Gates reassures Hu on Taiwan
Beijing (AFP) Nov 6, 2007 - US Defence Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday assured China's President Hu Jintao that the US government is "categorically" opposed to any moves by Taiwan towards independence. Gates met with Hu in Beijing's Great Hall of the People after two days of talks -- characterised by both parties as "candid but friendly" -- that raised US concerns about China's rapid military build-up and Iran's nucl ... more

Analysis: Say when, madam secretary
Washington (UPI) Nov 6, 2007 - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has borrowed a chapter or two from Henry Kissinger's book of applied negotiations as she headed back out to the Middle East for her eighth visit to the region in the last six months. Kissinger, of course, was secretary of state under Richard Nixon and was the one who invented the concept of shuttle diplomacy. Fully determined not to walk away wi ... more

The Iranian Challenge Trita Parsi The Nation - November, 2007 The ill-informed foreign policy debate on Iran contributes to a paradigm of enmity between the United States and Iran, which limits the foreign policy options of future US administrations to various forms of confrontation while excluding more constructive approaches.

Last Call for a Two-State Solution? Immanuel Wallerstein Agence Global - November, 2007 So, what are the prospects of arriving at an accord? Not very strong, as is acknowledged in the statement of eight heavyweight U.S. public figures who have just published in The New York Review of Books what might be termed a last call for a two-state solution.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channe...nery/1191034415
So What About Iran?
29/09/07

A RESPECTED American paper posted a scoop this week: Vice-President Dick Cheney, the King of Hawks, has thought up a Machiavellian scheme for an attack on Iran. Its main point: Israel will start by bombing an Iranian nuclear installation, Iran will respond by launching missiles at Israel, and this will serve as a pretext for an American attack on Iran.

Far-fetched? Not really. It is rather like what happened in 1956. Then France, Israel and Britain secretly planned to attack Egypt in order to topple Gamal Abd-al-Nasser ("regime change" in today's lingo.) It was agreed that Israeli paratroops would be dropped near the Suez Canal, and that the resulting conflict would serve as a pretext for the French and British to occupy the canal area in order to "secure" the waterway. This plan was implemented (and failed miserably).

What would happen to us if we agreed to Cheney's plan? Our pilots would risk their lives to bomb the heavily defended Iranian installations. Then, Iranian missiles would rain down on our cities. Hundreds, perhaps thousands would be killed. All this in order to supply the Americans with a pretext to go to war.

Would the pretext have stood up? In other words, is the US obliged to enter a war on our side, even when that war is caused by us? In theory, the answer is yes. The current agreements between the US and Israel say that America has to come to Israel's aid in any war - whoever started it.

Is there any substance to this leak? Hard to know. But it strengthens the suspicion that an attack on Iran is more imminent than people imagine.

DO BUSH, Cheney & Co. indeed intend to attack Iran?

I don't know, but my suspicion that they might is getting stronger.

Why? Because George Bush is nearing the end of his term of office. If it ends the way things look now, he will be remembered as a very bad - if not the worst - president in the annals of the republic. His term started with the Twin Towers catastrophe, which reflected no great credit on the intelligence agencies, and would come to a close with the grievous Iraq fiasco.

There is only one year left to do something impressive and save his name in the history books. In such situations, leaders tend to look for military adventures. Taking into account the man's demonstrated character traits, the war option suddenly seems quite frightening.

True, the American army is pinned down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even people like Bush and Cheney could not dream, at this time, of invading a country four times larger than Iraq, with three times the population.

But, quite possibly the war-mongers are whispering in Bush's ear: What are you worrying about? No need for an invasion. Enough to bomb Iran, as we bombed Serbia and Afghanistan. We shall use the smartest bombs and the most sophisticated missiles against the two thousand or so targets, in order to destroy not only the Iranian nuclear sites but also their military installations and government offices. "We shall bomb them back into the stone age," as an American general once said about Vietnam, or "turn their clock back 20 years," as the Israeli Air Force general Dan Halutz said about Lebanon.

That's a tempting idea. The US will only use its mighty Air Force, missiles of all kinds and the powerful aircraft-carriers, which are already deployed in the Persian/Arabian Gulf. All these can be sent into action at any time on short notice. For a failed president approaching the end of his term, the idea of an easy, short war must have an immense attraction. And this president has already shown how hard it is for him to resist temptations of this kind.

WOULD THIS indeed be such an easy operation, a "piece of cake" in American parlance?

I doubt it.

Even "smart" bombs kill people. The Iranians are a proud, resolute and highly motivated people. They point out that for two thousand years they have never attacked another country, but during the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war they have amply proved their determination to defend their own when attacked.

Their first reaction to an American attack would be to close the Straits of Hormuz, the entrance to the Gulf. That would choke off a large part of the world's oil supply and cause an unprecedented world-wide economic crisis. To open the straits (if this is at all possible), the US army would have to capture and hold large areas of Iranian territory.

The short and easy war would turn into a long and hard war. What does that mean for us in Israel?

There can be little doubt that if attacked, Iran will respond as it has promised: by bombarding us with the rockets it is preparing for this precise purpose. That will not endanger Israel's existence, but it will not be pleasant either.

If the American attack turns into a long war of attrition, and if the American public comes to see it as a disaster (as is happening right now with the Iraqi adventure), some will surely put the blame on Israel. It is no secret that the Pro-Israel lobby and its allies - the (mostly Jewish) neo-cons and the Christian Zionists - are pushing America into this war, just as they pushed it into Iraq. For Israeli policy, the hoped-for gains of this war may turn into giant losses - not only for Israel, but also for the American Jewish community.

IF PRESIDENT Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not exist, the Israeli government would have had to invent him.

He has got almost everything one could wish for in an enemy. He has a big mouth. He is a braggart. He enjoys causing scandals. He is a Holocaust denier. He prophesies that Israel will "vanish from the map" (though he did not say, as falsely reported, the he would wipe Israel off the map.)

This week, the pro-Israel lobby organized big demonstrations against his visit to New York. They were a huge success - for Ahmadinejad. He has realized his dream of becoming the center of world attention. He has been given the opportunity to voice his arguments against Israel -- some outrageous, some valid - before a world-wide audience.

But Ahmadinejad is not Iran. True, he has won popular elections, but Iran is like the orthodox parties in Israel: it is not their politicians who count, but their rabbis. The Shiite religious leadership makes the decisions and commands the armed forces, and this body is neither boastful nor vociferous not scandal-mongering. It exercises a lot of caution.

If Iran was really so eager to obtain a nuclear bomb, it would have acted in utmost silence and kept as low a profile as possible (as Israel did). The swaggering of Ahmadinejad would hurt this effort more than any enemy of Iran could.

