So you think its all just a conspiracy theory? Guess again.

ARMY VIEWS "CIVIL AFFAIRS" OPERATIONS

The crucial interactions between military forces and the civilian
environment in which they operate are the domain of "civil affairs," a
subject of urgent interest to the U.S. military in Iraq and elsewhere.

Civil affairs operations that promote cooperation between the military
and the local population help to advance the military mission.
Activities that generate friction or inspire opposition are not
helpful.

"A supportive civilian population can provide resources and information
that facilitate friendly operations. It can also provide a positive
climate for the military and diplomatic activity a nation pursues to
achieve foreign policy objectives," according to U.S. military
doctrine.

"A hostile civilian population threatens the immediate operations of
deployed friendly forces and can often undermine public support at home
for the policy objectives of the United States and its allies."

"The problem of achieving maximum civilian support and minimum civilian
interference with U.S. military operations will require the coordination
of intelligence efforts, security measures, operational efficiency, and
the intentional cultivation of goodwill."

"Failure to use CA [civil affairs] assets in the analysis of political,
economic, and social bases of instability may result in inadequate
responses to the root causes of the instability and result in the
initiation or continuation of conflict."

Earlier this month, the U.S. Army issued a revised "how-to" manual on
the conduct of civil affairs. That manual has not been approved for
public release and is not readily available. But a copy of the prior
edition from 2003 was obtained by Secrecy News.

See "Civil Affairs Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures," U.S. Army
Field Manual FM 3-05.401, September 2003 (535 pages, 16 MB PDF file):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-05-401.pdf

A more concise treatment of the same subject was given in another
recent manual. Though not approved for public release, a copy was
obtained by Secrecy News.

See "Civil Affairs Operations," U.S. Army Field Manual 3-05.40,
September 2006 (183 pages, 4 MB PDF file):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-05-40.pdf

TheStar.com - Business - $100 U.S.-a-barrel oil foreseen by late 2008 $100 U.S.-a-barrel oil foreseen by late 2008 document.write('Email story'); Email story Print Choose text size document.write('Report typo or correction'); Report typo or correction Tag and save

Jul 19, 2007 04:30 AM A "steady ascent" of crude oil prices toward $100 (U.S.) a barrel continues, but the predicted date when that level will be hit remains a moving target, according to a CIBC World Markets report yesterday.

The investment division of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce predicts "record highs of $80 a barrel this year and reaching as high as $100 a barrel by the end of 2008 as soaring oil demand outpaces growth in global supply."

However, CIBC World Markets had predicted in September 2005 that oil prices in 2007 would average $93 a barrel and reach $100 by late this year. Last February, it projected an average price of $69 for this year, down from a previously reduced expectation of $80. Oil is currently at about $75 a barrel.

Triple-digit prices "may be permanent as major oil-producing countries in the developing world reduce exports to meet soaring demand at home," the report said.

Let’s Not Kid Ourselves
The new National Intelligence Estimate is an admission of America’s strategic failure. Only by acknowledging that can we prevent a new 9/11.

W orld Prepares for Post-Bush Era
A Web-exclusive commentary
By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek

July 19, 2007 - Ironically, the most devastating admission of failure came from the president’s No. 1 advocate. When Frances Fragos Townsend, George W. Bush’s homeland security adviser, was asked this week about the resurgence of Al Qaeda detailed in the administration’s new National Intelligence Estimate, she replied: "The fact is, we were harassing them in Afghanistan, we’re harassing them in Iraq … Every time you poke the hornet’s nest, they are bound to come back and push back on you."

Harassing? Poking? That’s the best we can do? This is the small, fractious group of several thousand fighters that launched the worst-ever attack on U.S. continental soil. We knew where they were all the time: in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan (not in Iraq). We had an organization chart of the baddest of the bad: Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Mohammed Atef, Abu Zubaida. We had a lot of support around the world in pursuit of our mission to hunt these men down, kill them or capture them and do with them as we pleased; no one, after all, had much use for Al Qaeda, including much of the Arab world. Indeed, we very nearly caught Osama bin Laden only two months after 9/11, at Tora Bora. (As Gary Berntsen, the CIA officer in charge of the operation, recorded in his 2005 book "Jawbreaker," bin Laden told his followers, "Forgive me," and apologized for getting them pinned down by the Americans; but the Pentagon refused to send in more troops to encircle the trapped "sheik."). It’s nearly six years later. How is it that the mightiest economic and military power in history can’t destroy a mere hornet’s nest?

We know the answer. The needless diversion to Iraq. It’s not just that resources, money and attention were directed to Iraq long before the brutally difficult job of pacifying Afghanistan and transforming the jihadi-infested regions of Pakistan was done. (Jim Dobbins, Bush’s former special envoy to Kabul, now calls Afghanistan the "most under-resourced nation-building effort in history.") The invasion of Iraq also vindicated, in the eyes of Islamists around the world, bin Laden’s once-dubious strategic decision to confront what he’s called the "far enemy," the United States. On the eve of 9/11, according to documents obtained from Al Qaeda’s seized computers, bin Laden and his top aide, Zawahiri, had difficulty persuading their fellow jihadis that the distant superpower should be their real target. Bush ended that debate in bin Laden’s favor when, by invading Iraq for trumped-up reasons, he made the United States the "near enemy" in the Arab world. And now the merger between the old near enemy (the Sunni Arab regimes) and the new near enemy (America) is all but complete, giving Islamists a neatly defined adversary. The president’s newest conception of the global war on terror is that it is a fight that pits him and fellow "moderates" (Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah of Jordan and so on) on one side against the "extremists" (groups like Hamas and Hizbullah that have been further empowered by the president’s democracy campaign).

Bush’s profound strategic misconception of the nature of this war—abetted by many prominent pundits who to this day cannot admit they were wrong in fraudulently linking Al Qaeda to Iraq—is the main reason why a group that represented a small, extremist strain of Islam before 9/11 has now grown into a worldwide movement. Let’s not kid ourselves about that. But there is still a window for hope here. One conclusion that the National Intelligence Estimate fails to draw is that even though Al Qaeda has partially reconstituted its organizational structure, mainly in the tribal regions of Pakistan, it is not yet back to where it was pre-9/11 in terms of competence. "What the NIE totally misses is that there’s been a big decline in Al Qaeda’s human capital," says John Arquilla, an intelligence and Islamist expert at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. "When we hit Afghanistan, there were probably about 3,000 core Al Qaeda operatives. We killed or captured about 1,000; about 1,000 more end up in distant parts of world. And about 1,000 ended up in Waziristan. But the great terror university in Afghanistan is gone; they’ve relied on the Web since. They haven’t had hands-on instruction and the bonding instruction of the camps. That’s resulted in low skill levels. Their tradecraft is really much poorer. They didn’t make the bombs right in London. One cell got lost on its way to attacking the U.S. Embassy in Rabat [Morocco]. The rise of suicide attacks by foreign fighters in Iraq is also reflective of this lower skill level."

The danger, Arquilla says, is that the longer the Iraq War goes on, with America as the central enemy, the more skilled the new generations of jihadis will become. "They’re getting re-educated. The first generation of Al Qaeda came through the [Afghan] camps. The second generation are those who’ve logged on [to Islamist sites]. The next generation will be those who have come through the crucible of Iraq. Eventually, their level of skill is going to be greater than the skill of the original generation. We’re already starting to see that, for example in places of Western Africa.…"

There is only one conclusion. If we are to avoid another 9/11 some day, we must go back to square one and correct Bush’s original mistake—the disastrous strategic misconception that turned America into the "near enemy" in the Arab world. We must remove ourselves from the front lines in Iraq and stop it from becoming Al Qaeda’s new "terror university." That doesn’t argue for total withdrawal. But it does suggest that the surge must stop—and soon. Only if the United States assumes a lower profile in Iraq—retreats to its four superbases and redoubles training of the Iraqi Army—will the jihadis begin to lose their new rallying cause.

<h1 style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">HUFFINGTON POST</h1> <h1 style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">7/18/07</h1> <h1 style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"> Who are the 16 Saudis Released From Guantánamo?</h1> Andy Worthington

Following the recent announcement that 16 detainees had been returned to Saudi Arabia from Guantánamo, the world's media were swift to pick up on the story of one of these men: Juma al-Dossari, a joint Bahraini-Saudi national, who had attempted to commit suicide on at least 14 occasions in Guantánamo, and whose poignant laments -- and blood-curdling narratives of his imprisonment -- had been released to the public by his lawyers, after being declassified by the Pentagon.

