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

IEDs on Home Turf – Washington Times editorial
Jihadland: Clear and Present Danger – New York Daily News editorial
Open Borders Create Peril for U.S. – Washington Examiner editorial
Home Front: A War We Are Still Losing – Terrence Jeffrey, Washington Times
Religious Radicals at Saudi Academy in Virginia – Stephen Spuiell, National Review
Some Can’t Afford Victory in Iraq – Jonathan Gurwitz, San Antonio Express-News
Iraq Economy Muddles Along – Richard O’Hanlon, Washington Times
Would Tehran do the Unthinkable? - Gregory Scoblete, Real Clear Politics
Gathering Storm in Pakistan? – New York Times editorial
Pakistan’s War on Democracy Advocates – Los Angeles Times editorial
Musharraf: Part of Solution or Problem? – The Australian editorial
For India, A Worrisome Drama in Pakistan – David Broder, Washington Post
Musharraf’s Coup: What to Do – Amir Taheri, New York Post
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Musharraf? – Roger Cohen, New York Times
Don’t Forget Enemy’s Barbarism – Meghan Cox Gurdon, Washington Examiner
If This Peace Process Fails – Jackson Diehl, Washington Post
Russia is Becoming our Enemy Again – Michael Weiss, Weekly Standard
Burma’s Junta Plays to Win – Connie Levitt, Sydney Morning Herald
Saving Civilization from Itself – Arthur Herman, Wall Street Journal
No Tenure at Columbia for Hatred – Joel Mowbray, Washington Times
Torture: The New Abortion – Rosa Brooks, Los Angeles Times

Pakistan's private TV channels struggle By Laura King Their transmissions within the country blocked by the government under emergency rule, the outlets still manage to get out the news.
Pakistan's nuclear arsenal a U.S. worry By Greg Miller American intelligence agencies are concerned the weaponry could be diverted amid the nation's political crisis.

Preparing for Life After Oil

Michael T. Klare, The Nation

ForeignPolicy: Welcome to the Age of Insuffiency: As oil prices hit new highs and supplies sink, our way of life will drastically change.

Bhutto supporters swell protests in Pakistan

Military mind leads Pakistan into state of confusion

Ousted Chief Justice in Pakistan Urges Defiance

Musharraf Will Try to Hold National Parliamentary Ballot on Time - Now set for January

Pakistani activists face death over treason charges: Charged for making anti-government speeches

Bush Tells Musharraf to Hold Elections, Resign as Army Chief

Recasting Long War as Joint Sino-American Venture – Thomas Barnett, Esquire
The Marines: Premier Expeditionary Warriors - Frank Hoffman, FPRI E-note
How to Stop IEDs - Gian Gentile, San Francisco Chronicle
Last Chance for Public Diplomacy – Clifford May, National Review
Rebel Diplomats – Fred Gedrich, New York Post
Blackwater’s Impunity – Los Angeles Times editorial
Pakistan Upheaval Rouses U.S. Concerns – USA Today editorial roundup
Musharraf’s Latest Pledge – Washington Times editorial
Time’s Up, Mr. Musharraf – The Economist editorial
Pakistan-U.S. Relationship is Bankrupt – London Daily Telegraph editorial
Marcos… Pinochet… Musharraf? – Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post
The Real Musharraf – Asma Jahangir, Washington Post
Musharraf's Grip Looking Unbreakable – Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star
Pakistan on the Brink – Diana West, Washington Times
An India-U.S. Alliance? – Austin Bay, Washington Times
Why Europe Won't Sanction Iran - Robert Maginnis, Human Events
Italy’s Immigration Agita – Gerald Robbins, Weekly Standard
Deal With Colombia – Washington Post editorial
Frontline Troops Spending Must be Increased – London Times editorial
Al Qaeda’s Generational Split – Gregory Johnsen, Boston Globe
Radical Islam Behind Bars – Stephen Schwartz, Weekly Standard
The War Against Women in Congo – Kevin Sites, Chicago Tribune
Kiwi Terror Law Debate - New Zealand Herald opinion question
TSA “Working Diligently” – Kip Hawley, USA Today
A Post-Iraq G.I. Bill? – Jim Webb and Chuck Hagle, New York Times
Who Saw the Latest Anti-War Movie? – Jonah Goldberg, Miami Herald

Silencing the opposition
Benazir Bhutto, leader of the Pakistan People's Party, is put under house arrest

COLUMN: Europe.view

Over a barrel
The oily politics of silence

LEADERS: Martial law in Pakistan
Time's up, Mr Musharraf
No longer the potential solution, the general has become a big part of Pakistan's problem

Rule of Force vs. Rule of Law in Pakistan
Zia Mian and A.H. Nayyar
Nov 8, 2007

Making Democracy Safe for the World
Yu Bin
Nov 8, 2007

Taiwan's Right to a State
Ian Williams
Nov 8, 2007

Turkish parliament passes bill to build nuclear plants

Korea urges US to remove its terrorism tag

Apocalyptic' if Egypt, Saudi go nuclear: Israel minister

France is top intelligence provider on Iran: US lawmaker

Increasing alarm in Washington over Pakistan nuclear arsenal

EU's Solana suggests 'international enrichment centre'

Indian PM heads to Russia to sign defence, energy deals

Israel says UN nuclear chief should go

Japan, US conduct mock nuclear disaster drill

China urges Iran to heed nuclear concerns

My thanks to you, Snuffy, for all the work of the previous links!!!!!! Geezzzzz, more reading than I can do this entire day! I'll be sure and get back to this as often as I can.

Musharraf Must Go
by William Hartung, TPM Cafe
After how siding with a tyrant hurt us in Iran, we should not repeat history in Pakistan.

Thanks. Many of these show up in my blog, but I thought I would start two threads here - one for articles on foreign policy and the other on politics. Trying to cover the major ones across the spectrum. Hopefully there is enough information in the title so you can decide if you want to read the article.

"Losing Pakistan"

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

This morning, I found that an excerpt of a bloggingheadsTV exchange I had on the subject of “Losing Pakistan” with New York Sun foreign affairs correspondent Eli Lake appeared on the front of the NY Times opinion page:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html

It will only be there during the day today — but if you want the actual link to the page, it is here:

http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=c565...997a45276483bff

Hope you find this of interest,

Steve Clemons

Pakistanis' anger at Musharraf extends to U.S. By Henry Chu Washington is perceived as propping up an autocratic leader and ignoring the people's desire for democracy. Many want it to stop its 'interference.'

Executing Winning Strategy in Iraq – Kimberly Kagan, Weekly Standard
Fort Irwin: ‘Ghanzi Province’ Lessons – Sarah Holewinski, Washington Post
How to Win the War of Ideas – Robert Satloff, Washington Post
Pelosi’s Prescription for Failure in Iraq – New York Post editorial
Attached to Iraq – James Cannon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Teaching America About Our Heroes – William Bennett, National Review
Pakistan and the Bush-Biden Doctrine – Wall Street Journal editorial
Iran’s Mullahs Puzzled Putin – Amir Taheri, New York Post
Pakistani Poker – London Times editorial
Pakistani Make-Believe – Boston Globe editorial
Pakistan’s Plan B Deficiency – Gary Sick, Los Angeles Times
Assessing Pakistan – Charles Krauthammer, National Review
Our Pakistan Challenge – Daniel Twining, Weekly Standard
Musharraf's Gamble Cannot Succeed – David Warren, Ottawa Citizen
Musharraf Has Failed the Country – Trudy Rubin, Miami Herald
Dictators and Democrats – Victor Davis Hanson, National Review
The U.N.’s Campaign to Demonize Israel – U.N. Watch, Miami Herald
Making a Two-State Solution Happen – David Horovitz, Jerusalem Post
Israel: Why Go To Annapolis? – Uri Dromi, Miami Herald
Chances of Middle East Breakthrough - Shibley Telhami, Baltimore Sun
Middle East Peace: Time for Modesty – Richard Haass, Daily Star
Guantanamo by the Numbers? - Bowker and Kaye, New York Times
Gitmo Observation Deck – James Jay Carafano, National Review
Hugo Chavez’s Criminal Paradise - Moises Naim, Los Angeles Times
Roses and Reality in Georgia? – New York Times editorial
Tragedy in Georgia – Ralph Peters, New York Post
On Timor’s Hard Road – Phillip Adams, The Australian
‘Peace’ Movement Passé? - L. Brent Bozell III, Washington Times
The Real Drug War – Los Angeles Times editorial
“Shipriders” on the Great Lakes – Colin Kenny, Ottawa Citizen

http://www.mlive.com/columns/aanews/index.....xml&coll=2

More From The Ann Arbor News
Danger lurks in use of term 'Islamofascism'
Thursday, November 08, 2007

If language is a window on the world, a deliberate smudging of that window will make it harder to see the world clearly and comprehend it. So it is with the highly ideological term "Islamofascist,'' a label that is being wielded as a blunt weapon in a left-right debate and has been carelessly bandied about by some presidential candidates.