It is highly unpleasant to think about a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands (and, indeed, in any hands.) I hope it can be avoided by offering inducements and/or imposing sanctions. But even if this does not succeed, it would not be the end of the world, nor the end of Israel. In this area, more than in any other, Israel's deterrent power is immense. Even Ahmadinejad will not risk an exchange of queens - the destruction of Iran for the destruction of Israel.

NAPOLEON SAID that to understand a country's policy, one has only to look at the map.

If we do this, we shall see that there is no objective reason for war between Israel and Iran. On the contrary, for a long time it was believed in Jerusalem that the two countries were natural allies.

David Ben-Gurion advocated an "alliance of the periphery". He was convinced that the entire Arab world is the natural enemy of Israel, and that, therefore, allies should be sought on the fringes of the Arab world - Turkey, Iran, Ethiopia, Chad etc. (He also looked for allies inside the Arab world - communities that are not Sunni-Arab, such as the Maronites, the Copts, the Kurds, the Shiites and others.)

At the time of the Shah, very close connections existed between Iran and Israel, some positive, some negative, some outright sinister. The Shah helped to build a pipeline from Eilat to Askelon, in order to transport Iranian oil to the Mediterranean, bypassing the Suez Canal. The Israel internal secret service (Shabak) trained its notorious Iranian counterpart (Savak). Israelis and Iranians acted together in Iraqi Kurdistan, helping the Kurds against their Sunni-Arab oppressors.

The Khomeini revolution did not, in the beginning, put an end to this alliance, it only drove it underground. During the Iran-Iraq war, Israel supplied Iran with arms, on the assumption that anyone fighting Arabs is our friend. At the same time, the Americans supplied arms to Saddam Hussein - one of the rare instances of a clear divergence between Washington and Jerusalem. This was bridged in the Iran-Contra Affair, when the Americans helped Israel to sell arms to the Ayatollahs.

Today, an ideological struggle is raging between the two countries, but it is mainly fought out on the rhetorical and demagogical level. I dare to say that Ahmadinejad doesn't give a fig for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he only uses it to make friends in the Arab world. If I were a Palestinian, I would not rely on it. Sooner or later, geography will tell and Israeli-Iranian relations will return to what they were - hopefully on a far more positive basis.

ONE THING I am ready to predict with confidence: whoever pushes for war against Iran will come to regret it.

Some adventures are easy to get into but hard to get out of.

The last one to find this out was Saddam Hussein. He thought that it would be a cakewalk - after all, Khomeini had killed off most of the officers, and especially the pilots, of the Shah's military. He believed that one quick Iraqi blow would be enough to bring about the collapse of Iran. He had eight long years of war to regret it.

Both the Americans and we may soon be feeling that the Iraqi mud is like whipped cream compared to the Iranian quagmire.

http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107


The Impossibility of American Empire
Date 2007/10/31 11:20:00

Paris, October 30, 2007 – Since the return of democracy in Spain, Spain's political leaders and political society have demonstrated an extraordinary determination to start anew, after the crisis-afflicted 75 years that began with what the Spaniards have called "the catastrophe" – the collapse of the Spanish empire under blows from an exuberant and adolescent United States that believed it was coming of age as a world power. It's evidence that empires end, but nations don't, and resurrection is possible.

America's transcontinental expansion following the Civil War and the garish joys of the Gilded Age gave Americans a taste for foreign adventure, whetted by the proximity and vulnerability of Cuba. And if Cuba, why not Puerto Rico, and the Philippines? Admiral Alfred Mahan, America's prophet of naval power and of the economic necessity of colonialism, offered convincing economic reasons for American colonial expansion, and the failing Spanish empire was at hand.

A blow to it in the Caribbean, and another in Manila Bay, was enough for it to splinter and collapse. The Spanish Caribbean and the Philippines were ours.

Every empire has its day, and Spain's phenomenal empire had its during the four centuries that followed the expeditions of Columbus, sailing westward. 1492, and the riches of South American gold, led eventually, and one can say inexorably, to failure in 1898. All things come to an end. You live to die, a principle unpopular among Americans.

The Empire of the United States was launched in 1898, and has since traversed a mere century, experiencing increasing ambition, and suffering increasing difficulties. Could it too last 406 years? The current evidence is not reassuring.

Take the capacity to rule. Take the current Republican party candidates for their party's presidential nomination. The level of intelligence, emotional and intellectual maturity, and simple information about the subjects on which they discourse, would disqualify them from mainstream political rank in any other major democracy.

This is seriously distressing – although in principle a soluble problem, since there are plenty of intelligent people in the United States, as well as great universities and a rich culture. But elected U.S. government has been so debased by the national willingness to submit elections to the values and habits of a medium of entertainment, television, and to the corruptions of money, that it is hard to see that such a nation can indefinitely maintain representative government.

The Bush administration has demonstrated that major groups and forces in American society indeed do not wish that form of government to survive, and are deliberately engaged in destroying the constitutional order, undermining the powers of Congress and of the courts, so as to install unchecked executive power, rationalized by a novel and authoritarian legal ideology, and sustained by national security demagogy.

I have not spoken of the Democratic candidates for president in the same way because the party's candidates and debate have not descended to quite the abysmal levels of the Republican pre-primary campaign. But the Democratic party is equally complicit in degrading and subverting the electoral debate and practice of the country, since its candidates are unwilling or unable to challenge the American imperial ideology that drives the country's foreign policy, an ideology of permanent, unchallengeable global military supremacy.

This ideology is plainly written out in the American Defense Department's periodical statements of U.S. National Security Strategy, in the latest of which the previously stated goal of "security" in space has now become "supremacy" in space (as everywhere else).

The most influential ground force doctrine foresees decades of American asymmetrical war against urban insurgents springing up in radicalized or "failed" states around the world (including Europe, which the authors of this ideology of an unending World War IV predict will soon be reduced to helotry in service to an "Islamofascist" Caliphate). This hysterical American dystopia feeds fantasies of conquest to its Islamic enemies that the enemies themselves could not imagine. Paranoia reigns in some American circles, close to leading Republican candidates.

All this might be taken as reason for American fear of what is to come. But the dystopic future thus described is impossible. What can come is a United States that burns itself out in the attempt to deal with its paranoid fantasies.

The United States already wages two wasting wars that make no sense. It will never, itself, dominate the disintegrative forces in Iraq today. In Afghanistan it will never succeed in defeating a Taliban radicalism that represents a real if obscurantist national affirmation by a 40-million strong Pathan ethnic community that has always been the dominant force in its historical homeland.

