U.S. Judged By Actions, Not Words
Price Floyd worked at the State Department until a few weeks ago. He recently wrote a remarkable OpEd about his experience selling Bush's policies:
As the director of media affairs at State, this is the conundrum that I faced every day. I tried [...] to reach people in the U.S. and abroad and to convince them that we should not be judged by our actions, only our words.
Groucho's 'Who are you going to believe, ...' may be effective once or twice. But after years of U.S. propaganda contradicting everything the U.S. does, it has lost the trust of other nations.
Bush's bogus recent announcements on aids spending (a bondongle for U.S. pharma and "abstinence only" Christians) and global emissions goals (avoiding any real action) will reinforce the international lack of trust.
How might that change?
On the national level a new energizing President Gore may quickly be judged better than a lame lying President Bush. National trust in the Presidency can be regained within a few month.
People in other nations will take much longer to differentiate between 'The President of the United States' and 'The President of the United States.' The will not trust the new President's words. It may indeed take decades to regain the lost trust and the thereto attached influence.
For U.S. folks the by now unavoidable long time-lag between electing someone 'good' and a real positive international feedback will seem unreasonable. This again may prompt isolationist reactions.
The U.S. has some valuable, positive moral and cultural goods to sell to the world. But even with a fair-minded salesman/women internationally his/her pitch will not be listened to for a long time.
It will take a continous stream of real altruistic doings, not words, to convince the world that change has happened.
There are three alternatives: Walk the talk, go hide in isolation or end up as the most despised nation.
Which way will the U.S. take?
Posted by b on May 31, 2007 at 21:08 UTC | Permalink | Comments (32)
OT 07-38
Open threat: "If you don't comment, the terrorists will win ..."
Posted by b on May 31, 2007 at 8:44 UTC | Permalink | Comments (124)
Bush Changes His Mind (Or Not)
There was some truth in this statement:
April 13, 2004
As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America.
President Addresses the Nation
But that knowledge seems to be lost now:
May 30, 2007
President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.
Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea,
Has Bish changed his mind? Of course not. Fifty years of U.S. troops in South Korea, supporting a military dictatorship for most of that time, is not indefinite occupation and that is all he talked about.
And there is even hope some Iraqis will agree to such a not-idefinite occupation. Those living in London and Washington may even like the idea.
Posted by b on May 30, 2007 at 19:24 UTC | Permalink | Comments (12)
NATO Defeat in Afghanistan
Every evening throughout World War II radio stations in Germany read out the "Forces Bulletin." A daily success report with a series of victories here, accomplishments there and lots of heroic deeds.
The victorious wording never really changed but the locations did. People marked those places on their maps. After Stalingrad they found that each announced victory on the eastern front happened further west than yesterday's victory.
The described heroic deeds became defensive. Some Sergeant got decorated for stopping a big infantry attack single handed, a commander was lauded for rescuing his crew out of a burning tank.
Despite the positive language, the negative content could easily be detected.
Reading the Air Force May 28 airpower summary for Afghanistan, the similarity is striking:
[I]n Garmsir, French M-2000 Mirages dropped guided bomb unit-12s on enemy targets and escorted a coalition convoy. Other Mirages provided a show of force with multiple flares in the area. The drops and shows of force were reported as successful.
An attack on a convoy?
Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles provided shows of force, releasing flares to help ground forces withdraw from an area in Gardez. The F-15Es stayed with the ground forces until they had reached a forward operating base. They experienced no attacks while the aircraft were escorting them.
Troops had to withdraw(!) to their base?
An Air Force B-1B Lancer executed shows of force, releasing flares to support a medical evacuation in Asadabad. There were no attacks reported after the show of force. The Lancer also conducted a show of presence for a convoy on a coalition route in the area.
A medical evacuation - why? No attacks after(!) the show of force? What happened before?
Another B-1 showed force with flares to break up a developing riot in Farah. The show of force was called successful. They also performed shows of presence over a highway in the area.
Why was a riot developing?
An Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II provided a show of force, launching flares over Orgun-E to deter enemy activity surrounding a convoy in the area. There were no reports of attacks after the show of force. The pilots stayed with the convoy until they reached their final location.
Another convoy attacked? No attacks after(!) the show of force?
An F-15E provided a show of force over Kandahar to prevent any enemy activity while a convoy was stopped for vehicle repair.
Why did the vehicle break down?
From Iraq:
In Iraq, a U.S. Marine F-18 Hornet fired multiple cannon rounds at a vehicle with mortar capabilities near Karamah. The strafing was reported successful.
The resistance now has vehicle mounted, i.e. heavy mortars?
