On this last day of the year, I took a walk through the last twelve monthly archives (linked in the left column of the homepage). I tried to decide which were the best pieces I wrote. I couldn't agree with myself on any of them. Most the stuff I wrote last year was rather mediocre with only a few (nano-)diamonds in a heap of rather lame stuff pointing out media inconsistencies and some re-reporting of collected news items. I'm not too happy with that.

You, dear reader, could help. Please point out which of last years posting at Moon of Alabama were good reads and/or useful. Which did you like in the realm of subject matter and which in the realm of style? Your judgement will hopefully help to make this a better site.

A safe, happy and peaceful 2012 to all of you. May the coming year be better than the last!

Jack Healy and Michael R. Gorden write a NYT hagiography of Iraq’s finance minister Rafe al-Essawi: A Moderate Official at Risk in a Fracturing Iraq. al-Essawi  is a Sunni from Fallujah, a member of the Iraqiya coalition and one of the ministers currently boycotting cabinet meetings.

RAFE AL-ESSAWI is the man in charge of Iraq’s finances, a moderate Sunni doctor who greets his guests and denounces his foes in practiced English. He may also be the next leader to fall as the country’s Shiite prime minister takes aim at perceived rivals and enemies, his fate a litmus test for a country in crisis.
…
Unlike other Sunni politicians who have drawn fire from the Shiite-led government, Mr. Essawi is known as a conciliatory figure who has built bridges with Kurds, Shiites and Westerners.

The laudatory piece misses a fact that lets one question the last sentence. Only three days ago al-Essawi together with (former?) CIA-agent Ayad Allawi published an OpEd in the New York Times in which they called for U.S. intervention against the prime minister.

The United States must make clear that a power-sharing government is the only viable option for Iraq and that American support for Mr. Maliki is conditional on his fulfilling the Erbil agreement and dissolving the unconstitutional entities through which he now rules.
…
[A]s Iraq once again teeters on the brink, we respectfully ask America’s leaders to understand that unconditional support for Mr. Maliki is pushing Iraq down the path to civil war.

Unless America acts rapidly to help create a successful unity government, Iraq is doomed.

On wonders why the fact of the threat Essawi and Allawi issued in that OpEd is left out of today’s portrait. May that be because a partisan calling for outside intervention against the elected government is hardly consistent with the portrait of a conciliatory figure?

It seems that the New York Times and Michael Gordon are not happy with the results of the war they worked so hard to start against the Iraqi people and now push for its continuation by other means.

An interesting portrait: I’ll Be Your Mirror – What Pakistan sees in Imran Khan – Caravan Magazine

How Merkel kicked out Berlusconi. (Not sure about this tale. There is certainly an agenda and some spinning behind it. Still an interesting read.) Deepening Crisis Over Euro Pits Leader Against Leader – WSJ

Because they can. The racist land-robber tribe plans to kill more defenseless people: IDF confirms preparations for extensive future Gaza military action – Haartez

Obama administration secretly preparing options for aiding the Syrian opposition – The Cable/FP

I for one do not believe for a minute that the ongoing U.S. operation against Syria has not been planed and implemented months, if not years, ago. Spinning this now preparing options out to the media is only to announce the implementation of the next stage.

Another stupid default judgement: Crackpot Anti-Islam Activists, "Serial Fabricators" and the Tale of Iran and 9/11 – Gareth Porter/Truthout

Saying the obvious about what never was the real issue: Mossad chief: Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel – Haaretz

"Getting to Yes" never was part of the plan: Keeping Iran From Saying Yes – Paul Pillar/National Interest

AMERICA’S DRIVE FOR MIDDLE EAST DOMINANCE SETS THE STAGE FOR ATTACKING IRAN—NEVER MIND INTERNATIONAL LAW (OR EVEN U.S. INTERESTS) – Levretts/Race For Iran

Australian TV on Kill/Capture raids in Afghanistan: In Their Sights (video, 45 min)

Another interesting portrait. A former Mujahedin/Taliban telling his life: We Felt No Mercy – Maisonneuve

“I told the Americans many times, ‘Don’t do what the Russians did. Why do you do this? Why don’t you learn or listen to people who’ve been there?’ If they did two years ago what they’re doing now, there would be no war. They do everything at the last possible minute, after they fail.

The last sentence sounds just like Churchill.

Yesterday the Washington Post published a must-read story about the much increased drone strikes used by the Obama administration for target killing of alleged terrorists.

The military Special Forces as well as the CIA are involved in these strikes and their various kill lists seem to be quite long. The case of the non-operative propagandist Awlaki and his son, both U.S. citizens, are only two of them:

On Sept. 30, Awlaki was killed in a missile strike carried out by the CIA under Title 50 authorities — which govern covert intelligence operations — even though officials said it was initially unclear whether an agency or JSOC drone had delivered the fatal blow. A second U.S. citizen, an al-Qaeda propagandist who had lived in North Carolina, was among those killed.

