shortly after Iran's announcement, Israel called for "a broad and determined international coalition" to stop Tehran's nuclear project, yet remained cautious.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz did not comment, but the Foreign Ministry's spokesman Mark Regev said that, "Iran's latest announcement serves as a further example of the real danger in delaying concrete diplomatic measures in the face of continued Iranian refusal to comply with international demands to stop its nuclear activities. Israel believes that the Iranian nuclear program should be confronted by a broad and determined international coalition."
Maj. Gen. Yossi Peled, the former head of Israel's Northern Command, said Israel must prepare to face Iran alone. "Israel does not have the luxury of waiting endlessly."
About an hour before the Iranian president was to take the stand and announce the event, he was preempted by Iran's former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani. Rafsanjani divulged the information in an interview to the Kuwaiti news agency, KUNA.
"Iran has put into operation the first unit of 164 centrifuges, has injected (uranium) gas and has reached industrial production," KUNA quoted Rafsanjani as saying.
"We should expand the work of these machines to achieve a full industrial line. We need dozens of these (centrifuge) units to achieve a uranium enrichment facility," said Rafsanjani.
To obtain fuel for a nuclear reactor, uranium has to be enriched at a low level. But when enriched at a higher level, it produces weapons-grade material.
For the moment, it is believed that Iran has only one set of 164 centrifuges. It would need thousands of operating centrifuges to produce enough uranium to allow it to generate either nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.
"Iran has accelerated the nuclear clock, now the United States should accelerate the diplomatic clock," Raymond Tanter, a former senior National Security Counsel member in the Reagan administration and a principal with the Iran Policy Committee told UPI.
"The fact that Rafsanjani made the original announcement shows that there is no difference between one and the other," Tanter told UPI. But other observers saw this as a sign of discord within the Iran's top echelon.
"We need to go back to the United Nations," said Tanter. Jafarzadeh disagrees. "It's another clear indication that diplomacy has long failed," he said.
The fact that rumors of an imminent attack on the Islamic republic's nuclear facilities coincided with Iran's announcement that it has moved its nuclear process ahead may not be all that coincidental.
Source: United Press International
CTV.ca | The Bandidos biker gang in Canada: a background
CTV.ca | The Bandidos biker gang in Canada: a background
 OPP Detective Inspector Paul Beesley listens to a question during a news conference in London, Ont. Monday April 10, 2006. (CP / Adrian Wyld) |
The Bandidos biker gang in Canada: a background
CTV.ca News Staff
While the recent slayings and subsequent arrests virtually wiped out Bandidos forces in Canada, the gang remains the second-largest organized criminal biker group in the world -- with a reputation for being one of the most violent.
"We are the people your parents warned you about," states the Bandidos' motto.
Though the Hells Angels are the world's largest biker gang, the Bandidos "have always been much more in your face," said Julian Sher, an investigative journalist who has co-authored two books on the topic.
In fact, the two gangs are historic rivals. But investigators say the weekend discovery of eight Bandidos members and associates' bodies found crammed in abandoned vehicles in a southwestern Ontario farm wasn't the result of a biker turf war.
Instead, police claim it was an internal settling of scores that could, according to some experts, be related to their recent attempts to expand.
After they were chased out of Quebec, the Bandidos set up shop in Toronto and tried to extend their influence across the country.
Sher told CTV News he has seen biker gangs battle over turf in big cities and small towns alike in a bid to gain full control over illicit markets.
"Like any other business, you know, whether it's Tim Hortons or Loblaws, they will try to move into territories where they can make business," Sher said.
"So we've seen the bikers expand not just in big centres like Toronto and Hamilton, but also London, Thunder Bay, Kitchener-Waterloo."
Despite the group's ambition to improve their standing in the pecking order, Sher said the Bandidos were never able to gain traction in Canada because the Hells Angels -- "through a combination of bribes, bluster and often bullets -- have always crushed them."
Yves Lavigne, an investigative journalist who infiltrated the Bandidos in 1989, says the Toronto chapter was not backed by the international organization.
"The group that we saw in Ontario was an offshoot, given its colours by the gang in Quebec who got their colours from the people in Scandinavia," he said, appearing on CTV's Canada AM.
"It was not endorsed by the American Bandidos. They didn't want them. On a scale of one to ten in terms of biker world power, the Bandidos in southwestern Ontario rated between zero and one," Lavigne said.
Lavigne added that the men who were killed in Shedden were "guys who could not make other biker gangs."
"There are people out there for who their life dream is to become an outlaw biker, but they don't have what it takes, so they had belonged to different gangs, they had been rejected," he said.
"They liked the lifestyle, unfortunately it caught up to them."
But Lavigne dismisses the suggestion from the police that the murders were an "internal cleansing."
He says there were no more than 12 bikers with allegiances to Bandidos in Ontario at any one time.
"No one was looking for power. If they were, they wouldn't have wiped out the gang. Over whom do they have power once they do that?" he asked.
Instead, Lavigne characterized the slayings as a family tragedy.
"They trusted each other, which is why the slaughter happened. They weren't watching their backs, their guard was down," he said.
"Someone snapped. This was an act of insanity. It was not premeditated."
There has also been speculation that a confrontation sparked by a shift of allegiance toward the Hells Angels may have gotten out of hand.
But so far, police sources have said there is no indication that the orders came from the Texas headquarters of the U.S. parent organization.
Another alternative theory is that what transpired at the London-area farm was a deadly drug ripoff, over $400,000 worth of cocaine, which left three Bandidos shot dead.
Media reports suggest five other Bandidos arrived later that night, only to be killed themselves.
Internal feuds
Biker gangs have a history of internal cleansing. Indeed, the recent slayings are drawing comparison to one of the most notorious mass murders in biker history.
In what is now known as the Lennoxville Massacre, a conflict between two Quebec chapters of the Hells Angels saw five bikers machine-gunned dead and dumped in the St. Lawrence River. A sixth biker was murdered later.
Increased biker gang activity in southwestern Ontario is a direct result of the 10-year bloody gang war that gripped Quebec in the 1990s between the Hells Angels and a gang connected to the Banditos -- the Rock Machine.
"The hatred between these two groups has been quite longstanding," Sher told CTV Newsnet in an interview.
The feud first spilled over to Canada in Quebec in the mid-1990s. The upstart Rock Machine bike club had turned to the Bandidos for help to retain its share of the drug market.
Battles between the rival gangs left more than 150 dead in Quebec, some of them innocent bystanders -- including 11-year-old Daniel Desrochers who was hit by exploding shrapnel. The boy's death prompted a massive public outcry, and the two groups declared a public ceasefire in 2000.
In the fall of 2000, facing public indignation over the mounting death toll and the shooting of journalist Michel Auger, the Hells and Rock Machine announced a short-lived ceasefire.
But within weeks, tensions again escalated when the Rock Machine obtained probationary membership in the Bandidos.
As the Rock Machine had just established three Ontario chapters in Ontario, the amalgamation effectively handed the Bandidos a foothold in Ontario.
The Hells Angels responded by offering other rival gangs in the province a one-time-only offer of full memberships, or full patches, without a probationary period. By early 2001, the Hells were a powerhouse in the province that had previously eluded them.
After authorities cracked down in Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario replaced the province as the main battlefields, Sher explained.
Today, Ontario's estimated 250 Hells Angels and associates insist they are a motorcycle club, not a criminal organization.
As for the Bandidos, their presence has been virtually purged in Ontario, Lavigne said.
With the 12-member chapter in Toronto effectively erased from existence, all that is left is a smaller, junior chapter in Winnipeg.
"There's three guys left out west. If they were smart, they would burn their colours, head out to the mountains and become cowboys," Lavigne said.
"Because it's a lot safer riding a horse for them than riding a Harley," he said.
Canada won't allow field testing of suicide seeds until risks examined
original
Dennis Bueckert
Canadian Press
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
OTTAWA (CP) - Suicide seeds, which are genetically altered to produce sterile plants, won't be planted in Canadian fields any time soon.
Giuliano Tolusso, senior policy analyst at Agriculture Canada, says Canada will respect a moratorium on field testing of Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT), which was reaffirmed at a conference in Curitiba, Brazil last month. Canada will allow research on the seeds but only in a laboratory setting, Tolusso said in an interview Monday.
"We won't go to field testing until we gather the scientific and socio-economic information necessary to make an informed decision."
Canada's policy places it within the consensus of countries which are parties to the UN Convention on Biodiversity, but on a different track from the United States which has not signed the convention.
Suicide seeds are probably the hottest topic in biotechnology now. They would give seed companies a sure method to protect patent rights on genetically engineered seed, which is gaining use around the world.
Critics say GURT would place farmers at the mercy of seed companies and endanger the ancient tradition of saving seeds from year to year. Countries in less prosperous countries such as India and Brazil have banned GURT.
The technology would relieve seed companies of the need to protect their patents with highly visible legal actions.
Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada for using patented seeds he had not purchased.
Schmeiser lost the case but has since become a folk hero for defenders of organic farming, campaigning across Canada and internationally against genetic engineering in agriculture.
Tolusso said no GURT research is being conducted in Canada now, but the technology does have potentially significant applications.
He said GURT could help isolate genetically modified plants from organic crops, ensuring that the engineered traits, such as an ability to withstand pesticides, don't spread into weeds or neigbouring crops.
Pat Mooney of the Ottawa-based ETC Group, which follows international development issues, said he is pleased Canada has recognized the international moratorium.
He said the meeting in Curitiba was dominated by the GURT issue, and opposition was overwhelming, including a demonstration by peasant women who protested in the conference hall at the height of negotiations.
Mooney said there's strong interest in using GURT for genetically modified trees because tree pollen can travel 2,000 kilometers, making contamination a greater concern than with field plants. Pollen from field plants travels only a few kilometers.
© The Canadian Press 2006
Dennis Bueckert
Canadian Press
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
OTTAWA (CP) - Suicide seeds, which are genetically altered to produce sterile plants, won't be planted in Canadian fields any time soon.
Giuliano Tolusso, senior policy analyst at Agriculture Canada, says Canada will respect a moratorium on field testing of Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT), which was reaffirmed at a conference in Curitiba, Brazil last month. Canada will allow research on the seeds but only in a laboratory setting, Tolusso said in an interview Monday.
"We won't go to field testing until we gather the scientific and socio-economic information necessary to make an informed decision."
Canada's policy places it within the consensus of countries which are parties to the UN Convention on Biodiversity, but on a different track from the United States which has not signed the convention.
Suicide seeds are probably the hottest topic in biotechnology now. They would give seed companies a sure method to protect patent rights on genetically engineered seed, which is gaining use around the world.
Critics say GURT would place farmers at the mercy of seed companies and endanger the ancient tradition of saving seeds from year to year. Countries in less prosperous countries such as India and Brazil have banned GURT.
The technology would relieve seed companies of the need to protect their patents with highly visible legal actions.
Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada for using patented seeds he had not purchased.
Schmeiser lost the case but has since become a folk hero for defenders of organic farming, campaigning across Canada and internationally against genetic engineering in agriculture.
Tolusso said no GURT research is being conducted in Canada now, but the technology does have potentially significant applications.
He said GURT could help isolate genetically modified plants from organic crops, ensuring that the engineered traits, such as an ability to withstand pesticides, don't spread into weeds or neigbouring crops.
Pat Mooney of the Ottawa-based ETC Group, which follows international development issues, said he is pleased Canada has recognized the international moratorium.
He said the meeting in Curitiba was dominated by the GURT issue, and opposition was overwhelming, including a demonstration by peasant women who protested in the conference hall at the height of negotiations.
Mooney said there's strong interest in using GURT for genetically modified trees because tree pollen can travel 2,000 kilometers, making contamination a greater concern than with field plants. Pollen from field plants travels only a few kilometers.
© The Canadian Press 2006
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Chron.com | Venezuela to help Cuba resurrect old refinery
original
HAVANA - Venezuela and Cuba will invest $800 million to $1 billion to start up an unfinished Soviet-era refinery on the island, the Venezuelan ambassador to Cuba, Adan Chavez, said Tuesday.
"The aim is to completely reactivate the Cienfuegos refinery," the envoy, an older brother of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, said at a news conference.
The initial investment will be approximately between $800 million and $1 billion in shared costs, he said.
Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA formed a joint venture with Cuba on Monday to revamp the unused refinery on the shore of Cienfuegos Bay in south-central Cuba, and signed an agreement guaranteeing Venezuelan feedstock of 70,000 barrels per day.
Venezuela and Cuba signed an accord in April 2005 that committed PDVSA to help start the refinery, which was completed in 1991. The refinery, with an installed capacity of about 76,000 barrels a day, has never operated because of its reliance on outdated Russian technology.
PDVSA has said it plans to spend about $2.2 billion on overseas refineries through 2012. Sixty-nine percent of the investment is earmarked for a refinery in northern Brazil.
HAVANA - Venezuela and Cuba will invest $800 million to $1 billion to start up an unfinished Soviet-era refinery on the island, the Venezuelan ambassador to Cuba, Adan Chavez, said Tuesday.
"The aim is to completely reactivate the Cienfuegos refinery," the envoy, an older brother of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, said at a news conference.
The initial investment will be approximately between $800 million and $1 billion in shared costs, he said.
Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA formed a joint venture with Cuba on Monday to revamp the unused refinery on the shore of Cienfuegos Bay in south-central Cuba, and signed an agreement guaranteeing Venezuelan feedstock of 70,000 barrels per day.
Venezuela and Cuba signed an accord in April 2005 that committed PDVSA to help start the refinery, which was completed in 1991. The refinery, with an installed capacity of about 76,000 barrels a day, has never operated because of its reliance on outdated Russian technology.
PDVSA has said it plans to spend about $2.2 billion on overseas refineries through 2012. Sixty-nine percent of the investment is earmarked for a refinery in northern Brazil.
Pentagon Eyeing Google, Blogs
original
InsideDefense.com NewsStand
Jason Sherman | April 12, 2006
An influential advisory panel to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is exploring the military implications of powerful Internet search engines like Google, online journals and other new tools for accessing and distributing information.
Kenneth Krieg, under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, has directed the Defense Science Board to conduct a summer study examining "Information Management for Net-Centric Operations". The goal is to ensure that the Defense Department has in place the proper information networks to sustain future operations.
Information and the networks that carry it "are the lifeblood of military and civil operations," Krieg wrote in a March 15 memo that will guide the work of the six- to nine-month assessment. The acquisition executive has told the panel to assess the Pentagon's "strategy, scope and progress toward achieving a robust and adaptive net-centric DOD enterprise."
Over the last few decades the military has significantly improved its combat effectiveness by introducing computer microprocessors to nearly every facet of its enterprise. Using computers and new communication tools, the Defense Department has improved interoperability across the services and facilitated unprecedented levels of information sharing.
"During the past ten years we have seen the evolution of military missions driven by adaptive adversaries who recognize our increasing dependence on information networks," Krieg wrote. "Going forward, transformation must focus on addressing the stresses imposed by 21st century mission challenges associated with stabilization and reconstruction operations in urban and unconventional environments and responses to unforeseen events with catastrophic consequences."
Among the challenges facing U.S. military networks and those who maintain them is the need to maintain adequate levels of security, integrity and reliability, according to Krieg.
"As new users demand more information and adaptive information sharing, improved knowledge utilization and better tools for information discovery will become critically important," he wrote. "'Googling' and "blogging' are making their way into military operations at all levels, but the full implications of this revolution are as yet unknown and we have no clear direction and defined doctrine."
The summer study task force -- being led by Vincent Vitto, president of the Draper Laboratory, and Ronald Kerber, a private consultant -- is tackling three sets of issues.
First, it is examining the "implications of new and innovative" approaches to command and control structure, capabilities and processes, according to Krieg. This includes considering the military's growing need to share information with other federal agencies, coalition partners and non-governmental organizations, which is driven by stability and reconstruction operations, supporting civil authorities in the wake of a massive domestic terrorist attack and countering the proliferation -- and possible use -- of a weapon of mass destruction.
Second, the study is to "evaluate the underlying framework, architecture" and organization of the Defense Department's information enterprise, Krieg wrote. "Explore enterprise-wide cost/risk trades between bandwidth, quality of service, network availability, network security, information integrity, information sharing and collaboration," the memo states.
Lastly, Krieg has directed the panel to investigate cutting-edge tools for "knowledge utilization."
Specifically, the acquisition executive wants a report on new approaches to information discovery, information sharing in a secured networked environment, visualization and collaboration.
In addition to examining the implications of Internet search engines and websites on future military command and control capabilities, the Defense Department is actively looking at how such readily available information tools affect the military's strategic communication capabilities.
Commercially available technologies have made rapid transmission of images and information widely accessible. This not only has implications for command and control, as the Defense Science Board is examining, but also for the Defense Department's strategic communications capabilities.
This issue is the subject of a major post-Quadrennial Defense Review assessment through which the Pentagon is examining how the military can be more effective against extremist organizations and individuals not only on the battlefield, but in the media.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a Feb. 17 speech, issued a far-reaching call for improving the government's strategic communications capabilities in order to more effectively combat extremist organizations and individuals in the media.
