I’m a war president.  I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind.  Again, I wish it wasn’t true, but it is true.  And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is.  And I see dangers that exist, and it’s important for us to deal with them.
Bush Interview on ‘Meet the Press’, February 8, 2004

"I’m sure people view me as a warmonger and I view myself as peacemaker," the president said.
..
When asked to respond to the fact that many Americans do not view him as a peacemaker, the president replied, "We’ll see what history says. I happen to believe that the actions I’ve taken were necessary to protect ourselves and lay the foundation for peace. That’s what I believe.
Bush Interview on ‘Nightline’, January 15, 2008

While channel surfing last night I stumbled across CNN international. Wolf Blitzer announced the topics of his following Situation Room show.

‘Bush arrived in Saudi Arabia with a huge gift of $20 billion,’ or so he said.  I didn’t feel well enough to sustain his babbling so I immediately zapped away.

But today I checked the transcript and, as expected, Blitzer was as fact-free as it gets. "a pricey gift …" he said.

This is not a gift, but, in the benign version, an offer to
sell some very expensive and useless stuff. As the Saudis depend on U.S.
defense, (and are deliberately kept in that state), they are required to
pay tribute. Since the first U.S. war
on Iraq, Saudi Arabia purchased U.S. weapons for about $40 billion. One is tempted to call these sales camouflaged extortion.

Cont. reading: The ‘Gift’ of Weapons for Saudi Arabia

Allies Feel Strain of Afghan War
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 15, 2008; A01

The above piece about NATO’s lost war is filled with reporting of disdain against troops other than the U.S.:

British officials note that the eastern region, where most U.S. forces are based, is far quieter than the Taliban-saturated
center of British operations in Helmand, the country’s top
opium-producing province. The American rejoinder, spoken only in
private with references to British operations in both Iraq and
Afghanistan, is that superior U.S. skills have made it so.
…

Cont. reading: Imperial Arrogance

by b real

Probably the hottest topic right now for Kenyans, be they in Kenya or as part of the diaspora, is whether the reports of increased Ugandan military activities are true and just what that implies for the planned 3-day mass opposition protests across the country scheduled to begin on Wednesday this week.

Rumors have persisted, since the outbreak of spontaneous protests immediately following the civilian coup allowing Mwai Kibaki to retain that nation’s executive power, of Ugandan operatives being involved in the crackdown on protestors in Kenya’s western regions.

As Onyango Oloo wrote recently in a blog essay, PNU’s Coup: How Can Kenyans Fight Back?, at JUKWAA:

Credible reports indicate that Ugandan troops – some of them dressed in Kenyan police uniforms, some of them in civvies – have been implicated in the extra-judicial state ordered executions of unarmed civilians in Kisumu, including many infants and minors, with some shot at close range while cowering in their own homes.

It is widely recognized that a substantial portion of the deaths ensuing in the often violent response to the blatant election theft are directly attributable to Kenyan security forces after shoot-to-kill orders were backed up with live ammunition. Even before the recent events, the Kenyan police have long held a notorious record. For instance, in a recent profile of Kenya in a report by the Center for Defense Information, the authors wrote:

Cont. reading: Coup in Kenya – Part I

The Guardian headlines Iraq opens door to Saddam’s followers. The NYT says Iraq Eases Curb on Ex-Officials of Baath Party and McClatchey assures us that Iraq’s parliament lets Baathists back into government.

A great victory for Bush who, himself responsible for the ill-conveived de-Baathification enacted under Paul Bremer, announced a year ago:

[T]o allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, …

Not so!

The new law will do just the opposite. As Juan Cole questions:

Cont. reading: The New de-Baathification

Sorry, too busy to post.

Please let us know your news & views …

bigger

Six megawatt wind turbine Enercon E 126 near Emden, Germany, build late 2007.

Expected output 20 million kilo watt-hours per year, enough for 5,000+ households. High of hub 430 feet (131m), rotor diameter 416 feet (127m), tower base diameter 48 feet (14,5m) – more here (pdf, page 6f)

This year they will build one of these some 3 miles from my places. Can’t wait to see it growing …

Current headlines:

• A nation in mourning
• Hillary’s family will decide on funeral
• Clark statement on Hillary death
• World’s media honours Hillary
• Hillary state funeral
• Hillary ‘best shadow to live in’
• Hillary Stood for Adventure
• Hillary had sense of daring: Gillard

For a short moment, I was somewhat confused by these.

