The "Surge" Is Complete
Some thoughts on the "surge" discussions like in September Could Be Key Deadline in War.
The article asserts:
Democrats say that [late July] is a reasonable time frame for the first assessment of Bush's troop increase, since the last of the additional troops being sent to Iraq will arrive this month.
But Petraeus has said repeatedly that it will be at least another month or two after the troops are in place before it will be possible to assess the impact of those reinforcements and, just as important, of the new U.S. approach that is moving combat troops off big, isolated bases and into dozens of smaller combat outposts across Baghdad.
The late July date is the correct one and unlike what the WaPo piece wants you to believe Petraeus has said just that. The "surge" is already complete. There is one brigade (3,200 soldiers) that has not yet arrived in Iraq but that is an aviation brigade. These are some 150 transport and attack helicopters and the personal to fly and maintain them. The brigade will certainly not man any combat outposts. It was not even included in the original "surge" count.
A bit funny is the cited article's description of "big, isolated bases" versus "smaller combat outposts." In another report on the same page we learn:
.. defending their small outposts is increasingly requiring heavy bulwarks reminiscent of the fortresslike bases that the U.S. troops left behind.
To guard against bombs, mortar fire and other threats, U.S. commanders are adding fortifications to the outposts, setting them farther back from traffic and arming them with antitank weapons capable of stopping suicide bombers driving armored vehicles.
How many people get evicted from their houses for each of these "small" bases with a 200 yard security perimeter? How many new enemies does the U.S. create by this tactic?
The "surge" is complete. If Petraeus needs one or two month to evaluate it results, late July is certainly the right timeframe to confess the obvious outcome - more resistance, more death, more destruction, no political progress.
Aside from that I agree with Atrios:
Bush is going to cling to his pet war until the end.
And Congress will let him get away with it. The new fad with the Democrats seems to be to set benchmarks not for Bush, but for the Iraqi government, the most important being a law to share oil revenues (80% U.S., 20% whoever?)
What right does the U.S. Congress have to tell the Iraqi parliament to do something about oil revenues?
Posted by b on May 8, 2007 at 16:08 UTC | Permalink | Comments (37)
Wolfowitz Lied - Media Covers Up
The Wolfowitz affair at the World Bank may come to an end soon. As the New York Times reports, members of the board have put an informal ultimatum to U.S.
Until now, the U.S. had the prerogative to name the World Bank President. Now either Wolfowitz goes, or the U.S. will lose that privilege. Additionally some countries would withhold funds to World Bank programs and distribute them through other institutions.
But in its report the NYT skips around the real issue. Wolfowitz is indeed guilty. Not only did he put his girlfriend into a very lucrative position, he also lied to cover up the circumstances and his personal role in it.
When Wolfowitz came to the World Bank the rules required him to put some distance between himself and his girlfriend who worked there. He asked the bank's ethic committee what to do and they suggested to promote her to a different position not under his direct regime and a possible pay rise as compensation. The ethic committee also recommended that Wolfowitz should advise the director of human resource issues to handle the case.
But Wolfowitz wrote a direct order to that director to give his girl an outrageous pay rise of 50% and a guarantee for automatic "outperforming" evaluations no matter what she would do.
Instead of letting the human resource director decide as recommended, Wolfowitz ordered him to sign off his personal decisions.
When the deal became public, Wolfowitz started a cover up. Through intermediaries at the Bank he led the public to believe that the ethics committee had signed off on the pay rise and the other perks for his girl.
As the Financial Times reports:
Paul Wolfowitz’s closest aide was involved in crafting an apparently misleading public statement on the Shaha Riza secondment for dissemination by World Bank spokespeople on an anonymous basis, the Financial Times has found.
...
Ms Cleveland and Mr Kellems joined the bank with Mr Wolfowitz from the Bush administration and have been at the heart of his presidency, though in recent months they clashed over strategy.Ms Cleveland met Marwan Muasher, the newly arrived director for external relations, on April 4 to discuss how to respond to leaks about the terms and conditions awarded to Ms Riza.
They agreed on a statement that was to be briefed on an anonymous or “background” basis by senior bank officials. This included the apparently misleading claim that “after consultation with the then general counsel, the ethics committee of the board approved an external assignment agreement which was reached with the staff member”.
As we will see, this claim came from Wolfowitz himself. In response to that claim the ethics committee and the general counsel immediately declared that they had not approved the agreement.
Still Wolfowitz maintained so until weeks later it became clear that he had lied. Only on May 2 he send a letter explaining himself:
Mr Wolfowitz said he assumed the ethics committee was aware of the terms and conditions because it decided a later anonymous complaint about Ms Riza’s pay “did not contain new information warranting further review”.