InsideDefense.com NewsStand
Jason Sherman | April 12, 2006
An influential advisory panel to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is exploring the military implications of powerful Internet search engines like Google, online journals and other new tools for accessing and distributing information.
Kenneth Krieg, under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, has directed the Defense Science Board to conduct a summer study examining "Information Management for Net-Centric Operations". The goal is to ensure that the Defense Department has in place the proper information networks to sustain future operations.
Information and the networks that carry it "are the lifeblood of military and civil operations," Krieg wrote in a March 15 memo that will guide the work of the six- to nine-month assessment. The acquisition executive has told the panel to assess the Pentagon's "strategy, scope and progress toward achieving a robust and adaptive net-centric DOD enterprise."
Over the last few decades the military has significantly improved its combat effectiveness by introducing computer microprocessors to nearly every facet of its enterprise. Using computers and new communication tools, the Defense Department has improved interoperability across the services and facilitated unprecedented levels of information sharing.
"During the past ten years we have seen the evolution of military missions driven by adaptive adversaries who recognize our increasing dependence on information networks," Krieg wrote. "Going forward, transformation must focus on addressing the stresses imposed by 21st century mission challenges associated with stabilization and reconstruction operations in urban and unconventional environments and responses to unforeseen events with catastrophic consequences."
Among the challenges facing U.S. military networks and those who maintain them is the need to maintain adequate levels of security, integrity and reliability, according to Krieg.
"As new users demand more information and adaptive information sharing, improved knowledge utilization and better tools for information discovery will become critically important," he wrote. "'Googling' and "blogging' are making their way into military operations at all levels, but the full implications of this revolution are as yet unknown and we have no clear direction and defined doctrine."
The summer study task force -- being led by Vincent Vitto, president of the Draper Laboratory, and Ronald Kerber, a private consultant -- is tackling three sets of issues.
First, it is examining the "implications of new and innovative" approaches to command and control structure, capabilities and processes, according to Krieg. This includes considering the military's growing need to share information with other federal agencies, coalition partners and non-governmental organizations, which is driven by stability and reconstruction operations, supporting civil authorities in the wake of a massive domestic terrorist attack and countering the proliferation -- and possible use -- of a weapon of mass destruction.
Second, the study is to "evaluate the underlying framework, architecture" and organization of the Defense Department's information enterprise, Krieg wrote. "Explore enterprise-wide cost/risk trades between bandwidth, quality of service, network availability, network security, information integrity, information sharing and collaboration," the memo states.
Lastly, Krieg has directed the panel to investigate cutting-edge tools for "knowledge utilization."
Specifically, the acquisition executive wants a report on new approaches to information discovery, information sharing in a secured networked environment, visualization and collaboration.
In addition to examining the implications of Internet search engines and websites on future military command and control capabilities, the Defense Department is actively looking at how such readily available information tools affect the military's strategic communication capabilities.
Commercially available technologies have made rapid transmission of images and information widely accessible. This not only has implications for command and control, as the Defense Science Board is examining, but also for the Defense Department's strategic communications capabilities.
This issue is the subject of a major post-Quadrennial Defense Review assessment through which the Pentagon is examining how the military can be more effective against extremist organizations and individuals not only on the battlefield, but in the media.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a Feb. 17 speech, issued a far-reaching call for improving the government's strategic communications capabilities in order to more effectively combat extremist organizations and individuals in the media.
Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War
original
Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; A01
On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.
The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.
The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.
None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized. Their accounts were verified by other current and former government officials knowledgeable about the mission. The contents of the final report, "Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers," remain classified. But interviews reveal that the technical team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons. Those interviewed took care not to discuss the classified portions of their work.
"There was no connection to anything biological," said one expert who studied the trailers. Another recalled an epithet that came to be associated with the trailers: "the biggest sand toilets in the world."
Primary Piece of Evidence
The story of the technical team and its reports adds a new dimension to the debate over the U.S. government's handling of intelligence related to banned Iraqi weapons programs. The trailers -- along with aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq for what was claimed to be a nuclear weapons program -- were primary pieces of evidence offered by the Bush administration before the war to support its contention that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction.
Intelligence officials and the White House have repeatedly denied allegations that intelligence was hyped or manipulated in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. But officials familiar with the technical team's reports are questioning anew whether intelligence agencies played down or dismissed postwar evidence that contradicted the administration's public views about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Last year, a presidential commission on intelligence failures criticized U.S. spy agencies for discounting evidence that contradicted the official line about banned weapons in Iraq, both before and after the invasion.
Spokesmen for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment on the specific findings of the technical report because it remains classified. A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The survey group's final report in September 2004 -- 15 months after the technical report was written -- said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons.
"Whether the information was offered to others in the political realm I cannot say," said the DIA official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.
Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.
The technical team's findings had no apparent impact on the intelligence agencies' public statements on the trailers. A day after the team's report was transmitted to Washington -- May 28, 2003 -- the CIA publicly released its first formal assessment of the trailers, reflecting the views of its Washington analysts. That white paper, which also bore the DIA seal, contended that U.S. officials were "confident" that the trailers were used for "mobile biological weapons production."
Throughout the summer and fall of 2003, the trailers became simply "mobile biological laboratories" in speeches and press statements by administration officials. In late June, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell declared that the "confidence level is increasing" that the trailers were intended for biowarfare. In September, Vice President Cheney pronounced the trailers to be "mobile biological facilities," and said they could have been used to produce anthrax or smallpox.
By autumn, leaders of the Iraqi Survey Group were publicly expressing doubts about the trailers in news reports. David Kay, the group's first leader, told Congress on Oct. 2 that he had found no banned weapons in Iraq and was unable to verify the claim that the disputed trailers were weapons labs. Still, as late as February 2004, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet continued to assert that the mobile-labs theory remained plausible. Although there was "no consensus" among intelligence officials, the trailers "could be made to work" as weapons labs, he said in a speech Feb. 5.
Tenet, now a faculty member at Georgetown's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, declined to comment for this story.
Kay, in an interview, said senior CIA officials had advised him upon accepting the survey group's leadership in June 2003 that some experts in the DIA were "backsliding" on whether the trailers were weapons labs. But Kay said he was not apprised of the technical team's findings until late 2003, near the end of his time as the group's leader.
"If I had known that we had such a team in Iraq," Kay said, "I would certainly have given their findings more weight."
A Defector's Tales
Even before the trailers were seized in spring 2003, the mobile labs had achieved mythic stature. As early as the mid-1990s, weapons inspectors from the United Nations chased phantom mobile labs that were said to be mounted on trucks or rail cars, churning out tons of anthrax by night and moving to new locations each day. No such labs were found, but many officials believed the stories, thanks in large part to elaborate tales told by Iraqi defectors.
The CIA's star informant, an Iraqi with the code name Curveball, was a self-proclaimed chemical engineer who defected to Germany in 1999 and requested asylum. For four years, the Baghdad native passed secrets about alleged Iraqi banned weapons to the CIA indirectly, through Germany's intelligence service. Curveball provided descriptions of mobile labs and said he had supervised work in one of them. He even described a catastrophic 1998 accident in one lab that left 12 Iraqis dead.
Curveball's detailed descriptions -- which were officially discredited in 2004 -- helped CIA artists create color diagrams of the labs, which Powell later used to argue the case for military intervention in Iraq before the U.N. Security Council.
"We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails," Powell said in the Feb. 5, 2003, speech. Thanks to those descriptions, he said, "We know what the fermenters look like. We know what the tanks, pumps, compressors and other parts look like."
The trailers discovered in the Iraqi desert resembled the drawings well enough, at least from a distance. One of them, a flatbed trailer covered by tarps, was found in April by Kurdish fighters near the northern city of Irbil. The second was captured by U.S. forces near Mosul. Both were painted military green and outfitted with a suspicious array of gear: large metal tanks, motors, compressors, pipes and valves.
Photos of the trailers were quickly circulated, and many weapons experts were convinced that the long-sought mobile labs had been found.
Yet reaction from Iraqi sources was troublingly inconsistent. Curveball, shown photos of the trailers, confirmed they were mobile labs and even pointed out key features. But other Iraqi informants in internal reports disputed Curveball's story and claimed the trailers had a benign purpose: producing hydrogen for weather balloons.
Back at the Pentagon, DIA officials attempted a quick resolution of the dispute. The task fell to the "Jefferson Project," a DIA-led initiative made up of government and civilian technical experts who specialize in analyzing and countering biological threats. Project leaders put together a team of volunteers, eight Americans and a Briton, each with at least a decade of experience in one of the essential technical skills needed for bioweapons production. All were nongovernment employees working for defense contractors or the Energy Department's national labs.
The technical team was assembled in Kuwait and then flown to Baghdad to begin their work early on May 25, 2003. By that date, the two trailers had been moved to a military base on the grounds of one of deposed president Saddam Hussein's Baghdad palaces. When members of the technical team arrived, they found the trailers parked in an open lot, covered with camouflage netting.
The technical team went to work under a blistering sun in 110-degree temperatures. Using tools from home, they peered into vats, turned valves, tapped gauges and measured pipes. They reconstructed a flow-path through feed tanks and reactor vessels, past cooling chambers and drain valves, and into discharge tanks and exhaust pipes. They took hundreds of photographs.
By the end of their first day, team members still had differing views about what the trailers were. But they agreed about what the trailers were not.
"Within the first four hours," said one team member, who like the others spoke on the condition he not be named, "it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs."
News of the team's early impressions leaped across the Atlantic well ahead of the technical report. Over the next two days, a stream of anxious e-mails and phone calls from Washington pressed for details and clarifications.
The reason for the nervousness was soon obvious: In Washington, a CIA analyst had written a draft white paper on the trailers, an official assessment that would also reflect the views of the DIA. The white paper described the trailers as "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program." It also explicitly rejected an explanation by Iraqi officials, described in a New York Times article a few days earlier, that the trailers might be mobile units for producing hydrogen.
But the technical team's preliminary report, written in a tent in Baghdad and approved by each team member, reached a conclusion opposite from that of the white paper.
Key Components Lacking
Team members and other sources intimately familiar with the mission declined to discuss technical details of the team's findings because the report remains classified. But they cited the Iraqi Survey Group's nonclassified, final report to Congress in September 2004 as reflecting the same conclusions.
That report said the trailers were "impractical for biological agent production," lacking 11 components that would be crucial for making bioweapons. Instead, the trailers were "almost certainly designed and built for the generation of hydrogen," the survey group reported.
The group's report and members of the technical team also dismissed the notion that the trailers could be easily modified to produce weapons.
"It would be easier to start all over with just a bucket," said Rod Barton, an Australian biological weapons expert and former member of the survey group.
The technical team's preliminary report was transmitted in the early hours of May 27, just before its members began boarding planes to return home. Within 24 hours, the CIA published its white paper, "Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants," on its Web site.
After team members returned to Washington, they began work on a final report. At several points, members were questioned about revising their conclusions, according to sources knowledgeable about the conversations. The questioners generally wanted to know the same thing: Could the report's conclusions be softened, to leave open a possibility that the trailers might have been intended for weapons?
In the end, the final report -- 19 pages plus a 103-page appendix -- remained unequivocal in declaring the trailers unsuitable for weapons production.
"It was very assertive," said one weapons expert familiar with the report's contents.
Then, their mission completed, the team members returned to their jobs and watched as their work appeared to vanish.
"I went home and fully expected that our findings would be publicly stated," one member recalled. "It never happened. And I just had to live with it."
Researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; A01
On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.
The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.
The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.
None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized. Their accounts were verified by other current and former government officials knowledgeable about the mission. The contents of the final report, "Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers," remain classified. But interviews reveal that the technical team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons. Those interviewed took care not to discuss the classified portions of their work.
"There was no connection to anything biological," said one expert who studied the trailers. Another recalled an epithet that came to be associated with the trailers: "the biggest sand toilets in the world."
Primary Piece of Evidence
The story of the technical team and its reports adds a new dimension to the debate over the U.S. government's handling of intelligence related to banned Iraqi weapons programs. The trailers -- along with aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq for what was claimed to be a nuclear weapons program -- were primary pieces of evidence offered by the Bush administration before the war to support its contention that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction.
Intelligence officials and the White House have repeatedly denied allegations that intelligence was hyped or manipulated in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. But officials familiar with the technical team's reports are questioning anew whether intelligence agencies played down or dismissed postwar evidence that contradicted the administration's public views about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Last year, a presidential commission on intelligence failures criticized U.S. spy agencies for discounting evidence that contradicted the official line about banned weapons in Iraq, both before and after the invasion.
Spokesmen for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment on the specific findings of the technical report because it remains classified. A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The survey group's final report in September 2004 -- 15 months after the technical report was written -- said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons.
"Whether the information was offered to others in the political realm I cannot say," said the DIA official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.
Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.
The technical team's findings had no apparent impact on the intelligence agencies' public statements on the trailers. A day after the team's report was transmitted to Washington -- May 28, 2003 -- the CIA publicly released its first formal assessment of the trailers, reflecting the views of its Washington analysts. That white paper, which also bore the DIA seal, contended that U.S. officials were "confident" that the trailers were used for "mobile biological weapons production."
Throughout the summer and fall of 2003, the trailers became simply "mobile biological laboratories" in speeches and press statements by administration officials. In late June, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell declared that the "confidence level is increasing" that the trailers were intended for biowarfare. In September, Vice President Cheney pronounced the trailers to be "mobile biological facilities," and said they could have been used to produce anthrax or smallpox.
By autumn, leaders of the Iraqi Survey Group were publicly expressing doubts about the trailers in news reports. David Kay, the group's first leader, told Congress on Oct. 2 that he had found no banned weapons in Iraq and was unable to verify the claim that the disputed trailers were weapons labs. Still, as late as February 2004, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet continued to assert that the mobile-labs theory remained plausible. Although there was "no consensus" among intelligence officials, the trailers "could be made to work" as weapons labs, he said in a speech Feb. 5.
Tenet, now a faculty member at Georgetown's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, declined to comment for this story.
Kay, in an interview, said senior CIA officials had advised him upon accepting the survey group's leadership in June 2003 that some experts in the DIA were "backsliding" on whether the trailers were weapons labs. But Kay said he was not apprised of the technical team's findings until late 2003, near the end of his time as the group's leader.
"If I had known that we had such a team in Iraq," Kay said, "I would certainly have given their findings more weight."
A Defector's Tales
Even before the trailers were seized in spring 2003, the mobile labs had achieved mythic stature. As early as the mid-1990s, weapons inspectors from the United Nations chased phantom mobile labs that were said to be mounted on trucks or rail cars, churning out tons of anthrax by night and moving to new locations each day. No such labs were found, but many officials believed the stories, thanks in large part to elaborate tales told by Iraqi defectors.
The CIA's star informant, an Iraqi with the code name Curveball, was a self-proclaimed chemical engineer who defected to Germany in 1999 and requested asylum. For four years, the Baghdad native passed secrets about alleged Iraqi banned weapons to the CIA indirectly, through Germany's intelligence service. Curveball provided descriptions of mobile labs and said he had supervised work in one of them. He even described a catastrophic 1998 accident in one lab that left 12 Iraqis dead.
Curveball's detailed descriptions -- which were officially discredited in 2004 -- helped CIA artists create color diagrams of the labs, which Powell later used to argue the case for military intervention in Iraq before the U.N. Security Council.
"We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails," Powell said in the Feb. 5, 2003, speech. Thanks to those descriptions, he said, "We know what the fermenters look like. We know what the tanks, pumps, compressors and other parts look like."
The trailers discovered in the Iraqi desert resembled the drawings well enough, at least from a distance. One of them, a flatbed trailer covered by tarps, was found in April by Kurdish fighters near the northern city of Irbil. The second was captured by U.S. forces near Mosul. Both were painted military green and outfitted with a suspicious array of gear: large metal tanks, motors, compressors, pipes and valves.
Photos of the trailers were quickly circulated, and many weapons experts were convinced that the long-sought mobile labs had been found.
Yet reaction from Iraqi sources was troublingly inconsistent. Curveball, shown photos of the trailers, confirmed they were mobile labs and even pointed out key features. But other Iraqi informants in internal reports disputed Curveball's story and claimed the trailers had a benign purpose: producing hydrogen for weather balloons.
Back at the Pentagon, DIA officials attempted a quick resolution of the dispute. The task fell to the "Jefferson Project," a DIA-led initiative made up of government and civilian technical experts who specialize in analyzing and countering biological threats. Project leaders put together a team of volunteers, eight Americans and a Briton, each with at least a decade of experience in one of the essential technical skills needed for bioweapons production. All were nongovernment employees working for defense contractors or the Energy Department's national labs.
The technical team was assembled in Kuwait and then flown to Baghdad to begin their work early on May 25, 2003. By that date, the two trailers had been moved to a military base on the grounds of one of deposed president Saddam Hussein's Baghdad palaces. When members of the technical team arrived, they found the trailers parked in an open lot, covered with camouflage netting.