The execution was nearly flawless, officials said. Nevertheless, when a similar strike was conducted just two weeks later, the entire protocol had changed. The second attack, which killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, was carried out by JSOC under Title 10 authorities that apply to the use of military force. When pressed on why the CIA had not pulled the trigger, U.S. officials said it was because the main target of the Oct. 14 attack, an Egyptian named Ibrahim al-Banna, was not on the agency’s kill list. The Awlaki teenager, a U.S. citizen with no history of involvement with al-Qaeda, was an unintended casualty.

The fact that Ibrahim al-Banna wasn't killed in that drone strike lets me doubt that the killing of the Awlaki's kid was indeed unintentional.

As there is a lot of secrecy and no legal process around Obama's drone assassination there is no way to find out why the son of Awlaki was really killed and how many of thousands of people hit were really involved in something that would somehow justify their killing. But we do know that a lot of these assassinations are based on false intelligence:

Top U.S. military leaders who oversaw missile strikes last year against al Qaeda targets in Yemen suspect they were fed misleading intelligence by the country's government and were duped into killing a local political leader whose relationship with the president's family had soured.
…
These people say they believe the information from the Yemenis may have been intended to result in Mr. Shabwani's death. "We think we got played," said one participant in high-level administration discussions.

Something similar happened in Pakistan:

While attacks by US unmanned planes in Pakistan have become a contentious issue, tribesmen hired by US drone operators to tip off the CIA on terror targets have been using the opportunity to settle scores with rivals.

They provide false information identifying their rivals as terror targets prompting US drone operators to hit them. Mehsud and Wazir tribes are said to be locked in the tussle and they settle their scores using US drone attacks against each other.

Using unreliable locals who want to settle local scores for U.S. drone targeting is not the only problem.

"Signature strikes" are even worse:

Essentially, bombs are dropped on the heads of people who aren’t known to be terrorists, or militants, but who act like them.

How does one "act like a terrorist" or asked differently, how does one not act like a terrorist? Does one eat, walk, talk and sleep? What is a terrorist, except in the moment of his dead, doing that differentiates him from other humans?

Signature strikes violate both traditions of just wars, and are indefensible except by recourse to arguments of pure power.

But, as that piece reminds us, the "pure power" argument can be used by various sides and it is quite likely that all the assassinations by drones Obama has ordered will create a heavy blowback.

Remember that Israeli “targeted killing” was decried by the US before 9/11 as illegitimate. One wonders what the Middle East would look like if all the different states (and non state actors) therein got their mitts on rapidly proliferating drone technologies and considered it entirely normal and okay to start killing people across pesky international sovereign borders.

It is not only the Middle East that will experience drone strikes by others than the U.S. or Israel. There are many enthusiasts for radio controlled model planes and model rockets. It is not really that difficult to combine those toys for grown ups into something lethal.

Obama's drone campaign outside of any open legal framework makes drone killings a plausible and presumably legitimate tool to settle grievances. It sets an example. Its not a question of "if" but "when" this example will be used by others against U.S. citizens and interests.

After the U.S. November 26 attack on a Pakistani border post that killed 26 Pakistani soldiers the logistic line from Karachi into Afghanistan was shut down by Pakistani authorities.

It was expected that the line would be reopened after a few weeks. But as the U.S. is not forthcoming with the apology Pakistan demands and even partly blames Pakistan for the incident despite the fact that all the miscommunication that led to it happened on the U.S. site, the chances to reopen the line have dwindled.

Consequently the U.S. is now pulling out the equipment and wares currently stuck on the transport route in Pakistan:

“It has been a month since the Nato attack which resulted in the port and border closures with no resolution in sight, the US government intends to have all import unit cargo that is currently staged at different Container Holding Yards (CHYs) moved back to Karachi port or the nearest CHY to the port. Once we receive approval, all unit cargo will be exported out of Pakistan,” wrote Anita Rice, Chief of the OCCA SWA (595th Trans Brigade, NSA Bahrain) in an email to all ‘concerned’ persons.
…
According to sources, US cargo, stranded in Pakistan, is worth millions of dollars and US authorities have serious concerns over the safety of the cargo as it includes hammer [sic] vehicles, dumpers, anti-aircraft guns, special carriers of anti-aircraft guns, vehicles specially built to jam communications, cranes and sophisticated weapons.

“We will compile information for submission to Pakistan customs for amendment for cargo export,” Rice said in her email, providing US Lieutenant Colonel Jerome Heath’s contact number for further assistance.

It will take several months to get all the stuff stuck in Pakistan back on ships and even longer to reroute it through the Northern Distribution Network into Afghanistan.