Recently, the former leftist turned rightist David Horowitz promoted something called "Islamofascism Awareness Week'' on college campuses. The implication was that the academic left has so lost its bearings that it can no longer recognize its historic enemy, the old fascist wolf, under that beast's new disguise. Another apparent aim was to discredit scholars who insist on making careful distinctions among the various movements and ideologies that are grouped under the rubric of political Islam.

Transparent as the intentions of Horowitz may be, the Republican candidates' use of "Islamofascism'' is cruder still, and may cause considerably more harm. Just before he dropped out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas spoke of a threat from Islamofascism during a visit to the Boston Globe. Rudy Giuliani - whose foreign policy adviser, Norman Podhoretz, just published a book touting World War IV against Islamofascism - commonly derides the Democrats because they "couldn't even utter the word 'Islamic terrorism.''' And former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, while using the less obfuscatory term "radical Islamic jihadists,'' has been striving to keep up with his competition by putting out a television ad titled "Jihad'' and invoking what he calls "a military threat unlike anything we've known before.''

The next American president will need to have a lucid understanding of the threats facing this country. One of those threats undeniably comes from al-Qaida and like-minded groups. But the bands that swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden must be seen for what they are: stateless fanatics with a purist nostalgia for a seventh-century political and social order. Their primary goal is to overthrow regimes in the Muslim world they disdain as insufficiently Islamic.

Al-Qaida and company cannot be compared with the fascist powers ruled by Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco - neither for their ideas nor for their military power. The Nazis scorned religion, wanting to make the state the sole object of worship. Bin Laden and Hitler might share a proclivity for cruelty and killing, but for little else. Hitler cherished the operas of Wagner; bin Laden and his Taliban allies have been known to put musicians to the lash for playing music at a wedding. And bin Laden has no panzer divisions.

The intellectually lazy analogy of Islamism to fascism has another unwelcome effect. It obscures the significant differences that exist among disparate governments, movements and terrorist networks in the Muslim world. If all Islamists are carelessly labeled Islamofascists, it becomes practically impossible to distinguish the democratic, free-market, pro-European governing party of Turkey from the Taliban; or either of those Sunni parties from the Lebanese Shi'ite movement Hezbollah; or those three from Palestinian Hamas; or those four from al-Qaida.

Americans have already paid a terrible price for a president's belated discovery that there were two sects of Muslims in Iraq: Sunni and Shi'ite. It is precisely because the security threats of the 21st century are so different from those of the last century that the next president must be free of tendentious simplifications such as Islamofascism.

Loose talk about Islamofascism or Islamic terrorism also carries noxious undertones. Such labels intimate that there is something inherently dangerous about all Muslims. And there is a subtext to those terms, an implication that the West faces an inevitable worldwide clash of religions and civilizations.

There need not be any such apocalyptic conflict. One way to prevent it is to give things their proper names - and not to allow the threat from bin Laden and similar fringe groups to be blown out of proportion by ideologues indulging in loose talk about a third or fourth World War.

The Boston Globe

http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=11889 November 10, 2007 Pakistan: In Too Deep
by Alan Bock Except for the hardly inconsequential difference that the U.S. is not conducting a military occupation, Pakistan is similar to Iraq in at least one important way. Once the initial mistake was made, it has become difficult for the United States to extricate itself (if it wanted to, which this administration almost certainly does not) and leave, changing the nature of the commitment or hunkering down will have results that can be spun as the unfortunate consequences of the U.S. not hanging tougher.

After 9/11, when it became obvious the United States was going to invade Afghanistan and would have a fairly substantial chance of ousting the Taliban regime (if not necessarily to manage the transition to anything like a decent society there) Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf made a strategic/tactical choice.

Musharraf’s secret police agency, the ISI, had been heavily involved in subsidizing, advising and sometimes lending concrete human assistance to the Taliban regime. To be fair, it was seen by some (though not all, the ISI was and is riddled with jihadist sympathizers and supported the huge network of radical madrassas throughout Pakistan teaching nothing much but rote memorization of the Koran and jihad) as a force for stability in a country that was pretty chaotic. But Musharraf, helped along by a few no-nonsense phone calls and visits from U.S. officials, decided that the Taliban was likely to be defeated and that at least for the next foreseeable period, it was prudent to cast one’s lot with the United States. So he did.

One can understand U.S. officials being pleased by this turn of events, and in fact Pakistan has been of some assistance in the vaunted "global war on terror," to the extent that U.S. officials occasionally looked beyond the quicksand of Iraq to notice that there were a few real threats out there in addition to the manufactured threat of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda. The mistake was to believe he was sincere.

Bush, like many intellectually incurious people who are impatient with details, places great stock in his supposedly preternatural ability to "size up" people after a brief encounter (remember his ability to look into Vladimir Putin’s soul?). A meeting or two with Musharraf allowed him to convince himself that Pervez was his kind of fella.

Well if you think about it, there are similarities between Musharraf, an army general who came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999 and has never paid anything more than lip service to such quaint notions as democracy, liberty and the importance of a civil society independent of the rulers of a country, and President Bush.

The Bushlet, with a little help from his friends, proved fairly adept at playing the democratic game at the raw and almost irrelevant level of finding ways to garner votes. But his relentless grasping for more "plenary" executive power – fed no doubt by Dick Cheney, who had been pining over the loss of institutional presidential power since Watergate – shows him to be a political leader with a lot more of the monarchist or autocrat than the instinctive democrat or libertarian. He uses words like "freedom" and "democracy" handily enough, but he presses for limitations on freedom and increased exercises of governmental power kept secret from and therefore unaccountable to the people.

It may be fruitless to wonder what goes on in that underused mind of his, but it may be something like a notion that limitations on freedom and increases in surveillance and government power are all not only necessary but desirable in the service of what he just might conceive of as a "higher" form of freedom than the rabble can understand – though in practice it translates into more power, perquisites and money for him and his circle. In short, it’s more than possible that Musharraf, who has virtually no democratic instincts or impulses, really is Bush’s kind of fella.

But I digress.

The upshot, from the administration’s perspective, was that Musharraf was not only deemed a reliable ally in the "war on terror," but an "indispensable" (former intelligence czar John Negroponte actually used the word within the last few days) cog in the wheel of the great American imperial enterprise. So the administration lavished money (at least $10 billion since 9/11, probably a good bit more if you could track the covert stuff) on Pakistan and pretended to believe that he was really some kind of democrat deep down inside, determined not only to defeat al-Qaeda and other nasty folk, but to bring his country ever closer to being a true democracy.

Many American officials, almost certainly including Bush himself, probably even managed to convince themselves that this was the case. Unless you have a certain cold and calculating Metternichian cast of mind, it is difficult for many people – especially many Americans – to acknowledge openly that you are supporting a leader in another country strictly on the basis of a cold-blooded calculation of what your interests are and how that person can advance them, caring not a whit whether that person is a saint or a sinner. Bush can calculate in that way, I suspect, but I suspect he feels more comfortable when he can convince himself that he’s really operating not out of cold interest, but in service of some higher ideal, like promoting democracy or paving the way for the spread of Christianity.