But what of the other 15 detainees? After analyzing a list of names released by Arab News, liaising with lawyers and drawing on research I conducted while researching my forthcoming book, The Guantánamo Files, I can reveal that the stories of the other 15 men represent a microcosm of Guantánamo's many failures, both in terms of the sometimes spectacularly unreliable allegations against the men, which were used to justify their long detention without charge or trial, and their status as extra-legal "unpeople."

Despite the administration's attempts to create an illusion of transparency at Guantánamo, the regime is so generally inscrutable that eight of the 15 men had no legal representation at the time of their release, and had never seen any non-military personnel except representatives of the Red Cross, and the stories of three of the eight are completely unknown. Readers can Google Saud al-Mahayawi, Saad al-Zahrani and Khalid al-Zaharni and will find numerous mentions of their names and Internment Serial Numbers (ISNs) -- the dehumanizing replacements for names by which all the Guantánamo detainees are known -- but will find no other information whatsoever. Having refused to take part in any of the tribunals in Guantánamo, these men have returned to their homes as spectral as they were for 2,000 days in captivity.

Fortunately, the stories of 11 of the men are known, because they agreed to take part in the tribunals and administrative hearings that have been conducted at Guantánamo since July 2004, when, in an attempt to stave off the Supreme Court's ruling that the detainees had the right to challenge their detention in the U.S. courts, the administration introduced Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), legally corrupt alternatives to real trials and due process in which, in exchange for being able to tell their stories, they were refused legal representation, and were not allowed to see or hear classified evidence against them, which, as has steadily been revealed over the last three years, could be based on hearsay, or on false confessions obtained through bribery, coercion or torture. Released under Freedom of Information legislation in spring 2006, these transcripts -- and those of their successors, the annual Administrative Review Boards (ARBs), convened to assess whether the detainees still constitute a threat to the U.S. and its allies, or have ongoing "intelligence value" -- are often the only means by which the detainees' stories are known.

The tribunal transcripts reveal that three of the men had no connection with militancy whatsoever. Abdul Rahman al-Juad, a student who was 21-years-old at the time of his capture, had been in Afghanistan on a humanitarian aid mission. Having collected 10,000 Riyals (around $2,700) at various mosques in his hometown, he traveled between Kandahar, Kabul and Jalalabad, distributing the money to the poor and needy, and was in Jalalabad when he heard that Kabul had fallen to the Northern Alliance, which was when he decided to leave the country (without his passport, which was back in Kabul), subsequently paying a guide to take him over the mountains to Pakistan. When he handed himself in to the Pakistani authorities on the border, he was promptly delivered (or sold) to the Americans, who eventually decided that he had been raising money for al-Haramain, a blacklisted Saudi charity (al-Juad denied the allegation), and claimed that one of his aliases was found on a list of captured al-Qaeda members on a computer hard drive "associated with a senior al-Qaeda member." Al-Juad replied that he never used an alias, adding, "After I turned myself in and was detained in Pakistan, there were people taking my picture. I never saw my picture on the Internet, but the interrogator told me it is on the Internet. If it is, I have no idea how it got there."

Two other men -- 34-year old Muhammad al-Jihani and 22-year old Yahya al-Silami (also captured on the Pakistani border) -- had been teaching the Koran in Afghanistan. A grumpy al-Jihani revealed little in his tribunal, responding to the question, "Did you have a place to do that? Did you already contact the mosque or something where you were going to teach?" by saying, "All these questions are in my files. Go back to the file and read the file," but al-Silami was more forthcoming. After explaining that a friend in Mecca had given him a contact in Khost, where he taught the Koran for four months, he said that he fled to Pakistan, after the U.S.-led invasion began, by following a group of Afghan refugees to the border, and was arrested on arrival, having lost his passport in a river on the way. Al-Silami was one of 30 detainees accused of being Osama bin Laden's bodyguards in a notorious example of confessions obtained through torture. The man who made the allegation -- and later retracted his "confession" -- was Mohammed al-Qahtani, an alleged "20th hijacker" for the 9/11 attacks, who was subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" for several months at the end of 2002. In response to the allegation, al-Silami denied a claim by the U.S. authorities that all 30 bodyguards "were told the best thing they could tell U.S. forces when interrogated was they were in Afghanistan to teach the Koran," and also refuted another allegation, which he said was made by a Yemeni detainee whom he described as "mentally unstable and on medication," that he was "identified as the Emir of a group of 10-15 fighters guarding a river crossing leading to the Tora Bora camp."

The other eight detainees were nominally part of the military training camp system in Afghanistan, in which, as a result of pro-Taliban fatwas issued by radical clerics, and the supportive activities of facilitators, tens of thousands of young men made their way to Afghanistan to support the Taliban in their civil war with the Muslims of the Northern Alliance. In reality, however, the men largely proved to be unsuccessful jihadi recruits: one failed to attend a training camp at all, three failed to complete their training through illness, and two were severely disillusioned.

The first to be captured, Fahad al-Qahtani, was just 19 at the time. Recruited for jihad and aided in his travel by a facilitator, he explained, "I went for jihad to Afghanistan, but when I got there I changed my mind. I saw some things there that were against my religion... Things like worshiping a cemetery where people have died. That has nothing to do with our religion, worshiping graves." Refuting allegations that he attended al-Farouq, the main camp for Arabs, and that Osama bin Laden visited while he was there, he insisted that he spent most of his time in a house in Kabul that was "a cooking facility for the [Taliban] front line," and then fled with others to Kunduz, the last Taliban bastion in the north, "until we were surrounded and there was an agreement to have all the Arabs delivered to Mazar-e-Sharif." Delivered, with several hundred others, to Qala-i-Janghi, a nearby fort, he survived a U.S.-led massacre, which took place after some of the prisoners started an uprising, by somehow escaping from the fort without being killed. "I was present but did not participate in the fighting," he explained. "I escaped during the fighting and turned myself in one day after. I went to the market to turn myself in. I met people in the market who were in the army of [General] Dostum [one of the leaders of the Alliance]. That is where I was when I was recaptured... Dostum sold me to the Americans... They put me in jail and I was tortured by Afghans and made to say things. I was moved to Kandahar. When I got to Cuba I told the interrogators the real story." Despite apparently telling the truth, the most extraordinary piece of "evidence" against al-Qahtani emerged in Guantánamo, when it was shamelessly alleged that he "admitted under duress that he was an al-Qaeda (sic) and had met Osama bin Laden."

Another disillusioned recruit was 22-year old Mazin al-Oufi, a former traffic policeman who said that he went to Afghanistan in the summer of 2001 to support -- but not to fight for -- the Taliban government. "I went with good intentions," he explained, "and then realized bad things were happening and I wanted to get out." Captured after crossing the Pakistani border, he told his tribunal in Guantánamo that he had no connection whatsoever to Salah al-Awfi, a name that had, according to the U.S. authorities, turned up on a computer hard drive seized during raids on al-Qaeda safe houses in Pakistan. He was also one of many detainees accusing of being a terrorist because he owned a Casio F-91W watch, a model that the authorities claimed was used as a timer in bombs. Although he admitted owning the watch he was incredulous about the accusation. "Millions and millions of people have these types of Casio watches," he said. "If that is a crime, why doesn't the United States arrest and sentence all the shops and people who own them?"

Of the three detainees who failed to complete their training because of illness, two -- 22-year old Bandar al-Jabri and 28-year old Humoud al-Jadani -- explained that they wanted to receive military training so that they could fight in Chechnya. Al-Jabri, who insisted that he "did not graduate from the training camp" and "had to stop training because he was experiencing asthma attacks," admitted that he had received training from the Taliban, but denied being a member, and added that he had never fought against either the Northern Alliance or the US. Al-Jadani, an airline steward, admitted that he had trained at al-Farouq and had attended two lectures by Osama bin Laden, but said that he too became ill, and both men were arrested after crossing from Afghanistan to Pakistan.

