Dollar Crisis: None dare call it 'conspiracy'- by Hal Lindsey - 2007-11-11 
US Dollar Plummets - 2007-11-11
Full Version: Snuffymith's Blog-Sept. 17 - Nov. 29, 2007
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media Archive
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42
Dollar Crisis: None dare call it 'conspiracy'- by Hal Lindsey - 2007-11-11 US Dollar Plummets - 2007-11-11
Iran, Pakistan reach gas pipeline deal : Iran and Pakistan have reached a deal to build a multi-billion-dollar pipeline to transport natural gas between the two countries, Iranian state television reported Saturday.
Jordan and the 'last chance conference'
By Oraib Al-Rantawi
Commentary by
Monday, November 12, 2007
Of all the countries in the region, Jordan has been the most
enthusiastic and active in the course of the past two years in calling
to exploit what could be considered "the last chance for peace in the
region." This position gained additional momentum following US
President George W. Bush's speech last July in which he expressed his
desire to host an "international meeting" for peace this autumn.
The Jordanian perspective, which supports the Bush initiative, is
based on a number of considerations of which two are particularly
important. First, solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in its
various aspects and establishing a viable Palestinian state is a goal
in and of itself that will positively impact both Jordan's and the
region's security and stability. And second, solving this conflict
will contribute to enhancing the position of the Arab moderate camp
and lessening the influence of extremist forces in the region - Iran,
Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and radical fundamentalist movements - that
are considered by decision-making institutions in Jordan as threats to
both Jordanian national security and regional stability.
Like the Palestinian Authority and some Arab countries, Jordan
believes that the conference should come up with a document that
outlines a clear plan to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and
sets out a series of steps necessary to establish a viable Palestinian
state and ensure Israel's security.
But Jordan's great enthusiasm for the conference is accompanied by
caution and wariness regarding the consequences of once again missing
an opportunity for peace. Recently it was noticed that official
Jordanian statements accompanying the faltering preliminary
negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis tend to lower
expectations and repeatedly warn of the risks arising from the failure
of the Annapolis conference, which would affect the entire region and
not only Palestinians and Israelis.
Some Jordanian newspapers have recently expressed surprise at the
optimistic climate generated by certain Palestinian officials
concerning Annapolis. They wonder whether the Palestinians are
planning to present the Jordanian leadership with an "Oslo-2-like"
surprise that could jeopardize Jordan's interests in final settlement
negotiations. This has prompted some journalists and newspapers to
talk about "coldness" in relations between Mahmoud Abbas, president of
the Palestinian National Authority, and the Jordanian leadership.
Jordanian political sources identify Jordan's basic interests in final
settlement negotiations as the refugee issue, Jerusalem, security
arrangements, water and the future of economic cooperation. Jordan
hosts 40 percent of all Palestinian refugees, who account for more
than half its population. It is committed to guard religious and holy
sites in East Jerusalem under the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty. It
is interested in the water issue due to its financial deficit, and in
economic cooperation and financial assistance that would enable it to
rehabilitate a large portion of Palestinian refugees. This is in
addition of course to issues of common security in light of the
dangers resulting from the growing role of fundamentalist forces and
Islamic movements in Jordan, Palestine and the rest of the region.
Given all these considerations, there is a growing interest in Jordan
in the preliminary negotiations now in progress between Palestinians
and Israelis, accompanied by growing concern over their possible
failure. There are also warnings of the consequences of ignoring
Jordan's interests in the final settlement, accompanied by calls to
engage Jordan in the negotiations at an early stage so that it can
explain its position, present its demands and defend its interests.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
Jordan also views the Annapolis conference from a regional perspective
as an expression of moderate Arabs' joint interest in pursuing
regional peace and dealing with extremists who are trying to impose
their agenda on the region. In this context, Jordanian diplomacy
prefers to coordinate its steps with those Arab parties now joined in
the "Arab quartet," which in addition to Jordan comprises Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, the Palestinian Authority and the
Lebanese government.
Jordanian diplomacy also seeks to guarantee the support of a large
number of Islamic countries for the Annapolis conference, with the aim
of providing an Arab and Islamic "safety net" for Palestinian
negotiators. This explains the phone calls and visits of Jordan's King
Abdullah with the leaders of Indonesia, Turkey and Pakistan, with the
aim of encouraging them to participate in the autumn conference.
Decision-making circles in Jordan believe that the success of the
Annapolis conference in taking steps along the path to a final
settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would remove the
"Palestinian card" from the political auction block, where it is used
for purposes that serve the interests of parties from Iran and Syria
to Hizbullah and Al-Qaeda and that neglect and often contradict the
interests of the Palestinian people.
Jordanian diplomacy seems convinced that wide circles in the US
administration, specifically in the State Department, share the
Jordanian and moderate Arab vision that stresses the need to solve the
Palestinian issue in all its aspects, regardless of the direction of
American policy in Iraq, the outcome of the Iranian nuclear program
crisis or the state of relations between Washington and Tehran.
Although Jordanian decision-making circles take into consideration
that the United States might have a hidden agenda behind its call to
hold the Annapolis conference - one seeking to mobilize Islamic and
Arab countries' support for the US in Iraq and/or in its confrontation
with Iran - these circles think that Annapolis is an opportunity that
should be seized regardless.
For all these reasons, Jordanian diplomacy is paying special attention
to Annapolis. It seeks through various channels to help both the
Palestinians and Israelis reach a common document as a basis for a
final settlement. It also believes, for the same reasons, that the
failure of the conference to reach the desired results will strengthen
the position of Hamas against Abbas in Palestine as well as that of
Hizbullah and its allies in fighting Siniora's government and its
allies in Lebanon. Failure will also strengthen the position of Iran
and the influence of forces of extremism and fanaticism, giving them
new pretexts to pursue their activities and win the support and
sympathy of the frustrated and angry Arab and Islamic public.
Oraib Al Rantawi is a media columnist and director of Al-Quds Center
for Political Studies in Amman. This commentary first appeared at
bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsle
By Oraib Al-Rantawi
Commentary by
Monday, November 12, 2007
Of all the countries in the region, Jordan has been the most
enthusiastic and active in the course of the past two years in calling
to exploit what could be considered "the last chance for peace in the
region." This position gained additional momentum following US
President George W. Bush's speech last July in which he expressed his
desire to host an "international meeting" for peace this autumn.
The Jordanian perspective, which supports the Bush initiative, is
based on a number of considerations of which two are particularly
important. First, solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in its
various aspects and establishing a viable Palestinian state is a goal
in and of itself that will positively impact both Jordan's and the
region's security and stability. And second, solving this conflict
will contribute to enhancing the position of the Arab moderate camp
and lessening the influence of extremist forces in the region - Iran,
Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and radical fundamentalist movements - that
are considered by decision-making institutions in Jordan as threats to
both Jordanian national security and regional stability.
Like the Palestinian Authority and some Arab countries, Jordan
believes that the conference should come up with a document that
outlines a clear plan to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and
sets out a series of steps necessary to establish a viable Palestinian
state and ensure Israel's security.
But Jordan's great enthusiasm for the conference is accompanied by
caution and wariness regarding the consequences of once again missing
an opportunity for peace. Recently it was noticed that official
Jordanian statements accompanying the faltering preliminary
negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis tend to lower
expectations and repeatedly warn of the risks arising from the failure
of the Annapolis conference, which would affect the entire region and
not only Palestinians and Israelis.
Some Jordanian newspapers have recently expressed surprise at the
optimistic climate generated by certain Palestinian officials
concerning Annapolis. They wonder whether the Palestinians are
planning to present the Jordanian leadership with an "Oslo-2-like"
surprise that could jeopardize Jordan's interests in final settlement
negotiations. This has prompted some journalists and newspapers to
talk about "coldness" in relations between Mahmoud Abbas, president of
the Palestinian National Authority, and the Jordanian leadership.
Jordanian political sources identify Jordan's basic interests in final
settlement negotiations as the refugee issue, Jerusalem, security
arrangements, water and the future of economic cooperation. Jordan
hosts 40 percent of all Palestinian refugees, who account for more
than half its population. It is committed to guard religious and holy
sites in East Jerusalem under the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty. It
is interested in the water issue due to its financial deficit, and in
economic cooperation and financial assistance that would enable it to
rehabilitate a large portion of Palestinian refugees. This is in
addition of course to issues of common security in light of the
dangers resulting from the growing role of fundamentalist forces and
Islamic movements in Jordan, Palestine and the rest of the region.
Given all these considerations, there is a growing interest in Jordan
in the preliminary negotiations now in progress between Palestinians
and Israelis, accompanied by growing concern over their possible
failure. There are also warnings of the consequences of ignoring
Jordan's interests in the final settlement, accompanied by calls to
engage Jordan in the negotiations at an early stage so that it can
explain its position, present its demands and defend its interests.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
Jordan also views the Annapolis conference from a regional perspective
as an expression of moderate Arabs' joint interest in pursuing
regional peace and dealing with extremists who are trying to impose
their agenda on the region. In this context, Jordanian diplomacy
prefers to coordinate its steps with those Arab parties now joined in
the "Arab quartet," which in addition to Jordan comprises Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, the Palestinian Authority and the
Lebanese government.
Jordanian diplomacy also seeks to guarantee the support of a large
number of Islamic countries for the Annapolis conference, with the aim
of providing an Arab and Islamic "safety net" for Palestinian
negotiators. This explains the phone calls and visits of Jordan's King
Abdullah with the leaders of Indonesia, Turkey and Pakistan, with the
aim of encouraging them to participate in the autumn conference.
Decision-making circles in Jordan believe that the success of the
Annapolis conference in taking steps along the path to a final
settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would remove the
"Palestinian card" from the political auction block, where it is used
for purposes that serve the interests of parties from Iran and Syria
to Hizbullah and Al-Qaeda and that neglect and often contradict the
interests of the Palestinian people.
Jordanian diplomacy seems convinced that wide circles in the US
administration, specifically in the State Department, share the
Jordanian and moderate Arab vision that stresses the need to solve the
Palestinian issue in all its aspects, regardless of the direction of
American policy in Iraq, the outcome of the Iranian nuclear program
crisis or the state of relations between Washington and Tehran.
Although Jordanian decision-making circles take into consideration
that the United States might have a hidden agenda behind its call to
hold the Annapolis conference - one seeking to mobilize Islamic and
Arab countries' support for the US in Iraq and/or in its confrontation
with Iran - these circles think that Annapolis is an opportunity that
should be seized regardless.
For all these reasons, Jordanian diplomacy is paying special attention
to Annapolis. It seeks through various channels to help both the
Palestinians and Israelis reach a common document as a basis for a
final settlement. It also believes, for the same reasons, that the
failure of the conference to reach the desired results will strengthen
the position of Hamas against Abbas in Palestine as well as that of
Hizbullah and its allies in fighting Siniora's government and its
allies in Lebanon. Failure will also strengthen the position of Iran
and the influence of forces of extremism and fanaticism, giving them
new pretexts to pursue their activities and win the support and
sympathy of the frustrated and angry Arab and Islamic public.
Oraib Al Rantawi is a media columnist and director of Al-Quds Center
for Political Studies in Amman. This commentary first appeared at
bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsle
Intel Official: Change Your Ideas About Privacy
The nation's number-two intelligence official, Don Kerr, contends that you shouldn't expect the government to protect your anonymity.Whistleblower: Telecom Immunity a Cover-Up<li>McConnell Restricts Intelligence Estimates
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1811
THE UNINVITED GUEST: CHINESE SUB POPS UP IN MIDLE OF U.S. NAVY EXERCISE
Daily Mail (London), November 10, 2007
By Matthew Hickley
WHEN the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.
At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.
That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.
American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.