It will also cost a lot of money. Flying equipment into Afghanistan costs about $14,000 per (short) ton. A 20″ container coming through the NDN through Russia and Uzbekistan costs about $12,000, double the amount it costs for the same container to be routed through Pakistan.

Additionally there is concern about the ability of the rail network in Uzbekistan, recently hit by a mysterious explosion, to carry the additional load of what so far has come through Pakistan as well as corruption and the U.S. denial of the abysmal human rights record of the Karimov regime.

Aside from that current NDN agreements do not allow for the transport of weapons and ammunition through the NDN and it is, so far, a one way route that can not be used for the ongoing retreat from Afghanistan.

Obama’s decision to not apologizing for the border incident incident, taken out of fear of attacks from the domestic political right, will turn out to be very expensive and will hinder future U.S. operations in Afghanistan for quite some time.

But the political impact of completely closing down the logistic line through Pakistan might even be bigger. It removes another point of common interest the U.S. and Pakistan have had.

If the U.S. is, as it seems now possible, trying to get into direct negotiations with the Taliban in Qatar that exclude Pakistani interest from the future of Afghanistan the war there is unlikely to end anytime soon.

Obama is a centrist Republican says Glenn Greenwald in today's Guardian. That's about right. As the Republican candidates try to be more to the right than Obama already is the policy discussion in the United States moved further to the rightwing fringe.

The Overton window, the frame of political acceptable ideas, is now more militaristic, more anti-social and less liberal than it has been for decades. As Obama has unfortunately no primary competition the only bit of hope for change in general U.S. policies comes with the one anti-war candidate in the whole field.

Ron Paul's libertarian ideas on social issues and financial matters are, in my view, quite nutty. Even more so than the positions of some of his fellow candidates. But his position on war and foreign affairs seem very reasonable to me. If he can get a higher profile by winning primaries his ideas will become more public and acceptable. The Overton window will widen and that again may induce more people to work against the established militaristic trend.

Justin Raimondo predicts that Ron Paul victories in some primaries will not change the predictable end-result in this election cycle. Obama will win:

In the end, a coalition of neocons and Romneyites will issue an encyclical, excommunicating Paul and his supporters from the Republican party – and opening the way for a third party bid that will threaten to put the GOP nominee in third in November.

That may well be the case. I would consider it a great success though because that process will turn discussions about war into something different than today's wholesale acclamations on both sides of the aisle to follow Netanyahu's calls to bomb Iran.

That should be reason enough for any progressive to vote for Ron Paul wherever possible.

The Los Angeles Times is selling an old story as news.

Syria refugees find sanctuary in Libya
By Ruth Sherlock, Los Angeles Times
December 26, 2011

Reporting from Benghazi, Libya— Even as it recovers from its recent civil war, Libya is fast becoming a place of sanctuary for thousands of refugees fleeing the bloodshed in Syria.

Buses from Damascus, crammed with Syrian families, are arriving daily in the eastern city of Benghazi, the cradle of the effort to oust the late Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi.

"Up to 4,000 Syrian families have sought refuge in Libya in the last weeks, and the numbers are increasing every day," said Mohammed Jammal, a Syrian community leader in the city. "The buses arrive full and go back empty. There used to be two a week, but now there are two a day."
…

That story is somewhat familiar to me. Where did I read it before?

[search, search]

The Daily Telegraph:
By Ruth Sherlock in Benghazi
9:00PM GMT 09 Dec 2011

Buses from Damascus, crammed with Syrian families, are arriving daily into the east Libyan city of Benghazi.

"Up to 4,000 Syrian families have sought refuge in Libya in the last weeks, and the numbers are increasing every day" said Dr Mohammed Jammal, a Syrian community leader in the city. "The buses arrive full and go back empty. There used to be two a week, but now there are two a day."
…

Except for a bit of editing the story in the LA Times and the Telegraph are identical but were published seventeen days apart. The writer, Ruth Sherlock, is: "a freelance journalist and an intern for Haaretz.com" or whatever.

The LA Times seems to believe that such news deserves publishing even weeks beyond it sales date. The editors probably kept it canned so they could publish something over the holidays without having to leave their homes.

The story itself is, by the way, fishy. It is clearly written to hype the success in Libya and to plant grueling tales about Syria.

But the reality is something else. Further down into it we find that the whole issue is likely less about Syrians fleeing to Libya but about Syrian expats, who worked in Libya and fled from there when the civil war broke out, returning to their workplaces. The December 26 LA Times version:

Before the Libyan civil war, thousands of Syrians worked in the country. The Libyan Red Crescent Society estimates they numbered about 12,000 when the war began.

"Many left, but now they are returning and bringing their families with them," said Ziad Dresi, a refugee coordinator for the Libyan Red Crescent Society.

