News & views … your comments are welcome.
Back to Main
June 11, 2007
OT 07-40
Comments
lol bea re 97.
that story is gruesome. 64 million tons. thanks, thru the text i was able to find the story on commondreams.
Posted by: annie | Jun 13 2007 4:47 utc | 101
@ Bea and Annie
All that corrosive goo, somewhere at sea–wonder if it will show up in the next episode of Pirates in the Caribbean?
One can only hope, as toxic as it is to us and other life forms like us, that it will serve as an evolutionary catalyst for whatever critters show up next. One species’ poison is another species’ jumpstart. ‘Spose the anaerobic bacteria tried to write up emissions treaties before they strangled on their own oxygen exhalations?
Think of it as evolution in action.
Posted by: catlady | Jun 13 2007 5:10 utc | 102
oops, yeah, POOC is earlier (‘cept for gratuitous Keith Richards imitations)
Time for an updated take on “20K Leagues Under the Sea”…maybe by David Cronenberg, who seems to specialize in transformative horrors.
Posted by: catlady | Jun 13 2007 5:15 utc | 103
I heard today that xUs & Israel held joing military exercises in the Negev w/in the last week. Hell, could be still going on for all I know. I will find a link if it’s news to anyone. Who thinks invasion will come this summer? (I assume a major reason for rigging Fr. election so that “their little Hitler” took over was to insure Fr. support.) What are Americans doing to prepare? Should we stockpile food, or what? First time I’ve ever been frightened – though in general I’ve been so since ’00 coup d’etat.
Posted by: jj | Jun 13 2007 5:29 utc | 104
esquire’s june feature on AFRICOM is online
The Americans Have Landed
A few years ago, with little fanfare, the United States opened a base in the horn of Africa to kill or capture Al Qaeda fighters. By 2012, the Pentagon will have two dozen such forts. The story of Africa Command, the American military’s new frontier outpost.
haven’t read the whole thing yet so can’t comment on how worthwhile it is to read — a quick search indicates a lone reference to oil: “There’s oil here, but the United States would get its share whether Africa burns or not, and it’s actually fairly quiet right now” & it appears to push the AQ-in-somalia storyline — but i found this opening bit (spin included) on the invasion of somalia interesting
The word came down suddenly in early January to the fifty or so U.S. troops stationed inside Camp Simba, a Kenyan naval base located on that country’s sandy coast: Drop everything and pull everyone back inside the compound wire. Then they were instructed to immediately clear a couple acres of dense forest. Task Force 88, a very secret American special-operations unit, needed to land three CH-53 helicopters.
“We had everybody working nonstop,” says Navy Lieutenant Commander Steve Eron, commander of Contingency Operating Location Manda Bay, a new American base in Kenya, including a dozen or so on-site KBR contractors. By the next day, every tree had been hauled off and the field graded and packed down using heavy machinery. The pad was completed in thirty-six hours.
Soon after, U.S. special operators flying out of Manda Bay were landing in southernmost Somalia, searching for survivors among the foreign fighters and Al Qaeda operatives just targeted in a furious bombardment by a U.S. gunship launched from a secret airstrip in eastern Ethiopia.
The 88’s job was simple: Kill anyone still alive and leave no unidentified bodies behind.
…
Most press leaks made it sound like our main targets were a trio of Al Qaeda senior operatives responsible for bombing American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania a decade ago. But the real story is one of pure opportunism, according to a knowledgeable source within the headquarters: “There were three thousand foreign fighters in there. Honestly, nobody had any idea just how many there really were. But we wanted to get them all.”
When the invading Ethiopians quickly enjoyed unexpected success, Centcom’s plan became elegantly simple: Let the blitzkrieging Ethiopian army drive the CIC, along with its foreign fighters and Al Qaeda operatives, south out of Mogadishu and toward the Kenyan border, where Kenyan troops would help trap them on the coast. “We begged the Kenyans to get to the border as fast as possible,” the Centcom source says, “because the targets were so confused, they were running around like chickens with their heads cut off.”