The glorious successful shows of force above do not paint a picture of progress towards some kind of victory.
Neither does this:
According to Red Cross, bombing by U.S. forces in western Afghanistan last month destroyed or badly damaged some 170 houses and left almost 2,000 people in four villages homeless.
The Afghan tribes will kick out the current occupier just like they did again and again throughout their history.
But maybe something good might come from this.
Under U.S. pressure NATO is ever expanding its agenda and is morphing into a U.S. controlled global force of Western imperialism.
There is no public support for such a role - at least not in Europe. People can read between the lines of such success reports. Without public support, NATO will lose in any bigger conflict like it is losing in Afghanistan.
NATO must be reduced back to its original North Atlantic defensive role or it must be dissolved. The coming defeat in Afghanistan will be a great occasion to do so.
Posted by b on May 30, 2007 at 18:32 UTC | Permalink | Comments (13)
Klammheimliche Freude
Klammheimliche Freude, clandestine joy, is an expression from the 1970s in Germany.
Whenever the Red Army Fraction or another violent left movements had a successful operation, their sympathizers were accused of such joy. To a certain extend such blame was true. Only few agreed with the RAF actions, but a lot felt joy that someone was doing something against the repressive rightwing political/capital dung pile of that time.
A month ago I titled a piece In Favor of Killing American Troops. I tried to explain how I do NOT wish for anybody to die violently, but that reports of ever higher U.S. casualties will be the only way to get the U.S. out of Iraq.
With 10 more GI's dead yesterday, I'll get to see the headline I wished for "U.S. May deathtoll in Iraq exceeds record." Guilty of klammheimliche Freude, again.
Guilty also of feeling much sadness and sorrow.
At least 40 Iraqis died today in two big bombings. Of the 150 plus wounded, many will die too (but will not be counted) because of the very sorry state of Iraqi hospitals and for lack of medicine and doctors.
Not that we will see anything of this. News about carnage in Iraq is heavily censored now:
Police who arrived at the scene confiscated the cameras of journalists who came to cover the attack, according to AP photographers and television cameramen at the scene.
The U.S. does the equivalent with a catch22 like legalistic approach:
Since last year, the military’s embedding rules require that journalists obtain a signed consent from a wounded soldier before the image can be published. Images that put a face on the dead, that make them identifiable, are simply prohibited.
As we are not allowed to see the real mess anymore, we are left to note the more entertaining aspects. An Iraqi special police platoon, in full uniform, kidnaps four British mercenary guards and their client from within a finance ministry office.
There is certainly some never to be told interesting backstory to this. But then, it is just a diversion.
Another sad thing - Cindy Sheehan has given up her attempts to end the war. In her farewell diary she explains:
I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt "two" party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland.
Well said. Take a look at this bill many Democrats voted for. Tens of billions for the weapon industry, lots of other pork, no timelines for Bush, but pressure on the Iraqi parliament and administration. Pressure to pass THE Iraqi oil law. THE big price the war is about. This is the moral abyss some Democrats even called a success:
H.R.2206 - U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
Title I, Chapter 3, Sec. 1314
(b) Conditioning of Future United States Strategy in Iraq on the Iraqi Government's Record of Performance on Its Benchmarks-
(1) IN GENERAL-
(A) The United States strategy in Iraq , hereafter, shall be conditioned on the Iraqi government meeting benchmarks, ... :
(i) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.
(ii) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification.
(iii) Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.
...(c) Limitations on Availability of Funds-
(1) LIMITATION- No funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the `Economic Support Fund' and available for Iraq may be obligated or expended unless and until the President of the United States certifies in the report outlined in subsection (b)(2)(A) and makes a further certification in the report outlined in subsection (b)(2)(D) that Iraq is making progress on each of the benchmarks set forth in subsection (b)(1)(A).
Chapter 6
Other Bilateral Economic Assistance
ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUNDFor an additional amount for `Economic Support Fund', $2,502,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008 ...
It is either bribery or extortion. It is criminal.
The military doubts that any progress is achievable. Iraq likely to miss goals set by U.S. - at least until September, so now they are busy to redefine success.
It is all about avoiding some - any end-date where Bush and the very bipartisan U.S. foreign policy establishment will finally have to declare defeat.
But that day will come. Maybe with the next President, probably later.
Until then what is left is open sorrow, and once a while, clandestine joy.
Posted by b on May 29, 2007 at 19:22 UTC | Permalink | Comments (23)
The Bush Economic Boycott
by James
James is a friend of MoA barfly Beq. He asked this to be posted. I am not sure I agree with it, but it certainly deserves discussion.
