Saturday, May 21, 2022
Home Search

Iran - search results

If you're not happy with the results, please do another search

Gold Reaches 155,180 Yen/oz – Near Record In Japanese Yen

From GoldCore

Gold Reaches 155,180 Yen/oz - Near Record In Japanese Yen

Today’s AM fix was USD 1,664.25, EUR 1,224.52, and GBP 1,057.47 per ounce.
Friday’s AM fix was USD 1,665.00, EUR 1,217.99, and GBP 1,052.46 per ounce.

Silver is trading at $31.57/oz, €23.37/oz and £20.17/oz. Platinum is trading at $1,701.00/oz, palladium at $754.00/oz and rhodium at $1,200/oz.


Cross Currency Table – (Bloomberg)

Gold rose $3.00 or 0.18% in New York Friday and closed at $1,667.80/oz. Silver surged to a high of $32.14 and finished with a gain of 1.18%. 

Gold advanced 0.54% for the week, while silver was up 1.99%.

Gold rose initially on Monday prior to seeing determined selling. Gold was unable to break its narrow trading range despite rising after the poor GDP number last week.

While sentiment towards gold remains lukewarm due to recent tepid price action and confusing, mixed economic data, platinum rose to a 4 month high ($1,705.25) and palladium soared to its highest since September 2011 ($759.75) primarily due to concerns about supply especially from South Africa.

The run up in platinum and palladium is also due to U.S. auto sales reporting that January topped estimates, as car buyers returned to U.S. showrooms.

This week’s U.S. economic highlights include Factory Orders at 1500 GMT today, ISM Services on Tuesday, Initial Jobless Claims, Productivity, Unit Labor Costs, and Consumer Credit on Thursday, and the Trade Balance and Wholesale Inventories on Friday.

The Eurozone Sentiment and PPI are also released today and currency and gold traders will be paying close attention to the ECB's monthly policy statement on Thursday for any attempt by the ECB to weaken the euro as currency wars heat up.

The Chinese week long holiday for the Lunar New Year starts on Saturday and therefore physical buying will continue this week and lend support prior to becoming quiet next week.

Holdings of SPDR Gold Trust, remained unchanged for its 4th session at 1,328.092 tonnes

The benchmark gold on Tokyo Commodity Exchange (TOCOM) hit a record high of 5,000 yen a gram, driven by a weak yen and the continuation of the Bank of Japan’s loose monetary policy.


XAU/JPY, 1 Year – (Bloomberg)

Gold bullion for delivery in December climbed as high as 1.2% to 5,000 yen per gram on the TOCOM. In ounce terms, the yen fell to 155,180/oz against gold, its highest level since 1980. 

According to the data on Bloomberg, the all-time record high for gold priced in yen was 204,850 yen on January 21, 1980.

Thus, yen gold remains 33% below the record intraday nominal high from 1980. Given the Japanese determination to devalue the yen to escape deflation, the record nominal high will almost certainly be reached in the coming months.

Platinum also climbed 2.7% to 5,130 yen per gram for the same month, the highest level for the most-active contract since May of 2010.

The yen was 92.97 per dollar on Feb. 1st its, the lowest ratio since May 2010. The Japanese yen dropped 2.1% last week its 12thweek of losses in a row.

Despite Japanese Finance Minister Taro Aso claiming that “the objectives from the current government are not intended to weaken the yen” – that is exactly what is happening.


XAU/JPY, Quarterly, 1971-Today – (Bloomberg)

A cheaper yen boosts Japanese exporters.  It helps increase the earnings abroad when they are funnelled back into yen, plus it lowers the price abroad of goods that are made in Japan and exported.  The country’s strong auto and electronics sector benefitting from the cheap yen are outperforming the benchmark index. 

The yen fell by more than 20% against gold in 2012 and analysts are concerned that Prime Minister Abe and his new government’s determination to stoke inflation, devalue the currency and promote growth could lead to further falls in 2013.

Competitive currency devaluations are set to continue and currency wars deepen and such beggar thy neighbour monetary policies will lead to debased currencies, inflation and the real risk of an international monetary crisis.

NEWS  

Gold in Tokyo Advances to Record; Platinum Reaches Two-Year High - Bloomberg

Gold Little Changed as Investors Weigh U.S. Jobs, Growth Outlook - Bloomberg

Gold slips as upbeat U.S. data trims safe-haven draw - Reuters

Platinum Market Seen Producing Deficit of up to 760,000 Ounces in 2013 – Fox Business

COMMENTARY

The Case Of The Disappearing Gold – Zero Hedge

Dubai gold dealers shun Turkish bars on fears of Iran link - Mineweb

Former Iranian Central Bank Head Caught Smuggling $70 Million Bank Of Venezuela Check Into Germany  - Associate Press

The looming gold ‘production cliff’ – Mining.com

Your rating: None

Salehi meets with Turkey, Slovakia FMs

Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has met with his Turkish and Slovakian counterparts on the sidelines of the annual Munich Security Conference in Germany.

During separate meetings on Sunday, Salehi discussed bilateral ties as well as recent regional developments with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Slovakian Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajcak.

Accompanied by Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast, Salehi left Tehran for Munich on Saturday to attend the 49th security conference.

The ongoing crises in Mali and Syria as well as the economic situation in the eurozone were among the topics of discussion in the three-day event.

In the meeting with his Slovakian counterpart, the Iranian foreign minister highlighted the high capacities for the enhancement of Tehran-Bratislava cooperation and invited Lajcak to pay an official visit to Iran.


The Slovakian foreign minister, for his part, stressed the importance of mutual ties with the Islamic republic and voiced his country’s readiness to expand cooperation with Tehran.

YH/HMV

‘Sanctions show enmity against Syrians’

Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Saeed Jalili says imposing economic sanctions against Syria reveals the enemies’ hostility toward the Syrian people.

In a press conference in Syria’s capital, Damascus, on Monday, Jalili said the enemies of Syria have been mounting pressures on the Arab state over the past two years.

The Iranian official added that imposing economic sanctions against a country and attempting to destroy its infrastructures demonstrates the enmity toward the people of that country.

The United States and some of its allies have imposed sanctions on Syria. The sanctions include the purchase, import and transport of oil and other petroleum products from Syria.

Referring to Syria’s role in the Islamic resistance front, Jalili said the solidarity and strong relation between the Syrian nation and government allows Damascus to fully support the anti-Israeli resistance front.


The Iranian official also emphasized that the only solution to the ongoing crisis in Syria is national dialog.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since mid-March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of security personnel, have been killed in the violence.

The Syrian government says the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants fighting the Syrian government are foreign nationals.

MYA/HMV/HJL

‘Israeli aggression must be stopped’

Iran’s Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani has condemned the recent Israeli attack on Syria, saying Tel Aviv must not be allowed to carry on with its acts of aggression against regional countries.

In a phone conversation with Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabi Berry on Monday, Larijani said, “Israel must not be allowed to continue its aggressive measures against regional countries by taking advantage of the current situation in Syria.”

“The issue of Palestine is still the main priority for the Muslim world; and despite the situation in the region, Muslim nations will continue their support for the oppressed people of Palestine against the Israeli regime.”
Berry, for his part, also condemned Israel’s attack against Syria and said the crisis in the Arab state is an attempt to weaken the resistance front against Tel Aviv and in line with the Israeli regime’s interests.

On January 30, the Syrian army said two people had been killed and five others injured in an Israeli airstrike on a research center in Jamraya, near the capital, Damascus.

The Lebanese official described the raid as “a plot not only against Syria, but against all Muslim countries.”

Also in separate phone talks with Larijani, Iraqi Parliament Speaker Osama Najifi and his Algerian counterpart Mohamed al-Arabi Ould Khalifa condemned Israel’s attack on Syria.


The Algerian Parliament speaker called for solidarity and cooperation to prevent more acts of aggression by Israel against regional countries.

Khalifa added that reforms and the establishment of democracy are the only real solutions to the crisis in Syria.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since mid-March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of security personnel, have been killed in the violence.

The Syrian government says the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants fighting the Syrian government are foreign nationals.

MYA/HMV/HJL

Investing in Silver, Moving out of the Dollar: The Roman Denarius, the American Dollar...

silver

If the US dollar collapses, it will have a dramatic impact on the world economy because the dollar is the standard unit of currency for commodity markets, especially gold and oil. The U.S. dollar is still the world’s reserve currency, but the reality is that it can lead the world into an economic depression.

Nations with large external debts will not be able to trade sufficiently to earn the needed income to service their debts. They will slide into bankruptcy. However, countries such as Russia and China are taking necessary steps to avoid an economic tsunami caused by a collapse of the US dollar by announcing in 2010 that they will use their own currencies which is the Russian Ruble and the Chinese Yuan for bilateral trade.

Iran and India decided to trade gold for oil due to US sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear program.

Japan and China announced that they will also trade in their own currencies despite diplomatic problems involving the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea.  One thing is certain, the world is slowly but surely moving away from the US dollar.

The cost of living among people who deal with the US dollar on a daily basis especially by those who live within the United States will see a rapid decline in the standards of living due to Federal Reserve Bank’s debasement of the dollar by printing unlimited amounts of money through Quantitative easing (QE). The Federal Reserve’s action will cause food, clothing and energy prices to soar, which will hurt the average family. As the US Federal Reserve Bank continues to print dollars, the result will be inflation. It will cause panic on the world markets and civil unrest among the people who realize that the US dollars they depend on would no longer be able to buy their basic necessities.  What can be done around the world to avoid such a scenario when the collapse of the dollar is inevitable? History proves that silver can become an alternative currency that can replace the dollar, although many countries are purchasing large amounts of gold such as Russia and China with other countries in Latin America and Asia following in the same footsteps.  However, silver will still be a good option.  At least you have a choice in which precious metals you can invest in.

Silver has been used for thousands of years as a monetary system for the economies of past civilizations. Silver was first discovered in 4000 BC in Anatolia, today’s Modern Turkey with the use of “Electrum”, a gold and silver mix currency. Between 449-413 BC Greece used the “Athenian Owl” a pure silver coin remained in circulation up to 30 BC.

Silver was recognized as more precious than Gold in ancient Egypt as early as 930 BC. The Roman Empire relied on silver to pay for certain commodities such as silk from China. In the Roman Empire, the “denarius”, a pure 100% silver coin was the currency of choice for more than 5 centuries until its gradual debasement that began with Emperor Augustus.

This debasement of the metal in terms of purity fluctuated with the strength of the Empire through its military. It was an indication that Rome lacked precious metals and reduced treasury savings due to their expansionist Imperial policies that resulted in inflation. High taxes on the Roman population further weakened the economy to pay for military expenses. Roman Emperor Nero (54-68 A.D.) preferred to debase the denarius to 87% silver to pay the costs of the military and the ever expanding bureaucracy than raise taxes on the people who were already being heavily taxed. But Nero and other emperors that followed chose to debase the currency by reducing the denarius metal content was already a form of taxation. The devaluation continued with the silver content valued at 50% towards the end of the 2nd century. By the middle of the 3rd century, the denarius was comprised of 0.05% silver.

Around A.D. 215, Rome issued the “Antoninianus” that was valued at twice that of a denarius but was short lived, as the silver content was also removed over several decades of devaluation. The coin was then made from bronze that eventually became useless as the circulation of these coins contained no silver as the Roman currency became worthless.Rome collapsed soon after.

China also used silver throughout most of its history for trade. In 1791, the first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States Alexander Hamilton called for the establishment of a national currency with gold and silver or “bimetallism” as a form of money. The US Congress passed legislation the following year by establishing gold and silver as the “monetary standards” of the United States through the 1792 Coinage Act. The gold standard was regulated at 15 times the valueUS Dollar of silver. The dollar was then established as the basic monetary unit that was instrumental in the creation of the national mint. The dollar was defined through the weight of silver. The death penalty was enacted as a rule of law for anyone who decided to debase the value of the new currency. But these laws were changed as the system became politically corrupt as the years went by. In Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution stated the following:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

The future of silver has potential to become an alternative currency because the world’s reserve currency, the US dollar, is not stable.  “The dollar is an unreliable international currency and should be replaced by a more stable system” according to CNN on June 29, 2010 based on a report conducted by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.  Silver can be used for a number of industries that produce goods that can be sold internationally. It can open the global markets for trade among nations. Silver is the best conductor of electricity. From computers to cell phones and switches all must use silver. Technology based industries that produce lasers, satellites, and robotics need silver to operate. Digital technology and telecommunications also need silver. It is used in televisions, wall switches and refrigerators and other appliances. Silver is used in the chemical industry for the production of plastics. In the Healthcare industry silver is found in many pharmaceuticals such as silver sulfadiazine, which is used for burn treatments. It can be used for water purification purposes as well. And the list goes on. Silver is a valuable metal that can be used for many industries.

The US government is on the path to an economic collapse just as the Roman Empire when Ben Bernanke announced unlimited QE back on September 13, 2012.  This means endless printing of the dollar until it becomes completely worthless.  The US has devalued their currency by printing dollars to bail out the banks and auto industry and to fund the Military-Industrial Complex which will have an impact on the economy. The more you print, the dollar becomes less valuable just as what happened to the denarius during Roman times. The US dollar will collapse sooner or later as countries around the world continue to move away from the dollar and look to other forms of currencies that are reliable.

The United States government cannot finance its debt by printing more money. Market forces will dictate when interest rates will rise as it would make the US Federal debt more expensive to service the debt.

If the Federal Reserve Bank decided to run the printing press, it would lead to hyperinflation. A scenario the US population and the rest of the world does not want to see.  The US population would no doubt witness a massive rise in interest rates on practically everything from credit cards, home mortgages, student loans, auto loans and every other loan you can imagine.

The best option for anyone who wants to protect themselves from the dollar collapse should invest in silver or any other precious metals that includes gold. History has shown that precious metals especially silver can be used as a currency that has intrinsic value. The best thing people and nation-states can do is to look outside the US dollar because sooner or later the Federal Reserve Bank would not able to sustain the economy with the printing press because market forces as always will be the deciding factor. Silver is a viable option for both short and long-term investments. The most important factor to investing in silver is to protect you and your family.  Silver will be in demand in the near future as it was in the past because history has always told us so.

‘Israelis plan buffer zone in Syria’

File photo shows the line that separates Syria from the Israeli occupied lands on Golan Heights.

The Israeli military's northern command allegedly harbors plan to establish a “buffer zone” inside Syria towards the alleged aim of fending off militant attacks.

"There's a plan in the military's northern command for the 'day after' according to which, when Bashar Assad is no longer president of Syria, there's a fear that terror elements will try to approach the fence," AFP reported on Sunday, citing unnamed Israeli military sources. The sources were referring to the fence separating Syria from the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

"So they want to create some sort of buffer zone within Syrian territory, and let everyone know. This is to prevent a situation where terror reaches the fence without us being able to prevent it, by allowing us to see it," the sources said.

The sources explained that the buffer zone could reach up to 10 miles (16 kilometers) in the Golan Heights -- an area Israel captured in the 1967 war -- and would, in initial stage, include two Israeli infantry brigades and a tank battalion based at outposts in Syrian territory.


Earlier on Sunday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said that Israel was trying to destabilize Syria by its recent attack outside Damascus.

In a meeting with Secretary of Iran Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, Assad also said the airstrike on Jamraya exposed Tel Aviv’s collaboration with foreign-backed insurgents.

According to a statement issued by the Syrian Army on Wednesday, Israeli fighter jets “carried out a direct strike” on the research center in Jamraya in the early hours of the day, killing two people and injuring five others.

Syrian Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Abdul Karim Ali said on Thursday that his country had the option to respond to the Israeli airstrike.

He said Damascus was likely to take “a surprise decision to respond to the aggression of the Israeli warplanes.”

Also on Thursday, Syria called on the UN Security Council to issue a “clear condemnation of the flagrant Israeli attack on the territories of a sovereign state and the Israeli violation of the UN Charter, the international law, the [Agreement on] Disengagement…in 1974 and the relevant UNSC resolutions.”

Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of Army and security personnel, have been killed in the violence.

The Syrian government has said that the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and that a very large number of the militants operating in the country are foreign nationals.

MN/HN

‘Israelis plan buffer zone in Syria’

File photo shows the line that separates Syria from the Israeli occupied lands on Golan Heights.

The Israeli military's northern command allegedly harbors plan to establish a “buffer zone” inside Syria towards the alleged aim of fending off militant attacks.

"There's a plan in the military's northern command for the 'day after' according to which, when Bashar Assad is no longer president of Syria, there's a fear that terror elements will try to approach the fence," AFP reported on Sunday, citing unnamed Israeli military sources. The sources were referring to the fence separating Syria from the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

"So they want to create some sort of buffer zone within Syrian territory, and let everyone know. This is to prevent a situation where terror reaches the fence without us being able to prevent it, by allowing us to see it," the sources said.

The sources explained that the buffer zone could reach up to 10 miles (16 kilometers) in the Golan Heights -- an area Israel captured in the 1967 war -- and would, in initial stage, include two Israeli infantry brigades and a tank battalion based at outposts in Syrian territory.


Earlier on Sunday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said that Israel was trying to destabilize Syria by its recent attack outside Damascus.

In a meeting with Secretary of Iran Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, Assad also said the airstrike on Jamraya exposed Tel Aviv’s collaboration with foreign-backed insurgents.

According to a statement issued by the Syrian Army on Wednesday, Israeli fighter jets “carried out a direct strike” on the research center in Jamraya in the early hours of the day, killing two people and injuring five others.

Syrian Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Abdul Karim Ali said on Thursday that his country had the option to respond to the Israeli airstrike.

He said Damascus was likely to take “a surprise decision to respond to the aggression of the Israeli warplanes.”

Also on Thursday, Syria called on the UN Security Council to issue a “clear condemnation of the flagrant Israeli attack on the territories of a sovereign state and the Israeli violation of the UN Charter, the international law, the [Agreement on] Disengagement…in 1974 and the relevant UNSC resolutions.”

Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of Army and security personnel, have been killed in the violence.

The Syrian government has said that the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and that a very large number of the militants operating in the country are foreign nationals.

MN/HN

‘Terrorist acts will bear no fruit in Syria’

Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Saeed Jalili (L) meets Syrian National Reconciliation Minister Ali Haidar in Damascus on February 2, 2013. Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Saeed Jalili slams the ongoing acts o...

By Printing Money Central Banks Have Already Begun the Next Stage of Warfare

Since the Financial Crisis erupted in 2007, the US Federal Reserve has engaged in dozens of interventions/ bailouts to try and prop up the financial system. Now, I realize that everyone knows the Fed is “printing money.” However, when you look at the list of bailouts/ money pumps it’s absolutely staggering how much money the Fed has thrown around.

Here’s a recap of some of the larger Fed moves during the Crisis:

  • Cutting interest rates from 5.25-0.25% (Sept ’07-today).
  • The Bear Stearns deal/ taking on $30 billion in junk mortgages (Mar ’08).
  • Opening various lending windows to investment banks (Mar ’08).
  • Hank Paulson spends $400 billion on Fannie/ Freddie (Sept ’08).
  • The Fed takes over insurance company AIG for $85 billion (Sept ’08).
  • The Fed doles out $25 billion for the automakers (Sept ’08)
  • The Fed kicks off the $700 billion TARP program (Oct ’08)
  • The Fed buys commercial paper from non-financial firms (Oct ’08)
  • The Fed offers $540 billion to backstop money market funds (Oct ’08)
  • The Fed agrees to back up to $280 billion of Citigroup’s liabilities (Oct ’08).
  • $40 billion more to AIG (Nov ’08)
  • The Fed backstops $140 billion of Bank of America’s liabilities (Jan ’09)
  • Obama’s $787 Billion Stimulus (Jan ’09)
  • QE 1 buys $1.25 trillion in Treasuries and mortgage debt (March ’09)
  • QE lite buys $200-300 billion of Treasuries and mortgage debt (Aug ’10)
  • QE 2 buys $600 billion in Treasuries (Nov ’10)
  • Operation Twist reshuffles $400 billion of the Fed’s portfolio (Oct ’11)
  • QE 3 buys $40 billion of Mortgage Backed Securities monthly (Sept ‘12)
  • QE 4 buys $45 billion worth of Treasuries monthly (Dec ’12)

The Fed is not the only one. Collectively, the world’s Central Banks have pumped over $10 trillion into the financial system since 2007. This money printing has resulted in a massive expansion of Central Bank balance sheets, spread inflation into the system, and done nothing to address the key solvency issues that lead up to the great crisis.

This competitive debasement has lead to increased tension between the world’s Central Banks. You will never hear their stated outright for the simple reason that the single most important responsibility of the Central Banks is to maintain confidence in the system.

However, underneath the veneer of goodwill and the occasional necessary coordinated intervention, tensions are rising between Central Banks. When the US debases the US Dollar it pushes the Euro higher. This hurts German exports which in turn angers the Bundesbank.

The Bundesbank fired a warning shot at the Fed last autumn when it announced it wanted to have its Gold reserves at the Fed audited. To be clear here: no one of major financial import has ever questioned the Fed’s trustworthiness before. However, at the time of this announcement Germany stated it had no intentions of actually moving its reserves.

Fast-forward to today and Germany has not only audited and checked its Gold reserves at the Fed but it is now moving them. In plain terms, Germany has told the world that A) it does not trust the Fed and B) it is through playing around.

This situation will likely be getting worse going forward. The fact that Germany will be removing all of its Gold reserves from France certainly doesn’t bode well for future German French relations if push ever comes to shove (it’s not as though Europe has a history of getting along well).

Look for increased tension to grow between the world’s Central Banks in the coming months and years. This tension will likely result in:

  1. Economic warfare (see the recent situation in Iran)
  2. Political infighting
  3. Key players being sacrificed

Given that the financial system and economic “recovery” have been built on a house of cards, these political developments will have major impacts on the financial markets.

Outside of internal dissent, the power players in the global economy (the US, China, Japan, and Germany) are showing increasing signs of tension both internal (China and the US) as well as external (China vs. Japan, Germany vs. the US, the US vs. China).

These tensions will lead to economic warfare and very likely physical warfare in the coming years.

We offer several FREE Special Reports to help investors navigate this risk and others in the financial system. They include:

Preparing Your Portfolio For Obama’s Economic Nightmare

How to Protect Yourself From Inflation

And last but not least…

Bullion 101: Everything You Need to Know About Investing in Gold and Silver Bullion…

You can pick up free copies of all of the above at:

http://gainspainscapital.com/

Best

Phoenix Capital Research

Your rating: None

Hip-Hop and the Politics of Social Engineering: Lupe Fiasco, Jay-Z and Barack Obama’s Inauguration

lupofiasco2

One particular story during President Obama’s inauguration did not make headlines in the main stream media.  Rapper Lupe Fiasco was performing live at the StartUp RockOn concert to celebrate the re-election of President Barack H. Obama on January 21st at the Hamilton in Washington D.C. 

Lupe Fiasco (Wasalu Muhammad Jaco) was kicked off the stage by Obama’s secret service detail because he was singing Anti-Obama lyrics that annoyed many of the President’s Supporters.

He was singing one of his most political songs called “Words I never said” which was released back on 2011.

The lyrics to the song that got Fiasco escorted off the stage was “Limbaugh is a racist, Glenn Beck is a racist. Gaza strip was getting bombed.  Obama didn’t say sh*t. That’s why I ain’t vote for him, next one either.” 

In an article published by the London based newspaper The Guardian who interviewed Lupe Fiasco in April of 2008 called “Lupe’s Dreams”.

Lupe said “With my mother in the ‘hood, it was a house full of National Geographics, political and social discourse and no television,” he remembers. “Then all this stuff I would read about in those books, my father would be doing. I saw him shut down crackhouses, open karate schools for free, run non-profit organisations, pass out Black Panther party literature…”

Lupe Fiasco in Washington DC (right)

Lupe Fiasco is not a rapper like Jay-Z or Kanye West.

Lupe Fiasco in Washington DC

His parents had positive influences in his life early on, despite living in Chicago, one of the most crime-ridden cities in the United States.  In a CBS interview, an online segment called ‘What’s Trending’ with Shira Lazar on June, 8th, 2011, Lupe Fiasco made it known, who he thought was a terrorist:

“My fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America. I’m trying to fight the terrorism that’s actually causing the other forms of terrorism. You know, the root cause of terrorism is the stuff the U.S. government allows to happen. The foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists.”

Lupe Fiasco reiterated his stance on the Obama administration in a Fox News interview with Bill O’ Reilly of the ‘O Reilly Factor’:

O’REILLY: You know, President Obama is not a terrorist. He’s trying to do what he believes is the right thing to do. The United States is not a bad nation. It’s a noble nation. We’re trying to defend ourselves against people who killed us on 9/11. And then you go out there and you talk to a lot of younger people. And this is what gets me, that your constituency are not exactly political science Ph.Ds, OK? They’re impressionable kids.

FIASCO: I don’t think that that matters. I don’t think you need to have a political Ph.D…

Lupe Fiasco with Bill O'Reilly

Lupe Fiasco with Bill O’Reilly

O’REILLY: But they listen to you…

FIASCO: …to understand — to understand politics. To understand politics I don’t think you necessarily need that. And I don’t think that politics are as complex as people like to make them seem or out to be.

Richard Nixon said that, you know, if you — they reduced fear by reducing the causes of fear. And then in that same interview, which I spoke about, you know, calling Obama a terrorist and every president before and after him a terrorist, right? Is that if you’re going to fight terrorism, right? True terrorism, you know, weaponized fear. In defense of ourselves, we’re fighting — actively fighting something else. But if you’re going to fight terrorism, to me, you fight the root causes of terrorism.

Fox news pundit Bill O’Reilly was stating that Fiasco’s fan base were “Impressionable kids” that did not have any sense of politics because they did not have PhDs.

Therefore, Fiasco should not call President Obama a terrorist because it will have a negative impact on how Obama is seen by Hip-Hop fans across the world.

Bill O’ Reilly comes from a news station that had a poll conducted on November 21st, 2011 by Farleigh Dickinson University called the Public Mind Poll with the result that Fox News viewers knew less than people who did not watch any news at all.  Lupe Fiasco was correct to point out what President Obama’s foreign policy was responsible for, which includes drone strikes that has claimed many lives in Pakistan and Yemen.  In an interview with Philadelphia’s Power 99 with Mina SayWhat in July 2012, Lupe Fiasco explained what President Obama’s Foreign Policy is:

“One hand, you have someone who is a great speaker, but kills little children—our president,” Lupe told Philadelphia’s Power 99. “I’m talking about ordering a drone attack. Ordering drone attacks that go and kill mothers, innocent bystanders, children. Militants, too, but the collateral damage. You’re responsible for that, too.

“Drug dealers can say the same thing, Lupe continued. “‘I didn’t mean to kill all the people in the restaurant. I was just trying to get that one dude who killed my cousin. Just so happened that that little girl was there.’ Same thing.”

President Obama’s foreign policy is the same as that of former President George W. Bush with the expansion of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) where US troops would be stationed in more than 35 African nations. Obama declared war on Libya which led to Muammar Gaddafi’s death.

Barack and Michelle Obama dance at the inauguration ball

Barack and Michelle Obama dance at the inauguration ball

He continued wars in Afghanistan and maintained a military presence in Iraq and continued war threats against Iran and Syria.   Obama is also responsible for the erosion of civil liberties within the United States.  Obama has secretly sent US Special forces to more than 75 countries.  Obama has signed an agreement with Colombia to open several bases.  Obama was instrumental in opening a base in Chile. There are many other actions Obama undertook during his presidency.  But there is one important factor to take in consideration, Black America.Under President Obama, the Black population in the United States has witnessed a steady decline in their living standards.

According to the Washington Times, an interview with NAACP President Ben Jealous with Dick Gregory on Meet the Press, Jealous said:“The country’s back to pretty much where it was when this president started,” said Jealous. “White people in this country are doing a bit better. Black people are doing far worse.”The black unemployment rate was 12.7 percent when Mr. Obama took office. While the unemployment rate in the U.S. as a whole is below 8 percent, the Labor Department reported the black jobless rate was up from 12.9 percent to 14 percent for December.The worst during Mr Obama’s first term was in September 2011, with 16.7 percent unemployment for blacks — the highest since 1983, the Department of Labor reports. The black teen jobless rate hit a staggering 39.3 percent in July 2012.”According to Jealous, African-Americans “are doing far worse” under President Obama than under President George W. Bush.  With Obama bailing out Banks and the Obamacare (which imposes healthcare taxes on small businesses will lead to more layoffs) to take effect in 2014, the future for employment within the Black community in America will be bleak.

 Corporate Exploitation of the African-American Community 

Rappers such as Jay-Z and Kanye West who are supporters of President Obama associate themselves with the political and corporate elites are immune to reality of the problems Black America faces although they both come from inner-city ghettos.  Money and influence has corrupted their minds with music that has “dumbed–down” their fan base.  Jay-Z (Shawn Carter) actually helped Lupe Fiasco with the production of his debut album in 2008 called ‘Lupe Fiasco’s Food and Liquor’ . However, Jay-Z has reached a plateau where he became partners with major corporations.  The major corporations include Budweiser, Hewlett-Packard, Coca-Cola, Reebok and Microsoft.  Jay-Z collaborated with Coca-Cola, a product that affects the Black community with obesity, diabetes epidemics and high-rates of heart disease.Jay-Z and Kanye West with the illuminati sign. They are not part of any Secret Society. They are exploited by the elites.

Jay-Z and Kanye West with the illuminati sign. They are not part of any Secret Society. They are exploited by the elites.

According to the Office of Minority Health (OMH) which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) stated that African American adults are twice as likely than non-Hispanic white adults to have been diagnosed with diabetes by a physician” and “in 2009, African Americans were 2.2 times as likely as non-Hispanic Whites to die from diabetes.”  The Obesity problem in the United States affects African-Americans more than any other group.  The Office of Minority Health also stated that African American women have the highest rates of being overweight or obese compared to other groups in the U.S.  About four out of five African American women are overweight or obese.” Coca-Cola has a number of dangerous ingredients in their sodas including Aspartame.

Keep in mind that Aspartame has been linked to hallucinations, diarrhea, seizures, depression, migraine, fatigue and insomnia, tumors, cancer and infertility according to numerous complaints made to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which was submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services back on April 20th, 1995.It was also responsible for having union leaders in Latin America murdered by paramilitary death squads which Coca-Cola denies.  For more information watch the 2010 Documentary ‘The Coca-Cola Case’ by directors German Gutierrez and Carmen Garcia and produced by the National Film Board of Canada.  Microsoft is another major corporation that Jay-Z represents owned by Bill Gates who has a philanthropy called the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Bill Gates wants to help third world nations with vaccines with the continent of Africa as one of his main targets.

Bill Gates has stated publicly that “The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

Major corporations are exploiting many rap stars that target their communities to sell their products which are harmful to Black and Latino communities.  Jay-Z also represents Budweiser.  Alcoholism is a major problem for the black community.  Jay-Z is not the only rap star exploited by corporations.  You have hundreds of artists that contribute to the degradation of the African-American, Latino, White and Asian communities such as Nikki Manage, Kanye West, 50 Cent, DMX and many others whose lyrics degrade women and glorify gangsters.  They rap about how much money they got and all of the gold chains they possess.  These are songs that have a hidden message to consume or to become a “Gangster”.  Rap music is a weapon used by the elites to keep certain segments of society in control.

Propaganda Then and Now

Corporations that exploit certain groups of people such as women or the black community is nothing new.  Corporations have been interested in finding ways to attract consumers to their products for decades regardless of race or sex.  The Psychological use of Rap music to socially engineer Black and Latino Youth to the life of crime which contributes to the Prison-Industrial Complex, consumerism and the mistreatment of women has been in the making since the late 1920’s.

In 1928, Edward Bernays’ ‘Propaganda’ was used as a manual to entice consumers to buy certain products.  One of the most known tactics used in the business world was Bernays use of women for cigarette companies.  Bernays used women to show how cigarettes can be made fashionable to the public. Bernays actually helped the smoking industry overcome one of the most problematic obstacles for the cigarette industry which was women smoking in public which was illegal in the 1920’s.  Bernays used Women models to smoke ‘Lucky Strikes’ to show the ‘Torches of Freedom’ to the public.  It boosted the profits of cigarette companies since Bernays created a new consumer for their product.  Bernays was also involved in politics when he worked under President Woodrow Wilson on the Committee of Public Information in order for America to be involved in the aspect of bringing democracy to all of Europe”.  In ‘Propaganda’ Bernays laid out ways how corporations can use ‘aesthetic’ values in various forms of art:

“In applied and commercial art, propaganda makes greater opportunities for the artist than ever before.  This arises from the fact that mass production reaches an impasse when it competes on a price basis only.  It must, therefore, in a large number of fields create a field of competition bases on aesthetic values.  Business of many types capitalizes the aesthetic values.  Business of many types capitalizes the aesthetic sense to increase markets and profits.  Which is only another way of saying that the artist has the opportunity of collaborating with industry in such a way as to improve the public taste, injecting beautiful instead of ugly motifs in the articles of common use, and, furthermore, securing recognition and money for himself.                                        

Propaganda can play a part in pointing out what is and what is not beautiful, and business can definitely help in this way to raise the level of American culture.  In this process propaganda will naturally make use of the authority of group leaders whose taste and opinion are recognized”    

In an Association for Consumer Research article published in 1992 by M. Elizabeth Blair and Mark N. Hatala of Ohio University called ‘The Use of Rap Music in Children’s Advertising” stated that:

“Music in advertising is being studied by marketing scholars in an increasingly diverse number of ways. Initially, there was an emphasis on the measurement of aesthetic qualities of the music (Holbrook and Huber 1979; Holbrook and Bertges 1981). In these studies a number of semantic differential items were factor analyzed and the factors were given names that corresponded with certain qualities of the piece of music (e.g. activity, coolness, heaviness, and sadness). Several years later, Gorn (1982) stimulated interest in the use of music in the background of advertisements. This study provided evidence that preferences for products could be classically conditioned through the use of music.  Bruner (1990) recently reviewed the diversity of ways in which music has been studied by marketing scholars and, like the Holbrook studies cited above, emphasizes the decomposition of the music into components such as time (includes rhythm and tempo), pitch and texture. A new rhetorical approach to the study of music in advertising was introduced by Scott (1990). This article criticizes previous music-in-advertising research for ignoring the cognitive involvement of the listener. It is emphasized that music can be informative or affective, and should not be separated from its social context and meanings that are culturally shared. Culturally-shared meanings in music have been largely ignored in previous studies and the current research is one of the first to examine advertising music from an anthropological/ sociological perspective.

Rap music, with its boastful rhymes and synthesizer-created claps and pops, has moved out of the ghetto and into the mainstream of popular culture. In rap music, African-Americans have found a powerful expression of their culture. Some rap artists have attempted to use this force to bring about social change, for example, by speaking out about black-on-black violence. Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola and the British Knights athletic footwear company have all signed popular rap artists to promote their products. Rap’s rhythmic chants and hip style fit the image of products like sneakers and soft drinks, especially with young consumers. Because children and teens are the major consumers of rap music, it is only logical that rap should be used to promote products to these age groups. Advertisers believe that rap music facilitates memorization of the product information and creates excitement (Barber 1987). Rap music also allows more lyrics per 30 seconds than any other form of music (Winters 1990)”

Corporations have been using Edward Bernays model to gain advantage on what consumers would desire instead of what they need.  Rap music is a tool used by corporations to sell their products or services.  Many artists were signed with major record companies in the 90’s including Jay-Z in 1996 with ‘Reasonable Doubt” with a single ‘Can’t Knock the Hustle’ about drug dealing and life on the street.  Rap Music does not cause crime per se as much as the Columbine massacre in Colorado was not caused by the music of Marilyn Manson who was blamed for the incident.  It is fair to say that there are other factors that contribute to crime such as poverty and the War on Drugs.  However, Rap music is persuasive towards consumerism.  It glorifies women as sexual objects or as “Strippers”.  Gangster Rap songs involve drug dealing and foments rivalries between gangs and regions (East Coast vs.

The West Coast rivalry of the 1990’s).  The history of Rap music dates back to the 1970’s in New York City when block parties in African-American communities were popular with DJ’s and rappers who created Hip-Hop music.  Corporate interests and the globalist elites turned Hip-Hop into a negative genre not just for the black community but every other community that listens to Hip-Hop. Lupe Fiasco is positive especially towards Women where many rappers call women “Bitches”.  In one of his singles “Bitch Bad” about how the word “bitch” is normalized among youths when they are talking about women.  In comparison to many rap artists who call women “bitches” is accepted as normal.  This type of influence on youths will have a negative perception of women.  They will be seen as sex objects, not worthy of respect.

Will the FBI consider Lupe Fiasco a “Security Threat” to the United States?

In 1956, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had files on Elvis Presley due to an extortion case involving Elvis’s safety and his performances.  J. Edgar Hoover received a letter from Army Intelligence that stated Elvis Presley’s performance was a danger to the United States because his “actions and motions were such as to rouse the sexual passions of teenaged youth.”  Imagine Lupe Fiasco’s criticism of Barack Obama and several other rappers that are in the same category such as Mos Def, Taleb Kweli, Immortal Technique, Calle 13 (Puerto Rico) and London-based rapper Lo-Key.  Lupe Fiasco would be targeted for criticizing the President and can be labeled a terrorist himself.

Elvis Presley

Elvis Presley

Anything is possible in the United States, especially after Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2011.

Can Rap Music bring change to Urban Youths?

Hip-Hop music can be used in a positive direction to spread awareness on many issues, including drugs and crime.  Lupe Fiasco has demonstrated that his music can be a positive force for the youth in the United States as well as the World.  Rap music including “Gangster Rap” is a mind control mechanism that allows youths to be controlled by corporate interests to become consumers or to be used by political interests through the influence of Rap stars such as Jay-Z and Kanye West.  Rap music can be used in a positive direction in terms of educating the public or by informing them on what the real issues are.  One thing is for sure, as long as the Music industry continues to reap billions of dollars in profits with Hip-Hop music that involves gangsters, drugs and sex, youths in America and throughout the world will continue down a path that would not benefit their families or communities.

Jay-Z and all other rappers who are exploited by the elites will continue their talents that will only benefit corporations and the elite that own them.  Who knows why Obama invited Lupe Fiasco to the inauguration event.  Maybe Obama never heard Lupe Fiasco’s music.  If he did, Obama would have never invited Lupe Fiasco in the first place.    At least one thing is certain, as they say in the world of Hip-Hop, Lupe Fiasco is keeping it “Real.” Maybe other rappers would wake-up one day and create music that inspires, not music that destroys the mind.  Then maybe urban youths would be interested in knowledge, not gold chains and fancy cars to pick up the “Bitches”.

Then hope for a better life out of the ghettos can become a reality.

Washington OK’s Israeli Aggression on Syria

israelus

It shouldn’t surprise. Washington and Israel are longstanding imperial partners. Significant regional operations are jointly planned.

It’s done well in advance. It’s for strategic advantage. Operations are part of a greater regional agenda.

On February 1, TIME magazine headlined “The Fallout from the Air Raid on Syria: Why Israel is Concerned,” saying:

“Israeli warplanes struck several targets inside Syria overnight Tuesday, including a biological weapons research center that was reportedly flattened out of concern that it might fall into the hands of Islamist extremists fighting to topple the government of Syrian president Bashar Assad, Western intelligence officials tell TIME.”

“(O)nly two airstrikes” were widely reported. One alleged Israeli warplanes targeted a weapons and munitions convoy heading for Lebanon.

Previous articles discussed what happened. They asked why would Assad send vitally needed weapons and munitions to Lebanon? He needs all he can get.

If reports were accurate, evidence would have corroborated them. None was forthcoming.

What’s Israel up to? Is something else going on? Is it trying to provoke Syria to retaliate? Does it want to entrap it in all-out war? Doing so would mean Syria’s demise. Attacking Iran might follow. So could regional and global war potentially.

Mossad-connected DEBKAfile said Obama “green light(ed)” Israel to attack. Doing so had “three objectives.”

(1) The Jamraya research center serves “Syria, Hizballah and Iran.” DF said three targets were struck. Whether true or not isn’t known.

It claims they’re related chemical weapons storage, connected laboratories, a depot holding sophisticated weapons, and a truck fleet able to transport them “cross border.”

(2) The attack aimed to disrupt Syrian/Iranian/Hezbollah “cooperative military efforts.”

(3) Israel “took its first (overt) step into the Syrian conflict.” It’s been covertly involved for two years or longer. DF didn’t say.

It stopped of calling Syria Washington’s war. So far it’s with death squad proxies. Israel’s attack may precede something greater. The fullness of time will tell.

A Jerusalem Post (JP) editorial headlined “Syrian spillover,” saying:

Israel “has a right and an obligation to prevent the anarchy in Syria from spilling over to Lebanon and endangering Israelis.”

Fact check

Israel’s involved in Syria’s conflict. It’s been so since early 2011 uprisings. Potential spillover is its own doing. It’s got itself to blame.

JP suggests otherwise. “The time has passed,” it says, “for limited military measures designed to stabilize the situation such as the establishment of no-fly zones, safe areas, bombing campaigns and arming the opposition.”

JP barely stopped short of urging all-out war. Whatever Israel does is justified, it believes. National security is the usual pretext. It’s a canard. Israel’s only regional threats are ones it invents.

Stop NATO editor Rick Rozoff told Progressive Radio News Hour listeners that Israel dramatically escalated the conflict.

Syria’s a warmup for Iran. Israel committed naked aggression. Recriminations so far haven’t followed.

Washington said little. Ban Ki-moon disgracefully urged both sides to show restraint. Doing so shows which one he supports.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said:

“I’m not going to give any condemnation of Israel or rush into any criticism. There may be many things about it that we don’t know, or the Arab League or Russia don’t know.”

Israel got away with murder. It’s done so many times before. Surgical strikes may be prelude for greater conflict. The fullness of time will tell.

According to TIME, unnamed Western intelligence sources said “at least one to two additional targets were hit the same night, without offering details. Officials also said that Israel had a ‘green light’ from Washington to launch yet more such strikes.”

TIME claims Jamraya Research Center buildings destroyed were “warehouses stocked with equipment necessary for the deployment of chemical and biological weapons.”

No evidence corroborates it. TIME’s allegations are baseless.

Its source said Washington was “poised to carry out similar airstrikes around Aleppo if rebels threaten to take sites associated with weapons of mass destruction in that region.”

TIME hyped non-existent threats. Washington has longstanding ties to so-called “jihadists.” Hezbollah threatens no one. Nor does Iran, Hamas, other frequently named groups, or so-called “home-grown terrorists.”

TIME quoted former senior Mossad official Amnon Sofrin, saying:

“If we succeeded all these years to deter the Syrians and all the other surrounding countries that possess weapons of mass destruction (from using them), it’s because we knew how to deliver the message, that the price would be very high.”

In other words, invent threats. Conceal a greater agenda. Attack preemptively. Ignore international law. Sofrin suggested that Washington and Israel allied against Syria throughout the conflict.

Doing so has been more visible recently. When Israeli warplanes struck, IDF military intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi was in Washington. He was visiting his Pentagon counterparts.

Perhaps something greater is planned. Ousting Assad is longterm policy.

Former Assistant Secretary of State James Dobbins directs RAND Corporation’s International Security and Defense Policy. After Israel bombed Syria in September 2007, he asked:

“Does this mean we are on the verge of another Middle East war?” Does Washington want it avoided or was Israel given “the green light” to proceed?

Israel “ha(d) a good case for bombing Syria.” Assad’s “helping to resupply Hezbollah.” At some point, they’ll “begin lobbing rockets at Israel.”

Israel and Syria “never lacked reasons” for war. Official circles knew about Israel’s intentions months in advance. Washington encouraged it. It supported Israel’s 2006 Lebanon war.

At the same time, Dobbins expressed concern about a region “literally in flames.” Things are much worse now than then. If greater war on Syria follows, everyone stands to lose.

Policy planners leave that issue unaddressed. So did TIME. Rhetoric instead points fingers the wrong way. The New York Times consistently turns truth on its head.

“Israel girds for attacks,” it hypes. Syria is “falling apart.” Chemical weapons threats are claimed. Israel has a right to act. It’s technically at war with Syria.

Conflict spilled cross border several times. Errant shells allegedly landed in Golan. It’s Syrian territory. Israel illegally occupies it.

Israeli tanks fired on Syrian artillery units. Allegedly it was in response to incoming mortar fire. Syria’s got all it can handle. The last thing it wants is war with Israel.

Netanyahu initiates provocations. Damascus shows restraint. Doing so may not prevent greater conflict. Assad is blamed for Western-generated crimes.

Israel’s very much involved. So are high stakes. Wider war threatens. Millions of lives are at risk. What follows bears close watching. Future articles will discuss more.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/washington-oks-israels-aggression-on-syria/

Obama’s Geopolitical China ‘Pivot’: The Pentagon Targets China

Obama’s Geopolitical China ‘Pivot’: The Pentagon Targets China

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the nominal end of the Cold War some twenty years back, rather than reducing the size of its mammoth defense spending, the US Congress and all US Presidents have enormously expanded spending for new weapons systems, increased permanent military bases around the world and expansion of NATO not only to former Warsaw Pact countries on Russia’s immediate periphery; it also has expanded NATO and US military presence deep into Asia on the perimeters of China through its conduct of the Afghan war and related campaigns.

Part I The Pentagon Targets China

On the basis of simple dollar outlays for military spending, the US Pentagon combined budget, leaving aside the huge budgets for such national security and defense-related agencies of US Government as the Department of Energy and US Treasury and other agencies, the US Department of Defense spent some $739 billion in 2011 on its military requirements. Were all other spending that is tied to US defense and national security included, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates an annual military spending of over $1 trillion by the United States. That is an amount greater than the total defense-related spending of the next 42 nations combined, and more than the Gross Domestic Product of most nations.

China officially spent barely 10% of the US outlay on its defense, some $90 billions, or, if certain defense-related arms import and other costs are included, perhaps $111 billion a year. Even if the Chinese authorities do not publish complete data on such sensitive areas, it is clear China spends a mere fraction of the USA and is starting from a military-technology base far behind the USA.

China today, because of its dynamic economic growth and its determination to pursue sovereign Chinese national interests, merely because China exists, is becoming the Pentagon new “enemy image,” now replacing the earlier “enemy image” of Islam used after September 2001 by the Bush-Cheney Administration to justify the Pentagon’s global power pursuit, or that of Soviet Communism during the Cold War. The new US military posture against China has nothing to do with any aggressive threat from the side of China. The Pentagon has decided to escalate its aggressive military posture to China merely because China has become a strong vibrant independent pole in world economics and geopolitics. Only vassal states need apply to Washington’s globalized world.

Obama Doctrine: China is the new ‘enemy image’

After almost two decades of neglect of its interests in East Asia, in 2011, the Obama Administration announced that the US would make “a strategic pivot” in its foreign policy to focus its military and political attention on the Asia-Pacific, particularly Southeast Asia, that is, China. The term “strategic pivot” is a page out of the classic textbook from the father of British geopolitics, Sir Halford Mackinder, who spoke at various times of Russia and later China as “pivot powers” whose geographical and geopolitical position posed unique challenges toAnglo-Saxon and after 1945, to American hegemony.

During the final months of 2011 the Obama Administration clearly defined a new public military threat doctrine for US military readiness in the wake of the US military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. During a Presidential trip to the Far East, while in Australia, the US President unveiled what is being termed the Obama Doctrine.[1]

Obama told the Australians then:

With most of the world’s nuclear power and some half of humanity, Asia will largely define whether the century ahead will be marked by conflict or cooperation…As President, I have, therefore, made a deliberate and strategic decision — as a Pacific nation, the United States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future…I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority…As we plan and budget for the future, we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region. We will preserve our unique ability to project power and deter threats to peace…Our enduring interests in the region demand our enduring presence in the region.

