Bush-Cheney Really Are Planning to Attack Iran!
Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown
War on Iraq: Bush & Buckshot are riding their little stick horses, demonizing another Muslim nation -- and the Dems are supporting it. We've got to shut them down.
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
Bush-Cheney Really Are Planning to Attack Iran!
Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown
War on Iraq: Bush & Buckshot are riding their little stick horses, demonizing another Muslim nation -- and the Dems are supporting it. We've got to shut them down.
Kucinich on Bush, Cheney: "Don't Wait, Impeach Them Now!" [VIDEO]
Post by Adam Howard
Video: In one of the best moments of the Democratic Debate in Las Vegas, Kucinich took his fellow candidates to task for approving the Patriot Act and for giving the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt. More »
War with Iran: Will Foolish Dubya Actually Take on Cyrus the Great?
by Dennis Rahkonen / November 16th, 2007
George Bush’s Iraq policy continues to be backed by those bizarre souls who wanted to change the name of the greasy fast-food item that’s making US kids obese to “Freedom Fries” because the French had vision enough to see a moral travesty in the making. (Full article …)
US Economy–Recession, Depression, or Collapse?
by Shepherd Bliss / November 15th, 2007
“For Consumers, the Hits Keep Coming” a recent banner headline in a New York Times-owned daily newspaper here in Northern California reports. The article misses the main points. If we continue to understand ourselves as primarily passive consumers, rather than as active citizens, the US economy will enter at least a recession, probably a depression, and possibly a collapse. Even our republic is at risk. (Full article …)
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2007
12:56 MECCA TIME, 9:56 GMT
Opec leaders meet in Riyadh
The two-day summit in Riyadh is only the third in
the organisation's 47-year history
Oil, finance and foreign ministers of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) are in the Saudi capital Riyadh for a rare meeting against the backdrop of a depreciating dollar.
The two-day summit, only the third in Opec's 47-year history, will not discuss whether or not to increase oil supplies in order to cool high prices.
The gathering comes at a time of tension in world oil markets.
In a closed session of foreign and finance ministers, Saudi Arabia, a close US ally, objected to a bid by Iran and Venezuela to highlight concern over the weakness of the US dollar.
The group voted the proposal out.
Abdalla Salem el-Badri, the Opec secretary-general, said the group had decided not to mention concern over dollar depreciation in the declaration.
Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, told the session: "My fear is that any mention that Opec makes of studying the issue of the dollar will in itself have an impact."
Microphone mix-up
A microphone mistakenly left on meant that the comments of al-Faisal were accidentally broadcast to journalists on Saturday.
He rejected the proposal by Iran and Venezuela who wanted the meeting to discuss the weak dollar, saying: "There are media people outside waiting to catch this point and they will add to it [exaggerate] and we may find that the dollar collapses."
In video
Al Jazeera investigates oil production in Indonesia
Embarrassed organisers switched off the microphones when they discovered their blunder.
Opec is under pressure to increase its output to help calm record crude prices that reached almost $100 a barrel for the first time last week.
Some Opec members want to increasingly sell their oil in euros and not dollars.
The Gulf Arab states and Saudi Arabia earn more than a billion dollars a day from oil sales.
Mamdouh Salameh, an international oil expert, told Al Jazeera: "Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are under the US military umbrella. Consequently, it will be anti-American decision if they shift to another currency other than the dollar."
House divided
Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer, insists that Opec remain a purely economic forum despite efforts by some member countries to politicise it.
Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan leader, has said he wants Opec to take on a stronger "political and geopolitical" role and says it must find a way to compensate the world's poorest countries for high oil prices.
The summit will instead focus on tackling climate change, long-term reliability of oil supplies, and energy's role in the developing world.
Any decision on increasing Opec output will be made in a meeting in Abu Dhabi next month.
Dollar's weakness
Concern is growing, however, that the dollar's weakness signals the end of its reign as the world's main international currency. And the greenback would be further damaged if Opec started selling its oil in euros or created a basket of currencies as some producers now want.
Saudi Arabia's investments in the US - and many other countries - are also threatened by a weaker dollar.
The dollar has fallen 10 per cent against the euro this year. This has hit oil producers and slashed income.
The falling dollar has also made imports - which countries especially in the Gulf rely on - much more expensive.
Inflation has rocketed, hitting the huge numbers of low paid foreign workers especially hard.
Now Gulf currencies, such as the UAE dirham which has been pegged to the dollar for the past 30 years, could be unpegged because of growing pressure.
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
12:56 MECCA TIME, 9:56 GMT
Opec leaders meet in Riyadh
The two-day summit in Riyadh is only the third in
the organisation's 47-year history
Oil, finance and foreign ministers of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) are in the Saudi capital Riyadh for a rare meeting against the backdrop of a depreciating dollar.
The two-day summit, only the third in Opec's 47-year history, will not discuss whether or not to increase oil supplies in order to cool high prices.
The gathering comes at a time of tension in world oil markets.
In a closed session of foreign and finance ministers, Saudi Arabia, a close US ally, objected to a bid by Iran and Venezuela to highlight concern over the weakness of the US dollar.
The group voted the proposal out.
Abdalla Salem el-Badri, the Opec secretary-general, said the group had decided not to mention concern over dollar depreciation in the declaration.
Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, told the session: "My fear is that any mention that Opec makes of studying the issue of the dollar will in itself have an impact."
Microphone mix-up
A microphone mistakenly left on meant that the comments of al-Faisal were accidentally broadcast to journalists on Saturday.
He rejected the proposal by Iran and Venezuela who wanted the meeting to discuss the weak dollar, saying: "There are media people outside waiting to catch this point and they will add to it [exaggerate] and we may find that the dollar collapses."
In video
Al Jazeera investigates oil production in Indonesia
Embarrassed organisers switched off the microphones when they discovered their blunder.
Opec is under pressure to increase its output to help calm record crude prices that reached almost $100 a barrel for the first time last week.
Some Opec members want to increasingly sell their oil in euros and not dollars.
The Gulf Arab states and Saudi Arabia earn more than a billion dollars a day from oil sales.
Mamdouh Salameh, an international oil expert, told Al Jazeera: "Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are under the US military umbrella. Consequently, it will be anti-American decision if they shift to another currency other than the dollar."
House divided
Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer, insists that Opec remain a purely economic forum despite efforts by some member countries to politicise it.
Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan leader, has said he wants Opec to take on a stronger "political and geopolitical" role and says it must find a way to compensate the world's poorest countries for high oil prices.
The summit will instead focus on tackling climate change, long-term reliability of oil supplies, and energy's role in the developing world.
Any decision on increasing Opec output will be made in a meeting in Abu Dhabi next month.
Dollar's weakness
Concern is growing, however, that the dollar's weakness signals the end of its reign as the world's main international currency. And the greenback would be further damaged if Opec started selling its oil in euros or created a basket of currencies as some producers now want.
Saudi Arabia's investments in the US - and many other countries - are also threatened by a weaker dollar.
The dollar has fallen 10 per cent against the euro this year. This has hit oil producers and slashed income.
The falling dollar has also made imports - which countries especially in the Gulf rely on - much more expensive.
Inflation has rocketed, hitting the huge numbers of low paid foreign workers especially hard.
Now Gulf currencies, such as the UAE dirham which has been pegged to the dollar for the past 30 years, could be unpegged because of growing pressure.
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
In a dramatic reverse swing, Russia's Putin decides to send uranium to fuel Iran’s atomic power station in Bushehr -- Russia will not attend Annapolis Conference
Russia readies nuclear fuel bound for Iran: Moscow pushes ahead with plans to supply Tehran with uranium after release of IAEA report
Sane Officers Oppose Cheney: In his plans to attack Iran
Iran touts IAEA report, demands West apologize
Achieving Global Accord on Iran Sanctions May Be Harder
China deals blow to Western efforts to punish Iran
Iran spreading ‘violent extremism’ across Middle East: Rice claims again
Russia readies nuclear fuel bound for Iran: Moscow pushes ahead with plans to supply Tehran with uranium after release of IAEA report
Sane Officers Oppose Cheney: In his plans to attack Iran
Iran touts IAEA report, demands West apologize
Achieving Global Accord on Iran Sanctions May Be Harder
China deals blow to Western efforts to punish Iran
Iran spreading ‘violent extremism’ across Middle East: Rice claims again
Averting World War III, Ending Dollar Hegemony and US Imperialism
by Rohini Hensman / November 16th, 2007
Introduction (Full article …)
Musharraf remains the US's best option
The Pakistani regime doesn't like being treated as an occasional fling when Washington is in heat. Bearing this in mind, visiting US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte needs to tread lightly when he meets with President General Pervez Musharraf this weekend. Given the political gridlock ensuing from the breakdown of the Musharraf-Benazir Bhutto deal, a continuation of the present ruling alliance - with adjustments - is the only viable option. The all-powerful military, after all, remains staunchly behind the general. - M K Bhadrakumar (Nov 16, '07)
The Pakistani regime doesn't like being treated as an occasional fling when Washington is in heat. Bearing this in mind, visiting US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte needs to tread lightly when he meets with President General Pervez Musharraf this weekend. Given the political gridlock ensuing from the breakdown of the Musharraf-Benazir Bhutto deal, a continuation of the present ruling alliance - with adjustments - is the only viable option. The all-powerful military, after all, remains staunchly behind the general. - M K Bhadrakumar (Nov 16, '07)
CHAN AKYAPlaying South Asia's
World War III game
Using game theory to understand recent events in South Asia shows the possibility of a calamitous slide towards World War III, led by the decline of US power. China can't intervene in Pakistan and India won't, leaving a vacuum that will be filled by Islamic fundamentalists and their archrivals, the neo-conservatives. (Nov 16, '07)
Playing 'chicken'
with the markets
Changes in the way the US Federal Reseve goes about its business, announced on Wednesday by newly confident Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, seem to have lengthened the odds on a rate cut when the Fed next meets. But if it doesn't cut, both the markets and Bernanke are heading for a very great fall. - Julian Delasantellis
with the markets
Changes in the way the US Federal Reseve goes about its business, announced on Wednesday by newly confident Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, seem to have lengthened the odds on a rate cut when the Fed next meets. But if it doesn't cut, both the markets and Bernanke are heading for a very great fall. - Julian Delasantellis
US dismisses nuclear report on Iran
The International Atomic Energy Agency's latest scorecard for Iran's nuclear program confirms "substantial progress" and adds fresh details on long-sought data on the history of the country's enrichment technology. But US and Western media spin says it's not enough, even though the report says there's no need for a crisis mentality among those opposing Iran. - Kaveh L Afrasiabi (Nov 16, '07)
The International Atomic Energy Agency's latest scorecard for Iran's nuclear program confirms "substantial progress" and adds fresh details on long-sought data on the history of the country's enrichment technology. But US and Western media spin says it's not enough, even though the report says there's no need for a crisis mentality among those opposing Iran. - Kaveh L Afrasiabi (Nov 16, '07)
THE BEAR'S LAIR
America's disappearing middle class
One of the great US election issues of 2008 will be the relative impoverishment of a large voting bloc, the American middle class. Reversing the trend requires new thinking about tight money, tight immigration controls, and greater job stability that comes with a respectable degree of bargaining power. But such thinking is beyond the ambit of both Democrats and Republicans, and anathema to Wall Street. - Martin Hutchinson (Nov 14, '07)
America's disappearing middle class
One of the great US election issues of 2008 will be the relative impoverishment of a large voting bloc, the American middle class. Reversing the trend requires new thinking about tight money, tight immigration controls, and greater job stability that comes with a respectable degree of bargaining power. But such thinking is beyond the ambit of both Democrats and Republicans, and anathema to Wall Street. - Martin Hutchinson (Nov 14, '07)
Hornberger’s Blog
Friday, November 16, 2007
Bush, Musharraf and Enemy Combatants
by Jacob G. Hornberger
We mustn’t forget one of the most important aspects of the Musharraf crackdown in Pakistan — that the post-9/11 “enemy combatant” doctrine assumed by President Bush and the Pentagon empower the feds to conduct the same types of “emergency” round-ups and incarcerations here in the United States that Musharraf is conducting in his country. Plus don’t forget that Bush and the military also wield the power to torture and sexually abuse detainees, even though they falsely deny exercising such power.