The December 9 Telegraph version:

Prior to the Libyan civil war thousands of Syrians had worked in the country. The Libyan Red Crescent estimates that 12,000 Syrians were in the country at the start of the Libyan uprising. "Many left but now they are returning, and bringing their families with them, " said Ziad al Dresi, a refugee coordinator for the Libyan Red Crescent.

Back to the LA Times. It is supposed to be a daily newspaper. How long does it expect their customers to continue paying when they find out that it is selling stale propaganda pieces as news?

.. to all of you.

Will the media now finally stop with the fairytale of peaceful protests in Syria?

Suicide car bombers struck Damascus on Friday, officials said, killing 40 people, gutting buildings and sending human limbs flying in the bloodiest violence seen in Syria's capital since a revolt against President Bashar al-Assad began nine months ago.

Maybe. At least Reuters has changed the wording to revolt.

As we have written before the peaceful protests involved massive violence against security force at least since mid April while the numbers of killed protesters are made up or from dubious sources.

The U.S. and the Saudis who finance this revolt better wake up now to what their instigation is causing. The blowback from a destabilized Syria would be huge.

Your news and views …

Reuters: Exclusive: Pakistan army wants Zardari out but not a coup

Pakistan's powerful army is fed up with unpopular President Asif Ali Zardari and wants him out of office, but through legal means and without a repeat of the coups that are a hallmark of the country's 64 years of independence, military sources said.

The military is not the only one who wants Zardari to go.

Mr. 10%, as we was earlier called for asking for bribes left and right, only accidentally became President when his wife Benazir Bhutto was assassinated and their son was too young to lead the family franchise, the Pakistan Peoples Party. Since he took over some two years ago Pakistan went from one crisis to the next one.

Meanwhile the government of Prime Minister Gilani fears it is also a target of a silent coup:

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Thursday said conspirators were plotting to bring down his government, giving his most public indication yet that he fears being ousted from power.
…
[H]eading off questions in parliament, he took aim at the military over reports that the defence ministry conceded to the Supreme Court that it had no control over the armed forces or ISI intelligence agency.

“If they say that they are not under the ministry of defence, then we should get out of this slavery, then this parliament has no importance, this system has no importance, then you are not sovereign,” he told lawmakers.

“They are being paid from the State Exchequer, from your revenue and from your taxes.”

All institutions are subservient to the Parliament, and no institution has the right to create a state within the state, added the prime minister.

So far I sensed no intention by the military to bring Giliani down. But if he really expects that the Pakistani military will simply fold and come under pure civilian control the military might well try to get rid of him too.

The Pakistani Supreme Court will investigate the memogate scandal in which President Zardari allegedly asked the U.S. to intervene on his side against the military. If it wants to it will surely find enough dirt to kick Zardari out of office. That seems to be the military's plan.

Politicians competing with Zardari smell blood:

PML-N leader Mian Nawaz Sharif has minced no words in demanding that they be held immediately. In a candid interview to the Jang Group in Karachi on Tuesday, Nawaz asked what the point was in running a government that had failed to function and which had lost credibility and respect in the eyes of the people. His half-joking suggestion that elections should come in winter as he personally ‘liked’ that season indicates that the issue of fresh polls has gained urgency within the PML-N.

The dark lord, or white knight depending on ones standpoint, Imran Khan is also taking aim:

Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan on Thursday said that the medical condition of President Zardari must be checked – if he is not mentally and physically fit then this might cause serious problems for Pakistan, DawnNews reported.

The stage is set and I find it unlikely that Zardari will keep his current position for much longer. New parliament elections may well be coming too.

One wonders what the U.S. position will be on this issue. Not that it has much leverage. The report on the U.S. attack on the Pakistani outpost that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and closed the U.S. transport line through Pakistan is just coming out and it blames both sides:

The report said: "Mistakes by both American and Pakistani forces led to airstrikes against Pakistani border posts that killed 24 Pakistani Army soldiers last month".

Even though it spread blame between both countries, the key finding of the investigation is likely to further enrage Pakistan …

The finding contradicts the Pakistani one and will thereby not reopen the closed logistic line:

Pakistan has sought a full apology from President Barack Obama for the strikes, while US officials have maintained the November 26 incident was a regrettable mistake.

Speaking at a weekly briefing by the Foreign Office, [spokesman] Abdul Basit said a final decision on the restoration of Nato supply lines would be made by the Parliament. Moreover, he termed US Vice president Joe Biden’s recent statement on the Taliban as “welcome words”.

With the anti-U.S. mood in the country and possible elections on the horizon I can not see the parliament deciding to give in and to let the U.S. logistic flow again. The real decision will anyway be more like taken by the military which will press for more concession from the U.S.. Bidens recent remark that the Taliban are not the enemy was probably one of those with more to come.