The United States is a Pacific power, and we are here to stay. Indeed, we are already modernizing America’s defense posture across the Asia Pacific. It will be more broadly distributed — maintaining our strong presence in Japan and the Korean Peninsula, while enhancing our presence in Southeast Asia. Our posture will be more flexible — with new capabilities to ensure that our forces can operate freely .. I believe we can address shared challenges, such as proliferation and maritime security, including cooperation in the South China Sea.[2]

The centerpiece of Obama’s visit was the announcement that at least 2,500 elite US Marines will be stationed in Darwin in Australia’s Northern Territory. In addition, in a series of significant parallel agreements, discussions with Washington were underway to fly long-range American surveillance drones from the remote Cocos Islands — an Australian territory in the Indian Ocean. Also the US will gain greater use of Australian Air Force bases for American aircraft and increased ship and submarine visits to the Indian Ocean through a naval base outside Perth, on the country’s west coast.

The Pentagon’s target is China.

To make the point clear to European members of NATO, in remarks to fellow NATO members in Washington in July 2012, Phillip Hammond, the UK Secretary of State for Defense declared explicitly that the new US defense shift to the Asia-Pacific region was aimed squarely at China. Hammond said that, “the rising strategic importance of the Asia-Pacific region requires all countries, but particularly the United States, to reflect in their strategic posture the emergence of China as a global power. Far from being concerned about the tilt to Asia-Pacific, the European NATO powers should welcome the fact that the US is willing to engage in this new strategic challenge on behalf of the alliance.” [3]

As with many of its operations, the Pentagon deployment is far deeper than the relatively small number of 2,500 new US soldiers might suggest.

In August 2011 the Pentagon presented its annual report on China’s military. It stated that China had closed key technological gaps. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for East Asia, Michael Schiffer, said that the pace and scope of China’s military investments had “allowed China to pursue capabilities that we believe are potentially destabilizing to regional military balances, increase the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculation and may contribute to regional tensions and anxieties.” [4] He cited Chinese refurbishing of a Soviet-era aircraft carrier and China’s development of its J20 Stealth Fighter as indications of the new capability requiring a more active US military response. Schiffer also cited China’s space and cyber operations, saying it was “developing a multi-dimensional program to improve its capabilities to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.” [5]

Part II: Pentagon’s ‘Air-Sea Battle’

The Pentagon strategy to defeat China in a coming war, details of which have filtered into the US press, is called “Air-Sea Battle.” This calls for an aggressive coordinated US attack. US stealth bombers and submarines would knock out China’s long-range surveillance radar and precision missile systems deep inside the country. This initial “blinding campaign” would be followed by a larger air and naval assault on China itself.[6] Crucial to the advanced pentagon strategy, deployment of which has already quietly begun, is US military navy and air presence in Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam and across the South China Sea and Indian Ocean. Australian troop and naval deployment is aimed at accessing the strategic Chinese South China Sea as well as the Indian Ocean. The stated motive is to “protect freedom of navigation” in the Malacca Straits and the South China Sea. In reality it is to be positioned to cut China’s strategic oil routes in event of full conflict.

Air-Sea Battle’s goal is to help US forces withstand an initial Chinese assault and counterattack to destroy sophisticated Chinese radar and missile systems built to keep US ships away from China’s coastline.[7]

US ‘Air-Sea Battle’ against China

In addition to the stationing of the US Marines in the north of Australia, Washington plans to fly long-range American surveillance drones from the remote Cocos Islands — an Australian territory in the strategically vital Indian Ocean. Also it will have use of Australian Air Force bases for American military aircraft and increased ship and submarine visits to the Indian Ocean through a naval base outside Perth, on Australia’s west coast.[8]

The architect of the Pentagon anti-China strategy of Air-Sea battle is Andrew Marshall, the man who has shaped Pentagon advanced warfare strategy for more than 40 years and among whose pupils were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. [9] Since the 1980s Marshall has been a promoter of an idea first posited in 1982 by Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, then chief of the Soviet general staff, called RMA, or ‘Revolution in Military Affairs.’ Marshall, today at the ripe age of 91, still holds his desk and evidently very much influence inside the Pentagon.

The best definition of RMA was the one provided by Marshall himself: “A Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) is a major change in the nature of warfare brought about by the innovative application of new technologies which, combined with dramatic changes in military doctrine and operational and organizational concepts, fundamentally alters the character and conduct of military operations.” [10]

It was also Andrew Marshall who convinced US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his successor Robert Gates to deploy the Ballistic Missile “defense” Shield in Poland, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Japan as a strategy to minimize any potential nuclear threat from Russia and, in the case of Japan’s BMD, any potential nuclear threat from China.

PART III: ‘String of Pearls’ Strategy of Pentagon

In January 2005, Andrew Marshall issued a classified internal report to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld titled “Energy Futures in Asia.” The Marshall report, which was leaked in full to a Washington newspaper, invented the term “string of pearls” strategy to describe what it called the growing Chinese military threat to “US strategic interests” in the Asian space.[11]

The internal Pentagon report claimed that “China is building strategic relationships along the sea lanes from the Middle East to the South China Sea in ways that suggest defensive and offensive positioning to protect China’s energy interests, but also to serve broad security objectives.”

In the Pentagon Andrew Marshall report, the term China’s “String of Pearls” Strategy was used for the first time. It is a Pentagon term and not a Chinese term.

The report stated that China was adopting a “string of pearls” strategy of bases and diplomatic ties stretching from the Middle East to southern China that includes a new naval base under construction at the Pakistani port of Gwadar. It claimed that “Beijing already has set up electronic eavesdropping posts at Gwadar in the country’s southwest corner, the part nearest the Persian Gulf. The post is monitoring ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and the Arabian Sea.” [12]

The Marshall internal report went on to warn of other “pearls” in the sea-lane strategy of China:

• Bangladesh: China is strengthening its ties to the government and building a container port facility at Chittagong. The Chinese are “seeking much more extensive naval and commercial access” in Bangladesh.

• Burma: China has developed close ties to the military regime in Rangoon and turned a nation wary of China into a “satellite” of Beijing close to the Strait of Malacca, through which 80 percent of China’s imported oil passes. China is building naval bases in Burma and has electronic intelligence gathering facilities on islands in the Bay of Bengal and near the Strait of Malacca. Beijing also supplied Burma with “billions of dollars in military assistance to support a de facto military alliance,” the report said.

• Cambodia: China signed a military agreement in November 2003 to provide training and equipment. Cambodia is helping Beijing build a railway line from southern China to the sea.

• South China Sea: Chinese activities in the region are less about territorial claims than “protecting or denying the transit of tankers through the South China Sea,” the report said. China also is building up its military forces in the region to be able to “project air and sea power” from the mainland and Hainan Island. China recently upgraded a military airstrip on Woody Island and increased its presence through oil drilling platforms and ocean survey ships.

• Thailand: China is considering funding construction of a $20 billion canal across the Kra Isthmus that would allow ships to bypass the Strait of Malacca. The canal project would give China port facilities, warehouses and other infrastructure in Thailand aimed at enhancing Chinese influence in the region, the report said… The U.S. military’s Southern Command produced a similar classified report in the late 1990s that warned that China was seeking to use commercial port facilities around the world to control strategic “chokepoints.” [13]

Breaking the String of Pearls

Significant Pentagon and US actions since that 2005 report have been aimed to counter China’s attempts to defend its energy security via that “String of Pearls.” The US interventions since 2007 into Burma/Myanmar have had two phases.

The first was the so-called Saffron Revolution, a US State Department and CIA-backed destabilization in 2007 aimed at putting the international spotlight on the Myanmar military dictatorship’s human rights practices. The aim was to further isolate the strategically located country internationally from all economic relations, aside from China. The background to the US actions was China’s construction of oil and gas pipelines from Kunming in China’s southwest Yunnan Province, across the old Burma Road across Myanmar to the Bay of Bengal across from India and Bangladesh in the northern Indian Ocean.

Forcing Burma’s military leaders into tighter dependency on China was one of the factors triggering the decision of the Myanmar military to open up economically to the West. They declared that the tightening of US economic sanctions had done the country great harm and President Thein Sein made his major liberalization opening, as well as allowing US-backed dissident, Aung San Suu Kyi, to be free and to run for elective office with her party, in return for promises from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of US investment in the country and possible easing of US economic sanctions. [14]

The US corporations approaching Burma are hand-picked by Washington to introduce the most destructive “free market” reforms that will open Myanmar to instability. The United States will not allow investment in entities owned by Myanmar’s armed forces or its Ministry of Defense. It also is able to place sanctions on “those who undermine the reform process, engage in human rights abuses, contribute to ethnic conflict or participate in military trade with North Korea.” The United States will block businesses or individuals from making transactions with any “specially designated nationals” or businesses that they control — allowing Washington, for example, to stop money from flowing to groups “disrupting the reform process.” It’s the classic “carrot and stick” approach, dangling the carrot of untold riches if Burma opens its economy to US corporations and punishing those who try to resist the takeover of the country’s prize assets. Oil and gas, vital to China, will be a special target of US intervention. American companies and people will be allowed to invest in the state-owned Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise.[15]

Obama also created a new power for the government to impose “blocking sanctions” on any individual threatening peace in Myanmar. Businesses with more than $500,000 in investment in the country will need to file an annual report with the State Department, with details on workers’ rights, land acquisitions and any payments of more than $10,000 to government entities, including Myanmar’s state-owned enterprises.

American companies and people will be allowed to invest in the state-owned Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise, but any investors will need to notify the State Department within 60 days.

As well, US “human rights” NGOs, many closely associated with or believed to be associated with US State Department geopolitical designs, including Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, Institute for Asian Democracy, Open Society Foundations, Physicians for Human Rights, U.S. Campaign for Burma, United to End Genocide— will now be allowed to operate inside Myanmar according to a decision by State Secretary Clinton in April 2012.[16]

Thailand, another key in China’s defensive String of Pearl Strategy has also been subject of intense destabilization over the past several years. Now with the sister of a corrupt former Prime Minister in office, US-Thai relations have significantly improved.

After months of bloody clashes, the US-backed billionaire, Former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra , managed to buy the way to put his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra in as Prime Minister, with him reportedly pulling the policy strings from abroad. Thaksin himself was enjoying comfortable status in the US as of this writing, in summer 2012.

US relations with Thaksin’s sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, are moving in direct fulfillment of the Obama “strategic pivot” to focus on the “China threat.” In June 2012, General Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, after returning from a visit this month to Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore stated: “We want to be out there partnered with nations and have a rotational presence that would allow us to build up common capabilities for common interests.” This is precisely key beads in what the Pentagon calls the String of Pearls.

The Pentagon is now quietly negotiating to return to bases abandoned after the Vietnam War. It is negotiating with the Thai government to create a new “disaster relief” hub at the Royal Thai Navy Air Field at U-Tapao, 90 miles south of Bangkok.

The US military built the two mile long runway there, one of Asia’s longest, in the 1960s as a major staging and refueling base during the Vietnam War.

The Pentagon is also working to secure more rights to US Navy visits to Thai ports and joint surveillance flights to monitor trade routes and military movements. The US Navy will soon base four of its newest warships — Littoral Combat Ships — in Singapore and would rotate them periodically to Thailand and other southeast Asian countries. The Navy is pursuing options to conduct joint airborne surveillance missions from Thailand.[17]

In addition, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter went to Thailand in July 2012 and the Thai government has invited Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who met with the Thai minister of defense at a conference in Singapore in June.[18]

In 2014, the US Navy is scheduled to begin deploying new P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance and anti-submarine aircraft to the Pacific, replacing the P-3C Orion surveillance planes. The Navy is also preparing to deploy new high-altitude surveillance drones to the Asia-Pacific region around the same time. [19]

PART IV: India-US Defense ‘Look East Policy’

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was in India in June of this year where he proclaimed that defence cooperation with India is the lynchpin of US security strategy in Asia. He pledged to help develop India’s military capabilities and to engage with India in joint production of defence “articles” of high technology. Panetta was thr fifth Obama Cabinet secretary to visit India this year. The message that they have all brought is that, for the US, India will be the major relationship of the 21st century. The reason is China’s emergence. [20]

Several years ago during the Bush Administration, Washington made a major move to lock India in as a military ally of the US against the emerging Chinese presence in Asia. India calls it India’s “Look East Policy.” In reality, despite all claims to the contrary, it is a “look at China” military policy.

In comments in August 2012, Deputy Secretary of defense Ashton Carter stated, “India is also key part of our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, and, we believe, to the broader security and prosperity of the 21st century. The US-India relationship is global in scope, like the reach and influence of both countries.” [21] In 2011, the US military conducted more than 50 significant military activities with India.

Carter continued in remarks following a trip to New Delhi, “Our security interests converge: on maritime security, across the Indian Ocean region; in Afghanistan, where India has done so much for economic development and the Afghan security forces; and on broader regional issues, where we share long-term interests. I went to India at the request of Secretary Panetta and with a high-level delegation of U S technical and policy experts.” [22]

Indian Ocean

The Pentagon “String of pearls” strategy against China in effect is not one of beautiful pearls, but a hangman’s noose around the perimeter of China, designed in the event of major conflict to completely cut China off from its access to vital raw materials, most especially oil from the Persian Gulf and Africa.

Former Pentagon adviser Robert D. Kaplan, now with Stratfor, has noted that the Indian Ocean is becoming the world’s “strategic center of gravity” and who controls that center, controls Eurasia, including China. The Ocean is the vital waterway passage for energy and trade flows between the Middle East and China and Far Eastern countries. More strategically, it is the heart of a developing south-south economic axis between China and Africa and Latin America.

Since 1997 trade between China and Africa has risen more than twenty-fold and trade with Latin America, including Brazil, has risen fourteen fold in only ten years. This dynamic, if allowed to continue, will eclipse the economic size of the European Union as well as the declining North American industrial economies in less than a decade. That is a development that Washington circles and Wall Street are determined to prevent at all costs.

Straddled by the Islamic Arch–which stretches from Somalia to Indonesia, passing through the countries of the Gulf and Central Asia– the region surrounding the Indian Ocean has certainly become the world’s new strategic center of gravity.[23]

No rival economic bloc can be allowed to challenge American hegemony. Former Obama geopolitical adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, a student of Mackinder geopolitics and still today along with Henry Kissinger one of the most influential persons in the US power establishment, summed up the position as seen from Washington in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and It’s Geostrategic Imperatives:

It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geo-strategy is therefore the purpose of this book. [24]

For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia…. America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. [25]

In that context, how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources. [26]

The Indian Ocean is crowned by what some call an Islamic Arch of countries stretching from East Africa to Indonesia by way of the Persian Gulf countries and Central Asia. The emergence of China and other much smaller Asian powers over the past two decades since the end of the Cold war has challenged US hegemony over the Indian Ocean for the first time since the beginning of the Cold War. Especially in the past years as American economic influence has precipitously declined globally and that of China has risen spectacularly, the Pentagon has begun to rethink its strategic presence in the Indian Ocean. The Obama ‘Asian Pivot’ is centered on asserting decisive Pentagon control over the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean and the waters of the South China Sea.

The US military base at Okinawa, Japan is being rebuilt as a major center to project US military power towards China. As of 2010 there were over 35,000 US military personnel stationed in Japan and another 5,500 American civilians employed there by the United States Department of Defense. The United States Seventh Fleet is based in Yokosuka. The 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force in Okinawa. 130 USAF fighters are stationed in the Misawa Air Base and Kadena Air Base.

The Japanese government in 2011 began an armament program designed to counter the perceived growing Chinese threat. The Japanese command has urged their leaders to petition the United States to allow the sale of F-22A Raptor fighter jets, currently illegal under U.S law. South Korean and American military have deepened their strategic alliance and over 45,000 American soldiers are now stationed in South Korea. The South Koreans and Americans claim this is due to the North Korean military’s modernization. China and North Korea denounce it as needlessly provocative.[27]

Under the cover of the US war on Terrorism, the US has developed major military agreements with the Philippines as well as with Indonesia’s army.

The military base on Diego Garcia is the lynchpin of US control over the Indian Ocean. In 1971 the US military depopulated the citizens of Diego Garcia to build a major military installation there to carry out missions against Iraq and Afghanistan.

China has two Achilles heels—the Straits of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Malacca near Singapore. Some 20% of China oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz. And some 80% of Chinese oil imports pass through the Strait of Malacca as well as major freight trade.

To prevent China from emerging successfully as the major economic competitor of the United States in the world, Washington launched the so-called Arab Spring in late 2010. While the aspirations of millions of ordinary Arab citizens in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and elsewhere for freedom and democracy was real, they were in effect used as unwitting cannon fodder to unleash a US strategy of chaos and intra-islamic wars and conflicts across the entire oil-rich Islamic world from Libya in North Africa across to Syria and ultimately Iran in the Middle East. [28]

The US strategy within the Islamic Arch countries straddling the Indian Ocean is, as Mohamed Hassan, a strategic analyst put it thus:

The US is…seeking to control these resources to prevent them reaching China. This was a major objective of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but these have turned into a fiasco. The US destroyed these countries in order to set up governments there which would be docile, but they have failed. The icing on the cake is that the new Iraqi and Afghan government trade with China! Beijing has therefore not needed to spend billions of dollars on an illegal war in order to get its hands on Iraq’s black gold: Chinese companies simply bought up oil concessions at auction totally within the rules.

[T]he USA’s…strategy has failed all along the line. There is nevertheless one option still open to the US: maintaining chaos in order to prevent these countries from attaining stability for the benefit of China. This means continuing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and extending it to countries such as Iran, Yemen or Somalia.[29]

PART V: South China Sea

The completion of the Pentagon “String of Pearls” hangman’s noose around China to cut off vital energy and other imports in event of war by 2012 was centered around the increased US manipulation of events in the South China Sea. The Ministry of Geological Resources and Mining of the People’s Republic of China estimated that the South China Sea may contain 18 billion tons of crude oil (compared to Kuwait with 13 billion tons). The most optimistic estimate suggested that potential oil resources (not proved reserves) of the Spratly and Paracel Islands in the South China Sea could be as high as 105 billion barrels of oil, and that the total for the South China Sea could be as high as 213 billion barrels. [30]

The presence of such vast energy reserves has not surprisingly become a major energy security issue for China. Washington has made a calculated intervention in the past several years to sabotage those Chinese interests, using especially Vietnam as a wedge against Chinese oil exploration there. In July 2012 the National Assembly of Vietnam passed a law demarcating Vietnamese sea borders to include the Spratly and Paracel islands. US influence in Vietnam since the country opened to economic liberalization has become decisive.

In 2011 the US military began cooperation with Vietnam, including joint “peaceful” military exercises. Washington has backed both The Philippines and Vietnam in their territorial claims over Chinese-claimed territories in the South China Sea, emboldening those small countries not to seek a diplomatic resolution.[31]

In 2010 US and UK oil majors entered the bidding for exploration in the South China Sea. The bid by Chevron and BP added to the presence of US-based Anadarko Petroleum Corporation in the region. That move is essential to give Washington the pretext to “defend us oil interests” in the area. [32]

In April 2012, the Philippine warship Gregorio del Pilar was involved in a standoff with two Chinese surveillance vessels in the Scarborough Shoal, an area claimed by both nations. The Philippine navy had been trying to arrest Chinese fishermen who were allegedly taking government-protected marine species from the area, but the surveillance boats prevented them. On April 14, 2012, U.S. and the Philippines held their yearly exercises in Palawan, Philippines. On May 7, 2012, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying called a meeting with Alex Chua, Charge D’affaires of the Philippine Embassy in China, to make a serious representation over the incident at the Scarborough Shoal.

From South Korea to Philippines to Vietnam, the Pentagon and US State Department is fanning the clash over rights to the South China Sea to stealthily insert US military presence there to “defend” Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean or Philippine interests. The military hangman’s noose around China is being slowly drawn tighter.

While China’s access to vast resources of offshore conventional oil and gas were being restricted, Washington was actively trying to lure China into massive pursuit of exploitation of shale gas inside China. The reasons had nothing to do with US goodwill towards China. It was in fact another major weapon in the destruction of China, now through a form of environmental warfare.

F. William Engdahl author of, Es klebt Blut an Euren Händen  (FinanzBuchVerlag)

Notes:

[1] President Barack Obama, Remarks By President Obama to the Australian Parliament, November 17, 2011, accessed in
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/17/remarks-president-obama-australian-parliament.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Otto Kreisher, UK Defense Chief to NATO: Pull Your Weight in Europe While US Handles China, July 22, 2012, accessed in
http://defense.aol.com/2012/07/19/uk-defense-chief-to-nato-pull-your-weight-in-europe-while-us-ha/?icid=related4 .

[4] BBC, China military ‘closing key gaps’, says Pentagon, 25 August 2011, accessed in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14661027 .

[5] Ibid.

[6] Greg Jaffe , US Model for a Future War Fans Tensions with China and inside Pentagon, Washington Post, August 2, 2012, accessed in
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/139681/us-model-for-a-future-war-fans-tensions-with-china-and-inside-pentagon.html.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Matt Siegel, As Part of Pact, U.S. Marines Arrive in Australia, in China’s Strategic Backyard, The New York Times,

April 4, 2012, accessed in http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/world/asia/us-marines-arrive-darwin-australia.html.

[9] Greg Jaffe, op. cit.

[10] F. William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totallitarian democracy in the New World Order, Wiesbaden, 2009, edition.engdahl, p. 190.

[11] The Washington Times, China Builds up Strategic Sea Lanes, January 17, 2005, accessed in http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jan/17/20050117-115550-1929r/?page=all#pagebreak

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Wall Street Journal, An Opening in Burma: The regime’s tentative liberalization is worth testing for sincerity,

Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2011, accessed in
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204443404577049964259425018.html

[15] Radio Free Asia, US to Invest in Burma’s Oil, 7 November, 2011, accessed in
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/burma/sanctions-07112012185817.html

[16] Shaun Tandon, US eases Myanmar restrictions for NGOs, AFP, April 17, 2012, accessed in
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jmwmJ3e0yIjyD-7N52GAFISnweAA?docId=CNG.a8c1c3e2edf92a30cc1b3c9bd5ed11c1.131

[17] Craig Whitlock, U.S. eyes return to some Southeast Asia military bases, Washington Post, June 23, 2012, accessed in
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-seeks-return-to-se-asian-bases/2012/06/22/gJQAKP83vV_story.html

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Premvir Das, Taking US-India defence links to the next level, June 18, 2012, accessed in http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-taking-us-india-defence-links-to-the-next-level/20120618.htm

[21] Zeenews, US-India ties are global in scope: Pentagon, August 02, 2012, accessed in
http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/us-india-ties-are-global-in-scope-pentagon_791212.html

[22] Ibid.

[23] Gregoire Lalieu, Michael Collon, Is the Fate of the World Being Decided Today in the Indian Ocean?, November 3, 2010, accessed in
http://www.michelcollon.info/Is-the-fate-of-the-world-being.html?lang=fr

[24] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It’s Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997, Basic Books, p. xiv.

[25] Ibid., p. 30.

[26] Ibid., p. 31.

[27] Cas Group, Background on the South China Sea Crisis, accessed in
http://casgroup.fiu.edu/pages/docs/3907/1326143354_South_China_Sea_Guide.pdf

[28] Gregoire Lalieu,, et al, op. cit.

[29] Ibid.

[30] GlobalSecurity.org, South China Sea Oil and Natural Gas, accessed in
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/spratly-oil.htm

[31] Agence France Presse, US, Vietnam Start Military Relationship, August 1, 2011, accessed in
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110801/DEFSECT03/108010307/U-S-Vietnam-Start-Military-Relationship

[32] Zacks Equity Research, Oil Majors Eye South China Sea, June 24, 2010, accessed in www.zacks.com/stock/news/36056/Oil+Majors+Eye+South

How Washington helped Foster the Islamist Uprising in Mali

mali

by Jeremy Keenan

As the French-led military operation begins, Jeremy Keenan reveals how the US and Algeria have been sponsoring terror in the Sahara.

On 12 October 2012, the UN Security Council voted unanimously in favour of a French-drafted resolution asking Mali’s government to draw up plans for a military mission to re-establish control over the northern part of Mali, an area of the Sahara bigger than France. Known as Azawad by local Tuareg people, northern Mali has been under the control of Islamist extremists following a Tuareg rebellion at the beginning of the year. For several months, the international media have been referring to northern Mali as ‘Africa’s Afghanistan’, with calls for international military intervention becoming inexorable.

Alfred de Montesquiou

Calling the shots: a US Special Forces soldier training Malian troops in Kita, May 2010. Alfred de Montesquiou (right)

While the media have provided abundant descriptive coverage of the course of events and atrocities committed in Azawad since the outbreak in January of what was ostensibly just another Tuareg rebellion, some pretty basic questions have not been addressed. No journalist has asked, or at least answered satisfactorily, how this latest Tuareg rebellion was hijacked, almost as soon as it started, by a few hundred Islamist extremists.

In short, the world’s media have failed to explain the situation in Azawad. That is because the real story of what has been going on there borders on the incredible, taking us deep into the murky reaches of Western intelligence and its hook-up with Algeria’s secret service.

The real story of what has been going on borders on the incredible, taking us deep into the murky reaches of Western intelligence

Azawad’s current nightmare is generally explained as the unintended outcome of the overthrow of Libya’s Muammar al-Qadafi. That is true in so far as his downfall precipitated the return to the Sahel (Niger and Mali) of thousands of angry, disillusioned and well-armed Tuareg fighters who had gone to seek their metaphorical fortunes by serving the Qadafi regime. But this was merely the last straw in a decade of increasing exploitation, repression and marginalization that has underpinned an ongoing cycle of Tuareg protest, unrest and rebellion. In that respect, Libya was the catalyst for the Azawad rebellion, not its underlying cause. Rather, the catastrophe now being played out in Mali is the inevitable outcome of the way in which the Global War On Terror has been inserted into the Sahara-Sahel by the US, in concert with Algerian intelligence operatives, since 2002.

Why Algeria and the US needed terrorism

When Abdelaziz Bouteflika took over as Algeria’s President in 1999, the country was faced with two major problems. One was its standing in the world. The role of the army and the DRS (the Algerian intelligence service, see box Algeria’s ‘state terrorism’) in the ‘Dirty War’ had made Algeria a pariah state. The other was that the army, the core institution of the state, was lacking modern high-tech weaponry as a result of international sanctions and arms embargoes.

The solution to both these problems lay in Washington. During the Clinton era, relations between the US and Algeria had fallen to a particularly low level. However, with a Republican victory in the November 2000 election, Algeria’s President Bouteflika, an experienced former Foreign Minister, quickly made his sentiments known to the new US administration and was invited in July 2001 to a summit meeting in Washington with President Bush. Bush listened sympathetically to Bouteflika’s account of how his country had dealt with the fight against terrorists and to his request for specific military equipment that would enable his army to maintain peace, security and stability in Algeria.

At that moment, Algeria had a greater need for US support than vice-versa. But that was soon to change. The 9/11 terrorist attacks precipitated a whole new era in US-Algerian relations. Over the next four years, Bush and Bouteflika met six more times to develop a largely covert and highly duplicitous alliance.

Algeria’s ‘state terrorism’

In January 1992, legislative elections in Algeria were on the point of being won by the Front Islamique du Salut, which would have resulted in the world’s first democratically elected Islamist government. With a ‘green light’ from the US and France, Algeria’s generals annulled the elections in what was effectively a military coup d’état. It led almost immediately to a ‘civil war’ (known as the ‘Dirty War’) that continued through the 1990s, allegedly between the Islamists and the army, in which an estimated 200,000 people were killed.

By 1994, the Algerian regime’s secret intelligence service, the Département du Renseignement et de la Sécurité (DRS), had succeeded in infiltrating the main armed Islamist groups, the Groupes Islamiques Armées (GIA), to the extent that even the GIA leader, Djamel Zitouni, was a DRS agent. Indeed, many of the killings and civilian massacres were either undertaken by the DRS masquerading as Islamists or by GIA elements tipped off and protected by the DRS.

John Schindler, a former high-ranking US intelligence officer and member of the National Security Council and now the Professor of National Security Affairs at the US Naval War College, recently ‘blew the whistle’ on Algeria’s creation of terrorists and use of ‘state terrorism’. Writing about the 1990s, he said:

‘The GIA was the creation of the DRS. Using proven Soviet methods of penetration and provocation, the agency assembled it to discredit the extremists. Much of [the] GIA’s leadership consisted of DRS agents, who drove the group into the dead end of mass murder, a ruthless tactic that thoroughly discredited GIA Islamists among nearly all Algerians. Most of its major operations were the handiwork of the DRS, including the 1995 wave of bombings in France. Some of the most notorious massacres of civilians were perpetrated by military special units masquerading as Mujahedin, or by GIA squads under DRS control.’ 1

By 1998, the killing had become so bad that many Islamists abandoned the GIA to form the Groupe Salafiste pour le Prédication et le combat (GSPC) but it soon became evident that it too had been infiltrated by the DRS.

Although the ‘Dirty War’ began winding down after 1998, it has never really ended. The GSPC, which changed its name to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in 2006, is still operative both in northern Algeria and the Sahara-Sahel.

In many respects, little has changed since the 1990s in that the DRS is still creating terrorists and using ‘false flag’ incidents and ‘state terrorism’ as fundamental means of control. The DRS has certainly not changed: its head, General Mohamed Mediène, who was trained by the KGB and once referred to himself as ‘The God of Algeria’,2 was appointed in 1990 and is still in post. He is regarded as the most powerful man in Algeria.

As for Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, its leaders in the Sahara and Sahel regions, namely Abdelhamid Abou Zaid, Mokhtar ben Mokhtar and Yahia Djouadi (all have many aliases) are either agents of the DRS or closely connected to it.

  1. John Schindler, ‘The ugly truth about Algeria, The National Interest, 10 Jul 2012.
  2. Jeremy Keenan, ‘General Toufik: “God of Algeria”’, Al Jazeera, 29 Sep 2010.

My first book on the Global War On Terror in the Sahara, The Dark Sahara (Pluto 2009), described and explained the development of this extraordinary relationship. It revealed why it was that the Bush administration and the regime in Algiers both needed a ‘little more terrorism’ in the region. The Algerians wanted more terrorism to legitimize their need for more high-tech and up-to-date weaponry. The Bush administration, meanwhile, saw the development of such terrorism as providing the justification for launching a new Saharan front in the Global War On Terror. Such a ‘second front’ would legitimize America’s increased militarization of Africa so as better to secure the continent’s natural resources, notably oil. This, in turn, was soon to lead to the creation in 2008 of a new US combat command for Africa – AFRICOM.

The first US-Algerian ‘false flag’ terrorist operation in the Sahara-Sahel was undertaken in 2003 when a group led by an ‘infiltrated’ DRS agent, Amari Saifi (aka Abderrazak Lamari and ‘El Para’), took 32 European tourists hostage in the Algerian Sahara. The Bush administration immediately branded El Para as ‘Osama bin Laden’s man in the Sahara’.

Rumsfeld’s Cuban blueprint

The US government has a long history of using false flag incidents to justify military intervention. The thinking behind the El Para operation in 2003 can actually be traced directly to a similar plan conceived by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff 40 years earlier.

In the wake of the 1961 Bay of Pigs disaster – when a CIA-trained force of Cuban exiles, supported by US armed forces, attempted unsuccessfully to invade Cuba and overthrow the government of Fidel Castro – the US Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up plans, codenamed Operation Northwoods, to justify a US military invasion of Cuba. The plan was presented to President John F Kennedy’s Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara, on 13 March 1962. Entitled ‘Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (Top Secret),’ the Northwoods Operation proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war that the Joint Chiefs of Staff intended to launch against Cuba. It called on the CIA and other operatives to undertake a range of atrocities. As US investigative journalist James Bamford described it: ‘Innocent civilians were to be shot on American streets; boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba were to be sunk on the high seas; a wave of violent terrorism was to be launched in Washington DC, Miami and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer [Chair of US Joint Chiefs of Staff] and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war against Fidel Castro’s Cuba.’

The first US-Algerian ‘false flag’ terrorist operation in the Sahara-Sahel was undertaken in 2003

The plan was ultimately rejected by President Kennedy. Operation Northwoods remained ‘classified’ and unknown to the American public until declassified by the National Security Archive and revealed by Bamford in April 2001. In 2002, a not dissimilar plan was presented to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board. Excerpts from its ‘Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism’ were revealed on 16 August 2002, with Pamela Hess, William Arkin and David Isenberg, amongst others, publishing further details and analysis of the plan. The plan recommended the creation of a ‘Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group’ (P20G as it became known), a covert organization that would carry out secret missions to ‘stimulate reactions’ among terrorist groups by provoking them into undertaking violent acts that would expose them to ‘counter-attack’ by US forces.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb

My new book on the Global War On Terror in the Sahara (The Dying Sahara, Pluto 2013) will present strong evidence that the El Para operation was the first ‘test run’ of Rumsfeld’s decision, made in 2002, to operationalize the P20G plan. In his recent investigation of false flag operations, Nafeez Ahmed states that the US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh was told by a Pentagon advisor that the Algerian [El Para] operation was a pilot for the new Pentagon covert P20G programme.

Win McNamee / Reuters

So happy together: Algeria’s then president Abdelaziz Bouteflika with George W Bush in 2001. Win McNamee / Reuters

The Sahara-Sahel front is not the only case of such fabricated incidents in the Global War On Terror. In May 2008, President George W Bush requested some $400 million in covert funding for terrorist groups across much of the Middle East-Afghanistan region in a covert offensive directed ultimately against the Iranian regime. An initial outlay of $300 million was approved by Congress.

Since the El Para operation, Algeria’s DRS, with the complicity of the US and the knowledge of other Western intelligence agencies, has used Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, through the almost complete infiltration of its leadership, to create a terrorist scenario. Much of the terrorist landscape that Algeria and its Western allies have painted in the Sahara-Sahel region is completely false.

The Dying Sahara analyzes every supposed ‘terrorism’ incident in the region over this last, terrible decade. It shows that a few are genuine, but that the vast majority were fabricated or orchestrated by the DRS. Some incidents, such as the widely reported Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb attack on Algeria’s Djanet airport in 2007, simply didn’t happen. What actually transpired was that a demonstration against the Algerian administration over unemployment by local Tuareg youths ended with the youths firing shots at the airport. It was nothing to do with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Much of the terrorist landscape that Algeria and its Western allies have painted in the Sahara-Sahel region is completely false

In order to justify or increase what I have called their ‘terrorism rents’ from Washington, the governments of Mali, Niger and Algeria have been responsible on at least five occasions since 2004 for provoking Tuareg into taking up arms, as in 2004 (Niger), 2005 (Tamanrasset, Algeria), 2006 (Mali), 2007-09 (Niger and Mali). In July 2005, for example, Tuareg youths rioted in the southern Algerian city of Tamanrasset, setting ablaze some 40 government and commercial buildings. It was finally proven in court that the riots and arson attacks had been led by Algeria’s police as agents provocateurs. The matter was hushed up and some 80 youths freed and compensated. But the object of the exercise had been achieved: the DRS’s allies in Washington were able to talk of ‘putative terrorism’ among the Tuareg of Tamanrasset, thus lending more justification to George Bush’s Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Initiative and the Pentagon’s almost concurrent ‘Operation Flintlock’ military exercise across the Sahara.

Around the time of the El Para operation, the Pentagon produced a series of maps of Africa, depicting most of the Sahara-Sahel region as a ‘Terror Zone’ or ‘Terror Corridor’. That has now become a self-fulfilled prophecy. In addition, the region has also become one of the world’s main drug conduits. In the last few years, cocaine trafficking from South America through Azawad to Europe, under the protection of the region’s political and military élites, notably Mali’s former president and security forces and Algeria’s DRS, has burgeoned. The UN Office of Drugs Control recently estimated that 60 per cent of Europe’s cocaine passed through the region. It put its value, at Paris street prices, at some $11 billion, with an estimated $2 billion remaining in the region.

Reuters / Stringer

Halos of power: Malian coup leader Captain Amadou Sanogo (right) with interim president Dioncounda Traoré in April 2012. Reuters / Stringer

The impact of Washington’s machinations on the peoples of the Sahara-Sahel has been devastating, not least for the regional economy. More than 60 kidnappings of Westerners have led to the collapse of the tourism industry through which Tuareg communities in Mali, Niger and Algeria previously acquired much of their cash income. For example, the killing of four French tourists in Mauritania, in addition to subsequent kidnappings, resulted in only 173 tourists visiting Mauritania in 2011, compared with 72,500 in 2007. The loss of tourism has deprived the region of tens of millions of dollars and forced more and more Tuareg (and others), especially young men, into the ‘criminality’ of banditry and drug trafficking.

Mali’s current mess

While it will be clear from all this that Mali’s latest Tuareg rebellion had a complex background, the rebellion that began in January 2012 was different from all previous Tuareg rebellions in that there was a very real likelihood that it would succeed, at least in taking control of the whole of northern Mali. The creation of the rebel MNLA in October 2011 (see box below) was therefore not only a potentially serious threat to Algeria, but one which appears to have taken the Algerian regime by surprise. Algeria has always been a little fearful of the Tuareg, both domestically and in the neighbouring Sahel countries. The distinct possibility of a militarily successful Tuareg nationalist movement in northern Mali, which Algeria has always regarded as its own backyard, could not be countenanced.

The impact of Washington’s machinations on the peoples of the Sahara-Sahel has been devastating

The Algerian intelligence agency’s strategy to remove this threat was to use its control of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to weaken and then destroy the credibility and political effectiveness of the MNLA. This is precisely what we have seen happening in northern Mali over the last nine months.

Although the Algerian government has denied doing so, it sent some 200 Special Forces into Azawad on 20 December 2011. Their purpose appears to have been to:

  • protect Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which had moved from its training base(s) in southern Algeria into northern Mali around 2008
  • assess the strengths and intentions of the MNLA, and
  • help establish two ‘new’ salafist-jihadist terrorist groups in the region – Ansar al-Din and MUJAO.

The leaders of these new groups – Ansar al-Din’s Iyad ag Ghaly, and MUJAO’s Sultan Ould Badi – are both closely associated with the Algerian intelligence agency, the DRS. Although Ansar al-Din and MUJAO both started out as few in number, they were immediately supported with personpower in the form of seasoned, well-trained killers from the DRS’s Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb brigades. This explains why the Islamists were able to expand so quickly and dominate the MNLA both politically and militarily.

Although Algeria’s strategy has been effective, at least so far, in achieving its object of weakening and discrediting the MNLA, it has already turned the region into a human catastrophe. Foreign military intervention now looks increasingly likely. That is something to which Algeria has always been strongly opposed in that it regards itself, not France, as the hegemonic power in the Sahel. The UN Security Council’s 12 October Resolution effectively gave Algeria a last window of opportunity to ‘rein in its dogs’ and engineer a peaceful political solution. But, as anger against the Islamists mounts and the desire for revenge from Mali’s civil society grows ever stronger, a peaceful solution is looking increasingly unlikely.

Mali’s Tuareg rebellions

The Tuareg people number approximately 2-3 million and are the indigenous population of much of the Central Sahara and Sahel. Their largest number, estimated at 800,000, live in Mali, followed by Niger, with smaller populations in Algeria, Burkina Faso and Libya.

There have been five Tuareg rebellions in Mali since Independence, in addition to three in Niger and sporadic unrest in Algeria. The latest Tuareg rebellion in Mali, by the Mouvement National de Libération de l’Azawad (MNLA), began in January 2012. The MNLA comprised Tuareg who had returned from Libya around October 2011, rebels who had not laid down arms after the 2007-09 uprising and others who had defected from the Malian army. Their number was estimated at around 3,000. By mid-March, they had driven Mali’s ill-equipped and ill-led forces out of most of northern Mali (Azawad), meeting little resistance.

Following this humiliation of Mali’s army, soldiers in the Kati barracks near Bamako mutinied on 22 March, an incident that led to a junta of junior officers taking power in the country. Within a week, the three northern provincial capitals of Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu were in rebel hands, and on 5 April the MNLA declared Azawad an independent state.

The declaration of Azawad’s independence received no international support. One reason for this was because of the alliance between the MNLA and Ansar al-Din, a newly created jihadist movement led by a Tuareg notable, Iyad ag Ghaly, and another jihadist group, Jamat Tawhid Wal Jihad Fi Garbi Afriqqiya (Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa – MUJAO). Both Ansar al-Din and MUJAO were connected to and supported by Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). By May, it was these Islamist groups, not the MNLA, who were calling the political and military shots in Azawad.

By the end of June, tension between the MNLA and the Islamists broke into open fighting, resulting in the MNLA being driven out of Gao and becoming increasingly marginalized politically. Since then, the Islamists have imposed strict sharia law in Azawad, especially in Gao, Timbuktu and Kidal. Summary executions, amputations, stonings and other such atrocities, as well as the destruction of holy shrines in Timbuktu – UNESCO world heritage sites – are currently being investigated by the International Criminal Court. By August, nearly half a million people had fled or been displaced.

I have warned on numerous occasions in the past decade that the way in which terrorism was being fabricated and orchestrated in the Sahara-Sahel by the Algerian DRS, with the knowledge of the US and other Western powers, would inevitably result in a catastrophic outcome, quite possibly in the form of region-wide conflagration. Unless something fairly miraculous can be achieved by around the turn of the year, northern Mali looks like becoming the site for the start of just such a conflagration.

Having said that, there is the prospect of one appalling scenario that is being raised by some of the local, mostly Tuareg, militia commanders. They are postulating as to whether Algeria’s DRS and its Western allies have been using the Azawad situation to encourage the concentration of ‘salafist-jihadists’ into the region – in the form of the long-talked about ‘Saharan emirate’ – before ‘eradicating’ them. In that instance, Algeria’s DRS would pluck out its ‘agents’ and leave the foot-soldiers – the Islamist fanatics – to face the bombardment.

But whatever dire scenario develops in Mali, when you hear the news stories related to it, do not by any means think: ‘oh, just another war in Africa’. Remember this murky, squalid background and how Washington’s Global War On Terror has come home to roost for the peoples of the Sahara.

Notes

Larijani to visit Pakistan for ECO meeting

Iran Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani will visit Pakistan later this month to attend a meeting of parliament speakers of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), a senior advisor says.

Hossein Sheikholeslam, Larijani’s adviser on international affairs, said on Saturday that the meeting will explore ways of establishing an inter-parliamentary forum of ECO member states.

He added that Larijani's three-day official visit will begin on February 11 at the invitation of the Speaker of Pakistan’s National Assembly Fahmida Mirza.


Sheikholeslam stated that during his stay in Pakistan, Larijani will hold talks with his counterparts from other ECO member states.

He further noted that Iranian lawmaker Mehdi Sanaei has already attended preliminary meeting as the Islamic Republic’s representative.

ECO is an intergovernmental regional organization established in 1985 by Iran, Pakistan and Turkey for the purpose of promoting economic, technical and cultural cooperation among member states.

The organization was expanded in 1992 to include seven new members, namely Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

ECO provides its members with a platform to discuss ways of improving economic development, and promoting trade and investment opportunities.

AR/SS

Lies, damned lies, and newspaper reporting… (Op-Ed)

Where to start with this tangled skein of media spin, mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion and out­right hypocrisy?

Last week the Sam Adams Asso­ci­ates for Integ­rity in Intel­li­gence presen­ted this year’s award to Dr Tom Fin­gar at a cere­mony jointly hos­ted by the pres­ti­gi­ous Oxford Union Soci­ety.

Dr Fin­gar, cur­rently a vis­it­ing lec­turer at Oxford, had in 2007 co-ordinated the pro­duc­tion of the US National Intel­li­gence Estim­ate — the com­bined ana­lysis of all 16 of America’s intel­li­gence agen­cies — which assessed that the Ira­nian nuc­lear weapon­isa­tion pro­gramme had ceased in 2003.  This con­sidered and author­it­at­ive Estim­ate dir­ectly thwarted the 2008 US drive towards war against Iran, and has been reaf­firmed every year since then.

By the very fact of doing his job of provid­ing dis­pas­sion­ate and object­ive assess­ments and res­ist­ing any pres­sure to politi­cise the intel­li­gence (à la Down­ing Street Memo), Dr Fingar’s work is out­stand­ing and he is the win­ner of Sam Adams Award, 2012.  This may say some­thing about the par­lous state of our intel­li­gence agen­cies gen­er­ally, but don’t get me star­ted on that…

Any­way, as I said, the award cere­mony was co-hosted by the Oxford Union Soci­ety last week, and many Sam Adams Asso­ci­ates atten­ded, often trav­el­ling long dis­tances to do so.  Former win­ners were asked to speak at the cere­mony, such as FBI Coleen Row­ley, GCHQ Kath­er­ine Gun, NSA Thomas Drake, and former UK Ambas­sador Craig Mur­ray.  Other asso­ci­ates, includ­ing CIA Ray McGov­ern, dip­lo­mats Ann Wright and Brady Kiesling and myself also said a few words.  As former insiders and whis­tleblowers, we recog­nised the vitally import­ant work that Dr Fin­gar had done and all spoke about the import­ance of integ­rity in intelligence.

One other pre­vi­ous win­ner of the Sam Adams Award was also invited to speak — Julian Assange of Wikileaks.  He spoke elo­quently about the need for integ­rity and was gra­cious in prais­ing the work of Dr Fingar.

All the national and inter­na­tional media were invited to attend what was an his­toric gath­er­ing of inter­na­tional whis­lteblowers and cover an award given to someone who, by doing their job with integ­rity, pre­ven­ted yet fur­ther ruin­ous war and blood­shed in the Middle East.

Few atten­ded, still fewer repor­ted on the event, and the prom­ised live stream­ing on You­tube was blocked by shad­owy powers at the very last minute — an irony con­sid­er­ing the Oxford Union is renowned as a free speech society.

But worse was to come.  The next day The Guard­ian news­pa­per, which his­tor­ic­ally fell out with Wikileaks, pub­lished a myopic hit-piece about the event. No men­tion of all the whis­tleblowers who atten­ded and what they said, no men­tion of the award to Dr Fin­gar, no men­tion of the fact that his work saved the Ira­nian people from need­less war.

Oh no, the entire piece focused on the taw­dry alleg­a­tions eman­at­ing from Sweden about Julian Assange’s extra­di­tion case.  Dis­count­ing the 450 stu­dents who applauded all the speeches, dis­count­ing all the ser­i­ous points raised by Julian Assange dur­ing his present­a­tion, and dis­count­ing the speeches of all the other inter­na­tion­ally renowned whis­tleblowers present that even­ing, The Guardian’s reporter, Amelia Hill, focused on the small demo out­side the event and the only three attendees she could appar­ently find to cri­ti­cise the fact that a plat­form, any plat­form, had been given to Assange from his polit­ical asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy.

So this is where we arrive at the deep, really deep, hypo­crisy of the even­ing.  Amelia Hill is, I’m assum­ing,  the same Guard­ian journ­al­ist who was threatened in 2011 with pro­sec­u­tion under the Offi­cial Secrets Act.  She had allegedly been receiv­ing leaks from the Met­ro­pol­itan Police about the on-going invest­ig­a­tion into the News of the World phone-hacking scandal.

