M.E. Peace -'Failure Risks Devastating Consequences'

This letter, transcribed below in its entirity, was sent to the President and Secretary of State prior to the Middle East Peace Conference, to be hosted by the United States in the end of October. General pessimism surrounds this latest attempt to find a solution to the intractable Israeli-Palestinian occupation. However, if these few simple proposals were inplimented, it would go a long way toward finding a peaceful solution.
--- PdeM ---

'Failure Risks Devastating Consequences'
By Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lee Hamilton, Carla Hills, Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, Thomas R. Pickering, Brent Scowcroft et al.

The following letter on the Middle East peace conference scheduled for Annapolis, Maryland, in late November, was sent by its signers on October 10 to President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The statement is a joint initiative of the US/Middle East Project, Inc. (General Brent Scowcroft, chairman, International Board, and Henry Siegman, president), the International Crisis Group (Gareth Evans, president), and the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program (Steven Clemons, director).

The Israeli-Palestinian peace conference announced by President Bush and scheduled for November presents a genuine opportunity for progress toward a two-state solution. The Middle East remains mired in its worst crisis in years, and a positive outcome of the conference could play a critical role in stemming the rising tide of instability and violence. Because failure risks devastating consequences in the region and beyond, it is critically important that the conference succeed.

Bearing in mind the lessons of the last attempt at Camp David seven years ago at dealing with the fundamental political issues that divide the two sides, we believe that in order to be successful, the outcome of the conference must be substantive, inclusive, and relevant to the daily lives of Israelis and Palestinians.

The international conference should deal with the substance of a permanent peace: Because a comprehensive peace accord is unattainable by November, the conference should focus on the endgame and endorse the contours of a permanent peace, which in turn should be enshrined in a Security Council resolution. Israeli and Palestinian leaders should strive to reach such an agreement. If they cannot, the Quartet (US, EU, Russia, and UN Secretary General)—under whose aegis the conference ought to be held— should put forward its own outline, based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Clinton parameters of 2000, the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, and the 2003 Road Map. It should reflect the following:

• 
  Two states, based on the lines of June 4, 1967, with minor, reciprocal, and agreed-upon modifications as expressed in a 1:1 land swap;
• 
  Jerusalem as home to two capitals, with Jewish neighborhoods falling under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty;
• 
  Special arrangements for the Old City, providing each side control of its respective holy places and unimpeded access by each community to them;
• 
  A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees' deep sense of injustice, as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance;
• 
  Security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty.

The conference should not be a one-time affair. It should set in motion credible and sustained permanent status negotiations under international supervision and with a timetable for their completion, so that both a two-state solution and the Arab Peace Initiative's full potential (normal, peaceful relations between Israel and all Arab states) can be realized.

The international conference should be inclusive:

• In order to enhance Israel's confidence in the process, Arab states that currently do not enjoy diplomatic relations with Israel should attend the conference.
• 
  We commend the administration for its decision to invite Syria to the conference; it should be followed by genuine engagement. A breakthrough on this track could profoundly alter the regional landscape. At a minimum, the conference should launch Israeli-Syrian talks under international auspices.
• 
  As to Hamas, we believe that a genuine dialogue with the organization is far preferable to its isolation; it could be conducted, for example, by the UN and Quartet Middle East envoys. Promoting a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza would be a good starting point.

The international conference should produce results relevant to the daily lives of Israelis and Palestinians: Too often in the past, progress has been stymied by the gap between lofty political statements and dire realities on the ground. The conference therefore should also result in agreement on concrete steps to improve living conditions and security, including a mutual and comprehensive cease-fire in the West Bank and Gaza, an exchange of prisoners, prevention of weapons smuggling, cracking down on militias, greater Palestinian freedom of movement, the removal of unjustified checkpoints, dismantling of Israeli outposts, and other tangible measures to accelerate the process of ending the occupation.

It is of utmost importance, if the conference is to have any credibility, that it coincide with a freeze in Israeli settlement expansion. It is impossible to conduct a serious discussion on ending the occupation while settlement expansion proceeds apace. Efforts also should focus on alleviating the situation in Gaza and allowing the resumption of its economic life.

These three elements are closely interconnected; one cannot occur in the ab sence of the others. Unless the conference yields substantive results on permanent status, neither side will have the motivation or public support to take difficult steps on the ground. If Syria or Hamas is ostracized, prospects that they will play a spoiler role increase dramatically. This could take the shape of escalating violence from the West Bank or from Gaza, either of which would overwhelm any political achievement, increase the political cost of compromises for both sides, and negate Israel's willingness or capacity to relax security restrictions. By the same token, a comprehensive cease-fire or prisoner exchange is not possible without Hamas's cooperation. And unless both sides see concrete improvements in their lives, political agreements are likely to be dismissed as mere rhetoric, further undercutting support for a two-state solution.

The fact that the parties and the international community appear—after a long, costly seven-year hiatus—to be thinking of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is welcome news. Because the stakes are so important, it is crucial to get it right. That means having the ambition as well as the courage to chart new ground and take bold steps.

Zbigniew Brzezinski former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter
Lee H. Hamilton, former Congressman and Co-chair of the Iraq Study Group
Carla Hills, former US Trade Representative under President George H.W. Bush
Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, former Senator
Thomas R. Pickering, former Under-Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton
Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush
Theodore C. Sorensen, former Special Counsel and Adviser to President John F. Kennedy
Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the US Federal Reserve System

This letter can be found at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20750

Israel vs. The Israeli Lobby

The Jewish website "MuzzleWatch" published this interesting observation by Akiva Eldar, chief political columnist and a senior analyst for the Israeli daily “Ha’aretz,” In an interview with Amy Goodman, aired yesterday, he commented on the way the "Israel Lobby" in the United States was perceived in Israel.
--- PdeM ---

AKIVA ELDAR: They [ the Israel Lobby] are a very important instrument in order to pursue Israel’s policy, but I’m afraid that they're a little bit behind the Israeli government and the Israeli people. We are in a different mode, which I think takes time for the American Jewish organizations to digest. The fact is that we don't want to keep those territories.

Probably the Israeli propaganda was so efficient that it's very hard now to change the mode and to convince them that it's a different era now. It's a different government. We have seventy out of 120 members of the Knesset who support a two-state solution based on the ’67 lines.

And, you know, if for forty years, you tell the Jewish community that Israel cannot afford to give up the territories, they are important for Israel’s security, just overnight to tell, “Sorry, we were wrong. Now, we don't need those territories,” it's probably -- I remember, you know, those groups that were taken to the Golan Heights, for instance, we didn’t mention Syria, but the Golan Heights, we told them we can't live without it, because look at the geography or topography, with us sitting there, and they were shelling the Kibbutzim down there, and now, after all this time that they spend going to Capitol Hill and using their leverage to convince the American people not to put any pressure on Israel to give up the Golan Heights, now all of a sudden the Syrians are the good guys and we can get down to business with them? It's very difficult. I think that we are paying the price of having our PR doing a very good job for many years.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you say then the American Jewish organizations are presenting an obstacle to peace?

AKIVA ELDAR: They are.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/08/1341205

And in a related item in "Foreign Policy in Focus" Gershon Baskin of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research writes:

"The majority of Israelis, like me, can no longer use the term “Zionist” to define what we believe in. “Zionism” has been hijacked by the movement of settlers who have built hundreds of settlements in the West Bank and are the primary obstacle to making peace with our Palestinian neighbors on the basis of the two-states-for-two-people solution. As I’ve argued in The Jerusalem Post, we need a new definition. We need a neo-Zionism."

To read the complete article, please go to:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4583

Burma - Myanmar: The Next Iraq?

Eric Margolis is one of the few Western journalists who knows Burma (Myanmar) well enough to see beyond the extremely effective propaganda of the "Democracy Movement."

Contrary to popular myth, there never was a unified Burma. The British pacified a number of warring principalities and ruled through control of their hereditary "Saupeas," or Maharajahs, to use the Indian term. As British power crumbled during the Second World War, a young Communist revolutionary, Aung San, combined his underground movement with the Japanese invasion to drive out the British. He was murdered by competing Burmese factions before the end of the war and before he could make good on his promise of Independence for the principalities. For more that 60 years the various tribal groups have fought the central government and even now there are parts of Northern Burma where the army dares not venture. Aung San's beautiful and charismatic daughter, Suu Kiy, led a political movement that won the national election in 1990 but was suppressed by the Army's ruling generals.

During the last ten years I have filmed documentaries several times in Burma and have seen the ebbing enthusiasm for "The Lady," as Suu Kiy is called. Though personally revered, neither she nor her Democracy Movement are considered strong enough to govern Burma. The massive Monk's protest in the streets are manifestly against the Junta and it's repressive policies, but are they really in favor of the Democracy Movement?

Here is Eric Margoils' article in full.

--PdeM --

The next Iraq?
By Eric S. Margolis
Thursday, October 4, 2007

PARIS: A splintering Burma could create a fire-storm in Southeast Asia.

Seen from afar, the growing turbulence in Myanmar appears a simple struggle between the brutal ruling junta and forces of democracy, led by the Noble Prize laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi.

Up close, however, the crisis is extremely complex and fraught with unpredictable perils that could risk turning Myanmar into Southeast Asia's version of strife-torn Iraq.

Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, is extremely difficult to enter and bans foreign journalists. I have managed to slip into the country four times in recent years. In 2004, I managed to see the nation's elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, in her home-cum-prison. She is held like a bird in a cage by the junta, which until recently called itself by the wonderfully Orwellian name, "State Law and Order Council," or Slorc.

In 1988, the junta's soldiers crushed student demonstrations, killing 3,000 people. After Aung San Suu Kyi's party won a landslide victory in 1990 elections, the generals annulled the vote and declared martial law.

President George W. Bush and the leaders of other Western nations have called for even tighter sanctions against the Burmese junta and urged its replacement with Aung San Suu Kyi's elected government.

Myanmar is indeed a nasty garrison state. Its generals have plundered resources and kept this beautiful nation in poverty. The country is often referred to as embodying "unspoiled Asia." But that's because the junta and its predecessor, the demented dictator General Ne Win, turned Burma into a hermit kingdom and one of the world's poorest countries.

Extreme caution is advised in dealing with Myanmar. The central government has been at war for 50 years with 17 ethnic rebel groups seeking secession from the former 14-state Union of Burma created by the British Empire.

Burmans, of Tibetan ethnic origin, form 68 percent of the population of 57 million. But there are other distinct ethnic groups: Shan, the largely Christian Karen, Kachin, Chin, Mon, Wa, and Rakhine, Anglo-Burmese, Indians and Chinese. The largest, Shan, with their Shan State Army, are ethnically close to neighboring Thailand and close to the Thai military.

Most of the major ethnic groups have their own small armies and finance themselves by smuggling timber, jewels, and drugs.

Myanmar's 500,000-man armed forces, the "Tatmadaw," battled these various secessionists for 50 years, until the current junta managed to establish uneasy cease-fires with all the major rebel groups.

If the junta were to be replaced by a democratic civilian government led by Aung San Suu Kyi, and military repression ended, it is likely Myanmar's ethnic rebellions could quickly re-ignite. Shan, Karen, Kachin, and Mon still demand their own independent nations. Burma's powerful neighbors - India, China and Thailand - have their eyes on this potentially resource-rich nation.

They, and neighboring Bangladesh, also fear Burma's troubles will spill across their borders.

China exercises strong political, economic and military influence over Myanmar and is building a naval base near Yangon to give it direct access for the first time to the Indian Ocean. India sees China threatening its rebellion-plagued eastern hill states and is alarmed by Beijing's naval ambitions in the Indian Ocean.

A new democratic government in Yangon that is not tough enough to deal with secessionist regions around its troubled periphery could see Burma fall into Iraqi-style internal turmoil, and also invite intervention by covetous neighbors. At worst, India and China could even clash head-on over control of strategic Burma.

A splintering Burma could create a fire-storm in Southeast Asia. Accordingly, the Western powers and Asean must understand that if they force the Burmese military from power, they had better have an almost equally strong new government to replace the unloved junta.

Ironically, Aung San Suu Kyi's father, Aung San, a hero of Burmese independence, promised its ethnic regions independence if they so desired. His daughter may reap this whirlwind.

Eric S. Margolis is a contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada and the author of "War at the Top of the World - the Struggle for Afghanistan and Asia."

This article can be found at:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/04/news/edmargo.php

Expectations for Mahmoud Abbas

Here is the Arab view of what is happening in the West Bank.

What Do Israel and the US Expect From Abbas?

Ramzy Baroud, Aljazeera.net English.

The rash and self-defeatist behavior emanating from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his close circle in the West Bank cannot possibly be intended for the benefit of the Palestinian people or for their internationally-sanctioned struggle for human rights, freedom and equality. Abbas, and his self-serving Palestinian elites seem hell-bent on exploiting the unfolding Palestinian drama to further cement their status and position, even if such an attitude will lead to the total decimation of any little hope left of recovering denied Palestinian rights.