By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.
According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.
The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.
One Nato figure said the effect was 'as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik' - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.
The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.
The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.
And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.
According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.
It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was 'shadowing' the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.
Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its 'backyard'.
The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear missile launching vessels.
Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.
Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.
He said: 'It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.
'It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan.'
In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.
THE UNINVITED GUEST: CHINESE SUB POPS UP IN MIDLE OF U.S. NAVY EXERCISE
Daily Mail (London), November 10, 2007
By Matthew Hickley
WHEN the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.
At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.
That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.
American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.
By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.
According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.
The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.
One Nato figure said the effect was 'as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik' - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.
The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.
The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.
And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.
According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.
It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was 'shadowing' the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.
Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its 'backyard'.
The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear missile launching vessels.
Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.
Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.
He said: 'It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.
'It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan.'
In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.
Who Exactly Is the Enemy in Iraq?
Robert Dreyfuss, Tomdispatch.com
War on Iraq: Who, exactly, are we fighting in Iraq? Why are we there? Nearly five years later, there are still no answers to the most basic questions about the Iraq occupation.
The VA's Claim Dodge
Deb Derrick
November 12, 2007 | web only
Beyond the awful conditions at Walter Reed hospital, something smells fishy in the government's handling of veterans' claims. One appalling case study suggests what might be happening.
Giving Vets Their Due
Kay Steiger
Six years after the invasion of Afghanistan, it's time to examine the benefits we give our soldiers once they return home.
Deb Derrick
November 12, 2007 | web only
Beyond the awful conditions at Walter Reed hospital, something smells fishy in the government's handling of veterans' claims. One appalling case study suggests what might be happening.
Giving Vets Their Due
Kay Steiger
Six years after the invasion of Afghanistan, it's time to examine the benefits we give our soldiers once they return home.
Britain's failure in IraqWhat caused Britain’s failures in Iraq? Two key factors can be identified: a lack of capability and of legitimacy.
Towards fresh disaster in IranThe U.S. anti-diplomatic discourse on Iran is coupled with threatening activities that risk military confrontation.
Do not let the Arab Initiative dieI submit that no greater tragedy will befall the Middle East if the Arab Initiative is allowed to die.
Pentagon considering recruits with criminal recordsDesperate to find recruits, Pentagon officials are considering ways to recruit candidates with criminal records.
+ Pakistan warns against nuclear weapons grab
Islamabad (AFP) Nov 12, 2007 - Pakistan warned Monday it had sufficient "retaliatory capacity" to defend its nuclear weapons, after a report the United States had made contingency plans to stop them falling into the wrong hands. Denouncing "irresponsible conjecture," the foreign ministry said Pakistan was ready and able to defend its nuclear arsenal and there was no risk of the arms being taken. Its reaction followed ... more
+ Admiral says US attack on Iran not 'in the offing': report
London (AFP) Nov 12, 2007 - The United States is not about to launch pre-emptive strikes against Iran despite increasingly tense rhetoric between Washington and Tehran, the head of US Central Command was quoted as saying Monday. Admiral William Fallon did not rule out strikes at some point, but said such military action was not "in the offing." "None of this is helped by the continuing stories that just keep going ... more
+ Analysis: Biothreats in the Middle East
Washington (UPI) Nov 12, 2007 - A conference in Abu Dhabi opening Monday will examine the preparedness of Middle Eastern nations to deal with biosecurity threats, aiming to boost their capabilities to respond to a potential global flu pandemic or other catastrophic biological events. The conference, organized by a Washington-based nonprofit, the International Council for the Life Sciences, will involve experts and gov ... more
Islamabad (AFP) Nov 12, 2007 - Pakistan warned Monday it had sufficient "retaliatory capacity" to defend its nuclear weapons, after a report the United States had made contingency plans to stop them falling into the wrong hands. Denouncing "irresponsible conjecture," the foreign ministry said Pakistan was ready and able to defend its nuclear arsenal and there was no risk of the arms being taken. Its reaction followed ... more+ Admiral says US attack on Iran not 'in the offing': report
London (AFP) Nov 12, 2007 - The United States is not about to launch pre-emptive strikes against Iran despite increasingly tense rhetoric between Washington and Tehran, the head of US Central Command was quoted as saying Monday. Admiral William Fallon did not rule out strikes at some point, but said such military action was not "in the offing." "None of this is helped by the continuing stories that just keep going ... more+ Analysis: Biothreats in the Middle East
Washington (UPI) Nov 12, 2007 - A conference in Abu Dhabi opening Monday will examine the preparedness of Middle Eastern nations to deal with biosecurity threats, aiming to boost their capabilities to respond to a potential global flu pandemic or other catastrophic biological events. The conference, organized by a Washington-based nonprofit, the International Council for the Life Sciences, will involve experts and gov ... more
Iran president threatens to expose nuclear 'traitors'
Tehran (AFP) Nov 12, 2007 - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday threatened to expose "traitors" who were pressuring his government over its atomic ambitions in the face of mounting calls on Iran to stop controversial nuclear work. "If the internal elements do not stop pressures over the nuclear issue they will be exposed to the Iranian people," the state news agency IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying at a Tehran uni ... more
Tehran (AFP) Nov 12, 2007 - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday threatened to expose "traitors" who were pressuring his government over its atomic ambitions in the face of mounting calls on Iran to stop controversial nuclear work. "If the internal elements do not stop pressures over the nuclear issue they will be exposed to the Iranian people," the state news agency IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying at a Tehran uni ... more
+ Rice denies US on warpath with Iran
Washington (AFP) Nov 11, 2007 - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denied Sunday that the United States was bent on war with Iran and renewed an offer of reconciliation talks if the Islamic republic renounces its nuclear drive. Interviewed on ABC television, Rice was pressed on a Senate resolution passed in September that labeled Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist operation -- a step that critics said had brought war ... more+ Walker's World: Kabuki in Karachi?
New York (UPI) Nov 12, 2007 - Pakistanis have learned to be cynical about their conduct of their politicians and about the promises of their generals. And they know the difference, having spent 32 of the 60 years since independence ruled by the men in uniform. But the curious events of the weekend have surprised even the most cynical, who are wondering whether they were truly witnessing Friday a new military crackdo ... more+ China trade surplus hits record as foreign patience wears thin
Beijing (AFP) Nov 12, 2007 - China said on Monday its politically sensitive trade surplus in October topped 27 billion dollars for the first time, data sure to add to mounting pressure by the US and EU over Chinese trade policies. Sizzling exports pushed the surplus to 27.1 billion dollars in October, the customs bureau said, just weeks before high-level US and EU delegations, plus French President Nicolas Sarkozy, are ... more
Hillary Denies Attending Bilderberg, Confirms Bill Did
( Published on Sunday, November 11, 2007 )
However, she did acknowledge that Bill Clinton had attended in 1992, but maintained that she herself had never been
( Published on Sunday, November 11, 2007 )
However, she did acknowledge that Bill Clinton had attended in 1992, but maintained that she herself had never been
High court to look at ban on handguns
( Published on Sunday, November 11, 2007 )
The Supreme Court will discuss gun control today in a private conference that soon could explode publicly
( Published on Sunday, November 11, 2007 )
The Supreme Court will discuss gun control today in a private conference that soon could explode publicly
VIDEO: Rudy Presents UN Award To Rockefeller
( Published on Sunday, November 11, 2007 )
Rudy recognizes Rockefeller's associations with the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group
( Published on Sunday, November 11, 2007 )
Rudy recognizes Rockefeller's associations with the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group
RED ALERT: 2008 Defense Authorization Bill
( Published on Friday, November 09, 2007 )
The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill (HR 1585) authorizes use of US military for domestic purposes!
( Published on Friday, November 09, 2007 )
The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill (HR 1585) authorizes use of US military for domestic purposes!
'Apocalyptic scenario' if Egypt, Saudi go nuclear: Israel minister
( Published on Friday, November 09, 2007 )
Egyptian and Saudi nuclear ambitions, on top of Iran's atomic drive, will lead to an "apocalyptic scenario", a senior Israeli cabinet minister said in comments published on Friday
Have We Turned the Corner in Iraq? - Los Angeles Times online debate
Tough Military Budget Choices - New York Times editorial
Faith in End of Violence Alive in Baghdad – Johnson and Crittenden, Boston Herald
Lawrence of Arabia Out of Place in Iraq – Anthony Bubalo, Financial Times
Slandering the American Soldier - Mackubin Thomas Owens, National Review
Iran Strike May be One Too Many - Dombey, Sevastopulo and Ward – Financial Times
Is World War III on Hold? - Patrick Buchanan, Real Clear Politics
Respect Iran's Independence - HE Manuchehr Mottaki, Miami Herald
Welcome to the Iranian Air Force - Reuben Johnson, Weekly Standard
Turkey, Terrorism and Double Standards - Bruce Fein, Washington Times
Pakistan's Pinstripe Revolt - USA Today editorial
The Answer in Pakistan - Pickering, Hills and Abramowitz, Washington Post
Being Pervez Musharraf - Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal
Pakistan: Long March or Wrong March? – Bronwen Maddox, London Times
What Musharraf Could Not Abide - HDS Greenway, Boston Globe
Will Chavez Pull the Oil Trigger? - Rowan and Schoen, Los Angeles Times
What's Latin America Worth? - Carlos Alberto Montaner, Miami Herald
Australia’s Terror Laws on Trial – The Australian editorial
Invest Terror Free - Frank Gaffney Jr., Washington Times
Asymmetric Cyber Threat - James Lyons Jr., Washington Times
Waterboarding Illegal? - USA Today editorial
Severe Interrogations Work - Trent Franks, USA Today
UK Stills Needs Nuclear Deterrent – Oliver Kamm, London Times
“Hard-headed Internationalism” for UK – Rachel Sylvester – London Daily Telegraph
Islam and the Nation-State – Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post
Salafi Islam Fighting Modernity - Joshua Sinai, Washington Times
The Dilemma of Democracy in Lebanon – Saab and Al-Chaer, Daily Star
The Urgency of Annapolis Peace Talks – M.J. Rosenberg, Jerusalem Post
Syria and the Illusion of Pursuing Peace in Annapolis - Mohammad Habash, Daily Star
The Curse of Being Number 2 in Israel – Yoel Marcus, Haaretz
The Other Refugees - Jillian Bandes, Weekly Standard
The New Face of Al Jazeera – Kristen Gillespie, The Nation
Crisis in Georgia - Washington Post editorial
Georgia's Leap Backward - Anne Applebaum, Washington Post
To Save Africa: A Missing Step - Mukoma Wa Ngugi, Christian Science Monitor
Defeat the Law of Sea Treaty - Washington Times editorial
Tough Military Budget Choices - New York Times editorial
Faith in End of Violence Alive in Baghdad – Johnson and Crittenden, Boston Herald
Lawrence of Arabia Out of Place in Iraq – Anthony Bubalo, Financial Times
Slandering the American Soldier - Mackubin Thomas Owens, National Review
Iran Strike May be One Too Many - Dombey, Sevastopulo and Ward – Financial Times
Is World War III on Hold? - Patrick Buchanan, Real Clear Politics
Respect Iran's Independence - HE Manuchehr Mottaki, Miami Herald
Welcome to the Iranian Air Force - Reuben Johnson, Weekly Standard
Turkey, Terrorism and Double Standards - Bruce Fein, Washington Times
Pakistan's Pinstripe Revolt - USA Today editorial
The Answer in Pakistan - Pickering, Hills and Abramowitz, Washington Post