It is not a question of whether these American objectives should be done. That is irrelevant, since they can't be done. They are impossibilities.

The United States government, in its effort to execute its national security strategy of dominating and defeating global radicalism and extremism, is currently directly attempting to manipulate and control the internal political processes of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya; and indirectly it attempts to exercise decisive influence on the affairs of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Yemen, Libya, the Gulf Emirates, and a non-existent Kurdistan – and this is to take only a single zone of the world.

This is what the War on Terror has come to mean. It is an attempt to create a universal empire that exists only in the American imagination, by an effort that, because its aim is impossible to achieve, is unlimited in the damage it could do to Americans and others.

© Copyright 2007 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights Reserved.

Picking up after failed war on terror

Bush's campaign to wipe out terrorism is a costly mess. Here are five
steps to move on.

By Andrew J. Bacevich
The Los Angeles Times
November 6, 2007

Don't expect to hear this from the White House any time soon, but the
global war on terrorism conceived in the wake of 9/11 has effectively
ended. As President Bush travels from one military post to the next
giving pep talks to soldiers, he manfully sustains the pretense that
V-T Day is just around the corner. Yet events have shredded the
strategy that his administration was counting on to produce its
victory over terrorism.

War requires adherence to principles. Once a conflict becomes an
exercise in improvisation, it ceases to be meaningful. It becomes the
antithesis of war -- killing without political purpose or moral
justification.

The Bush administration is no longer engaged in a principled effort
to address the threat posed by violent Islamic radicalism. In lieu of
principles, the administration now engages in crisis management,
reacting to problems as they pop up. Last week, it was Turkey's
threat to invade Iraqi Kurdistan. This week, it's Pervez Musharraf,
key ally and beneficiary of $10 billion in U.S. aid since 2001,
imposing naked military rule on Pakistan. Next week, who knows what
surprises await?

This much we can say with certainty: Bush is as much in the dark as
you are.

It wasn't always this way. During the heady run-up to the invasion of
Iraq, the president was boldly promising that the United States,
drawing on its "unparalleled military strength and great economic and
political influence," would not only "defend the peace by fighting
terrorists and tyrants" but also "extend the benefits of freedom
across the globe."

Stripped of its hyperbole, this meant that the Bush administration
intended to nudge, cajole, bribe or bludgeon regimes across the
Islamic world into embracing modernity so that they would no longer
breed, harbor or otherwise support terrorists. Condoleezza Rice put
it this way: Because the United States "has always been, and will
always be, not a status quo power but a revolutionary power," the
Bush administration was going to engineer a democratic revolution,
thereby creating what Rice called a "new Middle East."

This revolution has demonstrably failed. In such places as Egypt,
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, it never got off the ground. In the West
Bank and Gaza, free and fair elections delivered power into the hands
of Hamas. In Lebanon, the people voted in droves for Hezbollah. In
each case, the United States refused to accept the outcome, opening
itself to charges of hypocrisy.

In Afghanistan, the promotion of democracy has yielded record opium
crops and a resurgence of the Taliban. Then there is Iraq. The
"liberation" that deposed a dictator gave rise to civil war, created
a vacuum that Al Qaeda was quick to fill and has benefited no one
apart from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Policymakers such as Rice, who once disdained mere stability, are now
frantically trying to prevent the greater Middle East from sliding
into chaos. As the clock runs down on the Bush era, the
administration preoccupies itself with damage control.

Given that Bush's version of global war has proved such a costly
flop, what ought to replace it? Answering that question requires a
new set of principles to guide U.S. policy. Here are five:

* Rather than squandering American power, husband it. As Iraq has
shown, U.S. military strength is finite. The nation's economic
reserves and diplomatic clout also are limited. They badly need
replenishment.

* Align ends with means. Although Bush's penchant for Wilsonian
rhetoric may warm the cockles of neoconservative hearts, it raises
expectations that cannot be met. Promise only the achievable.

* Let Islam be Islam. The United States possesses neither the
capacity nor the wisdom required to liberate the world's 1.4 billion
Muslims, who just might entertain their own ideas about what genuine
freedom entails. Islam will eventually accommodate itself to the
modern world, but Muslims will have to work out the terms.

* Reinvent containment. The process of negotiating that accommodation
will produce unwelcome fallout: anger, alienation, scapegoating and
violence. In collaboration with its allies, the United States must
insulate itself against Islamic radicalism. The imperative is not to
wage global war, whether real or metaphorical, but to erect effective
defenses, as the West did during the Cold War.

* Exemplify the ideals we profess. Rather than telling others how to
live, Americans should devote themselves to repairing their own
institutions. Our enfeebled democracy just might offer the place to
start.

The essence of these principles can be expressed in a single word:
realism, which implies seeing ourselves as we really are and the
world as it actually is.

Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international
relations at Boston University.

Key Pakistanis challenge Musharraf By Laura King The deposed Supreme Court chief justice and former Prime Minister Bhutto raise stakes with opposition to emergency rule.
Voice for democracy muffled in Pakistan By Henry Chu Revered activist Asma Jahangir, who's spent much of her life fighting for human rights, is under house arrest.

Benedict XVI meets with Saudi king in Vatican City By Maria De Cristofaro and Jeffrey Fleishman In the first such talks, the leaders emphasize the 'importance of collaboration.'

Assignment Iraq: Halfhearted at State? - John Carey, Washington Times
Army Officers: Over Hill and Dale - Baltimore Sun editorial
In Pakistan, Echoes of Iran - David Ignatius, Washington Post
Musharraf’s Martial Plan - Benazir Bhutto, New York Times
In Pakistan, the Army is Key - Shuja Nawaz, Boston Globe
Pakistan Tumults - Helle Dale, Washington Times
Pakistan’s General Anarchy - Mohammed Hanif, New York Times
Pakistan’s Path – London Times editorial
The Prince of Islamabad – James Robbins, National Review
Musharraf's Power Play Beginning of the End? – Hassan Abbas, Daily Star
The General vs. The Bush Doctrine – Rich Lowry, National Review
Musharraf Doesn't Need Any More Enemies – Con Coughlin, London Daily Telegraph
Pakistan’s State of Denial - Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, National Review
One-On-One With Iran’s Opposition – John Hughes, Christian Science Monitor
Rice: It’s About Iran? – David Brooks, New York Times
Dithering Diplomats as Iran Options Fade – John Bolton, New York Post
The Iranian Challenge – Trita Parsi, The Nation
A Chance for Nuclear Leadership - Deepti Choubey, Washington Post
Whose Road Map? – Jeff Halper, Jerusalem Post
Gaza Doesn't Need Aid: Has £2bn Gas Field – Tim Butcher, London Daily Telegraph
Abandoning Sderot – Jerusalem Post editorial
Egypt's Race Between Education and Catastrophe - David Arnold, Los Angeles Times
Good News and Bad News From Abizaid - Rami Khouri, Daily Star
Muslim Young Too Easy to Exploit - Zia Haider Rahman, London Daily Telegraph
Nazis and Islamists - Paul Belien, Washington Times
Islam and the West: Keep Yardstick to Yourself – Yasser Kalil, Daily Star
Sir Ian Blair Didn't Mastermind 2005 Bombings – Jan Moir, London Daily Telegraph
Turkey and the EU: Patronising and Mistimed Report – The Independent editorial
Dragging Out The Torture Debate – Massimo Calabresi, Time Magazine
Giuliani Unplugged: Torture and Terrorism - Matthew Continetti, Weekly Standard
Democrats and Waterboarding - Alan Dershowitz, Wall Street Journal
Help for Mexico - Washington Post editorial
Unstable Future for China - Michael Fragoso, Baltimore Sun
A Veterans Day With Purpose - Kathy Roth-Douquet, USA Today