At the time Fleet Street was up in arms — how dare the police threaten one of their own with pro­sec­u­tion under the OSA for expos­ing insti­tu­tional cor­rup­tion? Shades of the Shayler case were used in her defence. As I wrote at the time, it’s a shame the UK media could not have been more con­sist­ently robust in con­demning the chilling effects of the OSA on the free-flow of inform­a­tion and pro­tect all the Poor Bloody Whis­tleblowers, and not just come out fight­ing when it is one of their own being threatened.  Such is the way of the world.…

But really, Ms Hill — if you are indeed the same reporter who was threatened with pro­sec­u­tion in 2011 under the OSA — exam­ine your conscience.

How can you write a hit-piece focus­ing purely on Assange — a man who has designed a pub­lish­ing sys­tem to pro­tect poten­tial whis­tleblowers from pre­cisely such dra­conian secrecy laws as you were hyper­bol­ic­ally threatened with? And how could you, at the same time, air­brush out of his­tory the testi­mony of so many whis­tleblowers gathered together, many of whom have indeed been arres­ted and have faced pro­sec­u­tion under the terms of the OSA or US secrecy legislation?

Have you no shame?  You know how fright­en­ing it is to be faced with such a prosecution.

Your hypo­crisy is breath-taking.

The offence was com­poun­ded when the Sam Adams Asso­ci­ates all wrote a let­ter to The Guard­ian to set the record straight. The ori­ginal let­ter is repro­duced below, and this is what was pub­lished.  Of course, The Guard­ian has a per­fect right under its Terms and Con­di­tions to edit the let­ter, but I would like every­one to see how this can be used and abused.

And the old media won­ders why it is in decline?

Let­ter to The Guard­ian, 29 Janu­ary 2013:

Dear Sir

With regard to the 24 Janu­ary art­icle in The Guard­ian entitled “Julian Assange Finds No Allies and Tough Quer­ies in Oxford Uni­ver­sity Talk,” we ques­tion whether the newspaper’s reporter was actu­ally present at the event, since the account con­tains so many false and mis­lead­ing statements.

If The Guard­ian could “find no allies” of Mr. Assange, it did not look very hard! They could be found among the appre­ci­at­ive audi­ence of the packed Oxford Union Debate Hall, and — in case you missed us — in the group seated right at the front of the Hall: the Sam Adams Asso­ci­ates for Integ­rity in Intelligence.

Many in our group — which, you might be inter­ested to know co-sponsored the event with Oxford Union — had traveled con­sid­er­able dis­tances at our own expense to con­fer the 10th annual Sam Adams award to Dr. Thomas Fin­gar for his work on over­see­ing the 2007 National Intel­li­gence Estim­ate that revealed the lack of an Ira­nian nuc­lear weapon­iz­a­tion program.

Many of us spoke in turn about the need for integ­rity in intel­li­gence, describ­ing the ter­rible eth­ical dilemma that con­fronts gov­ern­ment employ­ees who wit­ness illegal activ­ity includ­ing ser­i­ous threats to pub­lic safety and fraud, waste and abuse.

But none of this made it into what was sup­posed to pass for a news art­icle; neither did any aspect of the accept­ance speech delivered by Dr. Fin­gar. Also, why did The Guard­ian fail to provide even one sali­ent quote from Mr Assange’s sub­stan­tial twenty-minute address?

By cen­sor­ing the con­tri­bu­tions of the Sam Adams Asso­ci­ates and the speeches by Dr. Fin­gar and Mr. Assange, and by focus­ing exclus­ively on taw­dry and unproven alleg­a­tions against Mr. Assange, rather than on the import­ance of expos­ing war crimes and main­tain­ing integ­rity in intel­li­gence pro­cesses, The Guard­ian has suc­ceeded in dimin­ish­ing none but itself.

Sin­cerely,

The Sam Adams Asso­ci­ates for Integ­rity in Intelligence:

Ann Wright (retired Army Col­onel and For­eign Ser­vice Officer of US State Depart­ment), Ray McGov­ern (retired CIA ana­lyst), Eliza­beth Mur­ray (retired CIA ana­lyst), Coleen Row­ley (retired FBI agent), Annie Machon (former MI5 intel­li­gence officer), Thomas Drake (former NSA offi­cial), Craig Mur­ray (former Brit­ish Ambas­sador), David MacMi­chael (retired CIA ana­lyst), Brady Kiesling (former For­eign Ser­vice Officer of US State Depart­ment), and Todd Pierce (retired U.S. Army Major, Judge Advoc­ate, Guantanamo Defense Counsel).

­Annie Machon for RT

­Annie Machon is a former intelligence officer for MI5, the UK Security Service, who resigned in 1996 to blow the whistle on the spies' incompetence and crimes. Drawing on her varied experiences, she is now a media pundit, author, journalist, international tour and event organiser, political campaigner, and PR consultant.

The article was first published at anniemachon.ch

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

‘Left, Right & Center’: Blah Jobs, Grilling Hagel and Immigration Reform

‘Left, Right & Center’: Blah Jobs, Grilling Hagel and Immigration Reform

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share
Posted on Feb 1, 2013
kcrw.com

Truthdig Editor-in-Chief Robert Scheer and the other “Left, Right & Center” panelists discuss the unemployment rates stalling at 7.9 percent while the economy added 335,000 more jobs than originally estimated. Also, Senate Republicans come down hard on Chuck Hagel, defense secretary nominee and former colleague.

They criticized Hagel for positions he had taken on Israel, the Iraq War and the nuclear threat from Iran. Is he too liberal for the Republicans? Obama pledges to put an immigration bill before lawmakers if they don’t come up with one themselves. Will immigration reform finally happen?

Joining Scheer and host Matt Miller is the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein on the right.

—Adapted from KCRW by Alexander Reed Kelly.

KCRW:

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Ed Koch’s ‘Last Word’



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

The Post War II New World Order Map: A Proposal to Re-arrange the World...

The Post War II New World Order Map: A Proposal to Re-arrange the World after an Allied Victory

Published in Philadelphia in early 1942, this ‘Outline of (the) Post-War New World Map’, created by Maurice Gomberg, shows a proposal to re-arrange the world after an Allied victory against the Axis forces. Its title refers to a ‘New World Order’, a vague concept, its many definitions often contradicting each other.

At the core of the NWO, however, is always the notion that a small group of powerful individuals, institutions, industries and/or nations must lead the world in the right direction (i.e. towards ‘unification’). This may be against the world’s own will (and therefore done covertly, at least in some versions of the NWO-story), but ultimately it is for its own good.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/map1942world1600.jpg

http://strangemaps. files.wordpress. com/2008/ 06/1942world1600 .jpg

One of the most recent references to the NWO by a major political figure was made by US president George Bush (Sr), who explicitly used the NWO to refer to US objectives in a Post-Cold War world. The term has a pedigree much older than the Cold War, or even both World Wars. Some might even say – and now we’re straying somewhat prematurely into the field of conspiracy theory – that it goes all the way back to Roman times, as is attested by the (modified) quote of the Roman poet Virgil on the revers of the US Great Seal and (significantly or not, since 1935) on the back of the dollar bill: Novus Ordo Seclorum – literally: ‘A New Order for the Ages’.

In a modern context, it was the British imperialist Cecil Rhodes (who gave his name to Rhodesia) who first proposed a federal world government to be imposed by the US and the British Empire. US President Woodrow Wilson was inspired by a similar concept to draw up his plans for a League of Nations in the aftermath of World War I. Most fascist regimes in the 20s, 30s and 40s of the twentieth century also proposed some sort of NWO – in fact, most styled themselves to be a ‘New Order’. H.G. Wells – he of ‘War of the Worlds’ – wrote ‘The Open Conspiracy’ (1928) in which he describes his efforts to get intellectuals to back the idea of a World Social Democracy and ‘The New World Order’ (1940), in which he details how a generation of struggle will be necessary to overcome the opponents of such a global government.

The footer of the above map reads as follows:

•The United States of America (USA): the US, Canada, all Central American and Carribean states, most Atlantic islands (including Greenland and Iceland), most Pacific islands, Taiwan, Hainan, the Philippines and several now Indonesian islands, including Sulawesi. This was to be the dominant power in the world, military and otherwise.

•The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR): the Soviets were to be rewarded with Persia (Iran), Mongolia, Manchuria, Finland, and all of Eastern Europe, which subsequently would form part of the Eastern Bloc (excluding Albania, but including the real-life maverick state of Yugoslavia, socialist but anti-Soviet) . All of theses states were simply to become member-states of the USSR. Austria and most of Germany, although ‘quarantained’ are shown within the Soviet sphere.

•The United States of South America (USSA): including all South American states, with the three Guianas as a single constituent state and the Falkland Islands part of the USSA.

•The Union of African Republics (UAR): All of Africa as a federation of republics.

•The Arabian Federated Republics (AFR): covering Saudi and all other states now occupying the Arabian Peninsula, plus present-day Iraq and Syria.

•The Federated Republics of India (FRI): Present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Birma (Myanmar).

•The United Republics of China (URC): A federation including all parts of present-day China, Korea, the erstwhile French colony of Indochina (now Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia), Thailand and Malaya.

•The United States of Scandinavia (USS): Norway, Sweden, Denmark.

•The United States of Europe (USE): the Benelux countries, the German Rhineland, France, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal and Italy.

•And finally the British Commonwealth of Nations (BCN), including Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Madagascar and most of Indonesia.

Smaller entities include Eire (the whole of Ireland), Greece (including Albania), Turkey (excluding European Turkey), Hebrewland (the Holy Land plus Jordan) and Japan. The three axis states (Germany, Italy and Japan) were to be ‘quarantained’ until they could be readmitted in the family of nations.

Mr Gomberg possibly took his cue for this map from US president Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose speech about Four Freedoms and a Moral Order (from his State of the Union to the 77-th Congress) he quotes, before outlining his own vision (at the bottom of the map):

“As the USA with the cooperation of the Democracies of Latin-America, the British Commonwealth of Nations and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, assumes world leadership for the establishment of a New World Moral Order for permanent peace, justice, security and world reconstruction.”

“OUR POLICY SHALL BE THIS:

1. We, the U.S.A., in cooperation with our allies, for reasons of our national safety and in the interests of international morality, are determined to crush and completely destroy the military power of the Axis aggressors, and their satellites regardless of cost, effort and time necessary to accomplish this task.

2. The old world order of colonial oppression, exploitation of dominions, rival imperialism and mercenary balance of power diplomacy; of majesties, dictators, privileged minorities, plutocratic monopolists and similar social parasites; the corrupted order responsible for the present world cataclysm, endangering our national safety and peaceful process, shall never rise again.

3. A New World Moral Order for permanent peace and freedom shall be established at the successful conclusion of the present war.

4. For reasons of history, economic structure, favorable geography and the welfare of mankind, the U.S.A. must, altruistically, assume the leadership of the newly established, democratic world order.

5. To reduce the burden and criminal waste of armaments expenditures everywhere in the world, the U.S.A., with the cooperation of Latin-America, the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the U.S.S.R. shall undertake to guarantee peace to the nations which will be permanently disarmed and demilitarized after the conclusion of the present war.

6. In order to be able, in the fulfillment of our obligations, to effectively prevent the possibility of a recurrence of another world cataclysm, the invincibility of the U.S.A. as a military, naval and air power, shall be the major prerequisite.

7. For realistic considerations of strategy and our invulnerability, it is imperative that the U.S.A. shall obtain relinquishment of controls of their possessions from all foreign Powers in the entire Western Hemisphere, it’s surrounding waters and strategic island outposts as outlined on accompanying map.

8. For considerations of hemispheric defense and in the spirit and tradition of the new Monroe Doctrine of hemispheric solidarity and the “Good Neighbor” policy, the U.S.A. with the consent of the Latin-American Republics, shall obtain control and protectorate rights of the relinquished territories.

9. To strengthen our position in the Caribbean area which is of obvious importance to hemispheric defense, all possible inducements shall be offered to our neighbors of Central America and the West Indies to facilitate their entrance as equal states of the U.S.A. as outlined on map.

10. To fortify the politico-economic unity of the Western Hemisphere, the U.S.A. shall promote and assist the unification of South America into a well organized, democratic, federated “United States of South America.”

11. The liberated British, French and Netherlands Guiana shall be reorganized as one state of the U.S.S.A.

12. All Powers shall relinquish their controls of their colonial, mandate and strategic island possessions everywhere in the world.

13. The British Commonwealth of Nations, the second military and naval Power of importance cooperating in a binding compact with the U.S.A. as a Power for freedom, shall retain and acquire control such territories, peace-security bases and strategic islands outposts essential for the maintenance of world peace and freedom as outlines on the map.

14. The U.S.S.R., the third military Power of importance cooperating with the U.S.A. as a Power for freedom and the maintenance of world peace, shall acquire control of the liberated, disorganized adjacent areas and those of Germany-Austria to be re-educated and eventually incorporated as equal republics of the U.S.S.R., as approximately outlined on map.

15. A world League of Nationalities with arbitration and supervision powers shall be organized.

16. A World Court with punitive powers of absolute boycott, quarantine, blockade and occupation by international police, against lawbreakers of international morality shall be organized.

17. The U.S.A. with the close cooperation of the United States of South America, the British Commonwealth of Nations, the U.S.S.R. and the World League of Nationalities, shall promote and assist in the unification of the relinquished territories and the areas at present unsoundly divided into well organized democratic and absolutely demilitarized republics as approximately on the map.

18. The areas known as Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Switzerland, France, Spain, Portugal, the island of Corsica, and eventually Italy and the islands of Sardinia and Sicily shall be unified as a demilitarized, federated “United States of Europe.”

19. The areas known as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Spitsbergen islands shall be unified as a demilitarized, federated “United States of Scandinavia.”

20. The continent of Africa shall be reorganized and unified as a demilitarized, federated “Union of African Republics.”

21. The areas of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Hejas, Aden and Oman, shall be unified as a demilitarized union of “Arabian Federated Republics.”

22. The areas known as India, including Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Nepal, Bhutan and Burma shall be unified as a demilitarized “federated Republics of India.”

23. The areas known as China, Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Thailand, Malaya, Indo-China and Korea, shall be unified as a demilitarized, federated “United Republics of China.”

24. The areas known as Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Crete, Dodecanese and adjacent islands in the Aegean sea shall be unified as a demilitarized “Federal Republic of Greece.”

25. The areas known as Eire and Northern Ireland shall be unified as a demilitarized independent republic of “Eire.”

26. The area of the Holy Land of the ancient Hebrews, at present known as Palestine and Trans-Jordan, and the adjacent requisite regions as outlined on map, for considerations of history and the imperative necessity to alleviate a post war refugee problem, shall be unified as a demilitarized republic of “Hebrewland.”

27. The area known as European Turkey, adjacent to the Dardanelles, sea of Marmora and Bosporus, for considerations of realistic peace strategy shall be placed under joint control of the U.S.S.R. and Turkey.

28. The area known as Turkey shall be a demilitarized independent republic of “Turkey.”

29. All problems of exchange, transfer and repatriation of populations shall be administered by the World League of Nationalities.

30. The criminal perpetrators and their partners in guilt of this hideous war shall be brought to justice and unforgettable punishment administered.

31. All subjects of Japan and all persons of Japanese origin of doubtful loyalty shall be expelled from the entire Western Hemisphere, U.S.A. protectorates and strategic island outposts and their property confiscated for post-war reconstruction needs.

32. All subjects of Germany and Italy and all persons of German and Italian origin known as active supporters of Nazi and fascist ideologies shall be treated similarly.

33. German, Italian, Japanese immigration to the Western Hemisphere, its protectorates and island outposts shall be indefinitely stopped.

34. All persons of German origin in East Prussia and the Rhineland shall be transferred to inner Germany and the regions permanently de-Prussianized.

35. All persons of German, Italian and Japanese origin shall be permanently expelled from their now conquered territories and their property confiscated for post-war construction needs.

36. To cleanse the populations of the defeated Axis aggressors of the intoxication of military chauvinism; to effectuate the removal and destruction of their potential military establishments; to recover the accumulated loot and to re-educate them for their eventual membership in the Family of Nations, the areas of Germany-Austria, Italy and Japan shall be hermetically and indefinitely quarantined and administered by appointed Governors subject to supervision by the world League of Nationalities.

37. All resources, industrial and labor capacity of quarantined areas shall be employed for the post war restoration and reconstruction needs.

38. To reduce the numerical power of the aggressor nations, as a potential military advantage, a Population Control Policy shall be elaborated and applied in the quarantined area.

39. In the New World Moral Order which we seek to establish, besides the essential political freedoms, the following fundamental economic changes are imperative:

(a) Nationalization of all natural resources and equitable distribution of same to all nations…everywhere in the world;

(b) Nationalization of international banking, foreign investments, railroads and power plants….everywhere in the world;

(c) Nationalization of all armaments producing establishments by all military powers;

(d) Federal control of foreign commerce and shipping;

(e) The establishment of a world common monetary system;

(f) World wide limitations of interest rates to a maximum of two percent;

40. To retain the victory and leadership of our united democratic effort….the aim of which is not vengeance or exploitation, but freedom and security to all nations for peaceful progress….the unified “Supreme War Command of the United Nations” at the conclusion of the present war, shall be recognized and transformed into a permanent “Supreme Military and Economic Council” collaborating with the World League of Nationalities in post war construction and to enforce world peace.

41. The “Supreme Military and Economic Council” shall appoint the Governors to administer the quarantined areas until their eventual parole.

For this purposeful beginning we must fight until absolute victory.”

from:
http://strangemaps. wordpress. com/2008/ 06/06/286- the-new-world- moral-map/
1941 Map predicted future …
http://forum. prisonplanet. com/index. php?topic= 57864.msg289305# msg289305

Compare the 1942 Map to the US Commands, which reflect America’s deployment of military might and wars of conquest (Editor of Global Research)

Hagel Hearings Lessons: Iraq “Surge”; Israel’s Primacy

WASHINGTON - February 1 - ROBERT PARRY, [email]
Parry is editor of Consortiumnews.com and his most recent book is America’s Stolen Narrative. He recently wrote the piece “The Iraq War ‘Surge’ Myth Returns,” which states: “At confirmation hearings for Defense Secretary-designate Chuck Hagel, Official Washington will reprise one of its favorite myths, the story of the ‘successful surge’ in Iraq. Politicians and pundits have made clear that the Senate Armed Services Committee should hector Hagel over his opposition to President George W. Bush’s 2007 ‘surge’ of 30,000 troops into that failed war. …

“Any serious analysis of what happened in Iraq in 2007-08 would trace the decline in Iraqi sectarian violence mostly to strategies that predated the ‘surge’ and were implemented by the U.S. commanding generals in 2006, George Casey and John Abizaid, who wanted as small a U.S. ‘footprint’ as possible to tamp down Iraqi nationalism. …

“The hard truth is that this bloody folly was not ‘salvaged’ by the ‘surge’ despite what the likes of Michael O’Hanlon, George F. Will and John McCain claim. The “surge” simply extended the killing for a few more years and bought Bush and Cheney their ‘decent interval.’” Hagel was indeed forcefully questioned about the “surge” by Sen. John McCain.

PHILIP WEISS, [email]
Late Thursday, Rajiv Chandrasekaran of the Washington Post tweeted: “At Hagel hearing, 136 mentions of Israel and 135 of Iran. Only 27 refs to Afghanistan. 2 for Al Qaida. 1 for Mali.”

Weiss is co-editor of MondoWeiss.net, and just wrote the piece “Hagel Offers Himself as Secretary of Israel’s Defense,” which states: “The most urgent questions were about Israel, and many came from liberal Democrats insisting that Hagel is pledged to going to war against Iran if it acquires a nuclear weapon.

“Hagel was suitably craven. ‘I’ve said that I’m a strong supporter of Israel. .. I’ve said that we have a special relationship with Israel. … I’ve never voted against Israel in my career. … I’ve been to Israel many times,’ he told Jack Reed of Rhode Island.

“While Kirsten Gillibrand of New York made no bones about ‘the most urgent issues — Israel and Israel’s security issues. … We are fundamentally tied to [Israel].” Then Gillibrand demanded that if there has to be a continuing resolution in the event of a budget crunch, Hagel’s Pentagon will take pains to keep money going to Israel for its Iron Dome missile defense.

“Does she believe this or is this just now the religion of Washington?

“Hagel repeatedly asserted that he regards Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Revolutionary Guard of Iran as terrorist organizations. He abandoned every bold stand he has taken on Israel. …

“But the most revealing part of the spectacle was watching Hagel stand up to John McCain when McCain said he had been wrong to oppose the Iraq surge in 2007 and the Afghanistan surge in 2009 — and then watching Hagel fold pathetically when Lindsey Graham asked him to condemn Israeli settlements.”

Also yesterday, Reuters reported: “U.N. human rights investigators called on Israel on Thursday to halt settlement expansion and withdraw all half a million Jewish settlers from the occupied West Bank, saying that its practices could be subject to prosecution as possible war crimes.”

Hagel Hearings Lessons: Iraq “Surge”; Israel’s Primacy

WASHINGTON - February 1 - ROBERT PARRY, [email]
Parry is editor of Consortiumnews.com and his most recent book is America’s Stolen Narrative. He recently wrote the piece “The Iraq War ‘Surge’ Myth Returns,” which states: “At confirmation hearings for Defense Secretary-designate Chuck Hagel, Official Washington will reprise one of its favorite myths, the story of the ‘successful surge’ in Iraq. Politicians and pundits have made clear that the Senate Armed Services Committee should hector Hagel over his opposition to President George W. Bush’s 2007 ‘surge’ of 30,000 troops into that failed war. …

“Any serious analysis of what happened in Iraq in 2007-08 would trace the decline in Iraqi sectarian violence mostly to strategies that predated the ‘surge’ and were implemented by the U.S. commanding generals in 2006, George Casey and John Abizaid, who wanted as small a U.S. ‘footprint’ as possible to tamp down Iraqi nationalism. …

“The hard truth is that this bloody folly was not ‘salvaged’ by the ‘surge’ despite what the likes of Michael O’Hanlon, George F. Will and John McCain claim. The “surge” simply extended the killing for a few more years and bought Bush and Cheney their ‘decent interval.’” Hagel was indeed forcefully questioned about the “surge” by Sen. John McCain.

PHILIP WEISS, [email]
Late Thursday, Rajiv Chandrasekaran of the Washington Post tweeted: “At Hagel hearing, 136 mentions of Israel and 135 of Iran. Only 27 refs to Afghanistan. 2 for Al Qaida. 1 for Mali.”

Weiss is co-editor of MondoWeiss.net, and just wrote the piece “Hagel Offers Himself as Secretary of Israel’s Defense,” which states: “The most urgent questions were about Israel, and many came from liberal Democrats insisting that Hagel is pledged to going to war against Iran if it acquires a nuclear weapon.

“Hagel was suitably craven. ‘I’ve said that I’m a strong supporter of Israel. .. I’ve said that we have a special relationship with Israel. … I’ve never voted against Israel in my career. … I’ve been to Israel many times,’ he told Jack Reed of Rhode Island.

“While Kirsten Gillibrand of New York made no bones about ‘the most urgent issues — Israel and Israel’s security issues. … We are fundamentally tied to [Israel].” Then Gillibrand demanded that if there has to be a continuing resolution in the event of a budget crunch, Hagel’s Pentagon will take pains to keep money going to Israel for its Iron Dome missile defense.

“Does she believe this or is this just now the religion of Washington?

“Hagel repeatedly asserted that he regards Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Revolutionary Guard of Iran as terrorist organizations. He abandoned every bold stand he has taken on Israel. …

“But the most revealing part of the spectacle was watching Hagel stand up to John McCain when McCain said he had been wrong to oppose the Iraq surge in 2007 and the Afghanistan surge in 2009 — and then watching Hagel fold pathetically when Lindsey Graham asked him to condemn Israeli settlements.”

Also yesterday, Reuters reported: “U.N. human rights investigators called on Israel on Thursday to halt settlement expansion and withdraw all half a million Jewish settlers from the occupied West Bank, saying that its practices could be subject to prosecution as possible war crimes.”

‘Diplomacy only solution to Syria crisis’

Militants walk along a deserted street at the front line as they battle Syrian troops in the Salahuddin district of the northern Syrian city of Aleppo, on October 30, 2012.

Iranian lawmaker Mohammad-Saleh Jokar says the ongoing conflict in Syria should only be settled through diplomatic solution and negotiation.

“Continuation of the conflict in Syria is not in the interest of any of the sides involved in the [conflict in the] country and efforts must be made to quickly resolve this crisis diplomatically,” Jokar said on Friday.

He added that foreign countries must end financial and military support for the conflict in Syria and should not prevent diplomatic settlement.

The lawmaker stated that international organizations which have kept silent with regards to the crimes committed by armed opposition forces in Syria betray humanity.

Jokar also called on the international community to pressure armed opposition groups in Syria in order to make them enter into negotiations without setting precondition.


The Syria crisis began in March 2011, and many people, including large numbers of army and security personnel, have been killed since.

The Syrian government says the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants are foreign nationals.

Damascus blames the West and its regional allies Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey for supporting the armed groups.

In addition, several international human rights organizations have accused the militants fighting the Syrian government of committing war crimes.

TNP/HGH/SS

‘Syria entitled to respond to Israel’

An Iranian lawmaker has censured Israel’s recent airstrike on a military research center near the Syrian capital, Damascus, saying that responding to the attack is the legitimate right of Syrian government.

Deputy head of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee Mansour Haqiqatpour said on Friday that the attack pointed to the failure of plots devised to topple the Damascus government

The Iranian legislator added that the aerial attack proved that Israel, together with the US and certain Arab and regional countries, are seeking to unseat President Bashar al-Assad's government.


The Israeli regime decided to try and hurt the Syrian government after the failure of its allies to overthrow the government in Damascus, Haqiqatpour stated.

He added that the recent Israeli airstrike on a Syrian scientific center flagrantly violated international law given the fact that Israel’s fighter jets violated Syrian airspace.

Haqiqatpour further highlighted that it is up to the Syrian nation and government to decide whether to respond to the Israeli aggression politically, legally or militarily.

He also criticized the UN for its refusal to condemn the Israeli attack, calling on international organizations to adopt punitive measures against Israel and force Tel Aviv to pay Damascus compensation for its latest raid on the country.

The Syrian Army said in a statement on Wednesday that two people were killed and five others injured in an Israeli airstrike on a scientific center in Jamraya, located 25 kilometers (15 miles) northwest of the capital Damascus.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of security forces, have been killed in the turmoil.

The Syrian government says the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants are foreign nationals.

MP/HGH/SS

Syrian Left Opposition Groups Propose Plan to End an Endless War

Omar Dahi: Israel and US want to weaken Assad but don't trust opposition to take power creating conditions for a perpetual civil war.

TRANSCRIPT:

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News. I'm Paul Jay.

Israel has been accused of bombing inside of Syria. According to the Associated Press, Israel bombed a convoy, perhaps—the accusations say—carrying arms from Syria to Lebanon. But the Syrian government say that's not what happened at all. They say a defense installation near Damascus was hit. Of course, the Israeli army is saying nothing, as they usually do in such situations.

But it suggests a broader question facing Israel: what is their attitude towards Syria? They're concerned about arms going to Hezbollah in Lebanon, in which case they would like to weaken the Syrian government of Assad. On the other hand, they're perhaps even more concerned about the fall of Assad and what comes next.

Now joining us to discuss Israel's attitude towards Syria is Omar Dahi. He's an assistant professor of economics at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. He's also an editor at The Middle East Report.

Thanks very much for joining us, Omar.

OMAR DAHI, ASSISTANT PROF. ECONOMICS, HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE: Thanks for having me.

JAY: So what do you make of Israel's posture? Their rhetoric still more or less is about the downfall of Assad. But do they really want that?

DAHI: I don't think so. And from the beginning of the Syrian uprising, they've actually been very measured and careful in what they said. And I believe, although it's hard to tell for sure, that there's close coordination between the U.S. and Israel on this subject, as there is on most subjects that relate to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, specifically those that might relate to Israel.

And I think over the years there are many things that the Syrian regime does that Israel doesn't like. It provides support to Hezbollah, a resistance organization that has been very effective in fighting Israel in Lebanon and resisting Israeli attacks against Lebanon. They provide support, up until very recently, they provide a base for a political bureau for Hamas inside Syria. So they provide support for oppositional groups, Palestinian oppositional groups.

At the same time, they've been very pragmatic and practical and have had a de facto peace agreement with Israel since the 1973 War, even though it's not an official peace agreement. But they have been very effective in maintaining calm over the Israeli border and essentially trying to rein in any groups that might try to destabilize this peace agreement.

And I think from the beginning of the uprising, what they had in mind seeing was Syria getting weaker, Syria being destroyed, Syria being subjected to more sanctions and under siege globally. So in many ways the status quo still very much serves Israeli interests.

The danger is that the Assad regime might actually collapse and you suddenly find the northern border of Israel, after being silent for 30 years, be filled with all sorts of heterogeneous groups from the Free Syrian Army, but other groups related to al-Qaeda, that might use it as a springboard for launching attacks against Israel. And I think that's the most preoccupying concern from their perspective.

JAY: It seems to me Israel's, you know, quote-unquote "interest", if you—based on the mindset of the current leadership of Israel, at any rate, would be a civil war that never ends. As long as you keep Syria in mostly chaos, but not enough where Assad actually falls, then you can do what they're accused of doing yesterday, which is you can take out military installations you don't like, or you could bomb convoys going to Lebanon, stuff they couldn't have done prior to all the chaos. On the other hand, as you're suggesting, they don't want Assad to actually fall, because what may come next may be al-Qaeda forces or whatever kinds of forces that might be much more active against Israel. And by extension, this seems to be what the Americans want, which is a complete disaster for the Syrian people, which is a civil war that never ends. It's almost like, you know, Lebanon at its worst.

DAHI: Exactly. And over the past two years there's been a lot of weapons going from Lebanon into Syria that obviously haven't been attacked by Israel. They don't mind that, as long as it's going into Syria, that it's going to be—being used to fight inside the civil war. But weapons going from east to west into Lebanon that may be used by Hezbollah in a war perhaps with Israel, that's a problem to them.

In addition to what you just said, another goal that comes out of weakening Syria is weakening the link between Iran and Hezbollah, further isolating Iran, further sort of removing that link that strengthened Hezbollah and strengthened Iran together. And as you know, over the past several years Israel has made isolating and even bombing Iran a foreign-policy priority.

JAY: And I wonder if isolating Hezbollah isn't even a more urgent priority, in the sense that, you know, is Israel really going to get into a war with Iran? It's—one wonders. But the possibility of another war with Hezbollah is quite real.

DAHI: Absolutely. And I think they can—they've been watching this situation carefully and they can take what they can get. If they can—if they have a chance to strike at Syria, to further weaken Syrian infrastructure, particularly military infrastructure, they're likely to do so. We're not exactly sure what they hit.

But the general trend seems to be that the regime needs to be strong enough to contain the uprising. And I think you see the pressure from the U.S. and the agreement between the U.S. and Russia to come to a sort of political settlement heading in that direction. The political settlement will likely keep elements of the regime in power, specifically the army, and then include members of the opposition as part of a transitional government.

JAY: So if Russia, the United States—and you throw in the other powers, you know, Israel, but even Turkey, Qatar, the Saudis—seem to just want to keep fueling this thing, if it's in all of their interests, more or less, to let this war just keep going, is there any sense of a response from the Syrian people that this is a completely no-win situation for the Syrians?

DAHI: I think so. And over the past week you've seen two very interesting initiatives that are meant to counter this sort of endless war. The first was that there was two oppositional group summits, one that took place in Paris and one that took place in Geneva.

The one that took place in Paris was the national coalition of Syrian revolutionary forces, which is the new umbrella group that is supported by the West and which is mainly composed of Islamists and Liberal forces.

The one that took place in Geneva are the oppositional groups that are called the forces for democratic change, and they include mostly left-wing groups, and independent Kurdish groups as well, who have been more independent of Western patronage and who have been calling for dialog, or at least negotiations, with the regime. Their final goal was negotiations with the regime to achieve a political settlement.

But the interesting thing was that the head of the Syrian National Coalition came out yesterday and called for negotiations with the regime to end the bloodshed out of concern for the total destruction that's happening in the country. And he was attacked by some, but there was an overwhelming response of people who thought that now the time has finally come to enter into negotiations with the Syrian regime.

Now, of course, it's not been simply the opposition that's been rejecting negotiations. The Syrian regime has been calling for dialog, but they want dialog on their own terms that preserve the regime.

But the point is, there has to be something that breaks the stalemate. And you see for the first time real direction from the political leadership of the opposition groups towards that end.

JAY: So is there any sense of a negotiation with Assad still there? That's always been the position, that there's no talking as long as Assad's still there. But there seems to be no break on the side of the Syrian elite that they're going to hang tough with Assad. And what was the speech he made recently? I think it was at an opera house where he sort of laid out a plan for what a resolution might look like.

DAHI: Yeah. The speech, he called for a plan where there'd be a dialog or negotiations with some opposition groups that he said are not out for the destruction of the country, and that they would form a committee that would then lay a new constitution.

But I think aside from the speech that he gave, which is mostly a condemnation of the opposition and mostly, basically, a promise that Syria's going to be stronger and that the regime is winning and so forth, there are other changes that are happening in the position of Russia. So you see a change in the Russian position over the last couple of months saying that we are not committed to Assad himself, that we are not particularly wedded to the Syrian regime remaining the way it is forever.

And from the other hand, you see the U.S. stopping to blame Russia. If you noticed last year, all of the U.S. pronouncements was taking advantage of the Syrian situation to blame Russia and China for everything that's happening. That has stopped, and you've seen much more condemnation of the regime itself and increasing awareness of what the U.S. says are terrorist groups and jihadis among the Syrian opposition.

JAY: But if the obstacle to any kind of negotiation has been Assad has to go, the meeting in Geneva, did they take any different position on that? I mean, are they willing to talk to an Assad-led regime?

DAHI: What they're proposing is a transitional government with full powers (what that means remains to be seen) that removes the powers of the presidency. So they will be a transitional government. The president's powers will be stripped of him. He might remain ceremonial for a period of six months, and then there'll be fresh elections. So the idea is that he's not—he doesn't step down first, that he steps down at the end of the transitional period.

Now, of course, any of these scenarios, for them to happen there has to be a willingness by the parties fighting on the ground to accept this. Otherwise, this is all a moot point.

JAY: And to what extent are the people in Geneva representing people fighting on the ground?

DAHI: The people in Geneva don't really represent the people fighting on the ground. The people in Paris, the Syrian National Coalition of revolutionary forces claim to have the representation of the people on the ground. They can't force them to immediately drop their weapons. But in the end, the increasing tendency has been by the supporters of those rebel groups, the ones who supply them with weapons, on putting the squeeze on. Over the last period of several months, you've seen increasingly the rebel groups, the Free Syrian Army complaining that all the arms, the equipment, is basically trickling down, and they're being squeezed by their funders, many of whom are in the Gulf, to basically unify under one command that can be controlled more easily.

JAY: I'm reading that the Saudis are continuing to really fuel the jihadist forces and are not interested in any kind of negotiation or resolution, and as long as—and the jihadist forces, I understand, are not feeling very represented by the people that were in the Western-recognized coalition that they've now—that the Americans and others have recognized. So if it turns out that most of the fighting is kind of being pushed by the jihadists, it sounds like the only ones the jihadists are answering to are the Saudis.

DAHI: That's true, although I don't know and it's not clear that most of the fighting's being fueled by them. They're certainly strong enough to do a lot of damage, and they're certainly capable of fighting the Syrian regime for a long time. But if other segments of Syrian society, ones such as the Free Syrian Army groups that have not been directly controlled by the Saudis, if you can slowly isolate those groups, I think you can come to a resolution.

Expecting the violence to just end until a resolution happens is impossible in my view. We have to have the start of a political process and then try to isolate or marginalize the groups that are simply refusing entering into any negotiations.

You're absolutely right. The Saudi Arabian officials have come out in the last week and called for more armament of the rebels. And you see here a split between Qatar and Saudi Arabia on that front.

JAY: And if Assad were to agree with this, which I—so far there's no indication, but a kind of dignified way out is more or less what the Geneva proposal is. But if he was to agree with it, do the people that met in Geneva have enough popular support to be able to have this process without being called traitors and this and that?

DAHI: It's tough. It depends on how the process unfolds. I think if there's a clear change on the ground—for example, one of the conditions that the head of the Syrian National Coalition asked for was the release of over 160,000 prisoners. If those prisoners are released, that's a real, tangible sign of progress. You have tens of thousands of people in areas that don't have any humanitarian access. If the regime pulls back, stops bombing these areas, and allows humanitarian aid to enter them, that's a tangible sign of progress.

I think in order for people to jump on the bandwagon of a solution, they have to see some tangible steps. And I think these small steps may restore the trust of the political oppositional leadership, may allow people to put their trust in their political oppositional leadership that will allow them to enter into serious negotiations with the regime. If [unintel.] enter negotiations without any change in the behavior of the regime, that's not going to actually be considered legitimate.

JAY: Alright. Thanks very much for joining us, Omar.

DAHI: Thank you.

JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

JPMorgan Sees Gold At $1,800 By Mid 2013 As South Africa “In Crisis” And...

Gold fell $11.70 or 0.7% in New York yesterday and closed at $1,664.80/oz. Silver slipped to a low of $31.09 and finished with a loss of 1.66%.


Gold Spot $/oz, 60 Days, 30 Minutes – (Bloomberg)

For the month, the falls yesterday led to gold being 0.4% lower in dollar terms in January. It was also lower in euro terms but eked out strong gains against the pound and Japanese yen both of which saw falls on international markets.

On the week, while gold is lower today it looks set for a small weekly rise in dollar terms and by more in other currencies. It is currently 0.45% higher in dollar terms and 0.35% higher in sterling terms but has seen stronger gains in other paper currencies, 1.1% higher in euro terms, 1.9% higher in yen terms and 2% higher in Swiss franc terms. 

While the euro has strengthened against the dollar and pushed the dollar index to its lowest level since the end of December – both currencies look vulnerable to further falls against gold in 2013.


Gold Spot $/oz, 5 Days, Tick – (Bloomberg)

A higher close this week may help the negative technical and overall sentiment towards gold due to the recent price weakness.

U.S. nonfarm payrolls are published at 1330 GMT and a negative number should see more safe haven gold buying as was seen after the poor GDP number this week. 

The CME Group said it will add platinum and palladium options onto its Globex electronic platform starting towards the end of February. They intend to cater for the increasing investor interest in platinum group metals. 

New research confirms that having gold in a portfolio acts as a currency hedge and will protect investors from currency volatility in emerging markets.

The World Gold Council, examined eight periods of “crisis conditions” and found returns from portfolios that included gold in hedging were 2.4% higher than investments lacking measures to counter exchange-rate risk. Gold beat currency hedges by 1%, according to the Council.

Economic growth in emerging markets, along with “aggressive” monetary policies in developed countries, led to increases in interest-rates disparities and more expensive exchange-rate hedging costs, they noted.  

The World Gold Council has long been at the forefront of providing excellent research showing gold’s importance as a hedge, diversification and store of wealth for investors and savers.

JPMorgan Sees Gold At $1,800 By Mid 2013 As South Africa “In Crisis” And “Escalating Instability” In Middle East  
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. said gold will rise to $1,800 an ounce by the middle of 2013, with the mining industry in South Africa “in crisis,” according to Bloomberg.

South Africa, once the largest gold producer, faces industrial unrest, high wage inflation and adverse regulatory changes for local mines, Allan Cooke, an analyst at the bank, said in a report dated today.

Gold will get a boost from prospects of more stimuli from the U.S., Japan and Europe, the potential for escalating instability in the Middle East and low interest rates, according to the report.

Geopolitical risk from the Middle East and the risk of war between Israel and Syria and Iran remains seriously underestimated by market participants and will provide support for both oil and gold. 

Only yesterday the crisis intensified after Israel stepped into the Syrian conflict by bombing the outskirts of Damascus. Russia condemned the attack and Syria has threatened retaliation.

GoldCore's Webinar on Gold and Silver in 2013
Dominic Frisby, Money Week’s gold expert, and GoldCore's Head of Research, Mark O'Byrne conducted a one hour webinar on Wednesday which discussed the outlook for gold and silver in 2013 and beyond.


Central Bank Gold Buying May Lead To Higher Prices in 2013 – GoldCore Webinar Slide

Frisby and O’Byrne presented a series of interesting slides. Both remain bullish in the long term but were cautious about the short term – primarily due to the poor recent technical action.

The webinar was extremely well attended and question and answers were again increasingly popular. Some of the interesting and important questions posed to both Frisby and O’Byrne included the following:

>> What is your opinion of the reasons for the German gold repatriation & why do you think it is going to take 7 years to do so?

>> What is your opinion regarding tungsten gold bars?

>> Do you believe the gold market is manipulated by bullion banks and central bankers who do not want to see gold going up? 

>>  If metals are going so high why only recommend 5, 10, 15% allocation in portfolio?

The  webinar can be watched and listened to by registering to view the recording at this link

NEWS
Gold headed for weekly rise; US jobs data in focus - Reuters

Gold futures rise ahead of U.S. jobs data – Market Watch

COMMODITIES - Profit taking hits grains, gold; index up 3% in January – Reuters

LBMA, IGE urged to end Iran-Turkey Gold trade – Bullion Street

Gold Seen Countering Emerging Market Currency Risk - Bloomberg

COMMENTARY
Gold mitigates foreign-exchange risk when investing in emerging markets – World Gold Council

A Wager on Metal's Silver Lining – The Wall Street Journal

Forget the slowdown in the US – the UK is the real worry – Money Week

The 10 Minute Gold Standard: It’s Much Easier Than You Think - Forbes

Rush To Safety: Americans Buy Nearly Half a Billion Dollars Of Gold and Silver In January – 24H Gold

Video: Should You Buy Precious Metals? - CNBC

For breaking news and commentary on financial markets and gold, follow us onTwitter.

Your rating: None

‘Muslims should not become enemy tools’

Tehran Interim Friday Prayers Leader Hojjatoleslam Kazem Seddiqi says Muslims should remain vigilant about the plots hatched by the US and its allies and do not allow enemies to manipulate them.

“All Muslims should be united against the enemies and their plots as any effort to create division in the Muslim community and intensify differences is against public interests,” the senior Iranian cleric added.

Ayatollah Seddiqi further pointed out that the United States and its allies are hatching plots to hinder the progress of Muslims by forming phony groups which stand against the real Islam.


Referring to the situation in Syria, the senior cleric said some regional governments encourage fratricide, fan the flames of violence in Syria, and have become tools in the hands of the enemy to hurt Islam instead of uniting Muslims to stand against Western arrogant powers.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since mid-March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of security personnel, have been killed in the violence.

The Syrian government says the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants fighting the Syrian government are foreign nationals.

TNP/HGH/SS

The Hagel Hearings

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item.

Transcript

NAT -

THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK SEN. HAGEL IS WHY TEH FOREIGN MINSTER OF IRAN IS IN FAVOR OF YOUR NOMINATIONI WOULD BE HAPPY TO RESPOND FURTHER FOR THE RECORDJessica Desvarieux:THAT WAS THE START OF THE EIGHT HOUR PLUS CONFIRMATION HEARING FOR FORMER NEBRASKA SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL. THE REPUBLICAN SENATOR WAS NOMINATED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA TO BE THE COUNTRY'S NEXT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. HAGEL HAS COME UNDER FIRE FROM HIS FELLOW REPUBLICANS. AND IN THIS JANUARY 31ST SESSION SENATE HEARING, REPUBLICANS QUESTIONED HAGEL ABOUT ISSUES RANGING FROM IRAN POLICY TO CEASING NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION.THERE WAS ONE PARTICULARLY CONTENTIOUS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN HAGEL AND REPUBLICAN ARIZONA SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE TROOP SURGE IN IRAQ WAS THE RIGHT DECISION.THE REAL NEWS SPOKE WITH INTER-PRESS SERVICE WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF JIM LOBE TO GET HIS TAKE ON THE HEARING.Jim Lobe, Washington Bureau Chief - IPS: Hagel came to see early on int eh invasion of Iraq that this was a catastrophic mistake.... It did reduce the violence but it didnt' national SOUTH CAROLINA SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM ALSO QUESTIONED HAGEL ABOUT HIS COMMENTS WHERE HE REFERRED TO JEWISH LOBBY HAVING STRONG INFLUENCE ON CAPITOL HILL.HAGEL SAID IN 2008 “The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator. This pressure makes us do dumb things at times."Lindsay Graham: Name one person who is intimidated by the Israeli lobbyHagel: Yes, I do. I've already said thatLobe: I think Lindsay Graham is a perfect example of the pressure of the Israel lobby. He is often a sponsor of whatever Netanyahu believes what US policy - if not identical to Israel.. therefore it's un-American that something Prime Minister Netanyanhu wants us to do. That sentiment prevails in the US Congress. That's why you hav e99 - to nothin votes or 100- votes that adopt that are contray to Obama administrations influence. They give money to the Republican party, also to the Democratic party - campaign money will be rewarded to the most powerful institution. IRAN CAME UP SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE HEARING. HAGEL WAS IN STRONG SUPPORT OF CONTINUING SANCTIONS AND MADE CLEAR THAT A MILITARY OPTION WOULD BE THE LAST OPTION.BUT JIM LOBE SAYS THAT DURING AN INTERVIEW WITH HAGEL HE ASKED HIM IF THERE WERE TO BE AN AN ATTACK ON IRAN WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD YOU WILL HAVE TO PUT TROOPS ON TEH GROUND.He said that it was a good question The other point that he was making at there's too much loose talk of war when it comes to Iran - if you're going to talk - all option on are on the table - you can YOu wil have the obligation to really think through the consequences. Jessica Desvarieux, Capitol Hill Correspondent: DURING SENATOR HAGEL'S CONFIRMATION HEARING, THE BACK AND FORTH FOCUSED ON THE MIDDLE EAST MOSTLY. BUT FOR ALL THAT WAS SAID, THERE WAS MUCH THAT WAS LEFT UNSAID, SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S DEFENSE STRATEGY IN ASIA KNOWN AS THE ASIA PIVOT.Lobe: I think the Aisa region you thought - this hearing is abotu his psitions in Middle East - they want to talk ... I just don't think that it's something that has concerned him as muchTHROUGHOUT THE HEARING, DEMOCRATS EXPRESSED GRATITUDE TO SENATOR HAGEL FOR HIS SERVICE IN VIETNAM. HE WOUDL BE THE FIRST COMBAT VETERAN TO OCCUPY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IF HE WINS CONFIRMATION. WITH 55 SENATE DEMOCRATS ALL APPEARING TO BE IN CONSENSUS WITH THE NOMINATION, HAGEL SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORT TO WIN APPROVAL.REPUBLICANS COULD FILIBUSTER HIS NOMINATION - A MOVE THAT WOULD BE HISTORICALLY UNPRECEDENTED FOR A CABINET NOMINEE.THE SENATE IS EXPECTED TO VOTE ON HAGEL'S NOMINATION NEXT WEEK.


Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Sean Hannity and Liz Cheney Praise Ted Cruz’ Deceptive Attack on Chuck Hagel

Color me not shocked that Fox is carrying water for wingnut Sen. Ted Cruz and his dishonest attack on former Sen. Chuck Hagel during yesterday's confirmation hearing for Secretary of Defense. Sean Hannity opened up his show by replaying part of Cruz...