Fortunately – I was going to say for him but not for us, but in the longer perspective is it really all that fortunate for him? – he seldom has much trouble convincing himself, no matter how far-fetched the case, or how wide the gap between noble words and sordid actions.

So Bush kept sending the money and praising Musharraf extravagantly whenever the two met or when some development in Pakistan created a perceived need to comment. He had measured the man himself, after all, and it would be a sign of weakness to alter that original estimation.

So when Musharraf declared martial law – excuse me, a state of emergency – and began jailing opposition party members and journalists, it took Bush several days to process the information. And even when he finally made the phone call to tell his old buddy Perv that he really should take off that army uniform and hold elections as scheduled, he didn’t (unless there’s something we haven’t been told, which wouldn’t be all that unusual, but I suspect this would have been trumpeted) mention the idea of freeing all those "enemy combatants." And he went so far as to claim that unlike in Burma/Myanmar, Pakistan had actually been on the road to democracy, so it deserved to have some slack cut.

As a result of offering unquestioning support for a natural dictator who could mouth the phrases associated with democracy just often enough, the U.S. confronts a situation in Pakistan in which almost all the likely alternatives are unsavory. The Taliban and al-Qaeda really are resurgent in the border territories, and whatever relatively moderate and/or secular elements remain in Pakistan (long ago they used to be dominant) are utterly sick of Musharraf. The most ungovernable country in the world, as some have described it, is becoming less governable by the day (which in an existential sense might be a point in its favor, but in the short run looks rather chaotic and violent).

It’s hard to see anything less than disastrous in the next few weeks and months.

And, of course, the notion that Bush is the least bit sincere in his protestations that his relentless desire to intervene in the affairs of other countries has the slightest relationship to promoting democracy in anything other than an incantatory sense is now in shreds. From now on invoking the desire to spread democracy can only provoke sneers and guffaws.

Nice work.

Did He Really Say That?

Musharraf and the Drunk Uncle
By MOHAMMED HANIF

Pakistan's General Pervez Musharraf deserves our sympathy. Not because he has been forced to carry out a coup against his own regime, not because his troops are being kidnapped en masse by Pakistani Taliban and then awarded Rs 500 for good behaviour, not because he himself has become a prisoner in his Army House and can't even nip out for coffee and Paan as he used to, but because he has utterly lost his grip over grammar.

In my 15 years in journalism, I have covered three coups. And as I walked towards my office last Saturday, I had the cynicism of someone who has seen it all before. As I entered the BBC offices on a chilly Saturday afternoon in London, a senior Pakistan hand, who like me had interrupted his cosy weekend to cover the story, wondered aloud why the general was taking so long before appearing on national television and explaining his actions.

"His speech writer is too old for all this excitement. He is probably taking his time," I said. Barrister Sharifuddin Peerzada has midwifed every single coup in Pakistan and when General Musharraf took over in 1999, we had to wait until 3 am for him to address the nation. The nation listened to his 10 minutes of neatly turned out verbosity and, relieved, went to sleep. Peerzada may lack in democratic credentials, but he cares about his syntax. Last Saturday as I arrived at my desk, Musharraf had already started his address. And it was immediately clear to me that he had fallen into that aging dictator's familiar trap: He had written his own speech.

I exaggerate because he only occasionally glanced at his notes and for 40 minutes talked, well, gibberish; the kind of stuff that only journalists and think-tank- /wallah/s would take seriously. I was so unsettled ­"not by what he was saying, but by the way he was saying it ­" that I listened to the entire speech again last night.

I have been accused of punctuation abuse often enough to take these things in my stride, but for the 40 minutes that General Musharraf spoke in Urdu, he didn't use one proper sentence.

He replaced his verbs with hand gestures, nouns slipped off his shrugged shoulders, adjectives quivered under his desk.

And when he said, "Extremists have gone very extreme," it suddenly occurred to me why his speech pattern seemed so familiar. He was that uncle that you get stranded with at a family gathering when everybody else has gone to sleep but there is still some whisky left in the bottle. And uncle thinks he is about to say something very profound - if you would only pour him one last one.

Consider this; in the middle of his speech when everyone was silently urging him to get to the point, losing the thread of his diatribe about how judicial activism was responsible for the rise of jihadis in Pakistan, he abruptly said, "I have imposed emergency," then looked into the camera, waved his hand in a dismissive gesture and said, "You must have seen it on TV."

He forgot to mention that he had pulled the plug on /all/ television channels except the State-run television. It might sound like old-school dictator talk, but just imagine if somebody took away your television and then told you, 'Oh, did you see that thing on TV?'

For those who haven't suffered General Musharraf's regime directly, he can come across as a rakish figure, a daredevil who easily switches between his camouflage commando uniform and designer suits and then half sleeved shirts for attending fashion shows - his favourite cultural activity before he was forced to abandon it because of security concerns.

His CV is impressive: Here is a man who can manage the frontline on America's war and terror, get rid of three prime ministers and scores of generals and still find time to write an autobiography and then get George W Bush to endorse it in front of the world media.

I visited Delhi soon after Musharraf's failed Agra summit and he seemed to have earned the grudging respect of the Delhi elite. My Indian colleagues looked at stone-faced Vajpayee and wondered, why can't the new shining India have a handsome leader like Musharraf. One south Delhi resident claimed that his wife had started watching Pakistani channels obsessively just to get a glimpse of our commando President.

I reminded my Indian friend of Musharraf's Kargil adventure. "How come you have forgotten your Kargil widows so soon?" I said. "Well come off it, he is a bit of a matinee idol from the fifties," I was told. I am not a big fan of period Bollywood, so I kept quiet.

As I watched the speech this Saturday, I wondered if my Indian friend's wife saw the same Musharraf that I saw on my screen. He was like that uncle that I mentioned earlier, who after a couple of drinks not only wants to explain the meaning of life, but also why he is the most misunderstood man in the world, how your aunt never valued him, why the world is run by a cabal of Jewish gays and why Japanese technology is a disgrace.

You want to take the bottle away and tell him to get some sleep. He wants to tell you he loves you more than his own son and now can you pour him another drink.

I am not even remotely suggesting that Musharraf was drunk when he addressed the nation. No, it was something far more sinister. He seemed to be having an out of body experience, there he sat in his /sherwani /reading an order written by his uniformed alter ego, wagging a finger at himself, accusing his own government of spreading terrorism.

And let's not forget that when I say Pakistani government, I mean General Pervez Musharraf.

Here are some random things he said. And trust me, these things were said quite randomly:

Yes, he did say, "Extremism / bahut /extreme /ho //gaya // hai / (/extremism has become too extreme /)."

"/Hum se koi darta hi nahin /(/nobody is scared of us anymore /)."

"Islamabad /mein /extremist /bharay houay hain /(/Islamabad// is full of extremists/)."

"/Hakumat ke andar hakumat bana rakhi hai/ (/there is a government within government/)."

"/Har waqt bas /court /ke chakkar lagatey rehtay hain /(/officials are being asked to go to the courts every other day /)."

"Officials /ki beizzati kartay hain /(/officials are being insulted by the judiciary/)."

At one point he appeared wistful when reminiscing about his first three years in power - "/mera /total control /thha / (/I had total control /)." You were almost tempted to ask: What happened then, uncle?

But obviously, uncle didn't need any prompting. He launched into his routine about three stages of democracy. He claimed he was about to launch the third and final phase of democracy (the way he said it, he managed to make it sound like the Final Solution). And just when you thought he was about to make his point, he took an abrupt turn and plunged into a deep pool of self pity.

This involved a long-winded anecdote about how the Supreme Court judges would rather attend a colleagues' daughter's wedding rather than just get it over with and decide that he is a constitutional President.