While the U.S. has enough material reserves in Afghanistan to sustain for a while the closed Pakistani line, even as it lately carried only 30% of all needs, will soon start to hurt its operations. To fly in fuel or toilet paper by air at a cost of some $14,000 per short ton is simply too expensive.

Searching the web currently comes up with some 240 articles like this one.

Boat laden with surface-to-air missiles stopped in Finland on its way to China

Around 160 tonnes of explosives and 69 surface-to-air missiles have been found by Finnish officials on a cargo ship bearing a British flag and ultimately destined for China, authorities say. They said they did not know the origin of the Patriot missiles or who was supposed to receive them.

The Thor Liberty sailed from the north German port of Emden on 13 December and two days later docked in Kotka, southern Finland, to pick up a cargo of anchor chains, officials said. Its final destination was Shanghai, but it was not clear whether that was where the arms shipment was going, officials said.

That is quite some lazy journalism in that piece. Patriot missiles do not just come from nowhere and are covered by various agreements that do not allow them to bought and sold by everyone. Just a few minutes of searching the web would have told those Finish officals and the journalist what is happening here. It is indeed quite obvious where those Patriot missiles come from and where they are going.

From a BBC report:

Police did not confirm Finnish media reports that the ship had also been scheduled to stop in South Korea, Reuters news agency reports.

YLE.fi, December 20, 2011 Missile shipment confirmed aboard detained vessel

According to information received by YLE, the missile shipment originated in Germany and is destined for South Korea.

Searching for South Korea and Patriot missile shows that this ship's load is very likely part of a long arranged official government deal:

AFP, July 13, 2005: German defense chief in talks on sale of missiles to South Korea

A German defense chief met with South Korean officials here Wednesday for talks on the sale of second-hand Patriot missiles to Seoul, the defense ministry said.

UPI, March 13, 2007: South Korea Wants To Buy Second-Hand Patriot Missiles From Germany

DW: November 28, 2008: South Korea Takes Delivery for Patriot Missiles from Germany

The South Korean Air Force received the first shipment of Patriot missiles from Germany on Friday, Nov. 28, the air force in Seoul said.

The 48 anti-missile and anti-aircraft missiles, which will replace the country's outdated Nike air defense missiles, are to be deployed by 2012 after two years of trial operation.

DID, December 1, 2008: Raytheon Begins SAM-X/Patriot Missile Work in South Korea

In March of 2008, Raytheon announced an initial contract (amount undisclosed) for preliminary planning efforts aimed at integrating Patriot air defense/ABM missiles into South Korea’s national command and control structure.
…
An effort was made in 2007 to buy second-hand Patriot PAC-2 systems from Germany… and delivery of those missiles has now begun.

Chosun, September 19, 2011: Patriot Missiles Useless as Radar Out of Order

The Patriot missiles, a surface-to-air missile capable of intercepting enemy aircraft or missiles in midair, were deployed under the Air Force's "SAM-X" next-generation air-defense missile project and are the South Korean military's key air-defense weapons.
…
Of 32,149 Patriot system parts it intended to acquire from Germany, the military had procured only 10 percent or 3,142 parts by July. It also lacks a proper maintenance float program in place.

"We plan to put the radars into full operation by early next year," an Air Force spokesman said. "But problems can occur because they are now in limited operation. We're going to import parts to replace the ones that caused the breakdowns by year's end."

According to Thorco Shipping the current Thor Liberty voyage is expected (pdf) to end in Qingdao, China on February 19. That certainly leaves enough time for a discharge stopover 200 miles east of Quingdao in South Korea.

It seems obvious to me that the Patriot missiles on board of the Thor Liberty are second hand, coming from Germany and are destined for South Korea in an official deal that involves the original manufacturer Raytheon.

If I can find that within a few minutes why are news agencies and journalists coming up with scare headlines like Finland seizes Patriot missiles headed for China and articles that fail to point out the obvious?

North Korea's military to share power with Kim's heir

BEIJING (Reuters) – North Korea will shift to collective rule from a strongman dictatorship after last week's death of Kim Jong-il, although his untested young son will be at the head of the ruling coterie, a source with close ties to Pyongyang and Beijing said.
…
The comments are the first signal that North Korea is following a course that many analysts have anticipated — it will be governed by a group of people for the first time since it was founded in 1948.

Both Kim Jong-il and his father Kim Il-sung were all-powerful, authoritarian rulers of the isolated state.

The above piece shows a typical "western" misunderstanding of dictatorial ruling.

Nearly no dictator ever is or has been "all powerful". All dictators and solely ruling monarchs depend on various groups and the national myth. Their main task is to keep the interests of those groups in balance and the national myth alive. The armed forces are usually one of the important groups. Another one is often representing major economic interests. In North Korea (like in China) the communist party has that task. Kim Jong-il and his father could not have ruled without taking the interest of those groups and their representatives into account.