Maj.Gen. Dunlap, an Air Force officer, yesterday proclaimed We Still Need the Big Guns. His NYT op-ed is basicly a lobbying piece for Dunlap’s next employer, Lockheed or Boeing. But the pretended cause is counterinsurgency and some incoherent thought. Robert Farley at Tapped summarizes it:

1. The military success of the Surge is due to an increase in "boots on the ground"; …
2. The
   counter-insurgency manual still sucks, but its proponents misunderstand
   its key tenets, which are much more forceful than commonly believed,
   even though it still sucks.
3. The Air Force really won the Surge, through a substantial expansion in airstrikes.
4. Actually,
   the Surge didn’t work, because the only success we’ve seen is due to
   segregation of neighborhoods and cozying up to Sunni tribal leaders, so
   consequently the counter-insurgency manual still sucks.
5. And then there’s Russia, which proves we need more F-22s.  Why won’t anyone think of the Russians?

To airmen like Dunlap and the assorted industry the Army counterinsurgency manual sucks simply because the Air Force only appears in the appendix. Just like Dan Haluz, the Israeli commander who lost the 33-day war against Hizbullah in Lebanon, Dunlap believes when you hit people long and hard enough, they will start to love you (one wonders how their wives do in their marriages).

Dunlap wants to Inflict Hopelessness with clean air-power:

Cont. reading: Air Power and Excess Death

News & views & anything else … your comments are welcome …

Prof. Roubini reports that the attendees of the recent American Economic Association Meetings finally take a recession in the U.S. as a given. Even Treasury Secretary Paulson has joined the recessionist club. The economic numbers point to a serious one. Recessionary tendencies in the rest of the world will likely follow, though probably not to the depth that is to be expected for the U.S.

What to do about this?

Earlier Roubini called for a serious cut of the central banks’ interest rates. But this would again increase the creation of money and risk another bubble. Argueing that too low interest rates have been the cause of the current credit mess and interest cuts would just revive and prolong it, Doug Nolan opposes such reflationary medicine. He sees four risks:

1. Uncontrolled dollar devaluing and a possible currency market dislocation
2. Geopolitical risks caused by inflation of raw goods (hungry people revolting against their governments)
3. More destabilizing money flow to the BRIC (Brasil, Russia, India, China) countries
4. Much higher consumer price inflation in the U.S.

While the first three problems are only indirectly effecting the U.S. public, the fourth one is a serious worry even for isolationists. Inflation is already at a multi decade high (Gold today broke another record).

Besides interest rate cuts by the central bank there are other tools available.

The economic standard approach to lessen the effects of a recession is Keynesian deficit spending:

an increase in government purchases creates a market for business output, creating income and encouraging increases in consumer spending, which creates further increases in the demand for business output. (This is the multiplier effect). This raises the real gross domestic product (GDP) and the employment of labor, all else constant lowering the unemployment rate. (…) Cutting personal taxes and/or raising transfer payments can have similar expansionary effects, though most economists would say that such policies have weaker effects on, which method has a better stimulative economic effect is a matter of debate.

The economic discussion in the U.S. now evolves around the last sentence. Should taxes be lowered or should the government spend more on domestic programs?

The Wall Street supply sider side of the discussion and the Bush administration predictably call for further tax cuts. (Times are good, we can cut taxes, times are bad we must cut taxes.)

But as Jared Bernstein points out, a buck spend on tax cuts is not the same than a buck spend elsewhere:

For example, analysis of this point has found that a dollar of revenue sacrificed for a dividend or capital gains tax cut yields a measly [GDP increase of] nine cents.

You get a much better bang-for-the-stimulative-buck from direct spending. A dollar spent shoring up Unemployment Insurance yields $1.73; a dollar spent on fiscal relief to the states yields $1.24. This last idea—ratcheting up state grants from the Feds—is particularly important right now, since many state and city coffers are coming up short due to the local revenue impacts of the housing meltdown.

Dean Baker argues to use a stimulus package to futher green energy and green consumption behaviour. Use the stimulus package to build subsidized wind energy mills and to subsidize public transportation.

The amount talked about (sub.req.) is $75-$100 billion of stimulus package per year over several years, financed by further public debt.

But here’s the problem. Keynes concept is based on saving in good times to be able to spend in bad times. The U.S. consumers, as well as the government, has spend far beyond their income throughout the last years. The fed had lowered the interest rate too far and has already created significant inflation. There is not much, if any, room left to now use the standard Keynesian deficit spending medicine without serious negative sideeffects. Exactly the problems Noland points to: (much) higher (global) inflation and further uncontrolled devaluation of the U.S. dollar.