The technical team went to work under a blistering sun in 110-degree temperatures. Using tools from home, they peered into vats, turned valves, tapped gauges and measured pipes. They reconstructed a flow-path through feed tanks and reactor vessels, past cooling chambers and drain valves, and into discharge tanks and exhaust pipes. They took hundreds of photographs.
By the end of their first day, team members still had differing views about what the trailers were. But they agreed about what the trailers were not.
"Within the first four hours," said one team member, who like the others spoke on the condition he not be named, "it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs."
News of the team's early impressions leaped across the Atlantic well ahead of the technical report. Over the next two days, a stream of anxious e-mails and phone calls from Washington pressed for details and clarifications.
The reason for the nervousness was soon obvious: In Washington, a CIA analyst had written a draft white paper on the trailers, an official assessment that would also reflect the views of the DIA. The white paper described the trailers as "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program." It also explicitly rejected an explanation by Iraqi officials, described in a New York Times article a few days earlier, that the trailers might be mobile units for producing hydrogen.
But the technical team's preliminary report, written in a tent in Baghdad and approved by each team member, reached a conclusion opposite from that of the white paper.
Key Components Lacking
Team members and other sources intimately familiar with the mission declined to discuss technical details of the team's findings because the report remains classified. But they cited the Iraqi Survey Group's nonclassified, final report to Congress in September 2004 as reflecting the same conclusions.
That report said the trailers were "impractical for biological agent production," lacking 11 components that would be crucial for making bioweapons. Instead, the trailers were "almost certainly designed and built for the generation of hydrogen," the survey group reported.
The group's report and members of the technical team also dismissed the notion that the trailers could be easily modified to produce weapons.
"It would be easier to start all over with just a bucket," said Rod Barton, an Australian biological weapons expert and former member of the survey group.
The technical team's preliminary report was transmitted in the early hours of May 27, just before its members began boarding planes to return home. Within 24 hours, the CIA published its white paper, "Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants," on its Web site.
After team members returned to Washington, they began work on a final report. At several points, members were questioned about revising their conclusions, according to sources knowledgeable about the conversations. The questioners generally wanted to know the same thing: Could the report's conclusions be softened, to leave open a possibility that the trailers might have been intended for weapons?
In the end, the final report -- 19 pages plus a 103-page appendix -- remained unequivocal in declaring the trailers unsuitable for weapons production.
"It was very assertive," said one weapons expert familiar with the report's contents.
Then, their mission completed, the team members returned to their jobs and watched as their work appeared to vanish.
"I went home and fully expected that our findings would be publicly stated," one member recalled. "It never happened. And I just had to live with it."
Researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Physicist says heat substance felled WTC
original
Extremely hot fires caused structures to fail, BYU expert says
By Suzanne Dean
For the Deseret Morning News
EPHRAIM —
A Brigham Young University physicist said he now believes an incendiary substance called thermite, bolstered by sulfur, was used to generate exceptionally hot fires at the World Trade Center on 9/11, causing the structural steel to fail and the buildings to collapse.
"It looks like thermite with sulfur added, which really is a very clever idea," Steven Jones, professor of physics at BYU, told a meeting of the Utah Academy of Science, Arts and Letters at Snow College Friday.
The government requires standard explosives to contain tag elements enabling them to be traced back to their manufacturers. But no tags are required in aluminum and iron oxide, the materials used to make thermite, he said. Nor, he said, are tags required in sulfur.
Jones is co-chairman, with James H. Fetzer, a distinguished professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a group of college faculty members who believe conspirators other than pilots of the planes were directly involved in bringing down New York's Trade Towers.
The group, which Jones said has 200 members, maintains a Web site at www.st911.org. A 40-page paper by Jones, along with other peer-reviewed and non-reviewed academic papers, are posted on the site.
Last year, Jones presented various arguments for his theory that explosives or incendiary devices were planted in the Trade Towers, and in WTC 7, a smaller building in the Trade Center complex, and that those materials, not planes crashing into the buildings, caused the buildings to collapse.
At that time, he mentioned thermite as the possible explosive or incendiary agent. But Friday, he said he is increasingly convinced that thermite and sulfur were the root causes of the 9/11 disaster.
He told college professors and graduate students from throughout Utah gathered for the academy meeting that while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail, the combination of thermite and sulfur "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
He ticked off several pieces of evidence for his thermite fire theory:
First, he said, video showed a yellow, molten substance splashing off the side of the south Trade Tower about 50 minutes after an airplane hit it and a few minutes before it collapsed. Government investigators ruled out the possibility of melting steel being the source of the material because of the unlikelihood of steel melting. The investigators said the molten material must have been aluminum from the plane.
But, said Jones, molten aluminum is silvery. It never turns yellow. The substance observed in the videos "just isn't aluminum," he said. But, he said, thermite can cause steel to melt and become yellowish.
Second, he cited video pictures showing white ash rising from the south tower near the dripping, liquefied metal. When thermite burns, Jones said, it releases aluminum-oxide ash. The presence of both yellow-white molten iron and aluminum oxide ash "are signature characteristics of a thermite reaction," he said.
Another item of evidence, Jones said, is the fact that sulfur traces were found in structural steel recovered from the Trade Towers. Jones quoted the New York Times as saying sulfidization in the recovered steel was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the (official) investigation." But, he said, sulfidization fits the theory that sulfur was combined with thermite to make the thermite burn even hotter than it ordinarily would.
Jones said a piece of building wreckage had a gray substance on the outside that at one point had obviously been a dripping molten metal or liquid. He said that after thermite turns steel or iron into a molten form, and the metal hardens, it is gray.
He added that pools of molten metal were found beneath both trade towers and the 47-story WTC 7. That fact, he said, was never discussed in official investigation reports.
And even though WTC 7 was not connected to the Trade Towers — in fact, there was another building between it and the towers —and even though it was never hit by a plane, it collapsed. That suggests, he said, that it came down because a thermite fire caused its structural steel to fail.
Jones said his studies are confined to physical causes of the collapses, and he doesn't like to speculate about who might have entered the buildings and placed thermite and sulfur. But he said 10 to 20 people "in the know," plus other people who didn't know what they were doing but did what they were told, could have placed incendiary packages over several weeks.
Extremely hot fires caused structures to fail, BYU expert says
By Suzanne Dean
For the Deseret Morning News
EPHRAIM —
A Brigham Young University physicist said he now believes an incendiary substance called thermite, bolstered by sulfur, was used to generate exceptionally hot fires at the World Trade Center on 9/11, causing the structural steel to fail and the buildings to collapse.
"It looks like thermite with sulfur added, which really is a very clever idea," Steven Jones, professor of physics at BYU, told a meeting of the Utah Academy of Science, Arts and Letters at Snow College Friday.
The government requires standard explosives to contain tag elements enabling them to be traced back to their manufacturers. But no tags are required in aluminum and iron oxide, the materials used to make thermite, he said. Nor, he said, are tags required in sulfur.
Jones is co-chairman, with James H. Fetzer, a distinguished professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a group of college faculty members who believe conspirators other than pilots of the planes were directly involved in bringing down New York's Trade Towers.
The group, which Jones said has 200 members, maintains a Web site at www.st911.org. A 40-page paper by Jones, along with other peer-reviewed and non-reviewed academic papers, are posted on the site.
Last year, Jones presented various arguments for his theory that explosives or incendiary devices were planted in the Trade Towers, and in WTC 7, a smaller building in the Trade Center complex, and that those materials, not planes crashing into the buildings, caused the buildings to collapse.
At that time, he mentioned thermite as the possible explosive or incendiary agent. But Friday, he said he is increasingly convinced that thermite and sulfur were the root causes of the 9/11 disaster.
He told college professors and graduate students from throughout Utah gathered for the academy meeting that while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail, the combination of thermite and sulfur "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
He ticked off several pieces of evidence for his thermite fire theory:
First, he said, video showed a yellow, molten substance splashing off the side of the south Trade Tower about 50 minutes after an airplane hit it and a few minutes before it collapsed. Government investigators ruled out the possibility of melting steel being the source of the material because of the unlikelihood of steel melting. The investigators said the molten material must have been aluminum from the plane.
But, said Jones, molten aluminum is silvery. It never turns yellow. The substance observed in the videos "just isn't aluminum," he said. But, he said, thermite can cause steel to melt and become yellowish.
Second, he cited video pictures showing white ash rising from the south tower near the dripping, liquefied metal. When thermite burns, Jones said, it releases aluminum-oxide ash. The presence of both yellow-white molten iron and aluminum oxide ash "are signature characteristics of a thermite reaction," he said.
Another item of evidence, Jones said, is the fact that sulfur traces were found in structural steel recovered from the Trade Towers. Jones quoted the New York Times as saying sulfidization in the recovered steel was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the (official) investigation." But, he said, sulfidization fits the theory that sulfur was combined with thermite to make the thermite burn even hotter than it ordinarily would.
Jones said a piece of building wreckage had a gray substance on the outside that at one point had obviously been a dripping molten metal or liquid. He said that after thermite turns steel or iron into a molten form, and the metal hardens, it is gray.
He added that pools of molten metal were found beneath both trade towers and the 47-story WTC 7. That fact, he said, was never discussed in official investigation reports.
And even though WTC 7 was not connected to the Trade Towers — in fact, there was another building between it and the towers —and even though it was never hit by a plane, it collapsed. That suggests, he said, that it came down because a thermite fire caused its structural steel to fail.
Jones said his studies are confined to physical causes of the collapses, and he doesn't like to speculate about who might have entered the buildings and placed thermite and sulfur. But he said 10 to 20 people "in the know," plus other people who didn't know what they were doing but did what they were told, could have placed incendiary packages over several weeks.
TomPaine.com - The Al Qaeda Myth
original
Tom Porteous
April 12, 2006
We now know that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the London bombings in July 2005. This is the conclusion of the British government's official inquiry report leaked to the British press on April 9.
We now also know that the U.S. military is deliberately misleading Iraqis, Americans and the rest of the world about the extent of Al Qaeda's involvement in the Iraqi insurgency. This was reported in The Washington Post on April 10, on the basis of internal military documents seen by that newspaper.
What do these revelations tell us about the arguments of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Blair that in Al Qaeda the "Free World" faces a threat comparable to that of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, a world-wide terrorist network which seeks to build a radical Islamist empire over half the world?
That they are threadbare, to say the least. But also that they are cynical, misleading and self serving.
The London bombings, it turns out, were the work of four alienated British Muslims, with no links to "international terrorist networks", who had learned how to make bombs by trawling the Internet. They had been radicalized and motivated, according to the report, by British foreign policies in the Muslim world—a view Tony Blair has consistently sought to undermine and discredit.
The role of the alleged "Al Qaeda mastermind in Iraq," Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, we are now told, was cynically misrepresented and exaggerated by the U.S. military's propaganda units in an effort to discredit and divide the Iraqi insurgency and to provide a retrospective justification for the Iraq war by suggesting a link between Iraq and 9/11.
Wherever in the world Al Qaeda crops up, its appearance has often been uncannily convenient for the local authorities—dictators, warlords, occupation forces and elected governments alike. And often the precise nature of the Al Qaeda connection turns out, on close examination, to be tenuous or non-existent. But by that time the message has gone out and sunk in: "Al Qaeda was here".
It's almost certain that as the United States ratchets up the pressure on Iran in the coming months the non-issue of Tehran 's "links" with Al Qaeda will come to the fore. In fact the groundwork is already being laid. Blair, no less, said ominously in a speech last month that although "the conventional view is that Iran is hostile to Al Qaeda: we know from our own history of conflict that, under the pressure of battle, alliances shift and change." So as the confrontation with Iran builds, watch out for leaked reports from anonymous security officials about dastardly Iranian-Al Qaeda conspiracies.
Stripped of exaggeration, romanticism, demonization and myth making, the picture of Al Qaeda which has emerged from the trial in the United States of Zacarias Moussaoui is of a fractious organisation that has been a magnet for bewildered martyrdom-seeking fantasists. At least this has a ring of truth to it.
This is not to say that Al Qaeda is not dangerous. It is a serious security challenge. It may even one day be a strategic threat, especially if it gets hold of some WMD. But it is not the threat Bush and Blair tell us it is.
The recent revelations of the non-existent role of Al Qaeda in the London bombings and of the Pentagon's deliberate exaggeration of Al Qaeda's role in Iraq reinforce the argument that in their response to the threat of Al Qaeda (the so called "war on terror," or "Long War"), the United States and its allies are making strategic errors of monumental proportions.
First, this war, as it is being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not principally fighting "Al Qaeda" but is creating and fighting new enemies: people who don't like being invaded, occupied and kicked around by foreigners and who are prepared to stand up and resist. These people may eventually become terrorists. But it will have been U.S. policies that created them. If Iran is next on the Pentagon's list, the same thing will happen there. To the extent that Israel is seen by the United States as pursuing its own war on terror in the Palestinian territories it occupies, it is happening in Gaza and the West Bank too.
Second, the Long War is a distraction from the real issues which need to be addressed as a matter of urgency in order to reduce conflict, violence and injustice in the region and thus to reduce the radicalization of a generation of angry and alienated Muslim youth at home and in the diasporas. These include: ending the Israeli occupation of occupied Palestinian territories through negotiation; pursuing peaceful nuclear reduction throughout the region; and engaging seriously with political Islam. Talk of "democratization" without engaging with political Islam is nonsense.
Third, on the grounds that it is fighting a "just war," the United States and its allies have justified using levels of violence, coercion and repression—including torture, collective punishment and the killing of large numbers of civilians—which are not only of questionable tactical efficacy, but have led to a collapse of U.S. prestige in a part of the world where it has long been seen as a necessary protector, stabilizer and arbiter.
The fact that there was no operational link between the London bombers and Al Qaeda shows that its real danger lies in its ability to inspire terrorist attacks. In this it has no better allies and collaborators at present than the United States and Britain under their current leaders.
--
Tom Porteous is a syndicated columnist and author who was formerly with the BBC and the British Foreign Office.
Copyright © 2006 Tom Porteous / Agence Global
Tom Porteous
April 12, 2006
We now know that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the London bombings in July 2005. This is the conclusion of the British government's official inquiry report leaked to the British press on April 9.
We now also know that the U.S. military is deliberately misleading Iraqis, Americans and the rest of the world about the extent of Al Qaeda's involvement in the Iraqi insurgency. This was reported in The Washington Post on April 10, on the basis of internal military documents seen by that newspaper.
What do these revelations tell us about the arguments of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Blair that in Al Qaeda the "Free World" faces a threat comparable to that of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, a world-wide terrorist network which seeks to build a radical Islamist empire over half the world?
That they are threadbare, to say the least. But also that they are cynical, misleading and self serving.
The London bombings, it turns out, were the work of four alienated British Muslims, with no links to "international terrorist networks", who had learned how to make bombs by trawling the Internet. They had been radicalized and motivated, according to the report, by British foreign policies in the Muslim world—a view Tony Blair has consistently sought to undermine and discredit.
The role of the alleged "Al Qaeda mastermind in Iraq," Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, we are now told, was cynically misrepresented and exaggerated by the U.S. military's propaganda units in an effort to discredit and divide the Iraqi insurgency and to provide a retrospective justification for the Iraq war by suggesting a link between Iraq and 9/11.
Wherever in the world Al Qaeda crops up, its appearance has often been uncannily convenient for the local authorities—dictators, warlords, occupation forces and elected governments alike. And often the precise nature of the Al Qaeda connection turns out, on close examination, to be tenuous or non-existent. But by that time the message has gone out and sunk in: "Al Qaeda was here".
It's almost certain that as the United States ratchets up the pressure on Iran in the coming months the non-issue of Tehran 's "links" with Al Qaeda will come to the fore. In fact the groundwork is already being laid. Blair, no less, said ominously in a speech last month that although "the conventional view is that Iran is hostile to Al Qaeda: we know from our own history of conflict that, under the pressure of battle, alliances shift and change." So as the confrontation with Iran builds, watch out for leaked reports from anonymous security officials about dastardly Iranian-Al Qaeda conspiracies.
Stripped of exaggeration, romanticism, demonization and myth making, the picture of Al Qaeda which has emerged from the trial in the United States of Zacarias Moussaoui is of a fractious organisation that has been a magnet for bewildered martyrdom-seeking fantasists. At least this has a ring of truth to it.
This is not to say that Al Qaeda is not dangerous. It is a serious security challenge. It may even one day be a strategic threat, especially if it gets hold of some WMD. But it is not the threat Bush and Blair tell us it is.
The recent revelations of the non-existent role of Al Qaeda in the London bombings and of the Pentagon's deliberate exaggeration of Al Qaeda's role in Iraq reinforce the argument that in their response to the threat of Al Qaeda (the so called "war on terror," or "Long War"), the United States and its allies are making strategic errors of monumental proportions.