Once boxed in by the sea and the Kenyans, the killing zone was set and America’s first AC-130 gunship went wheels-up on January 7 from that secret Ethiopian airstrip. After each strike, anybody left alive was to be wiped out by successive waves of Ethiopian commandos and Task Force 88, operating out of Manda Bay. The plan was to rinse and repeat “until no more bad guys,” as one officer put it.
“We could have solved all of East Africa in less than eight weeks,” says the Centcom source, who was involved in the planning. Central Command was extremely wary of being portrayed in the media as Ethiopia’s puppet master. In fact, its senior leaders wanted to keep America’s participation entirely secret. The goal was for Ethiopia to get all the credit, further bolstering America’s controversial but burgeoning military ties with Meles Zenawi’s increasingly authoritarian regime. Proud Kenya, still visibly nervous from the 1998 embassy bombing, would have been happy with a very quiet thank-you.
It was a good plan. And it was leaked to the press almost as soon as it started.
completely ignores the fact that there were reporters in east africa already covering this & u.s. involvement was hardly a secret to kenyans, ethiopians or somalis.
and it’s too bad the author conveys the impression that the u.s. wasn’t actually behind ethiopia’s invasion. i’m sure i’ll have more things to say after i read the entire piece tomorrow…
Posted by: b real | Jun 13 2007 5:53 utc | 105
Sho wouldda been a bitch if JackAss Party presidential nominee were actually a Democrat. Never fear, if Obamination is yr. choice. Obama Lines Up Behind Neo-Conservative Campaign Against Iran
“The Iranian governments uses the billions of dollars it earns from its oil and gas industry to build its nuclear program and to fund terrorist groups that export its militaristic and radical ideology to Iraq and throughout the Middle East,” Obama said in a statement released by his office this week. “Pressuring companies to cut their financial ties with Iran is critical to ensuring that sanctions have their intended result.”
The bill, which was also introduced in the House of Representatives by Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Tom Lantos and Financial Services chairman Barney Frank, is part of a much broader national divestment campaign spearheaded by some of the most hawkish neo-conservative groups, notably Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy (CSP); the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, as well as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Posted by: jj | Jun 13 2007 6:22 utc | 106
why don’t you explain it all to us, oh great one
“I’m just being a dick now” and from a guy, or something, that claims to have never started an ad hominem – riiiight
was it 55,000 international hedge fund managers that died in Vietnam after invading on false pretenses?
was it french pensioners that freed the phillipines by slaughtering over half a million?
was it swiss bankers that dumped “64 million pounds of nerve and mustard agents into the sea, along with 400,000 chemical-filled bombs, land mines and rockets and more than 500 tons of radioactive waste – either tossed overboard or packed into the holds of scuttled vessels.”
was it canadian dairy farmers that established a world wide network of bases to support the non-empire?
and yes the hedgehog can fellate himself, whether or not it is for you is his business
Posted by: jcairo | Jun 13 2007 6:42 utc | 107
Will the Shi’ite hit the fan again?
Famous Shitte shrine in Samarra attacked
BAGHDAD – Suspected al-Qaida insurgents Negroponte Death Squad Thugs on Wednesday destroyed the two minarets of the Askariya Shiite shrine in Samarra, authorities reported, in a repeat of a 2006 bombing that shattered its famous Golden Dome and unleashed a wave of retaliatory sectarian violence that still bloodies
A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of War.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 13 2007 10:34 utc | 108
annie – can you give us the commondreams link to Bea’s (96) story?
Posted by: beq | Jun 13 2007 11:09 utc | 109
This is certainly not a friendly fire incident as the gutter US press are reporting:
“The Americans came close to our checkpoint with the lights of their vehicles off,” said Esanullah, the roadblock commander. “We shouted at them to stop, but they didn’t, and they opened fire on us.” He said eight policemen were killed and four wounded.
Officers at the post fired 49 of their 50 rocket-propelled grenades and called for assistance from reserve police during the three-hour firefight, said Esanullah, who goes by one name.
Karzai’s spokesman, Karim Rahimi, said the incident underscored why the president has called for increased cooperation between Afghan and international troops to prevent civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jun 13 2007 11:11 utc | 110
Badger at missing links War scheduling: “Syria first, then Iran”
There is a plausible reading of current events in the region suggesting that the first aim of the Israel-US aggression will be not Iran, but Syria and/or Lebanon. And what I find peculiar is that while Naaman is able to say that this is a reading common to a lot of Arab and foreign analysts, for some reason this doesn’t appear to have made it into the American papers.