Being Pervez Musharraf - Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal
Pakistan: Long March or Wrong March? – Bronwen Maddox, London Times
What Musharraf Could Not Abide - HDS Greenway, Boston Globe
Will Chavez Pull the Oil Trigger? - Rowan and Schoen, Los Angeles Times
What's Latin America Worth? - Carlos Alberto Montaner, Miami Herald
Australia’s Terror Laws on Trial – The Australian editorial
Invest Terror Free - Frank Gaffney Jr., Washington Times
Asymmetric Cyber Threat - James Lyons Jr., Washington Times
Waterboarding Illegal? - USA Today editorial
Severe Interrogations Work - Trent Franks, USA Today
UK Stills Needs Nuclear Deterrent – Oliver Kamm, London Times
“Hard-headed Internationalism” for UK – Rachel Sylvester – London Daily Telegraph
Islam and the Nation-State – Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post
Salafi Islam Fighting Modernity - Joshua Sinai, Washington Times
The Dilemma of Democracy in Lebanon – Saab and Al-Chaer, Daily Star
The Urgency of Annapolis Peace Talks – M.J. Rosenberg, Jerusalem Post
Syria and the Illusion of Pursuing Peace in Annapolis - Mohammad Habash, Daily Star
The Curse of Being Number 2 in Israel – Yoel Marcus, Haaretz
The Other Refugees - Jillian Bandes, Weekly Standard
The New Face of Al Jazeera – Kristen Gillespie, The Nation
Crisis in Georgia - Washington Post editorial
Georgia's Leap Backward - Anne Applebaum, Washington Post
To Save Africa: A Missing Step - Mukoma Wa Ngugi, Christian Science Monitor
Defeat the Law of Sea Treaty - Washington Times editorial
In Iraq, the silence of the lambs
The separation of religious groups in the face of sectarian cleansing by militias and death squads has brought a semblance of relative calm to Baghdad. Contradicting claims that the US military "surge" has reduced sectarian attacks, one resident says that "All that has happened is a dramatic change in the demographic map of Iraq." Still, the violence continues, though at a slower rate: five to 10 tortured bodies are found in the garbage dumps and streets of Baghdad every day. - Ali al-Fadhily (Nov 13, '07)
The separation of religious groups in the face of sectarian cleansing by militias and death squads has brought a semblance of relative calm to Baghdad. Contradicting claims that the US military "surge" has reduced sectarian attacks, one resident says that "All that has happened is a dramatic change in the demographic map of Iraq." Still, the violence continues, though at a slower rate: five to 10 tortured bodies are found in the garbage dumps and streets of Baghdad every day. - Ali al-Fadhily (Nov 13, '07)
It's getting hard to find bad guys
Violence in Iraq has dropped precipitously. With al-Qaeda declared dead, former Sunni resistance fighters wearing American-supplied uniforms, and the Mahdi Army lying low, killings are way down. A critical window of opportunity has opened for the United States to withdraw and for Iraq to hold itself together and rebuild. Yet Washington is showing every intention of staying put in Iraq for decades to come. - Robert Dreyfuss (Nov 13, '07)
Violence in Iraq has dropped precipitously. With al-Qaeda declared dead, former Sunni resistance fighters wearing American-supplied uniforms, and the Mahdi Army lying low, killings are way down. A critical window of opportunity has opened for the United States to withdraw and for Iraq to hold itself together and rebuild. Yet Washington is showing every intention of staying put in Iraq for decades to come. - Robert Dreyfuss (Nov 13, '07)
RISE OF THE NEO-TALIBAN, Part 2
'Pain has become the remedy'
With the invaluable help of Punjabi jihadis diverted from the struggle in Kashmir, Taliban leader Mullah Omar, al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban have resolved to announce a region-wide Islamic emirate. This will mean taking on the Pakistani military, but a seasoned Punjabi tells Syed Saleem Shahzad that's not a problem - the mujahideen have suffered beyond the point of no return.
This is the conclusion of a two-part report. (Nov 13, '07)
Part 1: Death by the light of a silvery moon
'Pain has become the remedy'
With the invaluable help of Punjabi jihadis diverted from the struggle in Kashmir, Taliban leader Mullah Omar, al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban have resolved to announce a region-wide Islamic emirate. This will mean taking on the Pakistani military, but a seasoned Punjabi tells Syed Saleem Shahzad that's not a problem - the mujahideen have suffered beyond the point of no return.
This is the conclusion of a two-part report. (Nov 13, '07)
Part 1: Death by the light of a silvery moon
Pakistan: Former PM Bhutto says she will not serve under Musharraf: Calls on Musharraf to resign
Pakistan: Pakistan cites assassination plot in not letting Bhutto lead protest
Pakistan: US diplomat Negroponte to visit Pakistan
Pakistan: Officials Order Another Detention of Bhutto and Block a March - Plans to confront Musharraf
Pakistan: Commonwealth threatens Pakistan with suspension if Musharraf does not reverse his course
Iran: Bolton Smears ElBaradei As Iran Apologist, Says ‘Even A Stopped Clock Is Right Twice A Day’ - ElBaradei had earlier said, "there is no evidence of a 'concrete, active nuclear weapon program' going on inside Iran"
Iran: Germany, France agree to increase pressure on Iran
Iran: UN agency warns US over inflammatory rhetoric against Iran
Pakistan: Pakistan cites assassination plot in not letting Bhutto lead protest
Pakistan: US diplomat Negroponte to visit Pakistan
Pakistan: Officials Order Another Detention of Bhutto and Block a March - Plans to confront Musharraf
Pakistan: Commonwealth threatens Pakistan with suspension if Musharraf does not reverse his course
Iran: Bolton Smears ElBaradei As Iran Apologist, Says ‘Even A Stopped Clock Is Right Twice A Day’ - ElBaradei had earlier said, "there is no evidence of a 'concrete, active nuclear weapon program' going on inside Iran"
Iran: Germany, France agree to increase pressure on Iran
Iran: UN agency warns US over inflammatory rhetoric against Iran
'Hidden Costs' Double Price Of Two Wars, Democrats Say
- Economist's View: New estimates for the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars: 'Hidden Costs' Double Price Of Two Wars...
- Daily Kos: State of the Nation: When writing about the monetary cost of the war in Iraq in recent months, typing out, "$500 billion,...
- The Washington Monthly: THE COST OF THE WAR....Milton Friedman said that borrowing and taxing were the same thing. With that...
- The Huffington Post: Bill's Defense Of Hillary: 'It's A Southern Thing, Not A ......
Alexander Cockburn
Hillary's Big Problem and How Bill Can Fix It
Robert Bryce
The Pakistan Fuel Connection
David Macaray
The Teamsters and the Hollywood Strike
Mike Whitney
Bulletins from the Titanic
Hillary's Big Problem and How Bill Can Fix It
Robert Bryce
The Pakistan Fuel Connection
David Macaray
The Teamsters and the Hollywood Strike
Mike Whitney
Bulletins from the Titanic
Hypocrisy and Cowardice in China and the U.S.
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Members of Congress are upset with Yahoo officials for giving Chinese officials confidential online information about one of their customers in China. The Chinese authorities used the information to send the Yahoo customer to jail for 10 years for engaging in subversive, anti-government activity.
Meanwhile, Congress is talking about the importance of giving immunity to U.S. telecommunication companies for illegally giving U.S. officials confidential online information about their customers in the United States. The U.S. officials say that they needed the secret information to ferret out subversive activity against the U.S. government.
Oh, well, no one ever accused Congress of a lack of hypocrisy.
Yahoo’s general counsel, Michael J. Callahan, said that Yahoo employees had little choice but to comply with the Chinese government’s demands.
Ironically, that’s what the U.S. telecommunication companies are saying as to why they complied with the U.S. government’s demands!
The fact is that all these executives are the par excellence of cowardice. Yahoo does have a choice — stand up for your customers or don’t do business in communist countries. And U.S. companies also have a choice — stand up for your customers and tell the feds to take a hike, even if it means they come after you with a retaliatory indictment, as they did with Qwest, which, unlike Yahoo and the U.S. telecommunications companies, said “No” when the little tyrants came demanding their information.
For decades both the American and Chinese people have loved their big governments, mostly because their big governments take care of them like parents with education, health care, social security, and other forms of welfare. But as we are learning with the Yahoo and U.S. telecommunications scandals, there is big price to pay for big government.
Isn’t it ironic that Americans have the most powerful government in history and the most terrified citizenry in the world? It is not a coincidence. Big government produces small, frightened people. As earlier generations of Americans could attest, small and weak government, on the other hand, results in strong, self-reliant, and courageous people.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Permalink
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Members of Congress are upset with Yahoo officials for giving Chinese officials confidential online information about one of their customers in China. The Chinese authorities used the information to send the Yahoo customer to jail for 10 years for engaging in subversive, anti-government activity.
Meanwhile, Congress is talking about the importance of giving immunity to U.S. telecommunication companies for illegally giving U.S. officials confidential online information about their customers in the United States. The U.S. officials say that they needed the secret information to ferret out subversive activity against the U.S. government.
Oh, well, no one ever accused Congress of a lack of hypocrisy.
Yahoo’s general counsel, Michael J. Callahan, said that Yahoo employees had little choice but to comply with the Chinese government’s demands.
Ironically, that’s what the U.S. telecommunication companies are saying as to why they complied with the U.S. government’s demands!
The fact is that all these executives are the par excellence of cowardice. Yahoo does have a choice — stand up for your customers or don’t do business in communist countries. And U.S. companies also have a choice — stand up for your customers and tell the feds to take a hike, even if it means they come after you with a retaliatory indictment, as they did with Qwest, which, unlike Yahoo and the U.S. telecommunications companies, said “No” when the little tyrants came demanding their information.
For decades both the American and Chinese people have loved their big governments, mostly because their big governments take care of them like parents with education, health care, social security, and other forms of welfare. But as we are learning with the Yahoo and U.S. telecommunications scandals, there is big price to pay for big government.
Isn’t it ironic that Americans have the most powerful government in history and the most terrified citizenry in the world? It is not a coincidence. Big government produces small, frightened people. As earlier generations of Americans could attest, small and weak government, on the other hand, results in strong, self-reliant, and courageous people.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Permalink
Is the Military Our Last, Best Hope for Averting War with Iran?
Chris Hedges, Truthdig
ForeignPolicy: When military command is the voice of reason in a debate about a new war, you know our democracy is in trouble.
Musharraf Isn't the First,
but He Should Be the Last
America's dictatorial 'allies' in Islamabad
by Stephen Zunes
In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush declared that the United States would support democratic movements around the world and work to end tyranny. Furthermore, he pledged to those struggling for freedom that the United States would "not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors." Despite these promises, the Bush administration – with the apparent acquiescence of the Democratic-controlled Congress – has instead decided to continue U.S. support for the dictatorship of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president.
On Nov. 3, the U.S.-backed chief of the Pakistani army, fearing an imminent ruling by the Supreme Court which could have invalidated his hold on power, declared a state of emergency. He immediately suspended the constitution, shut down all television stations not controlled by the government, ordered the arrests of thousands of political opponents and pro-democracy activists, fired judges not supportive of his crackdown, jammed mobile phone networks, and ordered attacks on peaceful demonstrators. Leading Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir reported that the U.S. embassy had given a green light to the coup in large part due to its opposition to the chief justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court Iftikhar Chaudhry, who had issued key rulings challenging the government's policies on political prisoners, women's rights, and the privatization of public enterprises. Musharraf's efforts to sack the chief justice six months ago resulted in months of protests which led to his reinstatement just a few weeks before this latest crackdown.
No Impact
Within hours of the martial-law declaration, a Pentagon spokesman tried to reassure the regime that "the declaration does not impact on our military support." This reiteration of support comes despite the fact that the U.S.-armed police and military, instead of concentrating on suppressing extremists waging a violent jihad along the Afghan border as promised, are instead suppressing judges, lawyers, journalists, and other members of the educated, urban middle class struggling nonviolently for the restoration of democracy. Indeed, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte argued before a recent congressional hearing that continued support for Pakistan's authoritarian regime is "vital to our interests," that it is "contributing heavily to the war on terror," and that it remains "an indispensable ally."