First, this war, as it is being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not principally fighting "Al Qaeda" but is creating and fighting new enemies: people who don't like being invaded, occupied and kicked around by foreigners and who are prepared to stand up and resist. These people may eventually become terrorists. But it will have been U.S. policies that created them. If Iran is next on the Pentagon's list, the same thing will happen there. To the extent that Israel is seen by the United States as pursuing its own war on terror in the Palestinian territories it occupies, it is happening in Gaza and the West Bank too.
Second, the Long War is a distraction from the real issues which need to be addressed as a matter of urgency in order to reduce conflict, violence and injustice in the region and thus to reduce the radicalization of a generation of angry and alienated Muslim youth at home and in the diasporas. These include: ending the Israeli occupation of occupied Palestinian territories through negotiation; pursuing peaceful nuclear reduction throughout the region; and engaging seriously with political Islam. Talk of "democratization" without engaging with political Islam is nonsense.
Third, on the grounds that it is fighting a "just war," the United States and its allies have justified using levels of violence, coercion and repression—including torture, collective punishment and the killing of large numbers of civilians—which are not only of questionable tactical efficacy, but have led to a collapse of U.S. prestige in a part of the world where it has long been seen as a necessary protector, stabilizer and arbiter.
The fact that there was no operational link between the London bombers and Al Qaeda shows that its real danger lies in its ability to inspire terrorist attacks. In this it has no better allies and collaborators at present than the United States and Britain under their current leaders.
--
Tom Porteous is a syndicated columnist and author who was formerly with the BBC and the British Foreign Office.
Copyright © 2006 Tom Porteous / Agence Global
Drug firms 'hype up diseases to boost sales' | the Daily Mail
original
By RICHARD SHEARS, Daily Mail 08:35am 11th April 2006
Drug companies are inventing diseases to sell more of their products, it has been claimed. Scientists have accused major pharmaceutical firms of "medicalising" problems like high cholesterol or the symptoms of the menopause in a bid to increase profits.
Experts from around the world will meet in Australia today to discuss what they have labelled "disease-mongering".
The group, which includes experts from Britain, will gather in Newcastle, New South Wales, where researchers have been examining the issue. David Henry and Ray Moynihan, of Newcastle University, claim the industry is exaggerating conditions and turning them into something more serious.
Female sexual dysfunction, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and "restless legs" syndrome have all been promoted by the pharmaceutical industry in the hope of selling more drugs, they say.
High cholesterol and osteoporosis-are being described as diseases in their own right, the researchers claim, turning healthy people into patients. In turn, this wastes precious resources and can cause medically-induced harm.
Drugs prescribed for 'shyness'
Even shyness is routinely presented as a "social anxiety disorder" resulting in the person being prescribed anti-depressants.
In the case of male sexual disfunction, the researchers say, Viagra is promoted as not only a genuine treatment for erectile dysfunction but also a lifestyle improver. The two men make their claims in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal.
They accuse drug companies of funding disease-awareness campaigns through the media that are more about selling drugs than helping or educating the public.
"Like the marketing strategies that drive it, disease-mongering poses a global challenge to those interested in public health, demanding in turn a global response," they say.
Mr Moynihan and Mr Henry say that, in their view, disease mongering is the selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness and grows markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.
"It is exemplified most explicitly by many pharmaceutical industryfunded disease-awareness campaigns, more often designed to sell drugs than to illuminate or to inform or educate about the prevention of illness or the maintenance of health," they add. Conference organisers say they will try to draw a line between "market-driven exercises and legitimate disease-awareness programmes". 'Miracle solutions'
Drugs companies hit back last night. GlaxoSmithKline said: "We pride ourselves in providing miracle solutions to the health care needs of people every day.
"We utterly refute any suggestion that we would in any way hype or overplay the very real needs of patients that are treated all over the world.
"One of the exciting things about medical science is that we are finding new solutions to ailments or problems people have, and this is something good we can offer." Pfizer, which makes Viagra, said: "We would refute accusations that the pharmaceutical industry is medicalising society. Treatments that can make serious and potentially life-threatening conditions better should surely be welcomed.
"Pfizer would only promote prescription medicines to health care professionals, and only in line with what licensing bodies have outlined, for them to use their clinical judgment."
By RICHARD SHEARS, Daily Mail 08:35am 11th April 2006
Drug companies are inventing diseases to sell more of their products, it has been claimed. Scientists have accused major pharmaceutical firms of "medicalising" problems like high cholesterol or the symptoms of the menopause in a bid to increase profits.
Experts from around the world will meet in Australia today to discuss what they have labelled "disease-mongering".
The group, which includes experts from Britain, will gather in Newcastle, New South Wales, where researchers have been examining the issue. David Henry and Ray Moynihan, of Newcastle University, claim the industry is exaggerating conditions and turning them into something more serious.
Female sexual dysfunction, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and "restless legs" syndrome have all been promoted by the pharmaceutical industry in the hope of selling more drugs, they say.
High cholesterol and osteoporosis-are being described as diseases in their own right, the researchers claim, turning healthy people into patients. In turn, this wastes precious resources and can cause medically-induced harm.
Drugs prescribed for 'shyness'
Even shyness is routinely presented as a "social anxiety disorder" resulting in the person being prescribed anti-depressants.
In the case of male sexual disfunction, the researchers say, Viagra is promoted as not only a genuine treatment for erectile dysfunction but also a lifestyle improver. The two men make their claims in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal.
They accuse drug companies of funding disease-awareness campaigns through the media that are more about selling drugs than helping or educating the public.
"Like the marketing strategies that drive it, disease-mongering poses a global challenge to those interested in public health, demanding in turn a global response," they say.
Mr Moynihan and Mr Henry say that, in their view, disease mongering is the selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness and grows markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.
"It is exemplified most explicitly by many pharmaceutical industryfunded disease-awareness campaigns, more often designed to sell drugs than to illuminate or to inform or educate about the prevention of illness or the maintenance of health," they add. Conference organisers say they will try to draw a line between "market-driven exercises and legitimate disease-awareness programmes". 'Miracle solutions'
Drugs companies hit back last night. GlaxoSmithKline said: "We pride ourselves in providing miracle solutions to the health care needs of people every day.
"We utterly refute any suggestion that we would in any way hype or overplay the very real needs of patients that are treated all over the world.
"One of the exciting things about medical science is that we are finding new solutions to ailments or problems people have, and this is something good we can offer." Pfizer, which makes Viagra, said: "We would refute accusations that the pharmaceutical industry is medicalising society. Treatments that can make serious and potentially life-threatening conditions better should surely be welcomed.
"Pfizer would only promote prescription medicines to health care professionals, and only in line with what licensing bodies have outlined, for them to use their clinical judgment."
China Holds Military Exercises Amid Heightened Taiwan Tensions
China Holds Military Exercises Amid Heightened Taiwan Tensions
China Holds Military Exercises Amid Heightened Taiwan Tensions
by Staff Writers
Beijing (AFP) Mar 03, 2006
China is this week staging military exercises, state press said Friday, coinciding with a spike in tensions with Taiwan and the start of the nation's annual parliamentary session. The joint air force, army and navy exercises began on Wednesday and are aimed at simulating modern battle conditions using advanced information technology.
China Holds Military Exercises Amid Heightened Taiwan Tensions
 File photo: The Chinese People's Liberation Army. |
Beijing (AFP) Mar 03, 2006
China is this week staging military exercises, state press said Friday, coinciding with a spike in tensions with Taiwan and the start of the nation's annual parliamentary session. The joint air force, army and navy exercises began on Wednesday and are aimed at simulating modern battle conditions using advanced information technology.
China Daily has reported the exercises, but given no indication of when they would end.
The People's Liberation Army Daily newspaper said the exercises were being carried out in the Shenyang, Guangzhou, Beijing and Chengdu military command regions, simulating the deployment of troops hundreds of kilometers away.
Photos posted on official government websites showed navy transport ships carrying tanks and armoured personnel carriers, with the vehicles disembarking from the ships onto beaches.
The exercises began just after Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian scrapped unification guidelines with the mainland on Tuesday, a move that Beijing said would endanger peace in the Taiwan Strait and the Asia Pacific region.
Since nationalist armies fled to Taiwan following their civil war defeat to communist forces in 1949, China has viewed the island as a renegade province to be reunified, by force if necessary.
Beijing has insisted that formal Taiwan independence would mean war and has strongly warned Chen from making any moves in that direction.
The state press did not link the exercises to the heightened cross-strait tensions but Joseph Cheng, a noted China watcher at the City University of Hong Kong, told AFP, they were meant to be a low-key signal to the island.
"Certainly this is an attempt to exert pressure on Chen Shui-bian," Joseph Cheng said.
"Military exercises are probably seen as an appropriate warning at this stage."
Beijing needed to show it was being serious with Taiwan as delegates for the annual session of the National People's Congress gather in the capital that starts on Sunday, he said.
At the same time, China would not want to rachet up tensions too high and create a negative atmosphere for the summit between President Hu Jintao and his US counterpart George W. Bush in Washington next month, he said
"Chinese leaders want Bush to understand that they are exercising restraint. By showng this, they are in a better position to get the Bush administration to put pressure on Chen Shui-bian," he said.
China has previously staged much more intense military exercices in a bid to intimidate Taiwan's independence movement.
The bullying tactic backfired spectacularly in 1996 when Lee Teng-hui, much-vilified by Beijing, won Taiwan's first direct presidential vote despite missile tests intended to warn the island's voters against supporting him.
Source: Agence France-Presse
Rumsfeld fires back at ex-generals' criticism of war in Iraq
original
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued his strongest rebuttal to date Tuesday of recent comments by retired generals criticizing the Iraq war planning and calling on Rumsfeld to resign.
In particular, Rumsfeld said he doesn't recall retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold raising any objections to the war planning when he was working in the Pentagon for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"He never raised an issue publicly or privately when he was here that I know of," said Rumsfeld.
In an essay in this week's Time magazine, Newbold said he was outspoken in his criticism before the war, saying the "zealots' rationale for war made no sense."
Unresolved: Shi'ite politicians failed Tuesday to break the deadlock over their candidate for prime minister, which is blocking formation of a new government.
Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's Dawa party and his key backer, radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, continue to stand behind him, said Bassem Sharif, who attended a meeting Tuesday of the seven Shi'ite factions.
Sunni and Kurdish parties oppose al-Jaafari.
The Shi'ite politicians are to meet again today.
Irritated: Iraq won't participate in a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo on efforts to stabilize the country because of comments by Egypt's president questioning the loyalty of Shi'ites, al-Jaafari said Tuesday.
On Saturday, Egypt President Hosni Mubarak said Shi'ites in Iraq and the Middle East are more loyal to Iran than to their own countries. He also said Iraq was on the brink of civil war.
Iraq is one of the few Arab countries with a Shi'ite majority. Iran is also predominantly Shi'ite.
Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued his strongest rebuttal to date Tuesday of recent comments by retired generals criticizing the Iraq war planning and calling on Rumsfeld to resign.
In particular, Rumsfeld said he doesn't recall retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold raising any objections to the war planning when he was working in the Pentagon for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"He never raised an issue publicly or privately when he was here that I know of," said Rumsfeld.
In an essay in this week's Time magazine, Newbold said he was outspoken in his criticism before the war, saying the "zealots' rationale for war made no sense."
Unresolved: Shi'ite politicians failed Tuesday to break the deadlock over their candidate for prime minister, which is blocking formation of a new government.
Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's Dawa party and his key backer, radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, continue to stand behind him, said Bassem Sharif, who attended a meeting Tuesday of the seven Shi'ite factions.
Sunni and Kurdish parties oppose al-Jaafari.
The Shi'ite politicians are to meet again today.
Irritated: Iraq won't participate in a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo on efforts to stabilize the country because of comments by Egypt's president questioning the loyalty of Shi'ites, al-Jaafari said Tuesday.
On Saturday, Egypt President Hosni Mubarak said Shi'ites in Iraq and the Middle East are more loyal to Iran than to their own countries. He also said Iraq was on the brink of civil war.
Iraq is one of the few Arab countries with a Shi'ite majority. Iran is also predominantly Shi'ite.
Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.
Capitol Hill Blue: Threats 'r us
original
By DALE McFEATTERS
Apr 12, 2006, 03:36
Over the weekend, stories appeared to the effect that the Bush administration was drawing up contingency plans for air strikes, possibly including tactical nukes, on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Maybe this was an orchestrated leak, heavy-duty saber rattling. We now know this happens in the Bush White House. Maybe it was a for-real leak and there's something to it. Maybe it means nothing at all. The military is constantly planning for various scenarios.
But the Iranians are surely taking this threat seriously. Just last month, President Bush reaffirmed his 2002 doctrine of military pre-emption against gathering threats and, in the same document, named Iran as the United States' most serious security threat. And we happen to have a large, battle-trained army in the neighborhood, next door, in fact, and naval forces offshore.
Somebody else should take this seriously, too _ Congress. Bush has taken an overly expansionist view of his powers _ basically, they're unchecked _ under the post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force. A unilateral U.S. air strike on Iran is truly a terrible idea, but if Congress thinks this is OK it should explicitly say so. And if doesn't, then lawmakers should specify that two ongoing wars are enough for this administration.
On Monday, Bush turned down the heat, saying that the talk of possible air strikes was "wild speculation" and that he was firmly committed to a diplomatic solution.
A diplomatic solution is by far the best course, but getting there within 10 years, the generally agreed time frame for Iran to develop a nuclear device, will not be easy. The U.N. Security Council is half-hearted and divided about sanctions on Iran. Our closest allies on Iran are the Europeans, and the European Union this week quietly reviewed possible sanctions of its own _ bans on travel by selected Iranian officials and Iranian students studying critical sciences in EU universities, and limiting exports.
All of these could work without, as air strikes certainly would, rallying Iranians around their deeply unpopular theocratic government, whose collapse would be the ideal solution. Maybe in time.
But the hesitancy that Bush must find frustrating was evident when EU officials told Reuters that the review "was just a contingency-planning exercise and that sanctions were not imminent."
The Security Council and the EU may not be able to temporize much longer. The International Atomic Energy Agency is to report to the council April 28 whether Iran has halted its uranium-enrichment program. On Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad answered for the IAEA. Iran, he said, had succeeded for the first time in enriching uranium.
(Contact Dale McFeatters at McFeattersD(at)SHNS.com. Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.shns.com)
By DALE McFEATTERS
Apr 12, 2006, 03:36
Over the weekend, stories appeared to the effect that the Bush administration was drawing up contingency plans for air strikes, possibly including tactical nukes, on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Maybe this was an orchestrated leak, heavy-duty saber rattling. We now know this happens in the Bush White House. Maybe it was a for-real leak and there's something to it. Maybe it means nothing at all. The military is constantly planning for various scenarios.
But the Iranians are surely taking this threat seriously. Just last month, President Bush reaffirmed his 2002 doctrine of military pre-emption against gathering threats and, in the same document, named Iran as the United States' most serious security threat. And we happen to have a large, battle-trained army in the neighborhood, next door, in fact, and naval forces offshore.
Somebody else should take this seriously, too _ Congress. Bush has taken an overly expansionist view of his powers _ basically, they're unchecked _ under the post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force. A unilateral U.S. air strike on Iran is truly a terrible idea, but if Congress thinks this is OK it should explicitly say so. And if doesn't, then lawmakers should specify that two ongoing wars are enough for this administration.
On Monday, Bush turned down the heat, saying that the talk of possible air strikes was "wild speculation" and that he was firmly committed to a diplomatic solution.
A diplomatic solution is by far the best course, but getting there within 10 years, the generally agreed time frame for Iran to develop a nuclear device, will not be easy. The U.N. Security Council is half-hearted and divided about sanctions on Iran. Our closest allies on Iran are the Europeans, and the European Union this week quietly reviewed possible sanctions of its own _ bans on travel by selected Iranian officials and Iranian students studying critical sciences in EU universities, and limiting exports.
All of these could work without, as air strikes certainly would, rallying Iranians around their deeply unpopular theocratic government, whose collapse would be the ideal solution. Maybe in time.
But the hesitancy that Bush must find frustrating was evident when EU officials told Reuters that the review "was just a contingency-planning exercise and that sanctions were not imminent."
The Security Council and the EU may not be able to temporize much longer. The International Atomic Energy Agency is to report to the council April 28 whether Iran has halted its uranium-enrichment program. On Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad answered for the IAEA. Iran, he said, had succeeded for the first time in enriching uranium.
(Contact Dale McFeatters at McFeattersD(at)SHNS.com. Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.shns.com)
Capitol Hill Blue: Another Bush lie surfaces in now-discredited Iraq war rationale
original
By Staff and Wire Reports
Apr 12, 2006, 05:18
On May 29, 2003, Bush hailed the capture of the trailers, declaring "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
But a Pentagon-sponsored fact-finding mission had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons, citing government officials and weapons experts who participated in the secret mission or had direct knowledge of it.
The group's unanimous findings had been sent to the Pentagon in a field report, two days before the president's statement.