The Palestinian, Israeli and international response — spearheaded by the Bush administration — to the Hamas election victory and formation of a government under military occupation, in January and March 2006 respectively, indicated that democracy for all of these players falls into the category of political opportunism: To unleash wars, rationalize illegal occupations or profit financially. Under Abbas’ rule, democracy was and remains a vehicle. It is mostly constituted from a bizarre mix of rhetoric, never to be substantiated by any meaningful action. True democracy is intended to prevail over all threats and challenges; alas, Abbas’ has failed miserably.

Abbas, like every autocratic ruler, understands that any practical application of democracy in the Middle East — as in other parts of the world — must pass the American test, an old lesson that the region was forced to learn time and again. Whatever serves American interests represents true democracy; anyone who dares to challenge these interests is duly ostracized and removed. However, “friendly” regimes, from the US point of view, that fail to exhibit even a symbolic token of a democratic governance are viewed as “moderate”, as opposed to the “extremist” others who could be very much democratic, such as Hamas.

Indeed, Abbas understands the roles of the democratic game very well; well educated in political science and history, he has been immersed in the region’s tumultuous politics for over four decades. While Abbas has the right to deduce his own view of the world, he has no right to apply such deductions to eradicate the historic struggle of an entire nation. His actions are both unethical and unjustified, to say the least. The aging leader and the shady characters surrounding him will go down in history books alongside all the rulers and elites that sided with their occupier and tormented their own people in exchange for worldly profits and shallow status.

While corporate media across the world predictably fails to acknowledge the anti-democratic nature of the Abbas-managed government, Israeli politicians, policy advisers and commentators are hardly discreet about the role they expect Abbas to play: Abbas’ security forces must crack down on any dissent among Palestinians. In fact, Abbas’ apparatus has proved exemplary in meeting these objectives. Thus, the Palestinian leader and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad are being rewarded generously: Tens of millions of US taxpayers’ dollars, tax funds that Israel has illegally held from the elected Hamas government, military training for its weak security forces and, finally, an international platform to provide Abbas with the political validation he needs.

Abbas, in return, is throwing in a few extras, beyond the measures expected from him. A few of his government’s mouthpieces are disseminating inaccurate information to international media equating Hamas to Al-Qaeda terrorists and Taleban militants; some have gone as far as alleging an actual link between Hamas and Al-Qaeda, a charge that can only contribute further to the misery and isolation of Palestinians.

As a reward for Abbas’ active involvement in deepening the desperation in Gaza and widening disunity among Palestinians, he has been granted the privilege of meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert once every two weeks, and also the trust and confidence of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her boss. Any attempt at reconciliation with Hamas, which is supported by the majority of Palestinians, at least in the Occupied Territories, would most definitely lead to the withdrawal of some, if not of all of these advantages, a risk Abbas will not take.

But Palestinian disunity is disastrous, not only because it’s a diversion from the struggle for freedom and sovereignty and because it distracts the international community from Israel’s illegal occupations, it also presents Hamas and Fatah with very limited options: Hamas’ isolation will likely strengthen the more radical view among its members, which will make it difficult to find a common ground in the future; Fatah, which is losing its popular support by the day, would have to continue to rely on outside help and initiatives, notwithstanding the hardly promising international Middle East peace conference — aimed at solidifying the support for Abbas against Hamas, or at the revival of the “Jordan option”, linking the West Bank to Jordan through a confederation. Talks about the latter could become terrifyingly real because Abbas cannot maintain control over Palestinians without the active support of regional and international actors, such as Egypt and Jordan.

In the months leading to the November peace conference, Abbas is expected to further demonstrate his trustworthiness to Israel and the US, at the expense of the Palestinian people, who are now denied the only strong card in their six-decade struggle for freedom: Their collectiveness. The day this is no longer possible, Israel’s victory will be complete.
#
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=100270&d=22&m=8&y=2007

Indians Pay the Price of the Military Build-Up

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat; But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth when two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!

Rudyard Kipling, The Ballard of East and West

I was reminded of these words while reading the two articles below about the Sixtieth Anniversary of the founding of India and Pakistan. Patwant Singh and Eric Margolis are both widely traveled authors and journalists brought up half the globe away from each other with vastly different life experiences --- yet, like reasonable men of good will their views and conclusions overlap in many areas.
---PdeM ---

A Deep Inconsistency

By Patwant Singh

The Financial Times
http://www.ft.com/home/us
Published: August 14 2007


After the devastating events of 1947 when the Indian subcontinent was partitioned to create the two sovereign states of India and Pakistan, India handled with great success the seemingly insurmountable problems of a shattered economy, resettling millions of displaced people from across the border and laying the foundations for a modern state.


Since independence, India’s industrial production has seen a dramatic rise and its exports have boomed. It ranks among the world’s fifth largest producers and fourth largest consumer of fertilisers, and is among the top 12 car manufacturers globally. It also has a joint mission to the moon with the US.


The other side of this success story is that, though India is home to almost 50 per cent of the world’s starving, it has yet to devise a mechanism to feed the 250m of its people who are chronically hungry. Nor has it made convincing efforts to lower infant and maternal mortality rates that are the highest in the world, or to alleviate the distress of millions of Indians who have no access to healthcare, safe drinking water or sanitation.

Why, then, has India opted to become the world’s largest arms importer? According to figures presented in parliament recently by AK Antony, the defence minister, the country has spent about $10.5bn in the past three years on imports of military hardware and software. With New Delhi’s long shopping list – multi-role fighter jets, long-range spy aircraft, a variety of helicopters, 155 mm howitzers – another $30bn will be spent on defence deals in the next five years. What this conveys is that the focus of India’s planners, officials, advisers and experts is more on industrialisation and militarising India than on ensuring social justice by feeding, clothing, housing, educating and providing health cover for its deprived people.

Obviously the ruling elite – far removed from the fate of most Indians – is convinced that not only will industrialisation make India a global power, it will also work wonders for its social transformation. As the prime minister put it recently: “It’s only through rapid industrialisation that we can find [a] meaningful solution to the problem of mass unemployment and under-development. Industrialisation ought to be a win-win process for social transformation and economic development.”


Then why, even after six decades of developing a powerful industrial base, are 47 per cent of India’s children below the age of three malnourished, compared with sub-Saharan Africa where the average is 30 per cent? That region of the world is nowhere near the level of India’s industrialisation, yet it provides better nourishment to its children.


The problem lies with the mindset of the Indian leadership: it is convinced that if a considerable amount of wealth is generated at the top levels, its “trickle-down” effect will help at all levels. Amartiya Sen, Nobel laureate in economics, when asked his views on the trickle-down effect, wondered “why they choose an expression that is so ungainly...”. He then placed the absurdity of this fallacy in perspective: “There has been a deep inconsistency in Indian thinking, in Indian planning...in wanting one thing and doing another...that level of almost schizophrenia has been present throughout, over the past few decades, after Independence.”


If the troubling philosophical questions this inconsistency had concerned people at the helm in India, they would be spending fewer billions on arms and more on alleviating stark levels of poverty. Yet such questions are seldom raised in parliament or in public debates.


The callous denial of educational opportunities to a vast number of children is another unconscionable act of dereliction on the part of successive Indian governments bemused by their big-power aspirations. Abdul Kalam, the outgoing president, provided some figures in an Independence Day address. “We have 350m people who need literacy and many more who have to acquire employable skills to suit emerging modern India and the globe.” He also pointed out that only a few children managed to complete eight years of education, even though it is a fundamental right of every Indian child.


Now for the homeless. Half of the 14m people of India’s financial capital, Mumbai, live in slums built of discarded and degraded materials and lack sanitary and drinking water facilities. New Delhi is no better. So while billions are spent on glamorous high-rise buildings, international sports events, consumerism of the most crass kind, and other extravagant status symbols, few funds are set aside for building shelters for the working class.


While India’s achievements have been spectacular, a really powerful state is only credible if all its people have a stake in their country – which should also have a stake in them. If India invests wisely and well in its 1bn plus citizens there would be no need to spend so many billions on arms every year. A contented population would be a powerful bulwark against any external threat. This is something India’s political leadership has yet to understand.


Patwant Singh’s most recent book,“The Second Partition”, was published last month by Hay House India.

..................................................................................................................

Happy Birthday India

By Eric Margolis

August 20, 2007

http://www.ericmargolis.com/

India and Pakistan just celebrated their 60th birthdays this week. For fast-rising India, it was a justifiably joyous event.

In sharp contrast, military-ruled Pakistan, which faces growing internal tensions or even civil war, had very little to celebrate.

Over 1 billion Indians feted their nation’s zesty economy, cutting edge IT technology, growing influence, and pride in being the world’s most populous democracy.

Indians are bursting with confidence, but it often borders on hubris. India’s economy is still only two thirds that of Canada. But once totally self-absorbed and self-isolated, India has opened its markets and mind to the outside world.

India, however, remains a giant with feet of clay. A majority of Indians subsist on fifty cents daily. Urban India with 200 million westernized citizens is booming. By contrast, rural India remains desperately poor, with public health is as bad as in black Africa. The pernicious caste system, India’s ancient form of social apartheid, keeps 180 million untouchables in permanent serfdom despite government efforts to end this scourge.

India’s understandable but overly-eager quest for respect and great power status has led Delhi to lavish tens of billions on nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, and an arsenal of modern weapons for its 1.3 million-man armed forces - while tens of millions of its citizens still sleep in the streets and lack toilets.

India has every right to develop powerful conventional and strategic forces. Over the past 60 years, India fought three wars against Pakistan, and one against China, both of whom are hostile and nuclear-armed.

But why is India, still among the world’s poorest nations, building a range of hugely expensive strategic weapons it clearly does not really need?

More important, why is the Bush Administration about to supply India with nuclear fuel and technology, and has blessed Delhi’s hitherto `rogue’ nuclear weapons program, when India is developing long-ranged missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads to North America?

India has been covertly developing a 12,000 km-ranged intercontinental ballistic missile, `Surya-2,’ under cover of its civilian space program’s heavy space launchers, PSLV and GSLV. According to India’s space agency, `Surya’s targets will be Europe and the US.’

India’s existing `Prithvi’ and `Agni-III’ missiles cover almost all of Pakistan and China. India has no earthly reason to fire nuclear weapons at Europe or Japan. India’s 12,000 km `Surya’ ICBM has only two logical targets, the United States or Australia.

Why is Delhi spending a maharaja’s ransom on these strategic systems? Great power prestige? Possible war with the US to control oil from the Gulf, Central Asia and Indonesia? It’s hard to fathom Delhi’s strategic thinking.

India is deploying aircraft carriers and surface combatants to project power throughout the Indian Ocean, a vast body of water Delhi considers `mare nostrum.’ India’s fast-growing navy will operate from the coast of East Africa and the Mozambique Channel to Australia’s west coast. Its primary operating zone straddles main oil tanker routes from the Gulf.

India’s Navy is building a nuclear-powered submarine, and new sea-launched `Sagarika’ ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. It is deploying powerful 300-km range `BrahMos’ anti-ship cruise missiles designed to sink aircraft carriers and large warship. China’s modest navy cannot operate in the Indian Ocean because it lacks air cover. The only non-Indian navy operating carriers and large warships in the Indian Ocean is the US Navy.

An argument can be made for India’s missile-firing submarines. They form an indestructible third leg of a nuclear triad. But ICBM’s for a nation where 50% of its children under three suffer malnutrition, and polio, dengue fever, and TB are on the rise?

The Bush Administration has been so eager to draw India into a nuclear pact in order to exert political leverage over Delhi and enlist it as an ally against China and Iran that it has totally ignored the potential threat to US security posed by India’s growing nuclear arsenal.

Eric Margolis is the author of "War at The Top of The World: The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Tibet." An award winning author, columnist, and broadcaster, he is a leading authority on Islamic movements and on military affairs in the Middle East and South Asia.

Ganging Up Against the U.S.

What took them so long?
from the August 17, 2007 edition - Christian Science Monitor
US missile defense for Europe attacked by Iran

China, Russia, and Iran agree that America's position as the sole superpower must not go unchallenged, and critics worry about a new arms race.

By Dan Murphy, Cairo

As Iran, Russia, and China meet in Kyrgyzstan at a security conference with four formerly Soviet Central Asian countries, America's spreading military power has been at the top of the agenda. It appears to be a matter on which the three powers are in agreement: America's supposed military supremacy cannot go unchallenged.

In his speech Thursday to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinjad attacked US plans to deploy missile intercepting technology to Eastern Europe, saying the US plan could threaten much of Asia's security, the Associated Press reports.
The U.S. says it wants to deploy missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic to deflect potential threats from Iran. But Russia has objected to the initiative as a threat to its own security and the balance of forces in Europe.

Ahmadinejad said "these intentions go beyond just one country. They are of concern for much of the continent, Asia and SCO members."

Bloomberg reports that Russia and China are worried about the United States perceived sole superpower status. The two nations are willing to do business with Iran in order to change the balance of the world security order that they feel is badly out of whack. Another important subtext to the conference is that Russia and China are seeking to present themselves as potential developers of Central Asia's vast oil and gas reserves without carrying the political package with them that doing business with the US sometimes brings.