Four More Wars? Candidates' Foreign Policy Advisors Dominated by Hawks

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, The American Conservative

War on Iraq: The 2008 hopefuls promised a change in foreign policy -- and then they hired the old guard.

The Theology of American Empire

Ira Chernus, Foreign Policy in Focus

ForeignPolicy: American foreign policy -- both good and bad -- has always been deeply influenced by Christian theology.

Bush Could Get Access to Private Hillary Files -- Will He Use Them in the Election?

Robert Parry, Consortium News

Hillary Clinton has been subject to regular surveillance by Bush's Executive Branch -- and history suggests that it might be used against her in the coming election.

Seven Bad Assumptions We Make About Iran

Trita Parsi, The Nation

ForeignPolicy: Seven assumptions we need to rethink in order to create a better foreign policy regarding Iran.

America's Armageddonites Push for More War

Jon Basil Utley, Foreign Policy in Focus

War on Iraq: Some fundamentalist evangelicals have moved from forecasting Armageddon to actually trying to bring it about.

Arianna Huffington:

Will Bush Suck the GOP Down the Drain With Him?
George Bush continues to swirl around the drain; the only question now is: will he suck the Republican Party down with him?

Pakistan at the Tipping Point by Richard Bulliet
In a classic Mexican standoff, groups of enemies point their guns at each other, but no one fires because no one knows who will win. The coming days and weeks will tell whether President Musharraf has just fired the first shot, and there is little the United States can do but wring its hands and watch.
more...

General Abizaid Has Good News and Bad News by Rami G. Khouri
Retired General John P. Abizaid has a realistic view of the problems of the Middle East, as far as they go -- having a local and not a global critique. And he is critical of a US foreign policy that too often leads with or is dominated by its military.
more...

John Edwards
Takes on the War Party
But is it too little, too late? by Justin Raimondo http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11867

"Edwards has certainly got the ideology of neoconservatism down: "Here's what you have to know about these neocons – they think might makes right, every time. They believe in domination, not debate. They think America should use our military power to impose our will wherever and whenever we want. They use a sledgehammer when we should use a scalpel.

"And here's what you need to know about George Bush's foreign policy – it's written by these neocons, lock, stock, and barrel."

He uses the "n"-word a total of seven times in this short speech, inevitably coupling it with another important descriptive term – "radical," as in:

"So after 9/11, instead of focusing on the terrorist threat, George Bush started promoting a radical new neoconservative doctrine he called, quote, 'preventive war' – which would soon become part of his argument for war in Iraq."

Edwards clearly understands the urgency of his antiwar appeal: his clarion call to stop the war in Iraq before it spreads to Iran demonstrates that he knows what are the implications of the status quo – which he correctly identifies with Hillary Clinton. Unlike Obama, he calls Clinton out not only on Iraq but on the question of war with Iran:

"Senator Clinton wants to keep combat troops in Iraq to perform combat missions in Iraq. She will extend the war. I will end the war. Only in Washington would anybody believe that you can end the war and continue combat. On a matter as serious as Iraq, we need honesty and real answers – not more double-talk."

Finally, someone in the Democratic dog fight is saying what needs to be said: very clever of him to tie Hillary in with the neocons. It remains for me to point out rave reviews for her coming from Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, Fred Barnes, and Rich Lowry, not to mention the largesse coming her way from the military-industrial complex. And of course the core of her support among the Democratic Party establishment is the "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council, which served as the launching pad for Bill's White House bid. The DLC is home to the last of the Scoop Jackson Democrats – i.e., neocons who never made the transition to GOP politics, but instead stayed in the party long after it had been supposedly McGovernized, emerging, like moles blinking in the sunlight, after 9/11"

Blix: Iraq Is a Disaster,
Aussie Troops Just Symbolic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071106/wl_af...4gsUufiovqROrgF



Israel on offensive against IAEA over Iran
by Jean-Luc RenaudieTue Nov 6, 2:42 PM ET

Campaigning for tougher sanctions on Tehran, Israel went on the offensive on Tuesday against the UN nuclear watchdog, accusing its chief Mohammed ElBaradei of playing into Iran's hands over its atomic drive.

The campaign comes with the International Atomic Energy Agency poised to publish a new report on Iran's nuclear ambitions, to serve as a key part of further discussions at the United Nations on whether to impose a third round of sanctions on Tehran.

"Unfortunately there are foreign officials playing the Iranians' game by contributing to the Iranian strategy of foot-dragging," Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Mark Regev told AFP.

"From this point of view the International (Atomic Energy) Agency and its leadership are guilty," Regev added.

"One could ask whether the agency agreed to fulfil the role the Iranians want it to play, to allow Tehran to implement its strategy," he said.

Permanent members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany, are backing a third UN Security Council resolution and vote on Iran, unless upcoming IAEA and EU reports show "a positive outcome."

But China and Russia, which could in theory veto further sanctions, have yet to call publicly for more punishment against the Islamic republic.

"The ayatollahs hope the pace of diplomatic discussions under way is as slow as possible so they (the Iranians) can continue with their nuclear armaments programme at a faster pace," said Regev.

Israel and its chief ally the United States charge that Tehran is using its civilian nuclear programme as a cover to develop atomic weapons -- claims that Tehran flatly denies.

Senior Israeli army intelligence officer Yossi Beidetz told parliament's foreign affairs and defence ministry that Iran could acquire the bomb by 2009.