A more comprehensive story was told by 27-year old Ghanim al-Harbi, who said that he went to Afghanistan in the summer of 2001 because he "felt the need to defend myself and my family." He explained that some of his family members had been killed or imprisoned during the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, and had subsequently moved to Saudi Arabia, and that, in 2000, when it was felt that the Iraqi leader was causing problems again, he decided that he should learn to defend himself. When his attempts to join the Saudi navy came to nothing, his quest led him to Afghanistan. He admitted training at al-Farouq, but added, "I never completed my training because I became ill. Every week I had to travel to Kandahar to receive medical treatment or I was at the camp hospital."

Explaining the circumstances of his arrest, al-Harbi said that, after leaving al-Farouq, he went to Kabul and hired a guide to help him leave the country by Jalalabad, but that, when the guide realized that he was unable to help him cross the border, he took him to the Tora Bora mountains and turned him over to a group of 65 Arabs who were also heading for the border. He said that he stayed for a month with this group, and described them as civilians rather than fighters. "Some of them were teachers," he explained, "some of them were running away from the war and were just regular civilians who were trying to get to the Pakistan embassy so they could get back to their homes." The group finally managed to recruit two guides to take them to the Pakistani border, but as they passed through a village the whole area was targeted in a huge U.S. bombing raid, in which 60 to 70 of the villagers died, "40 of the Arabs with me were killed and 20 were injured," and al-Harbi himself suffered serious injuries to his stomach and one of his legs. He added that he "stayed three days in a valley with the other wounded before a group of Afghanis picked them up," and was then taken to a hospital in Jalalabad, where he stayed for six weeks until he was handed over (or sold) to the Americans.

The detainee who failed even to attend a training camp, Bandar al-Otaibi, a 21-year old mechanical engineering student, explained that he went to Afghanistan for a month's vacation with a friend because "I watched a lot of Hollywood movies and wanted to learn how to use pistols as a hobby." While this seems rather implausible, he backed it up by saying, "Since there was no place to learn how to use a weapon in my country unless you are a soldier my friend suggested that we go to Afghanistan during the school break and learn. I had tried to apply to a military college but was not accepted because I was underweight." After arriving in Afghanistan, two weeks before 9/11, he said that he met up with another Saudi and that the two of them stayed in guest houses in Kandahar and Jalalabad, but did not train at al-Farouq because "we were told that they would not bring us to the training camp because they didn't know us." As the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated, he said that he fled to the mountains, leaving his friend behind, and was captured by Afghan villagers. "Afghans kidnapped me and others and demanded money to be released," he explained. "Some of the others were able to buy their freedom... but I didn't have any money so I was kept in captivity."

The last two stories to be discussed are those of Muhammad al-Qurashi and Bijad al-Otaibi. Neither took part in their tribunals, but it may be assumed that many of the allegations against them - contained in the "Unclassified Summary of Evidence" for their cases, also released to the public in 2006 -- were revealed as inaccurate, leading to the authorities' decision to release them. Al-Qurashi, who was 24 years old at the time of his capture, was accused of traveling to fight with the Taliban after his high school graduation in May 2001, and of training at "a facility used to train and house Taliban soldiers who fought on the Bagram front lines." It was also alleged that his name was found "on an undated letter which listed probable al-Qaeda members incarcerated in Pakistan, along with materials linked to al-Qaeda." This meager fodder was supplemented by claims relating to his behavior in Guantánamo: that he had "struck guard force personnel on multiple occasions," had threatened an officer by saying, "I will cut your throat," and had "encouraged other detainees to harass guard force."

Al-Otaibi, who was 30 years old at the time of his capture, was accused of stating that he traveled to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban, that he was trained at a camp near Kabul, and that he fought on the front lines until ordered to surrender to General Dostum at Mazar-e-Sharif. Like Fahad al-Qahtani, he was then imprisoned in Qala-i-Janghi, where he was one of 86 men who survived in the basement of the fort for a week, despite being bombed and flooded. His story may or may not be true, but it was probably more reliable than the claim that he knew Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi, described as one of Osama bin Laden's "closest commanders and the person in charge of al-Qaeda fighters in the Afghani Northern Front" (captured in 2006 and sent to Guantánamo in April 2007) and that, moreover, he knew al-Iraqi "very well" and was, in fact, an assistant commander in the Taliban's "Arab Brigade."

As I bring this article to a close, astute readers will notice that I have only mentioned 15 detainees so far. Such is the obfuscation surrounding Guantánamo -- and the authorities' inability to transliterate Arabic names -- that one of the detainees, referred to by Arab News as Abdullah al-Zahrani, has not yet been identified, as his name bears no resemblance to any of the detainees' names recorded by the Pentagon. This, again, is a familiar story. Lawyers for Bandar al-Otaibi, for example, pointed out that it was difficult to identify him on the list of released detainees because, for five and a half years, he was obstinately referred to by the authorities as Abdullah al-Tayabi.

While this is, perhaps, a good note on which to leave the released detainees to be reunited with their families, I must add one final observation. Heartening though it is that these 16 men -- none of whom were among the "worst of the worst" -- have finally been released, it remains apparent that the process by which they were released remains as arcane and impenetrable as ever, and that no statement will be forthcoming to explain why some of the other 60 Saudi detainees -- some of whom were also either innocent or inept -- are still in custody. As the Supreme Court prepares, once more, to debate whether the detainees should be given habeas rights (which were shamefully removed in last year's Military Commissions Act), the cases of the 16 Saudis released this week demonstrate, yet again, that imprisonment without charge or trial, brutal treatment in detention, forced confessions, hearsay and innuendo are poor substitutes for due process.

Subject: Fw: Star Spangled Banner , History In The Making 6-14-'07



Unless you know all four stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner you may find this
most interesting. Perhaps most of you didn't realize what Francis Scott Key's
profession was or what he was doing on a ship. This is a good brush-up on your
history.

(Editor's Note- Near the end of his life, the great science fiction author Isaac
Asimov wrote a short story about the four stanzas of our national anthem.
However brief, this well-circulated piece is an eye opener from the dearly
departed doctor......) " I have a weakness -- I am crazy, absolutely nuts, about
our national anthem. The words are difficult and the tune is almost impossible,
but frequently when I'm taking a shower I sing it with as much power and emotion
as I can. It shakes me up every time."

NO REFUGE COULD SAVE : BY DR. ISAAC ASIMOV

I was once asked to speak at a luncheon. Taking my life in my hands, I announced
I was going to sing our national anthem -- all four stanzas. This was greeted
with loud groans. One man closed the door to the kitchen, where the noise of
dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting. "Thanks, Herb," I said.

"That's all right," he said. "It was at the request of the kitchen staff"

I explained the background of the anthem and then sang all four stanzas. Let me
tell you, those people had never heard it before -- or had never really
listened. I got a standing ovation. But it was not me; it was the anthem.

More recently, while conducting a seminar, I told my students the story of the
anthem and sang all four stanzas. Again there was a wild ovation and prolonged
applause. And again, it was the anthem and not me.

So now let me tell you how it came to be written.

In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain , primarily over
freedom of the seas. We were in the right. For two years, we held off the
British, even though we were sti ll a rather weak country. Great Britain was in
a life and death struggle with Napoleon. In fact, just as the United States
declared war, Napoleon marched off to invade Russia . If he won, as everyone
expected, he would control Europe, and Great Britain would be isolated. It was
no time for her to be involved in an American war.

At first, our seamen proved better than the British. After we won a battle on
Lake Erie in 1813, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, sent the
message, "We have met the enemy and they are ours." However, the weight of the
British navy beat down our ships eventu ally. New England , hard-hit by a
tightening blockade, threatened secession.

Meanwhile, Napoleon was beaten in Russia and in 1814 was forced to abdicate.
Great Britain now turned its attention to the United States, launching a
three-pronged attack.

The northern prong was to come down Lake Champlain toward New York and seize
parts of New England .

The southern prong was to go up the Mississippi , take New Orleans and paralyze
the west.

The central prong was to head for the mid-Atlantic state s and then attack
Baltimore , the greatest port south of New York . If Baltimore was taken, the
nation, which still hugged the Atlantic coast, could be split in two. The fate
of the United States , then, rested to a large extent on the success or failure
of the central prong.

The British reached the American coast, and on August 24, 1814, took Washington
, D.C. Then they moved up the Chesapeake Bay toward Baltimore . On September 12,
they arrived and found 1,000 men in Fort McHenry , whose guns controlled the
harbor. If the British wished to take Baltimore , they would have to take the
fort.