China and Russia, which are competing with the West for access to Central Asia's oil and gas reserves, are positioning the SCO as a counterweight to the U.S., said Andrew Kuchins of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

``Russia and China never tire of reiterating their commitment to a multipolar world and opposition to a unipolar one,'' he said in a telephone interview. ``The SCO is a manifestation of that in Eurasia.''

The SCO in 2005 called for a timetable to end the U.S. military presence in Central Asia. Within six months, Uzbekistan ordered out U.S. forces stationed at its Khanabad airbase. The U.S. has a remaining airbase in Kyrgyzstan, which is used to support operations in Afghanistan.

On Friday, the attendees at the conference will observe unprecedented war games between the participants' militaries – the first on Russian soil involving cooperation with China, once a rival of the Soviet Union – that the country's leaders hope will solidify their burgeoning military cooperation in the face of US concerns, reports the Agence France-Presse.

Speaking in a new conference centre built by Chinese contractors under the shining backdrop of the snow-covered Tien Shan mountains, Russia's Putin described the SCO as a budding force.
"Year after year the SCO becomes a more significant factor in strengthening security and stability in the Central Asian region," he said.

Many analysts see the SCO as an anti-Western club aiming to stem inroads by the United States and its allies, as well as the NATO military alliance, in an oil- and gas-rich region that China and Russia consider their backyard.

"We are convinced that... any attempts to resolve global and regional problems alone are useless," (Russian President Vladimir) Putin said, in a barely disguised swipe at Washington.
Lionel Beehner, until recently a writer for the Council on Foreign Relations, argues on his blog at Huffingtonpost.com that the military efforts between the three powers so far look like a nascent attempt to build something like the Warsaw Pact for the modern world, but that Iran's deepening involvement is in question.

… Is this a serious alliance bent on rivaling NATO, a neo-Warsaw Pact for the post-Cold War era?

Not yet.

But that does not make it a benign organization to be brushed aside either. Indeed, the SCO is emerging as a powerful player in a region teeming with terrorists, drug pushers, and oil pipelines. Meanwhile, the orientation of the group's members are increasingly aligning to project a more united front that is, if not hostile to, then outwardly suspicious of U.S. military, economic, geopolitical and -- some might say -- neo-imperialistic interests in the region

If enlarged to include the group's four observer states -- Mongolia, Iran, Pakistan, and India -- currently under consideration, the SCO would dwarf NATO's size and be home to large amounts of the world's natural gas and nuclear ammo.

Yet Tehran is not expected to get its wish for full membership into the Shanghai club -- at least not yet. For the moment, neither China nor Russia has indicated any interest in adding more members to the SCO's rosters, particularly ones with unpredictable foreign policies like Iran.
Back in the Cold War era, NATO was often described as a way to keep the Germans down, the Americans in, and the Russians out. The SCO, it might be said, is meant to keep the Russians down, the Chinese in, and the Americans out. Throw the Iranians into that mix, and all bets are off.

Meanwhile the Ria Novosti Russian government-owned news agency reports that Moscow is interested in adding Turkmenistan to the Shanghai group's roster and quoted a Russian deputy foreign minister praising the importance of Iran's regional role.

"The SCO has an objective interest in Turkmenistan as a regional nation," Andrei Denisov said in an interview with the Vremya Novostei popular daily. "In principle, Turkmenistan could apply for core membership in the organization."

The SCO currently has a moratorium on its expansion. The Russian diplomat said this move was designed to consolidate ties within the organization and to decide on ways of cooperation with other interested countries. Denisov said the moratorium was not politically motivated, "The SCO ... remains open to cooperation with all interested countries and international organizations."

When asked whether the alliance's ties with Iran, which Western countries suspect of pursuing a secret nuclear program, compromised the SCO, Denisov said Iran was an equal and respected member of the international community. He also said the Islamic Republic was present in the region as an energy producer and a vital transportation hub.

China's state-owned media has been typically reticent about digging into the significance of the event, sticking to platitudes, as the China Daily's front page story on the conference illustrates.
[Chinese President Hu Jintao] said opening-up and deepening cooperation with other countries and international organizations will help SCO build a sound external environment conducive to its development.

We will stick to peaceful cooperation as well as multilateralism when concerns from other parts of the world towards SCO, especially towards Central Asia, are increasing," Hu said.
"We will support all activities that benefit regional peace, stability and economic progress and will help preserve the solidarity and security of its member countries."

The use of the world "multilateral" has emerged in the discourse of both the Chinese and Russian states as a criticism of America's alleged unilateral efforts, like the American invasion of Iraq, which both countries opposed. #
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0816/p99s01-duts.htm

U.S. / Israeli Trap for Mahmoud Abbas

Mahmoud Abbas -- A lamb to the slaughter! ---PdeM ---


Khaleej Times Online
Abbas decree excludes Hamas from elections

(AFP)15 August 2007


RAMALLAH, West Bank - President Mahmud Abbas issued a decree on Wednesday that effectively excludes the rival Hamas movement ruling Gaza from future elections, further widening the gaping Palestinian divide.

The Islamists immediately slammed the move as illegal and said an election cannot take place without the participation of their movement, which had swept to power after the last legislative poll a year and a half ago.

Abbas’s decree makes several changes to electoral law, including requiring candidates in presidential and legislative elections “to respect the political programme of the PLO,” according to the text of the signed decree seen by AFP.

It also requires candidates to respect all previous agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority.

The Western-shunned Hamas does not respect the political programme of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), which recognises Israel, as the Islamists’ charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Abbas’s decree also says that all parliament candidates will be chosen according to party lists. Previously, half of those standing for the legislature were chosen in single constituencies.
The requirement makes it easier for candidates from Abbas’s Fatah party to run in the Gaza Strip, which has been under control of the Islamists since Hamas fighters overran forces loyal to the moderate president in mid-June.

Following the bloody takeover, Abbas fired the Hamas-led unity cabinet, appointed one headed by the Western-backed economist, Salam Fayyad, and has refused talks with the Islamists. He has also vowed to call early general elections.

On Wednesday he repeated his demand for “Hamas to correct their mistakes and change their positions to reunite the Palestinian people and give them hope for the future.”
Abbas insisted on the “unity of the Palestinian territories, as this division cannot be but temporary. The Palestinian people reject this division and want a unified state.”
But Hamas quickly lashed out at Abbas, saying the changes to the electoral law were illegal.
“The Palestinian president has no right to make changes to Palestinian law as only parliament can do so,” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told AFP.

“We are not concerned by this move as it goes against the law,” he said. “There is no chance that elections can be successful if Hamas rejects them. What we must do first is return to dialogue and national agreement.”

In the wake of the Gaza takeover, Abbas has issued decrees that he says have the power of law, although this is disputed by Hamas.

The Gaza rout has left Palestinians deeply divided, with the moderate Abbas controlling the West Bank and the Islamists ruling Gaza.

Hamas has refused to recognise the Fayyad government and insists that the coalition cabinet headed by the sacked Hamas premier Ismail Haniya is the Palestinians’ sole legitimate government.

Hamas swept to victory in the last election in January 2006 in a surprise rout of the long-dominant Fatah party.

Tensions steadily rose between the two rival factions in the ensuing year, stoked by disagreements over control of security forces and disagreements over how to handle an international direct aid freeze imposed after the Islamists -- considered a terror group in the West -- formed their first cabinet.

A unity government brokered with the help of Saudi Arabia with the aim of putting a lid on the tensions failed to hold, and vicious gunbattles between the two parties erupted on Gaza streets in early June.

After a week of fighting that killed more than 100 people, Hamas was left in control of the impoverished territory, one of the most densely populated areas on the planet.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2007/August/middleeast_August159.xml§ion=middleeast&col=

The following article, written by the former head of the American Jewish Congress, calls the so-called "Peace Process" by what it really is -- a scam! First published in the London Review of Books, then widely circulated on various Internet sites, this is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand the byzantine machinations of U.S. and Israeli diplomacy. I have excerpted a few of the salient points, but I urge everyone to read the complete article. ---PdeM ---

The Middle East Peace Process Scam

By Henry Siegman

Henry Siegman, the director of the US/ Middle East Project, served as a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations from 1994 to 2006, and was head of the American Jewish Congress from 1978 to 1994.

When Ehud Olmert and George W. Bush met at the White House in June, they concluded that Hamas’s violent ousting of Fatah from Gaza – which brought down the Palestinian national unity government brokered by the Saudis in Mecca in March – had presented the world with a new ‘window of opportunity’. (Never has a failed peace process enjoyed so many windows of opportunity.) Hamas’s isolation in Gaza, Olmert and Bush agreed, would allow them to grant generous concessions to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, giving him the credibility he needed with the Palestinian people in order to prevail over Hamas.

Both Bush and Olmert have spoken endlessly of their commitment to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it is their determination to bring down Hamas rather than to build up a Palestinian state that animates their new-found enthusiasm for making Abbas look good...

Palestinian moderates will never prevail over those considered extremists, since what defines moderation for Olmert is Palestinian acquiescence in Israel’s dismemberment of Palestinian territory. In the end, what Olmert and his government are prepared to offer Palestinians will be rejected by Abbas no less than by Hamas, and will only confirm to Palestinians the futility of Abbas’s moderation and justify its rejection by Hamas...

In fact, all previous peace initiatives have got nowhere for a reason that neither Bush nor the EU has had the political courage to acknowledge. That reason is the consensus reached long ago by Israel’s decision-making elites that Israel will never allow the emergence of a Palestinian state which denies it effective military and economic control of the West Bank. To be sure, Israel would allow – indeed, it would insist on – the creation of a number of isolated enclaves that Palestinians could call a state, but only in order to prevent the creation of a binational state in which Palestinians would be the majority...

Anyone familiar with Israel’s relentless confiscations of Palestinian territory – based on a plan devised, overseen and implemented by Ariel Sharon – knows that the objective of its settlement enterprise in the West Bank has been largely achieved... a series of Palestinian bantustans. Gaza’s situation shows us what these bantustans will look like if their residents do not behave as Israel wants...

The limited withdrawals [from Gaza] were intended to provide Israel with the political room to deepen and widen its presence in the West Bank, and that is what they achieved. In a letter to Sharon, Bush wrote: ‘In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centres, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.’

In a recent interview in Ha’aretz, James Wolfensohn, who was the Quartet’s representative at the time of the Gaza disengagement, said that Israel and the US had systematically undermined the agreement he helped forge in 2005 between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and had instead turned Gaza into a vast prison...

Haggai Alon, who was a senior adviser to Amir Peretz at the Ministry of Defence,told Ha’aretz that when in 2005 politicians signed an agreement with the Palestinians to ease restrictions on Palestinians travelling in the territories (part of the deal that Wolfensohn had worked on), the IDF eased them for settlers instead. For Palestinians, the number of checkpoints doubled. According to Alon, the IDF is ‘carrying out an apartheid policy’ that is emptying Hebron of Arabs and Judaising (his term) the Jordan Valley, while it co-operates openly with the settlers in an attempt to make a two-state solution impossible.

A new UN map of the West Bank, produced by the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, gives a comprehensive picture of the situation. Israeli civilian and military infrastructure has rendered 40 per cent of the territory off limits to Palestinians. The rest of the territory, including major population centres such as Nablus and Jericho, is split into enclaves; movement between them is restricted by 450 roadblocks and 70 manned checkpoints... – nothing will change for the better without the US, the EU and other international actors finally facing up to what have long been the fundamental impediments to peace...

Israel’s contention has long been that since no Palestinian state existed before the 1967 war, there is no recognised border to which Israel can withdraw, ... This is a specious argument for many reasons, but principally because UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state’s international legitimacy, also recognised the remaining Palestinian territory outside the new state’s borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it mapped the borders of that territory with great precision... At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine...

Underlying Israel’s efforts to retain the occupied territories is the fact that it has never really considered the West Bank as occupied territory, despite its pro forma acceptance of that designation. Israelis see the Palestinian areas as ‘contested’ territory to which they have claims no less compelling than the Palestinians, international law and UN resolutions notwithstanding...

The notion that further border adjustments should be made at the expense of the 22 per cent of the territory that remains to the Palestinians is deeply offensive to them, and understandably so.

Nonetheless, the Palestinians agreed at the Camp David summit to adjustments to the pre-1967 border that would allow large numbers of West Bank settlers – about 70 per cent – to remain within the Jewish state, provided they received comparable territory on Israel’s side of the border. Barak rejected this...

It is the failure of the international community to reject (other than in empty rhetoric) Israel’s notion that the occupation and the creation of ‘facts on the ground’ can go on indefinitely, ...

If the US and its allies were to take a stand forceful enough to persuade Israel that it will not be allowed to make changes to the pre-1967 situation except by agreement with the Palestinians in permanent status negotiations, there would be no need for complicated peace formulas or celebrity mediators to get a peace process underway. The only thing that an envoy such as Blair can do to put the peace process back on track is to speak the truth about the real impediment to peace. This would also be a historic contribution to the Jewish state, since Israel’s only hope of real long-term security is to have a successful Palestinian state as its neighbour.

To read this entire article, please go to: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/the-middle-east-peace-process-scam-by-henry-siegman/

Mercenaries See Business Opportunities

Is the Nation-State an Anachronism? --- PdeM ---

Flush with Profits from the Iraq War, Military Contractors See a World of Business Opportunities

By Jeremy Scahill,

Posted on August 13, 2007,

If you think the U.S. has only 160,000 troops in Iraq, think again.