The revelation is the latest in a series that shows how the Bush Administration intentionally withheld or downplayed information that did support its now-discredited claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed an immediate threat to the United States.
Bush cited the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction as the prime justification for invading Iraq. No such weapons ever were found.
A U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed the existence of the field report but said it was a preliminary finding that had to be evaluated.
"You don't change a report that has been coordinated in the (intelligence) community based on a field report," the official said. "It's a preliminary report. No matter how strongly the individual may feel about the subject matter."
The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were classified and shelved. It added that for nearly a year after that, the Bush administration continued to public assert that the trailers were biological weapons factories.
The authors of the reports -- nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- were sent to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
A DIA spokesman claimed the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
The team's work remains classified. Interviews revealed the team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons.
"There was no connection to anything biological," one expert who studied the trailers said.
By Staff and Wire Reports
Apr 12, 2006, 05:18
President George W. Bush lied to the American public when he claimed two trailers captured by U.S. troops in Iraq in May 2003 were mobile "biological laboratories." At the time he made the claim, U.S. intelligence officials already knew it was not true and had told the President the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons.
On May 29, 2003, Bush hailed the capture of the trailers, declaring "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
But a Pentagon-sponsored fact-finding mission had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons, citing government officials and weapons experts who participated in the secret mission or had direct knowledge of it.
The group's unanimous findings had been sent to the Pentagon in a field report, two days before the president's statement.
The revelation is the latest in a series that shows how the Bush Administration intentionally withheld or downplayed information that did support its now-discredited claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed an immediate threat to the United States.
Bush cited the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction as the prime justification for invading Iraq. No such weapons ever were found.
A U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed the existence of the field report but said it was a preliminary finding that had to be evaluated.
"You don't change a report that has been coordinated in the (intelligence) community based on a field report," the official said. "It's a preliminary report. No matter how strongly the individual may feel about the subject matter."
The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were classified and shelved. It added that for nearly a year after that, the Bush administration continued to public assert that the trailers were biological weapons factories.
The authors of the reports -- nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- were sent to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
A DIA spokesman claimed the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
The team's work remains classified. Interviews revealed the team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons.
"There was no connection to anything biological," one expert who studied the trailers said.
Capitol Hill Blue' The Rant: Lies, damn lies and George W. Bush
original
By DOUG THOMPSON
Apr 12, 2006, 06:25
No doubt about it. George W. Bush's lying, rotten, putrid, soulless destruction of a once-great nation called America is now open for all to see.
Bush is not just a liar. He's a serial liar who avoids truth at all costs because facts don't' support his perverted, twisted view of the world. Truth exposes his corrupt administration and lays bare his many crimes against the American people and the Constitution of the United States.
Impeachment? Nah. Too good for this lowlife. Arrest the son-of-a-bitch, lead him from the White House in chains, parade him down Pennsylvania Avenue and then lock him in stocks on the Washington Mall so everyone can see what happens when anyone thinks they are above the law of the land.
Today's Washington Post lays out yet another example of how Bush lied to the American people, detailing a deliberate White House pattern of misinformation on the so-called "biological warfare" trailers captured soon after American troops invaded Iraq.
Turns out the trailers had nothing to do with biological warfare. Intelligence officers in the field knew it. They told the White House. Yet Bush ignored the truth and went before the American people to claim otherwise, trumpeting the trailers as "proof" that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
"I hate to admit it but it appears clear the President of the United States is a pathological liar," says political scientist George Harleigh, who worked in the Nixon and Reagan administration. "His pattern of deception exceeds anything we saw in the Nixon era."
Members of Congress - Republican and Democrat - admit the same thing, shaking their heads in disbelief while talking privately with supporters and political strategists.
"The biggest threat any Republican running for election or re-election this year faces is not from the Democrats but from the President," says a GOP political consultant who, for obvious reasons, begs for anonymity. "George W. Bush is a major liability to Republicans in the mid-term elections."
When news broke last week that Bush personally authorized a White House campaign of leaks aimed at discrediting Ambassador Joseph Wilson - a campaign that led to the "outing" of Wilson's wife, a covert CIA operative - Republicans scrambled for cover. Sunday talk show producers tried without success to find a Republican willing to go on the air and defend the President.
The only Republican who did appear - maverick Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter - didn't defend Bush's actions but called instead on both the President and the Vice President to come clean about their roles in the CIA leak debacle.
"Bush's actions clearly have left Republicans in uncomfortable, and untenable, positions," Harleigh says. "They don't want to alienate voters by aligning themselves too closely with an increasingly unpopular President but they also have to be careful not to alienate their GOP base."
Polls, however, shows the GOP base dwindling as more and more Republicans realize they've been had by the charlatan-in-chief.
Even die-hard Republicans find it harder and harder to defend their corrupt and morally-bankrupt leader, admitting privately that the Presidency of George W. Bush will go down in history as a monumental failure, surpassing the dark days of Richard M. Nixon.
"The Nixon administration has, for 30 years now, been the baseline to measure failure in the Republican Party," says Harleigh. "No more. George W. Bush has lowered the bar."
© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue
By DOUG THOMPSON
Apr 12, 2006, 06:25
No doubt about it. George W. Bush's lying, rotten, putrid, soulless destruction of a once-great nation called America is now open for all to see.
Bush is not just a liar. He's a serial liar who avoids truth at all costs because facts don't' support his perverted, twisted view of the world. Truth exposes his corrupt administration and lays bare his many crimes against the American people and the Constitution of the United States.
Impeachment? Nah. Too good for this lowlife. Arrest the son-of-a-bitch, lead him from the White House in chains, parade him down Pennsylvania Avenue and then lock him in stocks on the Washington Mall so everyone can see what happens when anyone thinks they are above the law of the land.
Today's Washington Post lays out yet another example of how Bush lied to the American people, detailing a deliberate White House pattern of misinformation on the so-called "biological warfare" trailers captured soon after American troops invaded Iraq.
Turns out the trailers had nothing to do with biological warfare. Intelligence officers in the field knew it. They told the White House. Yet Bush ignored the truth and went before the American people to claim otherwise, trumpeting the trailers as "proof" that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
"I hate to admit it but it appears clear the President of the United States is a pathological liar," says political scientist George Harleigh, who worked in the Nixon and Reagan administration. "His pattern of deception exceeds anything we saw in the Nixon era."
Members of Congress - Republican and Democrat - admit the same thing, shaking their heads in disbelief while talking privately with supporters and political strategists.
"The biggest threat any Republican running for election or re-election this year faces is not from the Democrats but from the President," says a GOP political consultant who, for obvious reasons, begs for anonymity. "George W. Bush is a major liability to Republicans in the mid-term elections."
When news broke last week that Bush personally authorized a White House campaign of leaks aimed at discrediting Ambassador Joseph Wilson - a campaign that led to the "outing" of Wilson's wife, a covert CIA operative - Republicans scrambled for cover. Sunday talk show producers tried without success to find a Republican willing to go on the air and defend the President.
The only Republican who did appear - maverick Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter - didn't defend Bush's actions but called instead on both the President and the Vice President to come clean about their roles in the CIA leak debacle.
"Bush's actions clearly have left Republicans in uncomfortable, and untenable, positions," Harleigh says. "They don't want to alienate voters by aligning themselves too closely with an increasingly unpopular President but they also have to be careful not to alienate their GOP base."
Polls, however, shows the GOP base dwindling as more and more Republicans realize they've been had by the charlatan-in-chief.
Even die-hard Republicans find it harder and harder to defend their corrupt and morally-bankrupt leader, admitting privately that the Presidency of George W. Bush will go down in history as a monumental failure, surpassing the dark days of Richard M. Nixon.
"The Nixon administration has, for 30 years now, been the baseline to measure failure in the Republican Party," says Harleigh. "No more. George W. Bush has lowered the bar."
© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Jim Lobe | Mind Games Over Iran
Jim Lobe | Mind Games Over Iran
Mind Games Over Iran
By Jim Lobe
TomPaine.com
Tuesday 11 April 2006
Three years after the fall of Baghdad to U.S. forces, Washington is abuzz about new reports that the administration of President George W. Bush is preparing to attack Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons.
In just the past few days, lengthy articles detailing planning for aerial attacks on as many as 400 nuclear and military targets have appeared in The Washington Post, the London Sunday Times, The Forward (the main weekly of the U.S. Jewish community) and The New Yorker.
The New Yorker account, written by legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who two years ago was the first to disclose U.S. abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, was the most spectacular, although it relied heavily on unnamed sources outside the administration.
Among other assertions, Hersh's 6,300-word article, "The Iran Plans", alleged that U.S. combat forces have already entered Iran to collect target data and make contact with "anti-government ethnic-minority groups" - assertions that the Post said it was unable to confirm. It also claimed that efforts by senior military officials to get the administration to eliminate contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against specific hardened targets had been "shouted down" by the Pentagon's civilian leadership.
Unlike other accounts that have argued that any U.S. attack was unlikely to take place until after the November mid-term elections at the earliest, Hersh also suggested that a U.S. attack could come at any time.
"The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium," Hersh wrote, citing official sources. In an interview on CNN April 10, the journalist insisted that planning for an attack had moved into an "operational" phase, "beyond contingency planning".
Without denying any of Hersh's assertions, Bush himself insisted the same day that the latest reports constituted "wild speculation" and that his administration remained committed to "diplomacy". At the same time, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that military force remained an option.
The sudden spate of detailed stories has raised the question of whether the administration really intends such an attack - if not imminently, then before it leaves office, as contended by the Sunday Times - or if it is carrying out a psychological warfare campaign designed to persuade the Iranians and Washington's less warlike friends, especially in Europe, that it will indeed take action unless Tehran agrees to U.S. demands to abandon its enrichment program.
There is no consensus on this question.
To some experts, the potential costs of such an attack-from an Iranian-inspired Shiite uprising in Iraq to missile attacks on Saudi oil fields and skyrocketing energy prices (not to mention a rise in anti-U.S. sentiment in Europe and the Islamic world)-so clearly outweigh the possible benefits that Bush's top political aides would recognize them as exorbitant.
"Although they may be reckless with the security of the United States, I think they are utterly cold-blooded realists when it comes to political power," noted Gary Sick, an Iran policy expert at Columbia University, who sees the latest reports and threats by senior administration officials as an effort to intimidate Tehran.
"(O)ne of their strongest negotiating tools is the widespread belief that they are irrational and capable of the most irresponsible actions. That is their record, so they have no need to invent it. If they can use that reputation to keep Iran - and everybody else - off balance, so much the better," he added, noting, however, that if that analysis is correct, "there is always the huge danger of miscalculation and accident".
Graham Fuller, a former CIA officer and Middle East specialist at the RAND Corporation, echoed this view. He toldThe Forward that the recent spate of articles "shows the fine hand of U.S. (maybe U.K. too) disinformation and psychological warfare against Iran ...(that) may now be intensified, perhaps out of frustration that the 'real thing' is not, in fact, on the table any more."
Other analysts, however, do not see the administration as bluffing.
"For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran," wrote Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) last week.
"In the last few weeks, I have changed my view," he went on. "In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran."
"In recent months, I have grown increasingly concerned that the administration has been giving thought to a heavy dose of air strikes against Iran's nuclear sector without giving enough weight to the possible ramification of such action," Wayne White, the State Department's top Middle East analyst until 2005, told The Forward.
Whether psychological warfare or serious premeditation, leading the charge are clearly the same aggressive nationalist and pro-Israel elements within and outside the administration that were behind the drive to war in Iraq.
Thus, the rhetoric of Vice President Dick Cheney and U.N. Ambassador John Bolton-two of the administration's most hawkish figures - has been particularly threatening in recent weeks, with Cheney vowing "meaningful consequences" and Bolton "tangible and painful consequences" in speeches last month to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) if Iran did not freeze its nuclear program.
Similarly, neo-conservatives closely associated with right-wing sectors in Israel have been most outspoken in arguing that the benefits of an attack strongly outweigh the possible costs.
Thus, while Hersh quoted Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert at the AIPAC-created Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as calling for war, if covert action, including "industrial accidents," is not sufficient to set back Iran's nuclear program, the Sunday Times quoted former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle as asserting that destroying the program would be much easier than many anticipate.
"The attack would be over before anybody knew what had happened," said Perle who told the AIPAC conference last month that a dozen B-2 bombers could handle the problem overnight.
His colleague at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, Michael Rubin, has also stressed that "the administration is deadly serious... and while everyone recognizes the problems of any military action, there is a real belief that the consequences of Iran going nuclear would be worse."
Indeed, as in Iraq, hardliners in and outside the administration may be embarked on their own psy-war campaign against more moderate forces within the administration, either to counter European pressure on Washington to engage Iran in direct negotiations, to provoke Iran into an overreaction that would offer a pretext for an attack, or to rhetorically box the administration into a position where it would look unacceptably weak if it did not take action.
"A sudden unexplained explosion at a U.S. embassy, a clash with militias in Basra, or a thousand other things could call the administration's bluff," according to Sick. "(T)here are certainly individuals in and around the administration who would not hesitate for a second to recommend a bombing attack on Iran."
-------
Mind Games Over Iran
By Jim Lobe
TomPaine.com
Tuesday 11 April 2006
Three years after the fall of Baghdad to U.S. forces, Washington is abuzz about new reports that the administration of President George W. Bush is preparing to attack Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons.
In just the past few days, lengthy articles detailing planning for aerial attacks on as many as 400 nuclear and military targets have appeared in The Washington Post, the London Sunday Times, The Forward (the main weekly of the U.S. Jewish community) and The New Yorker.
The New Yorker account, written by legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who two years ago was the first to disclose U.S. abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, was the most spectacular, although it relied heavily on unnamed sources outside the administration.
Among other assertions, Hersh's 6,300-word article, "The Iran Plans", alleged that U.S. combat forces have already entered Iran to collect target data and make contact with "anti-government ethnic-minority groups" - assertions that the Post said it was unable to confirm. It also claimed that efforts by senior military officials to get the administration to eliminate contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against specific hardened targets had been "shouted down" by the Pentagon's civilian leadership.
Unlike other accounts that have argued that any U.S. attack was unlikely to take place until after the November mid-term elections at the earliest, Hersh also suggested that a U.S. attack could come at any time.
"The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium," Hersh wrote, citing official sources. In an interview on CNN April 10, the journalist insisted that planning for an attack had moved into an "operational" phase, "beyond contingency planning".
Without denying any of Hersh's assertions, Bush himself insisted the same day that the latest reports constituted "wild speculation" and that his administration remained committed to "diplomacy". At the same time, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that military force remained an option.
The sudden spate of detailed stories has raised the question of whether the administration really intends such an attack - if not imminently, then before it leaves office, as contended by the Sunday Times - or if it is carrying out a psychological warfare campaign designed to persuade the Iranians and Washington's less warlike friends, especially in Europe, that it will indeed take action unless Tehran agrees to U.S. demands to abandon its enrichment program.
There is no consensus on this question.
To some experts, the potential costs of such an attack-from an Iranian-inspired Shiite uprising in Iraq to missile attacks on Saudi oil fields and skyrocketing energy prices (not to mention a rise in anti-U.S. sentiment in Europe and the Islamic world)-so clearly outweigh the possible benefits that Bush's top political aides would recognize them as exorbitant.
"Although they may be reckless with the security of the United States, I think they are utterly cold-blooded realists when it comes to political power," noted Gary Sick, an Iran policy expert at Columbia University, who sees the latest reports and threats by senior administration officials as an effort to intimidate Tehran.
"(O)ne of their strongest negotiating tools is the widespread belief that they are irrational and capable of the most irresponsible actions. That is their record, so they have no need to invent it. If they can use that reputation to keep Iran - and everybody else - off balance, so much the better," he added, noting, however, that if that analysis is correct, "there is always the huge danger of miscalculation and accident".
Graham Fuller, a former CIA officer and Middle East specialist at the RAND Corporation, echoed this view. He toldThe Forward that the recent spate of articles "shows the fine hand of U.S. (maybe U.K. too) disinformation and psychological warfare against Iran ...(that) may now be intensified, perhaps out of frustration that the 'real thing' is not, in fact, on the table any more."
Other analysts, however, do not see the administration as bluffing.
"For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran," wrote Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) last week.
"In the last few weeks, I have changed my view," he went on. "In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran."
"In recent months, I have grown increasingly concerned that the administration has been giving thought to a heavy dose of air strikes against Iran's nuclear sector without giving enough weight to the possible ramification of such action," Wayne White, the State Department's top Middle East analyst until 2005, told The Forward.
Whether psychological warfare or serious premeditation, leading the charge are clearly the same aggressive nationalist and pro-Israel elements within and outside the administration that were behind the drive to war in Iraq.
Thus, the rhetoric of Vice President Dick Cheney and U.N. Ambassador John Bolton-two of the administration's most hawkish figures - has been particularly threatening in recent weeks, with Cheney vowing "meaningful consequences" and Bolton "tangible and painful consequences" in speeches last month to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) if Iran did not freeze its nuclear program.
