Clinton, McCain, Obama, Giuliani – non of them will win. Who will?

One does not often finds such an outrageous misinterpretation of history and facts like in this Kaleej Times piece by war-criminal Henry Kissinger. But within his collection of lies, there is a realistic hint for the reason of general U.S. imperialism:

They are in Iraq not as a favour to its government or as a reward for its conduct. They are there as an expression of the American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend.

Somehow I get the impression that the "surge" in Iraq is a fake move.

William Arkin remarked a few days ago:

Not only won’t there be one single and immediate deployment, but many of the supposed 20,000 are soldiers who are merely being extended in Iraq: it is like a corporate RIF where the numbers are attained through retirements and attrition. Others, moreover, are merely a surge on paper; the number of actual immediate fighters in Baghdad is only about half what the President suggests.

He has some details on unit deployments and some early parts of the surge, in reality units prolonged in their stay will already be home again when the last surge components arrive.

Cont. reading: Fake Surge

The Chinese government demonstrated the capacity to destroy satellites in low earth orbit. 

A rocket fired from the surface did a hard "kinetic kill" of an old Chnines satellite flying at 850 kilometers (530 miles) altitude. As satellites are relative tiny objects, in this case maybe some three yards wide, this was an impressive technolgical achievement.

Aviation Week has some details. The Arms Control Wonk discusses implications here and here. Noah Shachtman at Defense Tech writes about possible countermeasures. There is not much the U.S. can do about it.

Cont. reading: War In Space

News & views …

and a link to the preceding OT

Parts of the U.S. experience severe winter storms. Europe is not spared either.

Today’s weather warning map for Germany is unprecedented. This one was issued an hour ago by the German National Weather Service (DWD).

Orange colored are counties warned of severe storm conditions. Dark red colored are counties where very severe storms are expected.

The forecast predicts up to 100 mph squalls and up to 2.8 inch of rain. For my local city of Hamburg tonight’s high-tide may come in some 12 feet above average.

Stay safe, wherever you are …

Update: Getting worse: Warning map as of 1:30pm local time (7:30am blogtime)

Several [Baker/Hamilton] commission members, including some Democrats, are discussing proposals that call for a declaration that within a specified period of time, perhaps as short as a year, a significant number of American troops should be withdrawn, regardless of whether the Iraqi government’s forces are declared ready to defend the country.
Panel to Weigh Overture by U.S. to Iran and Syria, NYT, November 26, 2006

Saudi Arabia is so concerned about the damage that the conflict in Iraq is doing across the region that it basically summoned Vice President Cheney for talks over the weekend, according to U.S. officials and foreign diplomats. The visit was originally portrayed as U.S. outreach to its oil-rich Arab ally.
Civil War in Iraq Near, Annan Says, WaPo, November 28, 2006

Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. But it seems possible today, and therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy.
[…]
Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today’s high prices.
Stepping Into Iraq, WaPo OpEd, November 29, 2006, Nawaf Obaid is an adviser to the Saudi government

CNN’s The Situation Room mentioned "senior administration officials" who suggested Bush wants more time because he "is planning to do something big" namely, he is "very seriously considering agreeing with John McCain and increasing troop levels."
Bush Planning "Something Big" On Iraq, US News, December 13, 2006

The first wave of additional US troops is set to arrive in Iraq at the end of the month, it was reported today, with George Bush scheduled to lay out his "new strategy" for the conflict in a televised address tonight.
Bush to address US on new Iraq strategy, Guardian, January 10, 2007

Finally war-criminal Lt. Gen. Halutz has resigned as chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Force.

Halutz was largely responsible for the bombing of civilians and civilian infrastructure in Israels war on Lebanon last summer.

His resignation comes only a few hour after a prosecutor ordered an investigation into Prime Minister Olmert’s handling of the privatization of a state owned bank in 2005.

Olmert’s current approval rating in polls is at 14%. He still has a solid majority in the Knesset, but his resignation and new elections would most probably result in a shift to the far right.

Meanwhile the IDF seems to be out of control.

The political situation is Israel looks very unstable to me. One wonders what plans might exist to divert the public interest from the mess.

Olmert yesterday denied that unofficial peace talks have been held with Syria, but today Haaretz reports that even Cheney was informed of these.