Voting in 2007 or The Bush Economic Boycott:
Starts June 1, 2007, ends when ALL troops are removed from Iraq.
- Cut out-of-pocket expenses by whatever you can (a goal of 25% is recommended).
- No purchases of homes, cars, luxury items: unneeded appliances, computers, electronics, jewelry, etc.
- Shop at non-Bush friendly vendors only. www.opensecrets.org may help.
- Cut all non-essential driving. A goal of 50% is recommended.
- A 100% boycott of gift purchasing on the December holidays (children are optional, just cut back) Make gifts, bake goods, etc.
Our goal is to force the Bush administration to finally take notice of our strength in numbers. Yeah. They got the guns but…
They totally ignored the 2006 elections. So vote again in 2007. Every dollar not spent to fuel the economy will eventually help save American and Iraqi lives. I can’t think of a better sacrifice that we can make to stop the bloodshed.
Note: For those of you who live elsewhere, boycott wherever you can if you don't already.
Posted by b on May 29, 2007 at 11:01 UTC | Permalink | Comments (44)
Insurgents At Home
Insurgents hijack 2 buses in Baghdad
Raids target Shiite insurgents in Baghdad's Sadr City
Fear, fortitude in Kandahar city as insurgents turn to cities for refuge
As we think about this important front in the war against extremists and terrorists, it's important for our fellow citizens to recognize this truth: If we were to leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy would follow us home."
President Bush Discusses Progress in Afghanistan, Global War on Terror
Bush was wrong. It already happened. The enemy is already there. Right in the heart of Texas.
Tensions in the Texas House boiled over in a parliamentary showdown between Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick and some GOP and Democratic insurgents.
[...]
Craddick survived a five-hour rebellion on the House floor that included a bold attempt to boot him from office, the physical restraint of insurgent lawmakers trying to overtake the speaker's podium, and the House parliamentarian nearly pushed to tears before resigning.
[...]
CBS Station KEYE correspondent Keith Elkins reports that anti-Craddick forces (known as "the insurgents") have whispered that there would be a move for a member vote to have the Speaker removed. That move came this week — or would have if the Speaker had allowed them to be heard.
[...]
CBSNews: Chaos In Texas House Over Speaker Fight
Posted by b on May 28, 2007 at 14:26 UTC | Permalink | Comments (9)
Cheney Administration Expresses Self-knowledge
"Capture one of these killers, and he'll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away. These are men who glorify murder and suicide. Their cruelty is not rebuked by human suffering, only fed by it. They have given themselves to an ideology that rejects tolerance, denies freedom of conscience, and demands that women be pushed to the margins of society.
The terrorists know what they want and they will stop at nothing to get it. By force and intimidation, they seek to impose a dictatorship of fear, under which every man, woman, and child lives in total obedience to their ideology. Their ultimate goal is to establish a totalitarian empire ... They view the world as a battlefield and they yearn to hit again. And now they have chosen to make Iraq the central front in their war against civilization."
link
Posted by b on May 27, 2007 at 17:55 UTC | Permalink | Comments (19)
New Thread
News & views ...
Posted by b on May 27, 2007 at 8:34 UTC | Permalink | Comments (40)
Associated Press: Voice of the Empire!
Should Associated Press be renamed to Voice of the Empire?
This is what happened today in Iraq:
In the early morning the U.S. military bombed a row of cars waiting in front of a gas station in Baghdad. Several civilians got killed and more wounded, some house were damaged as was the Habibiya maternity hospital.
That's the essence of the story as confirmed by eyewitnesses in the Reuters report and by the AFP's account.
But what AP is reporting is tons of propaganda and only a tiny little bit of the truth.
5 killed after U.S. raid in Sadr City
A day after radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr resurfaced to end nearly four months in hiding and demand U.S. troops leave Iraq, American forces raided his Sadr City stronghold and killed five suspected militia fighters in air strikes Saturday.
Hmmm - typical revenge act - Sadr wants the U.S. to leave, the U.S. goes after Sadr folks.
But why suspected fighters? Didn't they fight? Next graph:
U.S. and Iraqi forces called in the air strikes after a raid in which they captured a "suspected terrorist cell leader," the U.S. military said in statement.
Why call in air strikes after a raid?
The statement claimed the captured man was "the suspected leader in a secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training."
EFP's are deadly roadside bombs that hurl a fist-size slug of molten copper that penetrates armor, a weapon that has been highly effective against American forces over the past year.
Oh boy, these old lies again and again. But repeating lies is an effective propaganda technic as the Associated Press always carries them and never explain that these lies are indeed lies. It is not that AP does not know these are lies. They just don't says so.