“No way!” some naïve Americans might exclaim. “America is different from Pakistan. Here we have freedom of speech and freedom of protest. There is no way that Bush and the military could round up and incarcerate protestors, dissidents, lawyers, government critics, and newspapers editors, as Musharraf is doing. After all, this is America we’re talking about, not Pakistan.”
Well, that was pre-9/11 America. Like it or not, in post-9/11 America the president and the Pentagon wield the card that trumps freedom of speech and freedom of protest. That card is the “enemy combatant” card. It empowers the president and the military to label any number of Americans as “enemy combatants” and treat them accordingly.
Suppose some American political dissidents find themselves labeled as enemy combatants and carted off to some secret CIA center in the dead of night. As they are being tied down to the water board, they exclaim, “You can’t do this to me. I’m an American. I have the right under the First Amendment to criticize President Bush and his policies. I have my rights!”
The federal agent would simply respond, “Well, of course you have your rights. But we have our rights too. And among our rights is the right to label you an enemy combatant. Just ask the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most conservative court in the country. Now, stop your chattering, take off your clothes, lie down on the water board, and start drinking.”
How did the president and the Pentagon acquire their enemy combatant power? Did they secure a constitutional amendment to acquire it? No. After the 9/11 attacks, they simply declared that they now possessed such power. Then they later got a terrified and intimidated Congress to ratify it. They cowed a frightened American public into accepting it.
So, if President Bush and the Pentagon have the same round-up powers that Gen. Musharraf and his military goons have, why aren’t we witnessing round-ups here in the United States? Because they isn’t a sufficiently serious terrorist “emergency” here, yet, as Musharraf says there is in Pakistan.
What’s important to keep in mind is that dictatorship doesn’t depend on the exercise of dictatorial powers but rather the possession of dictatorial powers. The fact is that given the right “emergency,” such as some coordinated terrorist strikes across the United States, the president now wields the same powers of round-up (plus the powers of torture and sex abuse) that military general Musharraf wields against his people.
What about habeas corpus? Americans could still file a petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention, assuming that they would be able to contact a lawyer. But don’t forget that the government’s position is that a federal judge in a habeas corpus proceeding should not second-guess the president’s enemy-combatant determinations. Therefore, the evidentiary requirement to uphold the president’s enemy combatant detentions is likely to be quite low in habeas corpus hearings, especially during a terrorist “emergency.”
Don’t forget also that in an “emergency,” a terrified and intimidated Congress would likely do to Americans what it did to foreigners — remove the jurisdiction of the federal courts to consider habeas corpus petitions in terrorism cases. In an “emergency,” it will likely be “bye, bye habeas corpus” for Americans, as it has been for foreigners.
Lest anyone think that President Bush would hesitate to conduct such enemy combatant roundups if he felt that national security was at stake, just look at his conduct in Iraq, where some 28,000 Iraqis are held in detention without trial. Even worse, as conservative columnist Robert Novak reports, Bush is even ignoring the orders of judges to release Iraqi detainees.
Is Bush a kinder dictator than Musharraf? Americans would certainly say so but probably not the Iraqi people. Who can tell what could happen in an “emergency” where “national security” is at stake? Don’t forget that there are still many conservatives and neo-cons who still idolize Chilean military strongman Augusto Pinochet, who rounded up, tortured, sexually abused, and killed thousands of Chilean citizens who he and his military goons considered enemy combatants.
The best hope there is if the American people, including the men, conquer their silly fears about “the terrorists” and finally recognize what our American ancestors understood: that the biggest threat to our rights and freedoms lies with our very own government officials. That is, in fact, what the Bill of Rights is all about — protecting us not from “the terrorists” but instead from the feds. That’s why the feds hate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and do everything they can to circumvent and ignore them. They know that these documents serve as constant reminder of the danger that the federal government poses to the freedom and well-being of the American people.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Bush, Musharraf and Enemy Combatants
by Jacob G. Hornberger
We mustn’t forget one of the most important aspects of the Musharraf crackdown in Pakistan — that the post-9/11 “enemy combatant” doctrine assumed by President Bush and the Pentagon empower the feds to conduct the same types of “emergency” round-ups and incarcerations here in the United States that Musharraf is conducting in his country. Plus don’t forget that Bush and the military also wield the power to torture and sexually abuse detainees, even though they falsely deny exercising such power.
“No way!” some naïve Americans might exclaim. “America is different from Pakistan. Here we have freedom of speech and freedom of protest. There is no way that Bush and the military could round up and incarcerate protestors, dissidents, lawyers, government critics, and newspapers editors, as Musharraf is doing. After all, this is America we’re talking about, not Pakistan.”
Well, that was pre-9/11 America. Like it or not, in post-9/11 America the president and the Pentagon wield the card that trumps freedom of speech and freedom of protest. That card is the “enemy combatant” card. It empowers the president and the military to label any number of Americans as “enemy combatants” and treat them accordingly.
Suppose some American political dissidents find themselves labeled as enemy combatants and carted off to some secret CIA center in the dead of night. As they are being tied down to the water board, they exclaim, “You can’t do this to me. I’m an American. I have the right under the First Amendment to criticize President Bush and his policies. I have my rights!”
The federal agent would simply respond, “Well, of course you have your rights. But we have our rights too. And among our rights is the right to label you an enemy combatant. Just ask the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most conservative court in the country. Now, stop your chattering, take off your clothes, lie down on the water board, and start drinking.”
How did the president and the Pentagon acquire their enemy combatant power? Did they secure a constitutional amendment to acquire it? No. After the 9/11 attacks, they simply declared that they now possessed such power. Then they later got a terrified and intimidated Congress to ratify it. They cowed a frightened American public into accepting it.
So, if President Bush and the Pentagon have the same round-up powers that Gen. Musharraf and his military goons have, why aren’t we witnessing round-ups here in the United States? Because they isn’t a sufficiently serious terrorist “emergency” here, yet, as Musharraf says there is in Pakistan.
What’s important to keep in mind is that dictatorship doesn’t depend on the exercise of dictatorial powers but rather the possession of dictatorial powers. The fact is that given the right “emergency,” such as some coordinated terrorist strikes across the United States, the president now wields the same powers of round-up (plus the powers of torture and sex abuse) that military general Musharraf wields against his people.
What about habeas corpus? Americans could still file a petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention, assuming that they would be able to contact a lawyer. But don’t forget that the government’s position is that a federal judge in a habeas corpus proceeding should not second-guess the president’s enemy-combatant determinations. Therefore, the evidentiary requirement to uphold the president’s enemy combatant detentions is likely to be quite low in habeas corpus hearings, especially during a terrorist “emergency.”
Don’t forget also that in an “emergency,” a terrified and intimidated Congress would likely do to Americans what it did to foreigners — remove the jurisdiction of the federal courts to consider habeas corpus petitions in terrorism cases. In an “emergency,” it will likely be “bye, bye habeas corpus” for Americans, as it has been for foreigners.
Lest anyone think that President Bush would hesitate to conduct such enemy combatant roundups if he felt that national security was at stake, just look at his conduct in Iraq, where some 28,000 Iraqis are held in detention without trial. Even worse, as conservative columnist Robert Novak reports, Bush is even ignoring the orders of judges to release Iraqi detainees.
Is Bush a kinder dictator than Musharraf? Americans would certainly say so but probably not the Iraqi people. Who can tell what could happen in an “emergency” where “national security” is at stake? Don’t forget that there are still many conservatives and neo-cons who still idolize Chilean military strongman Augusto Pinochet, who rounded up, tortured, sexually abused, and killed thousands of Chilean citizens who he and his military goons considered enemy combatants.
The best hope there is if the American people, including the men, conquer their silly fears about “the terrorists” and finally recognize what our American ancestors understood: that the biggest threat to our rights and freedoms lies with our very own government officials. That is, in fact, what the Bill of Rights is all about — protecting us not from “the terrorists” but instead from the feds. That’s why the feds hate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and do everything they can to circumvent and ignore them. They know that these documents serve as constant reminder of the danger that the federal government poses to the freedom and well-being of the American people.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
"European governments are not able any more to ask their people for great sacrifices." David Rivkin Jr., Wall Street Journal
Illegal immigration may hurt Dems. Bill Sammon, Examiner
The boomers will be best remembered for their self-glorification. William Kristol, Weekly Standard
Who's the enemy?ASK THIS
Robert Dreyfuss writes that it's getting harder to find any bad guys in Iraq. So maybe it's time to get out, and cede control to a new Iraqi government untainted by American oversight.
Saul Friedman: The Breathless Coverage of Hillary Clinton
When will the American press grow up and realize that America may at last be adult enough to catch u...
Dan Froomkin: Could Congress Prevent Bush From Attacking Iran?
Depending on whom you believe, Vice President Cheney may have already persuaded President Bush that ...
When will the American press grow up and realize that America may at last be adult enough to catch u...
Dan Froomkin: Could Congress Prevent Bush From Attacking Iran?
Depending on whom you believe, Vice President Cheney may have already persuaded President Bush that ...
Muhammad Khurshid: Bush Repeating Iraq Mistake In Pakistan Interestingly, US President Bush has been exerting pressure on General Pervez Musharraf to quit and give power to Benazir Bhutto. This new game has further aggravated the situation in Pakistan.
Nazis and Christianity
November 17, 2007
That today's leftists do not know or pretend to not know that the Nazis were socialists as well as ardent secularists is astounding, for it means they do not understand the simple, documented facts of history. More
November 17, 2007
That today's leftists do not know or pretend to not know that the Nazis were socialists as well as ardent secularists is astounding, for it means they do not understand the simple, documented facts of history. More
<h3 class="entry-header">Katulis: Looking at the Broader Perspective</h3> As promised, the final installment of the Kahl-Katulis(-Lynch) debate about Iraq strategy. My final thoughts and summary to come a bit later. Thanks to everyone for contributing, reading, and commenting!
Brian Katulis: The Iraq Debate: Looking at the Broader Perspective
The history of the Middle East is filled with outside powers who tried to control events and forces inside the region that they did not fully understand. The experiences of the Roman, Ottoman, and British empires in the Middle East offer important lessons for those who offer well-intentioned strategies aimed at tinkering with volatile internal power balances and dealing with actors that have strategies marked in decades, rather than months.
Recent involvement by the United States in the region - including support for the Shah of Iran in the 1970s, the military engagement in Lebanon in the 1980s, and efforts to boost Iraq's Saddam Hussein versus Iran in the 1980s - demonstrate how the law of unintended consequences rules the day and unanticipated blowback can come back to haunt us. The current engagement in Iraq presents similar risks and difficult choices for U.S. security. It is in this historical context that one should evaluate any argument that makes a case for maintaining an extended U.S. troop presence in Iraq.
During the past week, Colin Kahl and I have had a constructive exchange on the difficult questions moving forward in Iraq - much more thoughtful than other exchanges in which conservatives seem to do little more than posture and spew empty rhetoric. Kahl and I agree on some key points - there are no good options moving forward on Iraq policy and internal dynamics in Iraq seem to be heading towards a heavily decentralized system; and disagree on others - like whether it makes strategic sense for the United States to maintain a military presence in Iraq for an extended period of time.
Much of our debate is over analysis, rather than a dispute of the facts. But one of Kahl's specific points requires a direct rejoinder - the issue of how long it would take to redeploy U.S. troops. In his post responding to me, he claims, "the CNAS paper was actually crafted in consultation with military planners whereas no military planner I know of thinks the pace of the U.S. withdrawal advocated by Katulis/CAP is logistically possible."
Here Kahl gets it wrong, or at least he needs to expand of military experts with whom he consults. The implication of his statement is that Center for American Progress did NOT consult with military planners, which is actually untrue. I'm sure he didn't mean to questions the credentials of respected individuals like my colleague Larry Korb, a former defense official in the Reagan administration who coauthored a detailed report on the logistics of redeployment, "How to Redeploy." (This is a report that received positive comments for its technical recommendations on the logistics of redeployment from numerous planners in the Pentagon and in Iraq, all of whom said what Korb proposes could be done). In addition to this report, Kahl should take a look at contributions here, here and here, just as a starting point, and there are more arguments and analysis that demonstrate that Kahl simply gets this point of how long it could take to practically get out of Iraq wrong.