As I said, I have heard some dictator speeches in my life, but nobody has gone so far as to mention someone's daughter's wedding for imposing martial law in the country.

When for the last few minutes of his speech he addressed his audience in the West in English, I suddenly felt a deep sense of humiliation. This part of his speech was scripted. Sentences began and ended. I felt humiliated that my President not only thinks that we are not evolved enough for things like democracy and human rights, but because we can't even handle concepts like proper syntax and grammar.

Abraham Lincoln was quoted. The slow and painful evolution of Western democracy was evoked. Idealists were told to manage their expectations and then there was the obligatory poetic flourish: "I would not let this country commit suicide."

Sure, a colleague chipped in, I would rather strangle it with my own hands.

As he closed his speech with a rather poetic "forever Pakistan, forever," and the national anthem started to play, it occurred to me that our whole nation is probably feeling like a Kargil widow by now. With no cable television to console her sorrows.

Mohammed Hanif is the head of BBC's Urdu Service. His novel A Case of Exploding Mangoes will be published by Random House India next year.
http://www.counterpunch.org/hanif11092007.html

Monopoly Power

Pakistan and the Israel Lobby
By BADRUDDIN KHAN

Recent events in Pakistan should serve as a wake up call. There is more to the Mideast region than Israel and its Arab antagonists. The Israel Lobby has been successful in inducing the United States into mis-allocating its resources to protect Israeli interests, and this is now having a profound and lasting impact. It is time for supporters of the Israel Lobby to face up to the fact that what is good for Israel is not necessarily good for the United States. The Mideast is not best viewed through Israeli interests, and there is much more at stake than Israel's welfare.

Pakistan is for all practical purposes under martial law. This is hardly a surprise outcome. Management of the "war on terror" was delegated by the Bush administration to strongman General Pervez Musharraf, who quickly fell in line after being presented with the alternative of Pakistan being bombed into the stone-age. Musharraf has managed the situation as well as he could, given his pre-condition that he stay in power (the economy, for example, has grown nicely during his tenure). This pre-condition, however, is clearly not acceptable to Pakistanis, and he is now being forced into elections. For the US, the shift in focus from Afghanistan, Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda to Iraq, Iran, and Israel's interests has proved to be seriously distracting.

Our Mideast strategy is managed directly or indirectly by the Israel Lobby. This Lobby functions as a "monopoly" in the manner of Microsoft. Until recently, no alternate viewpoints were seriously considered, and the Israel Lobby has represented itself as the establishment. Monopolies, however, corrupt the system; Microsoft distorted the software industry, and the Israel Lobby is corrupting our body politic. We are now seeing clear and tangible evidence of the consequences of this betrayal of American interests. Rather than pursue Bin Laden, vanquish the Taliban, and guide Pakistan towards democracy, the Bush administration was misdirected into attacking Iraq, and US power is now being targeted at Israel's perceived enemies such as Iran.

The Israel Lobby has labored at caricaturizing Muslims as natural enemies of the United States. It has succeeded in skillfully amplifying Israel's contempt and fear of Arabs, into contempt and fear of Muslims by mainstream Americans. This has required a sustained campaign, and the results speak for themselves: after 9/11 80%+ of Muslims the world over were pro-US, and today a similar percentage is anti-US. Such swings in public opinion are not accidental, and reflect US actions under the "war on terror", and a calculated strategy to provoke an adversary into being.

There are now numerous excellent and well documented books that describe the Israel Lobby, its machinations, and the detrimental impact of its pervasive influence. It is time for us to switch our priorities to other countries that are being neglected at our peril, foreign policy things that matter, reduce the importance of Israel and its concerns, and refocus to American interests.

Badruddin Khan lives in San Francisco. He can be reached at: bkhan@hotmail.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/khan11092007.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=1988
The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War
New Pentagon Doctrine: Mini-Nukes are "Safe for the Surrounding Civilian Population"

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 17, 2006

This article elaborates on two earlier texts by the author:

Nuclear War against Iran, January 2006

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, May 2005



"Current US nuclear weapons policy is immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high.

Far from reducing these risks, the Bush administration has signaled that it is committed to keeping the US nuclear arsenal as a mainstay of its military power - a commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50 years.

Much of the current US nuclear policy has been in place since before I was secretary of defense, and it has only grown more dangerous and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years."

(Robert S. McNamara, US Secretary of Defense under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations)



The Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine contains specific "guidelines" which allow for "preemptive" nuclear strikes against "rogue enemies" which "possess" or are "developing" weapons of mass destruction (WMD). (2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (DJNO)).

The preemptive nuclear doctrine (DJNO), which applies to Iran and North Korea calls for "offensive and defensive integration". It explicitly allows the preemptive use of thermonuclear weapons in conventional war theaters.

In the showdown with Tehran over its alleged nuclear weapons program, these Pentagon "guidelines" would allow, subject to presidential approval, for the launching of punitive bombings using "mini-nukes" or tactical thermonuclear weapons.

While the "guidelines" do not exclude other (more deadly) categories of nukes in the US and/or Israeli nuclear arsenal, Pentagon "scenarios" in the Middle East are currently limited to the use of tactical nuclear weapons including the B61-11 bunker buster bomb. This particular version of the bunker buster is a thermonuclear bomb, a so-called Nuclear Earth Penetrator or NEP. It is a Weapon of Mass Destruction in the real sense of the word. Its utilization by the US or Israel in the Middle East war theater would trigger a nuclear holocaust.


B61-11 NEP Thermonuclear Bomb

History of the B61 Thermonuclear Bomb

The B-61 thermonuclear bomb, first produced in 1966, is described as a light weight nuclear device. Its construction essentially extends the technology of the older version of tactical nuclear warheads. (for further details see, http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/B61.html .

The B61-11 earth-penetrating version of the B61 was developed in the immediate wake of the Cold War under the Clinton administration. It was configured initially to have a "low" 10 kiloton yield, 66.6 percent of a Hiroshima bomb, for (post-Cold War) battlefield operations:

"In October 1993, Harold Smith, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy, sought approval to develop an alternative to the B53 high-yield nuclear bomb, which was the principal "bunker buster" weapon in the U.S. arsenal. The B53 was also the heaviest payload nuke in use, weighing 8,900 pounds, and only deployable from the B-52 bombers. Under the guise of "weapons modernization," Smith was pushing the development of the B61-Mod 11.

... The B61-11 was developed and put into the stockpile without full-scale nuclear tests. Some critics have maintained that the B61-11 is a new nuclear weapon, but the US has said all along that the B61-11 is not new, but a modification of older B61s to give the weapon an earth-penetrating capability to destroy buried targets...."

(http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61.htm)

The B61-11 was intended for the Middle East. The Clinton administration had in fact threatened to use it against Libya, suggesting that Libya's alleged underground chemical weapons facility at Tarhunah "might be a target of the then-newly deployed B61-11 earth-penetrating nuclear weapon." ( The Record (Bergen County, NJ) February 23, 2003.)

Military documents distinguish between the NEP and the "mini-nuke" which are nuclear weapons with a yield of less than 10 kilotons (two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb). The NEP can have a yield of up to a 1000 kilotons, or seventy times a Hiroshima bomb.

This distinction between mini-nukes and NEPs is in many regard misleading. In practice there is no dividing line. We are broadly dealing with the same type of weaponry: the B61-11 has several "available yields", ranging from "low yields" of less than one kiloton, to mid-range and up to the 1000 kiloton bomb. In all cases, the radioactive fallout is devastating. Moreover, the B61 series of thermonuclear weapons includes several models with distinct specifications: the B61-11, the B61-3, B61- 4, B61-7 and B61-10. Each of these bombs has several "available yields".

What is contemplated for theater use is the "low yield" 10 kt bomb, two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb.