I agree that Israel is planing for a war on Syria in the summer. But I have no idea what Israel is trying to gain by this. Why do they think it makes any sense?
After his meeting with Putin at the G8, Bush had to take half a day off. Sarkozy did give a press conference after meeting with Putin – or at least he tried to … video
I guess the idea is that since Hizbullah and Syria constitute deterrence to an Israeli strike on Iran, waging war on them first could make the Iran bombing less problematic.
waging war on them first could make the Iran bombing less problematic.
for that true crescendo perhaps you have to warm up all members of the orchestra. that way, once we have a new president there will be no choice but to carry out the full agenda.
b real, 105. very bizarre article
There aren’t enough Islamic terrorists in Africa to stand up a full combatant command. If all we wanted were flies on eyeballs, a small number of special-operations trigger pullers would have sufficed for the foreseeable future.
America is going to have an Africa Command for the same reason people buy real estate — it’s a good investment.
Posted by: annie | Jun 13 2007 14:51 utc | 115
re: War on Syria/Lebanon
Would it have anything to do with the following one-two punch: (a) eliminate Hizbullah and the Syrian army and (b) establish additional US air/army bases in Lebanon and Syria?
Does anyone have a map of current US military bases in the Middle East? Might be interesting to have it on hand to refer to from time to time. Keeping in mind, of course, that the only ultimate regional goal this US administration cares about is securing control over the oil in Iran and Iraq. All else, in my view, is pretext. The fact that Israel’s self-perceived national interest is to smash any potentially strong neighboring Arab opponents to smithereens and turn the region back to the Middle ages is a marriage of convenience, not the main goal. BushCo would not ever have expended all these strategic resources solely to serve Israel’s interests; it just so happened that the two sets of interests fairly completely coincided (and the neocons helped the marriage to be consummated, so to speak).
Perhaps a visual would help us understand the greater plan for the region. These CentCom maps are not perfect, but they are a start. Anyone handy with graphics? It would be amazing to create a map of all this information put together in one — with countries that had names on them, and then combine with existing/planned bases for AFRICOM, and then add in shaded areas for areas with the largest oil deposits…. I think this is the big picture that Cheney & Co are working with. The only one.
I must say that these CentCom maps do make painfully clear why all the fuss in Northern Lebanon is occurring. That lonely aqua square up at Incirlik is just not sufficient — particularly if, as Bernhard suggested, its long-term stability might now be in jeopardy. So maybe just maybe there is a need for yet another aqua square to be planted in Syria? I am not a military planner, but if I were, the question I would ask myself would be, what would be the military strategic importance of Syria and Lebanon as far as securing direct US control over the available regional oil resources?
Posted by: Bea | Jun 13 2007 15:29 utc | 116
New poll out:
American voters disapprove 65 – 28 percent of the job President George W. Bush is doing, his lowest score ever in a Quinnipiac University national poll.
“It will be interesting to see how low President Bush’s numbers can drop,” [polling director] Carroll said.
Sample size and margin of error: From June 5 – 11, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,711 American voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percent, including 663 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percent, and 789 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percent.
Posted by: Bea | Jun 13 2007 15:59 utc | 118
Israel TV: Israeli Army is training in model Syrian villages in preparation for war with Syria this summer.
Posted by: Bea | Jun 13 2007 16:23 utc | 119
A good context article on the Israel-Syria relationship at present:
A Note on all the Israel-Syria Noise (Emphasis added)
Daniel Levy, The Century Foundation, 6/12/2007
This weekend’s Israeli papers are almost single-issue editions, but over there it’s all about Israel-Syria, war or peace, not Paris Hilton. The Israeli daily Ma’ariv has a poll showing 84 percent of Israelis oppose a total withdrawal from the Golan (though it split almost 50-50 on a partial withdrawal). Ma’ariv’s lead opinion writer, Dan Margalit calls on Prime Minister Olmert to form a cross-party national advisory council to manage the Syria file and to build a broad consensus for a peace deal. Haaretz’ lead analysis piece by Amir Oren discusses a countdown to war, and how it might still be avoided. And in Israel’s bestselling daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, Romem Bergman presents a lengthy, detailed and highly informative history of all the past Israeli-Syrian negotiations—under Rabin, Netanyahu, and Barak.