"Assuming Iran is not faced with difficulties, the most severe scenario is that Iran could have a nuclear bomb by the end of 2009," Beidetz was quoted by committee members as saying.

Israel, which belongs to the IAEA but has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is widely considered to be the Middle East's sole -- if undeclared -- nuclear-armed nation.

It considers Iran its chief enemy after repeated statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Jewish state should be wiped off the map.

Last month, on a tour of UN Security Council members to push for tougher sanctions against Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also criticised the IAEA chief.

"If ElBaradei thinks that an Iranian bomb in three years time does not bother him, it certainly worries me, even extremely," Olmert said in France.

"It would be better if ElBaradei made an effort to prevent them from obtaining a bomb."

ElBaradei said in an interview with France's Le Monde newspaper that Iran would need "between three and eight years" to develop a nuclear bomb and that there were was no immediate threat.

"I want to get people away from the idea that Iran represents a clear and present danger and that we're now facing the decision whether to bombard Iran or let them have the bomb. We're not in that situation at all," he said.

Gerald Steinberg, political science professor at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv, suggested that ElBaradei could either be anti-American or trying to avoid an attack on Iran at any price.

"What is certainly the case is that there is an increasingly flagrant contradiction between IAEA technical reports clearly showing Iran's intentions to build nuclear weapons and the mollifying conclusions of ElBaradei," he said.

In 1981, Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq, which under the rule of now executed dictator Saddam Hussein was its biggest enemy. The raid was heavily criticised by the United States and UN Security Council.

Afghanistan rocked by northern bombing

Hazara Shi'ite leader Sayed Mustafa Kazimi, a rising political star, was one of the victims in the biggest suicide attack in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban six years ago. His killing will deal a huge blow to the unity of non-Pashtun ethnic groups and is a sign that a master plan to destabilize the northern regions of Afghanistan is in the works, with the goal of opening another front against the NATO forces. The Taliban have the most to gain from the killing, but the perpetrators are likely to have close connections to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence. - M K Bhadrakumar (Nov 7, '07)
Taliban stage a coup of their own
Taking full advantage of President General Pervez Musharraf's troubles following the declaration of an emergency and the army's preoccupation with political issues, the Taliban are making gains in Afghanistan and the Pashtun areas of Pakistan. - Syed Saleem Shahzad (Nov 7, '07)

White House gives green light for assistance in operation against PKK
( Published on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 )
Dana Perino has confirmed the arrangement of intelligence efforts from US forces Turkey to engage in "limited and targeted" action against the PKK presence in northern Iraq

Pakistan: Media Reports on Pakistani Islamists Conceal Their Anti-Freedom Ideology

By Jeffrey Imm


In the media coverage of Pakistan President Musharraf's declaration of emergency and martial law, Islamists objecting to his emergency declaration are being portrayed as defenders of Pakistani freedom, when in fact they represent Islamist anti-freedom ideologies. While there are certainly other genuinely pro-freedom individuals who object to Musharraf's emergency declaration, media sources are combining reports of anti-freedom Islamists' criticism along with other democratic opponents of Pakistan President Musharraf, and in the process, lending undue credibility to Islamist Pakistanis.

This is starkly reflected in the media reporting on such figures as Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Hamid Gul. Both of these individuals are Islamists within Pakistan, who seek to undermine any remaining pluralism and freedom in Pakistan and replace it with an anti-freedom Islamist ideology. What media reports fail to point out is that such "repressed" Pakistani Islamists as Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Hamid Gul and their supporters are likely to want to see someone like Osama Bin Laden lead Pakistan.

Islamist Qazi Hussain Ahmed

Regarding Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the November 5 Washington Post views him as "head of a conservative religious party", and reports Qazi Hussain Ahmed's calls against Musharraf as: "It's time to take a stand. It's a now-or-never chance, and people should come out on the streets and throw out this military dictator." The Washington Post reports that "[h]undreds of the party's activists had been arrested as of Monday morning, a party spokesman said". The Washington Post does not identify the organizations or the ideology that Qazi Hussain Ahmed and his political parties represent.

In fact, the "conservative religious party" that Qazi Hussain Ahmed leads is Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI), which is also part of the Muttahidah Majlis-e-'Amal (Council of United Action) (MMA) -- that he also leads. Neither are merely a "conservative religious party", but are Islamist political organizations, with reported support of Jihad by their leaders and some of their members.

Qazi Hussain Ahmed has been reported as a sympathizer and defender of Osama Bin Laden. One media report stated "Qazi Hussain Ahmed has earlier made flattering comments about Osama bin Laden, and his party, Jamaat-e-Islami, also has hailed al-Qaeda members as heroes." Qazi Hussain Ahmed views that the 9/11 attacks were "specially designed to crush Muslims all over the world under this garb".

In his own party's media news ("Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) Media News"), Qazi Hussain Ahmed "has warned the government that unrest in the country would assume serious dimensions if it assisted the United States or any agency in arrest of Osama bin Laden." In May 2003, South Asia Intelligence Group reported potential links between Qazi Hussain Ahmed, JEI, and Bin Laden: "US intelligence officers posted in Pakistan have reportedly been making detailed enquiries into the likely links of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) of Pakistan headed by Qazi Hussain Ahmed with Al Qaeda of Osama bin Laden".

Regarding Jamaat-e-Islami, the Christian Science Monitor reported that Pakistan's Interior Minister Makhdoom Faisel Saleh Hayat has alleged links between JEI and Al Qaeda stating "[a]ll of the activists and terrorists who have been apprehended in recent months have had links to the Jamaat-e-Islami, whether we have arrested them in Lahore or here or Karachi....[t]hey have been harboring them."

Prior to the Musharraf emergency declaration, the Pakistan Daily Times reported that Jamaat-e-Islami has been petitioning the Pakistani Supreme Court to halt all Pakistani military action in the Tribal Areas.

As GlobalSecurity.org states of Muttahidah Majlis-e-'Amal (MMA) political coalition: "it venomously attacked the Musharraf government for having betrayed the Taliban and sided with the US in its supposed 'war against Islam'. They...speak in favour of the militant groups banned by the Musharraf government Leaders under the MMA umbrella have issued fatwas of death on Americans and have denied the 9/11 attack by Osama bin Laden. The four parties are opposed to the present fiscal system and want it Islamised together with a complete enforcement of 'shariah'."


Islamist Hamid Gul

Regarding Hamid Gul, the November 4 London Times reported his comments as "one senior official" stating that "General Hamid Gul, the former head of Pakistan's military intelligence and a long-time opponent of Bhutto, said Musharraf's state of emergency would have no impact in the war with Islamic militants. 'The terrorist campaign will become more intense, but the army cannot do any more under martial law. It's a suicidal action on Musharraf's part, Gul said." AP's November 5 report simply views Hamid Gul as merely a "critic of Musharraf".