With that logistical matter out of the way, in order to complete this exchange, it is important to take a step out of the Iraq trenches and look at the broader perspective. One key element missing from this exchange was the bigger strategic picture - an analysis of the broader context in which the United States is operating. On these levels, Kahl understates the costs and risks while overstating the benefits of his approach. The strains on U.S. military readiness, the impact that the U.S. troop presence in Iraq has on global terrorist networks, and the escalating financial bill for American taxpayers of staying engaged militarily at the levels Kahl suggests are significant.
Keeping large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq - at a time when our so-called coalition of the willing allies such as Britain are drawing down their force levels - places tremendous strains on our ground troops. The Army has lowered it recruiting standards to unprecedented levels, and the United States no longer has a strategic ground reserve as a result of the extended deployments.
Advocates for maintaining an extended U.S. troop presence in Iraq like Kahl forget the wise advice of Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, who once wrote, "If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation's resources will not suffice... no nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare." A plan to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq - in support of goals that Kahl admits has little chance of being achieve - seems to be a bad option. (And these comments don't even address the question of whether our military has enough qualified trainers to serve in the roles that Kahl proposes they would in Iraq, which is a separate issue - it is not clear that we even have the capacity to do what Kahl proposes to do). Proposals for an extended military presence makes little sense at a time when the Iraq war threatens to break our all-volunteer military - a crisis so bad that the Army recently raised potential signing bonuses to $45,000. Of course, America is a country with considerable resources, and we could always institute a military draft if we needed to meet these challenges. But we also happen to be a democracy too, and the thought of instituting a military draft at a time when the Iraq war is deeply unpopular and the majority of Americans support withdrawing U.S. troops in a year seems improbable.
Beyond the strains on our military, there are other significant costs to U.S. national security that result from maintaining an extended troop presence. A National Intelligence Estimate released last year concluded that the U.S. military presence in Iraq was a boon for global Islamist extremists - that the Iraq war has increased radicalism and made the global terror threat worse. Leading terrorism analysts have argued that an extensive U.S. military presence in Iraq is not an effective way to deal with the terrorist threat there and that the costs to the broader global battle are high - leading some like Steven Simon to reach conclusions similar to ours at the Center for American Progress - that military disengagement from Iraq is the most sensible option when one considers the full range of our country's strategic interests.
Beyond the military and national security costs, a continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq also has major financial implications for the United States - again all for achieving a low probability of success, as Kahl admits. To date, we've spent at least $600 billion in Iraq, and our open-ended troop presence costs anywhere from $8-$10 billion a month. One recent estimate put the financial costs of Iraq and Afghanistan so far at $20,000 for a family of four. In an era of tax cuts and fiscal imbalances, this of course is a strategy being paid for with borrowed money from overseas, further weakening America's position in the world.
All of this adds up to significant strategic costs - for a plan that as Marc Lynch and I have pointed out is not likely to achieve the equilibrium that Kahl argues would result inside of Iraq. So not only are the tactics proposed by Kahl unlikely to achieve his stated goals, the strategic costs to U.S. national security are not worth the benefits.
One other important point to note -simply slapping a "responsible" label on proposals does not exonerate analysts from actually owning up to some very grim consequences of some of the policies that they espouse. Many of the negative consequences feared by those who oppose U.S. troop redeployment from Iraq have already occurred just as U.S. troop levels were INCREASING in Iraq. When historians look back on 2006-2007 in Iraq, they will see this as a period when massive campaigns of sectarian cleansing were underway - killing thousands, displacing millions more, and resulting in the largest refugee crisis in the Middle East since 1948.
When one consider that the current policy of supporting "bottom up" security initiatives means that the U.S. military is actually cooperating with sectarian cleansers and in some cases serial murderers - as Jon Lee Anderson's excellent piece in the New Yorker highlights - then it raises questions about who is being "responsible." So instead of posturing about who is most "responsible" and "serious" about "U.S. interests" when we debate Iraq, it is probably better to just say that we agree there are no good options on Iraq and engage in the debate on its merits and facts.
In 2003, the Bush administration and its supporters made one of the greatest strategic national security blunders in the history of our country by leaving a mission unaccomplished in Afghanistan and taking the country into an unnecessary war of choice in Iraq. This slide to war was aided and abetted by foreign policy analysts of all partisan stripes who failed to ask the tough questions and challenge the assumptions behind going into Iraq. It is now equally important to debate the arguments behind maintaining an enduring and extensive U.S. military presence in Iraq. Instead of minor tactical adjustments to the current strategy - with shifts in training Iraqi security forces, the United States in essence needs to hit the "CTRL-ALT-DELETE" button - in a Strategic Reset of our entire approach to the Middle East. Continuing to tinker on the margins with small shifts in policy are not likely to lead to a sustainable political settlement to Iraq's conflicts, and they are not going to improve America's position in the world.
Posted on November 16, 2007 at 10:23 AM | Permalink |
Brian Katulis: The Iraq Debate: Looking at the Broader Perspective
The history of the Middle East is filled with outside powers who tried to control events and forces inside the region that they did not fully understand. The experiences of the Roman, Ottoman, and British empires in the Middle East offer important lessons for those who offer well-intentioned strategies aimed at tinkering with volatile internal power balances and dealing with actors that have strategies marked in decades, rather than months.
Recent involvement by the United States in the region - including support for the Shah of Iran in the 1970s, the military engagement in Lebanon in the 1980s, and efforts to boost Iraq's Saddam Hussein versus Iran in the 1980s - demonstrate how the law of unintended consequences rules the day and unanticipated blowback can come back to haunt us. The current engagement in Iraq presents similar risks and difficult choices for U.S. security. It is in this historical context that one should evaluate any argument that makes a case for maintaining an extended U.S. troop presence in Iraq.
During the past week, Colin Kahl and I have had a constructive exchange on the difficult questions moving forward in Iraq - much more thoughtful than other exchanges in which conservatives seem to do little more than posture and spew empty rhetoric. Kahl and I agree on some key points - there are no good options moving forward on Iraq policy and internal dynamics in Iraq seem to be heading towards a heavily decentralized system; and disagree on others - like whether it makes strategic sense for the United States to maintain a military presence in Iraq for an extended period of time.
Much of our debate is over analysis, rather than a dispute of the facts. But one of Kahl's specific points requires a direct rejoinder - the issue of how long it would take to redeploy U.S. troops. In his post responding to me, he claims, "the CNAS paper was actually crafted in consultation with military planners whereas no military planner I know of thinks the pace of the U.S. withdrawal advocated by Katulis/CAP is logistically possible."
Here Kahl gets it wrong, or at least he needs to expand of military experts with whom he consults. The implication of his statement is that Center for American Progress did NOT consult with military planners, which is actually untrue. I'm sure he didn't mean to questions the credentials of respected individuals like my colleague Larry Korb, a former defense official in the Reagan administration who coauthored a detailed report on the logistics of redeployment, "How to Redeploy." (This is a report that received positive comments for its technical recommendations on the logistics of redeployment from numerous planners in the Pentagon and in Iraq, all of whom said what Korb proposes could be done). In addition to this report, Kahl should take a look at contributions here, here and here, just as a starting point, and there are more arguments and analysis that demonstrate that Kahl simply gets this point of how long it could take to practically get out of Iraq wrong.
With that logistical matter out of the way, in order to complete this exchange, it is important to take a step out of the Iraq trenches and look at the broader perspective. One key element missing from this exchange was the bigger strategic picture - an analysis of the broader context in which the United States is operating. On these levels, Kahl understates the costs and risks while overstating the benefits of his approach. The strains on U.S. military readiness, the impact that the U.S. troop presence in Iraq has on global terrorist networks, and the escalating financial bill for American taxpayers of staying engaged militarily at the levels Kahl suggests are significant.
Keeping large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq - at a time when our so-called coalition of the willing allies such as Britain are drawing down their force levels - places tremendous strains on our ground troops. The Army has lowered it recruiting standards to unprecedented levels, and the United States no longer has a strategic ground reserve as a result of the extended deployments.
Advocates for maintaining an extended U.S. troop presence in Iraq like Kahl forget the wise advice of Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, who once wrote, "If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation's resources will not suffice... no nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare." A plan to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq - in support of goals that Kahl admits has little chance of being achieve - seems to be a bad option. (And these comments don't even address the question of whether our military has enough qualified trainers to serve in the roles that Kahl proposes they would in Iraq, which is a separate issue - it is not clear that we even have the capacity to do what Kahl proposes to do). Proposals for an extended military presence makes little sense at a time when the Iraq war threatens to break our all-volunteer military - a crisis so bad that the Army recently raised potential signing bonuses to $45,000. Of course, America is a country with considerable resources, and we could always institute a military draft if we needed to meet these challenges. But we also happen to be a democracy too, and the thought of instituting a military draft at a time when the Iraq war is deeply unpopular and the majority of Americans support withdrawing U.S. troops in a year seems improbable.
Beyond the strains on our military, there are other significant costs to U.S. national security that result from maintaining an extended troop presence. A National Intelligence Estimate released last year concluded that the U.S. military presence in Iraq was a boon for global Islamist extremists - that the Iraq war has increased radicalism and made the global terror threat worse. Leading terrorism analysts have argued that an extensive U.S. military presence in Iraq is not an effective way to deal with the terrorist threat there and that the costs to the broader global battle are high - leading some like Steven Simon to reach conclusions similar to ours at the Center for American Progress - that military disengagement from Iraq is the most sensible option when one considers the full range of our country's strategic interests.
Beyond the military and national security costs, a continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq also has major financial implications for the United States - again all for achieving a low probability of success, as Kahl admits. To date, we've spent at least $600 billion in Iraq, and our open-ended troop presence costs anywhere from $8-$10 billion a month. One recent estimate put the financial costs of Iraq and Afghanistan so far at $20,000 for a family of four. In an era of tax cuts and fiscal imbalances, this of course is a strategy being paid for with borrowed money from overseas, further weakening America's position in the world.
All of this adds up to significant strategic costs - for a plan that as Marc Lynch and I have pointed out is not likely to achieve the equilibrium that Kahl argues would result inside of Iraq. So not only are the tactics proposed by Kahl unlikely to achieve his stated goals, the strategic costs to U.S. national security are not worth the benefits.
One other important point to note -simply slapping a "responsible" label on proposals does not exonerate analysts from actually owning up to some very grim consequences of some of the policies that they espouse. Many of the negative consequences feared by those who oppose U.S. troop redeployment from Iraq have already occurred just as U.S. troop levels were INCREASING in Iraq. When historians look back on 2006-2007 in Iraq, they will see this as a period when massive campaigns of sectarian cleansing were underway - killing thousands, displacing millions more, and resulting in the largest refugee crisis in the Middle East since 1948.
When one consider that the current policy of supporting "bottom up" security initiatives means that the U.S. military is actually cooperating with sectarian cleansers and in some cases serial murderers - as Jon Lee Anderson's excellent piece in the New Yorker highlights - then it raises questions about who is being "responsible." So instead of posturing about who is most "responsible" and "serious" about "U.S. interests" when we debate Iraq, it is probably better to just say that we agree there are no good options on Iraq and engage in the debate on its merits and facts.
In 2003, the Bush administration and its supporters made one of the greatest strategic national security blunders in the history of our country by leaving a mission unaccomplished in Afghanistan and taking the country into an unnecessary war of choice in Iraq. This slide to war was aided and abetted by foreign policy analysts of all partisan stripes who failed to ask the tough questions and challenge the assumptions behind going into Iraq. It is now equally important to debate the arguments behind maintaining an enduring and extensive U.S. military presence in Iraq. Instead of minor tactical adjustments to the current strategy - with shifts in training Iraqi security forces, the United States in essence needs to hit the "CTRL-ALT-DELETE" button - in a Strategic Reset of our entire approach to the Middle East. Continuing to tinker on the margins with small shifts in policy are not likely to lead to a sustainable political settlement to Iraq's conflicts, and they are not going to improve America's position in the world.