That was quite an assumption and it took Wolfowitz only four weeks to find out that this assumption was wrong? Somehow I doubt that anybody will believe his tale.
So despite all his resistance Wolfowitz may very well be gone by the end of the week. If only to keep his position in U.S. hands. (Might John Bolton be interested?)
This is not the best solution.
The U.S. abuses the World Bank, financed with other countries money, to further its interests and only its interests. I'd prefer to let Wolfowitz stay at the bank and to cut off the money. There are better ways to help the poor than pushing their countries to accept neo-liberal "Washington Consensus" programs.
As I wrote above, the New York Times does not mention the Wolfowitz cover-up attempt and his confessed assumption but continues to at least partly blame the banks institution. The Los Angeles Times also seems not to know anything about this. The Washington Post in a front page story today explains that a "key aid" to Mr. Wolfowitz made a wrong statement about the ethic committee's involvement, but does not implicate Wolfowitz' confessed personal role in making the false claim.
But the Wolfowitz letter (pdf) makes it clear that such statements were based on his assumptions and not just some excuses from a friendly key aid. Wolfowitz accused the ethics committee and the general counsel of the bank to have signed off his decision when they clearly had not done so.
But the Washington consensus of the U.S. media will not let you know that little tidbit. Instead all three U.S. reports linked above are bashing the World Bank for perceived unjust behavior against Wolfowitz because of his role in the Iraq war.
The unjust behavior here was clearly from Wolfowitz' side, not from the bank, but WaPo, LAT and NYT do see no need to let the U.S. public know about this.
Posted by b on May 8, 2007 at 14:57 UTC | Permalink | Comments (12)
Global Warming Question
It was the warmest and most dry April here since weather data is recorded. The pattern continued since with a very bright and unnaturally warm Sunday today.
I do not doubt that the planet is warming with likely catastrophic consequences for humanity and that the reason is mostly human behaviour.
What bothers me is the current emphazising of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the "bad gas" while little is said about methane (CH4).
Since the industrial revolution methane release is said to have increased much more than CO2 releases. It is also said that methane is 20 times more effective to further warming than CO2.
If those estimates are correct, why do we see more arguments about reducing CO2 than we see on reducing methane?
Follow the money? Trading some "certificates" seems a scam to me.
Posted by b on May 6, 2007 at 19:17 UTC | Permalink | Comments (19)
OT 07-35
News & views ...
Posted by b on May 6, 2007 at 11:30 UTC | Permalink | Comments (104)
Occupiers Evolution
There is nothing astonishing here. Look at the occupation troops' behavior in the West Bank and you will find the same viciousness.
- Only 47 percent of the soldiers and 38 percent of Marines said noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect.
- About a third of troops said they had insulted or cursed at civilians in their presence.
- About 10 percent of soldiers and Marines reported mistreating civilians or damaging property when it was not necessary. Mistreatment includes hitting or kicking a civilian.
- Forty-four percent of Marines and 41 percent of soldiers said torture should be allowed to save the life of a soldier or Marine.
- Thirty-nine percent of Marines and 36 percent of soldiers said torture should be allowed to gather important information from insurgents.
The occupiers, through their behaviour and disdain for the occupied (which is a deep hidden disdain for themselfs) each day create more opposers to their occupation. This especially in a tribal/clan society where an insult to a member of a family is a revenge demanding insult to the whole family, clan and tribe.
There is no way to pacify occupied people but by eliminating more opposers from the battlefield than new ones are created. The methods to do so are ethnic cleansing and/or genozide.
Looking at the above questionnaire results, the troops have the basic will to do such a pacification.
But given the CYA mentality of the U.S. officer corps, the likes of their 1940s German collegues, they will ask for a written order. Bush is too week a person to openly give such.
There were several Himmleresce characters in Thursday's Republican candidate discussion who might have that drive - believing in their "God's will" in what is (i.e creationism) and becomes (i.e. rapture). Another 9/11-alike incident and the time might be right for one of them.
Posted by b on May 5, 2007 at 19:19 UTC | Permalink | Comments (39)
In The Garden
In The Garden
for annie by beq
(bigger 260 kb)
b adds:
[She pulls off the petals and murmurs.]
Faust. What are you murmuring?
Margaret [half aloud]. He loves me - loves me not!
Faust. Sweet, heavenly vision!
Margaret [goes on]. Loves me - not - loves me - not-[Plucking off the last petal with lovely joy.]
He loves me!
Faust. Yes, my child! and let this blossom's word
Be oracle of gods to you! He loves you!
You understand that word and what it means? He loves you![He seizes both her hands.]