The London Times report fails to note that ex-ISI head, Lieutenant General Hamid Gul is a retired military official, whose career was pivotal in establishing the Taliban, in supporting Jihadist groups in Kashmir, and who is a publicly documented supporter of Jihad. In December 2001, during the U.S. initial war against the Afghanistan Taliban, the Asia Times reported that "Hamid Gul, nicknamed the 'godfather of the Taliban', is believed to be behind moves to help the Taliban establish a base in Pakistan's autonomous Pashtun tribal belt".

As the Pakistan Daily Times has reported, Hamid Gul has been a "strategic adviser" to the Islamist MMA organization. Gul has stated that "God will destroy the US in Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever it will try to go from there. The Muslim world must stand united to confront the US in its so-called war against terror which is in reality a war against Muslims. Let's destroy America wherever its troops are trapped."

UPI and the Washington Times have quoted Hamid Gul's interview in Pakistan's Urdu newspaper Nawa-e-Waqt where he stated: "The leadership vacuum created by the sad demise of (Palestinian) President (Yasser) Arafat can only be filled by Osama Bin Laden and (Taliban leader) Mullah (Mohammad) Omar, the real leaders that are the only dedicated individuals with the mass support of the Muslim world."

BBC reported Hamid Gul's views on Jihad, criticizing President Musharraf for seeking to stop Jihadists and saying: "Who is Pervez Musharraf to say we should stop Jihad, when the Koran says it and when the United Nations Charter backs it up? Musharraf says: 'Stop the jihad, do this, that and the other.' No, no, no. He cannot. There is a clear-cut Koranic injunction."

Repeatedly, this "godfather of the Taliban" Hamid Gul is used by western media sources in providing interviews and comments on Pakistan political issues, with no reference or context to his Islamist beliefs or his support for Osama Bin Laden and Jihad. There is no concern that Hamid Gul is using such western media sources to propagate anti-western and anti-freedom propaganda.

The London Times reported on July 15, 2007 incendiary comments by Hamid Gul after the Lal Masjid conflict: "The government is trying to hide the number of young girls killed. As the truth comes out that young girls were gassed and burnt, riddled with bullets and killed, it'll be bad for Musharraf." Then on March 11, 2007, the London Times used Hamid Gul as a source on NATO raids on the Taliban: "Last night Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, former director of Pakistan's intelligence service, said he was preparing to issue a writ in the Supreme Court to stop US raids. He claimed that senior army figures were embarrassed at what they regarded as a breach of sovereignty, and that continued breaches could result in Musharraf being toppled." Gul's role as a Taliban supporter, pro-Jihadist, and supporter of Osama Bin Laden was not provided for context in these reports. As with the current media reporting on the Pakistan emergency, such major omissions provide a platform for anti-freedom propaganda.


Read More »


Why Honesty in Media Matters

For this brief example, I have used obvious figures such as Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Hamid Gul. That is not to suggest that these are the only Pakistani Islamists being whitewashed by media reports. Imran Khan, leader of Tehreek-e-Insaf party with "Islamic overtones", is documented as being against the "Zionist" "war on terror" that he views as being against the "Muslim freedom struggle". Nor are the major media sources reporting how members of Imran Khan's party have been documented chanting "Long Live Osama" (Bin Laden) just a few months ago.

The use of such Islamist figures in Pakistan as "sources" for defending "freedom" or addressing national security issues by the media is a disturbing trend. The Washington Post, London Times, AP, and other media have the ready resources to qualify and provide context for comments by such individuals, but are choosing not to do this.

There is a tendency among some of the left-wing media pundits to believe that the problems in Pakistan can be used simply to embarrass the Bush administration. That is a naive and short-sighted viewpoint. The growing Islamist sentiment in Pakistan is a threat to genuine advocates of freedom in Pakistan and to the world; this threat requires responsible journalism and reporting of the very real dangers inside Pakistan. Pakistan is a base for Jihadists to plot attacks in UK and Europe, and also to use Jihadists in Europe and UK to plot attacks on Americans.

Benazir Bhutto calls for the "marginalization of militants, fanatics and extremists". That seems reasonable, but who is defining what those terms mean? Without an honest assessment of ideologies behind the Islamists opposed to Musharraf and his actions, there will not be a clear definition of the moderates in Pakistan that Bhutto states that she represents.


An important step is to hold the media accountable when Islamists and Islamist propaganda are given a ready platform by a free press. Another important step is an honest assessment of the Islamist public opinion within Pakistan and the degree to which Taliban sympathy within Pakistan already exists.



Sources and Related Documents:

November 5, 2007 - Washington Post: Pakistan Moves Against Opposition
Wikipedia: Qazi Hussain Ahmad
Wikipedia: Jamaat-e-Islami
Wikipedia: Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal
GlobalSecurity.org: Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal
October 18, 2007 - Pakistan Daily Times: SC moved against military action in Tribal Areas
Jamaat-e-Islami Media News
July 24, 2005 - JI Media News: Qazi warns govt. against assisting anti-Osama operation
June 4, 2005 - JI Media News: 9/11 a pretext to grill Muslims: Qazi
August 9, 2004 - Aftenposten: Bin Laden backer on his way to Oslo
May 29, 2003 - South Asia Analysis Group: Jamaat-E-Islami, Hizbul Muhahideen, and Al Qaeda
March 26, 2003 - Christian Science Monitor: Al Qaeda-Pakistani ties deepen
October 26, 2001 - BBC: Big anti-US protest in Pakistan
November 4, 2007 - London Times: Musharraf spoils for a fight as he declares emergency rule
November 5, 2007 - AP: Pakistani Police Prevent Lawyer Protests
Wikipedia: Hamid Gul
July 15, 2007 - London Times: Bin Laden's deputy behind the Red Mosque bloodbath
March 11, 2007 - London Times: Pakistan angry at Nato raids to catch militants
November 29, 2004 - Washington Times/UPI: "Gulled by Gul" - by Arnaud de Borchgrave
August 30, 2003 - Pakistan Daily Times: God will destroy America, says Hamid Gul
August 5, 2002 - BBC: Pakistan's 'culture of Jihad'
December 13, 2001 - Asia Times: Taliban's trail leads to Pakistan
November 4, 2007 - CNN: Commentary: No time for dictatorship - Benazir Bhutto
July 18, 2005 - CNS News: NY Muslim Group Linked to bin Laden Supporters
November 1, 2006 - Long War Journal: Pakistani Terror Groups Openly Involved in Bajaur Protests - Bill Roggio



« Close It

November 7, 2007 12:30 AM Link

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Israel’s inner cabinet in urgent session Wednesday to discuss advanced Iranian nuclear bomb timeline to 2009

November 7, 2007, 10:55 AM (GMT+02:00)

The inner cabinet meets Wed. Nov. 7, to discuss the shortened timeline estimate for Iran to attain a nuclear weapons capacity, based on new intelligence information. IDF intelligence chief Brig. Yossi Baidatz told the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee Tuesday that Iran would have this capacity by late 2009. DEBKAfile’s Washington sources report that American nuclear and intelligence experts agree on the timetable after poring over the new intelligence input. This includes materials gathered in the Israel attack of Syria’s nuclear installation on Sept. 6.