Similarly, neo-conservatives closely associated with right-wing sectors in Israel have been most outspoken in arguing that the benefits of an attack strongly outweigh the possible costs.
Thus, while Hersh quoted Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert at the AIPAC-created Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as calling for war, if covert action, including "industrial accidents," is not sufficient to set back Iran's nuclear program, the Sunday Times quoted former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle as asserting that destroying the program would be much easier than many anticipate.
"The attack would be over before anybody knew what had happened," said Perle who told the AIPAC conference last month that a dozen B-2 bombers could handle the problem overnight.
His colleague at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, Michael Rubin, has also stressed that "the administration is deadly serious... and while everyone recognizes the problems of any military action, there is a real belief that the consequences of Iran going nuclear would be worse."
Indeed, as in Iraq, hardliners in and outside the administration may be embarked on their own psy-war campaign against more moderate forces within the administration, either to counter European pressure on Washington to engage Iran in direct negotiations, to provoke Iran into an overreaction that would offer a pretext for an attack, or to rhetorically box the administration into a position where it would look unacceptably weak if it did not take action.
"A sudden unexplained explosion at a U.S. embassy, a clash with militias in Basra, or a thousand other things could call the administration's bluff," according to Sick. "(T)here are certainly individuals in and around the administration who would not hesitate for a second to recommend a bombing attack on Iran."
-------
Karpinski Raises Doubts About Military Sex Assault
Karpinski Raises Doubts About Military Sex Assault
Karpinski Raises Doubts About Military Sex Assault
By Allison Stevens
Womens eNews
For More Information:
Karpinski Raises Doubts About Military Sex Assault
By Allison Stevens
Womens eNews
Tuesday 11 April 2006
The highest-ranking official to lose a job because of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal is speaking out about sex assault in the military. But some advocates say she doesn't help the cause.
Washington, DC - In another world, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski might have been a heroic reformer for women in the US military.
Over more than a quarter century in the Army, Karpinski - the 52-year-old former commander of Abu Ghraib who was the highest-ranking official to lose her job in the wake of the prisoner abuse scandal - overcame what she describes as a pervasive culture of sexism in the military and rose through the ranks to become one of a select few female brigadier generals.
In the half-year since her book, "One Woman's Army: The Commanding General of Abu Ghraib Tells Her Story," was published by Hyperion, she has pushed for equal treatment for military women in promotional events around the country.
But some activists working to curb sex assault within the military say Karpinski could undermine their work with her latest allegation: that her male colleagues covered up the deaths of several female soldiers - including a master sergeant - in Iraq to avoid negative publicity.
Lory Manning, director of the Women in the Military project at the Women's Research and Education Institute in Arlington, Va., says Karpinski's story lacks credibility and appears to be an attempt to strike back at a system that sacrificed her while sparing superiors. "She's really angry," Manning said. "She feels like she was left to hang out to dry by her bosses."
If Karpinski's allegations are proved to be false, politicians may be less willing to investigate other claims of violence against women in the military, Manning added.
Karpinski also has champions.
Marjorie Cohn, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, praises Karpinski as "the highest-ranking official who's willing to say anything." A criminal defense attorney who has spent hours interviewing Karpinski, Cohn says Karpinski has not revealed the tell-tale sign of a liar: inconsistency.
"Every time she tells the same story," Cohn said. "It sounds to me like there's really something there."
In August 2005, Cohn's interview with Karpinski appeared on Truthout.org, a left-leaning Internet news site. The story was circulated over the Internet, but was largely ignored by the dominant print and broadcast media.
January Allegations
In January, Karpinski alleged that a medical doctor had briefed her and other military colleagues about female soldiers in Iraq dying of dehydration because they refused to drink water in the afternoon. Their reason: to avoid using the latrines at night, when they might be sexually assaulted or raped.
Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski ordered those at the briefing to suppress the details of the women's deaths because "it doesn't look good."
Karpinski made the allegations before the International Commission of Inquiry On Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration, a mock court staged in New York by the peace activist group, Not in Our Name.
The military denies the charge. "There is no evidence to substantiate Colonel Karpinski's claims," Army spokesperson Crystal Oliver said.
Female members of Congress who regularly advocate for equal treatment for women in the military have been silent on the issue.
T-Shirt Contests, Unsafe Showers
Citing incidents ranging from a wet T-shirt contest at an army-base pool to an armed assault at a shower unit, Karpinski said she routinely warns aspiring female soldiers that they are "either going to be sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, or they're going to be raped" if they enter the military.
"I think particularly women need to go into this career field with their eyes wide open - not starry-eyed - and understand that ... the military still has a long, long, long way to go," Karpinski told Women's eNews in a recent phone interview.
The most recent large-scale survey of active-duty military populations, conducted in 1995 by the Department of Defense, found that 78 percent of women and 38 percent of men in the armed services reported incidents of unwanted sexual attention. Those numbers are higher than in the military reserves, according to a congressional report released last September. It found that 60 percent of women and 27 percent of men in the military reserves and National Guard experience some form of sexual assault or harassment during their service.
After a military investigation of the prison abuse scandal, Karpinski was relieved of her command and demoted to colonel before she retired in July 2005. An alleged shoplifting incident at an army-base store in Tampa, Fla., involving a bottle of moisturizer contributed to her demotion; Karpinski says she owned the item. She accepts some blame for the torture scandal but maintains she was made a scapegoat.
Anita Sanchez, spokesperson for the Miles Foundation, an organization in Newtown, Conn., that combats violence against women in the military, called Karpinski's allegations about the cover-up of the deaths of female soldiers "questionable at best."
Poking Holes in Testimony
Sanchez and Manning pointed out several holes in Karpinski's testimony.
Citing figures released by the Pentagon, Sanchez said no female master sergeants have died in Iraq. Of the more than 50 women who have died there, only two have died from illness, she said. The rest of the deaths arose from hostile fire or a variety of other causes including vehicular accidents, accidental gun discharge, possible suicide and other injuries.
Manning also noted that dehydration is not likely to cause death within a single day, even in a climate as hot as in the Middle East. But it can cause urinary tract infections, she noted, a problem that has caused discomfort for many female troops in Iraq.
Manning added that Karpinski's testimony is based entirely on one unnamed source: a medical doctor who has not come forward to corroborate Karpinski's allegation. Karpinski says she cannot recall the doctor's name.
Karpinski said the discrepancy between her account and the death records could be due to incomplete or falsified medical reports or the failure to mention dehydration as a contributing factor in a woman's death. In addition, assignments for female soldiers were often disguised to circumvent laws banning women from serving in combat positions, which could have led to inaccurate death reports, she said.
She denied that she was seeking reprisal on military superiors and said she simply wants to reveal what women face when they enter the military.
"If you want to explore this, go over to Baghdad and explore it yourself," Karpinski tells her critics. "Don't sit in an armchair in front of a computer and criticize people who have been there and lived through it and survived ... You can't take this awful situation of sexual assault out of the environment and understand it in the same way. You can't. You have to talk to people who have walked the ground. And I did."
For More Information:
Truthout: Abu Ghraib General Lambastes Bush Administration.
Department of Defense: "1995 Sexual Harassment Survey" [Adobe PDF format].
Department of Veterans: "Military Sexual Trauma Among the Reserves" [Adobe PDF format].
Allison Stevens is Washington bureau chief at Women's eNews.
-------
How Crazy Are They?
How Crazy Are They?
How Crazy Are They?
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.
How Crazy Are They?
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 11 April 2006
I had a debate with my boss last night about Sy Hersh's terrifying New Yorker article describing Bush administration plans to attack Iran, potentially with nuclear weapons. After reading the Hersh piece, my boss was understandably worried, describing his reaction to the article in road-to-Damascus-revelation terms. They're going to do this, he said.
I told my boss that I couldn't believe it was possible the Bush administration would do this. I ran through all the reasons why an attack on Iran, especially with any kind of nuclear weaponry, would be the height of folly.
Iran, unlike Iraq, has a formidable military. They own the high ground over the Persian Gulf and have deployed missile batteries all throughout the mountains along the shore. Those missile batteries, I told him, include the Sunburn missile, which can travel in excess of Mach 2 and can spoof Aegis radar systems. Every American warship in the Gulf, including the carrier group currently deployed there, would be ducks on the pond.
The blowback in Iraq would be immediate and catastrophic, I reminded him. The Shi'ite majority that enjoys an alliance with Iran would go indiscriminately crazy and attack anyone and anything flying the stars and stripes.
Syria, which has inked a mutual defense pact with Iran and is believed to have significant chemical and biological weapons capabilities, would get into the game.
China, which has recently established a multi-billion dollar petroleum relationship with Iran, might step into the fray if it sees its new oil source at risk.
Russia, which has stapled itself to the idea that Iran's nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes, would likewise get pulled in.
Blair and Britain want nothing to do with an attack on Iran, Berlusconi appears to have lost his job in Italy, and Spain's Aznar is already gone. If the Bush administration does this, I told my boss, they'd instantly find themselves in a cold and lonely place.
The nuclear option, I told my boss, brings even more nightmarish possibilities. The reaction to an attack on Iran with conventional weapons would be bad enough. If we drop a nuke, that reaction will be worse by orders of magnitude and puts on the table the ultimate nightmare scenario: a region-wide conflagration that would reach all the way to Pakistan, where Pervez Musharraf is fending off the fundamentalists with both hands. If the US drops a nuke on Iran, it is possible that the Taliban-allied fundamentalists in Pakistan would rise up and overthrow Musharraf, thus gaining control of Pakistan's own arsenal of nuclear weapons. All of a sudden, those nukes would be loose, and India would lose its collective mind.
It was a cogent argument I made, filled with common sense. My boss seemed mollified, and we bid each other goodnight. Ten minutes later, I had an email from my boss in my Inbox. He'd sent me Paul Krugman's latest editorial from the New York Times, titled "Yes He Would." Krugman's piece opens this way:
"But he wouldn't do that." That sentiment is what made it possible for President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election. Many people just didn't want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace. "But he wouldn't do that," say people who think they're being sensible. Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq war, however, discounting the possibility that Mr. Bush will start another ill-conceived and unnecessary war isn't sensible. It's wishful thinking.
Great.
Things have come to a pretty pass in the United States of America when the first question you have to ask yourself on matters of war and death is, "Just how crazy are these people?" Every cogent estimate sees Iran's nuclear capabilities not becoming any kind of reality for another ten years, leaving open a dozen diplomatic and economic options for dealing with the situation. There is no good reason for attacking that country, but there are a few bad reasons to be found.
The worst of the bad reasons, of course, is that an attack on Iran would change the conversation in Washington as the 2006 midterm elections loom. Bush and his congressional allies are about as popular as scabies right now, according to every available poll. If the current trend is not altered or disrupted, January 2007 may come with Democratic Rep. John Conyers Jr. sitting as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee with subpoena powers in hand.
"As Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently pointed out," continued Krugman in his editorial, "the administration seems to be following exactly the same script on Iran that it used on Iraq: 'The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The US secretary of state tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on US troops.'"
For the moment, one significant departure from the Iraq script has been the Bush administration vehemently denying that an attack on Iran, particularly with nuclear weapons, is an option being considered at this time. Bush himself called the Hersh article "wild speculation," and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan bluntly stated that the US is committed to diplomacy. Gary Sick, an Iran expert quoted by columnist Jim Lobe in a recent article, seems to think the reputation for irrational and dangerous actions enjoyed by the Bush administration is being used as a psychological lever. "That is their record," said Sick, "so they have no need to invent it. If they can use that reputation to keep Iran - and everybody else - off balance, so much the better."
Then why this cold feeling in the pit of my stomach? Julian Borger, writing for the UK Guardian, has some added insight. "Vincent Cannistraro," writes Borger, "a former CIA counter-terrorism operations chief, said Mr. Bush had not yet made up his mind about the use of direct military action against Iran. 'There is a battle for Bush's soul over that,' he said, adding that Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser is adamantly opposed to a war. However, Mr. Cannistraro said covert military action, in the form of special forces troops identifying targets and aiding dissident groups, is already under way. 'It's been authorized, and it's going on to the extent that there is some lethality to it. Some people have been killed.'"
A battle for Bush's soul? Some people have been killed? It's a wild day here in Bizarro World when I find myself in total agreement with Karl Rove. It is the uncertainty in all this that makes the situation truly terrifying. No sane person would undertake an action so fraught with peril, but if we have learned anything in the last few years, it is that sanity takes a back seat in this administration's hayride.
I bought a coffee this morning at the excellent café‚ around the corner, which is run by a wonderful Iranian woman. I asked her point-blank what would happen in her home country if we did attack. She dismissed the possibility out of hand. "I read that Krugman article," she said, "but there's no way they would do this. They'd have to be crazy."
Indeed. Too bad that hasn't stopped them yet.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.
-------
Generals as Private Contractors--The Fourth Plague Hits the Pentagon
original
By WILLIAM S. LIND
In Exodus, the Fourth Plague sent upon the Egyptians was a plague of flies. A similar plague of flies has settled on the U.S. military, in the form of a swarm of retired senior officers working as contractors. Not satisfied with their generous pensions, they wheedle six-figure contracts out of senior officer "buddies" still on active duty. In return for steam shovel loads of the taxpayers' money, they offer "advice" that is, overwhelmingly, flyspeck.
The problem is that these contractors are businessmen, and business is a whore. The goal of business is profit, not truth. Profit requires getting the next contract. Getting the next contract means telling whomever gave you the current contract what he wants to hear. If what he wants to hear isn't true, so what? Just start the "study" by writing the desired conclusion, then bugger the evidence to fit. The result is endless intellectual corruption, billions of dollars wasted and military services that, as institutions, can no longer think.
The plague of senior officer contractors has effectively pushed those still in the military out of the thought process. Meeting after meeting on issues of doctrine on concepts are dominated by contractors. The officers in the room know that if they wave the BS flag at the contractors, they risk angering the serving senior officers who have given their "buddies" the contract. Junior officers, who have the most direct experience with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are completely excluded. They have no chance of being heard in meetings dominated by retired generals and colonels.
Not only does contracting out thinking bring intellectual corruption, it adds a whole new layer of dinosaurism to the thought process. Most retired senior officers' minds froze in the Fulda Gap many years ago, and that remains their vision of war. Further, any change is automatically an attack on their "legacies," which they are quick to defend. Twenty years ago, once the dinosaur retired, you could push him into the tar pit and move on. Now he is back the next day in a suit, with a six-figure contract.
The plague of contractors reinforces one of the military's (and other bureaucracies') worst habits, formalizing thinking. Concepts and doctrine are now developed through layer after layer of formal, structured meetings, invariably organized around Powerpoint briefings. Most attendees are there as representatives of one or another bureaucratic interest, and their job is to defend their turf. Powerpoint briefings not only disguise a lack of intellectual substance with glitzy gimmicks, they inherently work against the concept of Schwerpunkt. Slides usually present umpteen bulletized "points," all co-equal in (lack of) importance. In the end, what is important is the briefing itself: the medium is the message.
One of the great intellectual successes of the American military, the Marine Corps' development of maneuver warfare doctrine from the 1970s through the early 1990s, offers an interesting contrast. The process was almost all informal. The key people were mostly junior officers. Meetings were after-hours, in someone's living room over beer and pizza. Many outsiders were involved, but none of them were paid. In the end, most of the new manuals were written by a Marine captain, who took them directly to the Commandant for approval. Tellingly, since that time the Marine Corps has formalized its doctrine development process, and the quality of its manuals has declined.
Of course, contractors hate informal processes, because they have no role in them. There is no money to be had. In contrast, the current formal process gives them what they seek most, opportunities to kiss the backsides of bigwigs with bucks to obtain still more contracts.
As I told one senior Marine Corps general last fall, the present system is terminally constipated by too many people and too much money. The money draws contractors the way an outhouse draws other kinds of flies. If the U.S. military wants to start thinking again, it needs to can the senior officer contractors, outlaw Powerpoint and give younger officers time and encouragement to meet in informal seminars, write and publish.
Scharnhorst's Militaerische Gesellschaft, from the time of Napoleon, remains the right model. The problem is that it doesn't cost very much.
William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.
By WILLIAM S. LIND
In Exodus, the Fourth Plague sent upon the Egyptians was a plague of flies. A similar plague of flies has settled on the U.S. military, in the form of a swarm of retired senior officers working as contractors. Not satisfied with their generous pensions, they wheedle six-figure contracts out of senior officer "buddies" still on active duty. In return for steam shovel loads of the taxpayers' money, they offer "advice" that is, overwhelmingly, flyspeck.
The problem is that these contractors are businessmen, and business is a whore. The goal of business is profit, not truth. Profit requires getting the next contract. Getting the next contract means telling whomever gave you the current contract what he wants to hear. If what he wants to hear isn't true, so what? Just start the "study" by writing the desired conclusion, then bugger the evidence to fit. The result is endless intellectual corruption, billions of dollars wasted and military services that, as institutions, can no longer think.