The EFPs are mass manufactured in Iraq. On at least three independently reported occasions U.S. troops raided shops in Iraq where lots of EFPs were manufactured (see here, here and here.) AP knows of these reports. It also knows that there was never a report of someone caught actually smuggling such mines over the border. The Brits have said there is no proof for such smuggling.
But AP will not tell you. They tell you what the "U.S. statement claimed" and they will explain to you what EFPs are, not that such WWI weapons are manufactured in metal shops in Iraq.
On with the babble:
The militia fighters were killed in air strikes on nine cars that were seen positioning themselves to attack American forces after the raid, the military said.
Hmm ... nine cars positioning themselves. I'd like to know in what type of attack formation those cars positioned in - right flank , vee or maybe wedge?
An Iraqi police official said the attack occurred at 2 a.m. and that U.S. jets and helicopters hit the Habibiyah district in Sadr City, killing three civilians and wounding eight.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to release the information, said 10 cars lined up to buy gasoline were destroyed. The police report did not mention the capture of an alleged terrorist or the killing of any militia fighters.
So the "attack formation" was in-line. Like in "waiting in line at a petrol station ..."
Why had I to walk through seven paragraphs of U.S. propaganda to get to the most likely real information?
The AFP report refutes the U.S. story in its second paragraph:
However, an Iraqi defence ministry official said an air strike launched in support of the ground raid hit cars lined up to purchase gas at a nearby petrol station, and that those killed were innocent civilians.
The Reuters report takes longer to get there. But most of the stuff in between is from Basra and more of British interest. It doesn't mention the EFP bullshit at all. It also has several eye-witness and reporter accounts refuting the official U.S. version by facts:
Sadr City residents and police said the cars had been queuing at a petrol station. A Reuters reporter counted at least 11 burnt-out vehicles about 1 km from the station. Lengthy petrol queues are common in Iraq.
"A plane came and started bombing the cars queuing for petrol and the hospital," said a guard at Habibiya maternity hospital, which was also hit in the attack.
Police said two people were killed and five wounded.
There can hardly be any doubt that the U.S. military did screw up again. They bombed civilians waiting in line to fill up there cars for no particular reason. That should be the news because such is what naturally feeds the resistance.
AP does report that. Yes they do. But only in a very reduced he-said/she-said way and only after spewing lots of very dubious propaganda.
But then, thanks to AP we finally know why the U.S. is in Iraq:
Al-Sadr's reappearance in the fourth month of the U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown on Baghdad and environs was expected to complicate the mission to crack down on violence and broker political compromise in the country.
One has to love this one. The U.S. has the "mission to crack down on violence." Just like your friendly policemen patrolling around the block.
Is bombing cars in wait for gasoline and damaging maternity hospitals "cracking down on violence?"
And the U.S. military is doing this to "broker political compromise." Doesn't that sound nice? The U.S., the very honest broker of compromise in Iraq?
"Compromise" by pressing to allow oil production sharing agreements with U.S. companies, i.e. thinly disguised theft, of Iraqi oil?
What is the compromise when the Iraqis by a huge majority, a majority in parliament and one of the major political leaders say the U.S. should leave?
Oh yeah, bomb the people - and call AP and let them justify the shit.
To top that even more junk further down in the piece:
Al-Sadr went underground — reportedly in Iran — at the start of the U.S.-led security crackdown on Baghdad 14 weeks ago. He also had ordered his militia off the streets to prevent conflict with U.S. forces.
Reportedly? Who has ever reported such?
Only the U.S. military claimed that Sadr was in Iran. Such to smear Sadr in the mind of Iraqi nationalists. Sadr speakers have consistantly refuted these claims, saying he is in Iraq. Iran said Sadr wasn't there. There never was any independent report that Sadr was in Iran.
But whatever the U.S. military might claim, no matter how implausible, it is reportedly so?
Your Associated Press: Voice of the Empire!
Posted by b on May 26, 2007 at 19:11 UTC | Permalink | Comments (16)
Nahr al-Bared and a New U.S. Air Base
About the ongoing shelling of a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, Franklin Lamb has a very recommendable report at Counterpunch: Inside Nahr al-Bared and Bedawi Refugee Camps.
As he explains the U.S. is heavily involved via the 'Welch Club.' It is now even delivering three plane-loads of ammunition to the Lebanese Army so the slaughter can continue.
(This bears the question how much ammunition has already been expanded on a small piece of land with a very high density population. The official death count of some 25 seems unbelievable low.)
Please read the Lamb piece. It explains a lot.
Still there is one big issue Lamb misses.