The necessary national myth can be clad in religion, can be some flimsy idea like "manifest destiny" or a "saint" person, a father figure like the "dear leader". Whatever it is any ruler will have to keep such a believe alive as it is a representation of the people.

The change in North-Korea now will be minimal as all the interest groups would be worse off and less secure in any different configuration. At the September 2010 party conference Kim Jong-Un, the new face of the regime, was publicly announced as successor of Kim Jong-il. But as he, in his late 20s, is too young for the job the same party conference lifted his aunt Kim Kyong Hui to the highest party role and the chief of the General Staff of the Korean People's Army Ri Yong Ho to the highest military role behind the now deceased Kim Jong-il. Those two and the groups they represent will now be the caretakers. Until they die Kim Jong-Un will mostly be the figurehead and his main role will be to act as the new representation of the national myth.

But even when they are gone and Kim Jong-Un is named party head and military leader he will still not be able to have totalitarian power. He may effect some change but it will be consentual and slow. The west loves to project all "evils" of a foreign country into their ruling figures – be they Hitler, Stalin, Ghaddaffi, Asad, Putin or Obama. There is always much more to such dictatorships than the "west" is willing to see. 

Beside of that North Korea as well as South Korea are of no bigger global importance. They are, and have been for the last 60 years, mere proxies of the U.S.-China competition.

As the U.S. military is gone and before the U.S. embassy force of some 16,000 people is assembled Iraqi premier Maliki is using the time to clean the house:

A day after the United States withdrew its last combat troops, Iraq faced a dangerous political crisis Monday as the Shiite-dominated government ordered the arrest of the Sunni vice president, accusing him of running a death squad that assassinated police officers and government officials.

Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi may well have run death squads or planned for a coup. It doesn't really matter.

That Maliki would not let the Sunni politicians have any serious power was clear since he, despite the post-election coalition agreement, kept the interior and defense ministry under his personal control. That he would push the Sunni further away from power after the threat of the U.S. military was removed was obvious too. His next target will be the former(?) CIA agent and leader of the Sunni Iraqiya coalition Allawi.

The question is now if this house cleaning will lead to a renewed civil war. The Saudis may have an interest to finance another Sunni insurrection in Iraq but I doubt that it will happen. An insurrection or civil war needs some energetic support from some part of the population. But after nine exhaustive years of war that needed fervor is likely to have burned itself out.

People by now will have enough of it. They will want to concentrate on rebuilding their cities and their lives. As long as the state is willing to dole out some money to help with that, and Iraq has the money to do so, they will have little interest in a renewed conflict.

After Maliki has removed the possible threat from the Sunni side and established a firmer hold on the state he will concentrate on the Kurdish part of the country. The autonomy the Kurds have developed over the last two decades is a long term threat to the integrity of the Iraqi state.

The trick there will be to use the traditional split between the clan of the current President of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region and leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party Massoud Barzani, and the clan of the current President of Iraq Jalal Talabani and his Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. During their last conflict 1996 Barzani called on Saddam Hussein to fight Talabani's PUK while Talabini had support from Iran. As no country in the region but Israel has an interest in an autonomous Kurdistan Maliki is likely able to co-opt Talabani and assert more control over Barzani and the Iraqi Kurdish region.

U.S. influence in Iraq is in freefall. It clearly has no more control over anything happening there. Historians may point out that this was inevitable after Ayatollah Sistani demanded a democratically elected government instead of the unelected colonial regime the U.S. pro-consul Bremer had planned for. From there on majority rule took over the Shia rose to their natural position.

Within U.S. politics there is no more interest in Iraq, it is out of sight and out of the mind of the electorate. The lessons to be learned from the war will therefore be lost and what led to the war and the errors throughout it will be repeated.

It is amazing how ridiculous the new Israel induced "western" sanctions on Iran are evolving now:

The United States, its European allies and key Arab states are intensifying talks on how to maintain stability in the global energy markets in case of a formal embargo on Iran’s oil exports and its central bank, The Wall Street Journal reported late Sunday.
…
US and European officials have indicated they are seeking assurances from major oil producers, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, to increase exports to the European Union and Asian nations if tighter sanctions on Tehran’s energy exports and central bank are enforced in the coming months, the Journal report said.

There is unlikely to be enough oil available to replace Iranian output. The Saudi's November production was an all time record 10 million barrels per day. It is doubtful that they and others can produce more than they currently do.

But it is also unlikely that Iran will not be able to find customers to buy its oil. Despite sanctions against Iran the total produced amount of oil will therefore stay the same, but the customers will change and that can well lead to a widening of the conflict.

Iran will of course continue to sell oil to China, India and whoever else will ignore under the U.S. diktat to not buy Iranian oil. Those buyers will have a good negotiation position and will get their oil cheaper. It will also make them more dependent on Iran which may well mean that they will be more hostile to any attempt to further squeeze Iran at the UN or elsewhere.