Musharraf originally seized power in October 1999 following an effort by the democratically elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to dismiss him from his position as army chief. Sharif has been exiled by Musharraf ever since; an attempt by the former prime minister to return in September was aborted at the airport and he was immediately deported.
Despite its unconstitutionality and its repression, the United States has sent over $10 billion in military and police aid to Pakistan over the past six years to prop up Musharraf's regime. And, in 2005, Pakistan became one of only a handful of states to be formally designated as a "major non-NATO ally" of the United States. During his visit last year to Pakistan, Bush praised Musharraf's commitment to democracy just hours after Pakistani police beat and arrested scores of opposition leaders and anti-Bush protesters.
Indeed, despite his well-documented human rights abuses, the Pakistani general has been repeatedly praised by America's political, academic, and media elites. Bush has commended Musharraf's "courage and vision" while Negroponte told the recent House panel that the dictator was "a committed individual working very hard in the service of his country." Similarly, Columbia University president Lee Bollinger – who called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a "cruel and petty dictator" in his introduction of the Iranian president – introduced Musharraf at an earlier forum by expressing his "great gratitude and excitement" of hosting "a leader of his stature," praising the Pakistani general's "remarkable" contributions to his country's economic development and the "international fight against terror."
Support for Extremists
The Bush administration and its supporters claim that the United States must continue its backing of the Pakistani dictatorship because of its role in suppressing Islamist extremists. The reality, however, is far different. For its first two years in power, Musharraf was a major supporter of the Taliban regime, making Pakistan one of only three countries in the world that recognized that totalitarian government, despite the Taliban providing refuge for Osama bin Laden and others in the al-Qaeda network. As correctly noted by the 9/11 Commission in its final report, "On terrorism, Pakistan helped nurture the Taliban" and that "Many in the government have sympathized with or provided support to the extremists."
Throughout his eight years in power, Musharraf has suppressed the established secular political parties while allowing for the development of Islamic political groups that show little regard for individual freedom. Despite claims that they had been shut down, madrassas run by Islamist extremists still operate openly. Taliban-allied groups effectively run large swathes of territory in the western provinces and the regions bordering Afghanistan are more controlled by pro-Taliban extremists than ever. In a press conference during a recent visit to Washington by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in which Bush tried to blame Iran for the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Karzai corrected him by noting that Iran had actually been quite supportive of his government's efforts and it was actually Pakistan that was backing the Taliban.
Former Kandahar-based NPR correspondent Sarah Chayes noted in her recently-released book The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban that Pakistan has continued its decades-long policy of using religious extremists to exert its influence in Afghanistan. In return for providing limited cooperation against al-Qaeda, the United States is willing to ignore Pakistani backing of Taliban and Hizbi-Islami militants as they wreak havoc on the people of that war-ravaged country. Chayes also noted how Pakistani intelligence, through the assassination of moderate Afghan political leaders and other acts of intimidation, has effective veto power over key decisions of the democratically elected Afghan government, and without any apparent objections from Washington.
Support for Previous Dictators
For decades, the United States has backed the military dictators who have ruled Pakistan. Whether in the name of containing Communism or fighting terrorism, the well-being of the people of the sixth most populated country in the world has been of little concern to Washington policy makers of both parties.
During the Nixon administration, the United States served as the major foreign backer of Gen. Yahya Khan, who declared martial law in 1969. In response to electoral victories by the Bengali-based Awami league in 1971, he began mass arrests of dissidents following a general strike.
As army units began revolting in response to the repression, Gen. Khan cracked down with a brutality that Archer Blood, the U.S. consul in Dhaka, referred to as "genocide." In one of the strongest-worded dissents ever written by U.S. Foreign Service officers, Blood and 29 others declared, "Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the [Pakistani] government and to lessen any deservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankrupt." Despite these protests, the Nixon administration continued its support for the repression, which took hundreds of thousands of lives, before Congress – in response to public outcry – suspended aid.
Khan was forced from power soon thereafter, leading to a democratic opening until Zia-ul-Haq seized power in 1977, declaring martial law and executing the elected prime minister he had overthrown. Imposing a rigid and reactionary version of Islamic law, Zia-ul-Haq systematically dismantled many of the country's civil society institutions. U.S. aid to his regime increased dramatically after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979 and the CIA began collaborating with Pakistan's notorious Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to arm the Afghan resistance, sending the bulk of the aid to the most hard-line Islamist elements, particularly the extremist Hezbi-Islami faction, despite its propensity to fight the more moderate Afghan resistance groups as much as it did the Soviets.
In the summer of 1983, massive and largely nonviolent demonstrations in Sindh and elsewhere in Pakistan by the pro-democracy movement were crushed without apparent objections from Washington. Pro-democracy agitation resumed later that decade to again be met by severe repression. The dictatorship did not end, however, until Zia-ul-Haq – along with U.S. Ambassador Arnold Raphel, top Pakistani military commanders, and other key supporters of the regime – were killed in a mysterious air crash in August 1988. President Ronald Reagan expressed his "profound grief" at Zia's death, eulogizing the dictator as "a statesman of world stature" and praising his "dedication to regional peace and reconstruction."
Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons
Beginning in the late 1970s, as the extent of Pakistan's nuclear program became known, the international community began expressing concerns over the possibility of politically unstable Pakistan developing nuclear weapons. Throughout the 1980s, however, the Reagan and the George H. W. Bush administrations formally denied that Pakistan was engaging in nuclear weapons development despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In addition, the United States continued supplying Pakistan with F-16 aircraft even as nuclear analysts concluded that Pakistan would likely use these fighter planes as its primary delivery system for its nuclear arsenal. To publicly acknowledge what virtually every authority on nuclear proliferation knew about Pakistan's nuclear capability would force the United States to cut off aid to Pakistan, as required by U.S. laws designed to enforce the non-proliferation regime. The annual U.S. certification of Pakistan's supposed non-nuclear status was halted only in 1990, when the Soviet-backed Afghan regime was finally collapsing.
However, George H.W. Bush's administration insisted that the cutoff of aid did not include military sales, so the transfer of spare parts for the nuclear-capable F-16s aircraft to Pakistan continued. President Bill Clinton finally imposed sanctions against the regime when Pakistan engaged in a series of nuclear weapons tests in 1998, but the sanctions as well as restrictions regarding military aid to new nuclear states were repealed by Congress and the Bush administration three years later.
UN Resolutions
The U.S. government has blocked the United Nations from imposing sanctions or other means to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1172, passed unanimously in 1998, which calls on Pakistan to dismantle its nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. (This contrasts with the Bush administration's partially successful efforts to impose tough international sanctions against Iran for violating UN Security Council resolution 1696 calling for restrictions on its nuclear program, even though the Islamic Republic is still many years from weapons capability and is therefore much less of a threat to international peace and security than is Pakistan.)
Indeed, the United States has released the previously suspended sale of sophisticated nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets to that country. A Bush administration official claimed that the U.S. fighter-bombers "are vital to Pakistan's security as President Musharraf prosecutes the war on terror" despite the fact that these jets were originally ordered 15 years earlier, long before the U.S.-led "war on terror" began. They were suspended by the administration of the president's father out of concerns about Pakistan's nuclear program and the Pakistani military's ties with Islamic terrorist groups, both of which are of even greater concern today.
Rogue States
One of the most disturbing aspects of U.S. support for the Pakistani regime is that Pakistan has been sharing its nuclear materials and know-how with North Korea and other so-called "rogue states." The Bush administration chose to essentially ignore what journalist Robert Scheer has referred to as "the most extravagantly irresponsible nuclear arms bazaar the world has ever seen" and to instead blame others. For example, even though it was actually Pakistanis who passed on nuclear materials to Libya, the Bush administration instead told U.S. allies that North Korea was responsible, thereby sabotaging negotiations which many had hoped could end North Korea's nuclear program and resolve that festering crisis. Similarly, though it was Pakistan which provided Iran with nuclear centrifuges, the Bush administration is now citing Iran's possession of such materials as justification for a possible U.S. military attack against that country.
The Bush administration, despite evidence to the contrary, claims that the Pakistani government was not responsible for exporting such dangerous materials, but that these serious breaches of security were solely the responsibility of a single rogue nuclear scientist named Abdul Qadeer Khan. Unfortunately, the Pakistani military regime has not allowed U.S. intelligence access to Khan, the former head of Pakistan's nuclear program, whom the 9/11 Commission noted "was leading the most dangerous nuclear smuggling ring ever disclosed." Recently pardoned by Musharraf, he now lives freely in Pakistan while Pakistani anti-nuclear activists have been exiled or jailed.
Blowback
Despite President Bush's claim that Islamist extremists attack American because they "hate our freedom," the reality is that most people in Pakistan and other Islamic countries don't have anything against our freedom. They do, however, recognize that the United States shares responsibility for their repression through its unconditional support of the dictatorship that denies them their own freedom. And, without the opportunity to press for changes through the political system, some turn to violence and extremism.
The United States has supported repressive regimes in the Islamic world and beyond for years with little concern over the consequences. On Sept. 11, 2001, however, citizens from the U.S.-backed dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Egypt hijacked four airliners, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans. A public opinion poll in Pakistan this past August showed that Osama bin Laden has a higher approval rating than either Gen. Musharraf or President Bush. Extremist Islamist parties would not come close to winning a free election in Pakistan today, but in denying Pakistan's pro-Western democratic opposition a chance to compete and in jailing its leaders, Musharraf and his American supporters may be creating the conditions that could eventually lead to the takeover of this nuclear-armed country by dangerous extremists.
As President John F. Kennedy observed, "Those who make peaceful evolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
The American Public
In 1971, during the height of the massacres of Bengalis by the Pakistani army, a small group of American Quakers organized a flotilla of canoes in Baltimore Harbor to block a Pakistani freighter from docking where it was to be loaded with American arms and munitions while other protesters on shore blocked the train which carried the weaponry. Though most of them were arrested and the weapons were eventually loaded, the publicity from the event alerted the American public to the largely clandestine U.S. military support for the Pakistani regime.
When protesters met another Pakistani freighter attempting to pick up weapons in Philadelphia shortly thereafter, dockworkers refused to load the ship, preferring to not get paid that day rather than to work for what their local union leader referred to as "blood money." Within weeks, in the face of public outcry against U.S. support for the genocidal Pakistani regime, Congress cut off military aid, a testament to the power of nonviolent direct action.
Given the unwillingness of both the Republican administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress to stop U.S. military support for the current Pakistani dictatorship, it may be time once again for concerned citizens to engage in similar nonviolent actions to end U.S. support for the oppression. For those at risk as a result of U.S. policy are no longer just those currently oppressed by the Pakistani regime. Some day, as a result of a possible blowback from this policy, it could be Americans as well.
http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=11898
but He Should Be the Last
America's dictatorial 'allies' in Islamabad
by Stephen Zunes
In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush declared that the United States would support democratic movements around the world and work to end tyranny. Furthermore, he pledged to those struggling for freedom that the United States would "not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors." Despite these promises, the Bush administration – with the apparent acquiescence of the Democratic-controlled Congress – has instead decided to continue U.S. support for the dictatorship of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president.