Mini-Nukes in Conventional War Theaters

There are indications that the Bush administration does not exclude using thermonuclear bunker buster bombs in the Middle East war theater. These weapons were specifically developed for use in post Cold War "conventional conflicts with third world nations".

In October 2001, in the immediate wake of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld envisaged the use of the B61-11 in Afghanistan. The targets were Al Qaeda cave bunkers in the Tora Bora mountains.

Rumsfeld stated at the time that while the "conventional" bunker buster bombs "'are going to be able to do the job', ... he did not rule out the eventual use of nuclear weapons." (Quoted in the Houston Chronicle, 20 October 2001, italics added.)

The use of the B61-11 was also contemplated during the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. In this regard, the B61-11 was described as "a precise, earth-penetrating low-yield nuclear weapon against high-value underground targets", which included Saddam Hussein's underground bunkers:

"If Saddam was arguably the highest value target in Iraq, then a good case could be made for using a nuclear weapon like the B61-11 to assure killing him and decapitating the regime" (.Defense News, December 8, 2003).

There is no documentary evidence, however, that the B61-11 was used against Iraq.













A B-2A bomber releases a test version of the new B61-11 gravity bomb over the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada, November 20, 1996

"Safe for Civilians"

The B61-11 is categorized as a "deep earth penetrating bomb" capable of "destroying the deepest and most hardened of underground bunkers, which the conventional warheads are not capable of doing". The B61-11s can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb, from a B-2. a 5B-2 stealth bomber or from an F-16 aircraft.

"military officials and leaders of America's nuclear weapon laboratories are urging the US to develop a new generation of precision low-yield nuclear weapons... which could be used in conventional conflicts with third-world nations.

Critics argue that adding low-yield warheads to the world's nuclear inventory simply makes their eventual use more likely. In fact, a 1994 law currently prohibits the nuclear laboratories from undertaking research and development that could lead to a precision nuclear weapon of less than 5 kilotons (KT), because "low-yield nuclear weapons blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war."

... Senate Republicans John Warner (R-VA) and Wayne Allard (R-CO) buried a small provision in the 2001 Defense Authorization Bill that would have overturned these earlier restrictions... Senators Warner and Allard imagine these nuclear weapons could be used in small-scale conventional conflicts against rogue dictators, while leaving most of the civilian population untouched. As one anonymous former Pentagon official put it to the Washington Post last spring, "What's needed now is something that can threaten a bunker tunneled under 300 meters of granite without killing the surrounding civilian population." Statements like these promote the illusion that nuclear weapons could be used in ways which minimize their "collateral damage," making them acceptable tools to be used like conventional weapons." (See http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001 / click v54nl, italics added)

In an utterly twisted logic, the nuclear bunker buster bomb is presented as an instrument of peace-making and regime change, which will enhance global security. It is intended to curb the dangers of WMD proliferation by "nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal)" and "rogue states". Pentagon propaganda has carefully distorted the nature of this bomb.

The B61-11 is casually described as causing an underground explosion without threatening "the surrounding civilian population".

The Pentagon has blurred the distinction between conventional battlefield weapons and nuclear bombs. Already during the Clinton Administration, the Pentagon was calling for the use of the "nuclear" B61-11 bunker buster bomb, suggesting that because it was "underground", there was no toxic radioactive fallout which could affect civilians.

The Bush administration has gone one step further in defining the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which are now part of America's preemptive arsenal. Essentially they are described defensive weapons. Under the preemptive nuclear doctrine, they are specifically identified for use in conventional war theaters.

The Pentagon claims that the use of the B61-11 minimizes the risks of "collateral damage". According to US. military planners, "potential adversaries" are hiding their WMDs in "fortified bunkers" below more than 100 feet of concrete. Yet test results indicate that the low yield B61-11 has never penetrated more than 20 feet below the ground (See also The Independent. 23 October 2003) :

"The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited. ... Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. ... Any attempt to use it in an urban environment would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area " (Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons by Robert W. Nelson,Federation of American Scientists, 2001 ).

Nuclear Holocaust

According to GlobalSecurity.org , the use of the B61-11 against North Korea would result in extensive radioactive fallout over nearby countries, thereby triggering a nuclear holocaust.

"... In tests the bomb penetrates only 20 feet into dry earth,... But even this shallow penetration before detonation allows a much higher proportion of the explosion to be transferred into ground shock relative to a surface burst. It is not able to counter targets deeply buried under granite rock. Moreover, it has a high yield, in the hundreds of kilotons. If used in North Korea, the radioactive fallout could drift over nearby countries such as Japan" (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61.htm )

If it were to be launched against Iran, it would result in radioactive contamination over a large part of the Middle East - Central Asian region, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, including US troops stationed in Iraq:

"The use of any nuclear weapon capable of destroying a buried target that is otherwise immune to conventional attack will necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties. No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield [of a low yield B61-11] even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout."(Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons, by Robert W. Nelson, op cit )

At present, the B61-11 is slated for use in war theaters together with conventional weapons. (Congressional Report" Bunker Busters": Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues , Congressional Research Service March 2005). (Other versions of the B61, namely mod 3, 4, 7 and 10, which are part of the US arsenal, involve nuclear bunker buster bombs with a lower yield to that of B61-11).

(For further details see http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/B61.html )

While the US Congress has blocked further research funding in fiscal 2005 on new more robust tactical nuclear weapons, this decision does not affect the existing arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons including the B61-11, developed during the Clinton administration. The B61-11 bunker busters are fully operational, The B61-11 has apparently been tested "resulting in its acceptance as a standard stockpile item". It has been cleared for battlefield use.

Part II of this article is forthcoming on Global Research

Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of nuclear war.

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America's "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.

To order Chossudovsky's book America's "War on Terrorism", click here.

Related Articles by the Author

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, by Michel Chossudovsky

Nuclear War against Iran, by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky's Presentation on The Dangers of a US Sponsored Nuclear War at the Perdana Peace Forum,
l

Michel Chossudovsky is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?,- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2007-11-09

Global Viewpoint
http://www.digitalnpq.org/articles/global/...raham_e._fuller
8 November 2007
ANTI-AMERICAN ISLAMIC NATIONALISM IS BEHIND PAKISTAN CRISIS

Graham E. Fuller, a former vice-chair of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA, is currently an adjunct professor of history at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, and the author of "The Future of Political Islam."