On one of the British ships was an aged physician, William Beanes, who had been
arrested in Maryland and brought along as a prisoner. Francis Scott Key, a
lawyer and friend of the physician, had come to the ship to negotiate his
release.

The British captain was willing, but the two Americans would have to wait. It
was now the night of September 13, and the bombardment of Fort McHenry was about
to start.

As twilight deepened, Key and Beanes saw the American flag flying over Fort
McHenry . Through the night, they heard bombs bursting and saw the red glare of
rockets. They knew the fort was resisting and the American flag was still
flying. But toward morning the bombardment ceased, and a dread silence fell.
Either Fort McHenry had surrendered and the British flag flew above it, or the
bombardment had failed and the American flag still flew.

As dawn began to brighten the eastern sky, Key and Beanes stared out at the
fort, trying to see which flag flew over it. He and the physician must have
asked each other over and over, "Can you see the flag?"

After it was all finished, Key wrote a four stanza poem telling the events of
the night. Called "The Defense of Fort McHenry ," it was published in newspapers
and swept the nation. Someone noted that the words fit an old English tune
called, "To Anacreon in Heaven" -- a difficult melody with an uncomfortably
large vocal range. For obvious reasons, Key's work became known as "The Star
Spangled Banner," and in 1931 Congress declared it the official anthem of the
United States .

Now that you know the story, here are the words. Presumably, the old doctor is
speaking. This is what he asks Key:

Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn's early light, What so proudly we hailed at
the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
Oh! say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

("Ramparts," in case you don't know, are the protective walls or other
elevations that surround a fort.) The first stanza asks a question. The second
gives an answer:

On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep.
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

"The towering steep" is again, the ramparts. The bombardment has failed, an d
the British can do nothing more but sail away, their mission a failure. In the
third stanza I feel Key allows himself to gloat over the American triumph. In
the aftermath of the bombardment, Key probably was in no mood to act otherwise?
During World War I when the British were our Staunchest allies, this third
stanza was not sung. However, I know it, so here it is:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gl oom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

(The fourth stanza, a pious hope for the future, should be sung more slowly than
the other three and with even deeper feeling):

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with victory and peace, may the Heaven - rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,
And this be our motto --"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I hope you will look at the national anthem with new eyes. Listen to it, the
next time you have a chance, with new ears. Pay attention to the words. And
don't let them ever take it away ... not even one word of it.

AND IT'S SUNG IN ENGLISH!

Is the Annexation of Canada Part of Bush's Military Agenda?

by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, July 18, 2007
Global Research, originally published in November 2004 - 2004-11-23

Author's note

This article, first published in November 2004, focusses on the process of "deep integration" between Canada and the US in the spheres of "defense" and "national security".

Following President Bush's historical visit to Ottawa in November 2004, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was launched in March 2005 in Waco, Texas.

The ratification of the SPP, which responds to powerful corporate interests, is part of the agenda of the upcoming Montebello Summit, Quebec, on August 20th, thereby paving the way towards the formation of the North American Union (NAU).

There has been a deafening silence on this process: virtually no media coverage has been provided. No meaningful debate in the House Commons has occurred on a process which affects the future and very existence of Canada as a sovereign nation.

It is important to understand that this process of territorial integration under the proposed North American Union would embody Canada and Mexico into the US Homeland Security apparatus. Broadly speaking, Washington would set the agenda for "integration" and would exert an overriding influence in developing the legal, political, economic, military and national security architecture of the proposed NAU. The latter is not comparable to the structures of the European Union, which retain the sovereignty of individual members states.

What is at stake is de facto annexation, where Canada and Mexico would cease to function as sovereign nations, relegated to the status of US protectorates. Similarly, the US dollar would be imposed as a single North American currency (The Amero) with monetary powers vested in the US Federal Reserve system.

The Conservative government in Ottawa has not only embraced the SPP, it is also actively supporting the US war agenda, its national security agenda and its "Global War on Terrorism".

By endorsing a US-Canada-Mexico "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada also agrees to directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in all the US sponsored war and national security initiatives, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.

Under an integrated North American Military Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of tactical nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003.

(See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the "War on Terrorism" http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html May 2004)

Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, justice, law enforcement, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.


Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 18 July 2007

[text first published, November 23, 2004]

[In early 2005, a summarised version of this article was accepted as an Op. Ed. by the Toronto Star on four separate occasions. It never appeared in print.]


Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Binational integration" of military command structures is also contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence. At this critical juncture in our history and in anticipation of the visit of George W. Bush to Canada on November 30th [2004], an understanding of these issues is central to the articulation of a coherent anti-war and civil rights movement.

The purpose of this detailed report is to encourage discussion and debate in Canada and Quebec, as well as in the US. Kindly circulate this article widely. The Summary can be forwarded by email with a hyperlink to the complete text.


SUMMARY

For nearly two years now, Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching military cooperation agreement, which allows the US Military to cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. This redesign of Canada's defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command's jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.

NorthCom's stated mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)

Following Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's refusal to join NORTHCOM, a high-level so-called "consultative" Binational Planning Group (BPG), operating out of the Peterson Air Force base, was set up in late 2002, with a mandate to "prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United States".

The BPG's mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative military body making "recommendations" to government. In practice, it is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of Commons.

The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian "military planners", who have been working diligently for the last two years in laying the groundwork for the integration of Canada-US military command structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-U.S. Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon, a so-called " panel responsible for detailed joint military planning".

Broadly speaking, its activities consist of two main building blocks: the Combined Defense Plan (CDP) and The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP).

The Militarisation of Civilian Institutions

As part of its Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), the BPG is involved in supporting the ongoing militarisation of civilian law enforcement and judicial functions in both the US and Canada. The BPG has established "military contingency plans" which would be activated "on both sides of the Canada-US border" in the case of a terror attack or "threat". Under the BPG's Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), these so-called "threat scenarios" would involve:

"coordinated response to national requests for military assistance [from civil authorities] in the event of a threat, attack, or civil emergency in the US or Canada."

In December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian government reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, entitled the "Canada-US Smart Border Declaration." Shrouded in secrecy, this agreement essentially hands over to the Homeland Security Department, confidential information on Canadian citizens and residents. It also provides US authorities with access to the tax records of Canadians.

What these developments suggest is that the process of "binational integration" is not only occurring in the military command structures but also in the areas of immigration, police and intelligence. The question is what will be left over within Canada's jurisdiction as a sovereign nation, once this ongoing process of binational integration, including the sharing and/or merger of data banks, is completed?

Canada and NORTHCOM

Canada is slated to become a member of NORTHCOM at the end of the BPG's two years mandate.

No doubt, the issue will be presented in Parliament as being "in the national interest". It "will create jobs for Canadians" and "will make Canada more secure".

Meanwhile, the important debate on Canada's participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield, when viewed out of the broader context, may serve to divert public attention away from the more fundamental issue of North American military integration which implies Canada's acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the entire US war agenda, including significant hikes in defense spending which will be allocated to a North American defense program controlled by the Pentagon.

And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:

# Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.
# US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.
# Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.

But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as a Nation.

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an imperial project of World domination. Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda.

The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have endorsed embraced the US war agenda. By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not only becomes a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.

Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the "War on Terrorism" http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html May 2004)

Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.
FULL TEXT OF ARTICLE



Introduction

For nearly two years now, Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching military cooperation agreement, which allows the US Military to cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. This redesign of Canada's defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command's jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.

NorthCom's stated mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)

Following Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's refusal to join NORTHCOM, a high-level so-called "consultative" Binational Planning Group (BPG), operating out of the Peterson Airforce base, was set up in late 2002, with a mandate to "prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United States".

The Liberals under Prime Minister Paul Martin as well as Canada's Defense establishment at DND are fully supportive of this initiative, which essentially consists in integrating the military command structures of the two countries:

"The DND/CF in Canada and the US DoD recognize that a neighborhood watch or collective security arrangement is essential. But, we need to take it slowly and understand all the ramifications… To that end, the BPG allows some Canadians and Americans to work together in Colorado Springs to explore that collective security arrangement."