Posted on November 16, 2007 at 10:23 AM | Permalink |
Iran: IAEA report sparks controversyAijaz Ahmad: New IAEA report says Iran has not lied; US demands new sanctions, China says no 4 hours ago view
Oil leaders' private debate televised by mistake
Tim Webb in Riyadh
Sunday November 18, 2007
The Observer
'Kill the cable, kill the cable,' shouted the security guard as he burst through the double doors into the media room at the Intercontinental Hotel in Riyadh, followed by Saudi police. It was too late.
A private meeting of Opec leaders, gathered this weekend in Riyadh for the cartel's third meeting in its 47-year history, had just been broadcast to the world's media for more than half an hour after a technician had mistakenly plugged the TV feed into the wrong socket. The facade of unity that the cartel so carefully cultivates to a world spooked by soaring oil prices was shattered.
Sometimes, such innocent mistakes can have far-reaching economic and political consequences. Commodity and currency traders said this weekend that oil prices would surge again tomorrow - possibly breaking the $101 per barrel record set in the late 1970s - while the already battered dollar would fall further on the back of the unintentional broadcast.
On Friday night, during what the participants thought were private talks, Venezuela's oil minister Venezuela Rafael Ramirez and his Iranian counterpart Gholamhossein Nozari, argued that pricing - and selling - oil using the crippled dollar was damaging the cartel.
They said Opec should formally express its concern about the weakness of the dollar when the cartel makes its official declaration at the close of the summit today. But the Saudis, the world's largest oil producers and de facto head of Opec, vetoed the proposal. Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, warned that even the mere mention to journalists of the fact that leaders were discussing the weak dollar would cause the US currency to plummet.
Unfortunately his words and those of everyone at the meeting were being broadcast via a live television feed to a group of astonished reporters. 'I couldn't believe it,' said one who was there. 'When I realised they didn't know they were being broadcast live, I frantically started taking notes.'
Opec only realised that the leaders' row was being broadcast to the world when the Reuters news agency put out a report of the argument.
The weakness of the dollar is one reason why oil prices are so high, as cartel members seek to compensate for their lower earnings. This means a further drop in the dollar is likely to be accompanied by a rise in oil prices.
Tim Webb in Riyadh
Sunday November 18, 2007
The Observer
'Kill the cable, kill the cable,' shouted the security guard as he burst through the double doors into the media room at the Intercontinental Hotel in Riyadh, followed by Saudi police. It was too late.
A private meeting of Opec leaders, gathered this weekend in Riyadh for the cartel's third meeting in its 47-year history, had just been broadcast to the world's media for more than half an hour after a technician had mistakenly plugged the TV feed into the wrong socket. The facade of unity that the cartel so carefully cultivates to a world spooked by soaring oil prices was shattered.
Sometimes, such innocent mistakes can have far-reaching economic and political consequences. Commodity and currency traders said this weekend that oil prices would surge again tomorrow - possibly breaking the $101 per barrel record set in the late 1970s - while the already battered dollar would fall further on the back of the unintentional broadcast.
On Friday night, during what the participants thought were private talks, Venezuela's oil minister Venezuela Rafael Ramirez and his Iranian counterpart Gholamhossein Nozari, argued that pricing - and selling - oil using the crippled dollar was damaging the cartel.
They said Opec should formally express its concern about the weakness of the dollar when the cartel makes its official declaration at the close of the summit today. But the Saudis, the world's largest oil producers and de facto head of Opec, vetoed the proposal. Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, warned that even the mere mention to journalists of the fact that leaders were discussing the weak dollar would cause the US currency to plummet.
Unfortunately his words and those of everyone at the meeting were being broadcast via a live television feed to a group of astonished reporters. 'I couldn't believe it,' said one who was there. 'When I realised they didn't know they were being broadcast live, I frantically started taking notes.'
Opec only realised that the leaders' row was being broadcast to the world when the Reuters news agency put out a report of the argument.
The weakness of the dollar is one reason why oil prices are so high, as cartel members seek to compensate for their lower earnings. This means a further drop in the dollar is likely to be accompanied by a rise in oil prices.
Saudi minister warns of dollar collapse
Saturday, 17th November 2007 The dollar could collapse if Opec officially admits considering changing the pricing of oil into alternative currencies such as the euro, the Saudi Arabian foreign minister has warned.
Prince Saud Al-Faisal was overheard ruling out a proposal from Iran and Venezuela to discuss pricing crude in a private meeting at the oil cartel's conference.
In an embarrassing blunder at the meeting in Riyadh, ministers' microphones were not cut off during a key closed meeting, and Prince Al-Faisal was heard saying: "My feeling is that the mere mention that the Opec countries are studying the issue of the dollar is itself going to have an impact that endangers the interests of the countries. "There will be journalists who will seize on this point and we don't want the dollar to collapse instead of doing something good for Opec."
After around 40 minutes press officials cut off the feed, which had been accidentally broadcast to the press room.
Prince Al-Faisal added: "This is not new. We have done this in the past: decide to study something without putting down on paper that we are going to study it so that we avoid any implication that will bring adverse effects on our countries' finances."
Iran and Venezuela have argued that the meeting's final communique should voice concern about the level of the dollar, which has recently fallen to new record lows against the euro. They are pushing for oil to be denominated against a basket of currencies.
The greenback also weakened slightly against the pound, although sterling's own recent weakness has pushed it down from $2.10 to $2.0457 during the week.
Nigerian finance minister Shamsuddeen Usman said that Opec could declare in the communique that: "While underlining our concern for the continued depreciation of the dollar and its adverse impact on our revenues, we instruct our finance ministers to study the issue exhaustively and advise us on ways to safeguard the purchasing power of our revenues, of our members' revenues."
Chancellor Alistair Darling will today urge his fellow finance ministers at a major G20 summit to increase investment in oil production and refinement.
‘Oil to Hit $200 if Iran Attacked’
Raid Qusti & Javid Hassan, Arab News
RIYADH, 18 November 2007 — Saudi Arabia has contributed $300 million toward a fund to establish an international program for scientific research into energy, the environment and climate change.... Full Story
Raid Qusti & Javid Hassan, Arab News
RIYADH, 18 November 2007 — Saudi Arabia has contributed $300 million toward a fund to establish an international program for scientific research into energy, the environment and climate change.... Full Story
Musharraf Rebuffs Negroponte
Azhar Masood, Arab News 
ISLAMABAD, 18 November 2007 — President Gen. Pervez Musharraf bluntly told top US diplomat John Negroponte yesterday that he would call off emergency rule only when the security situation improves... Full Story
Azhar Masood, Arab News
ISLAMABAD, 18 November 2007 — President Gen. Pervez Musharraf bluntly told top US diplomat John Negroponte yesterday that he would call off emergency rule only when the security situation improves... Full Story
Baghdad Comes Alive - Rod Nordland, Newsweek Magazine
Iraq’s Narrow Window – Washington Post editorial
Bin Laden’s Iraq Quagmire – Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Cop Turns Army Nurse, Iraq Insights – Mark Bowden, Philadelphia Inquirer
British Hostages in Iraq: “No One Cares” – London Times editorial
U.S. Must Welcome More Iraqi Refugees – Daniel Byman, New York Post
A Mullah Dies, War Comes Knocking - Sarah Chayes, Washington Post
State of the Ground Forces - Reed and Flournoy, Washington Times
Know Your Enemy - Arnaud de Borchgrave, Washington Times
‘Security’ Does Not Make Us Safer – Jenny McCartney, London Daily Telegraph
Terror: The Soft Underbelly of Europe – Mark Helprin, Wall Street Journal
Dems: ‘See No Terror Evil’ – Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News
The Recognition Sham – Jerusalem Post editorial
No Political Will for Middle East Peace - Avishai and Bahour, Los Angeles Times
Peace of the Weak and Exhausted - Michael Ignatieff, Toronto Star
Mideast Meeting Defined by Fear – Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer
Moscow: Key to Peace in Damascus – David Kimche, Jerusalem Post
Don’t Play Fatah Off Against Hamas - Rami Khouri, Daily Star
Palestinian Peace Partner? – Dos-Lehtinen and Berkley, Jerusalem Post
The PA Cannot Remain Transitional - Ghassan Khatib, Daily Star
Barack Obama and Iran? – Thomas Friedman, New York Times
Idle Chat With 'Real' Iranians - Boston Herald editorial
Pakistan’s Collapse, Our Problem? – Kagan and O’Hanlon, New York Times
Pakistan’s Options – Ed Royce, Washington Times
What to Do About Pakistan – Pickering, Hill and Abramowitz, Miami Herald
Pakistan’s Problems Start at the Top - Pervez Hoodbhoy, Los Angeles Times
Musharraf: Friend or Foe? - Levy and Scott-Clark, San Francisco Chronicle
Democracy’s Last Stand in Lebanon – Trudy Rubin, Miami Herald
Darfur: Don’t Bow to ‘Muslim Street’ - James Kirchick, Los Angeles Times
Kosovo is Ready to Bolt - Maciej Zaremba, Washington Post
Two Sides of Mr. Sarkozy? – New York Times editorial
Croatia’s Red Shadow - Jeffrey Kuhner, Washington Times
We Must Honour Debt to the Army – London Daily Telegraph editorial
U.K. Armed Forces Safe in My Hands – Des Browne, London Daily Telegraph
General Casey’s Legacy – Oliver North, Washington Times
DOS: Revolt of the Whiners – New York Post editorial
Left Talking Point: Vet-as-Victim – Dean Barnett, Weekly Standard
Iraq’s Narrow Window – Washington Post editorial
Bin Laden’s Iraq Quagmire – Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Cop Turns Army Nurse, Iraq Insights – Mark Bowden, Philadelphia Inquirer
British Hostages in Iraq: “No One Cares” – London Times editorial
U.S. Must Welcome More Iraqi Refugees – Daniel Byman, New York Post
A Mullah Dies, War Comes Knocking - Sarah Chayes, Washington Post
State of the Ground Forces - Reed and Flournoy, Washington Times
Know Your Enemy - Arnaud de Borchgrave, Washington Times
‘Security’ Does Not Make Us Safer – Jenny McCartney, London Daily Telegraph
Terror: The Soft Underbelly of Europe – Mark Helprin, Wall Street Journal
Dems: ‘See No Terror Evil’ – Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News
The Recognition Sham – Jerusalem Post editorial
No Political Will for Middle East Peace - Avishai and Bahour, Los Angeles Times
Peace of the Weak and Exhausted - Michael Ignatieff, Toronto Star
Mideast Meeting Defined by Fear – Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer
Moscow: Key to Peace in Damascus – David Kimche, Jerusalem Post
Don’t Play Fatah Off Against Hamas - Rami Khouri, Daily Star
Palestinian Peace Partner? – Dos-Lehtinen and Berkley, Jerusalem Post
The PA Cannot Remain Transitional - Ghassan Khatib, Daily Star
Barack Obama and Iran? – Thomas Friedman, New York Times
Idle Chat With 'Real' Iranians - Boston Herald editorial
Pakistan’s Collapse, Our Problem? – Kagan and O’Hanlon, New York Times
Pakistan’s Options – Ed Royce, Washington Times
What to Do About Pakistan – Pickering, Hill and Abramowitz, Miami Herald
Pakistan’s Problems Start at the Top - Pervez Hoodbhoy, Los Angeles Times
Musharraf: Friend or Foe? - Levy and Scott-Clark, San Francisco Chronicle
Democracy’s Last Stand in Lebanon – Trudy Rubin, Miami Herald
Darfur: Don’t Bow to ‘Muslim Street’ - James Kirchick, Los Angeles Times
Kosovo is Ready to Bolt - Maciej Zaremba, Washington Post
Two Sides of Mr. Sarkozy? – New York Times editorial
Croatia’s Red Shadow - Jeffrey Kuhner, Washington Times
We Must Honour Debt to the Army – London Daily Telegraph editorial
U.K. Armed Forces Safe in My Hands – Des Browne, London Daily Telegraph
General Casey’s Legacy – Oliver North, Washington Times
DOS: Revolt of the Whiners – New York Post editorial
Left Talking Point: Vet-as-Victim – Dean Barnett, Weekly Standard
An Accidental War with Iran?