What government would deny attempts to make peace with its neighbors? A government that wants war?

by b real
lifted from a comment

If you haven’t read Michael Klare’s article, The Global Energy Race and Its Consequences, it’s good. But before I get to that, today SecDef Gates gave a very relevant answer to the question of what this ongoing buildup for a military attack on Iran is really about:

Gates said the time is not right for diplomatic talks with Iran, but left open that possibility for the future.

After meeting with senior officials at NATO headquarters, Gates was
asked at a news conference what was behind the Bush administration’s
decision to deploy a Patriot missile battalion and a second aircraft
carrier to the Gulf region – moves announced in connection with a
further buildup of ground troops in Iraq.

He noted that the United States has taken a leading role in Gulf security for many decades.

Cont. reading: The Global Energy Race

Is Stephen Roach correct here or is this just an illusion?

Pro-Labor Politics

Courtesy of globalization, in conjunction with diminished unionized bargaining power and technology-led labor displacement, workers in the high-wage developed economies are being squeezed as never before.
[…]

Cont. reading: Labor

News & views … an open thread

In today’s papers:

– The Pentagon is reading your(?) financial records and the Army allows itself to listen to your phone.

– Chalabi is still in business.

– The UK’s SAS and U.S. mercenaries are fighting in Somalia

Excerpts from the relevant articles are below the fold.

Cont. reading: Sunday’s News

As Glenn Greenwald points out, Bush/Cheney believe they do not need congressional authorization to attack Iran. In this they are supported by the legal opinion of the author of the torture memos, John Yoo. He argues:

"As a matter of practice and history, presidents have used force abroad without any congressional authorization, [..] including the war in Kosovo, which I do not recall Senator Biden challenging as a violation of the Constitution."

Yesterday Laura Rozen wrote about possible findings and/or directives Bush may have signed for an attack on Iran.

Bush certainly has signed a finding allowing the CIA to counter Hizbullah in Lebanon. Secretary of State Rice confirmed authorization by Bush to arrest Iranian diplomats in sovereign Iraq. The recent direct military intervention with U.S. special forces on the ground in Somalia was done without specific congressional authorization (and without any protest.) The administration sees that operation as a blueprint for further missions.

Given the above, there is hardly any doubt that Bush would start an attack on Iran without an explicite authorization by Congress. To threaten the administration with "constitutional conflict" like Senator Biden has done will not deter it. The White House already prepared for this when it recently lawyered up with a specialist for presidential conflict with Congress.

While some like Senator Hagel think that an attack on Iran would be comparable to Nixon’s attack on Cambodia, a last "surge" to cover a retreat, I believe the plan is different and bigger.

Cont. reading: Iran Timing

art by beq

Got this one from beq.

Any idea what the Japanese writing or the abstract figure might depict?

News & views …

Yesterday Bush just told the U.S. what he was going to do. He did not even attempt to ask for support. He just proclaimed his plans.

He talked about Iraq and, maybe more important, about Iran.

Froomkin analyses:

Bush’s new proposal is so internally contradictory, so incremental, so problematically dependent on Iraqi good behavior, and so unlikely to galvanize public support that it seems to me that it’s open season on alternate explanations of his motivation.

Cont. reading: Insincere Plans

Watching CNN-Intl. – "Bush Speech – The World Reacts" – this 30 minutes before the speech starts – weird.
8:40pm – blogtime

Top headline on whitehouse.gov: President Bush Marks Fifth Anniversary of No Child Left Behind
8:46pm

WaPo "preview": Bush to Warn That New Iraq Campaign Could Be Bloody – well – with 700,000+ dead Iraqis and 3 million refugees, wasn’t this bloody enough yet?
9:03pm

Bush on:

GWOT, terror, al-qaida, Sunni insurgence is responsible, situation
in Iraq unacceptable, "where mistakes have been made, responsibility
rests with me" (consequences?), failure not an option, 9/11,

Cont. reading: Just Another Speech

The plan is to add one brigade of combat troops per month in Iraq over the next five month and to prolong the tours of formations already in Iraq. From a military point of view such a buildup is too slow and too small to achieve "securing the population" even in limited parts of Baghdad.

Being short on infantry troops the commanders on the ground will have to resort to those tools that are available to them but not to the insurgency, air-power and heavy artillery. Yesterday fighting, a mere 1,000 yards from the Green Zone, will repeat on a daily base and such will turn huge chunks of Baghdad into blood drained rubble.

Cont. reading: Escalation

News & views – an open thread …

by annie and beq

bigger

Really hard.

Cont. reading: Lagavulin Induced Afterthoughts