On Nov. 3, the U.S.-backed chief of the Pakistani army, fearing an imminent ruling by the Supreme Court which could have invalidated his hold on power, declared a state of emergency. He immediately suspended the constitution, shut down all television stations not controlled by the government, ordered the arrests of thousands of political opponents and pro-democracy activists, fired judges not supportive of his crackdown, jammed mobile phone networks, and ordered attacks on peaceful demonstrators. Leading Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir reported that the U.S. embassy had given a green light to the coup in large part due to its opposition to the chief justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court Iftikhar Chaudhry, who had issued key rulings challenging the government's policies on political prisoners, women's rights, and the privatization of public enterprises. Musharraf's efforts to sack the chief justice six months ago resulted in months of protests which led to his reinstatement just a few weeks before this latest crackdown.
No Impact
Within hours of the martial-law declaration, a Pentagon spokesman tried to reassure the regime that "the declaration does not impact on our military support." This reiteration of support comes despite the fact that the U.S.-armed police and military, instead of concentrating on suppressing extremists waging a violent jihad along the Afghan border as promised, are instead suppressing judges, lawyers, journalists, and other members of the educated, urban middle class struggling nonviolently for the restoration of democracy. Indeed, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte argued before a recent congressional hearing that continued support for Pakistan's authoritarian regime is "vital to our interests," that it is "contributing heavily to the war on terror," and that it remains "an indispensable ally."
Musharraf originally seized power in October 1999 following an effort by the democratically elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to dismiss him from his position as army chief. Sharif has been exiled by Musharraf ever since; an attempt by the former prime minister to return in September was aborted at the airport and he was immediately deported.
Despite its unconstitutionality and its repression, the United States has sent over $10 billion in military and police aid to Pakistan over the past six years to prop up Musharraf's regime. And, in 2005, Pakistan became one of only a handful of states to be formally designated as a "major non-NATO ally" of the United States. During his visit last year to Pakistan, Bush praised Musharraf's commitment to democracy just hours after Pakistani police beat and arrested scores of opposition leaders and anti-Bush protesters.
Indeed, despite his well-documented human rights abuses, the Pakistani general has been repeatedly praised by America's political, academic, and media elites. Bush has commended Musharraf's "courage and vision" while Negroponte told the recent House panel that the dictator was "a committed individual working very hard in the service of his country." Similarly, Columbia University president Lee Bollinger – who called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a "cruel and petty dictator" in his introduction of the Iranian president – introduced Musharraf at an earlier forum by expressing his "great gratitude and excitement" of hosting "a leader of his stature," praising the Pakistani general's "remarkable" contributions to his country's economic development and the "international fight against terror."
Support for Extremists
The Bush administration and its supporters claim that the United States must continue its backing of the Pakistani dictatorship because of its role in suppressing Islamist extremists. The reality, however, is far different. For its first two years in power, Musharraf was a major supporter of the Taliban regime, making Pakistan one of only three countries in the world that recognized that totalitarian government, despite the Taliban providing refuge for Osama bin Laden and others in the al-Qaeda network. As correctly noted by the 9/11 Commission in its final report, "On terrorism, Pakistan helped nurture the Taliban" and that "Many in the government have sympathized with or provided support to the extremists."
Throughout his eight years in power, Musharraf has suppressed the established secular political parties while allowing for the development of Islamic political groups that show little regard for individual freedom. Despite claims that they had been shut down, madrassas run by Islamist extremists still operate openly. Taliban-allied groups effectively run large swathes of territory in the western provinces and the regions bordering Afghanistan are more controlled by pro-Taliban extremists than ever. In a press conference during a recent visit to Washington by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in which Bush tried to blame Iran for the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Karzai corrected him by noting that Iran had actually been quite supportive of his government's efforts and it was actually Pakistan that was backing the Taliban.
Former Kandahar-based NPR correspondent Sarah Chayes noted in her recently-released book The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban that Pakistan has continued its decades-long policy of using religious extremists to exert its influence in Afghanistan. In return for providing limited cooperation against al-Qaeda, the United States is willing to ignore Pakistani backing of Taliban and Hizbi-Islami militants as they wreak havoc on the people of that war-ravaged country. Chayes also noted how Pakistani intelligence, through the assassination of moderate Afghan political leaders and other acts of intimidation, has effective veto power over key decisions of the democratically elected Afghan government, and without any apparent objections from Washington.
Support for Previous Dictators
For decades, the United States has backed the military dictators who have ruled Pakistan. Whether in the name of containing Communism or fighting terrorism, the well-being of the people of the sixth most populated country in the world has been of little concern to Washington policy makers of both parties.
During the Nixon administration, the United States served as the major foreign backer of Gen. Yahya Khan, who declared martial law in 1969. In response to electoral victories by the Bengali-based Awami league in 1971, he began mass arrests of dissidents following a general strike.
As army units began revolting in response to the repression, Gen. Khan cracked down with a brutality that Archer Blood, the U.S. consul in Dhaka, referred to as "genocide." In one of the strongest-worded dissents ever written by U.S. Foreign Service officers, Blood and 29 others declared, "Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the [Pakistani] government and to lessen any deservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankrupt." Despite these protests, the Nixon administration continued its support for the repression, which took hundreds of thousands of lives, before Congress – in response to public outcry – suspended aid.
Khan was forced from power soon thereafter, leading to a democratic opening until Zia-ul-Haq seized power in 1977, declaring martial law and executing the elected prime minister he had overthrown. Imposing a rigid and reactionary version of Islamic law, Zia-ul-Haq systematically dismantled many of the country's civil society institutions. U.S. aid to his regime increased dramatically after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979 and the CIA began collaborating with Pakistan's notorious Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to arm the Afghan resistance, sending the bulk of the aid to the most hard-line Islamist elements, particularly the extremist Hezbi-Islami faction, despite its propensity to fight the more moderate Afghan resistance groups as much as it did the Soviets.
In the summer of 1983, massive and largely nonviolent demonstrations in Sindh and elsewhere in Pakistan by the pro-democracy movement were crushed without apparent objections from Washington. Pro-democracy agitation resumed later that decade to again be met by severe repression. The dictatorship did not end, however, until Zia-ul-Haq – along with U.S. Ambassador Arnold Raphel, top Pakistani military commanders, and other key supporters of the regime – were killed in a mysterious air crash in August 1988. President Ronald Reagan expressed his "profound grief" at Zia's death, eulogizing the dictator as "a statesman of world stature" and praising his "dedication to regional peace and reconstruction."
Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons
Beginning in the late 1970s, as the extent of Pakistan's nuclear program became known, the international community began expressing concerns over the possibility of politically unstable Pakistan developing nuclear weapons. Throughout the 1980s, however, the Reagan and the George H. W. Bush administrations formally denied that Pakistan was engaging in nuclear weapons development despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In addition, the United States continued supplying Pakistan with F-16 aircraft even as nuclear analysts concluded that Pakistan would likely use these fighter planes as its primary delivery system for its nuclear arsenal. To publicly acknowledge what virtually every authority on nuclear proliferation knew about Pakistan's nuclear capability would force the United States to cut off aid to Pakistan, as required by U.S. laws designed to enforce the non-proliferation regime. The annual U.S. certification of Pakistan's supposed non-nuclear status was halted only in 1990, when the Soviet-backed Afghan regime was finally collapsing.
However, George H.W. Bush's administration insisted that the cutoff of aid did not include military sales, so the transfer of spare parts for the nuclear-capable F-16s aircraft to Pakistan continued. President Bill Clinton finally imposed sanctions against the regime when Pakistan engaged in a series of nuclear weapons tests in 1998, but the sanctions as well as restrictions regarding military aid to new nuclear states were repealed by Congress and the Bush administration three years later.
UN Resolutions
The U.S. government has blocked the United Nations from imposing sanctions or other means to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1172, passed unanimously in 1998, which calls on Pakistan to dismantle its nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. (This contrasts with the Bush administration's partially successful efforts to impose tough international sanctions against Iran for violating UN Security Council resolution 1696 calling for restrictions on its nuclear program, even though the Islamic Republic is still many years from weapons capability and is therefore much less of a threat to international peace and security than is Pakistan.)
Indeed, the United States has released the previously suspended sale of sophisticated nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets to that country. A Bush administration official claimed that the U.S. fighter-bombers "are vital to Pakistan's security as President Musharraf prosecutes the war on terror" despite the fact that these jets were originally ordered 15 years earlier, long before the U.S.-led "war on terror" began. They were suspended by the administration of the president's father out of concerns about Pakistan's nuclear program and the Pakistani military's ties with Islamic terrorist groups, both of which are of even greater concern today.
Rogue States
One of the most disturbing aspects of U.S. support for the Pakistani regime is that Pakistan has been sharing its nuclear materials and know-how with North Korea and other so-called "rogue states." The Bush administration chose to essentially ignore what journalist Robert Scheer has referred to as "the most extravagantly irresponsible nuclear arms bazaar the world has ever seen" and to instead blame others. For example, even though it was actually Pakistanis who passed on nuclear materials to Libya, the Bush administration instead told U.S. allies that North Korea was responsible, thereby sabotaging negotiations which many had hoped could end North Korea's nuclear program and resolve that festering crisis. Similarly, though it was Pakistan which provided Iran with nuclear centrifuges, the Bush administration is now citing Iran's possession of such materials as justification for a possible U.S. military attack against that country.
The Bush administration, despite evidence to the contrary, claims that the Pakistani government was not responsible for exporting such dangerous materials, but that these serious breaches of security were solely the responsibility of a single rogue nuclear scientist named Abdul Qadeer Khan. Unfortunately, the Pakistani military regime has not allowed U.S. intelligence access to Khan, the former head of Pakistan's nuclear program, whom the 9/11 Commission noted "was leading the most dangerous nuclear smuggling ring ever disclosed." Recently pardoned by Musharraf, he now lives freely in Pakistan while Pakistani anti-nuclear activists have been exiled or jailed.
Blowback
Despite President Bush's claim that Islamist extremists attack American because they "hate our freedom," the reality is that most people in Pakistan and other Islamic countries don't have anything against our freedom. They do, however, recognize that the United States shares responsibility for their repression through its unconditional support of the dictatorship that denies them their own freedom. And, without the opportunity to press for changes through the political system, some turn to violence and extremism.
The United States has supported repressive regimes in the Islamic world and beyond for years with little concern over the consequences. On Sept. 11, 2001, however, citizens from the U.S.-backed dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Egypt hijacked four airliners, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans. A public opinion poll in Pakistan this past August showed that Osama bin Laden has a higher approval rating than either Gen. Musharraf or President Bush. Extremist Islamist parties would not come close to winning a free election in Pakistan today, but in denying Pakistan's pro-Western democratic opposition a chance to compete and in jailing its leaders, Musharraf and his American supporters may be creating the conditions that could eventually lead to the takeover of this nuclear-armed country by dangerous extremists.
As President John F. Kennedy observed, "Those who make peaceful evolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
The American Public
In 1971, during the height of the massacres of Bengalis by the Pakistani army, a small group of American Quakers organized a flotilla of canoes in Baltimore Harbor to block a Pakistani freighter from docking where it was to be loaded with American arms and munitions while other protesters on shore blocked the train which carried the weaponry. Though most of them were arrested and the weapons were eventually loaded, the publicity from the event alerted the American public to the largely clandestine U.S. military support for the Pakistani regime.
When protesters met another Pakistani freighter attempting to pick up weapons in Philadelphia shortly thereafter, dockworkers refused to load the ship, preferring to not get paid that day rather than to work for what their local union leader referred to as "blood money." Within weeks, in the face of public outcry against U.S. support for the genocidal Pakistani regime, Congress cut off military aid, a testament to the power of nonviolent direct action.
Given the unwillingness of both the Republican administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress to stop U.S. military support for the current Pakistani dictatorship, it may be time once again for concerned citizens to engage in similar nonviolent actions to end U.S. support for the oppression. For those at risk as a result of U.S. policy are no longer just those currently oppressed by the Pakistani regime. Some day, as a result of a possible blowback from this policy, it could be Americans as well.
http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=11898
Is World War III on Hold?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Is a Bush preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz, or on the al-Quds force of the Revolutionary Guard, a more remote possibility today than it was several weeks ago?