Brian Beutler
November 15, 2007 | web only
The question isn't whether the Bush administration will deliberately launch a war with Iran. It's whether unnecessarily heightened U.S.-Iran tensions will push some minor incident into a major conflict.
Brian Beutler
November 15, 2007 | web only
The question isn't whether the Bush administration will deliberately launch a war with Iran. It's whether unnecessarily heightened U.S.-Iran tensions will push some minor incident into a major conflict.
JOHN W. DEAN George W. Bush's Presidential Library: Can Democrats Stop Bush and Cheney From Depriving The Library of The Papers They Wish to Keep Secret? FindLaw columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean explains the disturbing situation regarding the presidential papers of the George W. Bush Administration. Dean notes that through Executive Order 13233, President Bush negated key provisions of the 1978 presidential records law enacted in the aftermath of Watergate. Now, Dean explains, President Bush and Vice President Cheney seem poised to take advantage of the Executive Order to erect a shield of secrecy around their key papers. Dean explains that, while a future president's revised Executive Order would likely not be able to reach the Bush/Cheney papers, Congress still may be able to influence Bush and Cheney to turn them over, if Congress makes the government's funding of the administration of the future library contingent on the full inclusion of all presidential papers.
A Financial System under Siege - by Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay - 2007-11-15 The global dollar-based financial system is in crisis and is threatening the prosperity and stability of many economies.
Are we Going to Occupy Iran and Syria, Too?- by Prof. Eric Alterman - 2007-11-18
CNN Host calls for Military to Silence any Domestic Dissent in America- by Paul Joseph Watson - 2007-11-18
Iran: Apology needed now that IAEA has cleared Iran's name - 2007-11-18
Iran: Apology needed now that IAEA has cleared Iran's name - 2007-11-18
Military Chief Says Russia Not Obliged To Protect World From US
Moscow (RIA Novosti) Nov 19, 2007 - Yury Baluyevsky, the chief of Russia's general staff, said in an interview with the Russia Today TV channel on Tuesday that the Russian Armed Forces were under no obligation to protect the world from the U.S. Answering a question as to whether or not the world could count on Russia to defend it from "insidious American plans," Baluyevsky replied, "Today, there is no need to be afraid of the Russ ... more
Moscow (RIA Novosti) Nov 19, 2007 - Yury Baluyevsky, the chief of Russia's general staff, said in an interview with the Russia Today TV channel on Tuesday that the Russian Armed Forces were under no obligation to protect the world from the U.S. Answering a question as to whether or not the world could count on Russia to defend it from "insidious American plans," Baluyevsky replied, "Today, there is no need to be afraid of the Russ ... more
The Third World War: Where Does Iran Fit
Moscow (RIA Novosti) Nov 19, 2007 - Nicolas Sarkozy recently said in Washington that the Iranian nuclear problem could be solved through UN and EU sanctions, but hastened to add a reservation about the "readiness for a dialogue with Teheran." In the opinion of the French president, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, but access to the "peaceful atom" is open to everyone, including Iran. This placing of accents on the Iranian the ... more
Moscow (RIA Novosti) Nov 19, 2007 - Nicolas Sarkozy recently said in Washington that the Iranian nuclear problem could be solved through UN and EU sanctions, but hastened to add a reservation about the "readiness for a dialogue with Teheran." In the opinion of the French president, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, but access to the "peaceful atom" is open to everyone, including Iran. This placing of accents on the Iranian the ... more
Bangladesh cyclone an 'ecological disaster': experts
Dhaka (AFP) Nov 18, 2007 - Experts said Sunday they feared for the wildlife and ecology of the world's biggest mangrove forest after a deadly cyclone tore through the Sunderbans -- home to the endangered Royal Bengal tiger. Zunayed Kabir Chowdhury, a Dhaka-based mangrove expert, said he feared thousands of deer as well as many tigers and wild boar had been swept away by the massive tidal wave triggered by cyclone Sidr ... more
Dhaka (AFP) Nov 18, 2007 - Experts said Sunday they feared for the wildlife and ecology of the world's biggest mangrove forest after a deadly cyclone tore through the Sunderbans -- home to the endangered Royal Bengal tiger. Zunayed Kabir Chowdhury, a Dhaka-based mangrove expert, said he feared thousands of deer as well as many tigers and wild boar had been swept away by the massive tidal wave triggered by cyclone Sidr ... more
Analysis: Saudi oil booms in empty desert
Shaybah, Saudi Arabia (UPI) Nov 15, 2007 - If you're counting heads, Saudi Arabia's Empty Quarter is aptly titled. But barrel for barrel, there's more oil below the red sand dunes of Shaybah than in all of Mexico or Canada -- the two biggest oil suppliers to the United States -- or each of the four smallest members of OPEC. Home to the largest oil reserves on Earth, Saudi Arabia is upgrading the Shaybah oil production facility i ... more
Shaybah, Saudi Arabia (UPI) Nov 15, 2007 - If you're counting heads, Saudi Arabia's Empty Quarter is aptly titled. But barrel for barrel, there's more oil below the red sand dunes of Shaybah than in all of Mexico or Canada -- the two biggest oil suppliers to the United States -- or each of the four smallest members of OPEC. Home to the largest oil reserves on Earth, Saudi Arabia is upgrading the Shaybah oil production facility i ... more
Shattering Conventional Wisdom About Saddam's WMD's
By: John Loftus
What top secret Iraqi files disclose. More>
By: John Loftus
What top secret Iraqi files disclose. More>
US military strike on Pakistan advocated
* Analysts say likely dangers include collapse of Pakistan govt
* Propose Special Forces operation to prevent nukes from falling into wrong hands
* Suggest supporting army
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Two experts have proposed that the US should take pre-emptive action to secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons before they fall into the wrong hands.
Frederick Kagan of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute and Michael O’Hanlon of the more liberal Brookings Institution argue in an article published in the New York Times on Sunday that the US simply cannot stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss. Nor would it be strategically prudent to withdraw US forces from an improving situation in Iraq to cope with a deteriorating one in Pakistan. While Pakistan’s officer corps and ruling elites remain largely moderate and more interested in building a strong, modern state, the same was true of Iran on the eve of the Islamic revolution. Pakistan’s intelligence services, the two writers maintain, contain enough sympathisers and supporters of the Afghan Taliban, and enough nationalists bent on seizing Kashmir from India, that there are grounds for real worries.
Complete collapse: The likely dangers include the complete collapse of Pakistani government rule that allows an extreme Islamist movement to fill the vacuum, a total loss of federal control over outlying provinces, or a struggle within the Pakistani military in which the minority sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda tries to establish Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.
While admitting that all possible military initiatives to avoid those possibilities are daunting, given Pakistan’s size and complexity and the scanty US knowledge about the location of its nuclear weapons, the US would have to act before a complete government collapse, and for that it would need the cooperation of “moderate Pakistani forces”.
Possible plan: One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan’s nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hands. Given the degree to which Pakistani nationalists cherish these assets, it is unlikely the United States would get permission to destroy them. Somehow, American forces would have to team with Pakistanis to secure critical sites and possibly to move the material to a safer place. For the United States, the safest bet would be shipping the material to someplace like New Mexico, but even pro-American Pakistanis would be unlikely to cooperate. It would be better for the US to settle for establishing a remote redoubt within Pakistan, with the nuclear technology guarded by elite Pakistani forces backed up and watched over by crack international troops. It is realistic to think that such a mission might be undertaken within days of a decision to act. The price for rapid action and secrecy, however, would probably be a very small international coalition.
Support army: Kagan and O’Hanlon suggest that a broader option would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together in the face of an ineffective government, seceding border regions and Al Qaeda and Taliban assassination attempts against the leadership. This would require a sizeable combat force from the US, other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations. Since the decline of the Pakistani state is likely to be gradual, it will give the US time to act, they argue. “The most likely directive would be to help Pakistan’s military and security forces hold the country’s center - primarily the region around the capital, Islamabad, and the populous areas like Punjab to its south ... If a holding operation in the nation’s centre was successful, the foreign forces would then seek to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate. Beyond propping up the state, this would benefit American efforts in Afghanistan by depriving terrorists of the sanctuaries they have long enjoyed in Pakistan’s tribal and frontier regions ... There was a time when volatility in places like Pakistan was mostly a humanitarian worry — today it is as much a threat to our basic security as Soviet tanks once were.”
* Analysts say likely dangers include collapse of Pakistan govt
* Propose Special Forces operation to prevent nukes from falling into wrong hands
* Suggest supporting army
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Two experts have proposed that the US should take pre-emptive action to secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons before they fall into the wrong hands.
Frederick Kagan of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute and Michael O’Hanlon of the more liberal Brookings Institution argue in an article published in the New York Times on Sunday that the US simply cannot stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss. Nor would it be strategically prudent to withdraw US forces from an improving situation in Iraq to cope with a deteriorating one in Pakistan. While Pakistan’s officer corps and ruling elites remain largely moderate and more interested in building a strong, modern state, the same was true of Iran on the eve of the Islamic revolution. Pakistan’s intelligence services, the two writers maintain, contain enough sympathisers and supporters of the Afghan Taliban, and enough nationalists bent on seizing Kashmir from India, that there are grounds for real worries.
Complete collapse: The likely dangers include the complete collapse of Pakistani government rule that allows an extreme Islamist movement to fill the vacuum, a total loss of federal control over outlying provinces, or a struggle within the Pakistani military in which the minority sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda tries to establish Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.
While admitting that all possible military initiatives to avoid those possibilities are daunting, given Pakistan’s size and complexity and the scanty US knowledge about the location of its nuclear weapons, the US would have to act before a complete government collapse, and for that it would need the cooperation of “moderate Pakistani forces”.
Possible plan: One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan’s nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hands. Given the degree to which Pakistani nationalists cherish these assets, it is unlikely the United States would get permission to destroy them. Somehow, American forces would have to team with Pakistanis to secure critical sites and possibly to move the material to a safer place. For the United States, the safest bet would be shipping the material to someplace like New Mexico, but even pro-American Pakistanis would be unlikely to cooperate. It would be better for the US to settle for establishing a remote redoubt within Pakistan, with the nuclear technology guarded by elite Pakistani forces backed up and watched over by crack international troops. It is realistic to think that such a mission might be undertaken within days of a decision to act. The price for rapid action and secrecy, however, would probably be a very small international coalition.
Support army: Kagan and O’Hanlon suggest that a broader option would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together in the face of an ineffective government, seceding border regions and Al Qaeda and Taliban assassination attempts against the leadership. This would require a sizeable combat force from the US, other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations. Since the decline of the Pakistani state is likely to be gradual, it will give the US time to act, they argue. “The most likely directive would be to help Pakistan’s military and security forces hold the country’s center - primarily the region around the capital, Islamabad, and the populous areas like Punjab to its south ... If a holding operation in the nation’s centre was successful, the foreign forces would then seek to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate. Beyond propping up the state, this would benefit American efforts in Afghanistan by depriving terrorists of the sanctuaries they have long enjoyed in Pakistan’s tribal and frontier regions ... There was a time when volatility in places like Pakistan was mostly a humanitarian worry — today it is as much a threat to our basic security as Soviet tanks once were.”
Powell: Iran is a long way from having nuclear weapon
The Associated Press
Published: November 18, 2007
KUWAIT CITY: Iran is a long way from acquiring a nuclear weapon and is "foolish" for not investing its resources in its people instead of a nuclear program, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday.
"I think Iran is a long way from having anything that could be anything like a nuclear weapon," Powell told a gathering of bankers, businessmen and diplomats.
Tehran rejects claims by the United States and some European Union countries that its nuclear program is aimed at secretly producing weapons and insists it is for peaceful purposes only.
"I think the Iranians are being very foolish," Powell said. "When I look at Iran, I see the needs they have. They have not globalized, they have not come up in the international economic community. They are faced with 40 percent unemployment."
Powell was invited by the National Bank of Kuwait to speak on economic opportunity and crisis in the Middle East.