The plague of senior officer contractors has effectively pushed those still in the military out of the thought process. Meeting after meeting on issues of doctrine on concepts are dominated by contractors. The officers in the room know that if they wave the BS flag at the contractors, they risk angering the serving senior officers who have given their "buddies" the contract. Junior officers, who have the most direct experience with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are completely excluded. They have no chance of being heard in meetings dominated by retired generals and colonels.
Not only does contracting out thinking bring intellectual corruption, it adds a whole new layer of dinosaurism to the thought process. Most retired senior officers' minds froze in the Fulda Gap many years ago, and that remains their vision of war. Further, any change is automatically an attack on their "legacies," which they are quick to defend. Twenty years ago, once the dinosaur retired, you could push him into the tar pit and move on. Now he is back the next day in a suit, with a six-figure contract.
The plague of contractors reinforces one of the military's (and other bureaucracies') worst habits, formalizing thinking. Concepts and doctrine are now developed through layer after layer of formal, structured meetings, invariably organized around Powerpoint briefings. Most attendees are there as representatives of one or another bureaucratic interest, and their job is to defend their turf. Powerpoint briefings not only disguise a lack of intellectual substance with glitzy gimmicks, they inherently work against the concept of Schwerpunkt. Slides usually present umpteen bulletized "points," all co-equal in (lack of) importance. In the end, what is important is the briefing itself: the medium is the message.
One of the great intellectual successes of the American military, the Marine Corps' development of maneuver warfare doctrine from the 1970s through the early 1990s, offers an interesting contrast. The process was almost all informal. The key people were mostly junior officers. Meetings were after-hours, in someone's living room over beer and pizza. Many outsiders were involved, but none of them were paid. In the end, most of the new manuals were written by a Marine captain, who took them directly to the Commandant for approval. Tellingly, since that time the Marine Corps has formalized its doctrine development process, and the quality of its manuals has declined.
Of course, contractors hate informal processes, because they have no role in them. There is no money to be had. In contrast, the current formal process gives them what they seek most, opportunities to kiss the backsides of bigwigs with bucks to obtain still more contracts.
As I told one senior Marine Corps general last fall, the present system is terminally constipated by too many people and too much money. The money draws contractors the way an outhouse draws other kinds of flies. If the U.S. military wants to start thinking again, it needs to can the senior officer contractors, outlaw Powerpoint and give younger officers time and encouragement to meet in informal seminars, write and publish.
Scharnhorst's Militaerische Gesellschaft, from the time of Napoleon, remains the right model. The problem is that it doesn't cost very much.
William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.
Raytheon gets S. Korea missile contract
original
TUCSON, April 11 (UPI) -- Raytheon has received a production contract for RAM ship-defense missiles to be supplied to South Korea.
The RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) is designed as a defense against anti-ship cruise missiles, such as North Korea's crude but effective HY-2 and Silkworm.
The $17.4 million Foreign Military Sales pact awarded by the U.S. Navy specifies 30 RAM Block 1/HAS (helicopter, aircraft, ship) missile rounds that will be built by Arizona-based Raytheon and Germany's RAM-System GmbH. It is a modification of an original production contract with South Korea.
"This sale strengthens the Republic of Korea Navy's commitment to RAM Block 1/HAS as its ship self-defense weapon of choice for KDX II-class ships," said RAM Program Director Todd Callahan.
RAM systems are mounted on more than 60 warships worldwide and are considered a "fire-and-forget" supersonic weapon that is launched quickly and at relatively close maximum range of 11 miles. Originally developed specifically to counter the cruise missile threat, the HAS upgrade makes the RAM an effective weapon against surface ships, planes and helicopters.
Measuring just 5 inches in diameter, the RAM incorporates the warhead and motor technology of the famed Sidewinder air-to-air missile along with the heat-seeking capabilities of the Stinger anti-aircraft rocket. The weapon is housed in a shipboard launcher that carries 11 or 21 individual missiles.
TUCSON, April 11 (UPI) -- Raytheon has received a production contract for RAM ship-defense missiles to be supplied to South Korea.
The RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) is designed as a defense against anti-ship cruise missiles, such as North Korea's crude but effective HY-2 and Silkworm.
The $17.4 million Foreign Military Sales pact awarded by the U.S. Navy specifies 30 RAM Block 1/HAS (helicopter, aircraft, ship) missile rounds that will be built by Arizona-based Raytheon and Germany's RAM-System GmbH. It is a modification of an original production contract with South Korea.
"This sale strengthens the Republic of Korea Navy's commitment to RAM Block 1/HAS as its ship self-defense weapon of choice for KDX II-class ships," said RAM Program Director Todd Callahan.
RAM systems are mounted on more than 60 warships worldwide and are considered a "fire-and-forget" supersonic weapon that is launched quickly and at relatively close maximum range of 11 miles. Originally developed specifically to counter the cruise missile threat, the HAS upgrade makes the RAM an effective weapon against surface ships, planes and helicopters.
Measuring just 5 inches in diameter, the RAM incorporates the warhead and motor technology of the famed Sidewinder air-to-air missile along with the heat-seeking capabilities of the Stinger anti-aircraft rocket. The weapon is housed in a shipboard launcher that carries 11 or 21 individual missiles.
Report Finds US Shooting of Reuters Soundman Unlawful
original
Reuters
Monday 10 April 2006
Baghdad - U.S. soldiers who shot dead a Reuters television soundman in Iraq last year breached their rules of engagement and the killing was "unlawful," an independent investigation commissioned by Reuters has found.
Waleed Khaled died and cameraman Haider Kadhem was wounded on August 28 when the troops fired on their car in Baghdad as the two Iraqis covered the aftermath of an attack on policemen.
An investigation by the Army unit involved found that its soldiers had acted within rules of engagement that allow them to fire if they feel under threat.
But The Risk Advisory Group (TRAG), a risk management consultancy asked by Reuters to examine the incident, said the use of force was neither proportionate nor justified.
It said the Army inquiry conclusions were not supported by the evidence - including the testimony of the soldiers themselves - and expressed incomprehension that crucial footage shot by Kadhem had somehow been lost by the military.
"We conclude, based on the independent evidence and the evidence of Haider Kadhem, that no hostile act took place and no act could have been legitimately mistaken as indicating hostile intent," the TRAG report said.
"The engagement was therefore in breach of U.S. Rules of Engagement and, in our opinion, on the current evidence was prima facie unlawful."
Reuters Global Managing Editor David Schlesinger called on the U.S. military to order "a full, independent and objective inquiry into this terrible incident." A copy of the report has been given to the U.S. Department of Defense for its review.
Shots "Fired to Kill or Injure"
Soldiers who fired on the car from the roof of a building testified to the military investigator that they saw a passenger hanging out of one of the windows holding what appeared to be a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) launcher.
They said the passenger quickly moved back inside the car before they could confirm with binoculars whether he was holding a weapon. The soldiers said they initially fired warning shot? and then fired to disable the vehicle.
TRAG reconstructed the incident and found it was impossible to distinguish an RPG at the distance from where the soldiers fired.
Kadhem said he was filming through the stationary car's windshield with his small, hand-held video camera and at one point turned to lean slightly out of the side window.
Kadhem said shooting began and Khaled reversed at speed. Seventeen bullets hit the car, which swerved and crashed into a barrier. Kadhem said shooting went on after it came to a stop.
"Had they not fired, it is unlikely in our view that the car would have moved in the first place," TRAG said.
The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists says at least 67 journalists have been killed in Iraq since the U.S. invasion of 2003. U.S. forces have killed at least 14 of them, the CPJ says.
Four Reuters journalists have been killed, at least three by U.S. forces. Reuters is awaiting results of a U.S. military inquiry into the death 18 months ago of the fourth.
TRAG found in Khaled's case that the use of force was not proportionate to the perceived threat - as it should be under the rules of engagement - as the car was stationary when firing began and continued after the vehicle had stopped.
Ballistic evidence from an examination of the car "supports the contention that shots were fired to kill or injure the occupants" rather than disable the vehicle, the report said.
Army "Lost" Crucial Evidence
Kadhem's video footage was seized by the U.S. military when he was detained and held for three days. The Army showed the footage to Reuters staff but then said it had been separated from the case file and subsequently lost.
"The 'lost' video contains the very best evidence of what transpired," TRAG said. "As a matter of good evidential practice, we find it very difficult to understand any circumstances in which it would have been appropriate to separate an original exhibit from the case papers."
Reuters staff and a security adviser to Reuters who saw the film testified that it supported Kadhem's statements.
TRAG's investigation was led by a former special investigator in Britain's Royal Military Police, who retired after 23 years of service, most recently in Iraq.
The 43-page report, and accompanying annexes, was reviewed by Risk Advisory Group Chief Executive Bill Waite, a barrister and former prosecutor for Britain's Serious Fraud Office.
The Risk Advisory Group noted that all Reuters Iraqi staff are made aware of how to behave in hostile environments.
Operating procedures were periodically enhanced with verbal training but not extensively, it added.
Schlesinger said the U.S. military must do more to ensure journalist safety. Some safety recommendations made by a U.S. investigation into the fatal shooting of Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana in August 2003 have yet to be implemented.
"Clearly, better training, clearer rules of engagement and understanding of journalists' special roles are a must in order to prevent further tragedies," Schlesinger said.
Reuters
Monday 10 April 2006
"The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists says at least 67 journalists have been killed in Iraq since the U.S. invasion of 2003. U.S. forces have killed at least 14 of them, the CPJ says.
Four Reuters journalists have been killed, at least three by U.S. forces. Reuters is awaiting results of a U.S. military inquiry into the death 18 months ago of the fourth."
Baghdad - U.S. soldiers who shot dead a Reuters television soundman in Iraq last year breached their rules of engagement and the killing was "unlawful," an independent investigation commissioned by Reuters has found.
Waleed Khaled died and cameraman Haider Kadhem was wounded on August 28 when the troops fired on their car in Baghdad as the two Iraqis covered the aftermath of an attack on policemen.
An investigation by the Army unit involved found that its soldiers had acted within rules of engagement that allow them to fire if they feel under threat.
But The Risk Advisory Group (TRAG), a risk management consultancy asked by Reuters to examine the incident, said the use of force was neither proportionate nor justified.
It said the Army inquiry conclusions were not supported by the evidence - including the testimony of the soldiers themselves - and expressed incomprehension that crucial footage shot by Kadhem had somehow been lost by the military.
"We conclude, based on the independent evidence and the evidence of Haider Kadhem, that no hostile act took place and no act could have been legitimately mistaken as indicating hostile intent," the TRAG report said.
"The engagement was therefore in breach of U.S. Rules of Engagement and, in our opinion, on the current evidence was prima facie unlawful."
Reuters Global Managing Editor David Schlesinger called on the U.S. military to order "a full, independent and objective inquiry into this terrible incident." A copy of the report has been given to the U.S. Department of Defense for its review.
Shots "Fired to Kill or Injure"
Soldiers who fired on the car from the roof of a building testified to the military investigator that they saw a passenger hanging out of one of the windows holding what appeared to be a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) launcher.
They said the passenger quickly moved back inside the car before they could confirm with binoculars whether he was holding a weapon. The soldiers said they initially fired warning shot? and then fired to disable the vehicle.
TRAG reconstructed the incident and found it was impossible to distinguish an RPG at the distance from where the soldiers fired.
Kadhem said he was filming through the stationary car's windshield with his small, hand-held video camera and at one point turned to lean slightly out of the side window.
Kadhem said shooting began and Khaled reversed at speed. Seventeen bullets hit the car, which swerved and crashed into a barrier. Kadhem said shooting went on after it came to a stop.
"Had they not fired, it is unlikely in our view that the car would have moved in the first place," TRAG said.
The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists says at least 67 journalists have been killed in Iraq since the U.S. invasion of 2003. U.S. forces have killed at least 14 of them, the CPJ says.
Four Reuters journalists have been killed, at least three by U.S. forces. Reuters is awaiting results of a U.S. military inquiry into the death 18 months ago of the fourth.
TRAG found in Khaled's case that the use of force was not proportionate to the perceived threat - as it should be under the rules of engagement - as the car was stationary when firing began and continued after the vehicle had stopped.
Ballistic evidence from an examination of the car "supports the contention that shots were fired to kill or injure the occupants" rather than disable the vehicle, the report said.
Army "Lost" Crucial Evidence
Kadhem's video footage was seized by the U.S. military when he was detained and held for three days. The Army showed the footage to Reuters staff but then said it had been separated from the case file and subsequently lost.
"The 'lost' video contains the very best evidence of what transpired," TRAG said. "As a matter of good evidential practice, we find it very difficult to understand any circumstances in which it would have been appropriate to separate an original exhibit from the case papers."
Reuters staff and a security adviser to Reuters who saw the film testified that it supported Kadhem's statements.
TRAG's investigation was led by a former special investigator in Britain's Royal Military Police, who retired after 23 years of service, most recently in Iraq.
The 43-page report, and accompanying annexes, was reviewed by Risk Advisory Group Chief Executive Bill Waite, a barrister and former prosecutor for Britain's Serious Fraud Office.
The Risk Advisory Group noted that all Reuters Iraqi staff are made aware of how to behave in hostile environments.
Operating procedures were periodically enhanced with verbal training but not extensively, it added.
Schlesinger said the U.S. military must do more to ensure journalist safety. Some safety recommendations made by a U.S. investigation into the fatal shooting of Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana in August 2003 have yet to be implemented.
"Clearly, better training, clearer rules of engagement and understanding of journalists' special roles are a must in order to prevent further tragedies," Schlesinger said.
New York Times | Military Fantasies on Iran
original
The New York Times | Editorial/Tuesday 11 April 2006
Iraq shows just how badly things can go wrong when an administration rashly embraces simple military solutions to complicated problems, shutting its ears to military and intelligence professionals who turn out to be tragically prescient. That lesson has yet to be absorbed by the Bush administration, which is now reportedly honing plans for airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Congress and the country need to ask the administration just what is going on, and just what it hopes to accomplish by this latest saber rattling.
If the administration's real goal is to change minds in Iran and energize diplomacy, it is not going about it in a very smart way. If, instead, it intends to proceed with a bombing campaign when and if diplomacy fails, Congress and the public need to force the kind of serious national debate that never really took place before the American invasion of Iraq.
Routine contingency planning goes on all the time in the Pentagon, but the discussions on Iran seem to have progressed beyond this level, with high administration officials pushing the process and dropping indirect hints of possible future American military action in language that sometimes recalls statements made before the invasion of Iraq.
The Washington Post reports that two main options are being seriously considered - a limited strike against Iranian nuclear-related sites or a broader campaign against a wider range of military and political targets. The planners are also looking at ways America could use tactical nuclear weapons to penetrate Iran's heavily reinforced underground uranium enrichment complex at Natanz. The British government is said to take Washington's planning exercises seriously enough to have worked out security arrangements for its own diplomats and citizens in the event of American air attacks.
War with Iran would be reckless folly, especially with most of America's ground forces tied up in Iraq, where they are particularly vulnerable to retaliation from Iran and its Iraqi Shiite allies. Nor is there any guarantee that such a conflict would remain limited to airstrikes. Bombing alone probably cannot destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities, some of which are underground and fortified, and possibly others in unknown locations.
In fact, Iran already has much of the material and know-how to make nuclear bombs, and is believed to be about 10 years away from building them. The best hope for avoiding a nuclear-armed Iran lies in encouraging political evolution there over the next decade. It is important to make clear to the Iranian people that they have no need for nuclear weapons and would actually be better off without them.
Years of frustrating diplomacy have not managed to deflect Iran's nuclear ambitions, but American airstrikes are not likely to either. The best they could hope to achieve is delay, but that result would be far outweighed by the likely consequences.
An American bombing campaign would surely rally the Iranian people behind the radical Islamic government and the nuclear program, with those effects multiplied exponentially if the Pentagon itself resorted to nuclear weapons in the name of trying to stop Iran from building nuclear bombs.
"An American bombing campaign would surely rally the Iranian people behind the radical Islamic government and the nuclear program, with those effects multiplied exponentially if the Pentagon itself resorted to nuclear weapons in the name of trying to stop Iran from building nuclear bombs."
The New York Times | Editorial/Tuesday 11 April 2006
Iraq shows just how badly things can go wrong when an administration rashly embraces simple military solutions to complicated problems, shutting its ears to military and intelligence professionals who turn out to be tragically prescient. That lesson has yet to be absorbed by the Bush administration, which is now reportedly honing plans for airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Congress and the country need to ask the administration just what is going on, and just what it hopes to accomplish by this latest saber rattling.
If the administration's real goal is to change minds in Iran and energize diplomacy, it is not going about it in a very smart way. If, instead, it intends to proceed with a bombing campaign when and if diplomacy fails, Congress and the public need to force the kind of serious national debate that never really took place before the American invasion of Iraq.
Routine contingency planning goes on all the time in the Pentagon, but the discussions on Iran seem to have progressed beyond this level, with high administration officials pushing the process and dropping indirect hints of possible future American military action in language that sometimes recalls statements made before the invasion of Iraq.