Those "western" countries that will move away from Iranian oil will have to pay higher prices as the possible sources for their purchase will be reduced. This will put more pressure on their economies none of which are in good shape. With less flexibility will also come a higher risk should some event, like an explosion at Saudi facilities, reduce the production available to them.

In total the markets will be more nervous and the risk premium included in oil prices will go up. Iran and the other Persian Gulf countries will make more money. Everyone else will have to pay more for oil with the price increase for the "west" likely much higher than for the "east". This while the "west" is in economic trouble and the "east" is still expanding.

It will be the most stupid self inflicted wound world policy has seen for a while. All this because a tiny racist west-Asian country that wants to stay at the top in its wider area demands, through its U.S. lobby, that a twelve times bigger country a thousand miles away from it must be hindered in its further economic and technological development.

Must read:
The Washington – “Moderate Islam” Alliance: Containing Rebellion Defending Empire – James Petras

Is Egypt becoming another Pakistan? – Yes. Fits the model Petras explains

The Girl – very brutal beating of protestors (see video at 0:30)

Gas pipeline from Egypt to Jordan and Israel blown up for the tenth time … and counting

Libyan scramble for £100bn in assets fractures the peace at Tripoli airport – chaos in fighting over the loot

In Strikes on Libya by NATO, an Unspoken Civilian Toll – duh

This is just the start of the struggle – Patrick Cockburn

The Christian Science Monitor had an Exclusive story, Iran hijacked US drone, says Iranian engineer, which several people here have linked to.

The story by Scott Peterson does not make sense. It says that the Iranians jammed the Remote Piloted Vehicle's satellite control channel and then spoofed GPS signals to make the RPV believe it was near the airstrip it came from:

The “spoofing” technique that the Iranians used – which took into account precise landing altitudes, as well as latitudinal and longitudinal data – made the drone “land on its own where we wanted it to, without having to crack the remote-control signals and communications” from the US control center, says the engineer.

There is yet no known drone operational that is capable to do an autonomous landing. This for very good reason. A drone does not know if the runway it wants to land on is clear. It is not aware of other air traffic around and the algorithms to correct for weather effects (wind shears) are quite complicate. An autonomous landing drone would be a serious danger for the people around the airbase it is supposed to land on. It is therefore very unlikely that the RQ-170 downed in Iran had an auto-land feature.

Indeed:

It is a common misconception that U.S.-based operators are the only ones who "fly" America's armed drones. In fact, in and around America's war zones, UAVs begin and end their flights under the control of local "pilots." Take Afghanistan's massive Bagram Air Base. After performing preflight checks alongside a technician who focuses on the drone's sensors, a local airman sits in front of a Dell computer tower and multiple monitors, two keyboards, a joystick, a throttle, a rollerball, a mouse, and various switches, overseeing the plane's takeoff before handing it over to a stateside counterpart with a similar electronics set-up. After the mission is complete, the controls are transferred back to the local operators for the landing. Additionally, crews in Afghanistan perform general maintenance and repairs on the drones.

This why I have suggested that the Iranians must have gained control over the local control channel:

What the Iranians seem to have done is to take over the drone's line-of-sight control. This after electronically disrupting its satellite link. Disrupting the satellite link alone would not be enough as the drone would then have followed some preprogrammed action like simply flying back to where it came from. With the line-of-sight control active a satellite link disruption would not lead to a preprogrammed abort.

The control connections to the drone may well be encrypted. But encryption always takes time and, landing a plane, a slow reaction to input (latency) is not what one wants. It is therefore likely that the encryption, at least at the latency sensitive local control channel, is only minimal encrypted if at all. Therefore:

We can reasonably assume that the Iranians have some station near Kandahar Airport that is listening to all military radio traffic there. They had four years to analyze the radio signaling between the ground operator and such drones. Even if that control signal is encrypted pattern recognition during many flights over four years would have given them enough information to break the code.

The story someone fed to the CSM, be it by the CIA or an Iranian spy service, is wrong. Things can not have happened the way it describes them. One can only guess who's interest is served in publishing that make-believe story.

Aviation journalist David Cenciotti at The Aviatonist agrees with me that the story is false. But he thinks the drone crashed or had a parachute to land.

In my opinion the RQ-170 is unlikely to have a parachute (which would have to be quite big for this 10,000 pound vehicle) and any unplanned landing in the mountainous Iran would have created more damage than is visible in the available pictures.

My two weeks old hypothesis that the local control channel was hijacked by the Iranians and used to land the drone (with some superficial damage) still seems to be the most plausible explanation. By now I find this especially plausible because no other explanation I have read so far, all quoting experts and military sources, have failed to mention even the possibility of a local control channel hack. By now that seems to be a too obvious avoidance of that possibility in the analysis to not be on purpose.