Hagel-ography and the Tired, Destructive Thinking of Washington, DC

Former senator Chuck Hagel, Obama's pick to be the next defense chief, faced many of his old senate colleagues Thursday. (Photo: Reuters)Think of it as the Great Obama Shuffle.  When U.N. ambassador Susan Rice went down in flames as the president’s nominee for secretary of state, he turned to ally, former presidential candidate, and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry (who had essentially been traveling the world as a second secretary of state during Obama’s first term). Next, he nominated his counterterrorism “tsar” and right-hand man in the White House-directed drone wars to be the next head of the CIA, which dominates those drone wars.  Then he picked White House chief of staff (and former Citigroup exec) Jack Lew to head the Treasury Department.  Meanwhile, he tapped his key foreign policy advisor and West Wing aide Denis McDonough to replace Lew as chief of staff.

He also renominated Richard Cordray, whose recess appointment as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was recently endangered by a federal appeals court, to the same position, and picked B. Todd Jones, the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, as the man to reinvigorate that agency.  Otherwise, Tom Donilon will remain his national security advisor and James Clapper, his director of national intelligence.  And so it goes in Obama’s Washington where new faces and fresh air are evidently not an operative concept.

In such an atmosphere, the nomination of retired Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, the co-chairman of the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board, as secretary of defense was the equivalent of a thunderbolt from the blue.  Republicans, in particular, reacted as if the president had just picked Noam Chomsky to run the Pentagon, as if, that is, Hagel were the outsider’s outsider.  When it comes to military and foreign policy, the former Nebraska senator remains the sole breath of fresh air in today’s Washington.  That’s because he has expressed the most modest of doubts about the U.S.-Israeli relationship, as well as the efficacy of the U.S. sanctions program against Iran and a possible attack on that country’s nuclear facilities, and because he has spoken, again in mild terms, of “paring” a Pentagon budget that has experienced year after year of what he's called "bloat."

Of course, what little fresh space might exist between the Obama I and Obama II years (not to speak of the George W. Bush II years) has been rapidly closed.  Hagel was soon forced to mouth the pieties of present-day Washington, offering an ever friendlier take on Israel and an ever-tougher set of positions on Iran, while assuring everyone in sight that his previous positions had been sorely misunderstood.  This should be a healthy reminder that, at least when it comes to war and national security policy, debate in Washington can be fierce and bitter (as over the Benghazi affair), even as what Andrew Bacevich calls “the Washington Rules” ensure that not a genuine new thought, nor a genuinely different position, can be tolerated, no less seriously discussed in that town.

Barack Obama arrived in Washington in 2009 buoyed by the slogan “change we can believe in.”  The bitter Hagel hearings will be a fierce reminder that, when it comes to foreign policy, old is new, and the words “change” and “Washington” don’t belong in the same sentence.  It remains something of an irony that, whether it’s John Kerry or Chuck Hagel, what little breathing room exists in the corridors of power can be credited to a now-ancient war whose realities, as Nick Turse, author of the new book, Kill Anything that Moves, reminds us in his latest piece, most Americans -- Chuck Hagel evidently among them -- could never truly face or take in.

© 2012 TomDispatch.com

Tom Engelhardt

Syrian Left Opposition Groups Propose Plan to End an Endless War

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item.

Bio

Omar S. Dahi is an assistant professor of economics. He received his B.A. in economics from California State University at Long Beach, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in economics from the University of Notre Dame, Indiana. His research and teaching interests are in the areas of economic development and international trade, with a special focus on South-South economic cooperation, and on the political economy of the Middle East and North Africa.

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News. I'm Paul Jay.

Israel has been accused of bombing inside of Syria. According to the Associated Press, Israel bombed a convoy, perhaps—the accusations say—carrying arms from Syria to Lebanon. But the Syrian government say that's not what happened at all. They say a defense installation near Damascus was hit. Of course, the Israeli army is saying nothing, as they usually do in such situations. But it suggests a broader question facing Israel: what is their attitude towards Syria? They're concerned about arms going to Hezbollah in Lebanon, in which case they would like to weaken the Syrian government of Assad. On the other hand, they're perhaps even more concerned about the fall of Assad and what comes next. Now joining us to discuss Israel's attitude towards Syria is Omar Dahi. He's an assistant professor of economics at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. He's also an editor at The Middle East Report.Thanks very much for joining us, Omar.OMAR DAHI, ASSISTANT PROF. ECONOMICS, HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE: Thanks for having me.JAY: So what do you make of Israel's posture? Their rhetoric still more or less is about the downfall of Assad. But do they really want that?DAHI: I don't think so. And from the beginning of the Syrian uprising, they've actually been very measured and careful in what they said. And I believe, although it's hard to tell for sure, that there's close coordination between the U.S. and Israel on this subject, as there is on most subjects that relate to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, specifically those that might relate to Israel.And I think over the years there are many things that the Syrian regime does that Israel doesn't like. It provides support to Hezbollah, a resistance organization that has been very effective in fighting Israel in Lebanon and resisting Israeli attacks against Lebanon. They provide support, up until very recently, they provide a base for a political bureau for Hamas inside Syria. So they provide support for oppositional groups, Palestinian oppositional groups.At the same time, they've been very pragmatic and practical and have had a de facto peace agreement with Israel since the 1973 War, even though it's not an official peace agreement. But they have been very effective in maintaining calm over the Israeli border and essentially trying to rein in any groups that might try to destabilize this peace agreement. And I think from the beginning of the uprising, what they had in mind seeing was Syria getting weaker, Syria being destroyed, Syria being subjected to more sanctions and under siege globally. So in many ways the status quo still very much serves Israeli interests. The danger is that the Assad regime might actually collapse and you suddenly find the northern border of Israel, after being silent for 30 years, be filled with all sorts of heterogeneous groups from the Free Syrian Army, but other groups related to al-Qaeda, that might use it as a springboard for launching attacks against Israel. And I think that's the most preoccupying concern from their perspective.JAY: It seems to me Israel's, you know, quote-unquote "interest", if you—based on the mindset of the current leadership of Israel, at any rate, would be a civil war that never ends. As long as you keep Syria in mostly chaos, but not enough where Assad actually falls, then you can do what they're accused of doing yesterday, which is you can take out military installations you don't like, or you could bomb convoys going to Lebanon, stuff they couldn't have done prior to all the chaos. On the other hand, as you're suggesting, they don't want Assad to actually fall, because what may come next may be al-Qaeda forces or whatever kinds of forces that might be much more active against Israel. And by extension, this seems to be what the Americans want, which is a complete disaster for the Syrian people, which is a civil war that never ends. It's almost like, you know, Lebanon at its worst.DAHI: Exactly. And over the past two years there's been a lot of weapons going from Lebanon into Syria that obviously haven't been attacked by Israel. They don't mind that, as long as it's going into Syria, that it's going to be—being used to fight inside the civil war. But weapons going from east to west into Lebanon that may be used by Hezbollah in a war perhaps with Israel, that's a problem to them.In addition to what you just said, another goal that comes out of weakening Syria is weakening the link between Iran and Hezbollah, further isolating Iran, further sort of removing that link that strengthened Hezbollah and strengthened Iran together. And as you know, over the past several years Israel has made isolating and even bombing Iran a foreign-policy priority.JAY: And I wonder if isolating Hezbollah isn't even a more urgent priority, in the sense that, you know, is Israel really going to get into a war with Iran? It's—one wonders. But the possibility of another war with Hezbollah is quite real.DAHI: Absolutely. And I think they can—they've been watching this situation carefully and they can take what they can get. If they can—if they have a chance to strike at Syria, to further weaken Syrian infrastructure, particularly military infrastructure, they're likely to do so. We're not exactly sure what they hit.But the general trend seems to be that the regime needs to be strong enough to contain the uprising. And I think you see the pressure from the U.S. and the agreement between the U.S. and Russia to come to a sort of political settlement heading in that direction. The political settlement will likely keep elements of the regime in power, specifically the army, and then include members of the opposition as part of a transitional government.JAY: So if Russia, the United States—and you throw in the other powers, you know, Israel, but even Turkey, Qatar, the Saudis—seem to just want to keep fueling this thing, if it's in all of their interests, more or less, to let this war just keep going, is there any sense of a response from the Syrian people that this is a completely no-win situation for the Syrians?DAHI: I think so. And over the past week you've seen two very interesting initiatives that are meant to counter this sort of endless war. The first was that there was two oppositional group summits, one that took place in Paris and one that took place in Geneva.The one that took place in Paris was the national coalition of Syrian revolutionary forces, which is the new umbrella group that is supported by the West and which is mainly composed of Islamists and Liberal forces. The one that took place in Geneva are the oppositional groups that are called the forces for democratic change, and they include mostly left-wing groups, and independent Kurdish groups as well, who have been more independent of Western patronage and who have been calling for dialog, or at least negotiations, with the regime. Their final goal was negotiations with the regime to achieve a political settlement.But the interesting thing was that the head of the Syrian National Coalition came out yesterday and called for negotiations with the regime to end the bloodshed out of concern for the total destruction that's happening in the country. And he was attacked by some, but there was an overwhelming response of people who thought that now the time has finally come to enter into negotiations with the Syrian regime.Now, of course, it's not been simply the opposition that's been rejecting negotiations. The Syrian regime has been calling for dialog, but they want dialog on their own terms that preserve the regime.But the point is, there has to be something that breaks the stalemate. And you see for the first time real direction from the political leadership of the opposition groups towards that end.JAY: So is there any sense of a negotiation with Assad still there? That's always been the position, that there's no talking as long as Assad's still there. But there seems to be no break on the side of the Syrian elite that they're going to hang tough with Assad. And what was the speech he made recently? I think it was at an opera house where he sort of laid out a plan for what a resolution might look like.DAHI: Yeah. The speech, he called for a plan where there'd be a dialog or negotiations with some opposition groups that he said are not out for the destruction of the country, and that they would form a committee that would then lay a new constitution.But I think aside from the speech that he gave, which is mostly a condemnation of the opposition and mostly, basically, a promise that Syria's going to be stronger and that the regime is winning and so forth, there are other changes that are happening in the position of Russia. So you see a change in the Russian position over the last couple of months saying that we are not committed to Assad himself, that we are not particularly wedded to the Syrian regime remaining the way it is forever. And from the other hand, you see the U.S. stopping to blame Russia. If you noticed last year, all of the U.S. pronouncements was taking advantage of the Syrian situation to blame Russia and China for everything that's happening. That has stopped, and you've seen much more condemnation of the regime itself and increasing awareness of what the U.S. says are terrorist groups and jihadis among the Syrian opposition.JAY: But if the obstacle to any kind of negotiation has been Assad has to go, the meeting in Geneva, did they take any different position on that? I mean, are they willing to talk to an Assad-led regime?DAHI: What they're proposing is a transitional government with full powers (what that means remains to be seen) that removes the powers of the presidency. So they will be a transitional government. The president's powers will be stripped of him. He might remain ceremonial for a period of six months, and then there'll be fresh elections. So the idea is that he's not—he doesn't step down first, that he steps down at the end of the transitional period. Now, of course, any of these scenarios, for them to happen there has to be a willingness by the parties fighting on the ground to accept this. Otherwise, this is all a moot point.JAY: And to what extent are the people in Geneva representing people fighting on the ground?DAHI: The people in Geneva don't really represent the people fighting on the ground. The people in Paris, the Syrian National Coalition of revolutionary forces claim to have the representation of the people on the ground. They can't force them to immediately drop their weapons. But in the end, the increasing tendency has been by the supporters of those rebel groups, the ones who supply them with weapons, on putting the squeeze on. Over the last period of several months, you've seen increasingly the rebel groups, the Free Syrian Army complaining that all the arms, the equipment, is basically trickling down, and they're being squeezed by their funders, many of whom are in the Gulf, to basically unify under one command that can be controlled more easily.JAY: I'm reading that the Saudis are continuing to really fuel the jihadist forces and are not interested in any kind of negotiation or resolution, and as long as—and the jihadist forces, I understand, are not feeling very represented by the people that were in the Western-recognized coalition that they've now—that the Americans and others have recognized. So if it turns out that most of the fighting is kind of being pushed by the jihadists, it sounds like the only ones the jihadists are answering to are the Saudis.DAHI: That's true, although I don't know and it's not clear that most of the fighting's being fueled by them. They're certainly strong enough to do a lot of damage, and they're certainly capable of fighting the Syrian regime for a long time. But if other segments of Syrian society, ones such as the Free Syrian Army groups that have not been directly controlled by the Saudis, if you can slowly isolate those groups, I think you can come to a resolution. Expecting the violence to just end until a resolution happens is impossible in my view. We have to have the start of a political process and then try to isolate or marginalize the groups that are simply refusing entering into any negotiations. You're absolutely right. The Saudi Arabian officials have come out in the last week and called for more armament of the rebels. And you see here a split between Qatar and Saudi Arabia on that front. JAY: And if Assad were to agree with this, which I—so far there's no indication, but a kind of dignified way out is more or less what the Geneva proposal is. But if he was to agree with it, do the people that met in Geneva have enough popular support to be able to have this process without being called traitors and this and that?DAHI: It's tough. It depends on how the process unfolds. I think if there's a clear change on the ground—for example, one of the conditions that the head of the Syrian National Coalition asked for was the release of over 160,000 prisoners. If those prisoners are released, that's a real, tangible sign of progress. You have tens of thousands of people in areas that don't have any humanitarian access. If the regime pulls back, stops bombing these areas, and allows humanitarian aid to enter them, that's a tangible sign of progress. I think in order for people to jump on the bandwagon of a solution, they have to see some tangible steps. And I think these small steps may restore the trust of the political oppositional leadership, may allow people to put their trust in their political oppositional leadership that will allow them to enter into serious negotiations with the regime. If [unintel.] enter negotiations without any change in the behavior of the regime, that's not going to actually be considered legitimate.JAY: Alright. Thanks very much for joining us, Omar.DAHI: Thank you.JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Guest Post: The Linchpin Lie: How Global Collapse Will Be Sold To The Masses

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

In our modern world there exist certain institutions of power.  Not government committees, alphabet agencies, corporate lobbies, or even standard military organizations; no, these are the mere “middle-men” of power.  The errand boys.  The well paid hitmen of the global mafia.  They are not the strategists or the decision makers. 

Instead, I speak of institutions which introduce the newest paradigms.  Who write the propaganda.  Who issue the orders from on high.  I speak of the hubs of elitism which have initiated nearly every policy mechanism of our government for the past several decades.  I am talking about the Council On Foreign Relations, the Tavistock Institute, the Heritage Foundation (a socialist organization posing as conservative), the Bilderberg Group, as well as the corporate foils that they use to enact globalization, such as Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Carlyle Group, etc.

Many of these organizations and corporations operate a revolving door within the U.S. government.  Monsanto has champions, like Donald Rumsfeld who was on the board of directors of its Searle Pharmaceuticals branch, who later went on to help the company force numerous dangerous products including Aspartame through the FDA.  Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have a veritable merry-go-round of corrupt banking agents which are appointed to important White House and Treasury positions on a regular basis REGARDLESS of which party happens to be in office.  Most prominent politicians are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization which has openly admitted on multiple occasions that their goal is the destruction of U.S. sovereignty and the formation of a “one world government” or “supranational union” (their words, not mine).

However, one organization seems to rear its ugly head at the forefront of the most sweeping mass propaganda operations of our time, and has been linked to the creation of the most atrocious military methodologies, including the use of false flag events.  I am of course referring to the Rand Corporation, a California based “think tank” whose influence reaches into nearly every sphere of our society, from politics, to war, to entertainment. 

The Rand Corporation deals in what I would call “absolute gray”.  The goal of the group from its very inception was to promote a social atmosphere of moral ambiguity in the name of personal and national priority.  They did this first through the creation of “Rational Choice Theory”; a theory which prescribes that when making any choice, an individual (or government) must act as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at an action that maximizes personal advantage.  Basically, the ends justify the means, and moral conscience is not a factor to be taken seriously if one wishes to be successful. 

Hilariously, rational choice theory has been attacked in the past by pro-socialist (collectivist) critics as “extreme individualism”; a philosophy which gives us license to be as “self serving” as possible while feeling patriotic at the same time.  In reality, the socialists should have been applauding Rand Corporation all along. 

What Rand had done through its propaganda war against the American people was to infuse the exact culture of selfishness needed to push the U.S. towards the socialist ideal.  At the onset of any communist or national socialist society (sorry socialists, but they do indeed come from the same collectivist mindset), the masses are first convinced to hand over ultimate power to the establishment in order to safeguard THEMSELVES, not others.  That is to say, the common collectivist man chooses to hand over his freedoms and participate in totalitarianism not because he wants what is best for the world, but because he wants what is best for himself, and he believes servitude to the system will get him what he wants with as little private sacrifice as possible (you know, except for his soul…). 

The psychologist Carl Jung notes in his observations of collectivism in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia that most citizens of those nations did not necessarily want the formation of a tyrannical oligarchy, but, they went along with it anyway because they feared for their own comfort and livelihoods.  Many a German supported the Third Reich simply because they did not want to lose a cushy job, or a steady paycheck, or they liked that the “trains ran on time”.  Socialism is by far the most selfish movement in history, despite the fact that they claim to do what they do “for the greater good of the greater number”.

Rand also used Rational Choice Theory as a means to remove questions of principle from the debate over social progress.  Rational Choice propaganda commonly presents the target audience with a false conundrum.  A perfect example would be the hardcore propaganda based television show ‘24’ starring Kiefer Sutherland, in which a government “anti-terrorism” agent is faced with a controlled choice scenario in nearly every episode.  This choice almost always ends with the agent being forced to set aside his morals and conscience to torture, kill, and destroy without mercy, or, allow millions of innocents to die if he does not.

Of course, the real world does not work this way.  Life is not a chess game.   Avenues to resolution of any crisis are limited only by our imagination and intelligence, not to mention the immense number of choices that could be made to defuse a crisis before it develops.  Yet, Rand would like you to believe that we (and those in government) are required to become monstrous in order to survive.  That we should be willing to forgo conscience and justice now for the promise of peace and tranquility later.

This is the age old strategy of Centralization; to remove all choices within a system, by force or manipulation, until the masses think they have nothing left but the choices the elites give them.  It is the bread and butter of elitist institutions like Rand Corporation, and is at the core of the push for globalization.

In my studies on the developing economic disaster (or economic recovery depending on who you talk to) I have come across a particular methodology many times which set off my analyst alarm (or spidey-sense, if you will).  This latest methodology, called “Linchpin Theory”, revolves around the work of John Casti, a Ph.D. from USC, “complexity scientist” and “systems theorist”, a Futurist, and most notably, a former employee of Rand Corporation:

http://www.viennareview.net/vienna-review-book-reviews/book-reviews/john-casti-an-optimist-of-the-apocalypse

Casti introduces his idea of “Linchpin Theory” in his book “X-Events:  The Collapse Of Everything”, and what I found most immediately striking about the idea of “Linchpin Events” was how they offered perfect scapegoat scenarios for catastrophes that are engineered by the establishment. 

Linchpin Theory argues that overt social, political, and technological “complexity” is to blame for the most destructive events in modern human history, and it is indeed an enticing suggestion for those who are uneducated and unaware of the behind the scenes mechanics of world events.  Casti would like you to believe that political and social tides are unguided and chaotic; that all is random, and disaster is a product of “chance” trigger events that occur at the height of a malfunctioning and over-complicated system.

What he fails to mention, and what he should well know being a member of Rand, is that global events do not evolve in a vacuum.  There have always been those groups who see themselves as the “select”, and who aspire to mold the future to there personal vision of Utopia.  It has been openly admitted in myriad official observations on historical events that such groups have had a direct hand in the advent of particular conflicts.  

For instance, Casti would call the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria an “X-event”, or linchpin, leading to the outbreak of WWI, when historical fact recalls that particular crisis was carefully constructed with the specific mind to involve the U.S.

Norman Dodd, former director of the Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified that the Committee was invited to study the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the Committee's investigation. The Committee stated:

"The trustees of the Foundation brought up a single question.  If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war.... They discussed this question... for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people.  That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war.  This was in 1909."

So, long before the advent of Ferdinand’s assassination, plans were being set in motion by globalist interests to draw the U.S. into a large scale conflict in order to “alter the life, or thinking, of the entire culture”.  When a group of people set out to direct thinking and opportunity towards a particular outcome, and the end result is a culmination of that outcome, it is obviously not coincidence, and it is definitely not providence.  It can only be called subversive design. 

In the economic arena, one might say that the collapse of Lehman Bros. was the “linchpin” that triggered the landslide in the derivatives market which is still going on to this day.  However, the derivatives market bubble was a carefully constructed house of cards, deliberately created with the help of multiple agencies and institutions.  The private Federal Reserve had to artificially lower interest rates and inject trillions upon trillions into the housing market, the international banks had to invest those trillions into mortgages that they KNEW were toxic and likely never to be repaid.  The Federal Government had to allow those mortgages to then be chopped up into derivatives and resold on the open market.  The ratings agencies had to examine those derivatives and obviously defunct mortgages and then stamp them AAA.  The SEC had to ignore the massive fraud being done in broad daylight while sweeping thousands of formal complaints and whistle blowers under the rug.

This was not some “random” event caused by uncontrolled “complexity”.  This was engineered complexity with a devious purpose.  The creation of the derivatives collapse was done with foreknowledge, at least by some.  Goldman Sachs was caught red handed betting against their OWN derivatives instruments!  Meaning they knew exactly what was about to happen in the market they helped build!  This is called Conspiracy…

One might attribute Casti’s idea to a sincere belief in chaos, and a lack of insight into the nature of globalism as a brand of religion.  However, in his first and as far as I can tell only interview with Coast To Coast Radio, Casti promotes catastrophic “X-Events” as a “good thing” for humanity, right in line with the Rand Corporation ideology.  Casti, being a futurist and elitist, sees the ideas of the past as obsolete when confronted with the technological advancements of the modern world, and so, describes X-event moments as a kind of evolutionary “kickstart”, knocking us out of our old and barbaric philosophies of living and forcing us, through trial by fire, to adapt to a more streamlined culture.  The linchpin event is, to summarize Casti’s position, a culture’s way of “punishing itself” for settling too comfortably into its own heritage and traditions.  In other words, WE will supposedly be to blame for the next great apocalypse, not the elites…  

I might suggest that Casti's attitude seems to be one of general indifference to human suffering in the wake of his "X-Events", and that he would not necessarily be opposed to the deaths of millions if it caused the "advancement" of humanity towards a particular ideology.  His concept of "advancement" and ours are likely very different, though.  I suspect that he is well aware that X-Events are actually tools at the disposal of elitists to generate the "evolution" he so desires, and that evolution includes a collectivist result.

With almost every major economy on the globe on the verge of collapse and most now desperately inflating, taxing, or outright stealing in order to hide their situation, with multiple tinderbox environments being facilitated in the Pacific with China, North Korea, and Japan, and in the Middle East and Africa with Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Mali, etc., there is no doubt that we are living in a linchpin-rich era.  It is inevitable that one or more of these explosive tension points will erupt and cause a chain reaction around the planet.  The linchpin and the chain reaction will become the focus of our epoch, rather than the men who made them possible in the first place.

Strangely, Casti’s theory was even recently featured in an episode of the ABC mystery/drama show “Castle”, called “Linchpin” (what else?), in which a writer turned detective uncovers a plot by a “shadow group” to use the research of the innocent Dr. Nelson Blakely (apparently based on Casti) to initiate a collapse of the U.S. economy by assassinating the ten-year-old daughter of a prominent Chinese businessman, triggering a dump of U.S. Treasuries by China and fomenting WWIII:

http://www.alterna-tv.com/castle/xevents.htm

Now, I think anyone with any sense can see where this is going.  Casti and Rand Corporation are giving us a glimpse into the future of propaganda.  This is what will be written in our children’s history books if the globalists have their way. The fact that Linchpin Theory is featured in a primetime television show at all is a testament to Rand Corporation’s influence in the media.  But, as for the wider picture, are the trigger points around us really just a product of complex coincidence? 

Not a chance. 

Each major global hot-spot today can easily be linked back to the designs of international corporate and banking interests and the puppet governments they use as messengers.  Casti claims that “X-events” and “linchpins” cannot be accurately predicted, but it would seem that they can certainly be purposely instigated. 

The globalists have stretched the whole of the world thin.  They have removed almost every pillar of support from the edifice around us, and like a giant game of Jenga, are waiting for the final piece to be removed, causing the teetering structure to crumble.  Once this calamity occurs, they will call it a random act of fate, or a mathematical inevitability of an overly complex system.  They will say that they are not to blame.  That we were in the midst of “recovery”.  That they could not have seen it coming.

Their solution will be predictable.  They will state that in order to avoid such future destruction, the global framework must be “simplified”, and what better way to simplify the world than to end national sovereignty, dissolve all borders, and centralize nation states under a single economic and political ideal? 

Is it the Hegelian Dialectic all over again?  Yes.  Is it old hat feudalism and distraction?  Yes.  But, I have to hand it to Casti and Rand Corporation; they certainly have refined the argument for collectivism, centralization, technocracy, slavery, moral relativism, and false-flag dupery down to a near science…

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

When Truth Tried to Stop War

Ten years ago, Katharine Gun, then a 28-year-old British intelligence officer, saw an e-mailed memo from the U.S. National Security Agency George Bush and Tony Blair. (Photo: Mario Tama/EPA)(NSA) that confirmed for her in black and white the already widespread suspicion that the U.S. and U.K. were about to launch war against Iraq on false pretenses.

Doing what she could to head off what she considered, correctly, an illegal war of aggression, she printed a copy of the memo and arranged for a friend to give it to the London Observer. “I have always ever followed my conscience,” she said, explaining what drove her to take such a large risk.

Those early months of 2003 were among the worst of times – and not just because the U.S. and U.K. leaders were perverting the post-World War II structure that those same nations designed to stop aggressive wars, but because the vast majority of U.S. and U.K. institutions including the major news organizations and the nations’ legislatures were failing miserably to provide any meaningful check or balance.

The common excuse from politicians, bureaucrats, editors and other opinion leaders was that there was no way the momentum toward war could be stopped, so why take on the career damage that would result from getting in the way. And if Ms. Gun were made of lesser stuff, she might have hidden behind a similar self-serving excuse or found solace in other comforting rationalizations, like the government must know what it’s doing, or what do I, a Mandarin-to-English translator, know about Iraq.

But Katharine Gun could smell a rat, as well as the sulfur of war, and she would not put her career and comfort ahead of the slaughter and devastation that war inevitably brings to innocent people. In that, she distinguished herself, just as many others in positions of authority disgraced themselves.

Missing WMD

In fall 2002, Iraq’s leader Saddam Hussein shocked the world by agreeing to a very intrusive U.N. inspection regime with inspectors crawling all over suspect sites in Iraq, though not finding one “weapon of mass destruction.” Since Iraq’s inventory of WMD was the main casus belli, things were getting downright embarrassing. Even a few in the domesticated “mainstream” media in the U.S. and U.K. were feeling some discomfort in merely feeding off the official statements of President George W. Bush and co-conspirator Prime Minister Tony Blair.

At that key moment, the U.S. and U.K. leaders intensified their effort to get the U.N. Security Council to approve the kind of resolution that would enable them to attack Iraq with at least a thin veneer of legality. We know from the Downing Street memos, which were leaked two years later, that U.K. Attorney General Peter Goldsmith had told Blair in July 2002 that, absent a new Security Council resolution, war on Iraq would be illegal.

So, in early 2003, the focus was riveted on the U.N. Security Council where Bush and Blair were having trouble rallying the three other recalcitrant permanent members – France, China and Russia – to support war on Iraq. Already facing that resistance, Bush and Blair were not about to brook interference by the non-permanent members. Thus, word went out to the U.S./U.K. intelligence services to ensure that none of those upstart nations did anything to complicate U.S./U.K. plans for war.

Accordingly, the NSA intensified electronic collection on those countries’ representatives (as well as on officials of the three obstinate permanent members). The Bush administration wanted to learn immediately of anything that could help win the Security Council’s approval of a resolution to make the attack “legal.”

On Jan. 31, 2003, NSA’s Frank Koza, head of “Regional Targets” (RT) sent a “HIGH-Importance,” Top Secret e-mail to Britain’s NSA counterpart, GCHQ, where Katharine Gun worked. The e-mail asked that British eavesdroppers emulate NSA’s “surge” in electronic collection against Security Council members “for insights … [on] plans to vote on any Iraq-related resolutions … the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises. … [T]hat means a … surge effort to revive/create efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters.”

Koza’s “surge” instruction left no doubt in Gun’s mind that Bush and Blair were hell-bent to have their war – legal or illegal – and that she had been correct in dismissing recent assurances by GCHQ management that she and her co-workers would not be asked to cooperate in facilitating unprovoked war.

As Gun explained later to Marcia and Thomas Mitchell, authors of The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War, she calculated that if people could see how desperate Bush and Blair were to have an appearance of legitimacy for war, “Their eyes would be opened; they would see that the intention was not to disarm Saddam but in fact to go to war.”

She made a copy of the Koza memo, walked out with it in her purse, and eventually gave it to a friend with contacts in the media. The London Observer got hold of it, was able to establish that it was authentic, and on March 2, 2003, two and a half weeks before the attack on Iraq front-paged the text of the memo with an accompanying article.

The report shook the government of Tony Blair and caused consternation on several continents. In the U.S., however, it was not a big story. For the New York Times, whose editors were either cheering on false articles about Iraq’s WMD or going into a self-protective career crouch, it was no story at all.

The U.S. intelligence agencies stonewalled any media inquiries and the journalists quickly moved on to the main event, embedding themselves inside the U.S. military as war correspondents. The story from Gun’s document – indicating a major spying initiative to coerce sovereign countries to support an unprovoked war – simply didn’t fit with the narrative of “good guy” America taking on “bad guy” Iraq.

Despite the spying, Bush and Blair failed to win approval from the Security Council to invade Iraq, forcing Bush and Blair to lead a “coalition of the willing” and counting on the cowardice and complicity of the U.S./U.K. mainstream news media to ignore the inconvenient truth about the illegality of the invasion.

Confession and Charge

Gun soon confessed to what she had done. She later explained to the Mitchells: “I’m pretty rubbish at telling lies … and I try to be an honest person. … I have to say that I’ve only ever followed my conscience. And it, my conscience, is such a nuisance.”

On Nov. 13, 2003, she was charged with violating the UK’s Official Secrets Act. She planned to plead “not guilty,” stressing that she acted to prevent imminent loss of life in an illegal war.

Gun’s pro bono lawyers insisted that the Blair government produce the opinions of U.K. Attorney General Peter Goldsmith on the legality of the war but the government refused. It was already widely known, well before the leak of the Downing Street memos, that Goldsmith initially advised that an attack on Iraq would be illegal without a second U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing it, and that, only after intense consultation with several lawyers from the White House, Goldsmith showed the required flexibility and changed his mind.

Blair was not about to release such damning documents. Even the usually docile UN Secretary General Kofi Annan finally got around to acknowledging the obvious and agreeing that the attack on Iraq was illegal, albeit Annan found his voice only well after the butchery was underway.

So, when Gun’s case came to court on Feb. 25, 2004, her lawyers did not need to argue that trying to stop an illegal act (a war of aggression) trumped Gun’s obligations under the Official Secrets Act. The Blair government clearly did not want to let Lord Goldsmith’s dirty laundry hang out on the line. Within half an hour, the prosecution dropped the case and Katharine Gun walked.

The Sam Adams Award

For her courage and commitment to principle, Katharine Gun was the second recipient of the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence. The citation read at the presentation on April 14, 2004, noted that:

“Heeding the dictates of conscience and true patriotism, Ms. Gun put her career and her very liberty at risk trying to prevent the launching of an illegal war. That she is here with us today and not in a prison cell bespeaks a tacit but clear admission by her government that the US/UK attack on Iraq in March 2003 was in defiance of international law.

“Ms. Gun’s beacon of light pierced a thick cloud of deception. She set a courageous example for those intelligence analysts of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ who have first-hand knowledge of how intelligence was corrupted to ‘justify’ war, but who have not yet been able to find their voice.”

Commenting on Katharine Gun’s courage and integrity, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Dan Ellsberg had this to say:

“No one has had this story to tell before, because no one else – including myself – has ever done what Katharine Gun did: tell secret truths at personal risk, before an imminent war, in time, possibly, to avert it. Hers was the most important – and courageous – leak I’ve ever seen, more timely and potentially more effective than the Pentagon Papers.”

Fast forward to Jan. 23, 2013, in the Debate Chamber of the Oxford Union where the tenth annual Sam Adams award presentation was held before a packed house of Oxford students. Ms. Gun, her husband, and their four-year-old daughter shed their coveted privacy long enough to allow Katharine to be one of two former Sam Adams Award winners to present this year’s award.

The other was Coleen Rowley, former FBI special agent and counsel at the Minneapolis bureau, who blew the whistle on FBI and other shortcomings before 9/11 and was named one of the three Persons of the Year by Time Magazine in 2002. The Sam Adams award is named for the late CIA analyst Sam Adams who challenged false assessments of Vietcong and North Vietnamese troop strength during the height of that conflict.

The 10th annual Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence was given to Thomas Fingar, the consummate intelligence professional who led the U.S. National Intelligence Council from 2005 to 2008 (and is now a professor in Stanford’s overseas program at Oxford).

Fingar supervised the drafting of the eye-opening National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007 on Iran, which differed markedly from previous estimates in assessing that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003 and had not resumed such work – and key finding revalidated every year since by the Director of National Intelligence in formal testimony to Congress.

With the help of that honest assessment, U.S. military leaders and other honest officials were able to beat back pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives for an attack on Iran during 2008 – the last year of the Bush administration. (See Bush’s own memoir, Decision Points, page 419.)

Heading Off Wars of Choice

The poignancy of the moment was not lost on the audience at the Oxford Union. After Katharine Gun read the citation (text below) for the award to Tom Fingar, she turned toward Fingar, and suggested that if honest professionals like him had been supervising U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysis in 2002-2003, the warping of intelligence to support plans for war would have been prevented. And Gun could have avoided the painful choice that her conscience required.

It was quite a spectacle: One “spy” who tried her best (but failed) to stop the Iraq war was giving the Sam Adams award to another, more senior intelligence official who, simply by adhering tightly to the professional ethos of following the evidence wherever it leads, played a huge role in stopping war on Iran.

Also “giving evidence” (in British parlance) on Jan. 23 at the Sam Adams Award evening at the Oxford Union were three other former awardees besides Gun and Rowley – former U.K. ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, former NSA executive Thomas Drake and, video-linked from asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

Other Sam Adams associates also spoke briefly, including former U.K. MI5 officer Annnie Machon and two of the three U.S. diplomats who resigned on principle before the attack on Iraq – Ann Wright and Brady Kiesling. Oxford Union President Maria Rioumine joined me in introductory remarks; still other associates made the trek across the Atlantic, at considerable personal expense, just to be there to honor Thomas Fingar.

Iran: Always Iran

There is yet another poignant back story here. In 2006, as Thomas Fingar was settling into his position as chief analyst for the entire U.S. intelligence community, the threats from the West and Israel directed at Iran were proliferating in an alarming way, and the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program was just in the planning stage.

Amid the calls for military action against Iran, Katharine Gun came out of seclusion and wrote an op-ed titled “Iran: Time to Leak.” Her article appeared on March 20, 2006, the third anniversary of the U.S./U.K. invasion of Iraq.

Apparently unaware of the paradigm shift toward honesty in drafting U.S. intelligence estimates, Ms. Gun drew on her own experience and tried to motivate analysts to blow the whistle when necessary, as she had done three years before:

“Truth telling and whistle blowing [continue to be] crucial after a war as ill advised as Iraq — at least it allows us to piece together the facts — but it’s too late to save lives. Where are the memos and emails about Iran now?

“I urge those in a position to do so to disclose information which relates to this planned aggression; legal advice, meetings between the White House and other intelligence agencies, assessments of Iran’s threat level (or better yet, evidence that assessments have been altered), troop deployments and army notifications. Don’t let ‘the intelligence and the facts be fixed around the policy’ this time. …

“As the political momentum builds toward a military ‘solution,’ it would be wrong to wait until the bombs have fallen on Iran and families destroyed before finally informing the public.”

Only when the Fingar-supervised NIE, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, emerged in November 2007 could Katharine Gun (and the rest of us) understand that integrity had been restored to the estimative analysis process. It would be extremely difficult to attack Iran with that NIE on the books. No need to leak this time.

Not to say pressures to attack Iran have disappeared. Ironically, it was Julian Assange, the Sam Adams award winner in 2010, who alerted the Oxford Union audience (via videolink from the Ecuadorian embassy) of a DreamWorks movie, “Fifth Estate,” now in production. WikiLeaks somehow got hold of the script, which paints a much more ominous picture of Iran’s nuclear intentions and capabilities and takes the customary U.S. mass-media potshots at WikiLeaks and Assange.

Not to over-use “ironic,” the timely leak of that transcript to WikiLeaks will give those of us who remain committed to combating falsehood and pro-war propaganda advance time to expose the film for what it is and dissect its none-too-subtle objectives. No rest for the weary, as the expression goes.

Meanwhile, with the example set by Thomas Fingar, and the systems he has put in place to ensure intelligence assessments are not “fixed around the policy” – as the 2002 Downing Street Memo famously depicted the fabrication of the case for war with Iraq – there is reason to hope that yet another “war of choice” can be thwarted.

Following is the citation read by Katharine Gun to accompany the award to Thomas Fingar:

“Know all ye by these presents that Thomas Fingar is hereby awarded the Corner-Brightener Candlestick, presented by Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.

“In 2005, when Tom Fingar assumed responsibility for supervising the preparation of National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), the discipline of intelligence analysis had been corrupted on both sides of the Atlantic.  We know from the Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002 that ‘the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy’ prior to the US/UK attack on Iraq.

“Integrity and professionalism were the only cure. Dr. Fingar oversaw the landmark 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, which concluded with ‘high confidence’ that Iran had halted its nuclear weapon design and weaponization work in 2003. That NIE was issued with the unanimous approval of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. Its key judgments have been revalidated every year since by the Director of National Intelligence.

“The Estimate’s findings were a marked departure from earlier assessments of Iran’s nuclear program.  That it was instrumental in thwarting an attack on Iran is seen in President George W. Bush’s own memoir in which he complains that the ‘eye-popping’ findings of the 2007 NIE stayed his hand: ‘How could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?’

“Presented this 23rd day of January 2013 at Oxford University by admirers of the example set by our former colleague, Sam Adams.

A version of this piece first appeared in Consortium News.

Ray McGovern

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. During his career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and briefed the President's Daily Brief and chaired National Intelligence Estimates. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Hidden US-Israeli Military Agenda: “Break Syria into Pieces”

Hidden US-Israeli Military Agenda: "Break Syria into Pieces"

Israel is now actively involved in the war on Syria, following the Israeli bombing raid of a Syrian research center on January 30, 2013.

The following article published last June focuses on the covert role of Israel in fostering sectarian divisions within Syria as well as supporting “jihadist: terrorist formations within Syria, in liaison with the US, NATO and the Gulf States.    

A timely article in the Jerusalem Post in June [2012] brings to the forefront the unspoken objective of US foreign policy, namely the breaking up of Syria as a sovereign nation state –along ethnic and religious lines– into several separate and “independent” political entities. The article also confirms the role of Israel in the process of political destabilization of  Syria.  The JP article is titled: “Veteran Kurdish politician calls on Israel to support the break-up of Syria’ (by Jonathan Spyer) (The Jerusalem Post (May 16, 2012)

The objective of the US sponsored armed insurgency is –with the help of Israel– to “Break Syria into Pieces”.

The “balkanisation of the Syrian Arab Republic” is to be carried out by fostering sectarian divisions, which will eventually lead to a “civil war” modelled on the former Yugoslavia. Last month, Syrian “opposition militants” were dispatched to Kosovo to organize training sessions using the “terrorist expertise” of the US sponsored Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in fighting the Yugoslav armed forces.

Sherkoh Abbas, President of the US based Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria (KNA)  has “called on Israel  to support the break-up of Syria into a series of federal structures based on the country’s various ethnicities.” (Ibid)

One possible ”break-up scenario” pertaining to Syria, which constitutes a secular multi-ethnic society, would be the formation of separate and  “independent” Sunni, Alawite-Shiite, Kurdish and Druze states:   “We need to break Syria into pieces,” Abbas said. (Quoted in JP, op. cit., emphasis added).

“The Syrian Kurdish dissident argued that a federal Syria, separated into four or five regions on an ethnic basis, would also serve as a natural “buffer” for Israel against both Sunni and Shi’ite Islamist forces.” (Ibid.).

Ironically, while Islamist forces are said to constitute the main threat to the Jewish State, Tel Aviv is providing covert support to the Islamist Free Syrian Army (FSA).


Map 1

Meeting behind Closed Doors at the US State Department

A top level US State Department meeting was held in May with members of the Syrian Kurdish opposition. In attendance were representatives of the Kurdish National Council (KNC),  Robert Stephen Ford, the outgoing US ambassador to Syria (who has played a key role in channelling support to the rebels) as well as Frederic C. Hof, a former business partner of Richard Armitage, who currently serves as the administration’s “special coordinator on Syria”. (Ibid). The delegation also met with Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman.

Frederic C. Hof, Robert Stephen Ford and Jeffrey Feltman are the State Department’s key Syria policy-makers, with close links to the Syrian Free Army (SFA) and the Syrian National Council (SNC).


Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman


Frederic C. Hof, The Administration’s “special coordinator on Syria”


Robert S. Ford, outgoing US Ambassador to Syria

The public statements of KNA leader Sherkoh Abbas in the wake of the State Department meeting suggest that the political fracturing of the Syrian Arab Republic along ethnic and religious lines as well as the creation of an “independent Kurdistan” were discussed. “State Department Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner described [the meeting's] purpose as part of ‘ongoing efforts… to help the Syrian [Kurdish] opposition build a more cohesive opposition to Assad.’”  (Ibid).

The KNA leader called upon Washington to support the creation of a separate Kurdish State consisting of  “an autonomous region in Syria; joining the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq – which borders the Kurdish region in Syria; or perhaps an even larger Kurdish state” [Greater Kurdistan].

“The Kurdish people, in all parts of Kurdistan, seek the right to form an independent Kurdish state. We can only achieve this cherished goal with the help of the western democracies, and first and foremost the U.S.” said Sherkoh Abbas. (Syria: An Alternative, Choice, Ekurd.net, May 22, 2012)

It is worth noting, in this regard, that the creation of a “Greater Kurdistan” has been envisaged for several years by the Pentagon as part of a broader “Plan for Redrawing the Middle East”.(See map 2 below)

This option, which appears unlikely in the near future, would go against the interests of Turkey, a staunch ally of both the US and Israel. Another scenario, which is contemplated by Ankara would consist in the annexation to Turkey of parts of Syrian Kurdistan. (See map above).

“Greater Kurdistan” would include portions of Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey as conveyed in Coronel  Ralph Peters (ret) celebrated map of “The New Middle East” (see below). (For Further details see Mahdi Nazemroaya’s November 2006 Global Research article).

Colonel Peters taught at the US Military Academy.

Detailed analysis on Syria.

Over 30 chapters, available from Global Research at no charge

SYRIA: NATO’s Next “Humanitarian” War?
ONLINE INTERACTIVE I-BOOK
- by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-07-15
Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2006-11-18

Towards the balkanization (division) and finlandization (pacification) of the Middle East

Map 2. The New Middle East

The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006,
Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers.
This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.

WWIII Scenario

‘No military solution to Syrian crisis’

A Syrian Army soldier takes position while fighting with foreign-backed militants in the southwest of Damascus on January 22, 2013.

Iran’s Ambassador to Azerbaijan Mohsen Pakaein says there is no military solution to the Syrian crisis and the unrest in the Arab state can only be settled diplomatically.

“We believe that the Syrian issue does not have a military solution and the proper and desired solution to it is [for foreign countries] to not meddle and arm opposition groups, and prevent terrorist activities in the country,” Pakaein said in an interview with Azeri Salam News Wednesday.

He noted that all countries that can have a positive and constructive impact on resolving the Syrian crisis should cooperate, consult and act together.


Pakaein further stressed that military intervention is not a logical and reasonable solution to the situation in Syria.

“Considering the sensitive situation in the region, taking military action is improbable as military intervention will involve the entire region in a serious crisis,” the Iranian envoy pointed out.

The Syria crisis began in March 2011, and many people, including large numbers of army and security personnel, have been killed since.

The Syrian government says the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants are foreign nationals.

Damascus blames the West and its regional allies Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey for supporting the armed groups.

In addition, several international human rights organizations have accused the militants fighting the Syrian government of committing war crimes.

TNP/HGH/SL

The Hagel Hearings: The Last Best Chance for the Truth About a Lost War...

Don’t let the forces of regression dominate the media in 2013 - click here to support brave, independent reporting today by making a contribution to Truthout.

He’s been battered by big-money conservative groups looking to derail his bid for secretary of defense.  Critics say he wants to end America’s nuclear program.  They claim he’s anti-Israel and soft on Iran.  So you can expect intense questioning -- if only for theatrical effect -- about all of the above (and undoubtedly then some) as Chuck Hagel faces his Senate confirmation hearings today.  

You can be sure of one other thing: Hagel’s military service in Vietnam will be mentioned -- and praised. It’s likely, however, to be in a separate and distinct category, unrelated to the pointed questions about current issues like defense priorities, his beliefs on the use of force abroad, or the Defense Department’s role in counterterrorism operations.  You can also be sure of this: no senator will ask Chuck Hagel about his presence during the machine-gunning of an orphanage in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta or the lessons he might have drawn from that incident.

Nor is any senator apt to ask what Hagel might do if allegations about similar acts by American troops emerge in Afghanistan or elsewhere.  Nor will some senator question him on the possible parallels between the CIA-run Phoenix Program, a joint U.S.-Vietnamese venture focused on identifying and killing civilians associated with South Vietnam’s revolutionary shadow government, and the CIA’s current targeted-killing-by-drone campaign in Pakistan’s tribal borderlands.  Nor, for that matter, is he likely to be asked about the lessons he learned fighting a war in a foreign land among a civilian population where innocents and enemies were often hard to tell apart.  If, however, Hagel’s military experience is to be touted as a key qualification for his becoming secretary of defense, shouldn’t the American people have some idea of just what that experience was really like and how it shaped his thinking in regard to today’s wars?

Chuck Hagel on Murder in Vietnam

"In Chuck Hagel our troops see a decorated combat veteran of character and strength -- they see him as one of their own," President Obama said as he nominated the former Republican senator from Nebraska to become the first former enlisted service member and first Vietnam veteran to serve as secretary of defense.  He went on to call him “the leader that our troops deserve.”

Chuck Hagel and his younger brother, Tom, fought together in Vietnam in 1968. The two are believed to be the only brothers to have served in the same infantry squad in that war and even more remarkably, each ended up saving the other's life.  “With Chuck, our troops will always know, just as Sergeant Hagel was there for his own brother, Secretary Hagel will be there for you,” the president said. 

Largely unnoted was the falling out the brothers had over the conflict.  After returning home, Tom began protesting the war, while Chuck defended it.  Eventually, the Hagel brothers reconciled and even returned to Vietnam together in 1999.  Years before, however, the two sat down with journalist and historian Myra MacPherson and talked about the war.  Although their interpretations of what they had been through differed, it’s hard not to come away with the sense that both witnessed U.S. atrocities, and that Chuck Hagel’s vision of the war is far more brutal than most Americans imagine.  That his experience of Vietnam would include such incidents should hardly be surprising, especially given the fact that Hagel served in the 9th Infantry Division under one of the most notorious U.S. commanders, Julian Ewell, known more colorfully as “the Butcher of the Delta.”