So it would seem.
The latest indication is a candid interview in the Financial Times with Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, head of Central Command, who would be the Tommy Franks of any naval or air war on Iran.
"The Pentagon is not preparing a preemptive attack on Iran in spite of an increase in bellicose rhetoric from Washington, according to senior officers," concluded the FT in the lead of its story.
Dealing with Iran is a "challenge," a strike is not "in the offing," Fallon is quoted. His comments, said the Times, "served as a shot across the bows of hawks who argue for imminent action."
"[G]enerally, the bellicose comments" out of Washington "are not particularly helpful," said our CentCom commander. That is naval gunfire directed right across the bow of the West Wing.
For the ranking man in Washington said to be arguing loudest for imminent action is Dick Cheney. And the most "bellicose comments" about Iran coming out of Washington have come from George W. Bush.
Here, again, is Bush at the American Legion Convention:
"Iran … is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. … Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent and target Israel. … Iran is sending arms to the Taliban. … Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."
Last month, Bush ventured further, "[I]f you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
If terms like "nuclear holocaust" and "World War III" are not "bellicose rhetoric," what is?
Why might the administration be backing away from war on Iran?
First, Pakistan. With a nation of 170 million with nuclear weapons in a political crisis that could lead to civil war, igniting a war with Iran would seem suicidal – especially with the war in Iraq about to enter its sixth year this spring and the war in Afghanistan about to enter its seventh year next month.
Second, there is no guarantee U.S. air strikes could denuclearize Iran, except temporarily. Bombs cannot destroy knowledge. And Iran has been gaining knowledge for years on how to enrich uranium. Moreover, Iran has surely secreted away many of the centrifuges it has constructed, far from the Natanz plant – ground zero – where 2,000 or 3,000 are said to be operating.
Third, no one can predict where an attack on Iran will lead. While the United States could smash all known nuclear facilities, Iran could ship IEDs, sniper rifles, and surface-to-air missiles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and send in thousands of Revolutionary Guard and cause chaos in the Gulf that would double or treble the price of oil, setting off a worldwide recession. Sleeper cells could retaliate for Iranian casualties with suicide bombings at U.S. malls.
We went into Iraq and Afghanistan without an exit strategy. In Iran, other than the naval and air strikes of the first weeks, we do not know how or where the war would go. We do know the Iranians have been preparing surprises.
Fourth, Congress seems to have found its voice, and 30 senators have written to inform President Bush that he does not have the authority, absent an Iranian attack on U.S. forces, to launch a war on Iran. While Rudy Giuliani and John McCain remain hawkish, the Democratic candidates are moving in the other direction.
Fifth, there has been a downturn in roadside attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, suggesting Iran may no longer be supplying the enhanced IEDs. And U.S. forces have released several Iranians held captive in Iraq. There may be progress behind the scenes, as both countries could suffer horribly in a war.
We are not out of the woods yet. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is telling the truth about those 3,000 centrifuges working perfectly, Iran could have the nuclear material for a single bomb in a year. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports this month on whether Iran is meeting its commitments to come clean. It is not. And the European Union will report on whether the sanctions have succeeded, or failed. And the latter is the case.
And there are those in Tehran who would relish U.S. strikes, to unite the nation against us and consolidate the mullahs' power.
Nevertheless, the forces against war now and for negotiations with Tehran – Condi Rice, Robert Gates, the Pentagon brass, the most outspoken of the retired military, and NATO Europe – seem to be gaining the ascendancy in the last great battle of the Bush presidency.
And the War Party, which began its propaganda offensive around Labor Day, seems to have shot its bolt. For now.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=11899
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Is a Bush preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz, or on the al-Quds force of the Revolutionary Guard, a more remote possibility today than it was several weeks ago?
So it would seem.
The latest indication is a candid interview in the Financial Times with Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, head of Central Command, who would be the Tommy Franks of any naval or air war on Iran.
"The Pentagon is not preparing a preemptive attack on Iran in spite of an increase in bellicose rhetoric from Washington, according to senior officers," concluded the FT in the lead of its story.
Dealing with Iran is a "challenge," a strike is not "in the offing," Fallon is quoted. His comments, said the Times, "served as a shot across the bows of hawks who argue for imminent action."
"[G]enerally, the bellicose comments" out of Washington "are not particularly helpful," said our CentCom commander. That is naval gunfire directed right across the bow of the West Wing.
For the ranking man in Washington said to be arguing loudest for imminent action is Dick Cheney. And the most "bellicose comments" about Iran coming out of Washington have come from George W. Bush.
Here, again, is Bush at the American Legion Convention:
"Iran … is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. … Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent and target Israel. … Iran is sending arms to the Taliban. … Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."
Last month, Bush ventured further, "[I]f you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
If terms like "nuclear holocaust" and "World War III" are not "bellicose rhetoric," what is?
Why might the administration be backing away from war on Iran?
First, Pakistan. With a nation of 170 million with nuclear weapons in a political crisis that could lead to civil war, igniting a war with Iran would seem suicidal – especially with the war in Iraq about to enter its sixth year this spring and the war in Afghanistan about to enter its seventh year next month.
Second, there is no guarantee U.S. air strikes could denuclearize Iran, except temporarily. Bombs cannot destroy knowledge. And Iran has been gaining knowledge for years on how to enrich uranium. Moreover, Iran has surely secreted away many of the centrifuges it has constructed, far from the Natanz plant – ground zero – where 2,000 or 3,000 are said to be operating.
Third, no one can predict where an attack on Iran will lead. While the United States could smash all known nuclear facilities, Iran could ship IEDs, sniper rifles, and surface-to-air missiles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and send in thousands of Revolutionary Guard and cause chaos in the Gulf that would double or treble the price of oil, setting off a worldwide recession. Sleeper cells could retaliate for Iranian casualties with suicide bombings at U.S. malls.
We went into Iraq and Afghanistan without an exit strategy. In Iran, other than the naval and air strikes of the first weeks, we do not know how or where the war would go. We do know the Iranians have been preparing surprises.
Fourth, Congress seems to have found its voice, and 30 senators have written to inform President Bush that he does not have the authority, absent an Iranian attack on U.S. forces, to launch a war on Iran. While Rudy Giuliani and John McCain remain hawkish, the Democratic candidates are moving in the other direction.
Fifth, there has been a downturn in roadside attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, suggesting Iran may no longer be supplying the enhanced IEDs. And U.S. forces have released several Iranians held captive in Iraq. There may be progress behind the scenes, as both countries could suffer horribly in a war.
We are not out of the woods yet. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is telling the truth about those 3,000 centrifuges working perfectly, Iran could have the nuclear material for a single bomb in a year. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports this month on whether Iran is meeting its commitments to come clean. It is not. And the European Union will report on whether the sanctions have succeeded, or failed. And the latter is the case.
And there are those in Tehran who would relish U.S. strikes, to unite the nation against us and consolidate the mullahs' power.
Nevertheless, the forces against war now and for negotiations with Tehran – Condi Rice, Robert Gates, the Pentagon brass, the most outspoken of the retired military, and NATO Europe – seem to be gaining the ascendancy in the last great battle of the Bush presidency.
And the War Party, which began its propaganda offensive around Labor Day, seems to have shot its bolt. For now.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=11899
U.S. Digs In to Guard Iraq Oil Exports
Long-Term Presence Planned
At Persian Gulf Terminals
Viewed as Vulnerable
By CHIP CUMMINS
November 12, 2007; Page A6
KHAWR AL AMAYA OIL TERMINAL, Iraq -- The U.S. Navy is building a military installation atop this petroleum-export platform as the U.S. establishes a more lasting military mission in the oil-rich north Persian Gulf.
[slideshow]
Chip Cummins
The U.S. Navy is quietly building a new military installation atop Khawr Al Amaya, one of two Iraqi export terminals.
While presidential candidates debate whether to start bringing ground troops home from Iraq, the new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn't shrinking anytime soon: American officials are girding for an open-ended commitment to protect the country's oil industry.
That is a sea change for the U.S., which has patrolled these waters for decades. In the past, American warships and their allies flexed the West's military might in the Persian Gulf to demonstrate a broad commitment to protect the region, which produces almost a third of the world's oil. President Jimmy Carter codified the doctrine in 1980 in response to a perceived Soviet threat.
Now, amid rising prices -- oil futures finished Friday at $96.32 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up 86 cents -- and new vulnerabilities in the world's stretched oil-supply chain -- from militants in Nigeria to occasional Iranian threats to disrupt Persian Gulf shipping -- the Navy finds itself with an additional, much more specific role: playing security guard to Iraq's offshore oil infrastructure.
Iraq's two export terminals are an increasingly vulnerable link in that supply chain. If they are both working, they can load almost two million barrels a day, or about 2.4% of the world's daily oil needs. If the four tanker berths at Al Basra Oil Terminal, the better-working of the two, are occupied with loaded ships, the cargo would represent almost 10% of global demand.
• The Situation: The Navy is building a command-and-control facility atop one of Iraq's offshore oil terminals, establishing a long-term commitment to protecting the country's oil industry.
• The Players: U.S., Australian and British personnel help guard the facilities and train Iraqis. Iran's Revolutionary Guards operate nearby.
• What's at Stake: Iraq's two export terminals, when working, can load almost two million barrels a day, about 2.4% of the world's daily oil needs.
"As a contributor to an increasingly inelastic supply, that is a significant percentage," says Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf. "That isn't just an Iraq issue, that's a global economic-stability issue."
The new installation will house U.S., British and Australian officers and sailors. The Pentagon has said it has no intention of building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, and Navy officials say they intend to turn over the facility to Iraqi forces as soon as they can run it on their own.
But Iraqi forces are a long way from being able to take over the mission, Navy officials say. Iraqi patrol boats are on the water assisting in sector patrols around the terminals. But they are rusting hulks. Iraqi soldiers stationed on the terminals have just recently started training with live ammunition. "They are going to need help for years to come," Adm. Cosgriff says.
So for the time being, the new base will serve as a U.S.-controlled command post straddling a major component of Iraq's creaking oil industry. From a collection of modified shipping containers, coalition officers will monitor ship traffic and coordinate the movement of coalition warships circling "Kaaot" and "Abot," as the military has nicknamed the two terminals.
Right now, the two terminals don't look like much. They are riddled with holes from bullets and shells during fighting in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. A causeway connecting two sections of Kaaot collapsed in the spring, and a fire ravaged another section of the terminal last year. Despite the disrepair, they are arguably the most heavily guarded oil installations in the world.
[Iraq]
These days, three U.S. Coast Guard and Navy patrol ships scoot around a mile or so off the terminals. An Iraqi boat is typically on station as well. They spend most of their day shooing away fishing boats and merchant traffic. A handful of much larger coalition warships cruise nearby.
A contingent of U.S. sailors lives on each of the two terminals to help provide close-in protection and to train Iraqi troops. A chain-link fence drapes over parts of the terminal to deter small craft or swimmers from getting to the terminal. U.S. and Iraqi forces narrowly thwarted an attack by explosives-laden speedboats in 2004.
Coalition staff, including an Australian commodore who currently has tactical control of the operation, have been previously stationed on the terminal, living aboard a rusty barge moored to Kaaot. Iraqi Marines man machine guns on each of the two terminals, and dozens of Iraqi employees, working shifts for Iraq's South Oil Co., operate the terminals for the Iraqi government.
Ashore, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad recently formed a special task force of American officials to coordinate U.S. policy regarding Iraqi energy-related issues, including security of oil infrastructure. U.S. forces don't guard any onshore installations, but Washington has committed some $277 million for energy-infrastructure protection.