Margaret. I'm all a-tremble!
Faust. Oh, shudder not! But let this look,
Let this hand-pressure say to you
What is unspeakable:
To give one's self up wholly and to feel
A rapture that must be eternal!
Eternal! - for its end would be despair.
No! no end! no end!J.W. v.Goethe, Faust, Martha's Garden
Posted by b on May 4, 2007 at 18:18 UTC | Permalink | Comments (25)
Pelosi Not So Counterproductive
So the position of this administration is that the best way to meet with a leader like Assad or people from Syria is in the larger context of trying to get the global community to help change his behavior. But sending delegations hasn't worked. It's just simply been counterproductive.
President Bush Makes Remarks ..., White House, April 3, 2007
The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president.
[...]
Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.
Pratfall in Damascus, WaPo Editorial, April 5, 2007
Ms. Rice’s decision to meet with the Syrian foreign minister and seek out the Iranian seemed to confirm a significant, if unstated, change in approach for the Bush White House to handling relations in the Middle East, ...
[...]
Ms. Rice’s talk with Mr. Moallem, though short, was substantive. She asked that Syria, with its porous border with Iraq, do more to restrict the flow of foreign fighters. Bush administration officials noted afterward that it might already be happening; in the past month, they said, there had been a drop in the number of foreign fighters traveling over the Syrian border into Iraq.
U.S. and Syria Discuss Iraq in Rare Meeting, NYT, May 4, 2007
Posted by b on May 4, 2007 at 5:33 UTC | Permalink | Comments (6)
JD Scandal Summary
The Justice Department scandal is difficult to follow as it includes various overlapping power grab and cover up schemes.
a.) "Voter fraud" allegations: Part of the Karl Rove plan for an everlasting GOP majority was and is to suppress votes from minorities who usually vote for the Democratic party. This by alleging non-existant "voter fraud" and measures to suppress such "fraud." McClatchy news services today has a good run down how this was carried out in Missouri. To further the scheme Bob Schlozman was installed as interim U.S. Attorney in Kansas and he delivered. (He is no back at the Justice Department.)
b.) Suppression of investigations into the Republican money machine running through K-Street lobbyists like Jack Abramoff. The San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol C. Lam was fired for this purpose.
c.) Filling the ranks of non-political Justice Department career jobs with "pure" Republicans. This was the task of Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson under direct advise from Karl Rove. Attorney General Gonzales tried to exculpatate himself from this by completely delegating his responsibility for party-neutral hiring and firing to Sampson and Goodling. When he was told that this would be unconstitutional and that he had to formaly agree to those decisions, he changed the rules so he would be only verbaly informed and would only verbaly agree to the decisions. Leaving no paper trail allows him to claim "not recollection" of any specifics.
d.) Primary coverups: The use of the Justice Department to coverup severe wrongdoing by the administration that occured in other fields of the government and that would usually lead to some criminal investigation. But a Justice Department run by Alberto Gonzales will hardly investigate his role as White House Counsel in justifying illegal torturing of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. It will certainly not look into manipulated intelligence on Iraq. The most important issue to be hidden by him is probably the illegal eavesdropping and circumventing of the FISA court including committed perjury.
e.) Secondary coverups: Actions taken to hide the Justice Department's wrongdoings in the cases covered by a.) to d.). Election manipulation, hiding of party corruption, partisan hirings and suppression of investigations are all illegal in one or another way and this needs to be hidden from the public. When an internal Justice Department unit now starts to investigate Monica Goodling for partisan hiring, it makes it impossible for Congress to offer her an immunity deal and to crack the scheme she was part of. Thereby everything stays within the family.
It will be difficult for Congress to break into this maze and to force some cleanup and well deserved jailtime for those involved. The Justice Department is central in doing or prohibiting that and at the same time the center of the scandal.
Bush can not fire Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales will not resign. The only way to get some deeper look into all of this is to impeach Alberto Gonzales and replace him with a real Attorney General.
But the Democrats are still happy with running some surface
scratching hearings. So don't expect any real action before late 2008
when it will be to late to go for the top culprits.
Posted by b on May 3, 2007 at 19:33 UTC | Permalink | Comments (18)
Burning the Good Guys
While no higher officer has been charged in the abuses at the Abu Graibh prison, the U.S. Army is seriously going after a commander who was strict with the rules regarding detainees and handled them humanily.
From the LA Times:
A senior U.S. Army officer accused of aiding the enemy when he oversaw detainees at an American-run prison in Baghdad stashed huge amounts of "extremely sensitive" topsecret material in his living quarters that could have devastated the United States' mission in Iraq if it had been leaked, an investigator testified Tuesday.