The Hagel brothers, MacPherson recounts in her moving and important history Long Time Passing: Vietnam and the Haunted Generation, argued over whether American troops were “murdering” people.  Chuck disagreed at first, pointing instead to the depredations of Vietnamese revolutionary forces.  Tom reminded his brother of the CIA’s Phoenix Program which, with an estimated body count of more than 20,000 Vietnamese, too often turned murderous and was no less regularly used by corrupt Vietnamese government officials to settle personal grudges.  “There was some of that,” Chuck finally granted.

Tom then raised an example that hit closer to home -- the time, after an enemy attack, when a sergeant from their unit took out his frustrations on a nearby orphanage.  “Remember the orphanage, Chuck… That sergeant was so drunk and so pissed off that he crawled up on that track [armored personnel carrier] and opened up on that orphanage with a fifty-caliber machine gun,” Tom said.

When Chuck started to object, MacPherson writes, his brother was insistent.  “Chuck, you were there!  Down at the bottom of the sandhill.”  Skeptically, Chuck asked his brother if he was saying the sergeant had “slaughtered children in the orphanage.”  Tom granted that he didn’t know for sure, “because none of us went in to check.”  Chuck responded, “In any war you can take any isolated incident…”

But the war Tom Hagel detailed to MacPherson wasn’t one punctuated by a few isolated “incidents.”  He would talk about officers ordering the mutilation of enemy dead and soldiers shooting up and burning down a village, about how helicopter gunships and napalm decimated large areas of the countryside, about the lethality of indiscriminate weapons fire and about coming upon the bodies of women and children when firefights were over.  He also recounted, in detail, a July 1968 assault on a “hardcore” enemy village in which their unit took part.  After the battle had ended, he said, a lieutenant shot and killed a civilian in cold blood.  “We’re collecting all the NVA [North Vietnamese Army] bodies and this woman walks out of a hootch.  He just shot her dead,” Tom recalled.

The Hagel Hearings: America’s Last Best Chance for the Truth

Recently, MacPherson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in support of Chuck Hagel’s bid to serve as Secretary of Defense: “His experience has taught him the physical and mental toll of combat.  He would surely think twice before sending young men and women into unnecessary, stupid, or unwinnable conflicts... One thing I know: Chuck Hagel will stand up to whatever is thrown at him.” 

Tom Hagel has recently talked about his brother in similarly glowing terms.  “He’s going to do a great job, he’ll be totally committed to it,” he told Politico. “I think he will bring special sensitivity for enlisted personnel to the job, because, of course, of his experiences as an enlisted person in Nam.”    

While he ultimately voted to authorize the war in Iraq -- despite grave misgivings -- there is a perception that, in the future, Hagel would be reticent to plunge the United States into yet more reckless wars and a strong belief exists among his supporters that he will stand up for America’s sons and daughters in uniform.  On one subject, however, Hagel’s Vietnam experience shows him in a lesser light: sensitivity to the plight of the men and women who live in America’s war zones.  In this area, his seeming unwillingness to face up to, no less tell the whole truth about, the Vietnam War he saw should raise serious questions.  Unfortunately, it’s a blind spot not just for him, but for official Washington generally, and probably much of the country as well. 

It’s worth noting that the Hagel brothers left Vietnam just as their commanding general, Julian Ewell, launched a six-month operation in the Mekong Delta code-named Speedy Express.  One whistleblowing veteran who served in that operation told the Army’s top generals that Ewell’s use of heavy firepower on the countryside resulted in a “My Lai each month” (a reference, of course, to the one massacre most Americans know about, in which U.S. troops slaughtered more than 500 civilians, most of them women, children, and elderly men).  That veteran’s shocking allegations were kept secret and a nascent inquiry into them was suppressed by the Pentagon.

A later Newsweek investigation would conclude that as many as 5,000 civilians were killed during Speedy Express.  A secret internal military report, commissioned after Newsweek published its account, suggested that the magazine had offered a low-end estimate.  The document, kept secret and then buried for decades, concluded:

“While there appears to be no means of determining the precise number of civilian casualties incurred by US forces during Operation Speedy Express, it would appear that the extent of these casualties was in fact substantial, and that a fairly solid case can be constructed to show that civilian casualties may have amounted to several thousand (between 5,000 and 7,000).”

During the war, efforts by U.S. senators to look into Speedy Express were thwarted by Pentagon officials.  More than four decades later, no senator is ever going to launch an investigation into what actually happened or the Pentagon cover-up that kept the American people in the dark for decades.  Theoretically, the Hagel hearings do offer the Senate a belated chance to ask a few pertinent questions about the Vietnam War and the real lessons it holds for today’s era of continuous conflict and for the civilians in distant lands who suffer from it.  But any such hope is, we know, sure to die a quick death in that Senate hearing room.

Chuck Hagel’s views on the Vietnam War underwent a fundamental shift following the release of audio tapes of President Lyndon Johnson admitting, in 1964, that the war was unwinnable.  That "cold political calculation" caused Hagel to vow that he would "never, ever remain silent when that kind of thinking put more American lives at risk in any conflict." 

But what about lives other than those of Americans?  What about children in shot-up orphanages or women who survive a murderous crossfire only to be gunned down in cold blood?  Chuck Hagel may well be, as Mr. Obama contends, “the leader that our troops deserve.”  But don’t the American people deserve a little honesty from that leader about the war that shaped him?  In these few days, the senators considering his nomination have an opportunity, perhaps the last one available, to get some answers about a war whose realities, never quite faced here, continue to dog us so many decades later.  It’s a shame that they are sure to pass it up in favor of the usual political theater.

‘Israel after creating instability in ME’

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast has condemned Israel’s airstrike on Syria, saying that the Tel Aviv regime seeks to create insecurity and instability in the region.

“The operation conducted by the aggressive Zionist forces against some targets in Syria last night shows that this regime is after creating instability and insecurity in regional countries as well as weakening the resistance movement,” Mehmanparast said in an interview with Press TV on Thursday.

He went on to say that Israel’s move also indicates that the Tel Aviv regime continues its crimes and aggressions whenever it finds the opportunity.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman warned that those who are creating tension, insecurity and instability in Syria are “in fact voluntarily or involuntarily laying the ground for more violations and aggressions by the Zionist regime [of Israel].”

“Regional countries should be aware of the main danger in the region. They [West and Israel] are trying to create a rift between Islamic countries in the region. They are also trying to create unrest in countries that are in the frontline of the resistance movement against the occupying Zionist regime [of Israel],” he explained.


The Iranian official further called on the regional countries to work towards the establishment of security and stability via cooperation and converging their viewpoints.

Mehmanparast also stressed the Islamic Republic's respect for territorial integrity of all regional countries, adding that “any violation of a country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity committed by the Zionist regime [of Israel] must be dealt with.”

On Wednesday, the Syrian army said two people were killed and five others injured in an Israeli airstrike on a research center in Jamraya, near the capital, Damascus. Israel declined to comment on the issue.

Earlier in the day, Russia also expressed concern over the airstrike carried out by the Israeli regime in Syria with the Russian Foreign Ministry saying, “If this information is confirmed, then we are dealing with unprovoked strikes against targets located on the territory of a sovereign state, which brazenly infringes on the UN Charter and is unacceptable, no matter the motive used for its justification.”

TNP/SS

Israeli Attack on Syria: Desperate Bid to Save Failed US-NATO Covert War

israelus

Israel has conducted airstrikes in Syria based on “suspicions” of chemical weapon transfers, in a flagrant violation of the UN Charter, international law, and in direct violation of Syria’s sovereignty. The Guardian in its report titled, “Israel carries out air strike on Syria,” claims:

“Israeli warplanes have attacked a target close to the Syrian-Lebanese border following several days of heightened warnings from government officials over Syria’s stockpiles of weapons.”

It also stated:

“Israel has publicly warned that it would take military action to prevent the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons falling into the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon or “global jihadists” fighting inside Syria. Israeli military intelligence is said to be monitoring the area round the clock via satellite for possible convoys carrying weapons.”

In reality, these “global jihaidists” are in fact armed and funded by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel since at least as early as 2007. They are also in fact the direct beneficiaries of Israel’s recent aggression. The Israeli “suspicions” of “weapon transfers” of course, remain unconfirmed, because the purpose of the attack was not to prevent the transfer of “chemical weapons” to Hezbollah in Lebanon, but to provoke a wider conflict aimed not at Israel’s defense, but at salvaging the West’s floundering proxy terrorist forces inside Syria attempting to subvert and overthrow the Syrian nation.


The silence from the United Nations is deafening. While Turkey openly harbors foreign terrorists, arming and funding them with Western, Saudi, and Qatari cash as they conduct raids on neighboring Syria, any Syrian attack on Turkish territory would immediately result in the United Nations mobilizing. Conversely, Turkey is allowed, for years, to conduct air strikes and even partial ground invasions of neighboring Iraq to attack Kurdish groups accused of undermining Turkish security. It is clear the same double standard has long applied to Israel.

Israel, along with the US & Saudi Arabia, are Al Qaeda’s chief sponsors.

It must be remembered that as far back as 2007, it was admitted by US, Saudi and Lebanese officials that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia were intentionally arming, funding, and organizing these “global jihadists” with direct ties to Al Qaeda for the explicit purpose of overthrowing the governments of Syria and Iran.

Reported by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article, “The Redirection,” it was stated (emphasis added):

“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”

Of Israel it specifically stated:

“The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations.”

Additionally, Saudi Arabian officials mentioned the careful balancing act their nation must play in order to conceal its role in supporting US-Israeli ambitions across the region:

“The Saudi said that, in his country’s view, it was taking a political risk by joining the U.S. in challenging Iran: Bandar is already seen in the Arab world as being too close to the Bush Administration. “We have two nightmares,” the former diplomat told me. “For Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.””

It may interest readers to know that while France invades and occupies large swaths of Mali in Africa, accusing the Qataris of funding and arming Al Qaeda-linked terrorist groups in the region, France, the US, and Israel are working in tandem with the Qataris to fund and arm these very same groups in Syria.

In fact, the US-based think-tank, the Brookings Institution literally has a “Doha Center” based in Qatar while US-Israeli citizen Haim Saban’s Brookings “Saban Center” conducts meetings and has many of its board of directors based likewise in Doha, Qatar. Doha also served as the venue for the creation of the West’s most recent “Syrian Coalition,” headed by an unabashed supporter of Al Qaeda, Moaz al-Khatib.

These are part of the brick and mortar manifestation of the conspiracy documented by Seymour Hersh in 2007.

The Wall Street Journal, also in 2007, reported on the US Bush Administration’s plans of creating a partnership with Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood, noting the group is the ideological inspiration for linked terror organizations including Al Qaeda itself. In the article titled, “”To Check Syria, U.S. Explores Bond With Muslim Brothers,” it states:

“On a humid afternoon in late May, about 100 supporters of Syria’s largest exile opposition group, the National Salvation Front, gathered outside Damascus’s embassy here to protest Syrian President Bashar Assad’s rule. The participants shouted anti-Assad slogans and raised banners proclaiming: “Change the Regime Now.”

The NSF unites liberal democrats, Kurds, Marxists and former Syrian officials in an effort to transform President Assad’s despotic regime. But the Washington protest also connected a pair of more unlikely players — the U.S. government and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The article would also report:

“U.S. diplomats and politicians have also met with legislators from parties connected to the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, Egypt and Iraq in recent months to hear their views on democratic reforms in the Middle East, U.S. officials say. Last month, the State Department’s intelligence unit organized a conference of Middle East experts to examine the merits of engagement with the Brotherhood, particularly in Egypt and Syria.”

It describes the ideological and operational links between the Brotherhood and Al Qaeda:

“Today, the Brotherhood’s relationship to Islamist militancy, and al Qaeda in particular, is the source of much debate. Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders cite the works of the Brotherhood’s late intellectual, Sayyid Qutb, as an inspiration for their crusade against the West and Arab dictators. Members of Egyptian and Syrian Brotherhood arms have also gone on to take senior roles in Mr. bin Laden’s movement.”

Yet despite all of this, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, along with Israel and Turkey are openly conspiring with them, and have now for years been arming and funding these very sectarian extremist, terrorist groups across the Arab World, from Libya to Egypt, and now in and around Syria.

Israel’s fears of these terrorists acquiring “chemical weapons” is absurd. They have already acquired them with US, NATO, British, Saudi, Qatari and even Israeli help in Libya in 2011. In fact, these very Libyan terrorists are spearheading the foreign militant groups flooding into Syria through the Turkish-Syrian border.

What Israel’s strike may really mean.

Indeed, Israel’s explanation as to why it struck neighboring Syria is tenuous at best considering its long, documented relationship with actually funding and arming the very “global jihaidists” it fears weapons may fall into the hands of. Its fears of Hezbollah are likewise unfounded – Hezbollah, had it, the Syrians, or the Iranians been interested in placing chemical weapons in Lebanon, would have done so already, and most certainly would do so with means other than conspicuous convoys simply “crossing the border.” Hezbollah has already proven itself capable of defeating Israeli aggression with conventional arms, as demonstrated during the summer of 2006.

In reality, the pressure placed on Syria’s borders by both Israel and its partner, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey in the north, is part of a documented plan to relieve pressure on the Western, Israeli, Saudi-Qatari armed and funded militants operating inside Syria.

The above mentioned, Fortune 500-funded (page 19), US foreign-policy think-tank, Brookings Institution – which has blueprinted designs for regime change in Libya as well as both Syria and Iran – stated this specifically in their report titled, “Assessing Options for Regime Change.”

Image: The Brookings Institution, Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” makes no secret that the humanitarian “responsibility to protect” is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.

….

Brookings describes how Israeli efforts in the south of Syria, combined with Turkey’s aligning of vast amounts of weapons and troops along its border to the north, could help effect violent regime change in Syria:

“In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly.” -page 6, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.

Of course, airstrikes inside Syria go beyond “posturing,” and indicate perhaps a level of desperation in the West who appear to have elected their chief villain, Israel, to incrementally “intervene” just as they had planned in regards to attacking Iran – also documented by Brookings in a report titled, “Which Path to Persia?

In regards to Iran, in Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report, it states specifically (emphasis added):

“Israel appears to have done extensive planning and practice for such a strike already, and its aircraft are probably already based as close to Iran as possible. as such, Israel might be able to launch the strike in a matter of weeks or even days, depending on what weather and intelligence conditions it felt it needed. Moreover, since Israel would have much less of a need (or even interest) in securing regional support for the operation, Jerusalem probably would feel less motivated to wait for an Iranian provocation before attacking. In short, Israel could move very fast to implement this option if both Israeli and American leaders wanted it to happen.

However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion).” -page 91, Which Path to Perisa?, Brookings Institution.

And in this statement we can gather insight behind both Israel’s otherwise irrational belligerent posture throughout its brief history, as well as its most recent act of unprovoked aggression against Syria. Israel’s role is to play the “bad guy.” As a regional beachhead for Western corporate-financier interests, it provides a “foot in the door” to any of the West’s many desired conflicts. By bombing Syria, it hopes to provoke a wider conflict – an intervention the West has desired and planned for since it tipped off Syria’s violent conflict in 2011.

For Syria and its allies – the goal now must be to deter further Israeli aggression and avoid wider conflict at all costs. If NATO’s proxy terrorist forces are as weak as they appear – incapable of tactical or strategic gains, and tapering off into desperate terrorist attacks, it is only a matter of time before NATO’s campaign grinds to a halt. As mentioned before, such a failure on NATO’s part will be the beginning of the end for it, and the Western interests that have been using it as a tool to achieve geopolitical hegemony.

Israel should be expected to commit to increasingly desperate acts to provoke Syria and Iran – as its leadership represent directly corporate-financier interests abroad, not the Israeli people, or their best interests (including peace and even survival). For the people of Israel, they must realize that their leadership indeed does not represent them or their best interests and is able, willing, and even eager to spend their lives and fortunes in the service of foreign, corporate-financier interests and global hegemony.

Frontrunning: January 31

  • Risky Student Debt Is Starting to Sour (WSJ)
  • Political scandal in Spain as PP secret accounts revealed (El Pais)
  • New York Times claims Chinese hackers hijacked its systems (NYT)
  • Spain's Rajoy, ruling party deny secret payment scheme (Reuters)
  • Iran crude oil exports rise to highest since EU sanctions (Reuters)
  • BlackBerry 10’s Debut Fizzles as U.S. Buyers Left Waiting (BBG)
  • Costs drag Deutsche Bank to €2.2bn loss  (FT)
  • And the gaming of RWA continues - Deutsche Bank Beats Capital Goal as Jain Shrugs Off Loss (BBG)
  • More fun out of London - Barclays, RBS May Pay Billions Over Improper Derivatives Sales (BBG)
  • Hagel to face grilling by Senate panel on Mideast, budget (Reuters)

Overnight Media Digest

WSJ

* Israel bombed a suspected shipment of anti-aircraft missiles in Syria on Wednesday, according to regional and U.S. officials, in its most ambitious strike inside its neighbor's territory in nearly two chaotic years of civil war there.

* Research in Motion Ltd executives excused more than a year of delays by saying they wanted the next BlackBerrys to be just right. But the smartphones that took more than two years to develop won't be available for the key U.S. market until mid-March, when carriers are expected to complete their tests.

* The U.S. economy shrank for the first time in more than three years in the fourth quarter, underscoring the halting nature of the recovery. But the strength of consumer spending and business investment suggested that the economy will grow, albeit slowly, this year.

* The U.S. Treasury for the first time auctioned holdings in U.S. banks that had missed a series of dividend payments, allowing the government to close out financial-crisis era investments only at steep discounts.

* Facebook reported a 40 percent fourth-quarter revenue jump as it ramped up its mobile business and offered new tools to advertisers, but the firm's shares slipped in after-hours trading.

* Boeing Co executives said it was business as usual despite the crisis surrounding its 787 Dreamliner, though airlines worldwide made preparations for an extended grounding of the aircraft.

* Illinois took the rare step Wednesday of postponing a bond auction just hours before it was expected to launch, as concerns grew among investors over the state's deep pension hole.

FT

FLEE 'SAFE' SOVEREIGN DEBT, SAYS HASENSTAB - The man who oversees 175 billion dollars in bonds for Californian asset manager, Franklin Templeton, says its time to get out of government debt now before it is too late.

UNION REQUESTS IAG MEETING ON IBERIA - The chief executive of International Airlines Group, Willie Walsh will reject a request from a pilots' union to discuss the restructuring of Iberia.

MPS ATTACK BARCLAYS OVER BONUS CULTURE - The parliamentary commission on banking standards accused Barclays of empty rhetoric, tearing into the bank's remuneration committee.

FACEBOOK MOBILE AD GROWTH DRIVES SALES - An aggressive advertising drive by the Facebook during the U.S. presidential elections and shopping season saw the website post its first quarterly revenue growth since going public.

DEUTSCHE BANK CHIEFS MAINTAIN COURSE - To the dismay of analysts and some investors, Deutsche Bank's Anshu Jain and Jurgen Fitschen are firmly rejecting the need for the bank to raise more capital.

RIMLESS BLACKBERRY HOPES TO REGAIN TOUCH - The struggling handset maker Blackberry is taking a gamble by launching two touchscreen smartphones in a direct challenge to Apple and Samsung.

ÇUKUROVA WINS RIGHT TO CONTROL TURKCELL - A court decision by the UK Privy Council will allow one of Turkey's richest men, Mehmet Karamehmet, the chance to regain control of the country's biggest mobile phone operator, Turkcell.

NYT

* For the last four months, Chinese hackers have persistently attacked The New York Times, infiltrating its computer systems and getting passwords for its reporters and other employees.

* Research in Motion Ltd introduced a new operating system and a new generation of phones, along with a new corporate name, with the hope of restoring its products' status as a symbol of executive cool.

* The U.S. government played a role in slowing the economic recovery as cuts in military spending and other factors overwhelmed the Federal Reserve's expanded campaign to spur growth.

* Despite two serious safety failures and new questions about the reliability of its lithium-ion batteries, Boeing Co's chief executive said Wednesday that he saw no reason to retreat from using the new but volatile technology on its 787 jets.

* Chrysler, the smallest of the American automakers, on Wednesday reported a big increase in 2012 earnings that helped its Italian parent company, Fiat SpA, become profitable for the year as well.

* Time Inc joined the many news organizations trying to tighten their belts in a tough advertising climate by announcing layoffs and offering employees buyout packages on Wednesday.

* In a legal dispute that had been closely watched by multinational companies and environmental organizations, a Dutch court dismissed most of the claims brought by Nigerian farmers seeking to hold Royal Dutch Shell accountable for damage by oil spilled from its pipelines.

China

CHINA SECURITIES JOURNAL

-- Livzon Pharmaceutical Group Inc said in a statement it will become the third company to move its dollar-denominated B shares to the Hong Kong H-share market.

-- Metallurgical Corporation of China Ltd said it expected to book a loss of 7.2 billion yuan ($1.16 billion) in 2012.

21st CENTURY BUSINESS HERALD

-- Galaxy Securities could give up its plan for a dual listing of yuan-denominated shares in Shanghai and Hong Kong, but it still expects to list H-shares in May.

CHINA DAILY (www.chinadaily.com.cn)

-- The State Council, China's cabinet, has approved an energy consumption target as part of efforts to correct overuse and foster greener growth. The government aims to keep total energy consumption below 4 billion metric tonnes of standard coal equivalent by 2015, with electricity consumption below 6.15 trillion kwh.

-- Domestic and foreign inbound mergers and acquisition deals by strategic investors fell to a five-year low last year, but activity will rebound in 2013, a report by accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers said.

Corp Fin

* Germany plans a modest reform of its banking sector that would put a cap on risky activities but not lead to the breakup of banks or significantly impair big institutions like flagship lender Deutsche Bank, according to a draft law seen by Reuters.

* Prosecutors are investigating the former management of Italy's troubled Monte dei Paschi bank for bribery and fraud, judicial sources said on Wednesday, as pressure grew on the Bank of Italy and bourse watchdog Consob.

* Endo Health Solutions Inc has held talks in recent weeks with drugmakers potentially interested in buying the maker of pain relief medication, people familiar with the matter said.

* Russian state technology firm Rusnano is planning to sell through a private placing of 10 percent of its shares between March and June, its chief executive Anatoly Chubais said in an interview with the Interfax news agency.

* Quintiles Transnational Corp, the largest provider of testing services to drugmakers, has chosen Morgan Stanley, Barclays Plc and JPMorgan Chase & Co as joint bookrunners for a planned initial public offering, people familiar with the matter said.

* Germany's second-biggest lender Commerzbank by 2015 plans to shed half of the workforce at its mortgage unit Hypothekenbank Frankfurt, formerly known as Eurohypo, according to an internal paper obtained by Reuters

Fly On The Wall 7:00 AM Market Snapshot

ANALYST RESEARCH

Upgrades

Arthur J. Gallagher (AJG) upgraded to Buy from Neutral at BofA/Merrill
Arthur J. Gallagher (AJG) upgraded to Outperform from Market Perform at Keefe Bruyette
AudioCodes (AUDC) upgraded to Outperform from Perform at Oppenheimer
Citrix Systems (CTXS) upgraded to Buy from Neutral at BofA/Merrill
Core Laboratories (CLB) upgraded to Outperform from Market Perform at FBR Capital
MB Financial (MBFI) upgraded to Outperform from Market Perform at Keefe Bruyette
Vale (VALE) upgraded to Buy from Neutral at BofA/Merrill

Downgrades

Comerica (CMA) downgraded to Underperform from Market Perform at Bernstein
Endo Health (ENDP) downgraded to Perform from Outperform at Oppenheimer
Facebook (FB) downgraded to Hold from Buy at Stifel Nicolaus
Facebook (FB) downgraded to Market Perform from Outperform at BMO Capital
Facebook (FB) downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Citigroup
Fusion-io (FIO) downgraded to Neutral from Outperform at Credit Suisse
Fusion-io (FIO) downgraded to Neutral from Overweight at JPMorgan
Fusion-io (FIO) downgraded to Neutral from Overweight at Piper Jaffray
KeyCorp (KEY) downgraded to Underperform from Market Perform at Bernstein
Netgear (NTGR) downgraded to Equal Weight from Overweight at Barclays
Regions Financial (RF) downgraded to Underperform from Market Perform at Bernstein
Seagate (STX) downgraded to Underweight from Equal Weight at Barclays
Velti (VELT) downgraded to Market Perform from Outperform at Wells Fargo
Zions Bancorp (ZION) downgraded to Underperform from Market Perform at Bernstein

Initiations

Cubist (CBST) initiated with a Buy at Janney Capital
Depomed (DEPO) initiated with a Buy at Janney Capital
Forest Labs (FRX) initiated with a Buy at Janney Capital
NPS Pharmaceuticals (NPSP) initiated with a Buy at Janney Capital
Salix (SLXP) initiated with a Buy at Janney Capital
Santarus (SNTS) initiated with an Outperform at Leerink

HOT STOCKS

Apollo (APO), Metropoulos acquired majority of Hostess snack cake business for $410M
Annaly Capital (NLY) to acquire CreXus (CXS) for $872M
ACI Worldwide (ACIW) acquired Online Resources (ORCC) for $3.85 per share or $263M in cash
Facebook (FB) said mobile driving greater engagement
Said search could be “meaningful” business in the future
Said more clients using the site for “new launches”
Capital Southwest (CSWC) sold Heelys for $2.25 per share to Sequential Brands
Las Vegas Sands (LVS) said U.S. market saturated or near saturated
Cabot (CBT) remains cautious in near-term, cited mixed results across portfolio
Lucas Energy (LEI) cut staff by 40%, to cut 2013 expenses by 40% vs. 2012
Cardinal Health (CAH) reorganizing medical segment organization
AstraZeneca (AZN) said no share repurchases will take place in 2013

EARNINGS

Companies that beat consensus earnings expectations last night and today include:
Dunkin' Brands (DNKN), Time Warner Cable (TWC), Whirlpool (WHR), AstraZeneca (AZN), ConocoPhillips (COP), Ameriprise (AMP), Silicon Graphics (SGI), Quantum (QTM),  Owens-Illinois (OI), Facebook (FB), Qualcomm (QCOM), Electronic Arts (EA)

Companies that missed consensus earnings expectations include:
Destination Maternity (DEST), Aetna (AET), Regis (RGS), Ball Corp. (BLL), Murphy Oil (MUR), Cabot (CBT), Las Vegas Sands (LVS)

Companies that matched consensus earnings expectations include:
Callaway Golf (ELY), Knight Transportation (KNX)

NEWSPAPERS/WEBSITES

  • Investors in Chesapeake Energy (CHK) cheered when it announced that CEO Aubrey McClendon will leave, but its problems won’t end there. Chesapeake cannot count on rising natural prices to help bail it out, and the company still needs to sell at least $4B in assets in 2013 to keep afloat, the Wall Street Journal reports
  • The yen's recent drop is giving hard-hit corporate Japan its biggest break in years, raising hopes of a long-awaited earnings recovery. Daiwa Securities estimates that profit growth at the top 200 Japanese companies will nearly double to 13% for the fiscal year through March, reversing a 16% decline in the previous year, assuming exchange rates remain roughly at current levels for two months, the Wall Street Journal reports
  • Glencore (GLNCY) is becoming a Russian oil trade leader from an outsider by mending fences in just one year with Rosneft, and is extending its grip to a sector where it played second fiddle to companies such as rival trader Vitol or Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A), Reuters reports
  • Citigroup (C) is looking to pull out of consumer banking in more countries in an effort to lower costs and boost profits, sources say, Reuters reports
  • Diminishing rubber supplies and record car sales are extending a five-month bull market that’s poised to raise costs for tire makers (GT, BRDCY, CTB), Bloomberg reports
  • Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) President Andrew Ekdahl told jurors the company recalled 93,000 all-metal hip implants because they “did not meet the clinical needs for the product” and not because they were unsafe, Bloomberg reports

SYNDICATE

Adecogro (AGRO) 13.9M share Spot Secondary priced at $8.00
AmeriGas (APU) files to sell 29.57M common units for holders
Fleetmatics (FLTX) 7M share Secondary priced at $25.00
Golar LNG Partners (GMLP) announces offering of 3.9M common units
Idera Pharmaceuticals (IDRA) files to sell 9.08M shares of common stock for holders
Keryx (KERX) 6.58M share Spot Secondary priced at $8.49
TRI Pointe Homes (TPH) 13.689M share IPO priced at $17.00
Towerstream (TWER) to offer common stock
Vanguard Natural (VNR) commences offering of 8M common units

Your rating: None

The Rise Of America’s Lunatic Fringe

Authored by chindit

The Rise Of America's Lunatic Fringe

Anyone who spends any amount of time on the internet has seen them. They are the moonbats, the wingnuts, the whackjobs, the Conspiratorialists. They are America’s new Lunatic Fringe, and their numbers are growing.

While the rise of the internet fed a segment of society that has always existed, as the cyberworld has become an increasingly important source of both entertainment and information, an entirely new demographic has joined what was already amongst us.

Who are they and what do they believe?  The Lunatic Fringe is not uniform in either its background or beliefs.  Some clearly seem to be emotionally disturbed.  Others are simply naïve and gullible.  Still more are frustrated by an economy and a government that are behaving out of whack with what most people expected from life and from leadership.  They want to believe America stands for something noble, but it is increasingly felt by them that it does not.  They are confused, frustrated, disappointed, and growing angrier by the day.

They feel violated and betrayed.  Some harbor a diffuse rage which could blow at any time.  Others have figuratively thrown in the towel and have joined the ranks of the Preppers and Survivalists.  Surely the rise of this latter element, as evidenced by everything from a NatGeo show to an iPhone App, must be taken seriously and their concerns listened to if not addressed.

Collectively, though individually they differ, the beliefs of the Fringe include a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination, a faked moon landing, and the current favorite:  that 911 was an “inside” job.  The collective also includes the Birthers, and those who believe in everything from FEMA Camps to chemtrails to that retro old favorite of Colonel Jack Ripper, fluoridation.  (Those unfamiliar with these terms should Google them for more information than one might care to have.) The Fringe holds beliefs that have the world controlled variously by the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Bilderbergers, Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, the Council on Foreign Relations, 33rd Degree Freemasons, the Vatican, the Queen of England, or just The Illuminati.

Every event and every incident in the world is affected by some Master Plan carried out by whomever the believer chooses from the aforementioned gallery of rogues.  For many, al Qaeda is really al CIAda, and the prime directive of that organization, along with all the other USG alphabet agencies, is to further the goals of the elite, usually through some “false flag” operation or “psy-op”, and this many believe is financed through sales of illicit drugs under the guise of CIA foreign operations.

Believers can “prove” each and every one of their claims via a series of cross-referenced internet links, the source of many undoubtedly just someone’s fertile imagination, but very real to the believers.

To the uninitiated this all seems rather humorous, albeit slightly unsettling.  It would be both wrong and unwise just to slough it off as the ramblings of the insane.  The reason such beliefs are gaining favor is because many Americans have lost faith and lost trust in the government and in America’s elected leadership.  Given what has happened over the last decade, this is not only understandable, it is even, in an odd way, reasonable.  A continual drift to the fringe can be expected because of the many very real things that make the foolish things suddenly more believable.

Why have the people lost faith and trust?  There is a host of reasons, perhaps beginning with the war of choice in Iraq and the vociferous and passionate claims of WMD that turned out to be false.  That war cost lives, cost sympathy and diplomatic capital, and cost trillions even when America was told by former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz that the war “would pay for itself from oil sales” and that “Americans would be welcomed with garlands”.  Neither was anything close to accurate.  Instead the US has war dead, war wounded, a huge bill, fewer friends, and many more enemies.

What truly exacerbated the rush to the fringe was the Financial Crisis and the subsequent railroaded bailouts, which “democratic” America opposed to the tune of 97%, and which were, and still are viewed as rewarding the very people who caused the collapse.  The oft-spoken official claims that “the taxpayer made a profit on the bailouts” just adds salt to the taxpayers’ wounds, as it conveniently fails to take into account the host of programs---from TALF to ZIRP to QEI, II, and III and Twist---that virtually handed the banks the money with which they could “pay back” the bailout cash.

America sees backroom deals and favors to insiders every step of the way, and rightfully so they see this, because that is exactly how the bailout was undertaken.  No one had to pay for his mistakes, and equally significant, no one has been prosecuted despite overwhelming evidence of fraud, malfeasance, and corruption.  Americans cannot help but subscribe to the cynical quip, “everyone is equal under the law, except for those who are above it”.  Fines don't count, especially when the money to pay them comes right back through another door. America's prisons are filled with people who did little more than use a banned substance.  It's time some bankers and officials faced the possibility of similar accommodations, should they be found guilty. Of course, first they must be prosecuted.

The belief that all is not fair is further cemented when the Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer can be taped (PBS, “Frontline”) saying, "Well, I think I am pursuing justice. And I think the entire responsibility of the department is to pursue justice. But in any given case, I think I and prosecutors around the country, being responsible, should speak to regulators, should speak to experts, because if I bring a case against institution A, and as a result of bringing that case, there’s some huge economic effect — if it creates a ripple effect so that suddenly, counterparties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with this are affected badly — it’s a factor we need to know and understand."

No matter how one parses that quote it still says the same thing: some are above the law.

The American people are well aware they have been lied to by the leadership. They know that a lobbyist has an infinitely greater chance of getting his way than an entire nation of voters.  They know who pays the bills---the taxpayer---as well as who pays the politicians---the lobbyists.  They see the Federal Debt ballooning to Greek-like proportions, and the best Congress can do, other than take vacation or kick the can, is to tell Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to “get to work, Mr. Chairman”, which means print more money, monetize the deficit, and further dilute the value of the dollar.

Even some people within the government are undoubtedly growing frustrated. Imagine someone in DEA, FBI, CIA, or the military, who sees the slap on the wrist fine handed to a certain non-US bank for a decade or more of drug money laundering and laundering money for Iran, some of which might well have found its way to Hezbollah or to parties aiding the Iraqi insurgency. There are people in Waziristan who face the wrath of a drone-fired Hellfire missile with less evidence to back up the attack.  This bank, incidentally, received a $3.5 billion payment-in-full upon the US taxpayer bailout of insurer AIG.

When trust is gone, everything becomes an affront, a conspiracy, a power grab by the elite.  The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which gives the President incredibly broad powers, seems to obviate both habeas corpus and the entire Bill of Rights.  When the trust is gone, people are less willing to believe that such a bill would never be used recklessly, or vindictively to put down vocal opponents of whatever Administration happens to be in power at the time.  When trust is gone, the people question new efforts to alter the Second Amendment, even if many are personally outraged at the rash of gun violence that has come to epitomize the United States, so they rush to guns rather than run from them.  When the trust is gone, the message of the Lunatic Fringe is afforded greater reception.  When the trust is gone the Fringe becomes the mainstream.

The government can no longer afford to ignore the Lunatic Fringe, because it is becoming less loon and more understandably and righteously indignant every day.  The government did not create the Fringe, but through callous disregard, incompetence, blatant self-interest, cronyism, selective enforcement, and pandering to its financial support base, the government has fertilized the fringe until it has grown to redwood-like size.  The nation's leadership is viewed not with admiration, but with distrust.  It is no longer the solution, but the problem.  It has reversed from friend to enemy, at least for a not insignificant portion of the citizenry.   The fringe is not going to go away, and it will continue to hammer away at an already fragile society.  It very well could lead to significant social unrest, even random violence.  New records in the Dow will not alter the focus, nor ameliorate the bubbling rage, even if the financial media or the Federal Reserve thinks it will.  This growing demographic of citizens must have their concerns addressed before it is too late.  Woe to those who ignore it.

To paraphrase a certain career New York Senator, “Mr. Government, get to work!”  Or better yet, get out of the way.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (13 votes)

Two US Patriot missiles arrive in Turkey

German military vehicles carrying equipment for NATO Patriot missiles disembark at Turkey's southern port of Iskenderun on January 21, 2013.

Two Patriot missile systems, sent by the United States, have arrived in southern Turkey.

The US vessel carrying parts of the surface-to-air missiles docked at the southern port of Iskenderun on Wednesday.

The systems are to be deployed near the Syrian border.

On Monday, two German batteries, which have been deployed around the southeastern Turkish city of Kahramanmaras, about 100 kilometers (62 miles) from the Syrian border, became operational.

On Saturday, the Netherlands activated two Patriot batteries near the southern city of Adana.

In November 2012, NATO announced a plan to deploy six batteries to “protect Turkey” from potential Syrian missile strikes.

Syria, however, insists that it would never attack any neighbor, denouncing the deployment an act of provocation.


Iran, Russia and China have also criticized the move, arguing that the missiles will only heighten regional tensions.

NT/MHB

U.S. Secret Prisons and the Guantanamo Trials, Systematic Torture

WAR CRIMES AND TORTURE: Guantánamo and back: an interview with Moazzam Begg

According to UN investigations in 2010 there are more than 27,000 prisoners held by the U.S. in more than 100 secret prisons around the world and on 17 ships as floating prisons. These are almost entirely Muslim prisoners.

According to Center for Constitutional Rights 92% of the prisoners held just at Guantanamo are not “Al-Qaeda fighters” by the U.S. government’s own records and 22 were under 18 years of age when captured.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed one of the 5 now on trial at Guantanamo was subjected to water board torture 183 times. He wore a camouflaged vest to court to make the point that he was once part of the U.S. armed and paid mujahideen force in Afghanistan in 1980s and U.S. proxy army in Bosnia in 1990s.  The U.S. can be expected to treat its proxy army in Syria and Libya in the same way.

U.S. government targeted kidnappings and assassinations are today continued through daily drone attacks with Hellfire missiles in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Mali and as far as the Philippines. Again thousands of civilians, including youth and women are among the victims.

President Obama had promised to close Guantanamo Prison as one of his first acts as president in 2009. Yesterday it was decided instead to close the office and eliminate the special envoy Daniel Fried whose role was to close the prison at Guantanamo. Daniel Fried’s role will now be to intensify the sanctions on Iran and Syria.

Close Guantanamo and ALL U.S. secret prisons! End the drone wars! End the Sanctions!

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: publications@globalresearch.ca

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

For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca

Copyright © Sara Flounders, RT, 2013

The Real Invasion of Africa is Not News, and a Licence to Lie is...

africom

A full-scale invasion of Africa is under way. The United States is deploying troops in 35 African countries, beginning with Libya, Sudan, Algeria and Niger. Reported by Associated Press on Christmas Day, this was missing from most Anglo-American media.

The invasion has almost nothing to do with “Islamism”, and almost everything to do with the acquisition of resources, notably minerals, and an accelerating rivalry with China. Unlike China, the US and its allies are prepared to use a degree of violence demonstrated in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Palestine. As in the cold war, a division of labour requires that western journalism and popular culture provide the cover of a holy war against a “menacing arc” of Islamic extremism, no different from the bogus “red menace” of a worldwide communist conspiracy.

Reminiscent of the Scramble for Africa in the late 19th century, the US African Command (Africom) has built a network of supplicants among collaborative African regimes eager for American bribes and armaments. Last year, Africom staged Operation African Endeavor, with the armed forces of 34 African nations taking part, commanded by the US military.

Africom’s “soldier to soldier” doctrine embeds US officers at every level of command from general to warrant officer. Only pith helmets are missing.

It is as if Africa’s proud history of liberation, from Patrice Lumumba to Nelson Mandela, is consigned to oblivion by a new master’s black colonial elite whose “historic mission”, warned Frantz Fanon half a century ago, is the promotion of “a capitalism rampant though camouflaged”.

A striking example is the eastern Congo, a treasure trove of strategic minerals, controlled by an atrocious rebel group known as the , which in turn is run by Uganda and Rwanda, the proxies of Washington.

Long planned as a “mission” for NATO, not to mention the ever-zealous French, whose colonial lost causes remain on permanent standby, the war on Africa became urgent in 2011 when the Arab world appeared to be liberating itself from the Mubaraks and other clients of Washington and Europe. The hysteria this caused in imperial capitals cannot be exaggerated. NATO bombers were dispatched not to Tunis or Cairo but Libya, where Muammar Gaddafi ruled over Africa’s largest oil reserves. With the Libyan city of Sirte reduced to rubble, the British SAS directed the “rebel” militias in what has since been exposed as a racist bloodbath.

The indigenous people of the Sahara, the Tuareg, whose Berber fighters Gaddafi had protected, fled home across Algeria to Mali, where the Tuareg have been claiming a separate state since the 1960s. As the ever watchful Patrick Cockburn points out, it is this local dispute, not al-Qaeda, that the West fears most in northwest Africa… “poor though the Tuareg may be, they are often living on top of great reserves of oil, gas, uranium and other valuable minerals”.

Almost certainly the consequence of a French/US attack on Mali on 13 January, a siege at a gas complex in Algeria ended bloodily, inspiring a 9/11 moment in David Cameron. The former Carlton TV PR man raged about a “global threat” requiring “decades” of western violence. He meant implantation of the west’s business plan for Africa, together with the rape of multi-ethnic Syria and the conquest of independent Iran.

Cameron has now ordered British troops to Mali, and sent an RAF drone, while his verbose military chief, General Sir David Richards, has addressed “a very clear message to jihadists worldwide: don’t dangle and tangle with us. We will deal with it robustly” – exactly what jihadists want to hear. The trail of blood of British army terror victims, all Muslims, their “systemic” torture cases currently heading to court, add necessary irony to the general’s words. I once experienced Sir David’s “robust” ways when I asked him if he had read the courageous Afghan feminist Malalai Joya’s description of the barbaric behaviour of westerners and their clients in her country. “You are an apologist for the Taliban” was his reply. (He later apologised).

These bleak comedians are straight out of Evelyn Waugh and allow us to feel the bracing breeze of history and hypocrisy. The “Islamic terrorism” that is their excuse for the enduring theft of Africa’s riches was all but invented by them. There is no longer any excuse to swallow the BBC/CNN line and not know the truth. Read Mark Curtis’s Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam (Serpent’s Tail) or John Cooley’s Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism (Pluto Press) or The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski (HarperCollins) who was midwife to the birth of modern fundamentalist terror. In effect, the mujahedin of al-Qaida and the Taliban were created by the CIA, its Pakistani equivalent, the Inter-Services Intelligence, and Britain’s MI6.

Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, describes a secret presidential directive in 1979 that began what became the current “war on terror”. For 17 years, the US deliberately cultivated, bank-rolled, armed and brainwashed jihadi extremists that “steeped a generation in violence”. Code-named Operation Cyclone, this was the “great game” to bring down the Soviet Union but brought down the Twin Towers.

Since then, the news that intelligent, educated people both dispense and ingest has become a kind of Disney journalism, fortified, as ever, by Hollywood’s licence to lie, and lie. There is the coming Dreamworks movie on WikiLeaks, a fabrication inspired by a book of perfidious title-tattle by two enriched Guardian journalists; and there is Zero Dark Thirty, which promotes torture and murder, directed by the Oscar-winning Kathryn Bigelow, the Leni Riefenstahl of our time, promoting her master’s voice as did the Fuhrer’s pet film-maker. Such is the one-way mirror through which we barely glimpse what power does in our name.

For more information on John Pilger, please visit his website at www.johnpilger.com

Israel Attacks Lebanon

Lebanon’s Naharnet news site said 12 Israeli fighter jets entered Lebanese air space in the last 24 hours. Flights overflew the Beka Valley.On Saturday, Lebanon’s Al-Mustaqbal daily said a southern weapons storage facility was struck. No official confirmation followed.

Lebanon’s Daily Star headlined “Israel hits target in Lebanon-Syria border area – sources,” saying:

According to four unnamed Western diplomats and regional security sources, “Israeli forces attacked a convoy on the Syrian-Lebanese border overnight.”

Little further information followed. Israel warned earlier about “high-tech anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles reaching Israel’s enemies.” Chemical weapons concerns were raised.

Lebanese military sources reported multiple Israeli incursions into Lebanon’s airspace overnight.

According to one source:

“There was definitely a hit in the border area.” Without elaborating, he said “something happened.”

Another said “The Israeli air force blew up a convoy which had just crossed the border from Syria into Lebanon.”

An IDF spokeswoman said “We do not comment on reports of this kind.”

France’s Le Figaro said Israeli aircraft attacked an alleged weapons convoy traveling from Syria to Lebanon. It’s not clear if it occurred in Syrian or Lebanese territory.

On Sunday, Israeli Vice Premier Silvan Shalom said “The entire world has said more than once that it takes developments in Syria very seriously.”

Negative developments would have to be addressed, he added.

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said Israel won’t “compromise on the security of the northern front.”

On January 29, Al-Monitor said IDF intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi traveled to Washington to meet US Pentagon officials. Whether doing so is connected to Israel’s attack isn’t clear.

Netanyahu held recent security meetings. Discussions focused on Syrian and Lebanese issues. Cabinet members were told:

“It is necessary to look at our surroundings, both at what is happening with Iran and its proxies, and what is happening in other arenas – lethal weaponry in Syria, which is steadily breaking up.”

Israel Air Force commander, Major General Amir Eshel, said Syria is “falling apart. Nobody has any idea right now what is going to happen in Syria on the day after, and how the country is going to look.”

“This is happening in a place with a huge weapons arsenal, some of which are new and advanced, and some of which are not conventional.”

On January 20, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile said “Israeli aircraft target(ed) Hizbollah missiles in Zabadani. S. Syria.”

Israeli aircraft struck “missile and arms convoys standing ready in southern Syria for transfer to Hizbollah in Lebanon, according to Western sources.”

On Sunday, Israel deployed two Iron Dome missile defense systems. They’re stationed on Israel’s Golan border. Their effectiveness is way overblown.

UN observers monitoring Syria’s border with Israel were withdrawn. At issue is why. Netanyahu’s stoking fear. He does it repeatedly on Iran. Whether he’s got something else in mind now bears close watching.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Mysterious Israeli Airstrike Sparks Worry on Syria/Lebanon Border

Media reports Wednesday morning, littered with "unnamed sources" and "unconfirmed reports" from across the region, reveal that something from the air—seemingly an Israeli missile—did strike something on the ground—a Syrian military convoy, according to sources—near the border between Syria and Lebanon in the early hours of the day.

An Israeli soldier stands guard next to an Iron Dome rocket interceptor deployed near the northern Israeli city of Haifa on Monday. Any sign that Syria's grip on its chemical weapons is slipping as it battles an armed uprising could trigger Israeli military strikes, Israel's vice premier said on Sunday. (Photo: Baz Ratner/ Reuters) CNN, citing US officials in Washington, reports:

Israeli fighter jets attacked a convoy along the Lebanese-Syrian border overnight, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday, as tensions mounted over the potential fallout from Syria's protracted civil war.

The official said the United States does not believe the airstrike was linked to growing concerns about Syria's chemical weapons.

"It was unrelated to chemical weapons, we see no nexus," the official said Wednesday. The strike is thought to have hit a "target of opportunity."

Slightly earlier, The Guardian put out a report, which read in part:

Israeli warplanes have attacked a target on the Syrian-Lebanese border, according to unconfirmed reports, after several days of heightened warnings from government officials over Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons.

The Reuters news agency cited a western diplomat and a security source as saying there had been "a hit" in the border area. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) said it had no comment on the report.

The report followed claims in the Lebanese media that IDF fighter planes had flown sorties over Lebanon's airspace from Tuesday afternoon until Wednesday morning.

And reporting from the BBC adds:

Unnamed sources who spoke to Reuters and AFP news agencies differed as to whether the convoy was hit in Lebanon or in Syria, although correspondents say an attack on the Syrian side would cause a major diplomatic incident.