More...

DEBKAfile: Large-scale US Persian Gulf exercise in progress tests preventive tactics against possible Iranian blockade of key Hormuz Straits

November 5, 2007, 11:51 PM (GMT+02:00)

USS Kearsage

The exercise starting on Nov. 2, followed a statement by Iranian Gen. Al;I Fahdavi on Oct. 29, that the Revolutionary Guards Naval forces under his command are ready and able to strike at oil export traffic heading out of the Gulf region. On Nov 2, Bahrain’s Crown Prince Salman Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa said: “While they (Iranians) don’t have the bomb yet, they are developing it - or the capability for it.” He was the first Arab ruler to spell this threat out publicly.

Read DEBKAfile’s Special Report below on the inefficacy of international action against Iran’s nuclear plans.


Full article

MICHAEL C. DORF Does the First Amendment Protect Highly Offensive Speech at a Funeral and Directed at the Deceased? FindLaw columnist and Columbia law professor Michael Dorf analyzes U.S. Supreme Court precedent to determine whether the Court would likely hold that the First Amendment allows protesters to disrupt funerals by picketing with placards bearing offensive messages. Dorf concludes that the Court would likely uphold as constitutional reasonable restraints on such picketing. This analysis, as Dorf explains, is relevant to the status of a recent $10.9 million federal civil jury award in a suit brought by the father of a Marine killed while serving in Iraq. The father sued picketers at his son's funeral, alleging that they disrupted the funeral by displaying highly offensive signs, and violated defamation law by posting related messages on their website.

JOHN W. DEAN Political Processes Matter: Although They Are Often Ignored By American News Media, A New British Import Has Addressed The Issue Directly FindLaw columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean argues that a view that has become conventional wisdom inside the Beltway -- that American voters do not care about political-process issues such as secrecy, bipartisanship, or the violation of longtime procedures -- is dead wrong. Dean also applauds Michael Tomasky, editor of the UK Guardian's new online edition, for going where American journalists generally do not go, to ask candidates about issues of process and power, as Tomasky did in a recent interview with Hillary Clinton.
Friday, Nov. 02, 2007

War and Peace

The Bush administration has announced a major new Middle East initiative: more weapons for the overly weaponized. In Gasoline for the Fire, Matt Duss compares the U.S. government to a gambling addict who has to keep betting more to cover his previous losses. The plan to provide some $65 billion worth of advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel over the next 10 years, he argues, represents a reckless, poorly considered attempt to mitigate the consequences of its disastrous invasion of Iraq.

In The Saudi Arms Deal, Rachel Stohl explains that congressional opposition to the plan is growing. Ultimately, this turkey might not fly.

And Dan Smith, in Why Saudi Arabia, Why Now, gives the back story on why the administration thinks this deal makes sense even when so many others think it doesn't.

+ Defiant Iran reaches key nuclear target
Tehran (AFP) Nov 7, 2007 - Iran has reached a key target of 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday, vowing to ignore UN resolutions calling for a halt to Tehran's sensitive nuclear work. "We have now reached 3,000 machines," a defiant Ahmadinejad told a rally in the northeastern city of Birjand. It was not the first time that the president had boasted that Iran ha ... more


+ Gulf states press nuclear programme with eye to Iran
Riyadh (AFP) Nov 7, 2007 - The six pro-Western Gulf states have completed a feasibility study on a proposed civil nuclear programme, the bloc's secretary general said on Wednesday at a meeting of Gulf defence ministers. Abdel Rahman al-Attiyah said that the study, which was put together with the assistance of the UN nuclear watchdog, had been handed to him on Monday and would be submitted to a meeting of Gulf foreign ... more


+ Iranian nuclear claim shows 'defiance': Washington
Washington (AFP) Nov 7, 2007 - Iran has shown again it intends to press ahead with its nuclear program, in defiance of the world community, by announcing its latest move on uranium enrichment, a senior US official said Wednesday. "There's a rational expectation, based on history, that they are indeed continuing to push forward on their nuclear program in defiance of the international community," said State Department spok ... more

Russian parliament votes freeze on CFE treaty
Moscow (AFP) Nov 7, 2007 - The Russian parliament on Wednesday voted unanimously to suspend the country's compliance with a key 1990 treaty limiting conventional force deployments in Europe. In a motion, the State Duma said that in light of NATO expansion and other factors in Europe, the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty "no longer responds to the security interests of the Russian Federation." The vo ... more


+ SKorea, US concerned about NKorean missiles
Seoul (AFP) Nov 7, 2007 - North Korea's development of long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction pose a threat although the country has started disabling its nuclear reactor, US and South Korean officials said Wednesday. A US team began overseeing work on Monday to dismantle the reactor at Yongbyon, the first step in a denuclearisation pact that also requires Pyongyang to make a full accounting of its nucle ... more


+ US agrees to negotiate on cluster weapons treaty
Geneva (AFP) Nov 7, 2007 - The United States on Wednesday said it would support talks to draw up a treaty regulating the use of cluster munitions, but remained opposed to any outright ban. Speaking at a meeting of states in the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), US ambassador Ronald Bettauer said Washington was no longer opposed to talks on expanding the treaty to cover cluster munitions. ... more

IEA forecasts for Indian, Chinese energy demand
Paris (AFP) Nov 7, 2007 - The International Energy Agency focused on the impact of soaring demand from Asian giants China and India in its 2007 World Energy Outlook. Here are some key predictions by the energy watchdog. The figures and dates are based on current energy consumption trends. Future action by governments to reduce demand would affect the forecasts. They are also based on an assumption of economi ... more