Good riddance.

Policymakers and historians will continue to analyze the strategic lessons of Iraq — that’s important to do. Our commanders will incorporate the hard-won lessons into future military campaigns — that’s important to do. But the most important lesson that we can take from you is not about military strategy –- it’s a lesson about our national character.
Remarks by the President and First Lady on the End of the War in Iraq, Dec 14, 2011

—

A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
State Senator's Barack Obama Speech Against the Iraq War Oct 2002

Adding:

Two stories which ran today about the military Obama seems so very proud of:

Marines promoted inflated story for Medal of Honor recipient

Crucial parts that the Marine Corps publicized and Obama described are untrue, unsubstantiated or exaggerated, according to dozens of military documents McClatchy examined.

Junkyard Gives Up Secret Accounts of Massacre in Iraq

In their own words, the report documents the dehumanizing nature of this war, where Marines came to view 20 dead civilians as not “remarkable,” but as routine.

Iraqi civilians were being killed all the time. Maj. Gen. Steve Johnson, the commander of American forces in Anbar, in his own testimony, described it as “a cost of doing business.”

Lessons about the national character? I hope not.

Today's long NYT piece Beirut Bank Seen as a Hub of Hezbollah’s Financing doesn't make sense:

Last February, the Obama administration accused one of Lebanon’s famously secretive banks of laundering money for an international cocaine ring with ties to the Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

Now, in the wake of the bank’s exposure and arranged sale, its ledgers have been opened to reveal deeper secrets: a glimpse at the clandestine methods that Hezbollah — a terrorist organization in American eyes that has evolved into Lebanon’s pre-eminent military and political power — uses to finance its operations. The books offer evidence of an intricate global money-laundering apparatus that, with the bank as its hub, appeared to let Hezbollah move huge sums of money into the legitimate financial system, despite sanctions aimed at cutting off its economic lifeblood.

There is nothing in the piece that really relates to Hizbollah but some administration assertions.

In that inquiry, American Treasury officials said senior bank managers had assisted a handful of account holders in running a scheme to wash drug money by mixing it with the proceeds of used cars bought in the United States and sold in Africa. A cut of the profits, officials said, went to Hezbollah, a link the organization disputes.

The officials have refused to disclose their evidence for that allegation.

Why would Hizbollah get "a cut" from some rather random bank business? There is no explanation for that assertion but this:

As the case traveled up the administration’s chain of command beginning in the fall of 2010, some officials proposed leaving the Hezbollah link unsaid. They argued that simply blacklisting the bank would disrupt the network while insulating the United States from suspicions of playing politics, especially amid American alarm about ebbing influence in the Middle East. But the prevailing view was that the case offered what one official called “a great opportunity to dirty up Hezbollah” by pointing out the hypocrisy of the “Party of God” profiting from criminal activity.

So if making anti-Hizbullah propaganda is the stated purposes of the case why should anyone take it for real?

The case involved the typical DEA sting which allows DEA itself to smuggle drugs and to launder money. But when a trail was hot:

The C.I.A., initially skeptical of a Hezbollah link, now wanted in on the case. On the eve of a planned meeting in Jordan, it forced the undercover agent to postpone. His quarry spooked. In the end, Mr. Harb was convicted on federal drug trafficking and money-laundering charges, but the window into the organization’s heart had slammed shut.

It was “like having a girl you love break up with you,” one agent said later, adding, “We lost everything.”

One wonders if the "we lost everything" here has a wider meaning and is describing the reported recent blow up of the CIA's networks in Lebanon and Iran. Just last week Hizbullah named ten CIA agents in Lebanon and explained their methods.

Now we come to used-car-salesman:

Eventually an American team dispatched to look into Mr. Joumaa’s activities uncovered the used-car operation. Cars bought in United States were sold in Africa, with cash proceeds flown into Beirut and deposited into three money-exchange houses, one owned by Mr. Joumaa’s family and another down the street from his hotel. The exchanges then deposited the money, the ostensible proceeds of a booming auto trade, into the Lebanese Canadian Bank, so named because it was once a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Canada Middle East.

But the numbers did not add up. The car lots in the United States, many owned by Lebanese émigrés and one linked to a separate Hezbollah weapons-smuggling scheme, were not moving nearly enough merchandise to account for all that cash, American officials said. What was really going on, they concluded, was that European drug proceeds were being intermingled with the car-sale cash to make it appear legitimate.

Emptywheel suspects a deep relation between this alleged plot and the used-car-salesman "Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador" that no one believes.

The court datelines in both cases point to a relation and both involve DEA stings of some bumpkins. The cases are then used for primitive U.S. propaganda operations against Iran and its friends.

What should be a bit concerning to some is that the recent level of DEA/CIA operations appears to be so unsophisticated that is looks amateurish when compared to the capabilities of other services.