One source denied that there had been any attack on Lebanese territory.

Iran has said it will treat any Israeli attack on Syria as an attack on itself.

The attack came days after Israel moved its Iron Dome defence system to the north of the country.

Correspondents say Israel fears that Lebanese Shia militant group Hezbollah could obtain anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, thus strengthening its ability to respond to Israeli air strikes.

Israel has also joined the US in expressing concern that Syria's presumed chemical weapons stockpile could be taken over by militant groups.

Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom told Israeli radio on Sunday that any sign that Syria was losing its grip on the weapons could lead to Israeli action, even a pre-emptive strike.

_______________________

Obama, Hagel and the Asian Pivot

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item.

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.

President Obama was inaugurated into his second term. He spoke about the economy, but he also spoke a little bit about U.S. foreign policy. Here's a couple of clips of what he had to say.~~~BARACK OBAMA, U.S. PRESIDENT: We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully, not because we are naive about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.~~~JAY: Now joining us from Madison, Wisconsin, to discuss whether the next four years of President Obama's foreign policy will be any different than the last four, first of all, is Allen Ruff. He's a U.S. social historian and a freelance writer for publications like Counterpunch and Truthout. And Steve Horn. He's a Madison, Wisconsin, based research fellow of DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative journalist. He's written in The Guardian and The Nation and other publications.Allen, there wasn't really much reflection of President Obama's real strategic vision. There is this comment that he's—you can have security without perpetual war, that—there's a suggestion that the United States has to work with other countries. But what do you make, based on what you know of President Obama, the last four years, how he sees the world and American interests?ALLEN RUFF, US SOCIAL HISTORIAN AND WRITER: Well, first of all, Paul, we have to say that security has always been touted by every president across the 20th century, certainly, as the primary goal of U.S. foreign policy. We have to ask what security means and for whom.Certainly, security for corporate investment and involvement abroad, security for U.S. national security, national interest abroad, is the motivator. And while they talk about [unintel.] soft power, they'll also readily back that up with force when and wherever possible. And force can be in the terms of direct military intervention and engagement, warfare. It can also be sanctions. It can also be isolation of those that don't toe the line for U.S. imperial interests.So in that sense Obama strikes—for me, anyway—a continuity, that there's no break here. It's most telling right now as he spoke in Washington. One of the things that's going on is the revival for public consumption of the so-called global war on terror as the main reason for U.S. involvement in Africa, as an example.JAY: Now, the appointment of Chuck Hagel—I shouldn't say appointment. President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel to be the secretary of defense, what does that tell us about President Obama's vision, especially towards Iran, and then towards other things in the bigger picture?RUFF: Well, perhaps the most significant thing about Chuck Hagel, from my perspective, something that hasn't been talked about at all, is that Chuck Hagel is an insider to the extent that he currently chairs the Atlantic Council, described by some as the major think tank for NATO. That is, they're very much concerned—the Atlantic Council is hosting—even in the past few months, it's hosted a number of, as an example, Eurasian energy—strategic energy conclaves that have brought people from the private sector, government, and, you know, the NGO imperial think tanks to talk about solidifying U.S. interest in the oil- and gas-rich Central Asia republics, the former Soviet republics.JAY: Well, this goes back to sort of Brzezinskian thinking of the grand chessboard. If you want to be the global power, you need to control the energy resources of Eurasia. But just before we dig into that a little further, just step back one. Do you not think the Chuck Hagel nomination is a sign that Obama does not want to go to war with Iran, that he thinks it would get in the way of this greater vision?RUFF: Well, obviously, there's enough people with enough brainpower, shall we say, in Washington in these various think tanks and circles that understand that a major open conflict with Iran, a war, would lead to a larger conflagration of the entire region. It would exacerbate the whole Persian Gulf interest. You know, from the time of the Carter doctrine, Jimmy Carter's administration, they've defined the Persian Gulf as fundamental to U.S. global interest, that is, the Gulf as the major outflow of oil, gas in the region. Some of that now, of course, is being bypassed through the construction of these east-west pipelines coming out of Central Asia, going under the belly of Russia, across the Caspian and so on, right to Turkey and into Western Europe—Eastern Europe. But, again, the—what it would mean for the rest of the entire Muslim, the Arab world, and so on would be massive.JAY: So, I mean, is Obama signalling, then, that while Israel may be very preoccupied with Iran, and so some of the other Middle Eastern powers as well—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, but particularly Israel—that the broader strategic U.S. interests, in the sense of Brzezinski and being able to maintain the United States as the dominant global power, it's really far more about Eurasia, and a war with Iran doesn't help that?RUFF: Yeah, I think you're right, Paul. The—again, there's a lot of people who like to argue that the Israeli tail wags the American dog, but we don't buy that, and we understand that U.S. "national interest", in quotes, predominates. Certainly they're moving away from that kind of unilateral neocon Bush-era attack mode and trying to at minimum cover their—provide themselves a fig leaf of legitimacy across that part of the world by talking—certainly talking multilateralism.JAY: As people that are familiar with Brzezinski's book—The Grand Chessboard, I think it's called, something like that—the strategic vision is really all about energy resources, and that's certainly—has to be President Obama's preoccupation. What do we know about his thinking on this?STEVE HORN, RESEARCH FELLOW, DESMOGBLOG: Sure. So if you look at a December report disseminated by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was, I guess, edited or sort of overseen by senator—or once-Senator Dick Lugar, that report makes the strong argument that (A) U.S. shale gas, which is obtained via the process called fracking, much of it should be exported to NATO allies as a means of getting NATO E.U. countries off of—Eastern European countries off of gas that comes from Iran and Russia. So it's one huge thing. And then the other big piece of this puzzle is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (and I think by extension the Obama administration) sees Azerbaijan, located off the Caspian Sea, bordering Iran, they see Azerbaijan as the anchor for energy and especially for gas in the region. And that's a key. They want that gas to be exported to E.U. countries as a means of further isolating Iran and Russia.So it's—I think it's going to—that's a central tenet in both global energy policy, at least in terms of how the United States sees it, and how NATO countries see it, and also a central piece of U.S. foreign policy.RUFF: Some of the lines in the speech today almost rang—to me it almost sounded like Woodrow Wilson promising, you know, peace, that we won't be into any major conflicts, that we're going to avoid them. You know, he kept us out of war—that whole traditional liberal Democratic line of the war party of the 20th century.Most revealing for what Obama promises or promised today at the inaugural has to do with the proclaimed Pacific pivot, this reorientation of U.S. military strength and power, the projection of U.S. power back into the Pacific, as if to suggest that the previous administration, the neocons and the Republican [inaud.] too much emphasis on the Middle East and Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on, that the Pacific is where U.S. interests lay and where it always has.The U.S. forces have returned to Subic Bay in the Philippines. One of the great ironies of the new period is the fact that U.S. has a port of call, the U.S. military has a naval port of call at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam. They're moving now some several thousand—I believe the number is 6,000 U.S. troops to Australia.And why is this? They see, they understand that the major adversary in the coming period, in the coming years, will be China. And they're—and the Chinese understand it as well. They see themselves as much akin to how the Soviet Union viewed itself decades ago as being encircled by the U.S.To the West, the U.S. is assisting places like Kazakhstan in the development of their hard power and, through soft-power diplomacy, the weaning of a place like Kazakhstan, oil-rich and gas-rich, away from Russia. Now, the Kazakhs, of course, under the dictator Nazarbayev, who the United States has no problem with, is also playing his China cards and Russia cards. But, again, the Pacific is going to take up a lot of U.S. resources and a shift militarily into that region.JAY: So this is a different vision than the Bush and neocons who want regime change. They want—you know, they've always said they wanted Syria, they want Iran. They had others on their list. I guess Gaddafi was on their list earlier, although they did—they were playing nice with Gaddafi in the more recent years. But this is what the Democrats like to call smart power. Is that his vision?RUFF: Sure. Well, look, you're not going to get regime change in China.JAY: Well, it's more about friendly regimes all around China, isn't it? U.S.-friendly regimes, isn't it?RUFF: Yeah, and friendly regimes to which the United States promises ultimately a backup of real power if push comes to shove. The opening of relations in Myanmar—Burma—is very revealing, that suddenly there's been that—again, in a sense a soft-power regime change in outlook, certainly, toward Myanmar, which was on the bad-guys list for—for how long?So, yeah. I mean, they're lining up clients across the region, not only, you know, in East Asia, in the lead South Korea, Taiwan, and so on, but to the west of China as well, in the former Soviet republics, though what's often referred to as the former Soviet space.JAY: And to what extent do you also think this is a response to Arab Spring, meaning popular democratic uprisings that could also be taking place in many other parts of the world, not just the Middle East? In fact, I understand there were many in Africa that were quite brutally suppressed. So it's not just about China, but to a large extent it's about suppressing movements within these countries that would want more control over their own resources.RUFF: Well, I mean, obviously the most striking example that comes to mind is the hypocrisy, the double standard when it came to crushing the Arab Spring, the popular movement in Bahrain, where with a U.S. green light and assistance, really, the Saudis went in to assist the Bahraini monarchy in suppressing that movement. In a place like Kazakhstan right now, there's been this year-long, you know, ongoing repression and closing down of opposition parties, opposition press, the jailing of union leaders, you know, following over a year ago the murder by state security forces of striking oil workers in the Caspian Sea region. But it's sold in terms—if you look at the press coming out of the region, it's sold in terms of these people are terrorists and aiding and abetting terrorists. The revival of the so-called global war on terror as the main [troUf], the main, you know, selling point for interventions, whether it be right now in places like the Sahil in Saharan Africa, right across all the way to, say, the Philippines, is part of the whole fabric.HORN: And you could say that this—sort of all this—all these mechanisms of control of democratic uprisings have come straight home if you look at what's happened in the past year and a half with the Occupy movement, with the FBI and local police departments in concert with the Department of Homeland Security, as various Freedom of Information Act requests by various news organizations and law firms have shown, that all these things have also happened here at home using the same mechanisms. So it's a global phenomenon, and you could say that that's what counterinsurgency is.RUFF: Yeah. I mean, certainly there's—repression at home has always come hand in hand with imperial adventures abroad. That's been the history, again, the longer history of U.S. involvement globally, and to have the client regimes keep order so that again the flows of capital, of energy, of resources, of weapons, of spending go unimpeded. When they talk about stability, stability means primarily that, that is, the continuation of those flows that must go on uninterrupted. And when they do, then force will be used, despite what Barack Obama may have said about hope for peace and deescalation and nonmilitary means.JAY: Right. Okay. Well, this is just the beginning of a discussion. So we will come back to it soon. Thank you both for joining us.RUFF: Thank you.HORN: Thank you.JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Obama’s Non-Closing of Gitmo

The New York Times' Charlie Savage reported yesterday that the State Department "reassigned Daniel Fried, the special envoy for closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and will not replace him". That move obviously confirms what has long been assumed: that the camp will remain open indefinitely and Obama's flamboyant first-day-in-office vow will go unfulfilled. Dozens of the current camp detainees have long been cleared by Pentagon reviews for release - including Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a 36-year-old Yemeni who died at the camp in September after almost 11 years in a cage despite never having been charged with a crime. Like so many of his fellow detainees, his efforts to secure his release were vigorously (and successfully) thwarted by the Obama administration.An image of President Barack Obama is put up in the lobby of the headquarters of the US naval station at Guantánamo Bay. (Photograph: Brennan Linsley/AP)

Perfectly symbolizing the trajectory of the Obama presidency, this close-Guantánamo envoy will now "become the department's coordinator for sanctions policy". Marcy Wheeler summarizes the shift this way: "Rather than Close Gitmo, We'll Just Intercept More Medical Goods for Iran". She notes that this reflects "how we've changed our human rights priorities". Several days ago, Savage described how the Obama DOJ is ignoring its own military prosecutors' views in order to charge GITMO detainees in its military commissions with crimes that were not even recognized as violations of the laws of war.

Whenever the subject is raised of Obama's failure to close Gitmo, the same excuse is instantly offered on his behalf: he tried to do so but Congress (including liberals like Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders) thwarted him by refusing to fund the closing. As I documented at length last July, this excuse is wildly incomplete and misleading. When it comes to the failure to close Gitmo, this "Congress-prevented-Obama" claim has now taken on zombie status - it will never die no matter how clearly and often it is debunked - but it's still worth emphasizing the reality.

I won't repeat all of the details, citations and supporting evidence - see here - but there are two indisputable facts that should always be included in this narrative. The first is that what made Guantánamo such a travesty of justice was not its geographic locale in the Caribbean Sea, but rather its system of indefinite detention: that people were put in cages, often for life, without any charges or due process. Long before Congress ever acted, Obama's plan was to preserve and continue that core injustice - indefinite detention - but simply moved onto US soil.

Put simply, Obama's plan was never to close Gitmo as much as it was to re-locate it to Illinois: to what the ACLU dubbed "Gitmo North". That's why ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said of Obama's 2009 "close-Gitmo" plan that it "is hardly a meaningful step forward" and that "while the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies." That's because, he said, "the administration plans to continue its predecessor's policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location."

And the reason Democratic Senators such as Feingold voted against funding Gitmo's closing wasn't because they were afraid to support its closing. It was because they refused to fund the closing until they saw Obama's specific plan, because they did not want to support the importation of Gitmo's indefinite detention system onto US soil, as Obama expressly intended.

In sum, Obama's "closing Gitmo" plan was vintage Obama: a pretty symbolic gesture designed to enable Democrats to feel good while retaining the core powers that constituted the injustice in the first place. As the ACLU's Romero said: "shutting down Guantánamo will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its lawless policies onshore." Again, had Obama had his way - had Congress immediately approved his plan in full - the system of indefinite detention that makes Gitmo such a disgrace would have continued in full, just in a different locale.

Reading the full article with updates at The Guardian

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited

Glenn Greenwald

US judiciary queried on Swartz case

Following the suspicious death of computer expert and US government critic Aaron Swartz and an ensuring outcry about how federal prosecutors threatened him with a long prison term, two ranking US lawmakers have demanded the nation’s justice department to explain their actions.

The subsequent outrage over Swartz’s death, voiced by both critics of US computer-crimes laws and of aggressive prosecutorial tactics commonly employed by the country’s judiciary, has now led to a “formal bipartisan involvement” from Republican California Rep. Darrell Issa and Democratic Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, The Los Angeles Times reports on Wednesday.

The two lawmakers, reportedly the “top watchdogs” of government performance in the US Congress, have asked Attorney General Eric Holder in a Monday letter to the Justice Department to explain the federal prosecution of Swartz, a 26-year-old popular ‘hacktivist’ and co-founder of social news site Reddit that was found dead in his New York apartment earlier this month.


“Many questions have been raised about the appropriate level of punishment sought by prosecutors for Mr. Swartz's alleged offenses, and how the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, cited in 11 of 13 counts against Mr. Swartz, should apply under similar circumstances," the pair wrote in their letter, as quoted in the Times report.

The two lawmakers further pointed out in their letter that government prosecutors had filed “amended charges that upped the case's maximum penalties to 50 years in prison.”

Representatives Issa and Cummings also demanded from the US Justice Department to explain what influenced the decision by federal prosecutors to charge Swartz the way they did and whether he was being singled out for his open-Web advocacy.

According to the report, the two also asked to know how the charges against Swartz compared with other identical cases, what type of plea bargains were offered to him and why, and whether they had evidence pointing to other hacking by the internet activist, who has in the past censured the joint US-Israeli attempts to launch cyber attacks on Iranian computer networks.

Moreover, the report adds, Republican Texas Senator John Cornyn also forwarded a letter to the US attorney general on January 18 asking “whether the prosecution of Swartz was retaliation for his abundant open-records requests.”


Before his death, Swartz was threatened with decades in prison for downloading millions of academic articles from scholarly database, JSTOR, via the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's network.

Although JSTOR refused to press charges against Swartz, US government attorneys decided to move ahead with a criminal prosecution anyway.

Following Swartz’s death, his family and friends charged that US attorney’s office in Boston had “hounded” Swartz to his death, while his father insisted during his funeral that the US government had killed his son.

MFB/MFB

The Crimes of NATO’s Neocolonial Wars: The Mainstream Media are Organs of State and...

Although ignored by all major news media, one of the most important parliamentary speeches was made recently by Laurent Louis, a young Belgian deputy in the Chamber of Representatives (la Chambre des Représentants).

In his speech Louis denounced the French invasion of Mali which he described as “neo-colonialist”.

Mr. Louis also pointed out that the mainstream media are simply organs of state and corporate propaganda. 

“The leaders of Western countries are taking their people for fools, with the help and support of the press, which today is nothing more than the propaganda organ of the powers that be.”

Not mincing his words, the intrepid Belgian politician lambasted the foreign policy of Belgium and the European Union:

Everywhere in the world, military operations and destabilizations of regimes are becoming more and more frequent. Preventive war has become the rule. Nowadays in the name of democracy or the war on terrorism our states appropriate the right to violate the sovereignty of independent countries and to overthrow legitimate leaders. There was Iraq, Afghanistan, the wars of American lies, followed by Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and thanks to your decisions, our country participated in the front line in crimes against humanity in order to overthrow, every time, every time, progressive and moderate regimes and to replace them with Islamist regimes, whose first desire was to impose Sharia law

Louis went on to accuse the Belgian government of sponsoring terrorism in Syria.

“It’s the same right now in Syria, where our government is shamefully financing the arming of Islamist rebels who are trying to overthrow Bachar Al-Assad; this in the middle of an economic crisis while Belgian citizens have difficulty paying their rent and eating correctly and keeping warm. And our Foreign Minister decides to offer 9 million Euros to the Syrian rebels!”

Louis lashed out at the hypocrisy of the French government, pretending to fight terrorism in Mali while funding and supporting it in Syria. He also condemned NATO’s war in Afghanistan where he accused the latter of making money from drug trafficking.

The Belgian politician did not mince his words:

“ I dismiss all the so-called do-gooders whether they are on the left, the centre or the right who are at the heart of this corrupt power and who like to ridicule me. I piss of our leaders who play with their bombs like children in the playground, and who pretend to be democrats while they are nothing but low-life criminals. I have no respect either for the journalists who have the cheek to treat dissidents as madmen while they know that these dissidents are perfectly correct.”

Louis predicted that NATO’s next target would be Algeria before the final showdown with Iran. He noted that NATO could also decide to wage a terrorist campaign in Europe to justify more repression and foreign wars. This was the reason, he said, for the attacks of 911.

Louis was no doubt alluding to Operation Gladio, a covert terrorist campaign carried out by NATO intelligence in Europe from the 1960s to the 1980s in order to criminalize left-wing groups and increase the power of the capitalist state. Although, investigated by the Belgian and Swiss governments, as well as confessions by many involved to the BBC, many aspects of the terrorism campaign remain mysterious and unresolved.

Before concluding Louis gave the Belgian parliament a brief lesson on Mali’s abundant natural resources, in particular uranium, which the French nuclear energy multinational Areva will now be able to exploit as Malians die of hunger and malnutrition, while the French military will occupy the country with military bases to prevent any revolt of the people.

The thirty three year old politician said more for the ordinary man in one speech than all the parliamentary waffle of the last few decades. In these lugubrious times of ubiquitous lies and obscene evil, Louis’ courage and integrity should serve as an example to other politicians who tread in the corridors of power to speak out and denounce this tyranny now before it destroys all possibility of denunciation.

Listening to Louis’ passionate oratory brought to mind these lines from W.H Auden written in September 1939, on the eve of World War II:

“Defenseless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame”

NATO: Proudly Delivering Death Since 1949

globalization-of-nato-icon

THE GLOBALIZATION OF NATO

Author:  Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Clarity Press (2012)
ISBN:  978-0-9852710-2-2
Pages:  411 with complete index

Now available to order from Global Research

The world is enveloped in a blanket of perpetual conflict. Invasions, occupation, illicit sanctions, and regime change have become currencies and orders of the day. One organization – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) – is repeatedly, and very controversially, involved in some form or another in many of these conflicts led by the US and its allies. NATO spawned from the Cold War. Its existence was justified by Washington and Western Bloc politicians as a guarantor against any Soviet and Eastern Bloc invasion of Western Europe, but all along the Alliance served to cement Washington’s influence in Europe and continue what was actually America’s post-World War II occupation of the European continent. In 1991 the raison d’être of the Soviet threat ended with the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. Nevertheless NATO remains and continues to alarmingly expand eastward, antagonizing Russia and its ex-Soviet allies. China and Iran are also increasingly monitoring NATO’s moves as it comes into more frequent contact with them.

Yugoslavia was a turning point for the Atlantic Alliance and its mandate. The organization moved from the guise of a defensive posture into an offensive pose under the pretexts of humanitarianism. Starting from Yugoslavia, NATO began its journey towards becoming a global military force. From its wars in the Balkans, it began to broaden its international area of operations outside of the Euro-Atlantic zone into the Caucasus, Central Asia, East Africa, the Middle East, North Africa, and the Indian Ocean. It has virtually turned the Mediterranean Sea into a NATO lake with the NATO Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, while it seeks to do the same to the Black Sea and gain a strategic foothold in the Caspian Sea region. The Gulf Security Initiative between NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council seeks to also dominate the Persian Gulf and to hem in Iran. Israel has become a de facto member of the military organization. At the same time, NATO vessels sail the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. These warships are deployed off the coasts of Somalia, Djibouti, and Yemen as part of NATO’s objectives to create a naval cordon of the seas controlling important strategic waterways and maritime transit routes.

The Atlantic Alliance’s ultimate aim is to fix and fasten the American Empire. NATO has clearly played an important role in complementing the US strategy for dominating Eurasia. This includes the encirclement of Russia, China, Iran, and their allies with a military ring subservient to Washington. The global missile shield project, the militarization of Japan, the insurgencies in Libya and Syria, the threats against Iran, and the formation of a NATO-like military alliance in the Asia-Pacific region are components of this colossal geopolitical project. NATO’s globalization, however, is bringing together a new series of Eurasian counter-alliances with global linkages that stretch as far as Latin America. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) have been formed by Russia, China, and their allies as shields against the US and NATO and as a means to challenge them. As the globalization of NATO unfolds the risks of nuclear war become more and more serious with the Atlantic Alliance headed towards a collision course with Russia, China, and Iran that could ignite World War III.

Click to visit the Global Research ONLINE STORE

REVIEWS

“The Globalization of NATO by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is simply magnificent, erudite and devoid of the ethnocentrism to which one has become so accustomed from Western authors. The book deals with what doubtless are the most important and relevant issues of the day for all those committed to saving life and protecting Mother Earth from rampant human irresponsibility and crime. There is no other book that, at this particular time, I would most heartily endorse. I think Africans, Near Eastern peoples, Iranians, Russians, Chinese, Asians and Europeans generally and all the progressive Latin American countries of today will find a much needed reinforcement and support for their peaceful ideals in this excellent must-read book.”
MIGUEL D’ESCOTO BROCKMANN, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua (1979-1990) and President of the 63rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly (2008-2009): Managua, Nicaragua.

“We are far away from the principles and objectives for which the United Nations was created and the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal stipulating that some state actions can be considered crimes against peace. Nazemroaya’s book, in addition to reminding us that the role of the United Nations has been confiscated by NATO, elaborates the danger that the North Atlantic Treaty represents to world peace.”
JOSÉ L. GÓMEZ DEL PRADO, Chairman of the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (2005-2011): Ferney-Voltaire, France.

“Through carefully documented research, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya analyzes the historical and geopolitical evolution of NATO from the Cold War to the post 9/11 US- led “Global War on Terrorism.” This book is a must read for those committed to reversing the tide of war and imperial conquest by the world’s foremost military machine.”
MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG): Montréal, Canada.

“A very timely book. Yes, US-led NATO is globalizing, like the US-led finance economy. No doubt also for it to protect the latter, the “free market.” It is a classical case of overstretch to help save the crumbling US Empire and Western influence in general, by countries most of whom are bankrupt by their own economic mismanagement. All their interventions share two characteristics. The conflicts could have been solved with a little patience and creativity, but NATO does not want solutions. It uses conflicts as raw material it can process into interventions to tell the world that it is the strongest in military terms. And, with the help of the mainstream media, it sees Hitler everywhere, in a Milosevic, a bin Laden, a Hussein, a Qaddafi, in Assad, insensitive to the enormous differences between all these cases. I hope this book will be read by very, very many who can turn this morbid fascination with violence into constructive conflict resolution.”
JOHAN GALTUNG, Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies and Sociology at the University of Oslo and Founder of the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PRIO), the Galtung- Institut, and the Transcend Network: Oslo, Norway.

“Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya’s prolific writings give us a comprehensive understanding of the character of the military thrust and it’s all out, no holds barred STRATEGIC plans and moves to invade, occupy and plunder the resources of nations, inflicting unprecedented barbaric acts on civilian populations. He is one of the prescient thinkers and writers of contemporary times who deserves to be read and acted upon by people with a conscience and concern for humanity’s future.”
VISHNU BHAGWAT, Admiral and Chief of the Naval Staff of India (1996-1998): Mumbai, India.

“This is a book really necessary to understanding the role of NATO within the frame of long-term US strategy. The Globalization of NATO by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya not only provides an articulate analysis on the Atlantic Alliance: it is the best modern text devoted to the hegemonic alliance. With this book Nazemroaya reconfirms his ability as a brilliant geopolitical analyst.”
-TIBERIO GRAZIANI, President of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Geopolitics and Auxiliary Sciences/L’Istituto di Alti Studi in Geopolitica e Scienze Ausiliarie (IsAG): Rome, Italy.

“Nazemroaya is an unbelievable prolific writer. What has often amazed many is his almost nonstop writing on extremely important issues for the contemporary world and his analysis about the globalization of NATO. What amazes many of us in other parts of the world are his seemingly limitless depth, breadth and the thoroughness of his knowledge that has been repeatedly appearing in his work. We are deeply indebted to Nazemroaya’s humble, tireless and invaluable contributions through his fearless, insightful and powerful writings.”
KIYUL CHUNG, Editor-in-Chief of The 4th Media and Visiting Professor at the School of Journalism and Communication at Tsinghua University: Beijing, People’s Republic of China.

“The Journalists’ Press Club in Mexico is grateful and privileged to know a man who respects the written word and used it in an ethical way without another interest other than showing the reality about the other side of power in the world. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya gives voice to the “voiceless.” He can see the other side of the moon, the side without lights.”
CELESE SÁENZ DE MIERA, Mexican Broadcaster and Secretary-General of the Mexican Press Club: Federal District of Mexico City, Mexico.

“With his very well documented analysis, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya has conducted a remarkable decryption of the strategies implemented by NATO – in the interests of the United States, the European Union and Israel – to expand its military grip on the world, ensure its control over energy resources and transit routes, and encircling the countries likely to be a barrier or a threat to its goals, whether it be Iran, Russia or China. Nazemroaya’s work is essential reading for those that want to understand what is being played out right now on the map in all the world’s trouble spots; Libya and Africa; Syria and the Middle East; the Persian Gulf and Eurasia.”
SILVIA CATTORI, Swiss political analyst and journalist: Geneva, Switzerland.

The Globalization of NATO

Author:  Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
ISBN:  978-0-9852710-2-2
Clarity Press (2012)
Pages:  411 with complete index

Price: $22.95

Click to visit the Global Research ONLINE STORE

Gitmo: A Fight Obama Never Had the Stomach For

JTF Guard Force Troopers transport a detainee to the detainee hospital located adjacent to Camp Four, Guantanamo Bay, Dec. 27, 2007.JTF Guard Force Troopers transport a detainee to the detainee hospital located adjacent to Camp Four, Guantanamo Bay, Dec. 27, 2007. (Photo: Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Michael Billings)Don’t let the forces of regression dominate the media in 2013 - click here to support brave, independent reporting today by making a contribution to Truthout.

For more than four years now, President Obama made it look like he's trying to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

He campaigned on a promise to close Gitmo, saying in August of 2007, "As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."

And on January 22, 2009, in one of his first actions as president, he signed an executive order calling for the shuttering of Gitmo within one year. He said, "This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard."

The president then created a special envoy post in early 2009 dedicated exclusively to closing down Gitmo. Daniel Fried was selected to the position, and he spent the next year traveling around the world finding willing partners to accept current detainees at Gitmo who would be released once the prison closes.

When it came to closing Gitmo, the ball was moving forward.

But then, the president crashed headfirst into the post-9/11 political reality in America - and in particular, in Congress.

Right off the bat, in May of 2009, the Senate blocked $80 million requested by the president to close Gitmo. It was a 90-6 vote, with nearly all the Democrats and every single Republican joining together to sabotage the president's efforts to close Gitmo.

Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota perfectly illustrated the fear that still resided in the Senate when it comes to confronting terrorism. "The American people don't want these men walking the streets of America's neighborhoods," he said, defending his vote. "The American people don't want these detainees held at a military base or federal prison in their backyard, either."

Resorting to the NIMBY defense, Thune and other senators thought of Gitmo detainees as volatile nuclear reactors who, if released, would cause mass devastation to communities across America.

In reality, most Gitmo detainees were completely innocent. Young men picked up on the Afghan battlefields because they were wearing the wrong watch or had a grudge with local warlords.

By the time President Obama took office in 2009, the vast majority of Gitmo detainees - more than 500 - had already been released. Five had died at the facility. And only one at the facility had actually been convicted of any crime before a military commission.

They were not walking menaces. And besides, speaking directly to Senator Thune's point, there are already well over 300 individuals currently in prisons in the United States facing terrorist charges, and not a single community is in danger as a result of these nearby incarcerations.

But the Senate had spoken, and the president's fight to close Gitmo would be more difficult than he likely imagined. But rather than doubling down on his efforts to remove this scar from our national moral character, he retreated.

It's a common theme with this president. He just doesn't seem willing to fight.

So, in July of 2009, the president issued a six-month extension to his pledge to close Gitmo within one year. And at the end of 2009, on December 16, he made one more effort to close Gitmo. He ordered his attorney general and defense secretary to buy a state prison in Illinois for $350 million to replace Gitmo.

But a few months later, the House Armed Services Committee, headed up by Democrats, blocked those funds, again placing a giant roadblock in front of the president's plans to close Gitmo.

At this point, the lack of fight on the part of the Obama administration was becoming apparent. As the New York Times reported in June of 2010: "'There is a lot of inertia' against closing the prison, 'and the administration is not putting a lot of energy behind their position that I can see,' said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and supports the Illinois plan. He added that 'the odds are that it will still be open' by the next presidential inauguration."

With little pressure coming from the White House, Congressional Democrats decided it's not worth sticking their necks out to help close Gitmo, either. In one of their final moves as the majority in the House, Democrats passed a year-end spending bill in December of 2010 that again blocked funding to transfer Gitmo detainees. It also blocked detainees from being transferred to the United States and to a slew of other nations.

A month later, Republicans would take control of the House of Representatives, and President Obama's best chance of closing Gitmo in those first two years of his administration would be completely lost.

Over the next two years, Congress would pass more spending bills that block closure of Gitmo. Each time, the president expressed his disappointment but ultimately signed these bills into law.

Gitmo would remain open his entire first term. And as Levin predicted in June 2010, Gitmo remained open for the next presidential inauguration, too.

Currently, there are still 166 detainees at Gitmo - 87 of whom are approved for release but are barred from being released. Four detainees have died at the facility since President Obama took office. And currently, five Gitmo detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are facing a military trial at the facility that's fraught with questions about torture and frequently interrupted by a "censor button" that cuts off audio and video of the trial to reporters and the media. Gitmo remains a moral black-eye on the United States, and a terrorist recruiting tool abroad.

Which brings us to today's news.

The promise made on the campaign trail to close Gitmo has not been met. The one-year deadline imposed in 2009 to close Gitmo came and went. But what happened to that special envoy, Fried, specifically assigned to closing Gitmo created at the start of the president's first term?

This week, we learned that Fried was reassigned to do work for the State Department on Iran and Syria. His special envoy post devoted to closing Gitmo will not be filled. It will disappear, and its vacancy will be more confirmation that President Obama never had the stomach for this fight to begin with.

Yes, much of the blame for Gitmo staying open rests squarely on Congress and not on the president. After all, had Congress consented with the president's requests for funding to transfer detainees to Illinois, Gitmo would be an empty shell today.

But, as we've seen with the public option, cap-and-trade, the DISCLOSE Act, the Bush tax cuts, labor struggles in Wisconsin, you name it: when the going gets tough, the president gets going.

He had numerous opportunities to fight Congress on this issue, but he remained silent. He was barred from using Department of Defense funds to close the facility, but he could have used US courts to bring charges against Gitmo suspects and then used Department of Justice funds to try them in a fair and open trial in the United States. But he didn't. He rolled over to the fearful NIMBY arguments and embraced military tribunals.

Perhaps he was worried that a prolonged battle over Gitmo would derail his domestic agenda. He may have been right.

But heading into a second term, Gitmo is no longer a priority like it was in the president's first term. He's now accepted defeat.

As he implied in his second inaugural, he's content with polishing his progressive legacy through more civil rights victories like the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, by focusing on marriage equality, equal pay for equal work for women and immigration reform, all of which may be regarded in time as historic victories. But in a nation gripped by economic calamity and never-ending wars, the president's focus is, arguably, misguided.

After Fried's departure, a spokesperson for his office told The New York Times, "We remain committed to closing Guantánamo and doing so in a responsible fashion."

Excuse me if I follow up on Senator Levin's prediction from two years ago and say that Gitmo will likely remain open for the next inauguration in 2016.

John Kerry’s Conventional Mindset

As his recent confirmation hearing showed, John Kerry won’t think outside the box when he is the Secretary of State.

(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)Take his position on nuclear weapons. He said before the Senate Thursday that eliminating them was a “goal” that could take hundreds of years to achieve. In other words, folks, don’t hold your breath on this one. Kerry here was reflecting the establishment mentality—a mentality that is flawed. “Admire Sen. Kerry, but he exaggerates; won’t take us ‘centuries’ to eliminate nuclear weapons, more likely decades,” tweeted Joe Cirincione, a leading arms-control expert.

On Iran, Kerry was Mr. Both Ways, stating that even though the United States would continue to be engaged in diplomacy with that country, it would not take the military option off the table.

“Our policy is not containment,” he said. “It is prevention, and the clock is ticking.”

Kerry also echoed conventional thinking when he stated that a top priority for the United States should be for it to set right its economic state of affairs, which, according to Kerry, would involve debt reduction. But should that be that high up on the agenda? Not according to Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who in his most recent column chastises the misplaced Beltway attention on the deficit.

Kerry’s performance was so underwhelming that even the New York Times reporter commented: “In a nearly four-hour hearing, Mr. Kerry displayed his familiarity with a broad range of issues but presented no new ideas on how to make headway on the vexing foreign policy problems that he will inherit if he is confirmed, as expected.”

The one subject on which Kerry displayed some boldness was climate change, terming it a “life-threatening issue” and claiming he would be a “passionate advocate” for action on that front. But even here, he undercut himself by declaring that he was undecided on the pending Keystone XL pipeline, a strange position for a “passionate advocate” of the environment.

Kerry’s performance before the Senate was in keeping with his career-long inclination to play it safe.

Certainly, Kerry has shown daring a few times in his political life. The most famous example was early on as a returning (and highly decorated) Vietnam vet.

“We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to dies in Vietnam?” he asked Congress. “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

He has exhibited similar flashes on a couple of occasions during his decades as Senator. He was the chair of the Senate committee looking into the Iran/Contra scandal and uncovered many of its misdeeds. Kerry also headed an investigation that exposed massive wrongdoing at the BCCI bank.

But these episodes have been few and far in between. Much of his senatorial tenure has been marked by an overdose of timorousness.

The most obvious instance was the Iraq War. Along with the current Secretary of State and many other Democrats, Kerry rolled over for President Bush. “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security,” he said. Later on, when Bush’s chicanery became glaringly obvious, Kerry pulled back, a reversal that the Bush campaign mercilessly used against him in 2004.

Kerry’s Senate testimony revealed again his conformist outlook that will not serve the world well when he is at the helm of U.S. foreign policy.

We can expect more of the same with him in charge.

© 2013 The Progressive Magazine

Amitabh Pal is managing editor of The Progressive.

L’arte della guerra : La riconquista dell’Africa

Hillary missionnaire en Afrique

Nel momento stesso in cui il presidente democratico Obama ribadiva nel discorso inaugurale che gli Stati uniti, «fonte di speranza per i poveri, sostengono la democrazia in Africa», giganteschi aerei Usa C-17 trasportavano truppe francesi in Mali, dove Washington ha insediato l’anno scorso al potere il capitano Sanogo, addestrato negli Usa dal Pentagono e dalla Cia, acuendo i conflitti interni. La rapidità con cui è stata lanciata l’operazione, ufficialmente per proteggere  il Mali dall’avanzata dei ribelli islamici, dimostra che essa era stata da tempo pianificata dal socialista Hollande. L’immediata collaborazione degli Stati uniti e dell’Unione europea, che ha deciso di inviare in Mali specialisti della guerra con funzioni di addestramento e comando, dimostra che essa era stata pianificata congiuntamente a Washington, Parigi, Londra e in altre capitali.  Le potenze occidentali, i cui gruppi multinazionali rivaleggiano l’uno con l’altro per accaparrarsi mercati e fonti di materie prime, si compattano quando sono in gioco i loro interessi comuni. Come quelli che in Africa sono messi in pericolo dalle sollevazioni popolari e dalla concorrenza cinese. Il Mali, uno dei paesi più poveri del mondo (con un reddito procapite 60 volte inferiore a quello italiano e oltre la metà della popolazione sotto la soglia di povertà), è ricchissimo di materie prime: esporta oro e coltan, il cui ricavato finisce però nelle tasche delle multinazionali e dell’élite locale. Lo stesso nel vicino Niger, ancora più povero (con un reddito procapite 100 volte inferiore a quello italiano) nonostante sia uno dei paesi più ricchi di uranio, la cui estrazione ed esportazione è in mano alla multinazionale francese Areva. Non a caso, contemporaneamente all’operazione in Mali, Parigi ha inviato forze speciali in Niger. Analoga situazione in Ciad, i cui ricchi giacimenti petroliferi sono sfruttati dalla statunitense ExxonMobil e altre multinazionali (ma stanno arrivando anche compagnie cinesi): ciò che resta dei proventi va nelle tasche dell’élite locale. Per aver criticato tale meccanismo, il vescovo comboniano Michele Russo è stato espulso dal Ciad lo scorso ottobre. Niger e Ciad forniscono allo stesso tempo migliaia di soldati, che sotto comando francese, vengono inviati in Mali per aprire un secondo fronte. Quella lanciata in Mali, con la forza francese come punta di lancia, è dunque un’operazione a vasto raggio, che dal Sahel si estende all’Africa occidentale e orientale.  Essa si salda a quella iniziata in Nordafrica con la distruzione dello stato libico e le manovre per soffocare, in Egitto e altrove,  le ribellioni popolari. Un’operazione a lungo termine, che fa parte del piano strategico mirante a mettere l’intero continente sotto il controllo militare delle «grandi democrazie», che tornano in Africa col casco coloniale dipinto dei colori della pace.

Manlio Dinucci

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: publications@globalresearch.ca

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

For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca

Copyright © Manlio Dinucci, ilmanifesto.it, 2013

‘Suitcases Of Cash’ Smash UAE’s Residential Loan Restrictions

Amid growing concern of yet another liquidity-fueled real estate bubble in the UAE (real estate firms up 92% in the last year in USD terms), the government (via bank regulations) have drastically restricted the proportion of loans that can be provided...

‘Iraq unity will foil enemy plots’

Iran Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani (R) talks to Chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq Ammar Hakim in Tehran on Tuesday, January 29, 2013.

Iran Majlis (parliament) Speaker Ali Larijani says the Iraqi nation will foil conspiracies by practicing national unity and avoiding political disputes.

“The vigilant and revolutionary people of Iraq will neutralize these plots [hatched by enemies] by steering clear of differences,” Larijani said in a meeting with the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq Ammar al-Hakim in Tehran on Tuesday.

Larijani stressed the importance of strengthened unity among Iraqi tribes and ethnic groups.

He further lauded Tehran-Baghdad brotherly and friendly relations and expressed the Islamic Republic’s willingness to enhance cooperation with its neighbor.


Hakim, for his part, briefed Larijani on the latest developments in Iraq, and said the enemies’ plots will fail due to the finesse of Iraqi officials and the vigilance of Iraqi people.

Iraq has been the scene of anti-government demonstrations since December 23, 2012, when the bodyguards of Finance Minister Rafie al-Issawi were arrested on terrorism-related charges.

The demonstrators allege that the arrests were made on sectarian grounds and demand an end to anti-terrorism laws. However, Baghdad says it is up to the parliament to decide on abolishing those laws.

YH/KA/SS

Today’s Most Popular Stories

Most Popular Articles since:

  • facebook2

    By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, January 26 , 2013
  • Who Owns The Federal Reserve?

    By Ellen Brown, January 29 , 2013
  • The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten “White” Slaves

    By John Martin, January 27 , 2013
  • cheney2

    By Paul Schreyer, January 28 , 2013
  • DRONERQ-170_Sentinel_impression_3-view

    By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 26 , 2013
  • France: Le président Hollande rencontre l’« opposition » syrienne soutenue par les Etats-Unis

    By Thierry Meyssan, January 28 , 2013
  • Iraq War Crimes: Haditha: Another Small Massacre – No One Guilty

    By Dirk Adriaensens, January 28 , 2013
  • iceland

    By Martin Zeis, January 28 , 2013
  • africom

    By Ben Schreiner, January 29 , 2013
  • bp2

    By Washington's Blog, January 28 , 2013
  • "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group" and What They May Be Planning Now

    By Stephen Lendman, June 1 , 2009
  • africamap

    By Abayomi Azikiwe, January 29 , 2013
  • libya_clip_image002

    By Ronda Hauben, January 28 , 2013
  • cia

    By Russia Today, January 28 , 2013
  • By Socialist Project, January 28 , 2013
  • pacific command

    By Wayne Madsen, January 28 , 2013
  • israelflag

    By Wayne Madsen, January 28 , 2013
  • Trilateral Geithner: Corrupted Regulator?

    By Stephen Lendman, January 28 , 2013
  • mali

    By R. Teichman, January 15 , 2013
  • us ripped flag

    By Rebecca Solnit, January 28 , 2013
  • THE COUP OF 2012: Encroachment upon Basic Freedoms, Militarized Police State in America

    By Frank Morales, January 27 , 2013
  • SYRIA: CIA-MI6 Intel Ops and Sabotage

    By Felicity Arbuthnot, January 27 , 2013
  • Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”

    By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, January 27 , 2013
  • vietnam

    By Global Research News, January 28 , 2013
  • cia

    By Tom Carter, January 28 , 2013
  • school

    By Prof. James F. Tracy, December 25 , 2012
  • The New Mediterranean Oil and Gas Bonanza

    By F. William Engdahl, January 27 , 2013
  • mentalimaging

    By Prof. James F. Tracy, January 22 , 2013
  • The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families

    By Dean Henderson, June 1 , 2011
  • Mali's Tuareg-Uranium Conspiracy

    By Moeen Raoof, January 13 , 2013
  • Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran

    By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 2 , 2013
  • By Dr. Gary G. Kohls, January 29 , 2013
  • GMO Scandal: The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Humans

    By F. William Engdahl, January 22 , 2013
  • syriakurd438

    By Eric Draitser, January 27 , 2013
  • world

    By Lesley Docksey, January 27 , 2013
  • The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

    By Jules Dufour, July 1 , 2007
  • parenti2

    By Michael Parenti, January 27 , 2013
  • ECHELON: The Global Eavesdropping Scheme

    By Sherwood Ross, July 20 , 2011
  • king

    By Carl Herman, January 22 , 2013
  • lethal silverware

    By Washington's Blog, January 29 , 2013
  • israelus

    By Francis A. Boyle, January 26 , 2013
  • japan

    By Peter Symonds, January 26 , 2013
  • Gross National Product (GNP): How is it Calculated? What does it Measure?

    By John Kozy, January 19 , 2013
  • drone

    By Der Spiegel, December 16 , 2012
  • fed

    By Andre Damon, January 27 , 2013
  • africa america

    By Bonnie Faulkner, January 24 , 2013
  • GLOBAL WARMING OR THE "NEW ICE AGE"? FEAR OF "THE BIG FREEZE."

    By Washington's Blog, January 2 , 2013
  • Egypt Referendum

    By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, January 22 , 2013
  • chemtrails

    By Prof. James F. Tracy, December 14 , 2012
  • By Vicky Pelaez, March 10 , 2008

‘Greater Mideast, plot to save Zionists’

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (R) talks to Chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq Ammar Hakim in Tehran on Tuesday, January 29, 2013.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reiterated the Iranian authorities’ warning to regional countries against attempts to sow discord among them.

“Arrogant [powers] have said time and again that they seek to create a Greater Middle East and their sole objective is to save the Zionists and dominate the region once more,” Ahmadinejad said in a meeting with the visiting Chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) Ammar Hakim in Tehran on Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad noted that the ongoing crises in the region are linked to the Western conspiracies which aim to guarantee their grip on the regional states.


Stressing the need for regional nations to be vigilant against the enemies’ plots aimed at stoking conflict among them, the Iranian president said, “Solidarity, integrity and attention to people’ conventional rights constitute the best solution to countering the enemies’ conspiracy.”

Ahmadinejad stated that the regional governments should act in a way to support all people and restore their rights.

“Governments should be standard-bearer in defending rights and prosperity of all people. No discrimination should be made between different ethnicities and groups of people.”


For his part, Hakim stated that arrogant powers are intent on triggering ethnic and sectarian conflict in Iraq to reach their own spiteful objectives in the war-wrecked country.

Earlier on Tuesday, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said, “Today the main policy of the global arrogance to counter [the wave of] Islamic Awakening is to sow discord and pit Muslims in Islamic countries against each other.”

KA/SS

Wilkerson: Why Hagel is a Good Choice

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item.

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore. And welcome to this week's edition of The Wilkerson Report with Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson.