(statement by L. Gen. Findley http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/map...age=vol7-29p6-7 )

No debate in Parliament. In fact, with some exceptions, backbench MPs do not even know about these procedures, which have a direct bearing on Canada's sovereignty as a nation. An atmosphere of secrecy prevails. The tendency in Ottawa is "hush-hush". No government pronouncements: public opinion has been held in the dark. Moreover, the issue has barely been mentioned in the Canadian press.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Paul Martin has been busy restraining potential anti-Bush sentiment within the Liberal Caucus as well as in the ranks of the opposition parties, in the months leading up to president George W. Bush's address to Canada's parliament on December 1st.

The Binational Planning Group (BPG)

Removed from the public eye, the "Group" is more than an ad hoc consultative body. It was set up as an interim military authority in December 2002, following the refusal of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to join the new regional command: US Northern Command (NORTHCOM). The latter was established in April 2002 to "Defend the Homeland" against presumed terrorist attacks.

Canadian membership in NORTHCOM would have implied the integration of Canada's military command structures with those of the US. That option was temporarily deferred by the Chrétien government, through the creation of the so-called Binational Planning Group (BPG).

The Binational Planning Group's (BPG) formal mandate was to:

"improve current Canada–United States arrangements to defend against primarily maritime threats to the continent and respond to land-based attacks, should they occur."

The BPG extends the jurisdiction of the US-Canada North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to cover land and sea.

The "Group" is described as an "independent" military authority which is "not integrated into either command [NORAD or NORTHCOM] – it simply shares the same headquarters [at the Paterson Air Force base]". Yet this statement blatantly contradicts the original dispatch following the creation of the BPG (9 December 2002):

"The head of the Planning Group will be the Deputy Commander, who will operate under the authority of the Commander of North American Aerospace Defense." ( See US State Department http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/15783.htm

NORAD has become and Appendage of NORTHCOM

In practice, the "Group" functions under the jurisdiction of US Northern Command, which is controlled by US DoD. Moreover, the existing bilateral agreement under NORAD is virtually defunct. NORAD has become an appendage of NORTHCOM.

In fact, the command structures of NORAD, NORTHCOM and the BPG are fully integrated: the commanding officer of NORAD, Lt. General Ralph E. "Ed" Eberhardt, is the commander of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM). In turn, the (Canadian) Commander of NORAD, Lt. General Rick "Eric" Findley, heads the Binational Planning Group (BPG).

And, Lt. General Eberhardt, who is commander of both NORTHCOM and NORAD, has the mandate to ensure "liaison" between the binational "Group" and the US government, including, of course, the DoD and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), headed by Tom Ridge.

In turn, both the "Group" and the DHS are in permanent liaison with Canada's new Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which is a Canadian "copy and paste" version of Tom Ridge's Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In other words, the integration of Canadian and US military command structures is being achieved in close coordination with the binational integration of civilian police, judicial and intelligence structures. The integration of US, Canadian and Mexican intelligence structures is part of a parallel initiative under the same broad military agenda.

What this integration means in practice is that Canada's military command structures would in practice be subordinated to those of the Pentagon and the US DoD. Operating under a "North American" emblem (i.e. NORTHCOM), the US military would have jurisdiction over Canadian territory from coast to coast; extending from the St Laurence Valley to the Parry Islands in the Canadian Arctic. It would allow for the establishment of "North American" military bases on Canadian territory. From a military standpoint, it would integrate the Canadian North, with its vast resources in raw materials with Alaska.

Bearing in mind that similar binational negotiations are being conducted between US and with Mexico, the US military would exert strategic control over an area (air space, land mass and contiguous territorial waters) extending from the Yucatan peninsula in southern Mexico to the Canadian Arctic, representing 12 percent of the World's land mass.

In fact, a "continental" military command structure (based on a 1999 US Army College Blueprint) which has been under discussion for several years, "would use the North American Free Trade Agreement as a basis… link[ing] U.S., Mexican and Canadian forces against terrorism in a way that NAFTA has linked North America's economies. (See http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2498/newsletter_info.htm )

Needless to say, this initiative is consistent with the broader objective of "integrating" defense structures in The Western Hemisphere under US military dominance, which is being implemented in parallel with the Free Trade Area of the Americas Initiative (FTAA). Although not officially on the FTAA agenda, the militarization of South America under "Plan Colombia" renamed "The Andean Initiative" as well as the signing of a "parallel" military cooperation protocol by 27 countries of the Americas (the so-called Declaration of Manaus) is an integral part of the process of hemispheric integration. In it worth noting that FTAA Trade Negotiator Richard Zoellnick is a member of Bush's National Security Council.

Washington's "Military Road Map"

The BPG Agreement has a direct bearing on Canada's role in the US led war in the Middle East. "The Group" was created barely four months before the invasion of Iraq. While Canada is not officially part of the Anglo-American military axis, its command structures are in the process (under the BPG) of being integrated into those of the US.

While it has no troops in Iraq, Canada has a significant military presence in Afghanistan, where Canadian troops are, in practice, operating under US Command. Canadian warships were sent to the Persian Gulf in October 2001 and have from the outset collaborated with the US led military operation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(See Michel Chossudovsky, Extending the War to Iraq? Canada sends "Gun Boats" to the Persian Gulf http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111B.html ). (See http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...44964458943_10/ See also Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm )

Canadian military planners were actively "involved in contingency planning for war on Iraq", operating out Central Command in Tampa, Florida. When CENTCOM headquarters were transferred to Qatar in the months prior to the invasion, the senior Canadian military planners (under US Command) joined their US counterparts at the new headquarters. Canada was also involved in a Naval Task Force Command in the Persian Gulf coordinating the entry of coalition war ships into the Persian Gulf.

This "integration of Canada" must be seen as part of Washington's broader military agenda, in different parts of the World, its so-called "global leadership" in military affairs, as defined by the Project of the New American Century (PNAC). (See http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf )

The Mandate of the "Group"

The BPG's mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative military body making "recommendations" to government. In practice, it is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of Commons. According to the defense policy journal Canadian American Strategic Review, the BPG is "more than 'just an informal discussion group' … it seems to show some signs of evolving into a formal command in its own right."

(quoted in DND CF at http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/canada-us/pentagon2_e.asp )

The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian "military planners", who have been working diligently for the last two years in laying the groundwork for the integration of Canada-US military command structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-U.S. Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon, a so-called " panel responsible for detailed joint military planning".

Broadly speaking, its activities consist of two main building blocks: the Combined Defense Plan (CDP) and The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP).

The Militarisation of Civilian Institutions

As part of the Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), the BPG is also involved in supporting the ongoing militarisation of civilian law enforcement and judicial functions in both the US and Canada. This process is consistent with the "Big Brother initiatives" already carried out under Homeland Security and the Patriot Acts in the US.

In Canada, similar activities have been launched under the Anti-Terrorist Legislation (Bills C-36, C-22, C-35, C-42 and C-7). The new Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was set up in close consultation with the Us Department of Homeland Security.

(See Canada Department of Justice http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2001/doc_28217.html , See Rocco Galati, http://www.911review.org/Wget/scienceforpe...alati_Page.html

The BPG's has established "military contingency plans" which would be activated "on both sides of the Canada-US border" in the case of a terror attack or "threat". Under the BPG's Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), these so-called "threat scenarios" would involve:

"coordinated response to national requests for military assistance [from civil authorities] in the event of a threat, attack, or civil emergency in the US or Canada."

In other words, the Military would "support" and "assist" civilian organizations including government bodies and agencies such as municipalities, etc. This process implies the militarisation of civilian functions.

The BPG does not mince its words: military commanders would:

"provide binational military assistance to civil authorities."

In the case of a Red Code alert, these so-called "requests" (e.g. from a Canadian municipality) could result in the deployment of US troops or Special Forces inside Canadian territory. In fact, with an integrated command structure, Canadian and US servicemen would operate in the same military operations.

Moreover, the BPG has been actively involved in joint exercises with civilian police and intelligence, involving the participation of State and city governments. It has developed a system of "eight threat scenarios, focused on weapons of mass destruction, terrorists and natural disasters that are being used as planning tools"

(See http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/map...age=vol7-29p6-7 )

Northrop Grumman Information Technology, a subsidiary of one of America's largest defense conglomerates, is on contract with the BPG, providing it support services in "strategic and operational planning, research, analysis, information technology and coordination to meet current and evolving mission requirements." (See http://www.tasc.com/ )

Northrop`s mandate is to provide expertise to the BPG in support of

"coordination and implementation of comprehensive enhanced military cooperation and interagency products, including detailed contingency plans, consultation/decision-making protocol recommendations, aerospace, maritime and land defense plans, and Consequence Management guidance."