This media frenzy comes in the wake of Wednesday’s Israeli cabinet meeting that reviewed options regarding Syria, a highly publicized war training exercize on the same day, and a fever-pitched rumor mill of secret back-channel messages running between Damascus and Jerusalem. The pictures on all the Israeli news channels on Wednesday night really were dramatic as TV crews were invited to film an Israeli military simulation exercize of an attack on a Syrian village close to the border, all conducted in the presence of the Israeli Defense Minister and IDF Chief of Staff. At the same time there has been a rash of reports regarding advanced Russian weaponry making its way to Syria via Iran, and of a possible Syria plan to grab back a small area of the Golan as a potential bargaining chip.
It is seven and a half years since the last Israeli-Syrian peace talks. The immediate background to all of this chatter is the numerous messages sent by the Syrian leadership to resume negotiations with Israel since last summer’s conflict with Lebanon. The Israeli interim Winograd report into that war implied heavy criticism of the country’s leadership for failing to explore the peace option with Syria. The current emphasis seems to be on the possibility of each side misreading the other’s intention, and that these misunderstandings could deteriorate into an unintended military conflagration. All of the relevant senior officeholders in the Israeli military are keen to avoid a conflict, and they are all reported to view the negotiation option with Syria favorably. his includes the IDF Chief of Staff, Gabbi Ashkenazi, the head of the Northern Command, Gabi Eisenkopt, and the head of Military Intelligence, Amos Yadlin. Israel’s leading commentator, Nahum Barnea, had this to say in Yedioth Ahronoth:
The preparations for war are designed to pressure Israel into opening a dialogue. There is nothing new here: the Syrians have said as much – repeatedly and publicly. Senior IDF officers, who spoke to me about this issue over the last week, said that they failed to understand why the government was finding it so hard to give Damascus a positive answer.
Here are five initial comments on the issues at play here, and what might be going on:
(1) In the past it was often said that Syria wanted a peace process, but not a peace deal. True or not, that same distinction might apply today to the calculations of Israel’s Prime Minister. Olmert’s preoccupation right now has to be his own political survival. He needs to create an agenda and a reason for Labor to stay in the government after they elect a new leader. A sense of progress on the Syrian track might achieve both, however, actually moving towards closure could threaten his coalition from the right and his parliamentary majority. The first consideration, then, were a diplomatic initiative to be launched, is: does Olmert want to deal or lots of background noise?
(2) The same question can also be asked of Syrian President Assad. He would clearly favor a return of the Golan and a roadmap out of his diplomatic isolation and threats to his regime. But the price for Assad would entail more than making peace with Israel, and it is the additional menu items that present a dilemma for the Syrian President—and may well be very difficult for him to deliver on. It is assumed that these would include a reorientation of Syrian alliances away from Iran and the assertion of pressure on Hizbollah regarding its armed militia. Absent a broader regional makeover, Syria would have a tough time delivering on these fronts, and may not even see this as being in its interests.
(3) The American role here will be crucial. The US has thus far discouraged a positive Israeli response to the Syrian overtures. According to Israeli press reports, President Bush has now given Olmert the green light for exploratory talks with Syria and this will undoubtedly be discussed when Olmert visits the US this month. But absent direct US engagement on the Israeli-Syrian track, any initiative is highly unlikely to succeed, if for no other reason than that a key Syrian ask will be US guarantees. Syria will not move away from its strategic relationship with Iran in exchange for a frosty standoff with the US.
(4) And this brings us to Lebanon. US policy on the Israeli-Syrian track is apparently being determined as a byproduct to its Lebanon policy. There are no signs that the US is working towards an accommodation in Lebanon; in fact, signs point in the opposite direction. Given the state of play, it is unclear whether a Lebanese restabilization package is even doable right now. The nature of a deal on the Hariri tribunal, even if it were deemed desirable, has become difficult to envisage. So, in a reverse of the old equation, Lebanon may now hold the key to Israeli-Syrian peace.