Gulf armies ready for possibility of US-Iran war: Saudi
Riyadh (AFP) Nov 6, 2007 - The armed forces of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are prepared for the possibility of an armed conflict between the United States and Iran, Saudi Arabia's deputy defence minister said on Tuesday. In reply to a reporter's question on the preparedness of GCC states in the event of such a conflict, Abdul Rahman bin Abdul Aziz said: "This subject is under constant study between defence mini ... more


+ Israel on offensive against IAEA over Iran
Jerusalem (AFP) Nov 6, 2007 - Campaigning for tougher sanctions on Iran, Israel went on the offensive Tuesday against the UN nuclear watchdog, accusing its leaders of playing into Tehran's hands over its nuclear ambitions. "Unfortunately there are foreign officials playing the Iranians' game by contributing to the Iranian strategy of foot-dragging," Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Mark Regev told AFP. "From this p ... more

Foreign Policy News and Commentary Update November 7, 2007

US FOCUS ON 'TERROR WAR' SINKS IMAGE TO ALL-TIME LOW: REPORT AFP (RAW STORY, NOVEMBER 6): . "America's reputation, standing and influence are at all-time lows, and possibly sinking further," the report by a 20-member think-tank commissioned by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said, citing half a dozen opinion polls from around the world. The commission urged more commitment to global development, more equitable global trade talks, a revitalized public diplomacy effort under which "every US citizen serves as a diplomat", and greater investment in education to ensure the United States does not fall back from the cutting edge of science and technology. http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_focus_on_t...__11062007.html
REPORT AT
http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_c...id,4156/type,1/

SCAPEGOATING US DIPLOMATS FOR FAILURES IN IRAQ? WILLIAM FISHER (HUFFINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 7): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-fish...ts_b_71637.html

STATE DEPT. BLOG: STATE EMPLOYEES ARE WIMPS - JOSHUA KEATING (PASSPORT, FOREIGN POLICY, NOVEMBER 7): http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6941
SEE ALSO
http://wonkette.com/politics/diplomacy/dip...stop-320104.php
A NEW REALISM FOR A NEW CENTURY: PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BILL RICHARDSON OUTLINES HIS FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA - BILL RICHARDSON (NATIONAL INTEREST ON LINE, NOVEMBER 7): http://www.nationalinterest.org/PrinterFri...y.aspx?id=16086


LOW APPROVAL FROM ABROAD EDITORIAL (COURANT.COM, NOVEMBER 8): A government accused of invading other countries, mistreating prisoners of war and abrogating international arms treaties shouldn't expect good press abroad.
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editor...535,print.story
SELF-INFLICTED WOUNDS - ALBERTO MORA AND JOHN SHATTUCK (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 6): The question of whether waterboarding constitutes torture is a no-brainer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0501594_pf.html

PICKING UP AFTER FAILED WAR ON TERROR: BUSH'S CAMPAIGN TO WIPE OUT TERRORISM IS A COSTLY MESS. HERE ARE FIVE STEPS TO MOVE ON - ANDREW J. BACEVICH (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 6): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail
STATE SEEKS $1.5 BILLION FOR IRAQ - ASSOCIATED PRESS (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 7): http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Stat...agewanted=print
ENVOYS AT ODDS OVER IRAQ SERVICE - NICHOLAS KRALEV (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 6): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
HALFHEARTED AT STATE? - JOHN E. CAREY (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 7): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart

SHAME ON THE RECALCITRANT DIPLOMATS STEVE PFISTER, ALEXANDRIA (LETTER TO THE EDITOR, WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 5): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0401275_pf.html

OF DIPLOMATS AND MEN: DO FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS IN WASHINGTON FEEL NO SENSE OF SOLIDARITY WITH THEIR COLLEAGUES IN BAGHDAD? - WILLIAM KRISTOL AND DEAN BARNETT (WEEKLY STANDARD, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/pr...&R=115C3EF9

IRAQ IS NOT VIETNAM AND THE PRTS ARE NOT CORDS PATRICIA H. KUSHLIS (WHIRLED VIEW, NOVEMBER 7): http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview...is-not-vie.html

2007 IS DEADLIEST YEAR FOR US IN IRAQ - LAUREN FRAYER, ASSOCIATED PRESS (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 6):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...d=moreheadlines
IRAQ TAUGHT US NOTHING: THE U.S. ESTABLISHMENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF A POSSIBLE WAR WITH IRAN SHOWS THAT THE FOLLY THAT LED TO IRAQ STILL RULES WASHINGTON - GARY KAMIYA (SALON, NOVEMBER 6)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/11/06/iran_war/
EXPECT NO WORLD WAR III FOR NOW - DENNIS JETT (ATLANTIC PRESS, NOVEMBER 5): http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2764/81/

PRESENT AT THE CREATION - DAVID BROOKS (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 6): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/opinion/...agewanted=print

MUSHARRAF'S MARTIAL PLAN - BENAZIR BHUTTO (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 7): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/opinion/...agewanted=print

PAKISTANI COUP DE GRÂCE: MUSHARRAF HAS NEVER BEEN EITHER A DEMOCRAT OR A RELIABLE ALLY AGAINST THE TALIBAN. SO WHY BANKROLL HIM? ? EDITORIAL (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 6)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-...pinion-leftrail
WORKING WITH A DICTATOR: PRESIDENT BUSH'S FEEBLE RESPONSE TO PAKISTAN'S COUP MOCKS THE 'FREEDOM AGENDA' EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 6): blamed for .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0501678_pf.html
MUSHARRAF SHOWS DICTATORS HOW IT'S DONE: THE PAKISTANI PRESIDENT USES THE ISLAMIST BOOGEYMAN TO TIGHTEN HIS GRIP ON POWER AND QUELL AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY - MONA ELTAHAWY (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 6)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail
PAKISTAN ON THE BRINK ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 6): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart

THE PAKISTAN MESS EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 6): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/opinion/...agewanted=print

PERILS OF PAKISTAN - ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 6): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart

MUSHARRAF'S SECOND COUP - NAJAM SETHI (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 6): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194300820...in_commentaries
PAID SUBSCRIPTION

ANOTHER BUSH BACKFIRE - DAN FROOMKIN (WASHINGTONPOST.COM, NOVEMBER 5): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0500704_pf.html

BUSH AND MUSHARRAF'S GRAND ILLUSION: DEMOCRACY FOR PAKISTAN WAS NEVER THE DEAL -- AND AS MUSHARRAF'S LATEST POWER GRAB THROWS HIS NATION INTO TURMOIL, BUSH WILL GLADLY GO ALONG - JUAN COLE (SALON, NOVEMBER 6)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/06/musharraf/
FOOL ME ONCE ... EFFWIT (SWEDISH MEATBALLS CONFIDENTIAL, NO