Larry Wilkerson was the former chief of staff for U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. He's currently an adjunct professor of government at the College of William & Mary and a regular contributor to The Real News. Thanks for joining us.COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON, FMR. CHIEF OF STAFF TO COLIN POWELL: Thanks for having me, Paul.JAY: So I've been wanting to ask you about this for a couple of weeks now. What do you make of President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense?WILKERSON: I think the president has made a pretty astute move putting John Kerry in the State Department and, hopefully, Chuck Hagel in the Department of Defense. He's covered his bases, so to speak, with national security issues with Chuck Hagel's appointment, and he's done the same thing with John Kerry at State. Both have almost unimpeachable credentials with regard to national security policy, and so I think it's a good move on both counts.JAY: Now, he had to know that this was going to infuriate, first of all, one gentleman named Netanyahu, AIPAC and such, and the whole neocon constituency, 'cause, I mean, Chuck Hagel became a very strong critic of the Iraq War, and he's been very unwilling to jump on board sort of hysteria about Iran, and they don't like that.WILKERSON: That's true. I like it a great deal, and I think 60 to 70 percent of Americans will appreciate it also, because that group of Americans, who constitute the bulk of Americans, of course, are not interested in another war in the Middle East, a war which would probably be catastrophic, as former secretary of defense Robert Gates called it. And so I think President Obama has made a move that is in line with his electoral mandate. After all, he won for another four years. And he's selecting people whose views more or less reflect the views of a majority of Americans.JAY: But why are they so antagonistic to Hagel? I mean, he is a Republican. He caucused with them. They know him well. But they're really pulling out their guns.WILKERSON: That's the problem—they do know him well, just as they knew George Voinovich of Ohio well and Olympia Snowe and others—Susan Collins, and other Republicans who are of the—what I shall call the Nelson Rockefeller framework or the Lawrence Wilkerson framework or the Colin Powell framework. They're people who think critically. They're people who are interested in the national outcome of this country's efforts in the world, both foreign and domestic. They're people who believe in allies, believe in friends, believe in talking and acting diplomatically with enemies or potential enemies. They're sane people, in other words. I don't know, Paul, but you may have checked the Republican Party lately. It's got a lot of crazy people in it. It's got a lot of extremists in it. That's why they lost the election. That's why they'll lose the next election if they don't correct their problems. So I'm wonderful with this idea that we've got some Republicans who [are] moderate in their outlook and who are nonetheless going to be in positions of power.JAY: Now, I mean, the group that seems to really be opposing it is sort of not the kind of Tea Party types; it's the old-guard neocon foreign policy guys, you know, Lindsey Graham and his gang of people, I guess the old Bush gang Karl Rove type people. What is it about Hagel? What has he done specifically that they're so worried about?WILKERSON: It's the John Boltons, it's the Douglas Feiths, it's the Elliott Cohens, its others who believe that American military power should be used almost as the sole instrument of American policy. And they're irritated because Chuck Hagel doesn't believe that way. They're irritated because in the past Hagel has shown that he has a very balanced view towards the Israeli-Palestinian issue, that he knows all the guilt isn't on the Palestinian and Arab side, that some of it's on the Israeli side.He's very balanced on the Iran issue. That is to say, he believes diplomacy should run its full course before any option looking like military force is turned to. [snip] also a person who understands, I think, that we are frittering away our military power on the fringes of our empire, and that that's the way empires in the past have gone the route of the dodo. And he doesn't want the American enterprise to go that way. So he's very concerned about our getting our economic house in order, the ultimate bastion/foundation of our power in the world in general, and very [inaud.] in getting our foreign policy issues straight so that we don't further diminish the ability of our domestic scene to correct itself.We've got a lot of work to do in this country, rebuilding infrastructure, addressing climate change, coming up with alternative energy sources, and leading the world, more or less, in this effort, so at the same time we restore our economic power while we're leading the world in a way that will be sustainable to the end of this century. These are huge challenges confronting us. And only now do I see, you know, these brief inklings of recognition of some of these challenges beginning to blossom in the White House, maybe even in that Luddite group of congressmen, many of whom deny that global warming and climate change is even changing.So the challenges that are confronting us are huge, and we don't need people who are so focused on what the neocons are focused on in positions of power. And I'm delighted to see people who have a wider vista and a more moderate approach to foreign and security policy in ministerial positions. It's—this is a great change.JAY: Now, you once gave a speech—I think it was at the Samuel Adams awards that we taped that year, and you said that there's kind of two roads here for people in positions of power who look at the current American empire. You said that there's a fact here, which is the empire is going to come to an end over the next few decades, but sooner than later, and it can either manage that, where United States becomes a kind of a—more of a coequal player in the global scene, or you can manage it in a way that you kind of strike out and make, you know, every attempt to defend something that can't be defended, and that gets very dangerous. What does Hagel's appointment tell you, not so much about him, but even more about President Obama in that context?WILKERSON: I hope it tells me that he's beginning to show he recognizes some of these long-term and far more serious challenges, for example, than Iran. Whether Iran has a nuclear weapon or not, it pales in significance when confronted with some of these other challenges.Richard Haass has a new book that's coming out, Foreign Policy Begins at Home, and in that book I'm sure Richard is going to talk about how we need desperately to repair our home ground in order to have any hope of having an effective foreign and security policy. I think Senator Hagel believes that. I think Senator Kerry believes that. I hope—I hope—that President Obama believes that. [snip] no question about it. There are going to be 3 billion people, many of them in India and China, who are going to come into the middle class and are going to want the standard of living that that connotes.What we're talking about is six to nine planets' worth of resources just to satisfy those desires. We don't have those six to nine planets' worth of resources. So we'd best get busy building the kind of sustainable, the kind of regenerative agriculture, for example, that goes along with that sustainability, and building the kind of infrastructure, technologically and otherwise, that can accommodate this new, massive entry into the middle class, or we're going to have by 2050 nothing but war and anarchy and chaos and, I'm sorry to say, probably a whole lot of death.JAY: So when you assess these personalities—President Obama, Hagel, Kerry—the question comes up about how much they can, even if they do believe in a more rational foreign policy—. And I take your point: I think at least the appointment of Hagel says something about Obama vis-à-vis Iran, that he's not wanting to jump on the go to war with Iran bandwagon. But if you look at Kerry, I mean, Kerry began as this critic of Vietnam, but seems to come, like, full circle—or half a circle, maybe not full circle, 'cause he's not back to being the critic—I mean, this is the guy that said, even if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he'd still vote for supporting it. But he's even going further than some of the Republicans and others that voted at the time.WILKERSON: I think it's mostly an effort to shore up what (at least until, maybe one can say, the killing of bin Laden) had been very, very weak foundation for the Democrats on national security. I know for someone who knows about Harry Truman, FDR, and all that they represented in those times, that seems nonsensical, but let's face it. Since George McGovern and his run for the presidency in—what was it?—1968, I guess, the Democrats have really had problems bolstering their national security bona fides. They've had a tremendous problem competing with the Republicans in the realm of national security.And I think that accounts for some of the more, shall we say, out-of-character remarks from time to time from Democrats, because they're trying to reestablish those bona fides. And in a time of post-9/11, it's a very critical thing, politically, for some of them to do. So I think that accounts for some of the more bellicose remarks, if you will, coming from people like John Kerry. I hope it doesn't represent a change in his basic outlook, because the basic outlook is that military force should be the last, the absolute last resort after you have exhausted political, economic, financial, diplomatic, informational, cultural, and all other aspects of national power. Military power should only be the last resort.JAY: Alright. Thanks for joining us, Larry.WILKERSON: Thanks for having me, Paul.JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Rafsanjani urges Iraq Shia-Sunni unity

Chairman of the Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (R) confers with the Chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq Ammar Hakim in Tehran on January 28, 2013.

Chairman of the Expediency Council (EC) Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has warned against enemies’ plans to intensify political and religious conflicts in Iraq, urging the country’s Shia and Sunni Muslims to remain united.

In a meeting with Chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) Ammar Hakim in Tehran on Monday, Rafsanjani said enemies are not happy with the promotion of Islam in Iran, Iraq, and other countries and pursue their interests by taking advantage of minor differences among political, tribal and religious groups in Iraq.

He stressed the importance of bolstering unity among Shia and Sunni Muslims in Iraq and promoting cooperation among all Iraqi parties and tribes to prevent any form of foreign interference in the country's internal affairs.

The EC chairman expressed Iran’s continued support for Iraq’s unity and independence, saying, “Meddling powers should not be allowed to achieve their goals through intensification of conflicts and spillover of regional crises to Iraq.”


Hakim, for his part, praised Iran’s wise stance on Iraq's developments and expressed hope that Tehran and Baghdad would further expand cooperation.

The ISCI chairman added that unity and cooperation among Iraqi political and religious groups would resolve the ongoing problems in the country, saying that dialogue and interaction would head off more serious crises and the interference of foreign powers.

Iraq has been the scene of anti-government demonstrations since December 23, 2012, when the bodyguards of Finance Minister Rafie al-Issawi were arrested on terrorism-related charges.

The demonstrators allege that the arrests were made on sectarian grounds and demand an end to anti-terrorism laws. However, Baghdad says it is up to the parliament to decide on abolishing those laws.

SF/SS/MA

‘NATO spreads sectarian violence’

Speaker of Iran Majlis (parliament) Ali Larijani says NATO forces are stirring up sectarian division in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of helping restore calm to the war-torn countries.

“The presence of NATO [forces] in Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in the intensification of domestic problems and emergence of sectarian strife and discrepancy in these countries,” Larijani said in a meeting with senior Turkish Shia cleric Sheikh Salahuddin Ozgunduz on Monday.

“NATO has never cared about the interests of Islamic countries,” Larijani added.

Noting that the Zionist regime and arrogant powers are undermining the Muslim world by fomenting sectarian strife among Muslims, Larijani added, “The entry of NATO into the region is detrimental to Muslims and the Islamic world.”


For his part, Ozgunduz stated that the enemies of Islam seek to undermine Muslim countries by disintegrating them and causing sectarian violence in the region.

KA/SS/MA

The 9/11 Plan: Cheney, Rumsfeld and the “Continuity of Government”

cheney2

“If a mandarinate ruled America, the recruiting committee on September 11 would have had to find someone like Cheney.” Washington Post author Barton Gellman in his book “Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency”

Terrorism. Emergency plans. Political careers. The history of 9/11 can be written from many angles.

But whatever point of view is chosen, Dick Cheney is a central figure. “Principle is okay up to a certain point”, he once said, “but principle doesn´t do any good if you lose the nomination”. He´s surely an elusive character. Not less than Donald Rumsfeld, his close companion. Both of their lifes are inseperably bound with a dark side of recent American history. The core of the following story was originally told by the authors James Mann and Peter Dale Scott whose thorough research is deeply appreciated. Yet a lot of background information was added. Thus a bigger picture slowly took shape, showing a plan and its actors …

Cheney and Rumsfeld were an old team. Major parts of their careers they had spent together. Both had no privileged family background. Cheney´s father worked as an employee for the department of agriculture, Rumsfeld´s father had a job in a real estate company. The families´ living conditions were modest. Both sons could go to university only with the backing of scholarships.

Rumsfeld, born 1932, chose political science. He was a rather small and sturdy person, but with energetic charisma. While at university he engaged in sport and was known as a succesful ringer. Later Rumsfeld went to the Navy to become a pilot. The Navy hat paid a part of his scholarship. At the end of the 1950s he eventually started his career in politics as assistant of a congressman. Meanwhile father of a young family, and following a short intermezzo at an investment bank, Rumsfeld himself ran for Congress, at the age of 29 only.

Getting backing

The prospects in his Chicago home district were unfavorable. He was inexperienced and almost without any voter base, compared to the other candidates. But the dynamic and ambitious Rumsfeld impressed some of Chicago´s business leaders, such as the boss of pharma heavyweight Searle. They paid for his campaign. With this economic power in his back also one of Chicago´s newspapers supported him. Rumsfeld won the election in 1962 and went to Washington as a republican representative.

At the beginning of the 1960s he visited lectures at the University of Chicago, where Milton Friedman was teaching, one of the most influental economists of his time. Friedman was one of the founding fathers of neoliberalism. He called for less influence of the state and praised the self regulation of the markets. In 1962 his bestseller Capitalism and Freedom was published. Rumsfeld was impressed by these thoughts. In a speech honoring Friedman 40 years later he remembered: “Government, he has told us, has three primary functions: It should provide for the military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. And it should protect citizens against crimes against themselves or their property.” (1) This self-imposed restriction of politics was also the core of Rumsfeld´s belief while he served in Congress in the 1960s.

An apprentice in politics

Cheney, 9 years younger than Rumsfeld, meanwhile studied political science as well. First at Yale, where he left soon because of poor grades, then at a less prestigious university in the Midwest. Contrary to the forceful Rumsfeld he appeared rather defensive, quiet and cautious. His imminent recruiting to the Vietnam war he avoided by getting defered from military service because of his study at the university and the pregnancy of his wife, until he couldn´t be recruited because of his age in 1967.

At the age of 27 Cheney was looking for a job in Washington. He applied for an internship at Rumsfeld´s office. But Rumsfeld rejected him. The failed interview was embarassing for Cheney who in later times liked to tell the story of this flop as an anecdote. But soon both men found together.

Under president Nixon, Rumsfeld had switched in 1969 from Congress to government. First he ran the Office of Economic Opportunity. There he administered federal social programs – not exactly one of his major concerns, but still one step forward in career. Rumsfeld was looking for new staffers to pass on work. By recommendation of a befriended representative he employed Cheney as his assistant. Cheney was a diligent worker and quickly made himself indispensable. Whoever wanted something from Rumsfeld, learned soon to try it via Cheney.

Rumsfeld´s career developed. People started becoming aware of him nationwide. He looked good, was energetic and had a catching smile. His intelligence was outstanding. But he also liked to exaggerate and escalate conflicts and often was unnecessarily blunt to others. Soon he became president Nixon´s advisor (who would praise him as a “ruthless little bastard”). Three years later he went to europe becoming NATO´s ambassador there – escaping from Washington shortly before the Watergate affair would kill the careers of many of Nixon´s advisors.

Tasting power

In the mid of the 1970s politics in America went through a time of upheaval. The economy was in crisis. With the lost war in Vietnam, nationwide student protests and Watergate the leadership of the superpower showed internal signs of decay, culminating in Nixon´s resignation in 1974. Successor Gerald Ford appointed Rumsfeld to become chief of staff with Cheney shadowing him closely as his deputy.

Now both men had arrived in the centre of power. The position of chief of staff was seen as highly influential in the White House. He was the closest advisor to the president, controlled his schedule and also decided who would meet him. After Nixon, Watergate and the extensively publicly discussed CIA scandals the new administration had to fight with a damaged reputation. This difficult situation, with a relatively weak president, increased the importance of the chief of staff.

Rumsfeld and Cheney were partners now and had great influence on president Ford. When he reshuffled his cabinet abruptly in 1975 in the so-called “Halloween massacre”, firing among others the CIA director and the secretary of defense, many suspected Rumsfeld being the wirepuller. Fact was at least that he and Cheney were profiteering.

Rumsfeld now took over the command at the Pentagon. There he started expensive and prolonged defense projects like the Abrams tank and the B-1 bomber, building economic impact for decades. At the same time the 34 years old Cheney moved up to become chief of staff in the White House. Now he was no longer only assistant but an authority with relevant beliefs. One of his rules went: “Principle is okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn´t do any good if you lose the nomination.” (2)

Revolving doors

However soon just that happened. After the defeat of the Republicans in 1976 both men dropped out of government. Together with their families they spent holidays with each other in the Caribbean. Rumsfeld remembers the relaxing break with pleasure: “We played Tennis, boated, and spent time in the sun talking about life. Cheney grilled steaks and made chili.” (3)

Back home Cheney started capitalizing his Washington insider knowledge by working for a consulting company, helping wealthy clients with their investment decisions. But soon he returned to politics. At the end of the 1970s he went as elected Congressman to the House of Representatives. Yet the stress and pressure had their effect on the cautious and restrained Cheney – at age 37 he suffered his first heart attack.

Rumsfeld on the other hand found his new place for a longer time in private business. Dan Searle, the Chicago pharma magnate who had financed his first election campaign 15 years before, now entrusted him his whole company, appointing him to Searle´s CEO. Financially Rumsfeld climbed to new heights with that job. As CEO he got 250.000 Dollars a year, about four times more than as secretary of defense. (4) And also in his new job he made no half measures. Within short time Rumsfeld fired more than half of the employees, generating a huge increase in corporate profit. The business newspapers praised him as an outstanding manager.

In the 1980s the Republicans came back to power with Ronald Reagan. The new president conjured up the threatening picture of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” and increased military spending. The Cold War gained new momentum.

The Armageddon Plan

At this time the White House also developed a secret emergency plan, put in action however only at September 11th, 2001 for the first time. Initially it should guarantee that the government could continue its operations even after a Soviet nuclear strike. The plan was called COG (Continuity of Government) and called for a very special emergency measure: when disaster struck, three teams should be sent to different places in the country, replacing the government. Each team would have an own “president” as well as other people standing in for the different departments and government agencies. If one team would be killed, the next one could be activated. So the planners hoped to keep control over the military and the most important parts of the administration, after an atomic bomb or another disaster had wiped out the government in Washington. (5)

These worries about a possible “decapitation” of the national leadership were deemed very seriously because exactly this course of action was also part of the U.S. war strategy towards the Soviets. (6)

The COG plan existed not only on paper. It was exercised in reality regularly in the 1980s. Once a year the teams, each consisting of a “president”, a “chief of staff” and about 50 staffers, were secretly flown from Washington to a closed military base or a bunker somewhere in the United States. There they played the emergency scenario for several days. Not even their closest relatives knew about the location or purpose of the exercise. (7)

Richard Clarke, later anti-terror coordinator under the presidents Clinton and Bush junior, recalls one of the maneuvers at that time:

 ”I remember one occasion where we got the call. We had to go to Andrews Air Force Base and get on a plane and fly across the country. And then get off and run into a smaller plane. And that plane flew off into a desert location. And when the doors opened on the smaller plane, we were in the middle of a desert. Trucks eventually came and found us and drove us to a tent city. You know, this was in the early days of the program. A tent city in the middle of the desert — I had no idea where we were. I didn’t know what state we were in. We spent a week there in tents, pretending that the United States government had been blown up. And we were it. It’s as though you were living in a play. You play-act. Everyone there play-acts that it’s really happened. You can’t go outside because of the radioactivity. You can’t use the phones because they’re not connected to anything.” (8)

Part of every team was one authentic secretary, leading a government department also in real life. He had to play the president. Yet his real life portfolio didn´t matter – at one point even the secretary of agriculture played the president. In the end the secretary taking part in the exercise was usually just the one being dispensable. Apparently more important was the role of the chief of staff. This part was routinely played only by a person who had been White House chief of staff also in real life. (9)

+Therefore Rumsfeld and Cheney were regular participants of the secret annual COG exercises. Other attendants described them as being involved in shaping the program. (10) So at a time when the two men had no position whatsoever in government (Rumsfeld, as mentioned, was boss of a pharma company, Cheney was congressman), both of them disapeared every year for a few days to practice the take-over of the government after a disaster.

Above the law

The plan was secret also because it bypassed the constitution. Since the presidential succession was already explicitly fixed by law: if the president died, the vice president took over, then followed by the speaker of the house, after him the longest serving senator, then the secretaries of state, treasury, defense and so forth. However the COG plan simply ignored this well balanced constitutional arrangement. In an emergency it called instead for a president who was not democratically legitimized at all.

The plan was authorized with a secret directive by president Reagan. According to his security advisor Robert McFarlane Reagan personally decided who would lead the individual teams. The COG liaison officer in charge inside the National Security Council was Oliver North, who later became known as the key person in the center of the Iran-Contra scandal. (11)

Only incidentally, in connection with that scandal, the first details of the secret plan came to light in 1987. Under president Reagan Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North had coordinated a series of steps building in effect a shadow government, Congress didn´t know about, let alone having approved it. The Miami Herald wrote about this in 1987: “Oliver North helped draw up a controversial plan to suspend the Constitution in the event of a national crisis, such as nuclear war, violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad. (…) From 1982 to 1984, North assisted FEMA, the U.S. government’s chief national crisis-management unit, in revising contingency plans for dealing with nuclear war, insurrection or massive military mobilization.” (12)

That the COG plan, suspending the constitution, could indeed not only be activated in case of a nuclear war, was laid out in a further directive authorized by Reagan in the last days of his presidency in November 1988. According to this directive the plan should be executed in a “national security emergency”, defined rather vague as a “natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States”. (13) In effect this meant a massive undermining of democratic principles. The COG plan, executed unter the circumstances mentioned, could also be used as cover for a coup d’état.

Meanwhile Cheney and Rumsfeld went on secretly exercising the take-over of the government during their annually running maneuvers. Belonging to this inner circle of potential state leaders had to be an uplifting feeling for both men. In case of a huge disaster the fate of the nation would lie in their hands.

Reach for the presidency

At the end of the 1980s Cheney moreover had climbed to the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, the elite network connecting business leaders and politicians, well known for its huge influence on American foreign policy. In the meantime Rumsfeld had become a multimillionaire through the sale of the pharma company he had led. He planned running for the presidency in 1988. But his campaign didn´t succeed. From the outset Reagan´s vice president Bush senior had been the republican frontrunner – and finally also won the election.

But now Cheney got his chance. He became secretary of defense in the new administration, the same position Rumsfeld had already held 12 years before. Cheney successfully managed the first Iraq war in 1991, which led – parallel to the decline of the Soviet Union – to a permanent deployment of U.S. troops in the oil-rich Saudi Arabia. The control over Iraq was now in reach.

After the defeat of the Republicans in 1992 Cheney also considered an own presidential campaign. Yet soon he had to realize that he lacked support. Instead he moved to the private sector, becoming CEO of Halliburton, one of the world´s biggest oil supply companies. As secretary of defense he already had build connections to the firm, leading later to multi-billion-dollar contracts with the Pentagon. The new job now also filled Cheney´s pockets, making him a multimillionaire as well.

Meanwhile Rumsfeld had established himself as a highly effective and ambitious business executive. In the 1990s he first led a telecommunications company, then a pharma corporation.

The COG plan still existed, however with other presumptions. After the fall of the Soviet Union it no longer focused on the Russian nuclear threat, but on terrorism. Though it was reported in the mid 1990s that president Clinton wanted the program to phase out, it later became clear that this announcement only applied to the portion of the plan relating to a nuclear attack. (14) Then anti-terror coordinator Richard Clarke later disclosed that he had updated the COG plan in 1998. (15) The corresponding presidential directive (PDD-67) was secret. Its precise content was never made public. (16)

Cold War reloaded

At the same time a circle of neoconservatives around Rumsfeld and Cheney prepared for return to power. At the end of the 1990s they founded an organisation called “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC). Their self declared desire: “increase defense spending significantly” and “challenge regimes hostile to our interests”. (17)

In parallel Rumsfeld headed a congressional commission assessing the threat of foreign long range missiles. Already in the 1980s Ronald Reagan had started plans for a national missile defense, which burdened the national budget over the years with about 50 billion dollars. Yet in the 1990s even the own intelligence agencies saw no longer a real threat. Because who should fire missiles on Washington in the near future? Yeltsin´s Russia? Or China, that became economically more and more interdependent with the United States? However the so-called “Rumsfeld Commission” revised the assessment of the intelligence agencies. In its 1998 published report new possible aggressors were named: North Korea, Iran and Iraq. (18)

The same year Rumsfeld and his PNAC associates had already written an open letter to president Clinton, urging him to be tougher on Iraq. Saddam Hussein´s regime should be “removed”, the letter demanded. (19)

Finally, in September 2000, two month before the presidential election, PNAC published a lengthy strategy paper, giving policy guidance to the next administration. “Rebuilding America´s Defenses” was its programmatic title and it analysed principles and objections of a new defense policy.

Basically the paper called for a massive increase in defense spending and a transformation of the armed forces into a dominant but mobile, rapidly deployable power factor. The aim was enduring military supremacy, which according to PNAC would urgently require new weapons systems like the missile defense. Yet the paper made also clear that the process of implementing these demands would be a long one and provoke resistance, “absent” – quote – “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” (20)

A question of energy

After George W. Bush´s inauguration in January 2001 the members of this circle secured important posts in the new administration. Cheney turned into the leading figure. This had become apparent well before the election. As early as April 2000 Bush had asked him to handle the selection of his vice presidential running mate. In the end Cheney had all but proposed himself for the job. (21) Meanwhile the workaholic had survived three heart attacks. One of his first recommendations to Bush was the appointment of Rumsfeld, almost 70, as secretary of defense. Deputy of his old associate became Paul Wolfowitz, a hardliner who had already worked for Cheney as chief strategist in the Pentagon at the beginning of the 1990s. Compared to these men president Bush himself was a newcomer in Washington. Though he was blessed with political instinct and a very practical intuition, he could hardly hold a candle to these old hands intellectually.

One of the first steps of the new administration was the creation of a “National Energy Policy Development Group”. It was headed directly by Cheney. Its final report, issued in May 2001, described the situation quite openly:

“America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s. (…) A fundamental imbalance between supply and demand defines our nation´s en­ergy crisis. (…) This imbalance, if allowed to continue, will inevitably undermine our economy, our standard of living, and our national security. (…) Estimates indicate that over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will increase by 33 percent, natural gas consumption by well over 50 percent, and demand for elec­tricity will rise by 45 percent. If America´s energy production grows at the same rate as it did in the 1990s we will face an ever-in­creasing gap. (…) By 2020, Gulf oil producers are projected to supply between 54 and 67 percent of the world´s oil. Thus, the global economy will almost certainly continue to depend on the supply of oil from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members, particularly in the Gulf. This region will remain vital to U.S. interests.” (22)

Later it was disclosed that Cheney´s energy task force had also secretly examined a map of the Iraqi oil fields, pipelines and refineries along with charts detailing foreign suitors for il-field contracts there. Again, the date was March 2001.

Anticipating the unthinkable

Concurrently to its effort in energy policy the new administration created an “Office of National Preparedness”. It was tasked with the development of plans responding to a possible terror attack and became assigned to the “Federal Emergency Management Agency” (FEMA). (23) FEMA was already responsible for the COG plan since the 1980s. To call it back to mind: “From 1982 to 1984, Oliver North assisted FEMA in revising contingency plans for dealing with nuclear war, insurrection or massive military mobilization.” (24)

Back then Cheney had played a role in shaping these plans. Now he could continue the work – because Bush appointed him to head the new program. (25) Director of FEMA on the other hand became Joe Allbaugh, who had little professional expertise, but could offer other qualities. Allbaugh was Bush´s campaign manager, a man for tough and rather rude matters and also one of the president´s closest confidants. Back in 1994 he had managed Bush´s campaign to become governor of Texas and at the end of 2000 he had helped stopping the recount of votes in Florida. (26) That an expert for political tricks was appointed to head FEMA indicates that the administration had political plans with the emergency management agency from the outset.

Till today it´s undisclosed how the COG plan was refined in detail under Cheney´s direction in 2001.  However the following is apparent: in the months leading to 9/11 Cheney linked anti-terror and emergency management measures with national energy policy. Commissions working on both issues were handled by him simultaneously. This connection anticipated the policy after 9/11, which could be summarized as using a terror attack as rationale for extending the power of the executive and waging war to seize control of world regions important for energy supply.

The emergency plans Rumsfeld and Cheney were involved with since the 1980s culminated in autumn 2001. On the morning of September 11th the secret COG program was implemented for the first time. (27) Shortly before 10:00 a.m., after the impact of the third plane into the Pentagon, Cheney gave the order to execute it. (28)

The shadow government

Almost nothing is known about the content of the plan and the specific effects of its activation. The secrey in this respect appears grotesque. Even the simple fact of the plan´s implementation on 9/11 was concealed for months. After sporadic hints in the press the Washington Post finally disclosed some details in March 2002. In an article titled “Shadow government is at work in secret” it reported that about 100 high-ranking officials of different departments were working outside Washington as part of the emergency plan since 9/11:

“Officials who are activated for what some of them call ‘bunker duty’ live and work underground 24 hours a day, away from their families. As it settles in for the long haul, the shadow government has sent home most of the first wave of deployed personnel, replacing them most commonly at 90-day intervals. (…) Known internally as the COG, for ‘continuity of government’, the administration-in-waiting is an unannounced complement to the acknowledged absence of Vice President Cheney from Washington for much of the past five months. Cheney’s survival ensures constitutional succession, one official said, but ‘he can´t run the country by himself.’ With a core group of federal managers alongside him, Cheney – or President Bush, if available – has the means to give effect to his orders.” (29)

But what orders gave Cheney to his strange “shadow government” while his stays at the bunker? And what justified extending this emergency measure for seemingly infinite time? For the White House clearly hadn´t been wiped out by bombs. The president lived and his administration was able to act. Who needed a permanent second secret government?

After the first disclosure of these facts in spring 2002 leading politicians of the legislative immediately started expressing their astonishment. Soon it became clear that neither Senate nor House of Representatives knew anything about the activation of COG and the work of the “shadow government” in secret. The parliament had simply been ignored. (30) Later the 9/11 Commission experienced similar executive secrecy. Though it mentioned in its final report the implementation of the plan on 9/11, it also admitted not having investigated the issue in depth. Instead the Commission had only been briefed “on the general nature” of the plan. (31)

Patriots under pressure

An immediate response to 9/11 was the Patriot Act, passed only one month later, and allowing a broad range of highly controversial measures, from domestic wiretapping to warrantless detention of foreign terror suspects. The latter legalized the forthcoming procedures at Guantánamo, leading to secret U.S. prisons all over the world.

Two influential opponents of these legal changes were Tom Daschle, Senate Majority Leader, and Patrick Leahy, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both received letters with spores of deadly anthrax. The source was never traced with certainty. After that Daschle and Leahy gave up their resistance against the new legislation and approved the Patriot Act. (32)

In their radical nature the hastily passed changes bore resemblance to decrees while a state of emergency. And indeed were they similarly already part of the COG plan in the 1980s. (33)

Government officials familiar with COG indicated after 9/11 that the plan could really have resulted in martial law – if additionally to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon also large numbers of congressmen and executive branch leaders had been killed on that day. (34)

Is it in this context a coincidence only that the fourth hijacked plane on 9/11 was heading towards Washington to hit the Capitol or the White House? (35)

Killers from Sudan?

There is also circumstantial evidence for an assassination attempt on president Bush in Florida that morning. The Secret Service had received a related warning the night before at 4:08 a.m., according to a TV report by a local ABC affiliate. (36) A few hours later Secret Service agents searched an apartment in Sarasota and arrested four men from Sudan, apparently belonging to the south sudanese liberation army SPLA, a paramilitary force secretly supported by the United States. (37) Also AP reportet these arrests mentioning that the suspects had been released soon again because they had “no connection” to 9/11. The whole issue just would have been a “coincidence”. (38)

President Bush spent the night before 9/11 at a resort on Longboat Key, an island right next to Sarasota where he planned to visit an elementary school on the next morning. Longboat Key Fire Marshall Carroll Mooneyhan was a further witness of the possible assassination attempt. He said that at about 6 a.m. on September 11th a van with self-proclaimed reporters of middle eastern descent had pulled up at Bush´s resort, stating they had a “poolside” interview with the president. The men asked for a special Secret Service agent by name but where turned away by the guards. (39)

Were these “reporters” identical with the Sudanese temporarily arrested by the Secret Service later that morning in Sarasota? The incident resembled at least the successful assassination of Taliban foe Ahmed Shah Massoud two days before on September 9th in Afghanistan. The suicide attackers there were also a fake TV team using a bomb hidden in a camera, as the New York Times reported on September 10th. (40)

Additionally three witnesses remembered seeing Mohammed Atta and a companion at Longboat Key´s Holiday Inn on September 7th, three days before Bush would spend the night on that same small island. (41) September 7th was also the day the White House first publicly announced Bush´s schedule to travel to Sarasota. (42) In this context it is surely worth to consider if Atta scouted out the place for an assassination plot.

Completing the plot

The question arises: Did a circle around Cheney, Rumsfeld and some associates use 9/11 for a disguised coup d’état, partly failed in its execution?

Regardless of the answer to that question – 9/11 in fact allowed the implementation of emergency measures, the weakening of the legislative, the start of several wars and a massive increase in defense spending. The amounts in question easily exceed the imagination of observers.

While in the second half of the 1990s the average national defense budget totaled about 270 billion dollars a year, that number nearly doubled in the decade after 9/11, when the average annual budget went up to over 500 billion. (43) For the Pentagon´s private contractors that meant a sales increase of inconceivable 2.300 billion dollars between 2001 and 2010.

A national economy under arms

If one looks at the development of defense spending in the United States since 1940, some far-reaching conclusions arise. (44) It seems as if the attack on Pearl Harbor and the following involvement in World War II led to a structural change of the American economy. The budgetary value of the military was never reduced to a “normal” level after that. On the contrary it increased decade by decade. Thus the whole economy got into a fatal dependency on the defense business.

This ongoing development came to a halt only with the fall of the Soviet Union. Ten years later then 9/11 became the catalyzing event to kick-start the military buildup again – with all its broad economic effects on the country.

Cheney and Rumsfeld don´t seem to be driving forces in this “game”, but merely two talented managers, risen to the top in the stream of events. Author James Mann, who had disclosed their involvement in the COG plan first in 2004, described their political role this way:

“Their participation in the extra-constitutional continuity-of-government exercises, remarkable in its own right, also demonstrates a broad, underlying truth about these two men. For three decades, from the Ford Administration onward, even when they were out of the executive branch of government, they were never far away. They stayed in touch with defense, military, and intelligence officials, who regularly called upon them. They were, in a sense, a part of the permanent hidden national-security apparatus of the United States, inhabitants of a world in which Presidents come and go, but America keeps on fighting.” (45)

 Notes

 (1)  US Department of Defense, 09.05.02, “Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld speaking at Tribute to Milton Friedman”

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=216

 (2)  James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, p. 73

 (3)  Donald Rumsfeld, “Known and Unknown. A Memoir”, New York 2011, p. 240

 (4)  Ibid., p. 245

 (5)  James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, pp. 138-145

(6)  Ibid., p. 139

(7)  Ibid., p. 138

(8)  ABC, 25.04.04, “Worst Case Scenario – Secret Plan to Control U.S. Government After an Attack Went Into Motion on 9/11″

http://web.archive.org/web/20040429063810/

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/Politics/armageddon_plan_040425.html

(9)  James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, p. 140

(10)  Ibid., p. 138;

Washington Post, 07.04.04, “‘Armageddon’ Plan Was Put Into Action on 9/11, Clarke Says”, Howard Kurtz

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55877-2004Apr6

(11)  James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, p. 142

(12)  Miami Herald, 05.07.87, “Reagan Aides and the ‚secret‘ Government”, Alfonso Chardy

http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secret_white_house_plans.htm

(13)  Peter Dale Scott, “The Road to 9/11. Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America”, Berkeley 2007, p. 185;

Executive Order 12656 – “Assignment of emergency preparedness responsibilities”, 18.11.88

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12656.html

(14)  Peter Dale Scott, “The Road to 9/11. Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America”, Berkeley 2007, p. 186

(15)  Richard Clarke, “Against All Enemies. Inside America ́s War on Terror”, New York 2004, p. 167

(16)  PDD-NSC-67 – “Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations”, 21.10.98

www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-67.htm

(17)  Project for the New American Century, 03.06.97, “Statement of Principles”

http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

(18)  New York Times, 16.07.98, “Panel Says U.S. Faces Risk Of a Surprise Missile Attack”, Eric Schmitt

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/16/us/panel-says-us-faces-risk-of-a-surprise-missile-attack.html

(19)  Project for the New American Century, 26.01.98, “Iraq Clinton Letter”

www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

(20)  Project for the New American Century, September 2000, “Rebuilding America´s Defenses”, p. 51

(21)  Barton Gellman, “Angler. The Cheney Vice Presidency”, New York 2008, Chapter 1

(22)  “National Energy Policy – Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group”, 16.05.01

(23)  White House press release, 08.05.01, “Cheney to Oversee Domestic Counterterrorism Efforts”

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_05/alia/a1050801.htm

(24)  Miami Herald, 05.07.87, “Reagan Aides and the ‚secret‘ Government”, Alfonso Chardy

http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secret_white_house_plans.htm

(25)  White House press release, 08.05.01, “Cheney to Oversee Domestic Counterterrorism Efforts”

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_05/alia/a1050801.htm

(26)  Peter Dale Scott, “The Road to 9/11. Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America”, Berkeley 2007, p. 210

(27) 9/11 Commission Report, p. 38

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(28) “Brief Timeline of Day of 9/11 Events, drafted by White House”

www.scribd.com/doc/12992821/Brief-Timeline-of-Day-of-911-Events-drafted-by-White-House

Washington Post, 27.01.02, “America’s Chaotic Road to War”, Dan Balz and Bob Woodward

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071801175_pf.html

(29)  Washington Post, 01.03.02, “Shadow Government Is at Work in Secret”, Barton Gellman and Susan Schmidt

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060900891.html

(30)  Washington Post, 02.03.02, “Congress Not Advised Of Shadow Government”, Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26212-2002Mar1

(31)  9/11 Commission Report, p. 555

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(32)  Salon, 21.11.01, “Why Daschle and Leahy?”, Anthony York

http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2001/11/21/anthrax/index.html

(33)  Miami Herald, 05.07.87, “Reagan Aides and the ‚secret‘ Government”, Alfonso Chardy

http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secret_white_house_plans.htm

(34)  ABC, 25.04.04, “Worst Case Scenario – Secret Plan to Control U.S. Government After an Attack Went Into Motion on 9/11″

http://web.archive.org/web/20040429063810/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/Politics/armageddon_plan_040425.html

(35)  9/11 Commission Report, p. 14

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(36)  Daniel Hopsicker, “Welcome to Terrorland”, 2004, p. 42

(37)  Ibid., p. 44

(38)  Ibid., p. 45

(39)  Longboat Observer, 26.09.01, „Possible Longboat terrorist incident – Is it a clue or is it a coincidence?“, Shay Sullivan

http://web.archive.org/web/20030220064542/http://www.longboatobserver.com/showarticle.asp?ai=1874

(40)  New York Times, 10.09.01, „Taliban Foe Hurt and Aide Killed by Bomb“

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/10/world/taliban-foe-hurt-and-aide-killed-by-bomb.html

(41)  Longboat Observer, 21.11.01, „Two hijackers on Longboat?“, Shay Sullivan

http://web.archive.org/web/20021209013255/

http://www.longboatobserver.com/showarticle.asp?ai=2172

(42)  White House, 07.09.01, „Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer“

http://web.archive.org/web/20010913052601/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010907-1.html#week

(43)  US Office of Management and Budget, “Table 3.1 – Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2016″

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

(44)  Ibid.

(45)  The Atlantic, March 2004, “The Armageddon Plan”, James Mann

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0318-14.htm

James Mann, “Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush ́s War Cabinet”, New York 2004, p. 145

US shale revolution seen from space

AFP Photo / Mladen Antonov

AFP Photo / Mladen Antonov

Productions at US major shale formations flare off so much gas it can be clearly seen from space.

­The lights of the flares burning in North Dakota's Bakken and Texas’ Eagle Ford shale fields can clearly be seen in night-time satellite photography, Financial Times reported Monday.

Oil companies working there waste enough gas to power all the homes in Chicago and Washngton combined, the newsoutlet reports, what fuels growing concerns about damage to environment and waste of resources.

North Dakota alone, leading state in recent shale boom, flared off 50% more of unwanted gas last year comparing to previous years, while figures from Texas formations went up more than six times from 2010 to 2012, Financial Times reported Monday. Total amount of gas flared in the United States has tripled in five years and makes the country fifth highest n the world behind Russia, Nigeria and Iran and Iraq, the news outlet reported, citing World Bank figures.

Flaring is the safest way to dispose of relatively cheap natural gas, that being released by oil productions in North America. It has been attracting attention of environmental campaigners because of the waste of gas and its consequences for greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution. Investors involved in the production are concerned no less and have warned the leading US oil companies to cut excessive flaring.

The North Dakota legislature is considering a bill to encourage flaring reduction through tax breaks. The state is also pushing producers to use gas to power drilling rigs.

The shale revolution is believed to help the United States become a net fuel exporter by 2030 and achieve energy independence by 2035, the IEA said in November 2012. However hydraulic fracturing process, one of the key components of developing shale resources, causes heated debates. Environmentalists  say the process is too costly and ecologically unfriendly, while advocates insists bigger energy production from shale is a way to energy independence and lower imports.

The Benghazi Affair: Uncovering the Mystery of the Benghazi CIA Annex

libya_clip_image002

“The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to the officials who briefed on intelligence.” WSJ, Nov 1, 2012

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, finally appeared before the US Senate and House Foreign Relations Committees on Wednesday, January 23, after a long delay. She was asked many questions by the Congress about what had happened in Benghazi on September 11 and how this could happen. The problem with the responses she gave to these questions was that she focused on the narrative presented in the State Department Report that had been released a month earlier, and which is deeply flawed.

In order to understand the nature of what happened on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, and how the State Department under Hillary Clinton has been an important part of the cover up of what this second September 11 is actually a part of, it is important to understand the problem with the State Department Report being used to carry out the US government cover up of what I call the Benghazi Affair.

On December 18, the US State Department released its report on the September 11, 2012 attacks on two US facilities in Benghazi, Libya. These attacks had resulted in the deaths of the US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans working for the US government in Libya. The US government had claimed that its report would shed light on what had become a contentious Congressional and media debate over the cause and details of the attack on these two US government compounds in Benghazi.

Soon, however, it became clear that the State Department Report issued by the Accountability Review Board (hereafter ARB Report), offered the public little information to add to what had already been made available by the State Department or the media. Instead, the public version of the ARB Report, referred to as the “unclassified” version, actually functions as part of the cover-up of what happened on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi. Most of this public document carefully refrains from any discussion of the role or activities of the CIA and what bearing this had on the events of September 11-12 2012 in Benghazi. But the role of the CIA in Benghazi and its bearing on what happened there on September 11 is the crucial question that any legitimate investigation into the situation must explore.

The trick of the Accountability Review Board (ARB) was that it issued two different versions of its Report. One version was an “unclassified” report that was available to the press, the public and the US Congress to discuss in public.(1) The other version was a “classified” report that was to be hidden from public or press scrutiny and was only to be available to Congress in a closed Congressional process. The unclassified version of the ARB Report could not mention the CIA activities. It could only discuss the role of the State Department in what happened.

The problem with such a restriction is that one of the US government sites in Benghazi that was attacked was a CIA facility referred to as the ‘Annex’ (hereafter CIA annex compound). The other site was allegedly a State Department administered facility referred to as the ‘Special Mission Benghazi Compound’ (hereafter special mission compound). This second compound, according to the WSJ, was actually created to provide diplomatic cover for the CIA facility.(2)

While some US Congressional Committees have been conducting investigations into what happened in Benghazi, they have agreed to discuss only the activities of the State Department in their open, public sessions, and to reserve any consideration or questions about the activities of the CIA for closed sessions of their committees, away from public view.(3)

Not only is the US Congress restricted from discussing the role of the CIA in Benghazi in open session, some of the mainstream US media have agreed to a request by the US government to withhold details about the CIA operations in Benghazi. The New York Times (NYT) is one such publication. (4) In an article briefly referring to the CIA annex compound, which the NYT says “encompassed four buildings inside a low-walled compound….” The NYT acknowledges that, “From among these buildings, the C.I.A. personnel carried out their secret missions.” But then the article explains that, “The New York Times agreed to withhold locations and details of these operations at the request of Obama administration officials….”

To declare an investigation into or discussion of the activities regarding the role of the CIA and its Annex compound as a forbidden subject during an open committee meeting of Congress, is to prevent the US Congress from fulfilling its oversight obligations over the US Executive branch of government. For the US government to require the US media to restrict coverage is to shroud the needed public discussion and investigation in darkness.

The effort to cover up the role of the CIA in the events resulting in the attack on the two US government facilities in Benghazi, however, demonstrates that something important is at stake and worth investigating.

Despite the US government effort to impose such restrictions, there are media accounts and some Congressional documents that provide a glimpse into the details of hidden CIA activity that the attacks on the US facilities in Benghazi help to reveal.

To understand the nature of this hidden activity, requires a willingness not only to critique the official explanations, but also to examine the events that can help to uncover the actual forces at work in Benghazi and the role they played in CIA activities in Libya.

One Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article is particularly helpful. The article, is titled “CIA Takes Heat for Role in Libya.” It provides a rare window into details of the murky world of the CIA operation in Benghazi and how it came about.(5)

The article notes that former CIA Director David Petraeus did not greet the bodies of the four Americans killed in Benghazi when they were returned to the US, even though two of those killed are acknowledged to have worked for the CIA. “Officials close to Mr. Petraeus,” the WSJ explains, “say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency’s role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi.”

Of the 30 or more American officials evacuated from Benghazi, only seven worked for the State Department. According to the WSJ, “Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principle purpose” of the special mission compound.

Soon after the struggle against the government of Libya began in February 2011, the CIA set up a compound in Benghazi for its spy operations. Eventually, the CIA gave its compound a State Department office name, the Annex, to disguise its purpose, the WSJ reveals. According to the US government, the role of the CIA in Benghazi was “focused on countering proliferation and terrorist threats….A main concern was the spread of weapons….”

“At the annex,” the WSJ explains, “many of the analysts and officers had what is referred to in intelligence circles as ‘light cover’ carrying U.S. diplomatic passports.”

Providing a cover for the secret operation of the CIA, however, created problems for State Department officials who felt the CIA was not “forthcoming with information,” even in the midst of the attack on the US facilities. As the WSJ notes, on September 11, 2012, “At 5:41 p.m. Eastern time, Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Petraeus. She wanted to make sure the two agencies were on the same page.”

Even after the attack was over and the analysts and officers had been evacuated, the accounts in the WSJ and McClatchy Newspapers, describe how quickly the CIA acted to clean out documents and equipment from the Annex. By contrast, the US government left the premises of the special mission compound unguarded and open to looters for weeks after the attack.

“The significance of the annex was a well-kept secret in Benghazi,” the WSJ reporters conclude. A McClatchy article documents how a well guarded secret was even the location of the CIA Annex compound. (6)

The implication is that the attackers at the special mission compound intended to flush out the covert location and presence of the CIA Annex compound so as to end its ability to continue its secret activities.(7)

An opinion piece, “The Fog of Benghazi”, appeared in the WSJ on November 3. It discusses what was at stake for the US government as a result of the September 11 attack in Benghazi(8): “America has since closed the Libya diplomatic outpost and pulled a critical intelligence unit out of a hotbed of Islamism, conceding a defeat. U.S. standing in the region and the ability to fight terrorist groups were undermined, with worrying repercussions for a turbulent Middle East and America’s security. This is why it’s so important to learn what happened in Benghazi.”

The effort to learn what happened in the Benghazi Affair, is similarly the subject of a 10 page letter dated October 19 sent by two US Congressmen to President Obama. (9) One of the Congressmen, Darrell Issa, is Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The other, Jason Chaffetz, is Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations.

Their letter raises ten questions for President Obama, the answers to which they explain are needed for the US Congressional investigation to determine the significance of the Benghazi affair. Also in their letter they include an attachment of 160 pages of data and photos which document the lawless environment in Libya, and particularly in Benghazi in the months before the Benghazi attack. This data was obtained by the US Congress from the State Department. (10) Though the data is labeled as sensitive, it is not classified material.

This data documents in a way that is now public, the perilous environment existing in Libya, providing a graphic description of the armed militias who carry out bombings, murders and kidnappings of government officials and others who try to challenge the lawlessness.

The data demonstrates the details of what the ARB Report acknowledges as “a general backdrop of political violence, assassinations, targeting former regime officials, lawlessness, and an overarching absence of central government authority in eastern Libya.” (11)

The Internet has made possible the publication of a number of investigative accounts of various aspects of the Benghazi Affair. Several of these propose that the CIA and even Chris Stevens were part of a gun running operation, gathering up weapons from Libya and facilitating their shipment to the insurgents fighting against the government in Syria. Some of the articles also propose that the CIA operation in Benghazi helped to send mercenaries from other countries to fight against the government of Syria. (12)

Fox News and a number of associated websites have featured articles which offer such accounts. Often, however, the articles rely on anonymous sources to support their claims.

Rarely are media offering accounts that portray this reality able to present direct evidence to support the narratives they develop.

An important exception is an article that appeared in the Times of London on September 14, 2012. This was three days after Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

The article documents that a ship, the Al Entisar (also written as Intisaar or The Victory in English), sailing under a Libyan flag with a 400 ton cargo, which included SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and some humanitarian supplies, is said to have arrived September 6 at the Turkish Port of Iskenderun.(13)

The captain of the ship, Omar Mousaeeb, a Libyan from Benghazi, was accompanied by 26 Libyans who were on board to help smuggle the shipment from the Turkish Port across the border into Syria. The plan was then to distribute the weapons to insurgents in Syria who were allied with the Muslim Brotherhood.