In a just published new piece Roubini comes to the same conclusion:

We did indeed waste all our macro policy bullets in 2001-2004 in “the best recovery that money can buy” and we are now left with relatively limited room for monetary and fiscal policy stimulus. This is one of the main reasons why the 2008 recession will be more severe and protracted than the mild 2001 recession.

In my view any stimulus package to lessen the recession effects has to be within these boundaries:

• The money needs to be spend on local infrastructure investment to decrease unemployment, not to induce larger consumption.
• Public debt is already to high. Further borrowing has serious side effects like higher effective interest rates, a dollar dump and higher inflation. The spending must thereby be financed by tax increases for very high incomes (which would also remove the moral hazard that led to irresponsible behavior of bank CEOs and others.)

Even if such a stimulus is enacted one has to keep in mind that:

• the current recession will be several years long (the housing slump will take years to heal),
• it is needed to cure the U.S. current account deficit and to renew savings,
• any stimulus will not be able to avert the recession – only to lessen its effects.

In the current political constellation it is doubtful that any serious measure will be taken during 2008. The effects of the recession, much higher unemployment and a significant drop in GDP, will thereby become worse.

As the economic mess will turn out to be the primary matter in 2008, it will interesting to see what recipies the candidates will present to heal the economy. Paul and Edwards are the candidates that have the most radical positions here. They could use the trouble to their advantage.

Tomorrow Bush will start a tour through the Middle East. The purpose is not some peace talk. As the Washington Post headlined today: Heading to Mideast, Bush Targets Iran

President Bush intends to use his first extended tour of the Middle East to rally support for international pressure against Iran …

Lately the Arab Gulf states have been very reluctant to pressure Iran. The Iranian president was invited to the Gulf Cooperation Council meeting and, by the Saudi king, to the Hajj in Mecca. The Arab Gulf states have absolutly no interest to stall their current economic boom by any trouble with their big and peaceful neighbor.

Cont. reading: A Non-Incident in the Gulf

Change is Obama’s campaign motto. His website asks visitors to "Join the Movement" for Change.

WaPo’s election watcher Chris Cillizza sees change as Obama’s strong point:

That message — that in voting for Obama Americans are opting for a broad change in the way politics is conducted — is VERY powerful and will be exceedingly difficult for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) or anyone else to overcome.

Clinton attacks the change slogan rather lame, claiming that she is someone experienced with implementing change. That is not a smart tactic as it endorses Obama’s primary claim.

But what is change anyway?

In one aspect there is a product, policy or process that can be changed. In another aspect there is the marketing of the product, which can change indepently. The ‘way politics are conducted’ is part of the marketing, not the policy product.

U.S. policy marketing is anchored around the public appearance of the U.S. president.

Within the democratic candidate field, a president Obama would be the biggest change against GWB simply from outer appearance. Hillary, as a woman, would be a big change too, but a linage of Bush – Clinton – Bush – Clinton certainly does not symbolize such. In appearance, Edwards is just another white politician.

In the marketing aspect, Obama is change. But how about his policies?

Cont. reading: Aspects of Change

by Debs is dead
lifted from a comment

So the amerikan chickens are coming home to roost for Musharraf. The sadly named International Crisis Group has just put out a press release to Reuters urging the amerikan government to pressure the Pakistan Army’s new boss
General Ashfaq Kayani to, in the interests of democracy, of course, flick Musharraf in that old Pakistani democratic tradition where the army picks the prez!

Why would the Pakistan Army listen to amerika? Well military aid of
course; since silly George’s dumb dogs drove OBL into Waziristan,
military aid to Pakistan is up to $11 billion and counting. That old
amerikan democratic tradition of money talks, bullshit walks means they
feel the $11 billion gives them the right to pick Pakistan’s prez.

Who the hell is the International Crisis Group anyway and if they are European why is the call coming from amerika?

The Reuters article tells us: "The ICG, which has been highly critical of Musharraf and has influence within the U.S. Congress .."

Sooooo they have pull in Congress, that must mean they are a
democrat think tank doesn’t it? Their obviously self penned wikipedia
entry tells us amongst other blather "The International Crisis
Group is an international, non-profit, non-governmental organization
whose mission is to prevent and resolve deadly conflicts through
high-level advocacy." meaningless babble which drops a few allegedly left of centre non-amerikan political names.