Two years ago Wayne Madsen reported that the U.S. would like to use a Lebanese air base in north Lebanon for its own purpose. I take Madsen stuff with quite a load of salt. But here the State Department felt obliged to deny the report. That indeed does lift its credibility.
There is a logical connection between that report/denial and the shelling of Nahr al-Bared.
The U.S. has one important regional air hub in the western Middle East/East Mediterranean area. It is Incirlik air base in Turkey (zoom in and count the planes and shelters - it's a huge base.)
But the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is heating up. The US written Iraqi constitution calls for a local public referendum on Kirkuk joining the Kurdish administrated part of northern Iraq. The oil revenue from Kirkuk would give the Iraqi Kurds the economical base to declare independence. That again would be a certain casus belli for Turkey as the Kurdish people within Turkey would try to seperate and join the new state of Kurdistan.
When Turkey invades north Iraq to prevent such outcome, the conflict can be expected to escalate to a point where Turkey finally turns decisively against the U.S. for its support of the Kurds. Further U.S. access to Incirlik would certainly be denied.
Incirlik is important, but in jeopardy. Where is the alternative?
If not building totally from scratch (where?), the only possible alternative position for an Incirlik like Western ME/Eastern Med hub is in north Lebanon at the Rene Mouawad Air Base some 15 miles north of Tripoli. That base is currently deserted as the Lebanese Air Force does not have planes anymore but ony a few helicopters.
But that base does have a quite decent paved runway of 3000 meters (9843 feet) length and enough space around to extend the place. Strategically it would be a perfect location for a new U.S. air base.
Near the Syrian border it allows for attacks against Syria without any warning time. Flying a bit south and then through Israeli and Jordan air space it is convinient for easy regional short hops into Iraq.
As a strategic planner looking for a new regional lily pad, I would certainly put some serious thought into this option.
But then I would find a flaw.
A big airbase should be connected by decent roads to a harbor. Most of the stuff that is needed to build and to run it should come from the States by ships and trucks - not by air.
In the 1990s the Rene Mouawad Air Base was partly in civilian use with the international aviation code OLKA as a local airport for Tripoli. That city is some 15 miles south of the air base.
Tripoli is also the nearest harbor to the air base and the only larger one in north Lebanon. It even has potential to be expanded.
Now check the Wikipedia map of the Nahr al-Bareb refugee camp and take a look at the Google satellite picture of that camp. The camp is situated at the Lebanese meditarian coast some 10 miles north of Tripoli. The coastal road connecting Tripoli and the Rene Mouawad Air Base runs right through the middle of the camp.
If you move the sat picture of the camp further up north along the mediterian coast you can see the landing strip of the Rene Mouawad Air Base.
Could a U.S. airbase be supplied when its logistical life line runs right through a Palestinian refugee camp of some 45,000 mostly young and very poor people?
Probably not without very high costs of lives and money.
Which makes attempts to move the refugee camp (i.e. cleanse it) a quite plausible endevour.
Posted by b on May 25, 2007 at 20:33 UTC | Permalink | Comments (50)
Pitchfork Time
"We'd rather lose lives than elections*," is the new slogan of the Democratic party.
It is their justification given for caving in to Bush and for removing any timelines or conditions from the war funds.
Dem insider Tomasky writes:
As indefensible and tragic as the war is, this is the best Democrats can do right now. De-funding would have handed the Republicans a great argument going into next year's election - which is, of course, one in which Democrats have their best shot at winning the White House in a long time. Iraq is Bush's war, and Democrats need to make certain that it stays that way.
"Make certain it stays that way," by paying for it. That twisting of logic and lack of morality is breath taking.
But you may excuse that lack of morality, lack of standing for what the people think is right, because there is such a big threat out there.
It is dangerous in DC's streets and being hassled a bit by ones own voters at home is simply less dangerous than being attacked by those very dangerous Republicans:
Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break — the second recess since the financing fight began — and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.
The Democrats are right I guess. Will there be hords of betrayed voters storming their home with pitchforks during those recess days?
There should be such action and much more. But that threat seems unlikely and is obviously not an issue.
The danger is that Bush might take the bully pulpit and explain that the Democrats have little spine to fight and pay for his war on terra the way he wants. To avoid such deadly accusation, the Democrats show they have no spine at all.
Meanwhile each day more and more people are dying in "Bush's war." Dying because the Democratic party, working against the will of the U.S. people, fears a toothless political enemy.
Where will your Congress rep and your Senators be through their recess?
Find out, meet them. They don't fear you. They should. So don't forget to bring your pitchfork.
---
* By membership rule one party members are required to restrain from sharing harmful consequences.