With almost no congressional oversight and even less public awareness, the Bush administration has more than doubled the size of the U.S. occupation through the use of private war companies.

There are now almost 200,000 private "contractors" deployed in Iraq by Washington. This means that U.S. military forces in Iraq are now outsized by a coalition of billing corporations whose actions go largely unmonitored and whose crimes are virtually unpunished.

In essence, the Bush administration has created a shadow army that can be used to wage wars unpopular with the American public but extremely profitable for a few unaccountable private companies.

Since the launch of the "global war on terror," the administration has systematically funneled billions of dollars in public money to corporations like Blackwater USA , DynCorp, Triple Canopy, Erinys and ArmorGroup. They have in turn used their lucrative government pay-outs to build up the infrastructure and reach of private armies so powerful that they rival or outgun some nation's militaries...

Precise data on the extent of U.S. spending on mercenary services is nearly impossible to obtain -- by both journalists and elected officials--but some in Congress estimate that up to 40 cents of every tax dollar spent on the war goes to corporate war contractors. At present, the United States spends about $2 billion a week on its Iraq operations...

When U.S. tanks rolled into Iraq in March 2003, they brought with them the largest army of "private contractors" ever deployed in a war. The White House substituted international diplomacy with lucrative war contracts and a coalition of willing nations who provided token forces with a coalition of billing corporations that supplied the brigades of contractors...

During the 1991 Gulf War, the ratio of troops to private contractors was about 60 to 1. Today, it is the contractors who outnumber U.S. forces in Iraq... Last year, a U.S. government report estimated there were 48,000 people working for more than 170 private military companies in Iraq... The Texas-based DynCorp International has been another big winner, with more than $1 billion in contracts to provide personnel to train Iraqi police forces, while Blackwater USA has won $750 million in State Department contracts alone for "diplomatic security."

... the pay dwarfs many times over that of active duty troops operating in the war zone wearing a U.S. or U.K. flag on their shoulder instead of a corporate logo."We got [tens of thousands of] contractors over there, some of them making more than the Secretary of Defense," House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Penn.) recently remarked. "How in the hell do you justify that?" ... "To have half of your army be contractors, I don't know that there's a precedent for that," says Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has been investigating war contractors...

[T]he United States no longer needs to rely on its own citizens to fight its wars, nor does it need to implement a draft, which would have made the Iraq war politically untenable...

Privatized forces are also politically expedient for many governments. Their casualties go uncounted, their actions largely unmonitored and their crimes unpunished. Indeed, four years into the occupation, there is no effective system of oversight or accountability governing contractors and their operations, nor is there any effective law -- military or civilian being applied to their activities... "These private contractors are really an arm of the administration and its policies," argues Kucinich, who has called for a withdrawal of all U.S. contractors from Iraq...

International diplomats say Iraq has demonstrated a new U.S. model for waging war; one which poses a creeping threat to global order... If you have now a marketplace for warfare, it is a commercial issue rather than a political issue ... You are also marginalizing governmental control... It's a very worrying new aspect of international relations... it becomes more and more uncontrollable by the countries of supply...

The Iraq war has ushered in a new system. Wealthy nations can recruit the world's poor, from countries that have no direct stake in the conflict, and use them as cannon fodder to conquer weaker nations... In many ways, it is the same corporate model of relying on cheap labor in destitute nations to staff their uber-profitable operations. The giant multinationals also argue they are helping the economy by hiring locals, even if it's at starvation wages...

In the case of Iraq, the U.S. and U.K. governments could give the public perception of a withdrawal of forces and just privatize the occupation. Indeed, shortly after former British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that he wanted to withdraw 1,600 soldiers from Basra, reports emerged that the British government was considering sending in private security companies to "fill the gap left behind."...

Some of this outsourcing is happening in sensitive sectors, including the intelligence community... documents from the Office of the Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI) show that Washington spends some $42 billion annually on private intelligence contractors, up from $17.54 billion in 2000. Currently that spending represents 70 percent of the U.S. intelligence budget going to private companies...

[P]owers once the exclusive realm of nations are now in the hands of private companies with loyalty only to profits, CEOs and, in the case of public companies, shareholders. And, of course, their client, whoever that may be. CIA-type services, special operations, covert actions and small-scale military and paramilitary forces are now on the world market in a way not seen in modern history. This could allow corporations or nations with cash to spend but no real military power to hire squadrons of heavily armed and well-trained commandos.

It raises very important issues about state and about the very power of state...

For the complete article, please go to:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/59571/

And in a related story, Blackwater seizes a new opportunity to commercialize on the outsourcing of intelligence.

Blackwater brass forms intelligence company

By BILL SIZEMORE, The Virginian-Pilot

Cofer Black, vice chairman of Blackwater USA, announced Tuesday the formation of a new CIA-type private company to provide intelligence services to commercial clients. The executive roster for the new venture, Total Intelligence Solutions, is loaded with veterans of U.S. intelligence agencies, including two other Blackwater officials. A spokeswoman for Total Intelligence said there is no corporate affiliation with Blackwater, the Moyock, N.C.-based private military company, but the new firm clearly has a Blackwater stamp...

"Total Intel brings the intelligence gathering methodology and analytical skills traditionally honed by CIA operatives directly to the board room," Black said in a statement Tuesday. "With a service like this, CEOs and their security personnel will be able to respond to threats quickly and confidently - whether it's determining which city is safest to open a new plant in or working to keep employees out of harm's way after a terrorist attack."...

For the complete story, please go to:

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=119833&ran=88794

The Ninth Ammendment

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

James Madison

The Ninth Amendment

The Bill of Rights, 1791

James Madison's clearly worded Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States unequivocally declares that the People retain rights beyond those specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, and these unspecified rights may not be intruded upon by the government.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833, ""Being an instrument [The Constitution] of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistibly, that what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to state authorities, if invested by their constitutions of government respectfully in them; and if not so invested, it is retained BY THE PEOPLE as a part of their residuary sovereignty."

In other words, government possesses only those rights specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution, and to the States by their Charters, all other rights are held by the People.

The purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to ensure the equal protection of non-enumerated individual rights on a par with those rights that were listed in the Bill of Rights.

Our present Administration seems to forget that they possess only those rights and powers expressly given to it by the Constitution and subsequent legislation. The People's representatives in the House and the Senate need to remind the White House just where the power resides.

For a longer discussion of the Ninth Amendment, please go to Michael Richardson's article "The Ninth Amendment is the People's Amendment to Protect from Government Tyranny", at:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__070809_the_ninth_amendment_.htm

Too Little, Too Late

Let's start a Third Party!

Feingold introduces bill to censure Bush, Cheney, Gonzales
By Erin Kelly

Posted August 6, 2007

Gannett News Service --WASHINGTON — Sen. Russ Feingold introduced a resolution Monday to censure President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for alleged misconduct involving the Iraq war and violations of Americans' civil liberties.

The Wisconsin Democrat opposed the war from the beginning and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration for its handling of Iraq as well as for its domestic spying program and warrantless wiretaps of U.S. citizens.

The censure resolution also was introduced in the House by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y."Congress cannot stay silent when the American people are demanding that this administration be held accountable for its blatant misconduct regarding Iraq and its attack on the rule of law,'' Feingold said. "These censure resolutions will let future generations know that Congress stood up to the destructive policies of this administration that have weakened our national security, cost more than 3,600 American lives and undermined the principles on which our country was founded.

"The White House said the censure effort is a partisan attack that would distract Congress from getting important work done."We would welcome the opportunity to work with (congressional Democrats) and anyone else in the House majority on critical legislation to fund our troops, make health care more affordable and extend tax relief to America's families and businesses," said White House spokesman Trey Bohn. "Calls for censure and partisan investigations do not address these important priorities. We hope that when Congress returns to work next month, they will turn to such things."

The censure resolution would amount to a public condemnation of the Bush administration by the Democrat-led Congress. Unlike impeachment, which some liberals have advocated, it would not call for the removal of anyone from office.So far, Hinchey's resolution has just 19 co-sponsors out of 435 House members. The co-sponsors include one fellow New Yorker: Rep. John Hall, D-Dover Plains.

Congress is in recess for the remainder of the month and it is not clear when or whether lawmakers will take up the resolution. Although Democratic leaders agree with the criticisms of the administration made by Feingold and Hinchey, they have been reluctant to support the politically divisive resolutions, fearing it will do them more harm than good in swing states in next year's elections.

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070806/APC0101/70806155

Pro-War Propaganda

Reader beware! Our own newspapers continue to mislead - - -

The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda
By Robert Parry, July 30, 2007

No need to wait until September. It’s already obvious how George W. Bush and his still-influential supporters in Washington will sell an open-ended U.S. military occupation of Iraq – just the way they always have: the war finally has turned the corner and withdrawal now would betray the troops by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

At one time, the Iraq story line was how many schoolrooms had been painted or how well the government security forces were doing. Now there are new silver linings being detected that will justify a positive progress report in September – and the U.S. news media is again ready to play its credulous part.

President Bush signaled the happy-news judgment of his hand-picked commander, Gen. David Petraeus, in a round of confident public appearances over the past two weeks. With his effusive praise of “David,” as Bush called the general ...

Another key element of the coming propaganda campaign was previewed on the op-ed page of the New York Times on July 30 as Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution portrayed themselves as tough critics of the Bush administration who, after a visit to Iraq, now must face the facts: Bush’s “surge” is working.

“As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily ‘victory’ but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with,” O’Hanlon and Pollack wrote in an article entitled “A War We Just Might Win.”
Yet the authors – and the New York Times – failed to tell readers the full story about these supposed skeptics: far from grizzled peaceniks, O’Hanlon and Pollack have been longtime cheerleaders for a larger U.S. military occupying force in Iraq.

Indeed, Pollack, a former CIA analyst, was a leading advocate for invading Iraq in the first place. He published The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq in September 2002, just as the Bush administration was gearing up its marketing push for going to war...

Neocon ‘Full Monte’

Pollack’s influential book offered the “full monte” neoconservative vision for remaking the Middle East, with the Iraq invasion as only the first step in the transformation. Ousting Saddam Hussein “would sever the ‘linkage’ between the Iraq issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Pollack wrote. “It would remove an important source of anti-Americanism.”

But Pollack was wrong in his predictions. If anything, the Iraq War has deepened Arab-Israeli animosities while enflaming the region’s anti-Americanism.

Pollack’s argument for war was breathtakingly amoral. War would be the right decision, it seemed, not because it was morally necessary but because we would win. War was now a viable and potentially successful policy option.

It would free up Washington’s ‘foreign policy agenda,’ presumably allowing it to invade another country or two where American vital interests would be discovered. [Pollack’s] narrative – in essence an Israeli one – is quite simple: deprived of the support of one of the Arab world’s most powerful nations, the Palestinians would be further weakened in their struggle against Israeli occupation ... after the U.S. invasion of Iraq failed to locate the promised weapons of mass destruction – and a stubborn Iraqi insurgency emerged – Pollack offered an apology for his high-profile role in promoting the war.

In fall 2004, Pollack told an interviewer for the New York Times magazine, “I made a mistake based on faulty intelligence. Of course, I feel guilty about it. I feel awful. … I’m sorry; I’m sorry!” [NYT Magazine, Oct. 24, 2004]

But now Pollack – having re-positioned himself from war booster to war critic – can reinvent himself again as a grudging convert to the wisdom of Bush’s war strategy, without either him or the Times editors alerting readers to this reverse metamorphosis...

Yet, if Americans didn’t know those details, they could be influenced by an out-of-date impression, much as many people still recall Brookings as a “liberal” think tank, an image that Brookings has worked quietly to shed since it started moving rightward in the 1980s, bringing in more centrist, center-right and neoconservative analysts.

Surge Backer

In 2002-03, Pollack’s Brookings colleague, O’Hanlon, was more skeptical about the Bush administration’s case for invading Iraq than Pollack was. For instance, O’Hanlon correctly doubted the evidence of links between Hussein’s secular government and the Islamic extremists of al-Qaeda.

But O’Hanlon carefully covered all his bases, arguing that “there is a case for overthrowing Mr. Hussein if we cannot re-establish and improve the inspections and disarmament process in Iraq. But it has more to do with the region’s security than with any unlikely Hussein-al-Qaeda link.” [Baltimore Sun, Sept. 26, 2002]

Since the failure to find WMD stockpiles and the stumbling occupation, O’Hanlon and Pollack have constructed reputations as critics of Bush’s war strategy not by objecting to its imperial impulses or the immorality of invading a country at peace but by hitting the administration for an inadequate commitment of troops and resources.

In other words, they have fit themselves in with many Washington insiders who still maintain that the invasion was a fine and noble idea; the only problem was the incompetent occupation.

Along those lines in early 2007, O’Hanlon emerged as a defender of Bush’s plan to send more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. On Jan. 14, he published a Washington Post op-ed entitled, “A Skeptic's Case For the Surge.”