Another investigator in the case against Lt. Col. William H. Steele said that during an interview, the officer admitted that he empathized with the prisoners he oversaw, who included ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and members of his former regime, and that he had lent them his cellular phone to make private calls.
The NYT and WaPo also have accounts on this. All three pieces start with very damning phrases about the Colonel.
From what I can glean the accusations include:
- letting detainees use his cellphone
- having "secret" documents stored where they should not be
- "improper" contact to a detainees daughter
- "provided former president Saddam Hussein with Cuban cigars at taxpayer expense"
Earlier reports also named:
- improper relation with a translator
- pornographic pictures on his government laptop
Only deep down the pages we learn that the serious charges in the opening paragraphs are quite dubious.
- When no other telephone was available, the Colonel allowed a juvenile detainee to phone his family with his official cellphone.
- The "huge amount" of "secret" stuff was on his official laptop within his quarters. If every stored email is a "secret", that may well have accounted to the alleged 18,000 "secret" items.
- He provided a detainees daughter with materials for her architecture study that she could not get in Baghdad.
- To provide cigars to Saddam was a policy he inherited from his predecessor.
The two sex-charges from earlier reports have somehow vanished from the recent ones.
Earlier Scott Horton at Harpers reported from his contacts in Baghdad:
Steele was described as a “person of unquestioned integrity,” he was credited with maintaining “strict discipline and order” at Camp Cropper and showed “zero tolerance of prisoner abuse.” Another said he was “a person with a conscience.” One described how he intervened directly to protect a prisoner who had been mistreated by interrogators. He insisted that those serving under him treat the detainees “like human beings.” He “was a constant target of those who like to use rough stuff.”
It seems obvious that this man is getting burned. First he did get top evaluations for his work at Camp Cropper and now even twelve year old accusations he had faced in his civilian life are trotted out against him.
Someone at the Pentagon wants to put up an example here. Whoever is barely friendly with prisoners, may be "aiding the enemy". An accusation that can end with a death penalty sentence.
The message is: "More Abu Graibhs, less humanity."
Rumsfeldian policies seem not to have ended with Sec Def Gates rule.
Posted by b on May 2, 2007 at 10:47 UTC | Permalink | Comments (38)
Xie Sees Worldwide Crash Coming
There are some not so good economy headlines today.
Home sales plunge in March reports CNN:
The National Association of Realtors' Pending Home Sales Index fell 4.9 percent in March, following a 1.1 percent increase in February. The index was down 10.5 percent from the March 2006 reading.
The above is the mortgage bubble bursting and the Boston Globe says there is a Private equity debt bubble that will also pop some time ahead. Additionally there is a huge bubble in the Chinese stock market and Andy Xie warns of China crash.
Until recently Xie was the Asia/China expert with Stephen S. Roach's team at Morgan Stanley. I've always found his writing very solid, though a bit on the pessimistic side of things. But I have never heard him being this bearish:
Xie [...] also warned that the global boom in equities would be over by 2008 and that this would coincide with a worldwide recession.
The recession would start from the United States and spiral down into Asia where exporters would be hit, Xie, 46, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"I think it's going to be bust very soon," Xie said, adding that a combination of excess liquidity, rising inflation and rich valuations would result in a global crash soon.
"People will be surprised. When the end comes, it's going to be pretty bad," Xie added.
Yuck!
Posted by b on May 1, 2007 at 19:46 UTC | Permalink | Comments (17)
De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum
(for annie)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Maecenas erat felis, semper eget, placerat ac, vestibulum quis, nibh. Sed aliquet.
Morbi vitae massa ut odio tincidunt pulvinar. Suspendisse ipsum lectus, imperdiet non, accumsan vel, lacinia vel, leo. Maecenas posuere nunc a turpis. In dui nisi, sollicitudin a, rhoncus eu, sollicitudin eu, sem. Donec non nunc a quam sodales consequat. Aliquam ultrices. Nunc tristique:
But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?
Mauris neque nisl, mollis quis, malesuada eget, porta ut, felis. Donec euismod pharetra elit. Maecenas libero. Vivamus commodo, sapien nec suscipit fermentum, pede leo pellentesque lectus, sit amet molestie nisi metus in ipsum. Ut ut odio. Ut tortor lectus, malesuada in, porta sed, hendrerit sit amet, metus.
Duis hendrerit, nisi non blandit varius, nibh quam viverra enim, non adipiscing elit velit eget enim.
Posted by b on May 1, 2007 at 12:51 UTC | Permalink | Comments (13)
Open Thread 07-34
News & views ...
Posted by b on May 1, 2007 at 5:35 UTC | Permalink | Comments (82)