|
Some News & Links on Iranq
Some loosely connected news and links on Iranq:
Who is fighting the U.S. in Iraq?
Nobody really knows I guess – the recent fight near Najaf is at least open to interpretation. According to the Boston Globe the U.S. has identified some 28 militia groups of various motives and background.
Is the group that fought in Najaf one of them? We do not know and it may be a save assumption that the list is incomplete.
As background Pat Lang’s primer on Islam helps to understand how easy such groups form within the wide range of Islamic beliefs.
Ed Herriman says US troops will stay in Iraq, and the war will get worse. That sounds like a safe assumption. Patrick Cockburn reports how Iraqis abandon their homes in Middle East’s new refugee exodus. If you have a donation list you may want to add the UNHCR to it to help a bit.
LAT takes a look at Kirkuk. There is supposed to be a referendum at the end of the year about Kirkuk being part of the Kurdish province or not. Either that referendum takes place and the city explodes over it, or the referendum will not be held and the city will explode – nice choice.
Ex-neocon Francis Fukayama looks at his former friends and doesn’t like what he sees: The neocons have learned nothing from five years of catastrophe. But to them it is not a catastrophy. They have learned that they are capable of stiring the cauldron and they want to stir it more. The U.S. staying in Iraq is a precondition for that and the current fights in Washington are all about that.
So on to the "n" in Iranq. UK foreign minister Hague calls for tough Iran sanctions. The NYT editors warn on (sort of) escalation but they start with this baseless stuff:
We have no doubt about Iran’s malign intent …
Of course they had no doubt about WMD in Iraq either …
There are usually three accusations towards Iran: The nuclear ambitions, general meddling in Iraq and material support for the insurgent groups.
But Nuclear plans in chaos as Iran leader flounders and Fears of Iran Meddling in Southern Iraq Appear Overblown show that both accusations are simply hot air.
As for insurgence group support USA Today this yesterday: U.S. blames Iran for new bombs in Iraq
A sophisticated type of roadside bomb that U.S. officials have linked to Iran has been used increasingly against U.S. troops in Iraq. The device is called an explosively formed projectile (EFP).
They cite three cases of EFP use against U.S. troops. Two in Baghdad and one in Baqubah. Now that is a problem. In Baghdad the U.S. is fighting Sunnis in Haifa Street and Baqubah is a Sunni city. Why would Iran support a Sunni insurgency?
And if you want to know how to build a shaped-charge EFP, why not check out hundreds of new ideas in the U.S. patents database instead of relying on third grade Iranian know-how. But dear insurgent – no patent infringements please.
All explanations for Iran evilness are terribly overblown and nobody would trust any U.S. government report about them anyhow. That is why the U.S. delays report on Iranian role in Iraq
U.S. military and embassy officials in Baghdad have been trying to build a case with a variety of evidence, according to officials.
But officials involved in interagency meetings on the issue in Washington, including some in the State Department and intelligence agencies, believe that some of the material overstates murky evidence and casts a negative light on Iranians who may not be guilty.
But it is budget time in the Pentagon and everybody wants to bomb and to prove their usefulness. So LAT says the Air Force’s role in Iraq could grow, but the piece is more marketing than serious reporting. Unfortunately for the Air Force and its suppliers, jets are inefficient against insurgencies. But some find better uses:
Thomas G. McInerney, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who advocates military strikes in Iran, said U.S. planes along the border could be better used to keep bomb-making materials out of Iraq.
"We know they are doing this. Why do we accept it?" McInerney said. "For every [improvised explosive device] that goes off in Iraq, a bomb should go off in Iran."
McInerney is a neocon and a weapon producer lobbyist.
General McInerney is a member of the Board of Directors of Alloy Surfaces Company, Kilgore Flares Co, Nortel Government Solutions Inc. Pan American International Academy (Flight Simulators), Agusta Westland NA, and Crescent Partnerships.
McInerney simply profits from war and more war. LAT interviewed a pusher about the dangers of Heroin consumption. No danger at all he says. He said it before:
[T]his will be the most massive precision air campaign in history, achieving rapid dominance in the first 72 hours of combat. . . . [A]ll the Iraqi military forces will be told through the opposition forces in our information operations campaign that they have two choices: either help us change regime leadership and build the democracy, or be destroyed.