O’Hanlon’s chief pro-surge argument was to hoist Iraq War opponents on their own petard – their supposed complaint that Bush’s failure was in not sending enough troops and not giving the military the necessary tools...

While perhaps a clever debating point, O’Hanlon’s argument is disingenuous. It is not accurate to say that war critics “collectively” wanted Bush to invade with a larger army and then to throttle Iraq with a bigger occupation force.

Many – indeed probably most – war critics opposed any invasion and any occupation, basing their objections on legal and moral grounds, noting that international law prohibits aggressive wars and that Iraq was not threatening the United States.

It’s also disingenuous today for O’Hanlon and Pollack to present themselves as harsh critics of Bush’s Iraq War when, in fact, they either advocated the invasion (in Pollack’s case) or eagerly promoted the surge (as O’Hanlon did). At minimum, they should have given a fuller accounting of their past positions.

To read their op-ed in the New York Times, an unsuspecting reader would get the impression that these two hard-boiled anti-war skeptics have finally been won over to Bush’s wisdom by the strength of the evidence. That simply isn’t the case; they were predisposed to Bush’s position to begin with

The reality appears to be that these two on-and-off war supporters were given an administration-sponsored tour of Iraq with the expectation that they would return to Washington with glowing reports about the war’s progress, made all the more believable by them playing up – or puffing up – their credentials as war critics.

In that case, Mission Accomplished.

... While one might yawn about the predictability of the Bush administration and its mouthpieces misleading the public once again, readers of the New York Times might reasonably expect that – given the newspaper’s role aiding and abetting the march into this disastrous war five years ago – that the editors at least might insist on a more accurate ID for these two “experts.”

for the complete story, please go to:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/073007.html

Kissinger’s Secret Meeting With Putin

Distractions abound right now. Iraq, the Palestinians, presidential debates, an unstable stock market, immigration -- it is easy to overlook the ongoing long-term political problems, the foremost of which may be an oil-rich and resentful Russia.
--- PdeM ---

Kissinger’s Secret Meeting With Putin

By Mike Whitney

07/18/07

When a political heavyweight, like Henry Kissinger, jets-off on a secret mission to Moscow; it usually shows up in the news. Not this time...

Kissinger was accompanied on his junket by a delegation of high-powered political and corporate big-wigs including former Secretary of State George Schultz, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Special Representative for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Disarmament Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., former Senator Sam Nunn and Chevron Chairman and Chief Executive Officer David O'Reilly...

No one really knows what took place at the meetings, but judging by Kissinger’s parting remarks; things did not go smoothly. He said to one reporter, ``We appreciate the time that President Putin gave us and the frank manner in which he explained his point of view.” In diplomatic phraseology, “frank” usually means that there were many areas of strong disagreement. Presumably...Putin’s insistence on a “multi-polar” world...Putin is ferociously nationalistic and he will not compromise Russia’s independence...

The goal is to pit Europe against Russia while the Pentagon, the CIA, and MI-6 settle on a long-term strategy for gaining access to vital petroleum and natural gas supplies in Central Asia and the Caspian Basin. That is still the main objective and both Putin and Kissinger know it.

So far, Putin appears to have the upper-hand ... because most of the natural gas from Eurasia is pumped through Russian pipelines... Russia holds 6.6 percent of the worlds proven oil reserves and 26 percent of the world's gas reserves. In addition, it currently accounts for 12 percent of world oil and 21 of recent world gas production. In May 2007, Russia was the world's largest oil and gas producer...

Putin... has collaborated with the Austrian government on a huge natural gas depot in Austria which will facilitate the transport of gas to southern Europe. He has joined forces with German industry to build an underwater pipeline through the Baltic to Germany (which could provide 80% of Germany’s gas requirements) He has selected France’s Total to assist Gazprom in the development of the massive Shtokman gas field. And he is setting up pipeline corridors to provide gas to Turkey and the Balkans... with the intention of severing the Transatlantic Alliance and, eventually, loosening America’s vice-like grip on the continent...

Last week Russia announced the suspension the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) in retaliation for Bush’s plans to put missile defense system into Poland and Czechoslovakia... [T]he expansion of NATO is a crucial part of the neocon plan for controlling the world’s dwindling resources; ...[and] NATO has pushed itself into Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. But to what advantage? Putin will never allow NATO in Ukraine or Georgia---even if it means turning off the gas spigot and letting Europe freeze to death in the dark...

Russia and the US are bitterly divided on the issue of Kosovo independence... Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin was uncharacteristically outspoken in his rejection ... When he was asked by a reporter about the likelihood of the Kosovo independence”, Churkin growled, “The chances of that are nothing.”...[ Russia opposes weakening] Serbia by splitting it up and making it more accessible to foreign interests...

[A] special report titled “The New North Atlantic Strategy for the Black Sea Region”, prepared by the German Marshall Fund of the United States on the occasion of the NATO summit, already refers to Black Sea and South Caucasus (Transcaucasia) as a “new Euro-Atlantic borderland plagued by Soviet-legacy conflicts... on the new border of an enlarging West.” ... Azerbaijan and Georgia in tandem, the report notes, provide a unique transit corridor for Caspian energy to Europe, as well as an irreplaceable corridor for American-led and NATO to bases and operation theatres in Central Asia and the Greater Middle East.”...

Putin is not America’s enemy. He is a fierce nationalist who has led his country out of depression and anarchy into prosperity and resurgent patriotism. He has stabilized the ruble, consolidated his regional power, and elevated the standard of living for every class of Russians. The Russian Federation now has the third largest FOREX reserves, the largest natural gas deposits, and—on many days—provides more oil to foreign markets than Saudi Arabia. The country has regained its international prestige and it has become a force for peace and stability in the region...

America’s preeminence in the world depends to great extend on its ability to control the global economic system. That system requires that the dollar continue to be linked to oil reserves. But everywhere the petrodollar is under attack. The only solution is to control two-thirds of the world’s remaining petroleum –which is in the Caspian Basin—and demand payment in dollars...

We need to extend the olive branch to Russia and prepare for the inevitable shifting of world power...

For the complete article, please go to:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18036.htm

Iraqi Oil Belongs to .....?

So much for the "benchmarks."

Secret Report: No Iraq Oil Deal by September

July 20, 2007 8:45 AM
Brian Ross Reports:

A confidential intelligence report prepared for U.S. officials this week concludes a key U.S. benchmark of progress in Iraq, a law to divide oil revenues equitably among the provinces, "will not be agreed by September, even if cosmetic legislation is put in place."

An agreement on how to divide oil profits among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish areas is one of 18 key benchmarks of progress to be reviewed by the U.S. in September.

More than 90 percent of Iraq's revenue comes from the export of oil.

But the report, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, says the issues the three sides are too far apart to agree on are the "role of foreign companies in the oil sector" and the division of the oil profits.

The report also includes a grim assessment of the possibility of an increase of oil output in Iraq despite its huge reserves.

It concludes that security in Iraq is so unstable "it is unlikely that any major foreign oil company will be able to invest in Iraq during 2008 (unless they are heavily underwritten by the U.S. government)."

The report says the Kurds favor foreign oil companies playing a larger role, but that is opposed by many Shi'a in the south "because of a fear they will lose control of their assets to outsiders."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/secret-report-n.html

Iraq unions vow 'mutiny' over oil law

United Press International

Published: July 20, 2007

BAGHDAD, July 20 (UPI) -- Iraq's unions say the draft oil law is a threat and threaten "mutiny" if Parliament approves the bill.

"This law cancels the great achievements of the Iraq people," Subhi al-Badri, head of the Iraqi Federation of Union Councils, told the al-Sharqiyah TV station. He referred specifically to laws that nationalized Iraq's oil sector.

Iraq holds 115 billion barrels of proven reserves, the third largest in the world, and likely much more when the country is fully explored.

It could produce more than the 2 million barrels per day, and many are pushing the oil law as a means of solidifying investment in the sector. The law, as drafted, allows for foreign access to the oil, a line that must not be crossed, the oil unions say.

They have threatened to strike in the past -- and made good on the threat as recently as last month -- and claim workers of all sectors support them.

That was verified by Badri's interview, as reported by the Middle East Economic Survey.

"If the Iraqi Parliament approves this law, we will resort to mutiny," he said. "This law is a bomb that may kill everyone. Iraqi oil does not belong to any certain side. It belongs to all future generations." The law is stuck in negotiations with various parties demanding either a strong regional/local control over the oil sector vs. a strong federal government control.
http://www.upi.com/Energy/Briefing/2007/07/20/iraq_unions_vow_mutiny_over_oil_law

In a subsequent story, UPI Energy Watch, tells us that on July 25 the Iraq Parliament approved a law privatizing new construction of Iraq oil refineries.

Analysis: Iraq oil refineries go private

Published: July 26, 2007 at 2:22 PM
By BEN LANDOUPI, Energy CorrespondentWASHINGTON, July 26 (UPI) --

Iraq's Parliament has approved a law privatizing the country's oil-refining sector in order to lure investment and stem a fuel shortage.

... The refinery law is not the same as the highly contested oil law, stuck in Parliament, which would govern access to and development of Iraq's vast oil reserves...

"This is a law that will privatize the refining sector in Iraq and allow the private sector, whether it's local or international investments, to be able to invest in refining activities in Iraq, including building refineries," [Oil Minister Hussain] Shahristani said. ...

For the complete story. please go to:

http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/07/26/analysis_iraq_oil_refineries_go_private/2001/

Peter Galbraith - " The War Is Lost"

The following article by Peter Galbraith will appear in the August 16th issue of The New York Times Review of books, and has been posted on line, with permission, at http://www.tomdispatch.com/.

To quote Tomdispatch: "Former ambassador Peter Galbraith, author of The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End,.. vividly lays out the dismal state of Iraq and the various catastrophes likely to flow from most of the major "benchmarks" established by the Bush administration and Congress, if they were ever to become reality. He also briefly makes the case for an American responsibility for "preserving Kurdistan's democracy," one that must be taken with great seriousness."

I will try to capture the flavor of this excellent and informative article in my long excerpt, but I urge everyone to go the complete version posted at: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174821/peter_galbraith_the_war_is_lost

--- PdeM ---

The War Is Lost

by

Peter Galbraith

On May 30, the Coalition held a ceremony in the Kurdistan town of Erbil to mark its handover of security in Iraq's three Kurdish provinces from the Coalition to the Iraqi government... In fact, nothing was handed over. The only Coalition force in Kurdistan is the peshmerga, a disciplined army that fought alongside the Americans in the 2003 campaign to oust Saddam Hussein and is loyal to the Kurdistan government in Erbil. The peshmerga provided security in the three Kurdish provinces before the handover and after. The Iraqi army has not been on Kurdistan's territory since 1996 and is effectively prohibited from being there. Nor did the Iraqi flag fly at the ceremony. It is banned in Kurdistan.

Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, attended the ceremony alongside Kurdistan's prime minister, Nechirvan Barzani, but the Iraqi government had no part in supervising the nonexistent handover... Mowaffak al-Rubaie acknowledged Kurdistan's distinct nature and the right of the Kurds -- approximately six million people, or some 20% of Iraq's population -- to chart their own course...

The developments in Anbar are more significant. Tribesmen who had been attacking U.S. troops in support of the insurgency are now taking U.S. weapons to fight al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremists. Unfortunately, the Sunni fundamentalists are not the only enemy of these new U.S.-sponsored militias. The Sunni tribes also regard Iraq's Shiite-led government as an enemy, and the U.S. appears now to be in the business of arming both the Sunni and Shiite factions in what has long since become a civil war...

Congress has, by law, linked US strategy on Iraq and financial support of the Iraqi government to progress on these benchmarks and other steps. Iraq's government has not met one of the benchmarks, and, with the exception of the revenue-sharing law, most are unlikely to happen. But even if they were all enacted, it would not help. Provincial elections will make Iraq less governable while the process of constitutional revision could break the country apart...

Congress and the administration have expressed frustration that the ban on public service by ex-Baathists has not been relaxed,...

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim leads the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC, previously known as SCIRI), which is Iraq's leading Shiite party and a critical component of Prime Minister al-Maliki's coalition. He is the sole survivor of eight brothers. During Saddam's rule Baathists executed six of them... Moqtada al-Sadr, Hakim's main rival, comes from Iraq's other prominent Shiite religious family. Saddam's Baath regime murdered his father and two brothers in 1999.... De-Baathification is an intensely personal issue for Iraq's two most powerful Shiite political leaders, as it is to hundreds of thousands of their followers who suffered similar atrocities.

Iraq's Shiite leaders are reluctant to spend reconstruction money in Sunni areas because they believe, not without reason, that such funds support the Sunni side in the civil war...

Iraq's mainstream Shiite leaders resist holding new provincial elections because... the Sunnis boycotted the January 2005 elections so they do not control the northern governorate, or province, of Nineveh, in which there is a Sunni majority, and they are not represented in governorates with mixed populations, such as Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad. New elections would, it is argued, give Sunnis a greater voice in the places where they live,...

The American benchmark of holding provincial elections would also require new elections in southern Iraq and Baghdad. If they were held, al-Hakim's Shiite party, the SIIC, which now controls seven of the nine southern governorates, would certainly lose ground to Moqtada al-Sadr. His main base is in Baghdad and new elections would almost certainly leave his followers in control of Baghdad Governorate, with one quarter of Iraq's population...