A report released last week by the United Nation's nuclear watchdog agency found Iran has been generally truthful in the information it has provided the agency about aspects of its past nuclear activities. But the International Atomic Energy Agency said it still could not rule out that Iran had a secret weapons program because of restrictions Tehran placed on its inspectors two years ago.
Asked if he sees a U.S. war on Iran coming, the retired U.S. general said although no American official will say that the option was "off the table," he did not see prospects of a military conflict with the Islamic republic.
There was no base of support among the American people for such action which would be widely condemned, Powell said, adding the U.S. military has enough on its hands in Iraq and Afghanistan to get involved in another conflict.
The Associated Press
Published: November 18, 2007
KUWAIT CITY: Iran is a long way from acquiring a nuclear weapon and is "foolish" for not investing its resources in its people instead of a nuclear program, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday.
"I think Iran is a long way from having anything that could be anything like a nuclear weapon," Powell told a gathering of bankers, businessmen and diplomats.
Tehran rejects claims by the United States and some European Union countries that its nuclear program is aimed at secretly producing weapons and insists it is for peaceful purposes only.
"I think the Iranians are being very foolish," Powell said. "When I look at Iran, I see the needs they have. They have not globalized, they have not come up in the international economic community. They are faced with 40 percent unemployment."
Powell was invited by the National Bank of Kuwait to speak on economic opportunity and crisis in the Middle East.
A report released last week by the United Nation's nuclear watchdog agency found Iran has been generally truthful in the information it has provided the agency about aspects of its past nuclear activities. But the International Atomic Energy Agency said it still could not rule out that Iran had a secret weapons program because of restrictions Tehran placed on its inspectors two years ago.
Asked if he sees a U.S. war on Iran coming, the retired U.S. general said although no American official will say that the option was "off the table," he did not see prospects of a military conflict with the Islamic republic.
There was no base of support among the American people for such action which would be widely condemned, Powell said, adding the U.S. military has enough on its hands in Iraq and Afghanistan to get involved in another conflict.
The American Dictatorship Institute
By Thomas J. DiLorenzo
11/17/07 "Lew Rockwell" -- -- In response to Ron Paul’s phenomenal fundraising successes and his widespread, national popularity, the neocon establishment has commenced a smear campaign. One such smear artist is John C. Fortier, a "research fellow" at what Lew Rockwell has called the Supreme Soviet of Neoconservatism – the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Writing on the AEI website, Fortier complained that Congressman Paul "sometimes displays a sinister conspiratorial aspect, implying that those who disagree with him are the vanguard of dictatorial government." The Congressman and his supporters, says Fortier, think they "are there to stop such a dictatorship."
Fortier is especially incensed at the fact that Congressman Paul asked him many hard questions, and opposed some of his recommendations, when he was executive director of something called the "Continuity in Government Commission." In particular, the congressman was suspicious of the neocon commissioner’s recommendation that the president appoint members of Congress in the aftermath of some kind of "emergency" that incapacitates Congress. (Leaving the definition of "emergency" up to Washington, D.C. politicians is always dangerous to liberty, as anyone with any concern about constitutional government would know.)
Well, the work of Fortier’s Continuity in Government Commission is now finished, and the results of its efforts are seen in something called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20/51, also known as the "National Continuity Policy." This is another one of those presidential "directives" that was sneaked in under the media’s radar screen that does indeed grant the president dictatorial powers. Judge Andrew Napolitano describes the meaning of this "directive" in his brilliant new book, A Nation of Sheep (pp. 74–76).
The White House published the directive on its website after it was already signed by the president. Most Americans who have actually read and studied the directive, writes Napolitano, "are terrified by its implications." They are terrified because presidential "directives" as such can be issued without any oversight by any other branch of government. The "National Continuity Policy" directive "concentrates power into the office of the president to coordinate any and all government and business activities" in the event of a "catastrophic emergency," writes the judge.
The problem this creates for the American public is that "the pliable language in the directive creates the ability for a vast scope of executive authority without the checks and balances of the other branches of government," writes Napolitano. It creates dictatorial powers, in other words.
"Catastrophic emergency" is defined so broadly that it could include an economic downturn, an environmental catastrophe, large-scale protests against the Iraq war, a power blackout, a bridge collapse such as the one on the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis last summer, a tsunami, a volcanic eruption such as Mount Saint Helen’s, and, says Napolitano, possibly even if "a plague of fire ants invades Crawford, Texas."
The president gets to decide what constitutes a "catastrophe" that allows him to enforce his own directive and assume dictatorial powers over the government and the economy. If the president does declare such an emergency, writes Napolitano, "he can take over all government functions including the Congress and the federal courts and direct all private sector activities." Moreover, "the emergency exists until the president decides it is over." The question is not, why was Ron Paul suspicious of the government "commission" that dreamed up this dictatorial nightmare, but why wasn’t every other member of Congress?
It gets even worse. The Bush administration, thanks to the work of John C. Fortier’s Continuity in Government Commission, was emboldened to simply ignore the federal National Emergencies Act, passed in 1976, that was intended to prevent a perpetual state of national emergency "and formalize Congressional checks and balances on presidential emergency powers." They just thumbed their collective noses, figuratively speaking, at the Congress and the American public, and broke the law – again. But then, the president’s lawyers have argued for years that anything he does is legal and constitutional. The Constitution doesn’t say this, mind you; Republican Party hacks with law degrees do.
All of this is why, of all the former Trotskyites and other assorted neocons who hang their hats at AEI, it was John C. Fortier who took the lead to smear Ron Paul on the Institute’s website. It was Ron Paul, almost alone among members of Congress, who understood the potential devastating dangers to American liberty that might come from a commission such as the one that was directed by Fortier.
The "National Continuity Policy" was put in place in secret, without the knowledge of even very many members of Congress. Fortier must be in a state of panic. He understands that, because of his exponentially-growing popularity, Ron Paul has the ability to expose this atrocious attack on American liberty to the entire nation, which may come to understand that AEI – the Supreme Soviet of Neoconservatism – is best thought of as the American Dictatorship Institute.
By Thomas J. DiLorenzo
11/17/07 "Lew Rockwell" -- -- In response to Ron Paul’s phenomenal fundraising successes and his widespread, national popularity, the neocon establishment has commenced a smear campaign. One such smear artist is John C. Fortier, a "research fellow" at what Lew Rockwell has called the Supreme Soviet of Neoconservatism – the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Writing on the AEI website, Fortier complained that Congressman Paul "sometimes displays a sinister conspiratorial aspect, implying that those who disagree with him are the vanguard of dictatorial government." The Congressman and his supporters, says Fortier, think they "are there to stop such a dictatorship."
Fortier is especially incensed at the fact that Congressman Paul asked him many hard questions, and opposed some of his recommendations, when he was executive director of something called the "Continuity in Government Commission." In particular, the congressman was suspicious of the neocon commissioner’s recommendation that the president appoint members of Congress in the aftermath of some kind of "emergency" that incapacitates Congress. (Leaving the definition of "emergency" up to Washington, D.C. politicians is always dangerous to liberty, as anyone with any concern about constitutional government would know.)
Well, the work of Fortier’s Continuity in Government Commission is now finished, and the results of its efforts are seen in something called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20/51, also known as the "National Continuity Policy." This is another one of those presidential "directives" that was sneaked in under the media’s radar screen that does indeed grant the president dictatorial powers. Judge Andrew Napolitano describes the meaning of this "directive" in his brilliant new book, A Nation of Sheep (pp. 74–76).
The White House published the directive on its website after it was already signed by the president. Most Americans who have actually read and studied the directive, writes Napolitano, "are terrified by its implications." They are terrified because presidential "directives" as such can be issued without any oversight by any other branch of government. The "National Continuity Policy" directive "concentrates power into the office of the president to coordinate any and all government and business activities" in the event of a "catastrophic emergency," writes the judge.
The problem this creates for the American public is that "the pliable language in the directive creates the ability for a vast scope of executive authority without the checks and balances of the other branches of government," writes Napolitano. It creates dictatorial powers, in other words.
"Catastrophic emergency" is defined so broadly that it could include an economic downturn, an environmental catastrophe, large-scale protests against the Iraq war, a power blackout, a bridge collapse such as the one on the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis last summer, a tsunami, a volcanic eruption such as Mount Saint Helen’s, and, says Napolitano, possibly even if "a plague of fire ants invades Crawford, Texas."
The president gets to decide what constitutes a "catastrophe" that allows him to enforce his own directive and assume dictatorial powers over the government and the economy. If the president does declare such an emergency, writes Napolitano, "he can take over all government functions including the Congress and the federal courts and direct all private sector activities." Moreover, "the emergency exists until the president decides it is over." The question is not, why was Ron Paul suspicious of the government "commission" that dreamed up this dictatorial nightmare, but why wasn’t every other member of Congress?
It gets even worse. The Bush administration, thanks to the work of John C. Fortier’s Continuity in Government Commission, was emboldened to simply ignore the federal National Emergencies Act, passed in 1976, that was intended to prevent a perpetual state of national emergency "and formalize Congressional checks and balances on presidential emergency powers." They just thumbed their collective noses, figuratively speaking, at the Congress and the American public, and broke the law – again. But then, the president’s lawyers have argued for years that anything he does is legal and constitutional. The Constitution doesn’t say this, mind you; Republican Party hacks with law degrees do.
All of this is why, of all the former Trotskyites and other assorted neocons who hang their hats at AEI, it was John C. Fortier who took the lead to smear Ron Paul on the Institute’s website. It was Ron Paul, almost alone among members of Congress, who understood the potential devastating dangers to American liberty that might come from a commission such as the one that was directed by Fortier.
The "National Continuity Policy" was put in place in secret, without the knowledge of even very many members of Congress. Fortier must be in a state of panic. He understands that, because of his exponentially-growing popularity, Ron Paul has the ability to expose this atrocious attack on American liberty to the entire nation, which may come to understand that AEI – the Supreme Soviet of Neoconservatism – is best thought of as the American Dictatorship Institute.
Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, (Three Rivers Press/Random House). His latest book is Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe (Crown Forum/Random House).
Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com
Luke Ryland: *Dan Ellsberg: Sibel Edmonds case "Far More Explosive Than Pentagon Papers" Daniel Ellsberg supports former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds' attempts to 'tell all.'
U.S. and Russian Publics Strongly Support Nuclear Disamament "Both Russians and Americans believe nuclear weapons are of very limited military utility," reports Jeff Lindemyer at Nukes of Hazard on a new study. "A majority of both Americans and Russians say that nuclear weapons should be used only in response to a nuclear attack and a large majority of Americans say that the United States should have a policy of never using nuclear weapons first."
Muhammad Khurshid: Another Victory For Al-Qaeda In Pakistan Again an effort is being made by some elements within the administeration to convert the tribal areas situated on Pak-Afghan border into a battlefield. Actually, they been enjoying full support of al-Qaeda, who want o convert Pakistan into other Iraq. This time Kurram Agency was chosen for this purpose.
U.S. Hopes to Use Pakistani Tribes Against Al Qaeda Say what? According to the New York Times, "A new and classified American military proposal outlines an intensified effort to enlist tribal leaders in the frontier areas of Pakistan in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as part of a broader effort to bolster Pakistani forces against an expanding militancy."
Murtha: "Flawed Policy Wrapped in Illusion" Two years after calling for a redeployment of US forces from Iraq, President Bush refuses to provide the American people with a responsible exit strategy. As a nation, we can either continue along the President's path, one that has fostered instability, or we can listen to the demands of the American people and forge a new direction in Iraq and the region.
Wars to Watch Out For
2008 will bring us an abundant crop of overseas crises by Justin Raimondo As we approach the new year, a fresh crop of overseas crises threatens to spring up, like mushrooms after a rain, and the prospects for peace on earth, this holiday season, are dimmer than ever.