By Graham E. Fuller
WASHINGTON — Washington is now confronted with an essentially no-win situation in Pakistan. We are witnessing the culmination of many years of ad hoc American policies based on an abiding faith in the power of U.S. military force coupled with ignorance of the strategic, cultural and psychological realities of the region. At heart is an incompatibility of American strategic interests with those of Pakistan, particularly as perceived by the country’s strategic elite. Powerful popular forces of Pakistani and Islamic nationalism intensify this divide.
Washington wants what Pakistan will not deliver, or cannot deliver except to a modest degree. Bush wants to destroy al-Qaida in the Pak-Afghan region, a goal shared by Gen. Pervez Musharraf. But while al-Qaida lacks native roots in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden is still the object of sympathy by huge numbers in Pakistan and beyond. Humbled Muslim societies everywhere see bin Laden as one of the few figures in the Muslim world willing to stand up with honor and bravery to the American colossus and defy its imperial ambitions. That makes bin Laden more popular than Bush or Musharraf, even if most of the population does not share bin Laden’s vision of violent global jihadi struggle.
But Washington’s demands cut still closer to the Pakistani bone. Bush wants Pakistan to cut off cross-border contact between Pakistan and Afghanistan, to deny Pakistan as a safe haven for the Afghan Taliban.
Musharraf and his generals will pay lip service to this goal, but they will not ultimately do it. The reasons are not complex. As distasteful a symbol of primitive Islamic practice as the Taliban have been, today they represent essentially the major vehicle for Pashtun nationalism in Afghanistan, the single biggest ethnic group and much under-represented in the U.S.-backed Karzai government. More important, there are twice as many ethnic Pashtuns in Pakistan itself as there are in Afghanistan. The cross-border ties are inextricable: clan, family, history, culture, language, religion. This ethnic organism will not be sundered by the arbitrary and unpopular borders between the two countries. Pashtuns can, do and will casually ignore this artificial divide. Indeed, the Taliban as a political and ideological movement is growing more powerful within Pakistan itself.
Pakistan already has one powerful enemy on its eastern flank — India. It cannot afford to have a hostile Afghanistan on its western side. Every Pakistani strategic thinker knows this. Yet under the Karzai government in Afghanistan, the enemies of Pakistan — the anti-Pashtun Northern Alliance, and a strong Indian political and intelligence presence — have grown strong. Pakistan’s primary voice and influence inside Afghanistan comes mainly via the Taliban, supported behind the scenes by the Pakistani military on strategic grounds. Washington may rail at this, but it cannot change these facts on the ground.
Pakistan’s government is meanwhile still heavily influenced by powerful feudal rural landholders with regressive social and economic policies.
The country desperately needs agricultural and social reform. But reform will undercut the powerful feudalists, a key pillar of power. Benazir Bhutto, for all her Western polish, herself represents those very landowning powers in her native Sindh region. The kind of deep social reform required is not in the offing, neither with Musharraf nor with Bhutto. She has been tested — twice — and found wanting.
Washington wants a compliant Pakistan that will dutifully play its assigned role in the U.S. regional hegemonic vision. Washington will take it any way it can get it, with or without democracy. So U.S. calls for democracy are now issued in panic and ring hollow after six years of support for the Musharraf dictatorship. Pakistani liberals condemn the U.S. for supporting the Pakistani military dictatorship for so long in the name of an unpopular “war against terror” and perceive U.S. confrontationalism as only serving to inflame the militant jihadists.
Nor can the crisis in Pakistan be viewed in isolation. It is of a piece with the war in Afghanistan, and is inextricably linked as well to broader convulsions across the Middle East. Islamic “nationalism” is a growing force as activists push back against American “boots on the ground” — a Pentagon term more revealing than the Pentagon realizes. It is the U.S. military presence and strategy across the region that is seen to rob Muslims of their dignity and sovereignty, in what increasingly is understood as an American war against Islam — bolstered in Washington by neo-con calls for a “World War IV against Islamofascism.” U.S. policies have helped forge a unity of vision across a Muslim world that under more normal circumstances would be far more focused on distinctive local concerns.
The military remains the single most important force in Pakistan. It will most likely ensure that the country does not fall apart. Yet it incorporates many who sympathize with the Islamist agenda and the need to protect the country against outside domination. As radical Islamist power grows across the country, the military will not likely confront it directly; it will seek to divert it, placate some of it, accommodate large elements into the system where possible. We may even witness some bloodshed as militants clash with the military. But the military knows these forces cannot basically be destroyed by force. Meanwhile, the center of gravity is shifting toward the many Islamists who have joined hands with a few liberals against Musharraf. Any new political accommodation will likely be far less congenial to Washington.
Today the U.S. military presence is perhaps the single most inflammatory element in politics across the region. The American military response to this regional challenge only serves to exacerbate it. Sadly, Pakistan is now swift on the heels of Iraq and Afghanistan in heading toward increased civil strife and bitter anti-American emotions.
A “made in Washington” settlement in Afghanistan — the heart of the problem — is not going to work. It only generates increasing hostility as thousands more Lilliputians swarm the helpless Gulliver, drawing hostile Pakistani Islamists more deeply into the equation as well. In this sense bin Laden is winning. The region will only calm down following a withdrawal of U.S. forces from its confrontation with “Islam” and the development of a regional approach to the Afghan issue — one that acknowledges the deep interests of the main regional players who also seek stability in the region: Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China and India. Yet this reality is anathema to the hegemonic global strategy of the Bush administration.
And so the arc of Islamic crisis continues to swell.
GLOBAL VIEWPOINT, DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES (NOV. 8, 2007)

Uri Avnery
10.11.07

The Last Refuge

ISRAEL IS an island in the global sea. We live in a bubble. This week I was sharply reminded of this.

I was returning home from Germany. On the eve of the flight, all TV networks, from CNN and BBC to the German channels, were reporting on the events in Pakistan. In the airplane, I opened Israel's largest circulation tabloid, Yedioth Aharonoth, in order to read about the Pakistani mess. I did not find any mention of it on page 1. Nor on page 2. I found a small item on page 27. The first pages were devoted to something much more important: the shouts of protest by right-wing football hooligans when they were requested to stand up in memory of Yitzhak Rabin.

The next day, Yedioth found an Israeli angle that enabled it to put Pakistan on the front page after all: the fear that the Pakistani nuclear bomb would fall into the hands of Osama bin Laden, who would aim it at Israel. Hallelujah, there is again something to be afraid of.

But the putsch by Pervez Musharaf is a serious matter. It could well have far-reaching effects for the world in general, and for Israel in particular.

THE MAIN victim - besides, of course, the hundreds of political activists who have been thrown into prison - is George W. Bush.

Machiavelli said that it is preferable for the prince to be feared rather than loved. In the same vein, it can be said that it is preferable for a president to be hated rather than derided.

And derision is what George W. is attracting. He has asserted in the past that his main task was to bring democracy to the Muslim world, and has assured us that the implementation of this aim was well under way. That is a laughable pretense.

What is happening in fact?

- In Iraq one tyrant has been overthrown, and dozens of small local tyrants have taken over. The country is bleeding and falling apart. The "democratic elections" have brought to power a government that hardly governs the Green Zone in Baghdad, which has to be secured by American soldiers.

- In Afghanistan an "elected" president hardly rules the capital, Kabul. In the rest of the country, local chieftains are in control. And the Taliban are slowly and steadily re-conquering the country.

- In Iran, democratic elections have brought to power an uninhibited politician with a big mouth and small achievements, whose favorite occupation is to curse the American Crusaders and the "Zionist entity".

- In Syria there is a stable dictatorship, which can carry on mainly because the Syrians believe that any alternative would be worse.

- Turkey is ruled by a religious Islamic government, with the wife of the president wearing a headscarf. More than 10 million Kurdish citizens are oppressed and discriminated against. Not a few of them are fighting a guerilla war. In the course of the campaign against the Kurds, the Turkish army is about to invade neighboring Iraq, happy to have an opportunity to destroy the practically independent Kurdish regime there.

- Lebanon is as far from democracy as ever. Real democratic elections, in which every citizen can vote directly for parliament without sectarian divisions, are out of the question. A new president has to be elected, but that is well-nigh impossible, the gulf between the sects is so wide. This week, Hizbullah conducted large-scale maneuvers near the Israeli borders. Even the Israeli army was impressed.

- In Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the three "moderate" (read: dictatorial and pro-American) countries, there is a very original kind of democracy. Political opposition is languishing in prison.

- In Palestine, impeccable elections were held under strict international supervision, the only really democratic elections in the Arab world. George Bush would have been proud of them, if - alas - they had not been won by the "wrong" crowd - Hamas. Now, Israeli army intelligence prophesies that President Mahmoud Abbas, Bush's favorite, may fall immediately after the Annapolis conference, if, as expected, it ends in failure.

- And now, Pakistan. It seemed that there, at least, Bush was harvesting successes. He had brought back Benazir Bhutto, another Bush favorite, and everything looked fine:
a democratic regime was about to be re- installed, the president was about to hang up his uniform and form a coalition with Bhutto. But then a bomb exploded next to her armored car, dozens were killed. The president-general, who was just waiting for such an opportunity, carried out a coup d'etat against himself, and, instead of his moderate dictatorship, has set up a much more harsh regime, like a Pakistani version of the late Saddam Hussein.

As in a Hollywood comedy, George Bush is standing there with a custard pie splattered all over his face. He looks ridiculous.

NO PRESIDENT likes being ridiculous. Scary - OK. Evil - OK. Dumb - OK. But ridiculous - never!