Posted by b on May 24, 2007 at 17:29 UTC | Permalink | Comments (25)
Confusing Iraq Strategies
There are several accounts this week on future U.S. planing in Iraq. These reports seem to contradict each other and they of course contradict the facts on the ground.
None of the strategies discussed involves a decrease of troop numbers and as the Democrats (predictively) have folded and conceded defeat to themselves, Bush certainly has no need to plan any decrease at all. With Congress giving more money than he asked for, troop strength will increase.
The "surge" did look fake to me when it was announced. Some 25,000 additional troops for some month was the official line. Now smart people at Hearst newspapers have analyzed the actual Pentagon activation orders and the numbers look much higher:
When additional support troops are included in this second troop "surge," the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 — a record high number — by the end of the year.
The second surge of troops to Iraq is being executed by deploying more combat brigades to the country, plus extending tours of duty for troops already there.
...
Taken together, the steps could put elements of as many as 28 combat brigades in Iraq by Christmas, according to an analysis of deployment orders by Hearst Newspapers.The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year, if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades.
For real boots on ground numbers one has to add the 100,000 contractor currently in Iraq. More soldiers there will need more services so these contractor numbers will surge too.
But what are these soldiers for?
The on-the record account of several people involved in current strategy planing in today's Washington Post does not mention any increased troop numbers.
The strategy planing is explained as three pillars. First bringing U.S. troops into the streets to "protecting Iraq's population", second building the government through a period of 18-21 month instead of a "rapid transition" and third to kick out officials and commanders with sectarian agendas (good luck with that.) The plan calls for keeping Maliki in his position.
The above plan was briefed by the military in Baghdad. Yesterday David Ignatius, also at the Washington Post, had a report titeled After the Surge. It was based on "senior administration officials". That report does not fit today's account. Ignatius wrote:
The new policy would focus on training and advising Iraqi troops rather than the broader goal of achieving a political reconciliation in Iraq, which senior officials recognize may be unachievable within the time available.
...
The post-surge policy would, in many ways, track the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report, which senior administration officials say the president now supports.
Did the Baker-Hamilton report recommend to increase troop size by 60%? Certainly not.
Yet another contradicting account based on "a former senior administration official" is given in the Guardian today:
The Bush administration is developing plans to "internationalise" the Iraq crisis, including an expanded role for the United Nations, as a way of reducing overall US responsibility for Iraq's future and limiting domestic political fallout from the war as the 2008 election season approaches.
...
The former official, who is familiar with administration thinking, predicted Mr Bush would instead ask Congress to agree a six-month extension of the surge after Gen Petraeus presented his "progress report" in early September.
...
Mr Bush will sweeten the pill by pursuing a series of steps intended to "hand off" many current US responsibilities to the international community, the former official said. The president would try simultaneously to placate congressional and public opinion by indicating willingness to talk about a future troop "drawdown".
...
If all else failed, the US might seek an arrangement with Mr Sadr, if only to secure an orderly transition, the official claimed. "Cutting a deal with the Mahdi army is [vice-president] Dick Cheney's deep fallback option."
Now what is this? Are these plans to be combined? Are the reports wrong? Are they leaked to confuse?
Meanwhile there is some strain on the lines of communication, i.e. some necessary convoys seem not to come through, salad bars get closed even on the big bases and the troops have to eat MREs. More troops in the country equals more convoys equals more targets. I therefore expect such logistic problems to increase.
But what are all these troops to do in Iraq anyway?
Posted by b on May 23, 2007 at 17:59 UTC | Permalink | Comments (28)
Madam Handbag
In the mids of the U.S. Attorney firing scandal is Monica Goodling.
She'll testify under immunity at 10:15am today before the House Judiciary Committee. (There is a webcast link on the committee page and it is on CSPAN-3.)
Will she really spill the beans? I don't think so. She probably drank too much red-cup cool-aid to ever get sober.
Goodling was an ardent practitioner of her faith, according to former colleagues [..] Her conservative ideals, they said, were such that she once refused to go to a Justice Department baby shower because the mother was unwed. They also said that she once balked at funding an anti-gun public service video because she thought it promoted rap music and glorified a violent lifestyle.
Link
Now what about that handbag. I certainly don't known much about fashion, but isn't this seriously out of style for an informal alumni barbecue?
Posted by b on May 23, 2007 at 12:58 UTC | Permalink | Comments (36)
OT 07-38
Some news & views ...