Rapid dominance – indeed …
I’ll have to agree with jj’s point here, with one little caveat, it is my belief that Valerie Plame and her crew stood in the way of the neocons of Team B. The real problem is not the organization of intelligence but, the Team B concept of intelligence which began in 1976, and the real villains are those hardliners who refuse to accept the unbiased and balanced judgments of intelligence professionals about the threats facing the country.
Now years years later and we know for a fact that the analysts, including Wilson, who said the Niger deal was bullshit were right and we know that the analysts who doubted the evidence about Saddam’s WMD were right too.
Not that this will stop the Team B neocons from insisting that “they were proved fucking right.” They really are delusional and they always have been. Karl Rove, and his clique however, are a lot of things, but delusional isn’t one of them. He just put out the hit on Plame and Wilson to shut down the questions Wilson was raising. He was taking care of business. But others in the administration may have made a good case, at least in their own beautiful minds, that they were the victims. God knows these people love to be victims, and they love, love, love their increasing and unfettered power.
A few sentences about here at home, taken out of context by me, of Anatoly Medetsky, in this article reminded me the following idea, in it he very cognizantly point’s out what we should start referring to America as, imho. He writes, “The key, I think, lies in describing Israel as an “ideology.” It’s not simply a state and it’s not even simply “Jewish.” Instead, it’s a political, social, and religious ideology”… Likewise, being as America is tied to the hip of Israel, we could very easliy say, the key, –at the very least, since 911– lies in describing America as an “ideology.” It’s not simply a republic and it’s not even simply an “American” republic anymore, Instead, it’s a political, social, and religious ideology”. A forced meme. A psychological imprint which is being and has been forced on us. Every bit as much as a cult indoctrinates it’s mark. It is the cementing of The Rise of Rove’s Republic: one of Money and Influence, controlled chaos. A Master plan. The basis of Rove’s Republic will not only be the massive debt, but the ‘fire-sale’ of the entire countries infrastructure, of privatizing everything. All that it can pawn, beg, borrow or steal from the current and future Eco-sphere and landscape and it’s people. Using the advanced technology gained from decades of secret black budget programs, It not only will be the death of liberal democracy as we know it, but the glorious introduction of new mad max type civilization. The sci-fi equivalent of the Imperial Politics of Herbert’s Dune, or Bladerunner, Brazil, or any untold other myopic futures. One big Kafka castle from cradle to grave. Oh, not for you dear reader, but for your children and thier’s. For you there will be the slow rot of seeing ‘hope’ systematically and methodically washed out of your conscience while it imprisons us body, soul a spirit, they want our dreams. See, once our empire falls, –our lady, America,– that is when the plan really gets started. Because you see, they have set the black magic into motion and even if they fall from grace, they have accomplished the work.
Anyone remember the docu ‘Power Of Nightmares’ and Team B’s ascessment of Russian defence and military? Israel, Team B, and the rest of the neocons are drunk with the maddness of power, the power of nightmares and their own shadows. They project their fears, and in doing so justify their wounds and hate.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 2 2007 10:13 utc | 24
grrr, I got distracted, however, to finish my train of thought, as I was saying, these fucks have set up an ideological network grid, one in which the system carries on and is self perpetuating even if the head is cut off, in other words, even if Cheneyco Bush , whomever, is taken out of the picture the system will merely see it as dammage and route’s around that damage, around any stovepipes that keep it from ever more power and it’s intrinsic values and ideology goes on; the pre manifest become manifest. It’s their post abundance Manifesto. Gated communities for them and mad max for us, our children and our children’s children.
A few words On hope, as talked about above…
THE MOST COMMON WORDS I hear spoken by any environmentalists anywhere are, We’re fucked. Most of these environmentalists are fighting desperately, using whatever tools they have—or rather whatever legal tools they have, which means whatever tools those in power grant them the right to use, which means whatever tools will be ultimately ineffective—to try to protect some piece of ground, to try to stop the manufacture or release of poisons, to try to stop civilized humans from tormenting some group of plants or animals. Sometimes they’re reduced to trying to protect just one tree.
Here’s how John Osborn, an extraordinary activist and friend, sums up his reasons
for doing the work: “As things become increasingly chaotic, I want to make sure some doors remain open. If grizzly bears are still alive in twenty, thirty, and forty years, they may still be alive in fifty. If they’re gone in twenty, they’ll be gone forever.”
But no matter what environmentalists do, our best efforts are insufficient. We’re losing badly, on every front. Those in power are hell-bent on destroying the planet, and most people don’t care.