(See: https://www.ditco.disa.mil/public/discms/ENCORE/00323_01.doc )

Martial Law

The circumstances under which martial law can be declared in the US are clearly enunciated by the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA)

(See http://www.fema.gov/pdf/areyouready/security.pdf , See also Michel Chossudovsky, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402A.html , on Militarization see Frank Morales, September 2003http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR309A.html ).

In the case of a Red Code Terror Alert, US Northern Command would take over. Several functions of civilian administration would be suspended, others could be transferred to the jurisdiction of the military. More generally, the procedure would disrupt government offices, businesses, schools, public services, transportation, etc.

Under the present BPG arrangement, Canada is a de facto member of NORTHCOM. In other words, some of these martial law procedures could be applied in Canada. Under an integrated North American military command structure --with Canada part of NORTHCOM--, martial law procedures in Canada would conform to those applied in the US.

In May 2003 a major "anti-terrorist exercise" entitled TOPOFF 2 was conducted under the auspices of US Homeland Security. Canada fully participated in this initiative. In fact, the exercise was conducted with the support of NORTHCOM and NORAD, with the BPG playing a key role.

TOPOFF 2 was described as "the largest and most comprehensive terrorism response and homeland security exercise ever conducted in the United States." It was a military style exercise involving federal, State and local level governments including Canadian participants.

TOPOFF 2 was carried out on the same assumptions as military exercises in anticipation of an actual theater war, in this case, to be waged by foreign terrorists, examining various WMD attack scenarios and the institutional response of State and local governments. The simulations of "what was happening in Seattle" were carried out in the Situational Awareness Center (SAC) at Peterson Air force Base in Colorado. (For further details See Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 23, 2003)

Towards a North American Big Brother

In December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian government reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, entitled the "Canada-US Smart Border Declaration." Shrouded in secrecy, this agreement essentially hands over to the Homeland Security Department, confidential information on Canadian citizens and residents. It also provides US authorities with access to tax records of Canadians.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration established its controversial Total Information Awareness Program (TIAP), headed by former National Security Adviser ret. Admiral John Poindexter, who was indicted on criminal charges in the Iran Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration.

TIAP operated in the offices of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a division of the Pentagon in Northern Virginia. The Information Awareness Office (IAO), was to oversee a giant Big Brother data bank. (See Washington Post, 11 Nov 2002 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40942-2002Nov11 )

Under pressure, Pointedexter subsequently resigned from TIAP and the program was "officially" discontinued.

(See Pointedexter's PowerPoint presentation at http://www.darpa.mil/darpatech2002/present...indexteriao.pdf .

IAO's stated mission was "to gather as much information as possible about everyone, in a centralized location, for easy perusal by the United States government." This would include medical records, credit card and banking information, educational and employment data, records concerning travel and the use of internet, email, telephone and fax.

While the IAO no longer exists, at least officially, the initiative of creating a giant data bank has by no means been abandoned. At present, several US government bodies including Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI already operate "Big Brother" data banks. The controversial Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange ( MATRIX), for instance is defined as "a crime-fighting database" used by law enforcement agencies, the US Justice Department and Homeland Security. More recently in the context of The National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 -- currently debated in the US Senate, discussion has centered on a so-called 'Information Sharing Network' to coordinate data from 'all available sources.'" The proposed network would bring together the data banks of various government agencies under a single governmental umbrella. (Deseret Morning News, 29, 2004).

Under the ongoing US-Canada integration in military command structures, "Homeland Security" and intelligence, Canadian data banks would eventually be integrated into those of the US. Canada Customs and Revenue has already assembled confidential information on travelers, which it shares with its US counterparts. In early 2004, Ottawa announced under the pretext of combating terrorism that "U.S. border agents will soon have access to the immigration and tax records of Canadian residents".

This merger of tax and immigration data banks is consistent with the process of binational integration occurring at the level of military command structures. It suggests that the Canadian border is controlled under a binational US-Canada arrangement, where US officials have access to Canadian immigration files on Canadian residents.

Moreover, under Canada's Bill C-7, the Public Safety Act of 2004, Canadian police, intelligence and immigration authorities are not only authorized to collect personal data, they also have the authority to share it with their US counterparts

(Text of the C-7 Public Safety Act at http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/chambus..._3/C-7TOCE.html , see also http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?...Ses=3&ls=c7 and http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...d=1074294906470 )

What these developments suggest is the process of binational integration is not only occurring in the military command structures but also in the areas of immigration, police and intelligence. The question is what will be left over within Canada's jurisdiction as a sovereign nation, once this ongoing process of binational integration, including the sharing and/or merger of data banks, is completed?

What Next? Canadian Membership of NORTHCOM

The two year mandate of the BPG expires on the 9th of December 2004. Coinciding with president Bush's November visit to Canada, a decision to renew the BPG arrangement until Spring of 2005 has already been announced, at which time a decision pertaining to the formal integration of Canada into NORTHCOM will be made. This decision would essentially formalize a fait accompli.

In this regard, the BPG has already prepared a comprehensive report,

"recommending how the two countries' militaries can work together more effectively to counter these [terrorist] threats. In many cases, … the recommendations will involve formalizing cooperation already taking place on an informal basis." (Statement of BPG spokesman, US Department of Defense Information, November 3, 2004)

Whether this report will be debated in the House of Commons remains to be seen. What is absolutely essential at this critical juncture in our history is that Canadians mobilize from coast to coast against the militarisation of Canada.

The Canadian Prime Minister is anxious to avoid public debate and discussion on what constitutes the most significant encroachment on Canada's sovereignty since Confederation.

The Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute among others are pressuring Ottawa to:

"bring all land, sea and air forces devoted to such defense under one new bi-national command system that will operate in tandem with the United States’ NORTHCOM." (http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/CCCE%20Report.pdf )

The Bush administration has its supporters in Canada, in the Liberal government as well as in the ranks of the Conservative party and of course within the Canadian business establishment. Washington is lobbying for a consensus on Canada's entry into NORTHCOM.

Canadian companies are vying for lucrative multimillion dollar "reconstruction" contracts in war torn Iraq. Canada's defense contractors, which constitute an appendage of the US-military industrial complex, are of course part of this consensus building. Their lobby group, which favors the integration of military command structures, is the Canadian Defense Industries Association. (http://www.cdia.ca/ ).

In the words of General Dynamics (Canada):

"The combination of heavy U.S. spending on the war in Iraq and against terrorism and a new Liberal prime minister apparently ready to spend more on defense equipment is improving business optimism."

(See http://www.gdcanada.com/company_info/artic...04apr22jm2.html

Canadian weapons producers, many of which are affiliates of US defense conglomerates expect to be granted lucrative contracts upon Canada joining NORTHCOM. Among major players in Canada's defense industry are General Dynamics (Canada), Bell Helicopter Textron (Canada), General Motors Defense, CAE Inc, Bombardier, SNC-Lavalin Group, etc.

(For further details see http://www.cdia.ca/public/index.asp?action=profiles , see also Project Loughshares at http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/MONITOR....html#Table%201

"Integration" or the "Annexation" of Canada?

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an imperial project of World domination. This is not a rhetorical issue. This project is confirmed by official military and national security documents. The military blueprint for global US domination is outlined in the Project of the New American Century (PNAC).

(see http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf )

Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda. It is worth recalling in this regard, that throughout history, the "conquering nation" has expanded on its immediate borders, acquiring control over contiguous territories.

Military integration is intimately related to the ongoing process of integration in the spheres of trade, finance and investment. Needless to say, a large part of the Canadian economy is already in the hands of US corporate interests. In turn, the interests of big business in Canada tend to coincide with those of the US.

Canada is already a de facto economic protectorate of the USA. The US-Canada FTA and NAFTA has not only opened up new avenues for US corporate expansion, it has laid the groundwork under the existing North American umbrella for the post 9/11 integration of military command structures, public security, intelligence and law enforcement.

No doubt, Canada's entry into US Northern Command will be presented to public opinion as part of Canada-US "cooperation", as something which is "in the national interest", which "will create jobs for Canadians", and "will make Canada more secure".