(5)Still, a serious effort on the Israeli-Syrian track would be the right thing to do. To his credit, Olmert has apparently expressed his recognition of the territorial price for a deal with Syria. I would argue that, today, success on an Israeli-Syrian bilateral track would be very difficult without a recalibration of the entire regional approach. That means serious engagement with the Palestinians, as well as a diplomatic initiative for Lebanon, and at least diplomatically challenging Iran. The US would have to be an active, if not lead partner in all of this, but there are few signs of such a diplomatic surge.
Daniel Levy is a Senior Fellow at The Century Foundation. For more of Daniel’s writing visit http://www.prospectsforpeace.com.
Posted by: Bea | Jun 13 2007 16:36 utc | 120
Another context piece to complement the one above. This one is on US policy in Lebanon:
The United States’ Secret War against Hizbollah
~Snip
Time, an implacable judge, has ended up vindicating people who have been right all along despite the campaigns of the Western mass media. No one can dispute that Hizbollah’s victory over Israel is perhaps the most striking event so far in the 21st century, given that it put an end to one of the myths of the 20th Centruy, the invincibility of Israel. It is what Middle East experts are beginning to call the “Hizbollah effect” and it has overturned neocolonial designs in this part of the world. That is why from almost the very moment it acknowledged Israel’s defeat the United States has set in motion a secret war against the Lebanese political-military movement.
Various newspapers (the UK Guardian, the Lebanese Daily Star and the US New Yorker for example) have published since January this year news or reports on that issue. In March the journalist Seymour Hersh said that the US Vice-President Dick Cheney, National Security Council adviser Elliot Abrams and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, himself his country’s Security Minister, had agreed to fund Fatah al Islam “as a counterweight to Hizbollah.” On April 12th, the Daily Star noted that the United States had earmarked US$60m to reinforce Interior Ministry forces and Sunni organizations identified by the paper as “jihadists”, without specifically mentioning any of them. Some days later Asia Times gave ample coverage along the same lines, “Iraq has arrived in Lebanon. Hundred of jihadists spread among more than 400,000 Palestinians who live in the refugee camps are joining Ansar al Islam or Fatah al Islam clearly following plans of Al Qaeda and with combat experience acquired on the Iraqi battlefield fighting the US occupation.”(6) And Hizbollah itself, via its Al Manar television station confirms the thesis, alleging that the presence of jihadists in Lebanon is part of a US, Israeli and Saudi strategy seeking a regional war between Sunni and Shia which would see the partition of Iraq followed by the partition of Syria and Lebanon. (7)
The US plan is being implemented by Fouad Siniora’s government which has not hesitated for a moment to accuse Syria of protecting and arming Fatah al Islam. With this episode, on the one hand strong tensions are built up with the aim of softening the positions of countries critical of US, French and British efforts to secure a new UN Security Council resolution to extend UNIFIL’s mission, to control the Syrian frontier under the pretext of arms smuggling and to justify a kind of international tutelage of Lebanon….
On the other hand, the Lebanese army is being tried out in a role it has not been involved in since the Taif peace agreement, until now: internal repression. What is being seen is the possibility of a future confrontation between the Lebanese army and Hizbollah, which explains why the political military movement has from the outset supported the army. In a somewhat complex statement, Hizbollah has condemned the attacks of Fatah al Islam against the Lebanese army at the same time as it has criticised the government (“we feel there is someone who wants to drag the army into confrontation and bloody fighting to serve well-known projects and objectives”) and asked for a political solution to the crisis to avoid more suffering for the already hard-hit Palestinian population of the camps. (8) Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollah’s Secretary General has been more explicit, saying “the problem in the north can be solved politically and judicially in a way that protects the Lebanese army, our Palestinian brothers, a state of stability and peace wihtout turning Lebanon into a battlefield on which we fight Al Qaeda on the Americans’ behalf.” Nasrallah went even further and categorically said that what imperialism wants is a conflict between Al Qaeda and Hizbollah and “is bringing Al Qaeda fighters from all over the world to Lebanon” to that end. (9)
Nasrallah also said, in a warning to the Siniora government and the forces that support it that “the Lebanese army is the guardian of national security, stability and unity”, for which it is respected as the “only institution” able to preserve those things and that an attack on the army is the “red line” whose transgression that Hizbollah will not tolerate by anyone. Furthermore he put his finger on the sore point by affirming that military aid provided by the United States is dangerous and asks the Siniora government “where were these arms when Israel bombed your vehicles and your positions? It is something one has to ask the Lebanese, Palestinian and Arab peoples.” Nasrallah has repeatedly accused the Bush administration of unleashing a “fitna” or “fragmentation within Islam” referring to tensions and confrontations between Sunnis and Shia.