The Washington Post reports that two main options are being seriously considered - a limited strike against Iranian nuclear-related sites or a broader campaign against a wider range of military and political targets. The planners are also looking at ways America could use tactical nuclear weapons to penetrate Iran's heavily reinforced underground uranium enrichment complex at Natanz. The British government is said to take Washington's planning exercises seriously enough to have worked out security arrangements for its own diplomats and citizens in the event of American air attacks.
War with Iran would be reckless folly, especially with most of America's ground forces tied up in Iraq, where they are particularly vulnerable to retaliation from Iran and its Iraqi Shiite allies. Nor is there any guarantee that such a conflict would remain limited to airstrikes. Bombing alone probably cannot destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities, some of which are underground and fortified, and possibly others in unknown locations.
In fact, Iran already has much of the material and know-how to make nuclear bombs, and is believed to be about 10 years away from building them. The best hope for avoiding a nuclear-armed Iran lies in encouraging political evolution there over the next decade. It is important to make clear to the Iranian people that they have no need for nuclear weapons and would actually be better off without them.
Years of frustrating diplomacy have not managed to deflect Iran's nuclear ambitions, but American airstrikes are not likely to either. The best they could hope to achieve is delay, but that result would be far outweighed by the likely consequences.
An American bombing campaign would surely rally the Iranian people behind the radical Islamic government and the nuclear program, with those effects multiplied exponentially if the Pentagon itself resorted to nuclear weapons in the name of trying to stop Iran from building nuclear bombs.
Center-Left Claims Italy Victory
original
BBC News/Tuesday 11 April 2006
Italy's centre-left opposition has won a narrow victory in the lower house of parliament, official results say.
It won 49.8% of the vote against 49.7% for the centre-right, according to interior ministry figures.
The head of the centre-left coalition, former Prime Minister Romano Prodi, told cheering supporters in Rome: "Victory has arrived."
But the claim has been contested by the ruling centre-right coalition of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
His spokesman Paolo Bonaiuti said his bloc would demand a "scrupulous" check of election ballots.
The winning coalition will automatically be awarded 55% of the lower house seats - 340 in total - under a new electoral law.
Mr Berlusconi's coalition currently has a lead of one seat in the Senate, with six seats voted for by expatriates still to be declared.
The centre-left Union says it believes it will win four of those seats, giving it an overall majority.
The lower and upper houses have equal power in Italy's electoral system. One bloc must win both to prevent parliamentary stalemate.
Acrimonious Campaign
Mr Prodi told a crowd in central Rome: "Today, we have turned a page... We will govern for five years."
But emotions were also high amongst the ruling centre-right bloc who faced losing power.
"This is intolerable. What is this? A coup? It reminds me of South America. Auto proclamation (of victory) is constitutionally illegitimate," Industry Minister Claudio Scajola said.
Mr Berlusconi, a billionaire businessman and media magnate, has been in office since 2001.
He has led Italy's longest-serving government since World War II, but the economy has proven sluggish for much of his tenure.
Voter turnout was high. More than 83% of the electorate cast a vote.
Ailing Economy
Exit polls released straight after the voting ended, suggested that Mr Prodi's coalition had gained a narrow victory.
But as the evening went on the situation changed and confusion grew over the outcome, leading to wild swings of emotion among supporters on both sides.
The formation of a new government will have to wait until after the election of a new Italian president next month. President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi's seven-year term of office is about to expire.
The campaign was marked by acrimony, with Mr Berlusconi mocking left-wing voters and Mr Prodi likening him to a drunkard. Mr Berlusconi's coalition has failed to revive the ailing economy
Mr Prodi, a former Italian prime minister and president of the European Commission, was narrowly ahead in most opinion polls until they were suspended 10 days ago under electoral law.
His mild-mannered - some say lacklustre - style contrasts sharply with Mr Berlusconi's media-savvy flamboyance.
Mr Berlusconi has battled to fend off prosecution for alleged corruption and conflict of interest over his media empire.
Go to Original
Challenger Claims Italian Election Win
CBS News and The Associated Press
Tuesday 11 April 2006
Center-left challenger Romano Prodi claimed victory Tuesday over Premier Silvio Berlusconi in parliamentary elections, and said he would form a "strong" government, even though the official vote count had not completed.
Prodi told a news conference that his government would be "politically and technically" strong, rebutting concerns about an apparent slim margin of victory. The former European Union commissioner also said his government would put Europe at the center of its policies.
"This is a profoundly European result, and as I said, Europe will be the center of the policy of my government," Prodi said, also promising "constructive relations with the United States."
He made the comments after his center-left coalition claimed it had won four of the outstanding six seats in the Senate, parliament's upper chamber an outcome which, if confirmed, would give it the necessary margin to declare victory.
The Interior Ministry, however, was still counting the Senate vote.
Berlusconi's camp did not concede the election and called for a recount in the lower Chamber of Deputies, where final results gave Prodi's coalition a razor-thin margin. Berlusconi is expected to hold a press conference Tuesday, CBS News reports.
Prodi said he wasn't concerned about the recount call and conceded his margin was thin. But he said previous governments have been weaker.
Final returns Tuesday showed Prodi winning the lower Chamber of Deputies by one tenth of a percentage point, 49.8 to 49.7 percent. Under Italian electoral law, 55 percent of seats are awarded to the overall winner regardless of the scale of victory, giving Prodi's forces 340 seats in the 630-member lower house.
All eyes were on the Senate, however, which Prodi also needed to win to form a government.
The Senate outcome depended on votes cast by Italians living overseas, which were still being counted Tuesday. Prodi's coalition claimed at least four of the six seats, giving it the necessary margin for victory, but official results hadn't yet been released.
The election marks the first time Italian citizens living abroad had the right to vote by mail in a parliamentary election, thanks to a 2001 law sponsored by Berlusconi's conservative government soon after it came to power.
The law created four huge electoral districts to represent Italians who live overseas. Eighteen lawmakers will be chosen to represent this new constituency, 12 in the Chamber of Deputies and six in the Senate.
Politicians crisscrossed continents and flew across oceans in a scramble to win over the 2.6 million voters abroad. Politicians particularly focused on Argentina, home to hundreds of thousands of Italians. There were about 400,000 eligible Italian voters in the North and Central America expatriate district.
At the close of the deadline for submitting ballots on Thursday, the Italian Consulate in New York, where the highest number of Italian citizens in the United States are concentrated, said it had received more than 18,000 ballots.
During his tenure as premier, Berlusconi, a flamboyant billionaire, had strongly supported President Bush over Iraq despite fierce Italian opposition to the war. Prodi, an economist, said he would bring troops home as soon as possible, security conditions permitting. But the issue was largely deflated before the campaign began, when Berlusconi announced that Italy's troops there would be withdrawn by year's end.
The vote followed a bitter election campaign in which the two main contenders traded personal insults, CBS News' Sabina Castelfranco reports.
For hours after the vote ended Monday, projections and returns swung dramatically back and forth between the two sides, and without the vote from abroad, the election's outcome was still unclear. Voter turnout was about 84 percent.
The Senate and lower chamber of parliament have equal powers, and any coalition would have to control both in order to form a government. Some center-left and center-right leaders have said if neither side controls both houses, new elections should be called.
Final results in the lower house showed Prodi's coalition winning 49.8 percent of the vote compared to 49.7 percent for Berlusconi's conservatives. The winning coalition is automatically awarded 340 seats in the 630-member chamber.
The Senate is made up of 315 elected lawmakers. There are also seven senators appointed for life, but by tradition they do not take sides.
If parliament is split between the two coalitions, Pres?dent Carlo Azeglio Ciampi could try to name a government of technocrats at least until another election. He could also seek to fashion a coalition of left and right, but considering the bitter divisions among Italy's political parties, that seemed unlikely.
There is no clear provision in the Italian constitution to deal with a split parliament, and there are no precedents.
"These results mean the country is divided in two. There needs to be a provisional government for a few months, then new elections," said Marco Piva, a 49-year-old banker from Padova, as he took the train to work Tuesday morning. "This is the worst result that we could have had."
Culture Minister Rocco Buttiglione and several other politicians said early Tuesday that both sides must pull together, if only to handle urgent economic matters and the election of a new president after Ciampi's mandate expires in May.
"We have to immediately send a message to the markets, to whomever wants to invest in Italy that the country is not going to fall apart," he said.
Berlusconi, a 69-year-old media mogul and Italy's longest-serving premier since World War II, was battling to capture his third term with an often squabbling coalition of his Forza Italia party, the former neo-fascist National Alliance, pro-Vatican forces and the anti-immigrant Northern League.
The 66-year-old Prodi, a former premier, was making his comeback bid with a potentially unwieldy coalition of moderate Christian Democrats, Greens, liberals, former Communists and Communists.
Italians were mainly preoccupied by economic worries. Berlusconi failed to jump-start a flat economy during his tenure, but promised to abolish a homeowner's property tax. Prodi said he would revive an inheritance tax abolished by Berlusconi, but only for the richest; he also promised to cut payroll taxes to try to spur hiring.
During his tenure, Berlusconi had strongly supported President Bush over Iraq despite fierce Italian opposition to the war. Prodi said he would bring troops home as soon as possible, security conditions permitting. But the issue was largely deflated before the campaign began when Berlusconi announced that Italy's troops there would be withdrawn by year's end.
BBC News/Tuesday 11 April 2006
Italy's centre-left opposition has won a narrow victory in the lower house of parliament, official results say.
It won 49.8% of the vote against 49.7% for the centre-right, according to interior ministry figures.
The head of the centre-left coalition, former Prime Minister Romano Prodi, told cheering supporters in Rome: "Victory has arrived."
But the claim has been contested by the ruling centre-right coalition of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
His spokesman Paolo Bonaiuti said his bloc would demand a "scrupulous" check of election ballots.
The winning coalition will automatically be awarded 55% of the lower house seats - 340 in total - under a new electoral law.
Mr Berlusconi's coalition currently has a lead of one seat in the Senate, with six seats voted for by expatriates still to be declared.
The centre-left Union says it believes it will win four of those seats, giving it an overall majority.
The lower and upper houses have equal power in Italy's electoral system. One bloc must win both to prevent parliamentary stalemate.
Acrimonious Campaign
Mr Prodi told a crowd in central Rome: "Today, we have turned a page... We will govern for five years."
But emotions were also high amongst the ruling centre-right bloc who faced losing power.
"This is intolerable. What is this? A coup? It reminds me of South America. Auto proclamation (of victory) is constitutionally illegitimate," Industry Minister Claudio Scajola said.
Mr Berlusconi, a billionaire businessman and media magnate, has been in office since 2001.
He has led Italy's longest-serving government since World War II, but the economy has proven sluggish for much of his tenure.
Voter turnout was high. More than 83% of the electorate cast a vote.
Ailing Economy
Exit polls released straight after the voting ended, suggested that Mr Prodi's coalition had gained a narrow victory.
But as the evening went on the situation changed and confusion grew over the outcome, leading to wild swings of emotion among supporters on both sides.
The formation of a new government will have to wait until after the election of a new Italian president next month. President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi's seven-year term of office is about to expire.
The campaign was marked by acrimony, with Mr Berlusconi mocking left-wing voters and Mr Prodi likening him to a drunkard. Mr Berlusconi's coalition has failed to revive the ailing economy
Mr Prodi, a former Italian prime minister and president of the European Commission, was narrowly ahead in most opinion polls until they were suspended 10 days ago under electoral law.
His mild-mannered - some say lacklustre - style contrasts sharply with Mr Berlusconi's media-savvy flamboyance.
Mr Berlusconi has battled to fend off prosecution for alleged corruption and conflict of interest over his media empire.
Go to Original
Challenger Claims Italian Election Win
CBS News and The Associated Press
Tuesday 11 April 2006
Center-left challenger Romano Prodi claimed victory Tuesday over Premier Silvio Berlusconi in parliamentary elections, and said he would form a "strong" government, even though the official vote count had not completed.
Prodi told a news conference that his government would be "politically and technically" strong, rebutting concerns about an apparent slim margin of victory. The former European Union commissioner also said his government would put Europe at the center of its policies.
"This is a profoundly European result, and as I said, Europe will be the center of the policy of my government," Prodi said, also promising "constructive relations with the United States."
He made the comments after his center-left coalition claimed it had won four of the outstanding six seats in the Senate, parliament's upper chamber an outcome which, if confirmed, would give it the necessary margin to declare victory.
The Interior Ministry, however, was still counting the Senate vote.
Berlusconi's camp did not concede the election and called for a recount in the lower Chamber of Deputies, where final results gave Prodi's coalition a razor-thin margin. Berlusconi is expected to hold a press conference Tuesday, CBS News reports.
Prodi said he wasn't concerned about the recount call and conceded his margin was thin. But he said previous governments have been weaker.
Final returns Tuesday showed Prodi winning the lower Chamber of Deputies by one tenth of a percentage point, 49.8 to 49.7 percent. Under Italian electoral law, 55 percent of seats are awarded to the overall winner regardless of the scale of victory, giving Prodi's forces 340 seats in the 630-member lower house.
All eyes were on the Senate, however, which Prodi also needed to win to form a government.
The Senate outcome depended on votes cast by Italians living overseas, which were still being counted Tuesday. Prodi's coalition claimed at least four of the six seats, giving it the necessary margin for victory, but official results hadn't yet been released.
The election marks the first time Italian citizens living abroad had the right to vote by mail in a parliamentary election, thanks to a 2001 law sponsored by Berlusconi's conservative government soon after it came to power.
The law created four huge electoral districts to represent Italians who live overseas. Eighteen lawmakers will be chosen to represent this new constituency, 12 in the Chamber of Deputies and six in the Senate.
Politicians crisscrossed continents and flew across oceans in a scramble to win over the 2.6 million voters abroad. Politicians particularly focused on Argentina, home to hundreds of thousands of Italians. There were about 400,000 eligible Italian voters in the North and Central America expatriate district.
At the close of the deadline for submitting ballots on Thursday, the Italian Consulate in New York, where the highest number of Italian citizens in the United States are concentrated, said it had received more than 18,000 ballots.
During his tenure as premier, Berlusconi, a flamboyant billionaire, had strongly supported President Bush over Iraq despite fierce Italian opposition to the war. Prodi, an economist, said he would bring troops home as soon as possible, security conditions permitting. But the issue was largely deflated before the campaign began, when Berlusconi announced that Italy's troops there would be withdrawn by year's end.
The vote followed a bitter election campaign in which the two main contenders traded personal insults, CBS News' Sabina Castelfranco reports.
For hours after the vote ended Monday, projections and returns swung dramatically back and forth between the two sides, and without the vote from abroad, the election's outcome was still unclear. Voter turnout was about 84 percent.
The Senate and lower chamber of parliament have equal powers, and any coalition would have to control both in order to form a government. Some center-left and center-right leaders have said if neither side controls both houses, new elections should be called.
Final results in the lower house showed Prodi's coalition winning 49.8 percent of the vote compared to 49.7 percent for Berlusconi's conservatives. The winning coalition is automatically awarded 340 seats in the 630-member chamber.
The Senate is made up of 315 elected lawmakers. There are also seven senators appointed for life, but by tradition they do not take sides.
If parliament is split between the two coalitions, Pres?dent Carlo Azeglio Ciampi could try to name a government of technocrats at least until another election. He could also seek to fashion a coalition of left and right, but considering the bitter divisions among Italy's political parties, that seemed unlikely.
There is no clear provision in the Italian constitution to deal with a split parliament, and there are no precedents.
"These results mean the country is divided in two. There needs to be a provisional government for a few months, then new elections," said Marco Piva, a 49-year-old banker from Padova, as he took the train to work Tuesday morning. "This is the worst result that we could have had."
Culture Minister Rocco Buttiglione and several other politicians said early Tuesday that both sides must pull together, if only to handle urgent economic matters and the election of a new president after Ciampi's mandate expires in May.
"We have to immediately send a message to the markets, to whomever wants to invest in Italy that the country is not going to fall apart," he said.
Berlusconi, a 69-year-old media mogul and Italy's longest-serving premier since World War II, was battling to capture his third term with an often squabbling coalition of his Forza Italia party, the former neo-fascist National Alliance, pro-Vatican forces and the anti-immigrant Northern League.
The 66-year-old Prodi, a former premier, was making his comeback bid with a potentially unwieldy coalition of moderate Christian Democrats, Greens, liberals, former Communists and Communists.
Italians were mainly preoccupied by economic worries. Berlusconi failed to jump-start a flat economy during his tenure, but promised to abolish a homeowner's property tax. Prodi said he would revive an inheritance tax abolished by Berlusconi, but only for the richest; he also promised to cut payroll taxes to try to spur hiring.
During his tenure, Berlusconi had strongly supported President Bush over Iraq despite fierce Italian opposition to the war. Prodi said he would bring troops home as soon as possible, security conditions permitting. But the issue was largely deflated before the campaign began when Berlusconi announced that Italy's troops there would be withdrawn by year's end.