New local elections are not required until 2009 and it is hard to see how early elections strengthening al-Sadr, who is hostile to the U.S. and appears to have close ties to Iran, serve American interests. But this is precisely what the Bush administration is pushing for and Congress seems to want.

Constitutional revision is the most significant benchmark and it could break Iraq apart. Iraq's constitution, approved by 79% of voters in an October 2005 referendum, is the product of a Kurdish–Shiite deal: the Kurds supported the establishment of a Shiite-led government in exchange for Shiite support for a confederal arrangement in which Kurdistan and other regions like the one SIIC hopes to set up in the south, are virtually independent...

The Iraqi Parliament's mainly Arab Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) is considering amendments that would strip Kurdistan of many of its powers... and this could push tense Sunni–Kurdish relations into open conflict...

For the most part, Iraq's leaders are not personally stubborn or uncooperative. They find it impossible to reach agreement on the benchmarks because their constituents don't agree on any common vision for Iraq... But even if Iraq's politicians could agree to the benchmarks, this wouldn't end the insurgency or the civil war. Sunni insurgents object to Iraq being run by Shiite religious parties, which they see as installed by the Americans, loyal to Iran, and wanting to define Iraq in a way that excludes the Sunnis. Sunni fundamentalists consider the Shiites apostates who deserve death, not power. The Shiites believe that their democratic majority and their historical suffering under the Baathist dictatorship entitle them to rule... The differences are fundamental and cannot be papered over by sharing oil revenues, reemploying ex-Baathists, or revising the constitution. The war is not about those things...

Iraq's Shiite-led government is in no danger of losing the civil war to al-Qaeda, or a more inclusive Sunni front. Iraq's Shiites are three times as numerous as Iraq's Sunni Arabs; they dominate Iraq's military and police and have a powerful ally in neighboring Iran. The Arab states that might support the Sunnis are small, far away (vast deserts separate the inhabited parts of Jordan and Saudi Arabia from the main Iraqi population centers), and can only provide money, something the insurgency has in great amounts already.

Iraq after an American defeat will look very much like Iraq today -- a land divided along ethnic lines into Arab and Kurdish states with a civil war being fought within its Arab part. Defeat is defined by America's failure to accomplish its objective of a self-sustaining, democratic, and unified Iraq. And that failure has already taken place, along with the increase of Iranian power in the region...

We need to recognize ... that Iraq no longer exists as a unified country. In the parts where we can accomplish nothing, we should withdraw. But there are still three missions that may be achievable -- disrupting al-Qaeda, preserving Kurdistan's democracy, and limiting Iran's increasing domination. These can all be served by a modest U.S. presence in Kurdistan. We need an Iraq policy with sufficient nuance to protect American interests...

Peter W. Galbraith, a former US Ambassador to Croatia, is Senior Diplomatic Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and a principal at the Windham Resources Group, a firm that negotiates on behalf of its clients in post-conflict societies, including Iraq. His The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End is now out in paperback .

For the complete article, please go to:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174821/peter_galbraith_the_war_is_lost

Media Backtracks on Iran’s Anti-Israel “Threat”

One of the most persistent and deliberate propaganda mis-quotes of our sorry adventures in the Middle East reiterates again and again that Iranian President Ahmadinejad intends to destroy Israel, to "wipe Israel off the face of the map." What he actually said was, “The Imam [Khomenei] said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,”

That is quite a difference! One calls for genocide and the other speaks of historical evolution. The most complete account of how this twisted propaganda took on a life of it's own can be found below.

--- PdeM ---

Caught Red-Handed:

Media Backtracks on Iran’s Anti-Israel “Threat”

by Arash Norouzi / July 17th, 2007

For close to two years, the media has stubbornly clung to a long discredited story about the Iranian President’s alleged threat to “destroy Israel” with nuclear weapons Iran doesn’t have and denies any intent to acquire. ‘Wiped off the map, wiped off the map,’ they bleat incessantly, even though his actual words, “The Imam [Khomenei] said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,” ...

Yet the rumor persists. Top respected journalists, advocates for peace and dialogue with Iran, and individual Iranians themselves bring up the misquote regularly, as do noted Iranian-American scholars. The media’s constant drumbeat has even duped top world leaders into believing the myth...

In 2006, British Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted on Sky TV his complete ignorance of the British-American coup [in 1952 that overthrew the popularly elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh] which caused Iran’s young democracy to vanish from the page of time, claiming that he had never even heard of Mossadegh. But in a speech given the same year, Blair warned ominously, “Iran’s President has called for Israel to be—and I quote—“wiped off the map.” And he’s trying to acquire a nuclear weapon.” Yes, the most powerful man in Britain has never even heard of the monumental 1953 coup—one of the most significant events of the 20th century—which his own country helped carry out, yet a mistranslated sound bite and an unproven suspicion about Iran’s nuclear intentions, that he knows...

And yet suddenly, after all this hoopla, at least two of the biggest media titans, the BBC and the Associated Press, appear to be backing away from the incorrect “wiped off the map” quotation they’ve been drilling into people’s minds for so long. It’s happening quietly and undemonstratively, but some recent subtle changes in their presentation indicate a tacit acknowledgement of their previous misreporting...

For the complete article, please go to:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/caught-red-handed-media-backtracks-on-irans-anti-israel-threat/

National Intelligence Estimate - What it Does NOT Say

The National Intelligence Estimate:

The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland

Before going into a tizzy over what the NIE' is supposed to have said, it is worthwhile reading the Explanation of Estimative Language on the page preceding the "Key Judgements." The NIE's writers clearly state:

"When we use such words as 'we judge' or 'we assess' --terms we use synonymously -- as well as 'we estimate,' 'likely,' or 'indicate' ... 'these assessments are based on fragmentary information and are not a fact, proof, or knowledge... we do not have direct evidence that shows something to be a fact.'"

Keep in mind that this document was finally concluded on June 21st after two years of research and was extensively vetted by the White House. It is only now made public in this truncated version. The entire non-classified release of the NIE is printed below and I have highlighted words and phrases of particular interest.
---PdeM ---

National Intelligence Estimate in full text.

Key Judgments

We judge the US Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, especially al-Qa’ida, driven by their undiminished intent to attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities.

We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa’ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11.

These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.

• We are concerned, however, that this level of international cooperation may wane…… as 9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of the threat diverge. Al-Qa’ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities.

We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qa’ida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qa’ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.

• As a result, we judge that the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment.
We assess that al-Qa’ida will continue to enhance its capabilities to attack the Homeland through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups. Of note, we assess that al-Qa’ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland.

In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks.

We assess that al-Qa’ida’s Homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the US population. The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices, and is innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles.

• We assess that al-Qa’ida will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability.

We assess Lebanese Hizballah, which has conducted anti-US attacks outside the United States in the past, may be more likely to consider attacking the Homeland over the next three years if it perceives the United States as posing a direct threat to the group or Iran.

We assess that the spread of radical—especially Salafi—Internet sites, increasingly aggressive anti-US rhetoric and actions, and the growing number of radical, self-generating cells in Western countries indicate that the radical and violent segment of the West’s Muslim population is expanding, including in the United States. The arrest and prosecution by US law enforcement of a small number of violent Islamic extremists inside the United States—who are becoming more connected ideologically, virtually, and/or in a physical sense to the global extremist movement—points to the possibility that others may become sufficiently radicalized that they will view the use of violence here as legitimate.

We assess that this internal Muslim terrorist threat is not likely to be as severe as it is in Europe, however.

We assess that other, non-Muslim terrorist groups—often referred to as “single-issue” groups by the FBI—probably will conduct attacks over the next three years given their violent histories, but we assess this violence is likely to be on a small scale.

We assess that globalization trends and recent technological advances will continue to enable even small numbers of alienated people to find and connect with one another, justify and intensify their anger, and mobilize resources to attack—all without requiring a centralized terrorist organization, training camp, or leader.

• The ability to detect broader and more diverse terrorist plotting in this environment will challenge current US defensive efforts and the tools we use to detect and disrupt plots. It will also require greater understanding of how suspect activities at the local level relate to strategic threat information and how best to identify indicators of terrorist activity in the midst of legitimate interactions.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf

The Struggle Over Iraq's Oil Law

Understandably the Iraqis don't want to hand over their oil wealth to multinational corporations. Furthermore, all the pious talk about the need for investment in Iraq's crumbling oil infrastructure is only a circumlocution of the real intent -- to control Iraq's oil wealth within the Western corporate economic model by insisting on Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) with international oil companies.

Iran may hold the key to an alternate solution for Iraq's oil -- a revenue-sharing "Capitol Partnership," a system of financing that has been used for over 1000 years in the Muslim world. This is explained in one of the articles below, and it would completely cut out the big oil companies.
---PdeM ---

Benchmark Boogie:

A Guide to the Struggle Over Iraq's Oil

By Antonia Juhasz, AlterNet. Posted July 14, 2007.

...The U.S. State Department Iraq Study Group began laying the foundations for the new law prior to the invasion of Iraq. Its recommendations, released only after the invasion, were quickly enshrined in a draft oil law introduced to the interim Iraqi government by the U.S.-appointed interim prime minister of Iraq, Ayad Allawi (a former CIA operative)...

The law would change Iraq's oil system from a nationalized model -- all but closed to U.S. oil companies -- to a privatized model open to foreign corporate control. At least two-thirds of Iraq's oil would be open to foreign oil companies under terms that they usually only dream about, including 30-year-long contracts...[production Sharing Agreements or PSA]

The president explained that the surge would be successful where other U.S. efforts had failed in Iraq because the Iraqi government would be held to a set of specific "benchmarks. Those benchmarks were laid out in a White House Fact Sheet released the same day that explained that the Iraq government had committed to several economic and political measures, including to "enact [a] hydrocarbons law to promote investment, national unity, and reconciliation."... [this] was just about the only time that the president or anyone in the administration would use the word "investment" to describe the law. Instead, the administration would refer generally to the law's capacity to bring "national unity and reconciliation"...

With few exceptions, the American press has adopted the administration's language and continually and virtually exclusively refers to the oil law as a revenue sharing measure -- ignoring completely the fact that Iraqis would only be able to share the revenues left over after the foreign oil companies received their very sizable cut ... The cabinet signed off on the law and agreed to send it to the parliament. However, resistance in the parliament was too great, and the law was not introduced.

The Kurdistan Regional Government posted the February draft of the oil law on its website (PDF). The law has almost nothing to say about oil revenues. In fact, just three sentences of the law addressed this issue, stating that an additional law -- the "federal revenue law" -- would be required to ensure a "fair distribution" of oil revenues...

Congress required the Bush administration to report back on the status of the benchmarks by July 15. Thus, a flurry of effort erupted between the Bush administration and the Al-Maliki government in recent weeks to try to finally pass the law. Negotiations were rekindled and a new draft of the oil law was agreed to by the Iraqi cabinet on July 3 (only Arabic translations of the law have been released publicly to date)... Thus, while the law has been officially presented to the parliament, because of the extreme level of opposition, the parliament has not yet taken the measure up for consideration...

In fact, the current draft of the revenue law (PDF) seems more concerned with overcoming the resistance of the Kurdistan Regional Government to the oil law and to demonstrating movement towards its passage than to actually achieving the goal of equitable and fair distribution of oil revenues.... a newly established commission will "confirm the accuracy and fairness of distribution of revenues …" There is no standard establish for what a "fair" distribution means...

The future of the "framework hydrocarbon law" (the oil law) is very unclear. As U.S. pressure intensifies to pass the law before September 2007, the deadline established by the Supplemental, Iraqi resistance grows...

The debate in the U.S. Congress has finally shifted from "whether" to "how" to end the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But the devil may yet be in the details. We must be vigilant and demand not only that the occupation end, but as the details of withdrawal are worked out, that the requirement that Iraqis change their oil system is taken off of the table.

for the complete article, please go to:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/56672/?page=3

Iraq Oil Law

Iraqi Oil Workers' Union Founder:

U.S.-Backed Oil Law Is "Robbery"
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!. Posted July 9, 2007.

The proposed oil law facing the Iraqi cabinet would allow Western oil companies to take about 50% of all production as their share, an "obvious robbery of the Iraqi oil," says oil workers union.

Last month, the Iraqi oil workers union went on a strike to protest the law. Two leading union members recently traveled to the United States to meet with members of Congress and attend last week's US Social Forum in Atlanta.... Faleh Abood Umara, the general secretary of the Federation of Oil Unions and a founding member of the oil workers union in Iraq. He calls on Iraqi lawmakers to reject the legislation...

"The most important point or one of the most important points is our demand not to rush through the new Iraqi oil law, because we believe that this oil law does not serve the interests of the Iraqi people. "... "According to Article 111 of the Iraqi Constitution, which states that the oil and gas of Iraq are owned by the Iraqi people and they have the right to control it. But when you look into the details of the law, many of the articles of the law actually conflict with this preamble of the law, the most important point of which is the issue of the production-sharing agreements, which allows the international oil companies, especially the American ones, to exploit the oil fields without our knowledge of what they are actually doing with it. And they take about 50% of the production as their share, which we think it's an obvious robbery of the Iraqi oil." ... "In brief, there is hardly an article in the law that actually benefits the Iraqi people. But they all serve American interests in Iraq. And we know well that the law was actually written here in the United States, with the help of James Baker and Ms. Rice and the experts from the IMF. And it serves the interests of the American government and not the Iraqi people." ...