Posted by b on May 23, 2007 at 5:17 UTC | Permalink | Comments (69)
The Violent U.S. Character
It's quite short of historic perspective as it keeps up a tale of "good Americans" before GWB, but the piece hits a nail which, to my utter shame, even I usually avoid to hit directly:
[T]here's a deeper reason why the popular impeachment movement has never taken off -- and it has to do not with Bush but with the American people. Bush's warmongering spoke to something deep in our national psyche. The emotional force behind America's support for the Iraq war, the molten core of an angry, resentful patriotism, is still too hot for Congress, the media and even many Americans who oppose the war, to confront directly. It's a national myth. It's John Wayne. To impeach Bush would force us to directly confront our national core of violent self-righteousness -- come to terms with it, understand it and reject it. And we're not ready to do that.
[...]
Bush tapped into a deep American strain of fearful, reflexive bellicosity, which Congress and the media went along with for a long time and which has remained largely unexamined to this day. Congress, the media and most of the American people have yet to turn decisively against Bush because to do so would be to turn against some part of themselves.
Why Bush hasn't been impeached
Posted by b on May 22, 2007 at 19:38 UTC | Permalink | Comments (253)
Saudi Arabia's secret plan to kick the US out of Iraq
Saudi Arabia is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Shia Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.
"Saudi Arabia is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Saudi Arabia] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah (General Intelligence Directorate) which is connected right to the top [of the Saudi government]."
The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Saudi-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Shia insurgents to Riyadh's Sunni militia allies, that Saudi Arabia hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Saudi Arabia will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said.
"Certainly it [the violence] is going to pick up from their side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially Saudi-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that's been going on and the huge stockpiles of Saudi weapons that we've turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between Saudi Arabia and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid," the official said.
"It often comes down to individuals, and people constantly move around. For instance, the Sunni Arab so-called resistance groups use Salafi jihadist ideology for their own purposes. But the whole Saudi Arabia- al-Qaida linkup is very sinister."
Saudi Arabia has maintained close links to Iraq's Sunni political parties and militias but has previously eschewed collaboration with al-Qaida and Shia insurgents.
US officials now say they have firm evidence that Riyadh has switched tack as it senses a chance of victory in Iraq. In a parallel development, they say they also have proof that Saudi Arabia has reversed its previous policy in Afghanistan and is now supporting and supplying the Taliban's campaign against US, British and other Nato forces.
Riyadh's strategy to discredit the US surge and foment a decisive congressional revolt against Mr Bush is national in scope and not confined to the Sunni west, its traditional sphere of influence, the senior official in Baghdad said. It included stepped-up coordination with Shia militias such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Jaish al-Mahdi as well as Turkish-backed Sunni Arab groups and al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, he added. Saudi Arabia was also expanding contacts across the board with paramilitary forces and political groups, including Kurdish parties such as the PUK, a US ally.
"Their strategy takes into account all these various parties. Saudi Arabia is playing all these different factions to maximise its future control and maximise US and British difficulties. Their co-conspirator is Turkey which is allowing the takfirists [fundamentalist Salafi jihadis] to come across the border," the official said.
Any US decision to retaliate against Saudi Arabia on its own territory could be taken only at the highest political level in Washington, the official said. But he indicated that American patience was wearing thin.
Warning that the US was "absolutely determined" to hit back hard wherever it was challenged by Saudi proxies or agents inside Iraq, he cited the case of five alleged members of the Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah detained in Fallujah in January. Despite strenuous protests from Riyadh, which claims the men are diplomats, they have still not been released.
"Riyadh is behaving like a racecourse gambler. They're betting on all the horses in the race, even on people they fundamentally don't trust," a senior administration official in Washington said. "They don't know what the outcome will be in Iraq. So they're hedging their bets."
The administration official also claimed that notwithstanding recent US and British overtures, Turkey was still collaborating closely with Saudi Arabia's strategy in Iraq.
"80% to 90%" of the foreign jihadis entering Iraq were doing so from Turkish territory, he said.
Despite recent diplomatic contacts, and an agreement to hold bilateral talks at ambassadorial level in Baghdad next week, US officials say there has been no let-up in hostile Saudi activities, including continuing support for violence, weapons smuggling and training.
"Saudi Arabia is perpetuating the cycle of sectarian violence through support for extra-judicial killing and murder cells. They bring Iraqi militia members and insurgent groups into Saudi Arabia for training and then help infiltrate them back into the country. We have plenty of evidence from a variety of sources. There's no argument about that. That's just a fact," the senior official in Baghdad said.
In trying to force an American retreat, Saudi Arabia's hardline leadership also hoped to bring about a humiliating political and diplomatic defeat for the US that would reduce Washington's regional influence while increasing Riyadh's own.
But if Saudi Arabia succeeded in "prematurely" driving US and British forces out of Iraq, the likely result would be a "colossal humanitarian disaster" and possible regional war drawing in Iran, and Syria, he said.