That may have a direct bearing on a question that is worrying the whole world, myself included: Will he attack Iran?

The temptation is almost overwhelming. In another year, his term in office will come to an end. After eight years, he has nothing to show for it - except a continuous series of failures. But a man who (he says) holds daily talks with God cannot leave the stage of history like that.

He is longing for some sort of success in Annapolis. At the most, there will be an empty declaration signed by the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. There will be some good photo opportunities, but that will not satisfy the lions. Something much bigger is needed, something that will leave its mark in the annals of history.

What better than saving humanity from the Iranian nuclear bomb?

The German language has the expression "Flucht nach vorne" - an escape forwards. If you don't know what to do any more, attack your nearest enemy. Thus Napoleon invaded Russia, followed years later by Hitler. Bush may attack Iran for similar reasons.

I suspect that the decision has already been made and that the preparations are already rolling. There is no proof of that, but Bush behaves as if he has decided on war.

Washington's huge propaganda machine is working full-time to prepare the ground. Anyone who opposes is run over. According to the polls, the American public's support for the war is rising from day to day. The majority is already in favor. The new French president, behaving like a hyperactive schoolboy, has already jumped on the bandwagon and has supplanted Tony Blair as Bush's poodle.

ISRAEL IS SUPPOSED to play a central role in this piece.

Here, too, a huge brain-washing machine is already at work.

The Foreign Office has joined the effort and has started a world-wide campaign to besmirch Mohammed al-Baradei, the highly respected chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Every day, the obedient media publish reports by correspondents and commentators, who are but thinly disguised spokesmen for the army and the government. They tell us that within a year and a half Iran will already have a nuclear bomb, and that this will be the end of Israel and the world. As the Hebrew expression goes, the remedy must come before the disease. Therefore: Bomb! Bomb! Bomb!

One of the possible scenarios: Israel will bomb first. The Iranians will respond by launching missiles at Israel. The US will enter the action "to save Israel". Which American politician will dare to object? Who? Hillary Clinton??

Bush is dreaming again about a war without American casualties. A "surgical" air strike. A hail of "smart" bombs pours down on thousands of Iranian targets - nuclear, governmental, military and civil. What a sweet dream: Iran soon surrenders. The regime of the Ayatollahs collapses. The son of the late Shah takes his place on the throne of his father, who himself was once restored to power by American bayonets.

As I have said in the past, I am not convinced by this scenario. What will actually happen is that Iran will close the strait of Hormuz. Through this strait, named after an ancient Persian deity, flows 20% of the world's oil supplies. It is 270 km long and, at its narrowest, only 35 km wide. A few missiles and mines are enough to close it. That would be tolerable if the war lasted a few days. But if it goes on for weeks and months, it will cause a profound world-wide crisis.

And the war will indeed go on. There will be no escape for the US from committing very large ground forces to conquer first the region bordering on the straits, and then the entire big country. The US has no available ground forces left - even before the American forces in Iraq are exposed to missile attacks from Iran and to guerilla actions from the Shiites, who make up the majority in Iraq.

This will not be a quick and easy war. Iran is different from Iraq. Unlike Iraq, with its various peoples and sects, Iran is comparatively homogenous. This war will be an Iraq war multiplied by 10, perhaps by 100.

AND WE? How shall we get through this war?

Since the government of Israel and its American allies are pushing with all their political might for the attack, Israel will not be able to avoid contributing to the fighting, if the Americans request it. First our Air Force will be deployed, later land forces may be required.

But Israel itself will also become a battlefield. The pathetic missiles of Saddam Hussein caused, in their time, panic in Tel-Aviv. What will the Iranian missiles do?

The Arab governments will be compelled to support the US, at least with their tongues. But the hearts and souls of the Arab peoples, from Morocco to Iraq, will be with the Iranians defending themselves against the Americans and Israelis. Especially if the Annapolis meeting does end, as expected, without bringing redemption to the Palestinian people.

There is only one way to come out of this in one piece - not to get into it in the first place. But, after all the dismal failures he has suffered in Iraq, in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan - what can persuade Bush to resist the temptation? And how to persuade Ehud Olmert, who longs for a way out of the quagmire he is stuck in?

It has been said that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". For a failed politician, the last refuge is war.

BUSH'S OLD WORLD DISORDER - SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL (SALON, NOVEMBER 8): http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/20...musharraf_bush/

CONDI EARNS C MINUS - JOHN MERCURIO (NEWSMAX, NOVEMBER 8): http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/rice_grad...1/08/47950.html

HOW TO WIN THE WAR OF IDEAS - ROBERT SATLOFF (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 10): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0901897_pf.html

KAREN HUGHES' IMPOSSIBLE MISSION - (ALAN BOCK'S BLOG: ALAN BOCK'S BLOG, WRITER FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, AND AUTHOR OF WAITING TO INHALE, AND AMBUSH AT RUBY RIDGE): http://alanbock.blogspot.com/2007/11/karen...le-mission.html
FINISHING THE JOB IN AFGHANISTAN - HANS BINNENDIJK (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 10): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194650920...in_commentaries PAID SUBSCRIPTION

A NEW APPROACH TO PAKISTAN - JOE BIDEN (REAL CLEAR POLITICS, NOVEMBER 8): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...o_pakistan.html

LEFT COAST: PAKISTAN: THE CASE FOR RADICAL FOREIGN POLICY - KAI STINCHCOMBE (STANFORD DAILY, NOVEMBER 8): http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/11/...alForeignPolicy

MUSLIM WORLD: CURE FOR MIDDLE EAST - SPENCER HIGLEY, EDMONDS (ONLINE-ONLY LETTERS, SEATTLE TIMES, NOVEMBER 8): The most effective way to improve our image would be to stop supporting the tyranny of Israel. Instead of spending millions for the efforts of Ms. Hughes' organization, we could save the $3 billion a year given to Israel.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/edit..._weblets08.html
GALLUP: BUSH FINALLY TOPS NIXON -- IN UNPOPULARITY -- AS CALL FOR IRAQ PULLOUT HITS NEW PEAK? DOUG (FREE EXPRESSION, DENNIS KUSINICH, NOVEMBER 10): http://free--expression.blogspot.com/2007/...s-nixon-in.html

SMART POWER (POLITICAL SPIN REMOVAL: CONFRONTING US POLITICS WITH REASON AND EVIDENCE STOPS THE SPIN LONG ENOUGH TO REVEAL PRINCIPLES AND VALUES, NOVEMBER 8): The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) http://political-innocence.blogspot.com/20...mart-power.html

AMERICANS ARE UNCOMFORTABLE AS THUGS - RAMI G. KHOURI, DAILY STAR (POSTED BY HUBRIS IN BUTLERDEMBLOG: THE BLOG OF THE BUTLER COUNTY DEMOCRATS FOR CHANGE (DPAC), NOVEMBER 10): http://butlerdemblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/...view-of-us.html

REBEL DIPLOMATS - FRED GEDRICH (NEW YORK POST, NOVEMBER 8): http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print....mats_242214.htm

'THIS PRETTY MUCH KILLS THE IRAN DEMOCRACY PROGRAM' - ELI LAKE (NEW YORK SUN, NOVEMBER 8): http://www.nysun.com/article/66065

FAILED DIPLOMACY THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, NOVEMBER 8: http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/11/...-diplomacy.html

AND ANOTHER ONE... - CLAUDE SALHANI (KHALEEJ TIMES ONLINE, NOVEMBER 8): http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle...opinion&col=
BUSH RATES POORLY IN SURVEY WHILE PUTIN GAINS STATUS - JULIE CHAZYN (INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, NOVEMBER 10): http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/08/america/poll.php

LESSONS FROM 'GHANZI PROVINCE' - SARAH HOLEWINSKI (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 10): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0901896_pf.html