But there is more. NATO has in mind building a military base in Qleiat very close to Tripoli – where the Nahr el Bared camp is sited – and to the northern frontier with Syria. It will accommodate a helicopter squadron, special forces units and will train the Lebanese Army and police. (10) The area will already have been visited in mid-April by a team of US, German and Turkish military looking for the ideal location.
The US and its European and Arab allies are doing all they can to avoid the collapse of the Siniora government because that would be seen by the Arab peoples as an unequivocal sign of US decline in the Middle East. For that reason every change in the current correlation of forces in Lebanon (where the Shia population is under-represented in the government despite forming 40% of the coutnry’s population) needs to be blocked, which in turn explains Siniora’s resistance to the opposition forces’ democratic proposals: either a government of national unity or a bringing forward of elections.
Note: Numbers reference footnotes in the original.
Apologies for the long excerpts, but they help shed light on the overall situation.
Posted by: Bea | Jun 13 2007 16:56 utc | 121
Two for the price of one…
Riggs is Carlyle/CIA
Bandar Bush the Black Ops Bagman
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 13 2007 18:07 utc | 122
annie- that esquire article is bizarre & the reason is that the guy is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole after throwing away (or not seeing) a roomful of round pegs. the unexamined assumptions, wild statements (e.g., ARICOM will “be Iraq done right”) & lack of followthrough reporting that the article operates on pretty much validate the worldview one could expect after reading the author’s bio. note, though, that even the author’s HUMINT character discounts the ability of AQ bogeymen to make inroads w/ kenya’s muslim community.
bea- thanks for bringing up the maps. one would think that such maps already exist, though are there some accessible to the public? if not, sounds like a necessary project. (also, very much enjoying your posts/links!)
Posted by: b real | Jun 13 2007 18:35 utc | 123
b real, from your bio link, i read the barnes and noble interview re his book, the pentagon’s new map.
TB: Remember, the key thing is that oil has to flow, investment has to flow, people have to flow, and security has to flow. Again, to emphasize that theme, war falls within that context of everything else. There are the four great flows, so to speak, that define globalization’s ability to expand: They are the flow of energy, the flow of people, the flow of investment, and the flow of security. Without security, energy won’t move, people won’t move, money won’t move. So the notion that if America pulls back its military from the world, this will somehow lead to less conflict and more stability is wrong.
Security that American military strength provides is as important as any of those other flows. If you remove that security, you will feed the disruption of the flow of people, investment, and energy. Walls will go up and globalization can be killed. That is one thing that the American public does not understand. Our export of security is one thing — it does not mean exporting arms. It means paying attention to mass violence around the world. The Department of Defense is the world’s largest consulting force. It goes to where the “client,” so to speak, lives. The American public only wants to hear about the exit strategy. But “the boys” are not coming home until we make globalization truly global. People don’t want to hear about that long-term effort.
here’s the money quote
TB: What we need to do with the globalization map, so to speak, is to identify the big sources of violence, position ourselves around them, and shrink them over time. We are the only ones who can go somewhere and do things and help. Through our power, military and economic, we can establish stability. We are not interested in empire. When we export security to places that lack it, we do not seek to extend our rule.
yowza
Posted by: annie | Jun 14 2007 1:19 utc | 124
ok, one more money quote from that bizarre interview
“The failure of the Bush administration is not the action or the deeds but the words that are failing.”
Posted by: annie | Jun 14 2007 1:23 utc | 125
well it would seem the devil is in the details
for all the entertaining hammer and tonging of r’giap and the sloth over the years, is it not possible that what each argues is NOT mutually exclusive?
Posted by: jcairo | Jun 15 2007 13:50 utc | 126