Iraq's once-powerful oil industry is still a point of nationalistic pride among most Iraqis. Oil officials in Baghdad have mixed feelings about the U.S. presence atop one of their country's most important pieces of energy infrastructure.
Hussein al-Shahristani, Iraq's oil minister, acknowledges the foreign navies' crucial role protecting the platforms. But he also complains about the delays that U.S.-led tanker inspections and security measures sometimes mean. "We have asked them not to influence the movement of vessels assigned to carry our crude oil to the buyers," he says.
The new outpost also offers a convenient perch from which to monitor Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps. Amid heightened rhetoric between Tehran and Washington over the past few years, some Iranian officials have threatened a disruption to shipping in the Persian Gulf.
The naval component of the Revolutionary Guards Corps operates from a partially submerged barge and crane visible on clear days from Kaaot. Iranian forces in the spring captured a contingent of British sailors who were participating in the oil-protection mission here and paraded them in front of cameras before letting them go.
Despite the incident, coalition officials say contact with their Iranian counterparts operating in the Gulf has been limited and mostly professional.
"We live with each other," says Lt. Brian Betz, commanding officer of the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Maui. "They stay on their side of the line, and we stay on our side."
Washington has also boosted its efforts to encourage more energy-security cooperation among allies in the Gulf.
Adm. Cosgriff says U.S. firepower won't solve all the region's energy-security fears. "You can go broke doing point defense for all the platforms out here," he says.
--Hassan Hafidh in Amman, Jordan, contributed to this article.
Write to Chip Cummins at chip.cummins@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194826754...=y&r=442705
Long-Term Presence Planned
At Persian Gulf Terminals
Viewed as Vulnerable
By CHIP CUMMINS
November 12, 2007; Page A6
KHAWR AL AMAYA OIL TERMINAL, Iraq -- The U.S. Navy is building a military installation atop this petroleum-export platform as the U.S. establishes a more lasting military mission in the oil-rich north Persian Gulf.
[slideshow]
Chip Cummins
The U.S. Navy is quietly building a new military installation atop Khawr Al Amaya, one of two Iraqi export terminals.
While presidential candidates debate whether to start bringing ground troops home from Iraq, the new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn't shrinking anytime soon: American officials are girding for an open-ended commitment to protect the country's oil industry.
That is a sea change for the U.S., which has patrolled these waters for decades. In the past, American warships and their allies flexed the West's military might in the Persian Gulf to demonstrate a broad commitment to protect the region, which produces almost a third of the world's oil. President Jimmy Carter codified the doctrine in 1980 in response to a perceived Soviet threat.
Now, amid rising prices -- oil futures finished Friday at $96.32 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up 86 cents -- and new vulnerabilities in the world's stretched oil-supply chain -- from militants in Nigeria to occasional Iranian threats to disrupt Persian Gulf shipping -- the Navy finds itself with an additional, much more specific role: playing security guard to Iraq's offshore oil infrastructure.
Iraq's two export terminals are an increasingly vulnerable link in that supply chain. If they are both working, they can load almost two million barrels a day, or about 2.4% of the world's daily oil needs. If the four tanker berths at Al Basra Oil Terminal, the better-working of the two, are occupied with loaded ships, the cargo would represent almost 10% of global demand.
• The Situation: The Navy is building a command-and-control facility atop one of Iraq's offshore oil terminals, establishing a long-term commitment to protecting the country's oil industry.
• The Players: U.S., Australian and British personnel help guard the facilities and train Iraqis. Iran's Revolutionary Guards operate nearby.
• What's at Stake: Iraq's two export terminals, when working, can load almost two million barrels a day, about 2.4% of the world's daily oil needs.
"As a contributor to an increasingly inelastic supply, that is a significant percentage," says Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf. "That isn't just an Iraq issue, that's a global economic-stability issue."
The new installation will house U.S., British and Australian officers and sailors. The Pentagon has said it has no intention of building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, and Navy officials say they intend to turn over the facility to Iraqi forces as soon as they can run it on their own.
But Iraqi forces are a long way from being able to take over the mission, Navy officials say. Iraqi patrol boats are on the water assisting in sector patrols around the terminals. But they are rusting hulks. Iraqi soldiers stationed on the terminals have just recently started training with live ammunition. "They are going to need help for years to come," Adm. Cosgriff says.
So for the time being, the new base will serve as a U.S.-controlled command post straddling a major component of Iraq's creaking oil industry. From a collection of modified shipping containers, coalition officers will monitor ship traffic and coordinate the movement of coalition warships circling "Kaaot" and "Abot," as the military has nicknamed the two terminals.
Right now, the two terminals don't look like much. They are riddled with holes from bullets and shells during fighting in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. A causeway connecting two sections of Kaaot collapsed in the spring, and a fire ravaged another section of the terminal last year. Despite the disrepair, they are arguably the most heavily guarded oil installations in the world.
[Iraq]
These days, three U.S. Coast Guard and Navy patrol ships scoot around a mile or so off the terminals. An Iraqi boat is typically on station as well. They spend most of their day shooing away fishing boats and merchant traffic. A handful of much larger coalition warships cruise nearby.
A contingent of U.S. sailors lives on each of the two terminals to help provide close-in protection and to train Iraqi troops. A chain-link fence drapes over parts of the terminal to deter small craft or swimmers from getting to the terminal. U.S. and Iraqi forces narrowly thwarted an attack by explosives-laden speedboats in 2004.
Coalition staff, including an Australian commodore who currently has tactical control of the operation, have been previously stationed on the terminal, living aboard a rusty barge moored to Kaaot. Iraqi Marines man machine guns on each of the two terminals, and dozens of Iraqi employees, working shifts for Iraq's South Oil Co., operate the terminals for the Iraqi government.
Ashore, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad recently formed a special task force of American officials to coordinate U.S. policy regarding Iraqi energy-related issues, including security of oil infrastructure. U.S. forces don't guard any onshore installations, but Washington has committed some $277 million for energy-infrastructure protection.
Iraq's once-powerful oil industry is still a point of nationalistic pride among most Iraqis. Oil officials in Baghdad have mixed feelings about the U.S. presence atop one of their country's most important pieces of energy infrastructure.
Hussein al-Shahristani, Iraq's oil minister, acknowledges the foreign navies' crucial role protecting the platforms. But he also complains about the delays that U.S.-led tanker inspections and security measures sometimes mean. "We have asked them not to influence the movement of vessels assigned to carry our crude oil to the buyers," he says.
The new outpost also offers a convenient perch from which to monitor Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps. Amid heightened rhetoric between Tehran and Washington over the past few years, some Iranian officials have threatened a disruption to shipping in the Persian Gulf.
The naval component of the Revolutionary Guards Corps operates from a partially submerged barge and crane visible on clear days from Kaaot. Iranian forces in the spring captured a contingent of British sailors who were participating in the oil-protection mission here and paraded them in front of cameras before letting them go.
Despite the incident, coalition officials say contact with their Iranian counterparts operating in the Gulf has been limited and mostly professional.
"We live with each other," says Lt. Brian Betz, commanding officer of the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Maui. "They stay on their side of the line, and we stay on our side."
Washington has also boosted its efforts to encourage more energy-security cooperation among allies in the Gulf.
Adm. Cosgriff says U.S. firepower won't solve all the region's energy-security fears. "You can go broke doing point defense for all the platforms out here," he says.
--Hassan Hafidh in Amman, Jordan, contributed to this article.
Write to Chip Cummins at chip.cummins@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194826754...=y&r=442705
Oil Is King The Mosaic Intelligence Report investigates who is benefiting from record oil prices and whether there’s more to the Saudi king’s European tour than meets the eye.
America's Ugly Allies in Iraq: A Profile of Abu Abed This article is a must-read according to my friend Nir Rosen on what illusory American success in Iraq is based on.
I find these quotes from the piece illuminating:
05:16 PM | Permalink
I find these quotes from the piece illuminating:
"The Americans lost hope with an Iraqi government that is both sectarian and dominated by militias, so they are paying for locals to fight al-Qaida. It will create a series of warlords. It's like someone who brought cats to fight rats, found himself with too many cats and brought dogs to fight the cats. Now they need elephants."-- Steve Clemons
05:16 PM | Permalink
TURKEY, TERRORISM AND DOUBLE STANDARDS - BRUCE FEIN (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 13): http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...mplate=printart
BIDEN RAPS BUSH OVER PAKISTAN: HE SAYS U.S. MUST AID NATION, NOT MUSHARRAF - ETHAN WILENSKY-LANFORD (CONCORD MONITOR, NOVEMBER 9):
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...381/1043/NEWS01
AN AWESOME PLAN FOR PAKISTAN ... AND A PONY! ? BLAKE HOUNSHELL (PASSPORT, FOREIGN POLICY, NOVEMBER 9): Telling your constituents that you want to spend their hard-earned tax dollars to build a bunch of schools in the tribal badlands of Pakistan doesn't exactly turn out votes.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6971
THE ILLUSION OF AMERICAN 'SMART POWER' - KAVEH L. AFRASIABI (ASIA TIMES, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK13Ak02.html
FOREIGN STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN US UP FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 9/11 (AFP, NOVEMBER 12): http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNV0II...WX2GugaLqJXGfUA
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/200...dy-abroad_N.htm
http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold...p;time=13%2014%
MONEY CAN'T BUY U.S. LOVE - JOEL BRINKLEY (SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable
CHEAP DOLLAR, BUT NO FLOOD OF TOURISTS - MACKENZIE CARPENTER (PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, NOVEMBER 10): http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07314/832790-28.stm
THE COUP AT HOME - FRANK RICH (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/...agewanted=print
BRING THE REAL WORLD HOME - ROGER COHEN (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/opinion/...agewanted=print
THE NEW FACE OF AL JAZEERA - KRISTEN GILLESPIE (NATION, NOVEMBER 9): http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=...amp;s=gillespie
STUDY: FOREIGN STUDENTS ADDED TO ECONOMY - TAMAR LEWIN (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): IN the 2006-7 school year, the report found, international students' net contribution to the United States economy was nearly $14.5 billion up a billion dollars from the previous year, the largest annual increase to date.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/12int...agewanted=print
FORCED IRAQ POSTINGS 'MAY BE NECESSARY': VOLUNTEERS FILL ABOUT HALF OF EMBASSY'S 48 OPEN SLOTS, STATE DEPARTMENT SAYS - KAREN DEYOUNG (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1001472_pf.html
FOREIGN POLICY ZERO; MANAGEMENT ZERO - RECIPE FOR REBELLION IN THE RANKS PATRICIA KUSHLIS (WHIRLED VIW, NOVEMBER 11): http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview...gn-policy-.html
HURDLES STALL PLAN FOR IRAQI RECRUITS: SHIITE LEADERSHIP WARY OF BRINGING FIGHTERS INTO RANKS - JOSHUA PARTLOW AND ANN SCOTT TYSON (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1101730_pf.html
SECURITY GUARD FIRES FROM CONVOY, KILLING IRAQI DRIVER - JAMES GLANZ (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/world/mi...agewanted=print
HAVE WE TURNED THE CORNER IN IRAQ? IS THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT CASUALTIES IN IRAQ EVIDENCE THAT THE SURGE IS WORKING? DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND BRIAN KATULIS DEBATE (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 12)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-...-opinion-center
'SURGE' AND GO: VIOLENCE IN IRAQ IS DOWN, AND THE U.S. MILITARY DESERVES OUR PRAISE. NOW MAY WE HAVE AN EXIT STRATEGY? ? EDITORIAL (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editor...ment-editorials
CURVEBALL, SWING AND A MISS - GEORGE F. WILL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0901942_pf.html
IRAN: THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY: THE ISLAMIC REGIME BRUTALLY STIFLES DISSENT AND DETERMINES RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES BASED ON RELIGION - AKBAR GANJI (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail
IS WORLD WAR III ON HOLD? - PATRICK J. BUCHANAN (TOWN HALL, NOVEMBER 13): http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Patrick...war_iii_on_hold
THE SPY WHO WANTS ISRAEL TO TALK - DAVID IGNATIUS (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7110901941.html
HOW TURKEY SEES AMERICA - AMAR C. BAKSHI (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 12): http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglo...ml?nav=rss_blog
A SAUDI PROPAGANDA SHOWCASE ? (LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS, NOVEMBER 10): http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?en...owcase#comments
THE GENERAL MUST GO: PERVEZ MUSHARRAF HAS BECOME AN OBSTACLE TO U.S. INTERESTS IN PAKISTAN -- AND TO PAKISTAN'S INTERESTS AS WELL ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7111001308.html
INDIRA AND THE ISLAMISTS - SHIKHA DALMIA (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 13):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194905612...ain_europe_asia
PERILOUS PAKISTAN EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
MUSHARRAF GOES SPLAT - JIM HOAGLAND (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0902023_pf.html
THE ANSWER IN PAKISTAN - THOMAS R. PICKERING, CARLA HILLS AND MORTON ABRAMOWITZ (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 13): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7111201417.html
WHITE HOUSE HAILS RENEWED TIES WITH EUROPE: FRENCH AND GERMAN LEADERS ARE VISITING - MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 7)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7110602177.html
CRISIS IN GEORGIA: THE UNITED STATES HAS NO REASON TO TOLERATE MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI'S VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC ORDER ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 13)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7111201549.html
GEORGIA'S LEAP BACKWARD - ANNE APPLEBAUM (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 13): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1201419_pf.html
A TILT ON CHAVEZ - OLIVER NORTH (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
WILL CHAVEZ PULL THE TRIGGER?: VENEZUELANS MAY GIVE THEIR PRESIDENT THE POWER TO RESTRICT OIL PRODUCTION -- AND CAUSE A GLOBAL RECESSION - MICHAEL ROWAN AND DOUGLAS SCHOEN (LOS ANGELES TIMES. NOVEMBER 12): .