THE EXPAT LIFE: THE FREEDOM ABROAD TO TRY A NEW TUNE - ALAN PAUL (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 9): http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB1194...9287886425.html PAID SUBSCRIPTION

NOTES FROM ITALY: THE OVERSIZED EMBASSY - PETER BRIDGES (CALIFORNIA LITERARY REVIEW, NOVEMBER 6): http://calitreview.com/2007/11/06/notes-fr...rsized-embassy/

GREAT MONEY AND PERKS. COME TO IRAQ - MARK KUKIS TIME, NOVEMBER 5): http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1680730,00.html
MEMO TO U.S. DIPLOMATS: COME AND JOIN US - SILVIA SPRING (NEWSWEEK, NOVEMBER 5): http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/checkpo...aspx?print=true

REPORT: 14 PERCENT OF IRAQIS NOW DISPLACED - MCCLATCHY NEWS SERVICE (MIAMI HERALD, NOVEMBER 7): http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/298482.html

OFFICIALS CITE RETURN OF IRAQIS TO BAGHDAD AS VIOLENCE DECLINES - AMIT R. PALEY (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 8): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0700516_pf.html

BLACKWATER'S IMPUNITY: NEITHER IRAQI NOR U.S. LAWS APPLY TO ITS CONTRACTORS, SO A CONTROVERSIAL SHOOTING MAY GO UNPUNISHED EDITORIAL (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 9)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-...pinion-leftrail
HOW THEY DID IT: EXECUTING THE WINNING STRATEGY IN IRAQ - KIMBERLY KAGAN (WEEKLY STANDARD, NOVEMBER 19)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...14/346ydlgo.asp
2007 IS THE DEADLIEST YEAR FOR U.S. IN AFGHANISTAN - (ASSOCIATED PRESS, NOVEMBER 10)
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8dGftY...vh1CKAD8SQO7TG0
DR. JEKYLL AND MR. MUSHARRAF - ROGER COHEN (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 8): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

NEWS ANALYSIS: U.S. STRATEGY FOR PAKISTAN LOOKS MORE FRAGILE - HELENE COOPER (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 10): .
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/world/as...agewanted=print
PAKISTAN ON THE BRINK - DIANA WEST (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 9): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart

PAKISTANIS SAY NO - HUSAIN HAQQANI (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 8): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194488242...in_commentaries
PAID SUSCRIPTION

PAKISTAN'S PLAN B DEFICIENCY: LIKE ITS ALLIANCE WITH THE SHAH, THE U.S. IS RELYING TOO HEAVILY ON MUSHARRAF -- AND IT ISN'T WORKING - GARY SICK (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 10)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...-opinion-center

THOSE NUCLEAR FLASHPOINTS ARE MADE IN PAKISTAN - DOUGLAS FRANTZ AND CATHERINE COLLINS (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0702280_pf.html

MUSHARRAF'S LATEST PLEDGE ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 9): http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/200.../111090006/1013

ROSES AND REALITY IN GEORGIA EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 10): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/opinion/...agewanted=print

THE BUSH-BIDEN DOCTRINE REVIEW & OUTLOOK (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 10): .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194650473...ew_and_outlooks PAID SUBSCRIPTION

GATHERING STORM EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 8): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/opinion/...agewanted=print

AN INDIA-U.S. ALLIANCE? - AUSTIN BAY (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 9): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart

AMERICA FEELS L'AMOUR - TOBIN HARSHAW (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 8):
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/...tml?ref=opinion
SARKOZY MUST AVOID BLAIR'S MISTAKES' EDITORIAL (FINANCIAL TIMES, NOVEMBER 10): http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1397bcc4-8efd-11...?nclick_check=1

THE FRENCH CONNECTION: NICOLAS SARKOZY'S CHEERY U.S. VISIT HAS THE PRESS HOWLING THAT HE'S BUSH'S NEW LAP DOG -- MAYBE EVEN IF IT COMES TO HITTING IRAN - GREGOR PETER SCHMITZ (SALON, NOVEMBER 8)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/...kozy/print.html
BY POPULAR DEMAND: OLIVIER'S DINNER REPORT ? (BELTWAY CONFIDENTIAL, NOVEMBER 7): http://blogs.chron.com/beltwayconfidential...iers_din_1.html

TORTURE IS ALWAYS WRONG - THOMAS G. BOHLIN, MONSIGNOR, U.S. VICAR OF OPUS DEI (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 8)
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith...ways_wrong.html
TORTURED VALUES, TORTURED LOGIC - C. WELTON GADDY (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER): .
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith...ured_logic.html
WE HAVE WAYS...THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO DISAVOW TORTURE -- AND TO OFFICIALIZE ITS PRACTICE - JAMES BOVARD (AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, NOVEMBER 5)
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_11_05/article3.html
TORTURE: THE NEW ABORTION: THE LEGALITY OF TORTURE TAKES OVER AS THE POLITICAL LITMUS TEST IN CAMPAIGNS AND CONFIRMATION HEARINGS - ROSA BROOKS (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 8): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions

WATERBOARDING IS NOT SIMULATED DROWNING -- IT IS DROWNING: A FORMER INSTRUCTOR AT THE SCHOOL DESIGNED TO TEACH U.S. SOLDIERS HOW TO RESIST TORTURE SPEAKS OUT AGAINST THE "TERRIFYING, PAINFUL" TECHNIQUE ? (SALON, NOVEMBER 9): This is the full statement Malcom W. Nance prepared for his testimony at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties on Thursday, Nov. 8.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/09/nance/
HOW CHENEY TOOK CONTROL OF BUSH'S FOREIGN POLICY: THE NEW VEEP INSTALLED CRONY DON RUMSFELD AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, AND WOULD'VE WON PAUL WOLFOWITZ THE TOP POST AT CIA -- IF NOT FOR WOLFOWITZ'S ZIPPER PROBLEM - CRAIG UNGER (SALON, NOVEMBER 9)
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/11...sh_3/print.html
RICE'S MANAGEMENT AT ISSUE: CRITICS CITE BLACKWATER, BAGHDAD EMBASSY AND PASSPORTS - GLENN KESSLER (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 10): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0902450_pf.html





See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Americans are uncomfortable as thugs
By Rami G. Khouri
Daily Star staff
Saturday, November 10, 2007

An intriguing dual process is taking place in the United States these days that deserves to be better appreciated around the world. On the one hand, presidential hopefuls in both parties jump over each other to be more supportive of Israel, more aggressive against Iran, and more blind to the real sources and nature of terrorism that targets the US and others in the world. On the other hand, more sensible Americans are charting a more constructive, realistic and mutually beneficial approach to engaging the world.

The poverty of the foreign policy public debate in the US is driven in large part by the Bush administration's agenda setting, leading to much sloganeering and macho muscle-flexing, and little serious debate of the big foreign policy issues that now link the United States so tightly to complex conditions in the Middle East and Asia. This is tinged with occasional glimpses of frightening racism beneath the surface, vis-ˆ-vis Arabs, Iran and Muslims in general.

A more accurate reflection of ordinary Americans' greater sense and compassionate values was offered this week with the publication of a bipartisan report by a group of respected Republicans, Democrats and independents that proposes to the next American president a new policy for engaging the rest of the world - on the basis of optimism rather than fear.

The report, entitled "A smarter, more secure America," was produced by a bipartisan panel sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, co-chaired by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and former senior Defense Department official and now Harvard professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr. ( www.csis.org) Its basic message is that the United States' image and influence are in decline around the world, and if the US wishes to maintain a leading role in global affairs it "must move from eliciting fear and anger to inspiring optimism and hope."

It proposes a policy based on the use of "smart power" that combines America's vast and appealing "soft power" assets (culture, education, media, sports, business, technology, etc.) with traditional "hard power" tools like diplomacy, economic sanctions and military force. This would allow the US to "build the framework it needs to tackle tough global challenges," by focusing on five critical areas: alliances, partnerships and institutions; global development; public diplomacy that builds long-term, pe