Meanwhile, the important debate on Canada's participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield, when viewed out of the broader context, may serve to divert public attention away from the more fundamental issue of North American military integration which implies Canada's acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the entire US war agenda, including significant hikes in defense spending which will be allocated to a North American defense program controlled by the Pentagon.

And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:

# Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.
# US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.
# Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.

But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as nation.

The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have embraced the US war agenda. By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not only becomes a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.

Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003.

(See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the "War on Terrorism" http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html May 2004)

Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.

Michel Chossudovsky is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, originally published in November 2004, 2004

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=174

A Wake-up Call

By Paul Craig Roberts

07/19/07 "ICH" -- -- This is a wake-up call that we are about to have another 9/11-WMD experience.

The wake-up call is unlikely to be effective, because the American attitude toward government changed fundamentally seventy-odd years ago. Prior to the 1930s, Americans were suspicious of government, but with the arrival of the Great Depression, Tojo, and Hitler, President Franklin D. Roosevelt convinced Americans that government existed to protect them from rapacious private interests and foreign threats. Today, Americans are more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to government than they are to family members, friends, and those who would warn them about the government’s protection.

Intelligent observers are puzzled that President Bush is persisting in a futile and unpopular war at the obvious expense of his party’s electoral chances in 2008.

In the July 18 Los Angeles Times (“Bush the Albatross”), Ronald Brownstein reminds us that Bush’s behavior is disastrous for his political party. Unpopular presidents “have consistently undercut their party in the next election.” Brownstein reports that “88% of voters who disapproved of the retiring president’s job performance voted against his party’s nominee in past elections. . . . On average, 80% of voters who disapproved of a president’s performance have voted against his party’s candidates even in House races since 1986.”

Brownstein notes that with Bush’s dismal approval rating, this implies a total wipeout of the Republicans in 2008.

A number of pundits have concluded that the reason the Democrats have not brought a halt to Bush’s follies is that they expect Bush’s unpopular policies to provide them with a landslide victory next year.

There is a problem with this reasoning. It assumes that Cheney, Rove,and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts or are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his warmonger-police state fling. “After me, the deluge.”

Isn’t it more likely that Cheney and Rove have in mind events that will, once again, rally the people behind President Bush and the Republican Party that is fighting the “war on terror” that the Democrats “want to lose”?

Such events could take a number of forms. As even diehard Republican Patrick J. Buchanan observed on July 17, with three US aircraft carrier battle groups in congested waters off Iran, another Tonkin Gulf incident could easily be engineered to set us at war with Iran. If Bush’s intentions were merely to bomb a nuclear reactor, he would not need three carrier strike forces.

Lately, the administration has switched to blaming Iran for the war in Iraq. The US Senate has already lined up behind the latest lie with a 97-0 vote to condemn Iran.

Alternatively, false flag “terrorist” strikes could be orchestrated in the US. The Bush administration has already infiltrated some dissident groups and encouraged them to participate in terrorist talk, for which they were arrested. It is possible that the administration could provoke some groups to actual acts of violence.

Many Americans dismiss suspicion of their government as treasonous, and most believe conspiracy to be impossible “because someone would talk.”

There is no basis in any known fact for this opinion.

According to polls, 36% of the American people disbelieve the 9/11 Commission Report. Despite this lack of confidence, and despite the numerous omissions and errors in the report, it has proven impossible to have an independent investigation of 9/11 or to examine the official explanation in public debate. Even experts and people with a lifetime of distinguished public service are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists,” “kooks,” and “traitors” if they question the official explanation of 9/11. This despite the fact that war in the Middle East, a long-planned goal of Bush’s neoconservative administration, could not have been initiated without a “new Pearl Harbor.”

That powerfully constructed steel buildings could suddenly turn to dust because they were struck by two flimsy aluminum airliners and experienced small fires on a few floors that burned for a short time appears unexceptionable to a majority of Americans.

Moreover, people have talked. Hundreds of them. Firefighters, police, janitors, and others report hearing and experiencing a series of explosions in upper floors and massive explosions in the underground basements. This eyewitness testimony was kept under wraps for three or more years until the official explanation had taken root. The oral histories were finally forced loose by freedom of information act suits. The eyewitness reports of explosion after explosion had no effect.

Larry Silverstein, who received billions of dollars in insurance payments for the destroyed buildings, talked. He said on public television that the order was given “to pull” building 7. His stunning admission had no effect.

The Bush administration is preparing us for more terrorist attacks. The latest intelligence report says that Al Qaeda has regrouped, rebuilt, and has the ability to come after us again. “Al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here,” says the report.

Security operatives, such as Michael Chertoff, and various instruments of administration propaganda have warned that we will be attacked before next year’s election. Chertoff is not a person who wants to be known as Chicken Little for telling us that the sky is falling.

Bush has the Republican Party in such a mess that it cannot survive without another 9/11. Whether authentic or orchestrated, an attack will activate Bush’s new executive orders, which create a dictatorial police state in event of “national emergency.” [See http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=6134 ]

The UK government is hand-in-glove with the Bush administration and will provide cover or verification for whatever claim the Bush administration advances. So will the right-wing governments in Canada and Australia. That takes care of the English-speaking world from which contrary explanations might reach the American people.

It is possible that Bush is now too weak, that suspicion is too great, and that there is too much internal resistance in the federal bureaucracy and military for any such scenario. If so, then my prediction prior to the invasion that the US invasion of Iraq will destroy Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement will be proven true. The Democrats’ strategy of doing nothing except making sure Bush gets his way will produce the landslide that they expect.

However, this assumes that Cheney, Rove, and their neoconservative allies have lost their cunning and their manipulative skills. It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous assumption for Democrats and the American people to make.

Once the US experiences new attacks, Bush will be vindicated. His voice will be confident as he speaks to the nation: “My administration knew that there would be more attacks from these terrorists who hate us and our way of life and are determined to destroy every one of us. If only more of you had believed me and supported my war on terror these new attacks would not have happened. Our security efforts were impaired by the Democrats’ determined attempts to surrender to the terrorists by forcing our withdrawal from Iraq and by civil libertarian assaults on our necessary security measures. If only more Americans had trusted their government, this would not have happened.” And so on. Anyone should be able to write the script.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Another Step Toward War with Iran

Democrats as Leviathan

By Joshua Frank

07/19/07 "Counterpunch" -- - -It was a slumber party on Capital Hill. Democrats held an all-nighter on July 17 in an attempt to mollify the great antiwar sentiment that is raging across the land. But their attempt to challenge Bush's war on Iraq was sanctimonious and superficial at best. Not only were the Democrat's pleas to set a timetable for withdraw fully pathetic, so too was their moral indignation.

The Democrats certainly don't contest Bush's Middle East foreign policy, they embrace it. Just last week the Senate voted 97-0 in favor of moving toward war with Iran. So while the Democrats call for withdraw of our troops from Iraq in the future, they insist we must keep an eye on Iran, for the Iranians are opposing the occupation of Iraq by allegedly arming the Shia resistance.

But the uprisings in Iraq were foreshadowed long ago. The Shia make up 60% of the country's population, so they were sure to gain power with the outing of Saddam Hussein. Iran, a Shia political stronghold, was certainly going to benefit with the fall of Iraq's dictator who remained an archenemy of Tehran until his regime was toppled. The Democrats and Republicans most certainly knew this. Regardless, both political parties see the rise of the Shia as an opening for a confrontation with Iran.

Iran isn't the first scapegoat for the prevailing resistance fighting US armed forces in Iraq. There was a time when we were told the death of Saddam would bring stability to the country. It didn't happen. Nor did the deaths of his sons Uday and Qusay or the bloody murder of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Iraq remains in turmoil and will continue to be thanks to our illegal invasion.

The Democrats don't really want to end the war despite their veneer of opposition. If they desired to end the war they would have halted its funding long ago. Likelise, if they really preferred to challenge the Bush falsehoods regarding Iran, they would do so. Instead the Democrats, including their top presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who voted in favor of holding Iran accountable for the killing of US soldiers, seem to want to handle Iran militarily.

The amendment, H.R.1585, written by Sen. Joe Lieberman, repeats the same round of vacant lies the neocons have been advancing for quite sometime. Iranian influence in Iraq is now becoming the accepted reason among American political elites as to why US forces are failing. The Lieberman amendment also claims that Iran is providing a safe-haven for al Qaeda fighters, even though the group is allegedly blowing up Iraqi Shias daily.