Iraq: First up on the agenda is, of course, the war in Iraq, which, we are told, is going swimmingly. The much-touted statistics that we're being fed by the War Party and its media enablers sound good, but if you look at them a bit closer, the illusion begins to dissipate. The downturn in violence that we're hearing so much about is largely due to the fact that the ethno-religious cleansing of contested regions of Iraq has been completed, for the most part: in Baghdad, for example, the Shi'ites have driven the Sunnis out, with the help of the U.S.-supported "police" and the Iraqi "army" – which are really just Shi'ite death squads. They've shed all the blood they can, at least for now: give them a moment to catch their collective breath, however, and the sectarian killings will recommence with gusto.
Similarly, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki hails the "return" of "7,000 families" to Baghdad as proof positive that the "surge" is working, but the reality is that, as Juan Cole points out, the many tens of thousands who fled to Syria are now being forced by the Syrian government to leave, which explains the great "return." They're being kicked out of Damascus, and they're not allowed into the U.S., so where else are they supposed to go?
The emerging hotspot in Iraq is Kurdistan, which has been relatively peaceful until this point – but only because the ruling parties have kept such a tight lid on internal dissent, ruthlessly suppressing their critics and growing fat on U.S. and Israeli aid. The lid is about to blow off the pot, however, due to two factors: first, terrorist attacks in Turkey carried out by guerrillas of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), which many Turks suspect is funded and managed by the U.S. and the Kurdish regional government, and second, a provision in the Iraqi constitution that requires a referendum to decide who gets the oil-hub city of Kirkuk, which is claimed by the Kurds and the Iraqi central government.
As I have said before on several occasions, the Kurds are the most disruptive and unpredictable factor in the Iraqi jigsaw puzzle, which virtually ensures that the state smashed by U.S. force of arms almost certainly cannot be put back together again, no matter how much glue – in the form of U.S. troops and subsidies – is poured into the breach. Virulent Kurdish nationalism, unleashed by the American invasion and empowered by U.S. and Israeli aid and arms, is on the march, and every nation in the region is going to be negatively affected. It isn't going to be pretty, as the Turks have discovered to their sorrow and growing anger.
Iran: It seems like virtually unanimous opposition from the U.S. military has lessened the possibility of a war being launched by this White House any time soon, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.
Admiral Fallon and a number of other military figures have spoken out against a new war in the Middle East, pointing to the overstretch of our resources and the near-impossibility of mobilizing an effective fighting force while we're bogged down in Iraq, but realism was never the neoconservatives' strong point and that isn't stopping them from pushing their agenda. The president, as I've pointed out before, is the most radical neocon of them all – or, at the very least, a fervent fellow traveler – and it really is up to him. Certainly the Kyl-Lieberman resolution gives him the legal and political tools to do it, since it can be seen as merely an extension of the original post-9/11 authorization to go to war against "terrorists." If the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are "terrorists" and are actively killing American soldiers in Iraq, as Kyl-Lieberman avers, then the resolution in tandem with the post-9/11 legislation gives ample legal cover to an administration hell-bent on war with Iran.
Lebanon: Recent incursions by the Israelis over Lebanese airspace could prefigure another Israeli invasion, this time to prevent Hezbollah and its Christian allies from displacing the increasingly unpopular and beleaguered "pro-Western" government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. All factions are arming themselves, and the country looks ready to slide into yet another civil war, which would almost certainly provoke intervention by several outside interests, including the U.S. and/or Israel. Lebanon is the Balkans of the Middle East: a spark struck there could ignite the whole region.
Syria: I've been keeping a close watch on developments in Syria for years, in the belief that this is really the focal point of Israeli interests. Syria, after all, is where the Palestinian factions have been headquartered, and it is the front-line state that has provided support to the Palestinian resistance struggle. For more on Syria as an Israeli target of opportunity, read the now famous "Clean Break" scenario painted by prominent neocons now in high positions in the U.S. government.
Naturally, the Israelis have wanted to take out the Syrians, but they have lacked the capacity to do so. Now, as in the case of Iraq, it could be that the Americans are going to do the job for them. There's been a lot of anti-Syrian rhetoric coming out of this White House, and our State Department has done everything but cut off diplomatic relations with Damascus: we have no ambassador presently in Syria, only low-level diplomatic personnel. Sanctions are hurting the always precarious Syrian economy, the Kurds are busy stirring up trouble, and now there's this news from Nation columnist Eric Alterman:
"I got a letter the other day from a faculty member at the University of Maryland's overseas division in Europe. UM is the primary university providing classes for U.S. service members abroad. Here it is:
"'The reason that I am writing today is to inform you of something rather unsettling. Last weekend, we had a Europe-wide faculty meeting at our headquarters in Heidelberg, Germany. At that meeting, we were told that the U of MD military education contracts will be expanding soon to Iraq, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Djibouti, and other locations in the Middle East and Africa. This comes as no surprise.
"'What is startling is that the U.S. military has also asked us to prepare a bid for educational programs in IRAN and SYRIA (and, oddly enough, France – where we have had no presence since NATO was expelled in 1967 – probably a function of the new conservative government there). We will be bidding on an education contract to these locations at the end of November.
"'This is a truly ominous development. The U of MD overseas program follows the military around the world – thus clearly the contingencies for an occupation of several Middle Eastern countries is not only being contemplated, but actually set up.'"
That Israeli air strike at what was supposedly a Syrian "nuclear facility" portends something, but as to whether it's a U.S.-Israeli invasion is an open question. In my own view, it's not a matter of if, but when.
Somalia-Ethiopia: This was supposed to be war as it should be fought, according to the War Party here on the home front. Why, those no-nonsense Ethiopians, who have no sissy-liberal compunctions about collateral damage, would soon make short work of those pro-terrorist Somalis, but there's just one problem. The Ethiopians aren't winning. You'll remember how the neocons trotted out the old Stalinist eggs-omelet argument, in a new guise, but now we have to ask: where's the beef?
Expect this latest front in our perpetual "war on terrorism" to degenerate further, as the Ethiopian regime faces increasing opposition on the home front, where its program of repression and ethnic supremacism is not only alienating large sectors of Ethiopian society and provoking a new civil war, but also further impoverishing one of the poorest nations on earth. Addis Ababa can't even keep its own house from falling to pieces, so it's no surprise that their Somali sock puppets are at each other's throats. Another factor that could throw the rapidly deteriorating region into the spotlight is the resumption of Ethiopia's endless war with Eritrea. The U.S. has sided with the Ethiopians in the ongoing Ethiopian-Eritrean dispute, giving aid and diplomatic cover to the neocon dictator Meles Zenawi's dreams of a "Greater Ethiopia," but we may well have picked the wrong horse in that fight. The Eritreans are a fierce and proud people who have successfully fought off Ethiopian attempts to incorporate them into "Greater Ethiopia" for centuries, most recently in the late 1990s, a conflict in which 70,000 perished. Of course, the U.S. has no interest in helping the thug Zenawi subjugate his neighbors, who have clung tenaciously to their thin strip of territory on the shores of the Red Sea since independence was won from Ethiopia in 1993.
The Russian periphery: I have long believed that the next stage in the neocons' bid for empire will be a rapidly escalating assault on the remnants of Russian influence in the former Soviet Union – dressed up as yet another crusade for "democracy," Washington-style, launched by the U.S. This has so far been a political effort, typified by the various "color revolutions" that erupted in the post-Soviet periphery, from the Rose Revolution in Georgia to the Ukrainian Orange Revolution led by Viktor Yushchenko. These efforts are apparently stalled, and even suffering from a determined rollback led by nationalist forces, and the next phase is likely to be a series of low-level proxy wars between Russian-backed nationalists and U.S.-backed "democrats."
There are a number of theaters where hostilities could break out, but I'll just cover the hottest hotspots:
Georgia: As President Mikheil Saakashvili deflowers his own revolution and shuts down the opposition media, he could well try to divert attention away from his political problems by ginning up a fresh conflict with the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both of which are protected by Russian troops and regional militias. Saakashvili, the great "democrat," is busy charging anyone who opposes him with being a pawn of the Russians (and therefore guilty of treason), but the West is calling on him to restore civil liberties – and, in an apparent effort to propitiate his Western benefactors, he has lifted some restrictions and called new elections. Widespread and growing opposition to his strong-arm tactics, even among many of his former supporters, spells political trouble for Saakashvili and his corrupt cohorts, however – and an appeal to Georgian ultra-nationalism (which was always the real ideological motivation of the Rose Revolutionaries) would bolster him in the polls and provide a much-needed distraction, at least from the ruling party's point of view.
In the event of an outbreak of hostilities, expect the U.S. to do what they have done for the duration of Georgia's political crisis: proffer unconditional support to Saakashvili. With Russia aiding and giving political and diplomatic support to the Abkhazians and the Ossetians, and the Americans letting loose a flood of military aid to Tbilisi, this could be the first theater of actual conflict in the new cold war.
Kosovo – again!: The irony of this is all too apparent to longtime readers of Antiwar.com. Virtually alone among opponents of imperialism in the U.S., we opposed the American "liberation" of Kosovo and considered U.S. support for the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) – a gang of drug-smuggling thugs whose control of the European heroin trade subsidized their terrorist activities against the people of Kosovo and neighboring countries – to be a war crime. As it turned out, it was the Clintonian precursor to the American sponsorship of Iraqi exile groups, such as Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, whose ersatz "intelligence" helped lie the American people into war. It is only fitting that this hotspot should get hotter even as presidential candidate Hillary Clinton claims Kosovo as a model for what we ought to have done in Iraq.
The problem in Kosovo is that the "liberation" led to a reign of terror by the KLA, which burned Serbian Orthodox churches, terrorized the remnants of Serbian communities, and demanded immediate independence. On this latter demand, they managed to be contained by their NATO and U.S. allies, but that pot is about to boil over as Hashim Thaci, KLA militant and candidate of the grievously misnamed "Democratic Party," takes the presidency. Ever since the "liberation," the KLA was kept out of power by the prestige of Kosovar leader Ibrahim Rugova and his Democratic League of Kosovo, but Rugova's death from cancer in 2006 paved the way for the thuggish Thaci to seize power – and he has.
A unilateral declaration of independence by the Thaci regime would not necessarily lead to fighting in the region, although there is that possibility. The real danger is that it will set off a chain reaction in Moscow, which will then encourage its allies in the various regions of the Russian "near abroad" to issue similar declarations: Abkhazia, Adjara (site of a Russian military base), Ossetia, and certain sections of Moldova could be granted diplomatic recognition by Russia and its allies, on the grounds that what's good for the Kosovar goose in good for the Abkhazian-Adjarian-Ossetian-Transnistrian-Gagauzian gander. This could set off a whole series of proxy wars, with the Russians backing the breakaway republics and the Americans standing with their super-centralizing satraps, such as Saakashvili.
With the arms-control treaties pioneered by Reagan and other U.S. presidents now discarded, and the Russians chafing over a missile-defense system installed in the Czech republic and Poland supposedly because of an imminent danger of an Iranian attack, this new development is particularly dangerous.
The ultimate goal of the War Party is "regime change" in the Kremlin: they long to put another one of their stooges, along the lines of Boris Yeltsin, in the drivers' seat. The problem with Yeltsin was that he couldn't stay sober long enough to do Washington's bidding. And now there is no plausible rival to the wildly popular Vladimir Putin, who has put the country back into some semblance of order. Their solution: declare Putin to be the reincarnation of Stalin and announce the death of "democracy" in the former Soviet Union. This would pave the way for a resurgence of aid to "democratic" organizations inside Russia, funneled covertly as well as overtly, and a slowly escalating series of trade sanctions designed to cripple the Russians economically, or at least make them feel the sting of Western wrath.
2008 will bring us an abundant crop of overseas crises by Justin Raimondo As we approach the new year, a fresh crop of overseas crises threatens to spring up, like mushrooms after a rain, and the prospects for peace on earth, this holiday season, are dimmer than ever.
Iraq: First up on the agenda is, of course, the war in Iraq, which, we are told, is going swimmingly. The much-touted statistics that we're being fed by the War Party and its media enablers sound good, but if you look at them a bit closer, the illusion begins to dissipate. The downturn in violence that we're hearing so much about is largely due to the fact that the ethno-religious cleansing of contested regions of Iraq has been completed, for the most part: in Baghdad, for example, the Shi'ites have driven the Sunnis out, with the help of the U.S.-supported "police" and the Iraqi "army" – which are really just Shi'ite death squads. They've shed all the blood they can, at least for now: give them a moment to catch their collective breath, however, and the sectarian killings will recommence with gusto.