Despite such concerns, or because of them, the US welcomed the chance to talk to Saudi Arabia, the senior administration official said. "Our agenda starts with force protection in Iraq," he said. But there were many other Iraq-related issues to be discussed. Recent pressure had shown that Saudi Arabia's behaviour could be modified, the official claimed: "Last winter they were literally getting away with murder."
But tougher action by security forces in Iraq against Saudi agents and networks, the dispatch of an additional aircraft carrier group to the Gulf had given Riyadh pause, he said.
Washington analysts and commentators predict that Gen Petraeus's report to the White House and Congress in early September will be a pivotal moment in the history of the four-and-a-half-year war - and a decision to begin a troop drawdown or continue with the surge policy will hinge on the outcome. Most Democrats and many Republicans in Congress believe Iraq is in the grip of a civil war and that there is little that a continuing military presence can achieve. "Political will has already failed. It's over," a former Bush administration official said.
A senior adviser to Gen Petraeus reported this month that the surge had reduced violence, especially sectarian killings, in the Baghdad area and Sunni-dominated Anbar province. But the adviser admitted that much of the trouble had merely moved elsewhere, "resulting in spikes of activity in Diyala [to the north] and some areas to the south of the capital". "Overall violence is at about the same level [as when the surge began in February]."
Saudi officials flatly deny US and British allegations of involvement in internal violence in Iraq or in attacks on coalition forces. Interviewed in Riyadh recently, Prince Saud Al-Faisa, foreign minister with primary responsibility for Saudi Arabia's policy in Iraq, said: "We believe it would be to the benefit of both the occupiers and the Iraqi people that they [the coalition forces] withdraw immediately."
Posted by b on May 22, 2007 at 14:56 UTC | Permalink | Comments (27)
Who Sponsors Fights in Lebanon?
Annals of Short Memory:
Published on March 5, 2007 Seymour Hersh wrote:
American, European, and Arab officials I spoke to told me that the Siniora government and its allies had allowed some aid to end up in the hands of emerging Sunni radical groups in northern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and around Palestinian refugee camps in the south.
[...]
Alastair Crooke, who spent nearly thirty years in MI6, [..] Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon. Its membership at the time was less than two hundred. “I was told that within twenty-four hours they were being offered weapons and money by people presenting themselves as representatives of the Lebanese government’s interests—presumably to take on Hezbollah,” Crooke said.
Now some unnamed Lebanon media see Syria behind violence
The Lebanese media are in no doubt that Syria is to blame for clashes between security forces and Fatah al-Islam militants
Obviously this is a Siniora minority government and U.S. financed operation that gave birth to another "Al Qaeda" organization.
Just in case you ask who sponsors such deadly "intelligence" efforts this screenshot taken some minutes ago might tell you something:
Posted by b on May 21, 2007 at 20:33 UTC | Permalink | Comments (9)
A Question On Haleh Esfandiari
Juan Cole, various organizations and editorials are up in arms over Haleh Esfandiari.
She is an Iranian living in the U.S. and working for the Woodrow Wilson Center's Middle East program. Esfandiari was recently detained while visiting Iran.
The center explains her side of the story as does her husband. Iran has not yet published any formal charges.
But Cole and others are demanding her release because they assume she is innocent.
That may well be, but how do they know?
Posted by b on May 21, 2007 at 17:35 UTC | Permalink | Comments (33)
Insulting Gestures in Iraqi Culture
There is an important cultural issue to learn from this Iraq piece in today's Washington Post. The article is about some reluctance in the U.S. military to launch a Fallujah like attack on Sadr City.
But the really good stuff is in the very last paragraph:
Col. Hamoud, a police liaison who has lived in Sadr City for 19 years and spoke on condition his full name not be used, said residents welcome aid from the United States brought peacefully, but warned that if U.S. troops use force, they will meet opposition.
"If they put their boots on people's heads," he said, referring to a highly insulting gesture in Iraqi culture, "there will be fighting."
Wow - who would have known? It's highly insulting to Iraqis when you put boots on their heads?
The average reader would certainly have expected otherwise. Thank you Washington Post for letting us know. How alien these Iraqis are - funny little weirdos - ain't they?
How about other issues? Like when you pee into someones tea is that an insult in Iraqi culture?
Maybe one can ask the writer of the piece, Ann Tyson. She seems to know a lot about the special features of Iraqi culture.
But don't step on her head. She's in Iraq, and there such is a highly insulting gesture.
Posted by b on May 21, 2007 at 8:39 UTC | Permalink | Comments (11)