For the complete article please go to:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/56301/

And for more on how the U.S. position on Iraq and Iran is part of oil economics, the following article in the Asia Times is by Chris Cook, a former director of the International Petroleum Exchange :

It has been clear to me for some time that the [Iranian] nuclear issue is a red herring. But I confess that it had puzzled me for some time why everything except oil is going to be privatized in Iraq... Big Oil [plans] to enter 40-year Production-Sharing Agreements (PSAs) with Iraq. The deal is this: we develop your oilfields, and in return we get - for 40 years - a major share of your crude-oil production at favorable "at cost" prices. The outcome will be profits beyond the dreams of avarice [for the major oil companies].

Once these contracts are signed, of course, global institutions (backed by US policing) will ensure that they are honored, whatever happens subsequently in Iraq, and whatever countries are able to influence policy in Iraq...

To enter credible PSAs, there has to be a legitimate government in Iraq. There is none in Baghdad now by any stretch of the imagination, and which country has the power to to prevent one from being formed? That's right, it's Iran.
Simply put, US President George W Bush's chance of pulling off the Sale of the Century runs out with his term of office in 2009, and that is why we are hearing all about the need to sort out Iran's "nuclear ambitions" before then...
I believe Iran has in its power the potential for formulating a constructive solution in the region, which would demonstrate the shortcomings of the "Western" form of the free-enterprise model exemplified by the astonishing proposal to promote "investment" through PSAs.

Iran and its Arab neighbors in the Gulf Cooperation Council might pool some of the proceeds of recent energy sales and use them by investing as "capital partners" in Iraqi crude-oil production. To do this they could simply create a quasi-partnership known as an "open" corporation - legal forms exist enabling this - where Iraq is the "capital user" member, and the capital provider members/investors take their investment back not in cash but in crude oil at the current price. That is, it amounts to a forward sale of Iraqi crude oil.
So to raise the $2.5-billion-per-year investment it needs, Iraq would simply sell each year a sufficient portion of its future production at the prevailing price per barrel. That is, at $50 per barrel it would sell 50 million barrels.

This mechanism is far more equitable than the typical PSA and, in fact, such revenue-sharing "capital partnerships" have been used for thousands of years and remain at the heart of Islamic finance, notwithstanding the best efforts of the global banking system to subvert them.

You won't hear about it from a financial establishment accustomed to using the toxic combination of debt - "deficit-based" - funding - and "equity" in the form of the joint stock corporation. But it is not rocket science and is far more sensible than bombing Iran.

For the complete article, please go to:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD11Ak01.html

Destroying Ourselves

The British medical journal The Lancet estimated that 601,000 Iraqi civilians have died as the result of violence since the March 2003 invasion. Aside from the horror to the Iraqi people and the world-wide opprobrium destroying America's reputation, we need to consider what we are doing to our own population.

Over a million and a quarter military personnel have rotated through Iraq in the last few years and apparently almost as many mercenaries have been experiencing the same dehumanizing horrors of "The War on Terror." At some point these Americans will have to be reintegrated back into the peacetime population. I suspect that a large part of the Post Traumatic Shock now filling our veteran's hospitals is created by what these formerly normal young men and women found themselves doing to other human beings.

The highly vaunted "all volunteer army" of untrained kids, most of whom have little education, and fewer prospects, are being sent off as cannon fodder to feed the ambitions of the political/economic hierarchy in Washington. No thought is being given to their well being when they return, nor to their violent effect on the civilian population at home.

The long and insightful report below focuses on the population of Iraq, but I think we need to be aware of what this misguided war is doing to our own people.
--- PdeM ---

The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness
by CHRIS HEDGES & LAILA AL-ARIAN

The Nation

from the July 30, 2007 issue

Over the past several months The Nation has interviewed fifty combat veterans of the Iraq War from around the United States in an effort to investigate the effects of the four-year-old occupation on average Iraqi civilians. These combat veterans, some of whom bear deep emotional and physical scars, and many of whom have come to oppose the occupation, gave vivid, on-the-record accounts. They described a brutal side of the war rarely seen on television screens or chronicled in newspaper accounts.

Their stories, recorded and typed into thousands of pages of transcripts, reveal disturbing patterns of behavior by American troops in Iraq. Dozens of those interviewed witnessed Iraqi civilians, including children, dying from American firepower. Some participated in such killings; others treated or investigated civilian casualties after the fact. Many also heard such stories, in detail, from members of their unit. The soldiers, sailors and marines emphasized that not all troops took part in indiscriminate killings. Many said that these acts were perpetrated by a minority. But they nevertheless described such acts as common and said they often go unreported--and almost always go unpunished...

Veterans said the culture of this counterinsurgency war, in which most Iraqi civilians were assumed to be hostile, made it difficult for soldiers to sympathize with their victims--at least until they returned home and had a chance to reflect... From these collected snapshots a common theme emerged. Fighting in densely populated urban areas has led to the indiscriminate use of force and the deaths at the hands of occupation troops of thousands of innocents... Many of these veterans returned home deeply disturbed by the disparity between the reality of the war and the way it is portrayed by the US government and American media. The war the vets described is a dark and even depraved enterprise, one that bears a powerful resemblance to other misguided and brutal colonial wars and occupations, from the French occupation of Algeria to the American war in Vietnam and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory....

These attitudes reflect the limited contact occupation troops said they had with Iraqis. They rarely saw their enemy. They lived bottled up in heavily fortified compounds that often came under mortar attack. They only ventured outside their compounds ready for combat. The mounting frustration of fighting an elusive enemy and the devastating effect of roadside bombs, with their steady toll of American dead and wounded, led many troops to declare an open war on all Iraqis... "The frustration that resulted from our inability to get back at those who were attacking us led to tactics that seemed designed simply to punish the local population that was supporting them," ...

In the sections that follow, snipers, medics, military police, artillerymen, officers and others recount their experiences serving in places as diverse as Mosul in the north, Samarra in the Sunni Triangle, Nasiriya in the south and Baghdad in the center, during 2003, 2004 and 2005. Their stories capture the impact of their units on Iraqi civilians... During the course of the interview process, five veterans turned over photographs from Iraq, some of them graphic, to corroborate their claims...

Raids normally took place between midnight and 5 am, according to Sgt. John Bruhns, 29, of Philadelphia, who estimates that he took part in raids of nearly 1,000 Iraqi homes... The American forces, stymied by poor intelligence, invade neighborhoods where insurgents operate, bursting into homes in the hope of surprising fighters or finding weapons. But such catches, they said, are rare. Far more common were stories in which soldiers assaulted a home, destroyed property in their futile search and left terrorized civilians struggling to repair the damage and begin the long torment of trying to find family members who were hauled away as suspects...

Fifteen soldiers we spoke with told us the information that spurred these raids was typically gathered through human intelligence--and that it was usually incorrect. Eight said it was common for Iraqis to use American troops to settle family disputes, tribal rivalries or personal vendettas...

American troops in Iraq lacked the training and support to communicate with or even understand Iraqi civilians, according to nineteen interviewees. Few spoke or read Arabic. They were offered little or no cultural or historical education about the country they controlled. Translators were either in short supply or unqualified. Any stereotypes about Islam and Arabs that soldiers and marines arrived with tended to solidify rapidly in the close confines of the military and the risky streets of Iraqi cities into a crude racism... "a lot of guys really supported that whole concept that, you know, if they don't speak English and they have darker skin, they're not as human as us, so we can do what we want."... Iraqi culture, identity and customs were, according to at least a dozen soldiers and marines interviewed by The Nation, openly ridiculed in racist terms, with troops deriding "haji food," "haji music" and "haji homes." In the Muslim world, the word "haji" denotes someone who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca. But it is now used by American troops in the same way "gook" was used in Vietnam or "raghead" in Afghanistan... "It becomes this racialized hatred towards Iraqis." And this racist language, as Specialist Harmon pointed out, likely played a role in the level of violence directed at Iraqi civilians. "By calling them names," he said, "they're not people anymore. They're just objects."...

Two dozen soldiers interviewed said that this callousness toward Iraqi civilians was particularly evident in the operation of supply convoys--operations in which they participated... These convoys, ubiquitous in Iraq, were also, to many Iraqis, sources of wanton destruction. --when these columns of vehicles left their heavily fortified compounds they usually roared down the main supply routes, which often cut through densely populated areas, reaching speeds over sixty miles an hour. Governed by the rule that stagnation increases the likelihood of attack, convoys leapt meridians in traffic jams, ignored traffic signals, swerved without warning onto sidewalks, scattering pedestrians, and slammed into civilian vehicles, shoving them off the road. Iraqi civilians, including children, were frequently run over and killed. Veterans said they sometimes shot drivers of civilian cars that moved into convoy formations or attempted to pass convoys as a warning to other drivers to get out of the way... Convoys did not slow down or attempt to brake when civilians inadvertently got in front of their vehicles, according to the veterans who described them...

Soldiers and marines who participated in neighborhood patrols said they often used the same tactics as convoys--speed, aggressive firing--to reduce the risk of being ambushed or falling victim to IEDs. Sgt. Patrick Campbell, 29, of Camarillo, California, who frequently took part in patrols, said his unit fired often and without much warning on Iraqi civilians in a desperate bid to ward off attacks. "Every time we got on the highway," he said, "we were firing warning shots, causing accidents all the time. Cars screeching to a stop, going into the other intersection.... "The first Iraqi I saw killed was an Iraqi who got too close to our patrol," he said. "We were coming up an on-ramp. And he was coming down the highway. And they fired warning shots and he just didn't stop. He just merged right into the convoy and they opened up on him."...

Indeed, several troops said the rules of engagement were fluid and designed to insure their safety above all else. Some said they were simply told they were authorized to shoot if they felt threatened, and what constituted a risk to their safety was open to wide interpretation... "Cover your own butt was the first rule of engagement," Lieutenant Van Engelen confirmed. "Someone could look at me the wrong way and I could claim my safety was in threat." ... "We didn't get straight-up rules," he said. "You got things like, 'Don't be aggressive' or 'Try not to shoot if you don't have to.' Well, what does that mean?"...

"As an American, you just put your hand up with your palm towards somebody and your fingers pointing to the sky," said Sergeant Jefferies, who was responsible for supplying fixed checkpoints in Diyala twice a day. "That means stop to most Americans, and that's a military hand signal that soldiers are taught that means stop. Closed fist, please freeze, but an open hand means stop. That's a sign you make at a checkpoint. To an Iraqi person, that means, Hello, come here. So you can see the problem that develops real quick. So you get on a checkpoint, and the soldiers think they're saying stop, stop, and the Iraqis think they're saying come here, come here. And the soldiers start hollering, so they try to come there faster. So soldiers holler more, and pretty soon you're shooting pregnant women." ...

Last September, Senator Patrick Leahy, then ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, called a Pentagon report on its procedures for recording civilian casualties in Iraq "an embarrassment." "It totals just two pages," Leahy said, "and it makes clear that the Pentagon does very little to determine the cause of civilian casualties or to keep a record of civilian victims." ... Iraqi physicians, overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health, published a study late last year in the British medical journal The Lancet that estimated that 601,000 civilians have died since the March 2003 invasion as the result of violence...

"It just gets frustrating," Specialist Reppenhagen said. "Instead of blaming your own command for putting you there in that situation, you start blaming the Iraqi people.... So it's a constant psychological battle to try to, you know, keep--to stay humane." ..."I felt like there was this enormous reduction in my compassion for people," said Sergeant Flanders. "The only thing that wound up mattering is myself and the guys that I was with. And everybody else be damned."

For the complete report, please go to:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges

As in past posts, I am asking the reader to let the people of the countries directly affected by U.S. actions speak for themselves. In this case, the writer is is one of the leaders of Hamas. The cant and spin and propaganda of the popular media leaves us all with warped and manipulated ideas about what is really happening on the ground. In a very rare instance, and one for which they should be commended, the Los Angeles Times today let an "enemy" state his case about Palestine in his own words.
---PdeM ---

Hamas' stand

By MOUSA ABU MARZOOK

Deputy of the political bureau of Hamas,

the Islamic Resistance Movement.

An official of the movement describes its goals for all of Palestine.

Damascus, Syria — July 10, 2007. HAMAS' rescue of a BBC journalist from his captors in Gaza last week was surely cause for rejoicing. But I want to be clear about one thing: We did not deliver up Alan Johnston as some obsequious boon to Western powers. It was done as part of our effort to secure Gaza from the lawlessness of militias and violence, no matter what the source. Gaza will be calm and under the rule of law — a place where all journalists, foreigners and guests of the Palestinian people will be treated with dignity...