Similarly, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki hails the "return" of "7,000 families" to Baghdad as proof positive that the "surge" is working, but the reality is that, as Juan Cole points out, the many tens of thousands who fled to Syria are now being forced by the Syrian government to leave, which explains the great "return." They're being kicked out of Damascus, and they're not allowed into the U.S., so where else are they supposed to go?
The emerging hotspot in Iraq is Kurdistan, which has been relatively peaceful until this point – but only because the ruling parties have kept such a tight lid on internal dissent, ruthlessly suppressing their critics and growing fat on U.S. and Israeli aid. The lid is about to blow off the pot, however, due to two factors: first, terrorist attacks in Turkey carried out by guerrillas of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), which many Turks suspect is funded and managed by the U.S. and the Kurdish regional government, and second, a provision in the Iraqi constitution that requires a referendum to decide who gets the oil-hub city of Kirkuk, which is claimed by the Kurds and the Iraqi central government.
As I have said before on several occasions, the Kurds are the most disruptive and unpredictable factor in the Iraqi jigsaw puzzle, which virtually ensures that the state smashed by U.S. force of arms almost certainly cannot be put back together again, no matter how much glue – in the form of U.S. troops and subsidies – is poured into the breach. Virulent Kurdish nationalism, unleashed by the American invasion and empowered by U.S. and Israeli aid and arms, is on the march, and every nation in the region is going to be negatively affected. It isn't going to be pretty, as the Turks have discovered to their sorrow and growing anger.
Iran: It seems like virtually unanimous opposition from the U.S. military has lessened the possibility of a war being launched by this White House any time soon, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.
Admiral Fallon and a number of other military figures have spoken out against a new war in the Middle East, pointing to the overstretch of our resources and the near-impossibility of mobilizing an effective fighting force while we're bogged down in Iraq, but realism was never the neoconservatives' strong point and that isn't stopping them from pushing their agenda. The president, as I've pointed out before, is the most radical neocon of them all – or, at the very least, a fervent fellow traveler – and it really is up to him. Certainly the Kyl-Lieberman resolution gives him the legal and political tools to do it, since it can be seen as merely an extension of the original post-9/11 authorization to go to war against "terrorists." If the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are "terrorists" and are actively killing American soldiers in Iraq, as Kyl-Lieberman avers, then the resolution in tandem with the post-9/11 legislation gives ample legal cover to an administration hell-bent on war with Iran.
Lebanon: Recent incursions by the Israelis over Lebanese airspace could prefigure another Israeli invasion, this time to prevent Hezbollah and its Christian allies from displacing the increasingly unpopular and beleaguered "pro-Western" government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. All factions are arming themselves, and the country looks ready to slide into yet another civil war, which would almost certainly provoke intervention by several outside interests, including the U.S. and/or Israel. Lebanon is the Balkans of the Middle East: a spark struck there could ignite the whole region.
Syria: I've been keeping a close watch on developments in Syria for years, in the belief that this is really the focal point of Israeli interests. Syria, after all, is where the Palestinian factions have been headquartered, and it is the front-line state that has provided support to the Palestinian resistance struggle. For more on Syria as an Israeli target of opportunity, read the now famous "Clean Break" scenario painted by prominent neocons now in high positions in the U.S. government.
Naturally, the Israelis have wanted to take out the Syrians, but they have lacked the capacity to do so. Now, as in the case of Iraq, it could be that the Americans are going to do the job for them. There's been a lot of anti-Syrian rhetoric coming out of this White House, and our State Department has done everything but cut off diplomatic relations with Damascus: we have no ambassador presently in Syria, only low-level diplomatic personnel. Sanctions are hurting the always precarious Syrian economy, the Kurds are busy stirring up trouble, and now there's this news from Nation columnist Eric Alterman:
"I got a letter the other day from a faculty member at the University of Maryland's overseas division in Europe. UM is the primary university providing classes for U.S. service members abroad. Here it is:
"'The reason that I am writing today is to inform you of something rather unsettling. Last weekend, we had a Europe-wide faculty meeting at our headquarters in Heidelberg, Germany. At that meeting, we were told that the U of MD military education contracts will be expanding soon to Iraq, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Djibouti, and other locations in the Middle East and Africa. This comes as no surprise.
"'What is startling is that the U.S. military has also asked us to prepare a bid for educational programs in IRAN and SYRIA (and, oddly enough, France – where we have had no presence since NATO was expelled in 1967 – probably a function of the new conservative government there). We will be bidding on an education contract to these locations at the end of November.
"'This is a truly ominous development. The U of MD overseas program follows the military around the world – thus clearly the contingencies for an occupation of several Middle Eastern countries is not only being contemplated, but actually set up.'"
That Israeli air strike at what was supposedly a Syrian "nuclear facility" portends something, but as to whether it's a U.S.-Israeli invasion is an open question. In my own view, it's not a matter of if, but when.
Somalia-Ethiopia: This was supposed to be war as it should be fought, according to the War Party here on the home front. Why, those no-nonsense Ethiopians, who have no sissy-liberal compunctions about collateral damage, would soon make short work of those pro-terrorist Somalis, but there's just one problem. The Ethiopians aren't winning. You'll remember how the neocons trotted out the old Stalinist eggs-omelet argument, in a new guise, but now we have to ask: where's the beef?
Expect this latest front in our perpetual "war on terrorism" to degenerate further, as the Ethiopian regime faces increasing opposition on the home front, where its program of repression and ethnic supremacism is not only alienating large sectors of Ethiopian society and provoking a new civil war, but also further impoverishing one of the poorest nations on earth. Addis Ababa can't even keep its own house from falling to pieces, so it's no surprise that their Somali sock puppets are at each other's throats. Another factor that could throw the rapidly deteriorating region into the spotlight is the resumption of Ethiopia's endless war with Eritrea. The U.S. has sided with the Ethiopians in the ongoing Ethiopian-Eritrean dispute, giving aid and diplomatic cover to the neocon dictator Meles Zenawi's dreams of a "Greater Ethiopia," but we may well have picked the wrong horse in that fight. The Eritreans are a fierce and proud people who have successfully fought off Ethiopian attempts to incorporate them into "Greater Ethiopia" for centuries, most recently in the late 1990s, a conflict in which 70,000 perished. Of course, the U.S. has no interest in helping the thug Zenawi subjugate his neighbors, who have clung tenaciously to their thin strip of territory on the shores of the Red Sea since independence was won from Ethiopia in 1993.
The Russian periphery: I have long believed that the next stage in the neocons' bid for empire will be a rapidly escalating assault on the remnants of Russian influence in the former Soviet Union – dressed up as yet another crusade for "democracy," Washington-style, launched by the U.S. This has so far been a political effort, typified by the various "color revolutions" that erupted in the post-Soviet periphery, from the Rose Revolution in Georgia to the Ukrainian Orange Revolution led by Viktor Yushchenko. These efforts are apparently stalled, and even suffering from a determined rollback led by nationalist forces, and the next phase is likely to be a series of low-level proxy wars between Russian-backed nationalists and U.S.-backed "democrats."
There are a number of theaters where hostilities could break out, but I'll just cover the hottest hotspots:
Georgia: As President Mikheil Saakashvili deflowers his own revolution and shuts down the opposition media, he could well try to divert attention away from his political problems by ginning up a fresh conflict with the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both of which are protected by Russian troops and regional militias. Saakashvili, the great "democrat," is busy charging anyone who opposes him with being a pawn of the Russians (and therefore guilty of treason), but the West is calling on him to restore civil liberties – and, in an apparent effort to propitiate his Western benefactors, he has lifted some restrictions and called new elections. Widespread and growing opposition to his strong-arm tactics, even among many of his former supporters, spells political trouble for Saakashvili and his corrupt cohorts, however – and an appeal to Georgian ultra-nationalism (which was always the real ideological motivation of the Rose Revolutionaries) would bolster him in the polls and provide a much-needed distraction, at least from the ruling party's point of view.
In the event of an outbreak of hostilities, expect the U.S. to do what they have done for the duration of Georgia's political crisis: proffer unconditional support to Saakashvili. With Russia aiding and giving political and diplomatic support to the Abkhazians and the Ossetians, and the Americans letting loose a flood of military aid to Tbilisi, this could be the first theater of actual conflict in the new cold war.
Kosovo – again!: The irony of this is all too apparent to longtime readers of Antiwar.com. Virtually alone among opponents of imperialism in the U.S., we opposed the American "liberation" of Kosovo and considered U.S. support for the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) – a gang of drug-smuggling thugs whose control of the European heroin trade subsidized their terrorist activities against the people of Kosovo and neighboring countries – to be a war crime. As it turned out, it was the Clintonian precursor to the American sponsorship of Iraqi exile groups, such as Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, whose ersatz "intelligence" helped lie the American people into war. It is only fitting that this hotspot should get hotter even as presidential candidate Hillary Clinton claims Kosovo as a model for what we ought to have done in Iraq.
The problem in Kosovo is that the "liberation" led to a reign of terror by the KLA, which burned Serbian Orthodox churches, terrorized the remnants of Serbian communities, and demanded immediate independence. On this latter demand, they managed to be contained by their NATO and U.S. allies, but that pot is about to boil over as Hashim Thaci, KLA militant and candidate of the grievously misnamed "Democratic Party," takes the presidency. Ever since the "liberation," the KLA was kept out of power by the prestige of Kosovar leader Ibrahim Rugova and his Democratic League of Kosovo, but Rugova's death from cancer in 2006 paved the way for the thuggish Thaci to seize power – and he has.
A unilateral declaration of independence by the Thaci regime would not necessarily lead to fighting in the region, although there is that possibility. The real danger is that it will set off a chain reaction in Moscow, which will then encourage its allies in the various regions of the Russian "near abroad" to issue similar declarations: Abkhazia, Adjara (site of a Russian military base), Ossetia, and certain sections of Moldova could be granted diplomatic recognition by Russia and its allies, on the grounds that what's good for the Kosovar goose in good for the Abkhazian-Adjarian-Ossetian-Transnistrian-Gagauzian gander. This could set off a whole series of proxy wars, with the Russians backing the breakaway republics and the Americans standing with their super-centralizing satraps, such as Saakashvili.
With the arms-control treaties pioneered by Reagan and other U.S. presidents now discarded, and the Russians chafing over a missile-defense system installed in the Czech republic and Poland supposedly because of an imminent danger of an Iranian attack, this new development is particularly dangerous.
The ultimate goal of the War Party is "regime change" in the Kremlin: they long to put another one of their stooges, along the lines of Boris Yeltsin, in the drivers' seat. The problem with Yeltsin was that he couldn't stay sober long enough to do Washington's bidding. And now there is no plausible rival to the wildly popular Vladimir Putin, who has put the country back into some semblance of order. Their solution: declare Putin to be the reincarnation of Stalin and announce the death of "democracy" in the former Soviet Union. This would pave the way for a resurgence of aid to "democratic" organizations inside Russia, funneled covertly as well as overtly, and a slowly escalating series of trade sanctions designed to cripple the Russians economically, or at least make them feel the sting of Western wrath.
November 19, 2007 Why Attack Iran?
David R. Henderson A Question for Mr. Romney
In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said something quite interesting about Iran. One of the editors at the Journal asked him how he would respond upon learning that President Bush had launched an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. He answered:
"I would hope that the president would have outlined a great deal of information. I have very little information, for instance, on: How many nuclear facilities are there? Where are they? Can we take them out? Can we not? What is the capacity of the Iranian military to respond? Are our 160,000 troops in Iraq safe, or are t
David R. Henderson A Question for Mr. Romney
In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said something quite interesting about Iran. One of the editors at the Journal asked him how he would respond upon learning that President Bush had launched an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. He answered:
"I would hope that the president would have outlined a great deal of information. I have very little information, for instance, on: How many nuclear facilities are there? Where are they? Can we take them out? Can we not? What is the capacity of the Iranian military to respond? Are our 160,000 troops in Iraq safe, or are t