So Spinwatch should help lets see:

… "ICG is also supported by various foundations
(covering 43%) – Rockefeller, Ford, MacArthur, US Institute for Peace
(established by Ronald Reagan), Carnegie, Sarlo Jewish Community
Endowment Fund, Hewlett, etc. and private sector donors (16%).

Cont. reading: Pakistan Machinations

The potato had it quite right, especially on Paul and Giuliani. The results are below the fold.

The main driver for the winners was turnout.

Obama mobilized youth and women, Huckabee mobilized the religious nuts, 60+% of yesterdays repub primary voters in Iowa, and won. Turnout for Democrats was record high, 239.000 in total vs some half of that for Repubs. Biden and Dodd are now out.

This all may change in New Hampshire, but there are a few things one might take form here.

• The turnout points to a huge general preference for Dems.
• Obama’s ‘change’ marketing talk (despite his neocon foreign policy and right of center economic policy) gives him lot of support.
• Clinton and Romney certainly took a big hit.
• Huckabee’s victory will make the Repub establishment VERY nervous. It is fine for them to pander to the nuts, but let them have a real voice? No way. If Huckabee stays this strong expect Bloomberg to enter the race as the ‘Independent (R)’, Wall Street and K-street candidate.
• Paul will suprise from here with ever increasing percentages beating McCain and Thompson.

What’s your take?

Cont. reading: Iowa Primary Results

As’ad AbuKhalil^* lend me his favorite potato. It is from Iowa. I polled it. Results:

Suicide Bombing in Iraq continues unabated:

A suicide bombing Wednesday in the city of Baqouba killed seven people
and wounded 22, police said, while authorities increased the death toll
from a Baghdad suicide attack at a funeral the previous day to 36.

My impression is that the number of such bombings has increased. Below the fold I have collected news of recent suicide attacks in Iraq. The list is likely incomplete. There were at least 17 bombings in the last 30 days. The U.S. military has noticed this too:

Petraeus said the number of high-profile bombings, a trademark of Sunni
insurgents, had dropped 60% from a peak of more than 120 in March.
…
But suicide attacks using explosives vests and car bombs began to inch back up in November and December, the chart showed.

The wikipedia list
of suicide attacks in Iraq ends in October. There were more than one bombing every two days throughout 2007 except for October where only 11 are listed (October may be incomplete.)

The bombings are usually attributed to ‘Al Qaida in Iraq’. At the same time:

[A] spokesman for Iraq’s Interior Ministry said Saturday that U.S. and
Iraqi forces had destroyed 75% of the Al Qaeda in Iraq network

This begs some questions:

1. If ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ is diminished, why is the number of suicide attacks constant or increasing?
2. How effective are the ‘Concerned Citizens’ payed to fight ‘Al Qaida in Iraq’ really?
3. Why is there (still) a constant stream of volunteers?
4. Where are these from?
5. What does this mean for the overall and future situation in Iraq?

I don’t have answers to these questions. Please let me know your ideas on this in the comments.

Cont. reading: Why are suicide attacks in Iraq increasing?

The Save Darfur Coalition, founded by the American Jewish World Service and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, is a propaganda group that argues for "western" intervention in local strife over water in the north western Sudan desert.

It generates its income through donations and spends the money to generate more donations. Not one cent is actually spend on the ground in Darfur:

[W]hen I went to Sudan in Khartoum, I had interviews with the UN humanitarian officer, the political officer, etc., and I asked them, I said, “What assistance does the Save Darfur Coalition give?” He said, “Nothing.” I said, “Nothing?” He said, “No.”

Indeed there are good reasons to assume that “Save Darfur” is a PR Scam to Justify the Next US Oil and Resource Wars in Africa and to ask: Are They A Hoax Or A Ticking Timebomb?.

NGOs working in Darfur have criticized the Save Darfur Coalition’s campaigns:

Sam Worthington, the president and chief executive of InterAction, a coalition of aid groups, complained to Mr. Rubenstein by e-mail that Save Darfur’s advertising was confusing the public and damaging the relief effort.

“I am deeply concerned by the inability of Save Darfur to be informed by the realities on the ground and to understand the consequences of your proposed actions,” Mr. Worthington wrote.

Still the editors of the LA Times’ editorial board sit down with that group to "discuss the situation on the ground in Sudan" and publish the talk of the propagandists without challenging any of its claims.

Cont. reading: Save Darfur Coalition Propaganda

News & views … please comment …