Hamas has never supported attacks on Westerners, as even our harshest critics will concede; our struggle has always been focused on the occupier and our legal resistance to it — a right of occupied people that is explicitly supported by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Yet our movement is continually linked by President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to ideologies that they know full well we do not follow, such as the agenda of Al Qaeda and its adherents. But we are not part of a broader war. Our resistance struggle is no one's proxy, although we welcome the support of people everywhere for justice in Palestine. ...

I am forever asked to concede the recognition of Israel's putative "right to exist" as a necessary precondition to discussing grievances, and to renounce positions found in the Islamic Resistance Movement's charter of 1988, an essentially revolutionary document born of the intolerable conditions under occupation more than 20 years ago. The sticking point of "recognition" has been used as a litmus test to judge Palestinians .. .

Israel, which has never formally adopted a constitution of its own, but rather operates through the slow accretion of Basic Laws, declares itself explicitly to be a state for the Jews, conferring privileged status based on faith in a land where millions of occupants are Arabs, Muslims and Christians.

The writings of Israel's "founders" — from Herzl to Jabotinsky to Ben Gurion — make repeated calls for the destruction of Palestine's non-Jewish inhabitants: "We must expel the Arabs and take their places." A number of political parties today control blocs in the Israeli Knesset, while advocating for the expulsion of Arab citizens from Israel and the rest of Palestine, envisioning a single Jewish state from the Jordan to the sea. Yet I hear no clamor in the international community for Israel to repudiate these words as a necessary precondition for any discourse whatsoever...

I, for one, do not trouble myself over "recognizing" Israel's right to exist — this is not, after all, an epistemological problem; Israel does exist... This is a mere distraction when so many are dying or have lived as prisoners for two generations in refugee camps. As I write these words, Israeli forays into Gaza have killed another 15 people, including a child. Who but a Jacobin dares to discuss the "rights" of nations in the face of such relentless state violence against an occupied population? ...

For the complete article, please go to:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-marzook10jul10,0,1675308.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why things are going so badly!
--- PdeM ---

Private contractors outnumber U.S. troops in Iraq

New U.S. data show how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of the war-torn nation.

By T. Christian Miller, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, July 4, 2007

The number of U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, newly released figures show, raising fresh questions about the privatization of the war effort and the government's capacity to carry out military and rebuilding campaigns. More than 180,000 civilians — including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis — are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense department figures...

The total number of private contractors, far higher than previously reported, shows how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of Iraq —

But there are also signs that even those mounting numbers may not capture the full picture. Private security contractors, who are hired to protect government officials and buildings, were not fully counted in the survey, according to industry and government officials.Continuing uncertainty over the numbers of armed contractors drew special criticism from military experts. "We don't have control of all the coalition guns in Iraq. That's dangerous for our country," said William Nash, a retired Army general and reconstruction expert. The Pentagon "is hiring guns. You can rationalize it all you want, but that's obscene."...

Adding an element of potential confusion, no single agency keeps track of the number or location of contractors...

The companies with the largest number of employees are foreign firms in the Middle East that subcontract to KBR, the Houston-based oil services company, according to the Central Command database. KBR, once a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., provides logistics support to troops, the single largest contract in Iraq...

The most controversial contractors are those working for private security companies, including Blackwater, Triple Canopy and Erinys. They guard sensitive sites and provide protection to U.S. and Iraqi government officials and businessmen. Security contractors draw some of the sharpest criticism, much of it from military policy experts who say their jobs should be done by the military.

On several occasions, heavily armed private contractors have engaged in firefights when attacked by Iraqi insurgents. Others worry that the private security contractors lack accountability. Although scores of troops have been prosecuted for serious crimes, only a handful of private security contractors have faced legal charges...

For the complete story, please go to:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-private4jul04,1,277453.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

A Few days ago I wrote to my Senator Barbara Boxer (D- CA) about reestablishing habeas corpus rights for all persons detained by the United States. This is her reply to me.
--PdeM --

Dear Mrs. de Maigret:

Thank you for contacting me to express your desire to see habeas corpus reinstated for those detained by the United States . I appreciate hearing from you, and I strongly agree with you.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized habeas corpus as "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action." The principle of habeas corpus permits an accused person to challenge whether his or her imprisonment is lawful. This 900-year-old legal standard was effectively violated by the Bush Administration's Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Reestablishing habeas corpus rights for those persons detained by the United States is critical to repairing the damage that has been caused by the Bush Administration's harmful and misguided detention policies. That is why I am co-sponsoring S.185, the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act. This bipartisan legislation would repeal provisions of the Military Commissions Act that currently deny habeas corpus rights to those detained by the United States .

I am also co-sponsoring S.576, the Restoring the Constitution Act. Introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) on February 13, 2007, this comprehensive legislation would restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States, ban evidence gained through torture, and reaffirm America's commitment to the Geneva Conventions.

Be assured that I will continue to fight for tough anti-terrorist legislation that is consistent with American military doctrine and our nation's guiding principles of fairness and justice. Thank you again for your letter and for caring deeply about this critical matter.

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Please visit my website at http://boxer.senate.gov

In the U.S. we haven't given much thought to the necessary balance of public/private responsibilities. The present administration believes in private sector efficiency (and the profit-making potential) to the exclusion of all else. But, are there certain areas where profit should not be the primary factor -- or even be factored in at all? R.J. Hillhouse argues persuasively that National Intelligence is one of them.
--- PdeM ---

Who Runs the CIA?

Outsiders for Hire.

By R.J. Hillhouse

The Washington Post

Sunday, July 8, 2007;

Red alert: Our national security is being outsourced.

The most intriguing secrets of the "war on terror" have nothing to do with al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers. They're about the mammoth private spying industry that all but runs U.S. intelligence operations today.

Surprised? No wonder. In April, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell was poised to publicize a year-long examination of outsourcing by U.S. intelligence agencies. But the report was inexplicably delayed -- and suddenly classified a national secret. What McConnell doesn't want you to know is that the private spy industry has succeeded where no foreign government has: It has penetrated the CIA and is running the show. ...

Private companies now perform key intelligence-agency functions, to the tune, I'm told, of more than $42 billion a year. Intelligence professionals tell me that more than 50 percent of the National Clandestine Service (NCS) -- the heart, brains and soul of the CIA -- has been outsourced to private firms such as Abraxas, Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon... more than half the workforce in two key CIA stations in the fight against terrorism -- Baghdad and Islamabad, Pakistan -- is made up of industrial contractors, or "green badgers," in CIA parlance...

As the center of gravity shifts from the public sector to the private, more than one independent intelligence firm has developed plans to "raise" succeeding generations of officers within its own training systems. These corporate-grown agents will be inculcated with corporate values and ethics, not those of public service...

Today, when Booz Allen Hamilton loses a contract to SAIC, people rush from one to the other in a game of musical chairs, with not enough chairs for all the workers who possess both the highest security clearances and expertise in the art of espionage. Some inevitably lose out. Any good counterintelligence officer knows what can happen next. Down-on-their-luck spies begin to do what spies do best: spy. Other companies offer them jobs in exchange for industry secrets. Foreign governments approach them. And some day, terrorists will clue in to this potential workforce...

For the complete article, please go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/06/AR2007070601993.html?nav=rss_print/outlook

Declaration of Independence From Israel

This excellent, wide ranging and informative story takes on an American taboo -- the power of the Jewish Lobby -- and explains the consequences of this country's unwillingness to confront a formidable power block that puts the best interests of a foreign state ahead of the U.S.
---PdeM ---

It’s Time for a Declaration of Independence From Israel

By Chris Hedges

Posted on Jul 2, 2007

Israel, without the United States, would probably not exist. The country came perilously close to extinction during the October 1973 war... Huge American military transport planes came to the rescue... By the time the war was over, the United States had given Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid.

The intervention, which enraged the Arab world, triggered the OPEC oil embargo that for a time wreaked havoc on Western economies. This was perhaps the most dramatic example of the sustained life-support system the United States has provided to the Jewish state...

An increasingly sophisticated and well-financed Israel lobby that set out to merge Israeli and American foreign policy in the Middle East. Israel has reaped tremendous rewards from this alliance. It has been given more than $140 billion in U.S. direct economic and military assistance. It receives about $3 billion in direct assistance annually, roughly one-fifth of the U.S. foreign aid budget...

It is exempt, unlike other nations, from accounting for how it spends the aid money. And funds are routinely siphoned off to build new Jewish settlements, bolster the Israeli occupation in the Palestinian territories and construct the security barrier, which costs an estimated $1 million a mile...

The United States also gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its NATO allies. And when Israel refused to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, the United States stood by without a word of protest as the Israelis built the region’s first nuclear weapons program...

It refuses to enforce the Security Council resolutions it claims to support. These resolutions call on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. There is now volcanic anger and revulsion by Arabs at this blatant favoritism. Few in the Middle East see any distinction between Israeli and American policies, nor should they. And when the Islamic radicals speak of U.S. support of Israel as a prime reason for their hatred of the United States, we should listen...

The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is unraveling. And it is doing so because of this special relationship. The eruption of a regional conflict would usher in a nightmare of catastrophic proportions...

The alliance, which makes no sense in geopolitical terms, does makes sense when seen through the lens of domestic politics. The Israel lobby has become a potent force in the American political system. No major candidate, Democrat or Republican, dares to challenge it...

Israel advocated removing Saddam Hussein from power and currently advocates striking Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons... President Bush, facing dwindling support for the war in Iraq, publicly holds Israel up as a model for what he would like Iraq to become.

"In Israel,” Bush said recently, “terrorists have taken innocent human life for years in suicide attacks. The difference is that Israel is a functioning democracy and it’s not prevented from carrying out its responsibilities. And that’s a good indicator of success that we’re looking for in Iraq.” ...

The United States, at least officially, does not support the occupation and calls for a viable Palestinian state. It is a global player, with interests that stretch well beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, and the equation that Israel’s enemies are our enemies is not that simple...

The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip...

The Bush administration turned to the far-right wing of the Israel lobby, those who have not a shred of compassion for the Palestinians or a word of criticism for Israel. These new Middle East experts include Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, the disgraced I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser...

There were several reasons for the war in Iraq. The desire for American control of oil, the belief that Washington could build puppet states in the region, and a real, if misplaced, fear of Saddam Hussein played a part in the current disaster. But it was also strongly shaped by the notion that what is good for Israel is good for the United States. Israel wanted Iraq neutralized... Israel is currently lobbying the United States to launch aerial strikes on Iran ...

It does not matter that Iran poses no threat to the United States. It does not matter that it does not even pose a threat to Israel, which has several hundred nuclear weapons in its arsenal. It matters only that Israel demands total military domination of the Middle East...

There is no longer any debate within the United States. This is evidenced by the obsequious nods to Israel by all the current presidential candidates with the exception of Dennis Kucinich. The political cost for those who challenge Israel is too high...

This means there will be no peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It means the incidents of Islamic terrorism against the U.S. and Israel will grow. It means that American power and prestige are on a steep, irreversible decline. And I fear it also means the ultimate end of the Jewish experiment in the Middle East...

for the complete article, please go to:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070702_a_declaration_of_independence_from_israel/

U.S. Plan to destroy Palestine

A secret American document surfaced over three months ago describing a collusion between the U.S., Israel, Egypt and Jordan to bring down the popularly elected government of Palestine. Hamas won the election but the U.S. and Israel, believed that they could more easily influence the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his unpopular Fatah faction. A reluctant Unity Government was cobbled together, but the U.S. supplied weapons to the Security Service which was controlled by Fatah. The present civil war in Palestine is the result. Although this leaked document surfaced in the Middle East and Asia, it saw little media coverage in the U.S. which is no surprise.

The purpose of the exercise is not only to get a compliant government that will negotiate indefinitely but to completely drive the Palestinians off their land. Little by little the Israelis are succeeding in creating facts-on-the-ground through more settlements and confiscation of land. Hamas understands this and refuses to fall into the trap.
--- PdeM ---

Document details 'US' plan to sink Hamas

By Mark Perry and Paul Woodward

The Asia Times

A 16-page secret document, an "Action Plan for the Palestinian Presidency" called for undermining and replacing the Palestinian national-unity government. The document outlined steps that would strengthen Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, build up Palestinian security forces under his command, lead to the dissolution of the Palestinian Parliament, and strengthen US allies in Fatah in a lead-up to parliamentary elections that Abbas would call for early this autumn...

The resulting "action plan" relies heavily on the disbursement of US funds to build President Abbas' security forces at the same time that it escalates the delivery of money to specific development projects affiliated with his office...

The plan envisages delivering "a strong blow to Hamas by supplying the Palestinian people with their immediate economic needs through the presidency and Fatah". At the same time, the international boycott of Hamas would stay in place and Hamas-affiliated programs would be starved of funds...

The most interesting part of the action plan is in its authors' apparent need to cover up the fact that it is being proposed by the US and its Arab - Jordanian and Egyptian - allies. The plan states that it is designed to be presented to the Palestinians as something for them to support and to obtain the agreement of the United States and the Arab quartet, as a first step. This would give Israel and the Europeans assurance that Abbas is taking the lead. The deception would be complete and US hands would be clean: the "action plan" would not be a US plan to undermine the Palestinian unity government - it would be Abbas' own plan...

For the full article, please go to:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IE16Ak05.html