Frankly, I don’t have much hope. But I think that’s a good thing. Hope is what keeps us chained to the system, the conglomerate of people and ideas and ideals that is causing the destruction of the Earth.
To start, there is the false hope that suddenly somehow the system may inexplicably change. Or technology will save us. Or the Great Mother. Or beings from Alpha Centauri. Or Jesus Christ. Or Santa Claus. All of these false hopes lead to inaction, or at least to ineffectiveness. One reason my mother stayed with my abusive father was that there were no battered women’s shelters in the ’50s and ’60s, but another was her false hope that he would change. False hopes bind us to unlivable situations, and blind us to real possibilities.
Does anyone really believe that Weyerhaeuser is going to stop deforesting because we ask nicely? Does anyone really believe that Monsanto will stop Monsantoing because we ask nicely? If only we get a Democrat in the White House, things will be okay. If only we pass this or that piece of legislation, things will be okay. If only we defeat this or that piece of legislation, things will be okay. Nonsense. Things will not be okay. They are already not okay, and they’re getting worse. Rapidly.
But it isn’t only false hopes that keep those who go along enchained. It is hope itself. Hope, we are told, is our beacon in the dark. It is our light at the end of a long, dark tunnel. It is the beam of light that makes its way into our prison cells. It is our reason for persevering, our protection against despair (which must be avoided at all costs). How can we continue if we do not have hope?
We’ve all been taught that hope in some future condition—like hope in some future heaven—is and must be our refuge in current sorrow. I’m sure you remember the story of Pandora. She was given a tightly sealed box and was told never to open it. But, being curious, she did, and out flew plagues, sorrow, and mischief, probably not in that order. Too late she clamped down the lid. Only one thing remained in the box: hope. Hope, the story goes, was the only good the casket held among many evils, and it remains to this day mankind’s sole comfort in misfortune. No mention here of action being a comfort in misfortune, or of actually doing something to alleviate or eliminate one’s misfortune.
More at link.
Because I didn’t post the entire dialogue, in case people arrive at the false conclusion the writing’s inherently negative, I should post a bit more, this from the end:
When you give up on hope, something even better happens than it not killing you, which is that in some sense it does kill you. You die. And there’s a wonderful thing about being dead, which is that they—those in power—cannot really touch you anymore. Not through promises, not through threats, not through violence itself. Once you’re dead in this way, you can still sing, you can still dance, you can still make love, you can still fight like hell—you can still live because you are still alive, more alive in fact than ever before. You come to realize that when hope died, the you who died with the hope was not you, but was the you who depended on those who exploit you, the you who believed that those who exploit you will somehow stop on their own, the you who believed in the mythologies propagated by those who exploit you in order to facilitate that exploitation. The socially constructed you died. The civilized you died. The manufactured, fabricated, stamped, molded you died. The victim died.
And who is left when that you dies? You are left. Animal you. Naked you. Vulnerable (and invulnerable) you. Mortal you. Survivor you. The you who thinks not what the culture taught you to think but what you think. The you who feels not what the culture taught you to feel but what you feel. The you who is not who the culture taught you to be but who you are. The you who can say yes, the you who can say no. The you who is a part of the land where you live. The you who will fight (or not) to defend your family. The you who will fight (or not) to defend those you love. The you who will fight (or not) to defend the land upon which your life and the lives of those you love depends. The you whose morality is not based on what you have been taught by the culture that is killing the planet, killing you, but on your own animal feelings of love and connection to your family, your friends, your landbase—not to your family as self-identified civilized beings but as animals who require a landbase, animals who are being killed by chemicals, animals who have been formed and deformed to fit the needs of the culture.
When you give up on hope—when you are dead in this way, and by so being are really alive—you make yourself no longer vulnerable to the cooption of rationality and fear that Nazis inflicted on Jews and others, that abusers like my father inflict on their victims, that the dominant culture inflicts on all of us. Or is it rather the case that these exploiters frame physical, social, and emotional circumstances such that victims perceive themselves as having no choice but to inflict this cooption on themselves?
But when you give up on hope, this exploiter/victim relationship is broken. You become like the Jews who participated in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
When you give up on hope, you turn away from fear.
And when you quit relying on hope, and instead begin to protect the people, things, and places you love, you become very dangerous indeed to those in power.
In case you’re wondering, that’s a very good thing.
The point of all this is, is it’s either their dark ideology that preveils
or ours. Or as I Imagine something in between. Like it or not, this is a ‘belief systems’ war.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 2 2007 10:48 utc | 26
|