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions
NEW TERRORIST NEXUS - ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 12):
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
BIDEN RAPS BUSH OVER PAKISTAN: HE SAYS U.S. MUST AID NATION, NOT MUSHARRAF - ETHAN WILENSKY-LANFORD (CONCORD MONITOR, NOVEMBER 9):
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...381/1043/NEWS01
AN AWESOME PLAN FOR PAKISTAN ... AND A PONY! ? BLAKE HOUNSHELL (PASSPORT, FOREIGN POLICY, NOVEMBER 9): Telling your constituents that you want to spend their hard-earned tax dollars to build a bunch of schools in the tribal badlands of Pakistan doesn't exactly turn out votes.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6971
THE ILLUSION OF AMERICAN 'SMART POWER' - KAVEH L. AFRASIABI (ASIA TIMES, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK13Ak02.html
FOREIGN STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN US UP FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 9/11 (AFP, NOVEMBER 12): http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNV0II...WX2GugaLqJXGfUA
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/200...dy-abroad_N.htm
http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold...p;time=13%2014%
MONEY CAN'T BUY U.S. LOVE - JOEL BRINKLEY (SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable
CHEAP DOLLAR, BUT NO FLOOD OF TOURISTS - MACKENZIE CARPENTER (PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, NOVEMBER 10): http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07314/832790-28.stm
THE COUP AT HOME - FRANK RICH (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/...agewanted=print
BRING THE REAL WORLD HOME - ROGER COHEN (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/opinion/...agewanted=print
THE NEW FACE OF AL JAZEERA - KRISTEN GILLESPIE (NATION, NOVEMBER 9): http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=...amp;s=gillespie
STUDY: FOREIGN STUDENTS ADDED TO ECONOMY - TAMAR LEWIN (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): IN the 2006-7 school year, the report found, international students' net contribution to the United States economy was nearly $14.5 billion up a billion dollars from the previous year, the largest annual increase to date.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/12int...agewanted=print
FORCED IRAQ POSTINGS 'MAY BE NECESSARY': VOLUNTEERS FILL ABOUT HALF OF EMBASSY'S 48 OPEN SLOTS, STATE DEPARTMENT SAYS - KAREN DEYOUNG (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1001472_pf.html
FOREIGN POLICY ZERO; MANAGEMENT ZERO - RECIPE FOR REBELLION IN THE RANKS PATRICIA KUSHLIS (WHIRLED VIW, NOVEMBER 11): http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview...gn-policy-.html
HURDLES STALL PLAN FOR IRAQI RECRUITS: SHIITE LEADERSHIP WARY OF BRINGING FIGHTERS INTO RANKS - JOSHUA PARTLOW AND ANN SCOTT TYSON (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1101730_pf.html
SECURITY GUARD FIRES FROM CONVOY, KILLING IRAQI DRIVER - JAMES GLANZ (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/world/mi...agewanted=print
HAVE WE TURNED THE CORNER IN IRAQ? IS THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT CASUALTIES IN IRAQ EVIDENCE THAT THE SURGE IS WORKING? DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND BRIAN KATULIS DEBATE (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 12)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-...-opinion-center
'SURGE' AND GO: VIOLENCE IN IRAQ IS DOWN, AND THE U.S. MILITARY DESERVES OUR PRAISE. NOW MAY WE HAVE AN EXIT STRATEGY? ? EDITORIAL (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editor...ment-editorials
CURVEBALL, SWING AND A MISS - GEORGE F. WILL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0901942_pf.html
IRAN: THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY: THE ISLAMIC REGIME BRUTALLY STIFLES DISSENT AND DETERMINES RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES BASED ON RELIGION - AKBAR GANJI (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail
IS WORLD WAR III ON HOLD? - PATRICK J. BUCHANAN (TOWN HALL, NOVEMBER 13): http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Patrick...war_iii_on_hold
THE SPY WHO WANTS ISRAEL TO TALK - DAVID IGNATIUS (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7110901941.html
HOW TURKEY SEES AMERICA - AMAR C. BAKSHI (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 12): http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglo...ml?nav=rss_blog
A SAUDI PROPAGANDA SHOWCASE ? (LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS, NOVEMBER 10): http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?en...owcase#comments
THE GENERAL MUST GO: PERVEZ MUSHARRAF HAS BECOME AN OBSTACLE TO U.S. INTERESTS IN PAKISTAN -- AND TO PAKISTAN'S INTERESTS AS WELL ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7111001308.html
INDIRA AND THE ISLAMISTS - SHIKHA DALMIA (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 13):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194905612...ain_europe_asia
PERILOUS PAKISTAN EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
MUSHARRAF GOES SPLAT - JIM HOAGLAND (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0902023_pf.html
THE ANSWER IN PAKISTAN - THOMAS R. PICKERING, CARLA HILLS AND MORTON ABRAMOWITZ (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 13): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7111201417.html
WHITE HOUSE HAILS RENEWED TIES WITH EUROPE: FRENCH AND GERMAN LEADERS ARE VISITING - MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 7)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7110602177.html
CRISIS IN GEORGIA: THE UNITED STATES HAS NO REASON TO TOLERATE MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI'S VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC ORDER ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 13)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7111201549.html
GEORGIA'S LEAP BACKWARD - ANNE APPLEBAUM (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 13): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1201419_pf.html
A TILT ON CHAVEZ - OLIVER NORTH (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
WILL CHAVEZ PULL THE TRIGGER?: VENEZUELANS MAY GIVE THEIR PRESIDENT THE POWER TO RESTRICT OIL PRODUCTION -- AND CAUSE A GLOBAL RECESSION - MICHAEL ROWAN AND DOUGLAS SCHOEN (LOS ANGELES TIMES. NOVEMBER 12): .
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions
NEW TERRORIST NEXUS - ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 12):
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
Turkish warplanes bomb Iraqi villages
Arbil, Iraq (AFP) Nov 13, 2007 - Turkish warplanes bombed three Iraqi villages near the border town of Zakho in northern Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region on Tuesday but caused no casualties, a security official said. The bombings were carried out before dawn on villages known to be frequented by fighters of the rebel Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in the Batoufa and Darkar districts of northern Iraq, the Kurdish official to ... more
Arbil, Iraq (AFP) Nov 13, 2007 - Turkish warplanes bombed three Iraqi villages near the border town of Zakho in northern Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region on Tuesday but caused no casualties, a security official said. The bombings were carried out before dawn on villages known to be frequented by fighters of the rebel Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in the Batoufa and Darkar districts of northern Iraq, the Kurdish official to ... more
Analysis: In the shah's footsteps?
Washington (UPI) Nov 13, 2007 - A close adviser to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf promises full democracy will return to Pakistan by February 2008. However, given today's prevailing political climate, much can happen in the next three months that could either take the country on the road to political recovery or plunge it into greater chaos and potential civil war. Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri, who counsels the Pakist ... more
Washington (UPI) Nov 13, 2007 - A close adviser to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf promises full democracy will return to Pakistan by February 2008. However, given today's prevailing political climate, much can happen in the next three months that could either take the country on the road to political recovery or plunge it into greater chaos and potential civil war. Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri, who counsels the Pakist ... more
Analysis: Poppy project controversial
Berlin (UPI) Nov 13, 2007 - Afghan villages could grow opium poppy legally to produce medicines -- that's the proposal of the Senlis Council, a U.K.-based think tank. While the idea has the backing of the European Parliament, some experts are not convinced. There is no doubt Afghanistan still has a poppy crisis: In 2006 the country that since late 2001 has been secured by some 40,000 Western soldiers produced some ... more
Berlin (UPI) Nov 13, 2007 - Afghan villages could grow opium poppy legally to produce medicines -- that's the proposal of the Senlis Council, a U.K.-based think tank. While the idea has the backing of the European Parliament, some experts are not convinced. There is no doubt Afghanistan still has a poppy crisis: In 2006 the country that since late 2001 has been secured by some 40,000 Western soldiers produced some ... more
Armed gangs target SAfrican nuclear facility
Johannesburg (AFP) Nov 13, 2007 - Two armed gangs made simultaneous attempts last week to break into South Africa's main nuclear research facility, an official said on Tuesday. Rob Adam, chief executive of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa), said that a guard had been shot and wounded during one of the break-ins at the Pelindaba plant, west of Pretoria. Another group of would-be intruders fled after a s ... more
Johannesburg (AFP) Nov 13, 2007 - Two armed gangs made simultaneous attempts last week to break into South Africa's main nuclear research facility, an official said on Tuesday. Rob Adam, chief executive of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa), said that a guard had been shot and wounded during one of the break-ins at the Pelindaba plant, west of Pretoria. Another group of would-be intruders fled after a s ... more
Hidden outlays to push war costs to 3.5 trillion : Democrats
Washington (AFP) Nov 13, 2007 - Hidden costs could send the price tag of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ballooning to 3.5 trillion dollars by 2017, much higher than previous estimates, Democrats warned on Tuesday. Party leaders cited findings of the new study in their latest attempt to build support for their so-far unsuccessful drive to force President George W. Bush to change his Iraq strategy. The economic cost of ... more
Washington (AFP) Nov 13, 2007 - Hidden costs could send the price tag of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ballooning to 3.5 trillion dollars by 2017, much higher than previous estimates, Democrats warned on Tuesday. Party leaders cited findings of the new study in their latest attempt to build support for their so-far unsuccessful drive to force President George W. Bush to change his Iraq strategy. The economic cost of ... more