American soldiers aren't being killed because of Iran; we are losing because there is no such thing as real victory for the US in Iraq. There is only death.

Like Iran's non-existent nuclear arsenal, there is no evidence that Tehran is fudning the Shia resistance. Most Iraqi citizens owned automatic weapons under Saddam and most roadside bombs can be manufactured using household products found in most American garages.

The Democrat's Senate sleepover was a fraud replete with staged confessions and overt hypocrisies. They don't want to end the war; the Democrats want to extend it to Iran by making the case that the Iranians are behind the US catastrophe in Iraq. Washington is covertly setting the stage legislatively for a military confrontation with Iran. It's our job to stop them.

Joshua Frank is the co-editor of DissidentVoice.org, and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the forthcoming Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press in March 2008. He can be reached through his website, BrickBurner.org.

Kissinger's Secret Meeting With Putin By Mike Whitney 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.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18036.htm

Hiding Behind the Troops Jeff Huber | July 19, 2007 "The one thing I really take objection to� is politicians who try to put their political views into the mouths of soldiers."

--Senator James Webb (D-Virginia)

This quote is my favorite line from the now celebrated 15 July debate on Meet the Press between Webb and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Graham had, indeed, put political speech in the mouths of soldiers when he said "The soldiers are speaking, my friend, let them win," referring to the mass reenlistment held in Baghdad on July 4th. One can hardly accuse any of the nearly 600 soldiers who reenlisted of purposely creating political propaganda or doing anything other than reenlisting in a time of war, a laudable act by any judgment criteria.

But one can safely assume that the ceremony was a crafted public relations stunt, designed by U.S. commander in Iraq General David Petraeus to provide the likes of Graham the opportunity to use the troops to justify the otherwise indefensible policies and strategies of the Bush administration.

Petraeus certainly isn't the first Bush liegeman to duck for cover behind the troops. From the beginning of the adventure in Iraq, pro-war pundits have, at least at a subliminal level, hammered away at the notion that it is not possible to "support the troops" without supporting the policies, and this basic propaganda arc has remained little changed in over four years.

Mr. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" event aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln was the most embarrassing example of conspicuous swagger in the history of the U.S. presidency. Still, as a case study in exploiting the troops for political purposes, the Lincoln episode was nothing compared to what followed. As more and more of the ugly truth about the run-up to the Iraq invasion and the incompetent handling of the war came to light, Mr. Bush came to increasingly rely on using the troops as window dressing to his reelection campaign. In the cases of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman, the Rovewellians spun reality from bull feathers to create "heroes" at a time when the truth about Abu Ghraib and other scandals needed to be hidden behind a smoke screen.

We have also seen extensive use of the "soldier testimonial," in which service members, usually junior ones, tell us in their "own words" how much they believe in their mission, and how much people who don't support the mission just don't "get it." Much of this testimonial rhetoric spreads in the form of viral propaganda, supposedly genuine email letters written by troops in the field to friends and family that, just by coincidence, get forwarded to darn near anyone who might be sympathetic with the message. Generally speaking, these emails feature two tell-tale indications that they're not on the up and up: 1) all traces of the message's origin have been carefully removed and 2) however the letter starts, it eventually turns into a standard litany of "consequences of losing," "they'll follow us here" and other non-sequitur talking points from the pro-war playbook.

The Bush administration doesn't stop at milking political capital from active duty military types. It is also perfectly willing to co-opt so-called veterans' rights advocacy groups, the most notorious of which is the American Legion, which for all practical purposes has become a branch of the Republican National Committee and one of the most vocal supporters of Bush's Iraq policies. Granted, other veterans' groups exist that both support and oppose the war, but those groups are up front about the reason they exist, and don't pretend to be veterans' rights advocates. Outfits like the American Legion, on the other hand, are flying under false colors. (Interestingly enough, American Legion National Commander Paul Morin describes himself as a "Vietnam veteran of the U.S. Army" even though his entire military career consisted of two years of duty at Fort Dix, New Jersey in the 70s. If Morin is a Vietnam veteran, so is George W. Bush.)

I always find it amusing when the administration trots out Laura Bush to defend her husband's Iraq stance. It not only puts Bush in the position of being conspicuously protected by his wife's apron, it puts the defense of Bush's policy in the hands of the one person in Washington who actually understands less about warfare and the situation in Iran than Bush does.

Less amusing is an emerging class of pundit that I've come to think of as the "War Mommies." The Mommies are spouses and/or mothers of service members. Some of them have lost a spouse or child in Afghanistan or Iraq. They typically complain of being persecuted for their support of Bush and the war in Iraq, even as they castigate Cindy Sheehan for her condemnation of Bush and the war. One War Mommy consistently asserts that anyone who doesn't have a family member in the armed services can't understand the issues involved in our overseas military adventures. Almost all of the War Mommies are diehard Republicans. However their op-ed pieces start out, they generally devolve into a Readers' Digest version of the neoconservative manifesto that manages to blame all the Bush administration's mendacity and incompetence on the mainstream media and the Democrats.

Like everyone else, the War Mommies have a right to express their views. I wish they would do so in a more responsible manner. They add nothing to the national debate other than emotional noise that obscures the sorts of rational analyses we need to conduct in order to find our "way forward."

A lot of people won't like to hear this, but�

Ultimately, it is moot to discuss what the troops think or how they feel about a particular war they happen to be fighting because it doesn't matter what they think or feel about it. America doesn't exist to support its military. The military exists to support America. We should not engage in warfare for the sake of keeping the troops happy any more than we should avoid wars that the troops don't want to fight. The opinions of the troops--from buck private to four-star general--carry no more validity than the opinion of any civilian citizen. Today, that's true even of military strategy issues. The generals in charge of our present wars have proven themselves incapable of formulating and executing coherent strategies, and the people who have most influenced our war policies and strategies are neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and Fred Kagan, civilians who never served a day in the military.

But the powers that be in the administration will continue to hide behind soldiers and their mommies' skirts because that keeps the issue in the realm of fear and guilt, and away from the cold light of critical analysis.

Freelance writer Jeff Huber was operations officer of a naval air wing and an aircraft carrier, and he commanded an E-2C Hawkeye aircraft squadron. His analyses of military and foreign policy affairs have appeared in Proceedings, The Navy, Jane's Fighting Ships, and other print periodicals. Some of his essays have been required student reading at the U.S. Naval War College, where he received a master's degree in national security studies in 1995. Jeff is a contributing editor with ePluribus Media. His home website is Pen and Sword.

Baghdad for sale

By Ahmed Janabi







Baghdadis have put their properties
for sale and left the country seeking safety One of the things that visitors to Baghdad notice immediately is the number of "for sale" signs which now cover the capital's buildings.

Many of the four million Iraqi refugees who fled to Syria and Jordan in the past three years have put their houses on the market, hoping to generate some cash to help them while abroad.

Al Jazeera spoke to a Baghdad estate agent, who would identify himself only as Abu Ali for security reasons.

He said: "Ninety-nine per cent of those who want to sell their houses in Baghdad are afraid to live here. Some of them are professionals who had their colleagues killed and are afraid to meet the same fate.

"Others are afraid of being forcibly removed from their homes by the militias on ethnic and sectarian grounds, and many more reasons related to security."

Abu Ali says that despite the saturation of the real estate market, the number of buyers seems to be dwindling.

"The supply is much, much higher than demand," he says. "The value of Baghdad real estate has dropped nearly 50 per cent compared to 2003 and 2004."

1990s purchasing power

The trend of Iraqis selling property and emigrating abroad first began in the mid-1990s and began to increase exponentially over the past three years.

After the UN-sponsored sanctions on Iraq in the wake of the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi currency lost much of its purchasing power depreciating up to 3,000 per cent.

Iraqi professionals who depended on high government salaries before the 1990s found themselves failing to support a lifestyle they had been accustomed to.

However, shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, thousands of Iraqi expatriates, exiles, and those who had left during the 1990s returned expecting extremely profitable deals and business in what has become known as "rebuilding Iraq".

They were accompanied by many private companies hoping to secure post-war contracts.

Abu Ali told Al Jazeera the real estate market witnessed a "golden renaissance" until the end of 2004.

It was in that year that violence started to claim dozens every day. Basic services and living conditions also deteriorated with some neighbourhoods seeing persistent water shortages and very little electric power.