This account by the Times of London provides specific details about the mechanisms and problems of this Libyan weapons pipeline to the insurgency in Syria. The article describes the conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) over who would get the weapons from the Al Entisar shipment.

“The scale of the shipment and how it should be disbursed, has sparked a row between the FSA and the Muslim Brotherhood, who took control of the shipment when it arrived in Turkey,” writes Sheera Frenkel, the author of the Times of London article.

Though the ship arrived at the port in Turkey on September 6, not all of the cargo had been transported into Syria by September 14, the article notes, though this is over a week after the ship arrived at the port in Turkey. While “more than 80 percent of the ship’s cargo,” the Times of London explains, “had been moved into Syria, Mr. Mousaeeb and a group of Libyans who had arrived with the ship said they were preparing to travel with the final load into Syria to ensure it was being distributed.” Actually their concern appeared to be to whom it was distributed, not how.

The Times of London refers to two Syrian activists with the FSA who complained that infighting within the insurgent ranks had delayed the arrival of the weapons in Syria, “There was widespread talk of Syrian groups who allied themselves with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood movement being given a larger share of the ship’s cargo.” One activist quoted objects that, “The Muslim Brotherhood, through its ties with Turkey, was seizing control of this ship and its cargo.”

While the Times of London does not directly link Chris Stevens or the CIA annex compound to the Al Entisar arms shipment to Turkey, the article does provide an important context for how the conflict over which insurgent group would get weapons from the shipment created a source of significant tension at the very time the attack on the two US compounds in Benghazi took place.

Given the question, “Why Chris Stevens would have traveled to Benghazi to be in this perilous environment on September 11,” an answer which points to some urgent matter which needed his attention, would help to provide the rationale for him to ignore the security considerations against his making such a trip.

Keeping in mind the importance of this shipment of weapons from Benghazi to Turkey, the need to work out the details of the weapons distribution process could very well have provided the motive for Stevens to plan a visit in Benghazi during such a perilous period as the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attack on the US.

By September 11, infighting among the Muslim Brotherhood and other insurgent groups, over who would be given the weapons from the Al Entisar shipment, suggests the likelihood that Turkey’s Consul General in Benghazi and the US Ambassador needed to discuss the conflict over the weapons and the problem of how they should be moved into Syria and distributed among the insurgent groups.

In line with this reasoning, it is not surprising that Chris Stevens had a meeting with Turkey’s Consul General to Benghazi, Ali Sait Akin on September 11 at the Benghazi special mission compound.

The description of the infighting over the Al Entisar shipment to a port in Turkey of weapons for the Syrian insurgency, raises the possibility that the Turkish Consul General to Benghazi and Stevens discussed the conflict over the weapons. As of September 11, there were weapons that had yet to be distributed and smuggled into Syria from the Al Entisar shipment.

On September 10, when Stevens arrived in Benghazi, the shipment of arms had only recently been received at the Turkish port of Iskenderun, and the conflict among the insurgent groups who were to receive the weapons was not yet resolved.

According to documents that Congress received from the State Department, soon after Stevens arrived in Benghazi on September 10, he visited the CIA annex compound for a briefing.

On September 11 he stayed at the special mission compound but had meetings scheduled with someone from the Arabian Gulf Oil Co. (AGOCO), and later in the afternoon with someone from the Al Marfa Shipping and Maritime Services Co. (The names of the individuals were blacked out.) Then he had dinner and discussion with Ali Sait Akin, Turkey’s Consul General to Benghazi.(14)

While there has been no specific information made available by the State Department about the content of the meetings Stevens had on September 10 and 11, Turkey’s role in the shipping of weapons and foreign fighters into Syria to assist the fight against the Syrian government is the subject of numerous articles. The Times of London article describes previous difficulty experienced in trying to ship a cargo of weapons to where they could be safely unloaded and moved to insurgents in Syria. Given this previous experience it is not surprising that it was necessary to have the Turkish government intervene to settle problems that arose with the Al Entisar weapons shipment. It had taken several weeks “to arrange the paperwork for the Turkish port authorities to release the cargo.”(15) The Times of London quoted Suleiman Haari, who worked with Captain Mousaeeb. Haari explained that “Everyone wanted a piece of the ship. Certain groups wanted to get involved and claim the cargo for themselves. It took a long time to work through the logistics.”

This could account for the surprise visit by the then head of the CIA, David Petraeus on September 2 to Ankara. (16) Petraeus arrived in Ankara for what appeared to be talks with the President of Turkey and other Turkish government officials. Were Petraeus’s meetings with Turkish government officials needed to help make the arrangements for the Libyan ship to dock at the port in Turkey and unload the weapons that were to be smuggled across the border into Syria? This is a question Petraeus could answer if he were to testify at a US Congressional hearing again.

In light of the WSJ claim that the special mission compound had been set up to provide diplomatic cover for the CIA operation run out of the Annex, the question is raised as to whether the special mission compound was actually a State Department facility or a CIA facility acting under cover as a State Department operation.

According to the unclassified version of the ARB Report, Chris Stevens had arrived in Benghazi on April 5, 2011, “via a Greek cargo ship at the rebel-held city of Benghazi to re-establish a U.S. presence in Libya.” He had been appointed the US government’s “Special Envoy to the Libyan Transitional National Council” (TNC), acting as an official contact between the insurgents fighting to overthrow the government of Libya and the US government that was aiding them to bring about regime change in Libya. (17) Such an activity is contrary to international law and provisions of the UN charter (Article 2 Sections 1, 4, 7) which prohibit interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. (18)

Stevens’ mission, the Report states, “was to serve as the liaison with the TNC” for a post-Qaddafi government in Libya. The US embassy had been closed in February 2011, and was only reopened on September 22, 2011 with Gene Cretz as the Ambassador.

The ARB Report notes, however, that the CIA had set up the CIA compound in Benghazi in February 2011 soon after the insurgency arose against the Libyan government. This is a confirmation that the US government had put intelligence operatives on the ground in Benghazi just as the insurgency against the Libyan government was getting underway. This is also at least one month before Chris Stevens arrived in Benghazi.

The ARB Report also reveals that Chris Stevens stayed at the CIA Annex from the beginning of June, 2011 until June 21, 2011. Not until June 21 did “he and his security contingent move into what would become the Special Mission Benghazi compound….” According to the ARB Report the special mission compound in Benghazi was set up a few months after the CIA compound. (19)

This puts in perspective why the WSJ article on November 1 says that the special mission compound was established to provide diplomatic cover for the CIA facility, subsequently referred to as “the Annex”. Stevens remained as Special Envoy to the TNC and stayed in Benghazi until November 17, 2011. On May 26, 2012 Stevens arrived in Tripoli to replace Cretz as US Ambassador to Libya.

What was the State Department responsibility for the special mission compound? If its purpose was to provide diplomatic cover for the CIA, then what was the CIA responsibility? These are significant questions. But it is unlikely that such questions will be asked at the public Congressional oversight investigations because questions about the role of the CIA Annex in Benghazi have been declared to be a classified matter.

Though the NYT article, ”U.S. Approved Weapons for Libya Rebels Fell into Jihadis’ Hands,” about the Benghazi affair doesn’t go into detail about what the CIA was doing in Benghazi, it raises a significant issue that is likely to be at the root of why there was an attack on both the special mission compound and the CIA Annex compound.(20) The NYT refers to the concern US government officials involved in the program raise about the problems created by the US government helping to provide weapons to insurgents fighting in Libya and Syria. According to the NYT, what these Islamic militants will do with these weapons worries high level US government national security officials.

While officially, the US government claims it is not providing weapons, the Times of London article about the shipment of weapons from Benghazi to Turkey, provides a striking example of how the US and Turkish governments, both overtly, and covertly, appear to be involved in collecting weapons in Libya and helping to ship them to be used against the Syrian government and people.(21)

The NYT claims that the US government has little control over where these weapons go and the harm they do when used in Libya, Syria, or other conflicts in the region. The NYT reports, “Concerns in Washington soon rose about the groups Qatar was supporting, officials said. A debate over what to do about the weapons shipments dominated at least one meeting of the so-called Deputies Committee, the interagency panel consisting of the second-ranking officials in major agencies involved in national security. ‘There was a lot of concern that Qatar weapons were going to Islamist groups,’ one official recalled.” (22)

These supposed ‘Qatar’ weapons, however, did not originate with Qatar alone. By way of an example, the NYT quotes one US weapons dealer who wanted to sell weapons to the insurgency in Libya during the war against Libya. The NYT describes how he applied to the State Department for a license. “He also sent an e-mail to J. Christopher Stevens, then the special representative to the Libyan rebel Alliance, ” reports the NYT. According to e-mails provided to the NYT by the arms dealer, Marc Turi, Stevens wrote back to Turi that he would “share Mr. Turi’s proposal with colleagues in Washington.” Eventually the weapons dealer was encouraged to communicate with contacts in Qatar.(23)

Such examples help to demonstrate both that there is concern among US government officials in Washington about the US government arming militant Islamists, the very people the US government condemns as “terrorists” in other situations. Also though the weapons pipeline may have on the surface been made to appear unconnected to the US actually supplying the arms that are being distributed by Qatar or Saudi Arabia, in the case of Marc Turi, as one example, the weapons pipeline was arranged for by a license provided by the US government to ship the weapons to Qatar.

Such examples provide the context for how the US government has covertly and overtly been helping to provide the weapons that are then used by those hostile to the US to inflict harm on the Libyan and Syrian people and even on Americans, as those killed in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. This situation, several commentators have noted, is reminiscent to the Iran Contra Affair where the US government entities covertly acted in a way that jeopardized the interests and even the physical well being of US officials and civilians. And it is likely that the actions being taken by US government officials to arm and provide other forms of support for the Libyan and Syrian insurgencies, are contrary to US laws and constitutional obligations.(24)

Such considerations reflect some of the salient concerns raised by a number of online commentators about the Benghazi Affair. One example of many that have been published online in the last few months is the article “Benghazigate: The Cover-up continues” by Bill Shanefeld published at the American Thinker website. The article raises two important questions (25): “(1) The pre-”event” purpose of the compound and its Annex (since these operations probably motivated the perpetrators of the “event”); and (2) Team Obama’s failed policies in North Africa, the Middle East, and Afghanistan.”

The article also refers to some of the many contributions made by other online commentators. These various commentaries help to clarify that the Benghazi affair offers a relatively rare window into the on the ground actions of the US government’s clandestine operations. These actions are the partner to the role the US government is playing in the UN Security Council and the UN in general in its efforts to turn the UN into a partner in its CIA and NATO activities. The Benghazi Affair is an important situation and the question remains as to whether the illegal activities of the US government acting contrary to the obligations of the UN Charter in Libya and more recently Syria will come to light.
Notes

1. U.S. State Department Public Accountability Board Report

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

2.Margaret Coker, Adam Entous, Siobhan Gorman, Margaret Coker, ”CIA
Takes Heat for Role in Libya,” WSJ, November 1, 2012.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html

3. Dana Milbanks, “Letting Us in on a Secret,” Washington Post,
October 10, 2012,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-letting-us-in-on-a-secret/2012/10/10/ba3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_print.html

4.Helene and Eric Schmidt, Michael S Schmidt, “Deadly Attack In Libya
was Major Blow to CIA Efforts,” New York Times, September 23, 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

5. Margaret Coker, Adam Entous, Siobhan Gorman, Margaret Coker, ”CIA
Takes Heat for Role in Libya,” WSJ, November 1, 2012.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html

6.Nancy A. Youssef, “Libyans, diplomats: CIA’s Benghazi station a
secret – and quickly repaired,” McClatchy Newspapers, November 12,
2012.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/11/12/174455/libyans-diplomats-cias-benghazi.html

7. Catherine Herridge, “CIA moved swiftly to scrub, abandon Libya
facility after attack, source says,” Fox News, December 5, 2012.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/05/cia-moved-swiftly-scrub-abandon-libya-facility-after-attack-source-says/#ixzz2IE8icKIQ

8. “The Fog of Benghazi,” Opinion Piece, WSJ, Nov. 3, 2012

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578090612465153472.html

9. Letter from Representative Issa and Representative Chaffetz to
President Obama, October 19, 2012

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/10.19.12-Issa-and-Chaffetz-to-President.pdf

10. The Oversight Committee’s letter was accompanied by 166 pages of
documents and photos.

http://oversight.house.gov/release/oversight-committee-asks-president-about-white-house-role-in-misguided-libya-normalization-effort/

documents

http://1.usa.gov/S89qG7

11. U.S. State Department Public Accountability Board Report

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

12. See for example, ”Interview with Clare M. Lopez”

http://goldandguns.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/former-cia-clare-lopez-on-the-benghazi-gun-running/

13. Sheera Frenkel, “Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest
shipload arrives from Libya; Turkey,” Times (London), September 14,
2012, p. 23

14. Schedule of Chris Stevens activities on September 10 and September 14.

Included in data sent to President Obama by Issa and Chaffetz

15. Sheeran Frenkel, “Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest
shipload arrives from Libya; Turkey,” Times (London), September 14,
2012, p. 23

16. “CIA chief Petraeus pays surprise visit to Turkey,” Hurriyet Daily
News, September 2, 2012

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/cia-chief-petraeus-pays-surprise-visit-to-turkey.aspx?pageID=238&nid=29175

J. Millard Burr, “The Benghazi Attack: Some Thoughts,” Economic
Warfare Institute Blog, Oct 24, 2012.

http://econwarfare.org/viewarticle.cfm?id=5109

17. U.S. State Department Public Accountability Board Report

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

18. Dr. Curtis Doebbler, “It is illegal to support rebels fighting a
legitimate government,” Note from Sibialiria.org,
http://syria360.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/supporting-the-doha-coalition-violates-international-law/

19. U.S. State Department Public Accountability Board Report

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

Margaret Coker, Adam Entous, Siobhan Gorman, Margaret Coker, ”CIA
Takes Heat for Role in Libya,” WSJ, November 1, 2012.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html

20. Mark Mazzetti, James Risen, Michael S Schmidt, ”U.S. Approved Arms
for Libya Rebels Fell into Jihadis’ Hands,” NYT, December 5, 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

21. Sheera Frenkel, “Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest
shipload arrives from Libya; Turkey,” Times ( London), September 14,
2012, p. 23

Also see other relevant articles such as:

Christina Lamb, “Covert US Plan to Arm Rebels,” The Sunday Times
(London), December 9, 2012, p. 1,2

Franklin Lamb, “Flooding Syria with Foreign Arms: A View from
Damascus”, Foreign Policy Journal, Nov. 5, 2012.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/05/flooding-syria-with-foreign-arms-a-view-from-damascus/

J. Millard Burr, “You Can Kiss Petraeus Goodbye,” End Time News, Nov. 5, 2012

http://endtimesnews.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/benghazi-attack-reveals-split-in-gun-running-factions/

22. Mark Mazzetti, James Risen, Michael S Schmidt, ”U.S. Approved Arms
for Libya Rebels Fell into Jihadis’ Hands,” NYT, December 5, 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

23. Mark Mazzetti, James Risen, Michael S Schmidt, ”U.S. Approved Arms
for Libya Rebels Fell into Jihadis’ Hands,” NYT, December 5, 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

24. Michael Kelley, “The CIA’s Benghazi Operation May Have Violated
International Law,” Nov. 5, 2012

http://endtimesnews.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/benghazi-attack-reveals-split-in-gun-running-factions/

Oona A. Hathaway, Elizabeth Nielsen, Chelsea Purvis, Saurabh Sanghvi,
and Sara Solow, “ARMS TRAFFICKING: THE INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC
LEGAL FRAMEWORK.,” Yale Law School Report. Posted Nov. 15, 2011.

http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/cglc/YLSreport_armsTrafficking.pdf

25. Bill Shanefeld, “Benghazigate the cover-up continues.” American
Thinker, January 9, 2013.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/benghazigate_the_cover-up_continues.html

A version of this article appears on my netizenblog at
http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2013/01/24/benghazi-affair-cia-annex/

Counting Down to 2014 in Afghanistan: Three Lousy Options, Pick One

Don’t let the forces of regression dominate the media in 2013 - click here to support brave, independent reporting today by making a contribution to Truthout.

Compromise, conflict, or collapse: ask an Afghan what to expect in 2014 and you’re likely to get a scenario that falls under one of those three headings. 2014, of course, is the year of the double whammy in Afghanistan: the next presidential election coupled with the departure of most American and other foreign forces. Many Afghans fear a turn for the worse, while others are no less afraid that everything will stay the same.  Some even think things will get better when the occupying forces leave.  Most predict a more conservative climate, but everyone is quick to say that it’s anybody’s guess.

Only one thing is certain in 2014: it will be a year of American military defeat.  For more than a decade, U.S. forces have fought many types of wars in Afghanistan, from a low-footprint invasion, to multiple surges, to a flirtation with Vietnam-style counterinsurgency, to a ramped-up, gloves-off air war.  And yet, despite all the experiments in styles of war-making, the American military and its coalition partners have ended up in the same place: stalemate, which in a battle with guerrillas means defeat.  For years, a modest-sized, generally unpopular, ragtag set of insurgents has fought the planet’s most heavily armed, technologically advanced military to a standstill, leaving the country shaken and its citizens anxiously imagining the outcome of unpalatable scenarios.

The first, compromise, suggests the possibility of reaching some sort of almost inconceivable power-sharing agreement with multiple insurgent militias.  While Washington presses for negotiations with its designated enemy, “the Taliban,” representatives of President Hamid Karzai’s High Peace Council, which includes12 members of the former Taliban government and many sympathizers, are making the rounds to talk disarmament and reconciliation with all the armed insurgent groups that the Afghan intelligence service has identified across the country. There are 1,500 of them.

One member of the Council told me, “It will take a long time before we get to Mullah Omar [the Taliban’s titular leader].  Some of these militias can’t even remember what they’ve been fighting about.”

The second scenario, open conflict, would mean another dreaded round of civil war like the one in the 1990s, after the Soviet Union withdrew in defeat -- the one that destroyed the Afghan capital, Kabul, devastated parts of the country, and gave rise to the Taliban.

The third scenario, collapse, sounds so apocalyptic that it’s seldom brought up by Afghans, but it’s implied in the exodus already underway of those citizens who can afford to leave the country.  The departures aren’t dramatic.  There are no helicopters lifting off the roof of the U.S. Embassy with desperate Afghans clamoring to get on board; just a record number of asylum applications in 2011, a year in which, according to official figures, almost 36,000 Afghans were openly looking for a safe place to land, preferably in Europe.  That figure is likely to be at least matched, if not exceeded, when the U.N. releases the complete data for 2012.

In January, I went to Kabul to learn what old friends and current officials are thinking about the critical months ahead.  At the same time, Afghan President Karzai flew to Washington to confer with President Obama.  Their talks seem to have differed radically from the conversations I had with ordinary Afghans. In Kabul, where strange rumors fly, an official reassured me that the future looked bright for the country because Karzai was expected to return from Washington with the promise of American radar systems, presumably for the Afghan Air Force, which is not yet “operational.” (He actually returned with the promise of helicopters, cargo planes, fighter jets, and drones.) Who knew that the fate of the nation and its suffering citizens hinged on that?  In my conversations with ordinary Afghans, one thing that never came up was radar.

Another term that never seems to enter ordinary Afghan conversation, much as it obsesses Americans, is “al-Qaeda.” President Obama, for instance, announced at a joint press conference with President Karzai: “Our core objective -- the reason we went to war in the first place -- is now within reach: ensuring that al-Qaeda can never again use Afghanistan to launch attacks against America.”  An Afghan journalist asked me, “Why does he worry so much about al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Doesn’t he know they are everywhere else?”

At the same Washington press conference, Obama said, “The nation we need to rebuild is our own.” Afghans long ago gave up waiting for the U.S. to make good on its promises to rebuild theirs. What’s now striking, however, is the vast gulf between the pronouncements of American officialdom and the hopes of ordinary Afghans.  It’s a gap so wide you would hardly think -- as Afghans once did -- that we are fighting for them.

To take just one example: the official American view of events in Afghanistan is wonderfully black and white.  The president, for instance, speaks of the way U.S. forces heroically “pushed the Taliban out of their strongholds.” Like other top U.S. officials over the years, he forgets whom we pushed into the Afghan government, our “stronghold” in the years after the 2001 invasion: ex-Taliban and Taliban-like fundamentalists, the most brutal civil warriors, and serial human rights violators.

Afghans, however, haven’t forgotten just whom the U.S. put in place to govern them -- exactly the men they feared and hated most in exactly the place where few Afghans wanted them to be.  Early on, between 2002 and 2004, 90% of Afghans surveyed nationwide told the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission that such men should not be allowed to hold public office; 76% wanted them tried as war criminals.


In my recent conversations, many Afghans still cited the first loya jirga, an assembly convened in 2003 to ratify the newly drafted constitution, or the first presidential election in 2004, or the parliamentary election of 2005, all held under international auspices, as the moments when the aspirations of Afghans and the “international community” parted company. In that first parliament, as in the earlier gatherings, most of the men were affiliated with armed militias; every other member was a formerjihadi, and nearly half were affiliated with fundamentalist Islamist parties, including the Taliban.

In this way, Afghans were consigned to live under a government of bloodstained warlords and fundamentalists, who turned out to be Washington’s guys.  Many had once battled the Soviets using American money and weapons, and quite a few, like the former warlord, druglord, minister of defense, and current vice-president Muhammad Qasim Fahim, had been very chummy with the CIA.

In the U.S., such details of our Afghan War, now in its 12th year, are long forgotten, but to Afghans who live under the rule of the same old suspects, the memory remains painfully raw.  Worse, Afghans know that it is these very men, rearmed and ready, who will once again compete for power in 2014.

How to Vote Early in Afghanistan

President Karzai is barred by term limits from standing for reelection in 2014, but many Kabulis believe he reached a private agreement with the usual suspects at a meeting late last year. In early January, he seemed to seal the deal by announcing that, for the sake of frugality, the voter cards issued for past elections will be reusedin 2014.  Far too many of those cards were issued for the 2004 election, suspiciously more than the number of eligible voters.  During the 2009 campaign, anyone could buy fistfuls of them at bargain basement prices.  So this decision seemed to kill off the last faint hope of an election in which Afghans might actually have a say about the leadership of the country.

Fewer than 35% of voters cast ballots in the last presidential contest, when Karzai’s men were caught on video stuffing ballot boxes.  (Afterward, President Obama phoned to congratulate Karzai on his “victory.”) Only dedicated or paid henchmen are likely to show up for the next “good enough for Afghans” exercise in democracy. Once again, an “election” may be just the elaborate stage set for announcing to a disillusioned public the names of those who will run the show in Kabul for the next few years.

Kabulis might live with that, as they’ve lived with Karzai all these years, but they fear power-hungry Afghan politicians could “compromise” as well with insurgent leaders like that old American favorite from the war against the Soviets, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who recently told a TV audience that he intends to claim his rightful place in government. Such compromises could stick the Afghan people with a shaky power-sharing deal among the most ultra-conservative, self-interested, sociopathic, and corrupt men in the country.  If that deal, in turn, were to fall apart, as most power-sharing agreements worldwide do within a year or two, the big men might well plunge the country back into a 1990s-style civil war, with no regard for the civilians caught in their path.

These worst-case scenarios are everyday Kabuli nightmares.  After all, during decades of war, the savvy citizens of the capital have learned to expect the worst from the men currently characterized in a popular local graffiti this way: “Mujahideen=Criminals. Taliban=Dumbheads.”

Ordinary Kabulis express reasonable fears for the future of the country, but impatient free-marketeering businessmen are voting with their feet right now, or laying plans to leave soon. They’ve made Kabul hum (often with foreign aid funds, which are equivalent to about 90% of the country’s economic activity), but they aren’t about to wait around for the results of election 2014.  Carpe diem has become their version of financial advice.  As a result, they are snatching what they can and packing their bags.

Millions of dollars reportedly take flight from Kabul International Airport every day: officially about $4.6 billion in 2011, or just about the size of Afghanistan’s annual budget. Hordes of businessmen and bankers (like those who, in 2004, set up the Ponzi scheme called the Kabul Bank, from which about a billion dollars went missing) are heading for cushy spots like Dubai, where they have already established residence on prime real estate.

As they take their investments elsewhere and the American effort winds down, the Afghan economy contracts ever more grimly, opportunities dwindle, and jobs disappear.  Housing prices in Kabul are falling for the first time since the start of the occupation as rich Afghans and profiteering private American contractors, who guzzled the money that Washington and the “international community” poured into the country, move on.

At the same time, a money-laundering building boom in Kabul appears to have stalled, leaving tall, half-built office blocks like so many skeletons amid the scalloped Pakistani palaces, vertical malls, and grand madrassas erected in the past four or five years by political and business insiders and well-connected conservative clerics.

Most of the Afghan tycoons seeking asylum elsewhere don’t fear for their lives, just their pocketbooks: they’re not political refugees, but free-market rats abandoning the sinking ship of state.  Joining in the exodus (but not included in the statistics) are countless illegal émigrés seeking jobs or fleeing for their lives, paying human smugglers money they can’t afford as they head for Europe by circuitous and dangerous routes.

Threatened Afghans have fled from every abrupt change of government in the last century, making them the largest population of refugees from a single country on the planet.  Once again, those who can are voting with their feet (or their pocketbooks) -- and voting early.

Afghanistan’s historic tragedy is that its violent political shifts -- from king to communists to warlords to religious fundamentalists to the Americans -- have meant the flight of the very people most capable of rebuilding the country along peaceful and prosperous lines.  And their departure only contributes to the economic and political collapse they themselves seek to avoid.  Left behind are ordinary Afghans -- the illiterate and unskilled, but also a tough core of educated, ambitious citizens, including women’s rights activists, unwilling to surrender their dream of living once again in a free and peaceful Afghanistan.

The Military Monster

These days Kabul resounds with the blasts of suicide bombers, IEDs, and sporadic gunfire.  Armed men are everywhere in anonymous uniforms that defy identification.  Any man with money can buy a squad of bodyguards, clad in classy camouflage and wraparound shades, and armed with assault weapons.  Yet Kabulis, trying to carry on normal lives in the relative safety of the capital, seem to maintain a distance from the war going on in the provinces.

Asked that crucial question -- do you think American forces should stay or go? -- the Kabulis I talked with tended to answer in a theoretical way, very unlike the visceral response one gets in the countryside, where villages are bombed andcivilians killed, or in the makeshift camps for internally displaced people that now crowd the outer fringes of Kabul. (By the time U.S. Marines surged into Taliban-controlled Helmand Province in the south in 2010 to bring counterinsurgency-style protection to the residents there, tens of thousands of them had already moved to those camps in Kabul.)  Afghans in the countryside want to be rid of armed men.  All of them.  Kabulis just want to be secure, and if that means keeping some U.S. troops at Bagram Air Base near the capital, as Afghan and American officials are currently discussing, well, it’s nothing to them.

In fact, most Kabulis I spoke to think that’s what’s going to happen.  After all, American officials have been talking for years about keeping permanent bases in Afghanistan (though they avoid the term “permanent” when speaking to the American press), and American military officers now regularly appear on Afghan TV to say, “The United States will never abandon Afghanistan.”  Afghans reason: Americans would not have spent nearly 12 years fighting in this country if it were not the most strategic place on the planet and absolutely essential to their plans to “push on” Iran and China next.  Everybody knows that pushing on other countries is an American specialty.

Besides, Afghans can see with their own eyes that U.S. command centers, including multiple bases in Kabul, and Bagram Air Base, only 30 miles away, are still being expanded and upgraded.  Beyond the high walls of the American Embassy compound, they can also see the tall new apartment blocks going up for an expanding staff, even if Washington now claims that staff will be reduced in the years to come.

Why, then, would President Obama announce the drawdown of U.S. troops to perhaps a few thousand special operations forces and advisors, if Washington didn’t mean to leave?  Afghans have a theory about that, too.  It’s a ruse, many claim, to encourage all other foreign forces to depart so that the Americans can have everything to themselves.  Afghanistan, as they imagine it, is so important that the U.S., which has fought the longest war in its history there, will be satisfied with nothing less.

I was there to listen, but at times I did mention to Afghans that America’s post-9/11 wars and occupations were threatening to break the country.  “We just can’t afford this war anymore,” I said.

Afghans only laugh at that.  They’ve seen the way Americans throw money around.  They’ve seen the way American money corrupted the Afghan government, and many reminded me that American politicians like Afghan ones are bought and sold, and its elections won by money. Americans, they know, are as rich as Croesus and very friendly, though on the whole not very well mannered or honest or smart.

Operation Enduring Presence      

More than 11 years later, the tragedy of the American war in Afghanistan is simple enough: it has proven remarkably irrelevant to the lives of the Afghan people -- and to American troops as well.  Washington has long appeared to be fighting its own war in defense of a form of government and a set of long-discredited government officials that ordinary Afghans would never have chosen for themselves and have no power to replace.

In the early years of the war (2001-2005), George W. Bush’s administration was far too distracted planning and launching another war in Iraq to maintain anything but a minimal military presence in Afghanistan -- and that mainly outside the capital.  Many journalists (including me) criticized Bush for not finishing the war he started there when he had the chance, but today Kabulis look back on that soldierless period of peace and hope with a certain nostalgia.  In some quarters, the Bush years have even acquired something like the sheen of a lost Golden Age -- compared, that is, to the thoroughgoing militarization of American policy that followed.

So commanding did the U.S. military become in Kabul and Washington that, over the years, it ate the State Department, gobbled up the incompetent bureaucracy of the U.S. Agency for International Development, and established Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in the countryside to carry out maniacal “development” projects and throw bales of cash at all the wrong “leaders.”

Of course, the military also killed a great many people, both “enemies” and civilians.  As in Vietnam, it won the battles, but lost the war.  When I asked Afghans from Mazar-e-Sharif in the north how they accounted for the relative peacefulness and stability of their area, the answer seemed self-evident: “Americans didn’t come here.”

Other consequences, all deleterious, flowed from the militarization of foreign policy.  In Afghanistan and the United States, so intimately ensnarled over all these years, the income gap between the rich and everyone else has grown exponentially, in large part because in both countries the rich have made money off war-making, while ordinary citizens have slipped into poverty for lack of jobs and basic services.

Relying on the military, the U.S. neglected the crucial elements of civil life in Afghanistan that make things bearable -- like education and health care.  Yes, I’ve heard the repeated claims that, thanks to us, millions of children are now attending school.  But for how long?   According to UNICEF, in the years 2005-2010, in the whole of Afghanistan only 18% of boys attended high school, and 6% of girls.  What kind of report card is that?  After 11 years of underfunded work on health care in a country the size of Texas, infant mortality still remains the highest in the world.

By 2014, the defense of Afghanistan will have been handed over to the woefulAfghan National Security Force, also known in military-speak as the “Enduring Presence Force.”  In that year, for Washington, the American war will be officially over, whether it’s actually at an end or not, and it will be up to Afghans to do the enduring.

Here’s where that final scenario -- collapse -- haunts the Kabuli imagination.  Economic collapse means joblessness, poverty, hunger, and a great swelling of the ranks of children cadging a living in the streets.  Already street children are said to number a million strong in Kabul, and 4 million across the country.  Only blocks from the Presidential Palace, they are there in startling numbers selling newspapers, phone cards, toilet paper, or simply begging for small change. Are they the county’s future?

And if the state collapses, too?  Afghans of a certain age remember well the last time the country was left on its own, after the Soviets departed in 1989, and the U.S. also terminated its covert aid.  The mujahideen parties -- Islamists all -- agreed to take turns ruling the country, but things soon fell apart and they took turns instead lobbing rockets into Kabul, killing tens of thousands of civilians, reducing entire districts to rubble, raiding and raping -- until the Taliban came up from the south and put a stop to everything.

Afghan civilians who remember that era hope that this time Karzai will step down as he promises, and that the usual suspects will find ways to maintain traditional power balances, however undemocratic, in something that passes for peace.  Afghan civilians are, however, betting that if a collision comes, one-third of those Afghan Security Forces trained at fabulous expense to protect them will fight for the government (whoever that may be), one-third will fight for the opposition, and one-third will simply desert and go home.  That sounds almost like a plan.

Counting Down to 2014 in Afghanistan: Three Lousy Options, Pick One

Don’t let the forces of regression dominate the media in 2013 - click here to support brave, independent reporting today by making a contribution to Truthout.

Compromise, conflict, or collapse: ask an Afghan what to expect in 2014 and you’re likely to get a scenario that falls under one of those three headings. 2014, of course, is the year of the double whammy in Afghanistan: the next presidential election coupled with the departure of most American and other foreign forces. Many Afghans fear a turn for the worse, while others are no less afraid that everything will stay the same.  Some even think things will get better when the occupying forces leave.  Most predict a more conservative climate, but everyone is quick to say that it’s anybody’s guess.

Only one thing is certain in 2014: it will be a year of American military defeat.  For more than a decade, U.S. forces have fought many types of wars in Afghanistan, from a low-footprint invasion, to multiple surges, to a flirtation with Vietnam-style counterinsurgency, to a ramped-up, gloves-off air war.  And yet, despite all the experiments in styles of war-making, the American military and its coalition partners have ended up in the same place: stalemate, which in a battle with guerrillas means defeat.  For years, a modest-sized, generally unpopular, ragtag set of insurgents has fought the planet’s most heavily armed, technologically advanced military to a standstill, leaving the country shaken and its citizens anxiously imagining the outcome of unpalatable scenarios.

The first, compromise, suggests the possibility of reaching some sort of almost inconceivable power-sharing agreement with multiple insurgent militias.  While Washington presses for negotiations with its designated enemy, “the Taliban,” representatives of President Hamid Karzai’s High Peace Council, which includes12 members of the former Taliban government and many sympathizers, are making the rounds to talk disarmament and reconciliation with all the armed insurgent groups that the Afghan intelligence service has identified across the country. There are 1,500 of them.

One member of the Council told me, “It will take a long time before we get to Mullah Omar [the Taliban’s titular leader].  Some of these militias can’t even remember what they’ve been fighting about.”

The second scenario, open conflict, would mean another dreaded round of civil war like the one in the 1990s, after the Soviet Union withdrew in defeat -- the one that destroyed the Afghan capital, Kabul, devastated parts of the country, and gave rise to the Taliban.

The third scenario, collapse, sounds so apocalyptic that it’s seldom brought up by Afghans, but it’s implied in the exodus already underway of those citizens who can afford to leave the country.  The departures aren’t dramatic.  There are no helicopters lifting off the roof of the U.S. Embassy with desperate Afghans clamoring to get on board; just a record number of asylum applications in 2011, a year in which, according to official figures, almost 36,000 Afghans were openly looking for a safe place to land, preferably in Europe.  That figure is likely to be at least matched, if not exceeded, when the U.N. releases the complete data for 2012.

In January, I went to Kabul to learn what old friends and current officials are thinking about the critical months ahead.  At the same time, Afghan President Karzai flew to Washington to confer with President Obama.  Their talks seem to have differed radically from the conversations I had with ordinary Afghans. In Kabul, where strange rumors fly, an official reassured me that the future looked bright for the country because Karzai was expected to return from Washington with the promise of American radar systems, presumably for the Afghan Air Force, which is not yet “operational.” (He actually returned with the promise of helicopters, cargo planes, fighter jets, and drones.) Who knew that the fate of the nation and its suffering citizens hinged on that?  In my conversations with ordinary Afghans, one thing that never came up was radar.

Another term that never seems to enter ordinary Afghan conversation, much as it obsesses Americans, is “al-Qaeda.” President Obama, for instance, announced at a joint press conference with President Karzai: “Our core objective -- the reason we went to war in the first place -- is now within reach: ensuring that al-Qaeda can never again use Afghanistan to launch attacks against America.”  An Afghan journalist asked me, “Why does he worry so much about al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Doesn’t he know they are everywhere else?”

At the same Washington press conference, Obama said, “The nation we need to rebuild is our own.” Afghans long ago gave up waiting for the U.S. to make good on its promises to rebuild theirs. What’s now striking, however, is the vast gulf between the pronouncements of American officialdom and the hopes of ordinary Afghans.  It’s a gap so wide you would hardly think -- as Afghans once did -- that we are fighting for them.

To take just one example: the official American view of events in Afghanistan is wonderfully black and white.  The president, for instance, speaks of the way U.S. forces heroically “pushed the Taliban out of their strongholds.” Like other top U.S. officials over the years, he forgets whom we pushed into the Afghan government, our “stronghold” in the years after the 2001 invasion: ex-Taliban and Taliban-like fundamentalists, the most brutal civil warriors, and serial human rights violators.

Afghans, however, haven’t forgotten just whom the U.S. put in place to govern them -- exactly the men they feared and hated most in exactly the place where few Afghans wanted them to be.  Early on, between 2002 and 2004, 90% of Afghans surveyed nationwide told the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission that such men should not be allowed to hold public office; 76% wanted them tried as war criminals.


In my recent conversations, many Afghans still cited the first loya jirga, an assembly convened in 2003 to ratify the newly drafted constitution, or the first presidential election in 2004, or the parliamentary election of 2005, all held under international auspices, as the moments when the aspirations of Afghans and the “international community” parted company. In that first parliament, as in the earlier gatherings, most of the men were affiliated with armed militias; every other member was a formerjihadi, and nearly half were affiliated with fundamentalist Islamist parties, including the Taliban.

In this way, Afghans were consigned to live under a government of bloodstained warlords and fundamentalists, who turned out to be Washington’s guys.  Many had once battled the Soviets using American money and weapons, and quite a few, like the former warlord, druglord, minister of defense, and current vice-president Muhammad Qasim Fahim, had been very chummy with the CIA.

In the U.S., such details of our Afghan War, now in its 12th year, are long forgotten, but to Afghans who live under the rule of the same old suspects, the memory remains painfully raw.  Worse, Afghans know that it is these very men, rearmed and ready, who will once again compete for power in 2014.

How to Vote Early in Afghanistan

President Karzai is barred by term limits from standing for reelection in 2014, but many Kabulis believe he reached a private agreement with the usual suspects at a meeting late last year. In early January, he seemed to seal the deal by announcing that, for the sake of frugality, the voter cards issued for past elections will be reusedin 2014.  Far too many of those cards were issued for the 2004 election, suspiciously more than the number of eligible voters.  During the 2009 campaign, anyone could buy fistfuls of them at bargain basement prices.  So this decision seemed to kill off the last faint hope of an election in which Afghans might actually have a say about the leadership of the country.

Fewer than 35% of voters cast ballots in the last presidential contest, when Karzai’s men were caught on video stuffing ballot boxes.  (Afterward, President Obama phoned to congratulate Karzai on his “victory.”) Only dedicated or paid henchmen are likely to show up for the next “good enough for Afghans” exercise in democracy. Once again, an “election” may be just the elaborate stage set for announcing to a disillusioned public the names of those who will run the show in Kabul for the next few years.

Kabulis might live with that, as they’ve lived with Karzai all these years, but they fear power-hungry Afghan politicians could “compromise” as well with insurgent leaders like that old American favorite from the war against the Soviets, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who recently told a TV audience that he intends to claim his rightful place in government. Such compromises could stick the Afghan people with a shaky power-sharing deal among the most ultra-conservative, self-interested, sociopathic, and corrupt men in the country.  If that deal, in turn, were to fall apart, as most power-sharing agreements worldwide do within a year or two, the big men might well plunge the country back into a 1990s-style civil war, with no regard for the civilians caught in their path.

These worst-case scenarios are everyday Kabuli nightmares.  After all, during decades of war, the savvy citizens of the capital have learned to expect the worst from the men currently characterized in a popular local graffiti this way: “Mujahideen=Criminals. Taliban=Dumbheads.”

Ordinary Kabulis express reasonable fears for the future of the country, but impatient free-marketeering businessmen are voting with their feet right now, or laying plans to leave soon. They’ve made Kabul hum (often with foreign aid funds, which are equivalent to about 90% of the country’s economic activity), but they aren’t about to wait around for the results of election 2014.  Carpe diem has become their version of financial advice.  As a result, they are snatching what they can and packing their bags.

Millions of dollars reportedly take flight from Kabul International Airport every day: officially about $4.6 billion in 2011, or just about the size of Afghanistan’s annual budget. Hordes of businessmen and bankers (like those who, in 2004, set up the Ponzi scheme called the Kabul Bank, from which about a billion dollars went missing) are heading for cushy spots like Dubai, where they have already established residence on prime real estate.

As they take their investments elsewhere and the American effort winds down, the Afghan economy contracts ever more grimly, opportunities dwindle, and jobs disappear.  Housing prices in Kabul are falling for the first time since the start of the occupation as rich Afghans and profiteering private American contractors, who guzzled the money that Washington and the “international community” poured into the country, move on.

At the same time, a money-laundering building boom in Kabul appears to have stalled, leaving tall, half-built office blocks like so many skeletons amid the scalloped Pakistani palaces, vertical malls, and grand madrassas erected in the past four or five years by political and business insiders and well-connected conservative clerics.

Most of the Afghan tycoons seeking asylum elsewhere don’t fear for their lives, just their pocketbooks: they’re not political refugees, but free-market rats abandoning the sinking ship of state.  Joining in the exodus (but not included in the statistics) are countless illegal émigrés seeking jobs or fleeing for their lives, paying human smugglers money they can’t afford as they head for Europe by circuitous and dangerous routes.

Threatened Afghans have fled from every abrupt change of government in the last century, making them the largest population of refugees from a single country on the planet.  Once again, those who can are voting with their feet (or their pocketbooks) -- and voting early.

Afghanistan’s historic tragedy is that its violent political shifts -- from king to communists to warlords to religious fundamentalists to the Americans -- have meant the flight of the very people most capable of rebuilding the country along peaceful and prosperous lines.  And their departure only contributes to the economic and political collapse they themselves seek to avoid.  Left behind are ordinary Afghans -- the illiterate and unskilled, but also a tough core of educated, ambitious citizens, including women’s rights activists, unwilling to surrender their dream of living once again in a free and peaceful Afghanistan.

The Military Monster

These days Kabul resounds with the blasts of suicide bombers, IEDs, and sporadic gunfire.  Armed men are everywhere in anonymous uniforms that defy identification.  Any man with money can buy a squad of bodyguards, clad in classy camouflage and wraparound shades, and armed with assault weapons.  Yet Kabulis, trying to carry on normal lives in the relative safety of the capital, seem to maintain a distance from the war going on in the provinces.

Asked that crucial question -- do you think American forces should stay or go? -- the Kabulis I talked with tended to answer in a theoretical way, very unlike the visceral response one gets in the countryside, where villages are bombed andcivilians killed, or in the makeshift camps for internally displaced people that now crowd the outer fringes of Kabul. (By the time U.S. Marines surged into Taliban-controlled Helmand Province in the south in 2010 to bring counterinsurgency-style protection to the residents there, tens of thousands of them had already moved to those camps in Kabul.)  Afghans in the countryside want to be rid of armed men.  All of them.  Kabulis just want to be secure, and if that means keeping some U.S. troops at Bagram Air Base near the capital, as Afghan and American officials are currently discussing, well, it’s nothing to them.

In fact, most Kabulis I spoke to think that’s what’s going to happen.  After all, American officials have been talking for years about keeping permanent bases in Afghanistan (though they avoid the term “permanent” when speaking to the American press), and American military officers now regularly appear on Afghan TV to say, “The United States will never abandon Afghanistan.”  Afghans reason: Americans would not have spent nearly 12 years fighting in this country if it were not the most strategic place on the planet and absolutely essential to their plans to “push on” Iran and China next.  Everybody knows that pushing on other countries is an American specialty.

Besides, Afghans can see with their own eyes that U.S. command centers, including multiple bases in Kabul, and Bagram Air Base, only 30 miles away, are still being expanded and upgraded.  Beyond the high walls of the American Embassy compound, they can also see the tall new apartment blocks going up for an expanding staff, even if Washington now claims that staff will be reduced in the years to come.

Why, then, would President Obama announce the drawdown of U.S. troops to perhaps a few thousand special operations forces and advisors, if Washington didn’t mean to leave?  Afghans have a theory about that, too.  It’s a ruse, many claim, to encourage all other foreign forces to depart so that the Americans can have everything to themselves.  Afghanistan, as they imagine it, is so important that the U.S., which has fought the longest war in its history there, will be satisfied with nothing less.

I was there to listen, but at times I did mention to Afghans that America’s post-9/11 wars and occupations were threatening to break the country.  “We just can’t afford this war anymore,” I said.

Afghans only laugh at that.  They’ve seen the way Americans throw money around.  They’ve seen the way American money corrupted the Afghan government, and many reminded me that American politicians like Afghan ones are bought and sold, and its elections won by money. Americans, they know, are as rich as Croesus and very friendly, though on the whole not very well mannered or honest or smart.

Operation Enduring Presence      

More than 11 years later, the tragedy of the American war in Afghanistan is simple enough: it has proven remarkably irrelevant to the lives of the Afghan people -- and to American troops as well.  Washington has long appeared to be fighting its own war in defense of a form of government and a set of long-discredited government officials that ordinary Afghans would never have chosen for themselves and have no power to replace.

In the early years of the war (2001-2005), George W. Bush’s administration was far too distracted planning and launching another war in Iraq to maintain anything but a minimal military presence in Afghanistan -- and that mainly outside the capital.  Many journalists (including me) criticized Bush for not finishing the war he started there when he had the chance, but today Kabulis look back on that soldierless period of peace and hope with a certain nostalgia.  In some quarters, the Bush years have even acquired something like the sheen of a lost Golden Age -- compared, that is, to the thoroughgoing militarization of American policy that followed.

So commanding did the U.S. military become in Kabul and Washington that, over the years, it ate the State Department, gobbled up the incompetent bureaucracy of the U.S. Agency for International Development, and established Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in the countryside to carry out maniacal “development” projects and throw bales of cash at all the wrong “leaders.”

Of course, the military also killed a great many people, both “enemies” and civilians.  As in Vietnam, it won the battles, but lost the war.  When I asked Afghans from Mazar-e-Sharif in the north how they accounted for the relative peacefulness and stability of their area, the answer seemed self-evident: “Americans didn’t come here.”

Other consequences, all deleterious, flowed from the militarization of foreign policy.  In Afghanistan and the United States, so intimately ensnarled over all these years, the income gap between the rich and everyone else has grown exponentially, in large part because in both countries the rich have made money off war-making, while ordinary citizens have slipped into poverty for lack of jobs and basic services.

Relying on the military, the U.S. neglected the crucial elements of civil life in Afghanistan that make things bearable -- like education and health care.  Yes, I’ve heard the repeated claims that, thanks to us, millions of children are now attending school.  But for how long?   According to UNICEF, in the years 2005-2010, in the whole of Afghanistan only 18% of boys attended high school, and 6% of girls.  What kind of report card is that?  After 11 years of underfunded work on health care in a country the size of Texas, infant mortality still remains the highest in the world.

By 2014, the defense of Afghanistan will have been handed over to the woefulAfghan National Security Force, also known in military-speak as the “Enduring Presence Force.”  In that year, for Washington, the American war will be officially over, whether it’s actually at an end or not, and it will be up to Afghans to do the enduring.

Here’s where that final scenario -- collapse -- haunts the Kabuli imagination.  Economic collapse means joblessness, poverty, hunger, and a great swelling of the ranks of children cadging a living in the streets.  Already street children are said to number a million strong in Kabul, and 4 million across the country.  Only blocks from the Presidential Palace, they are there in startling numbers selling newspapers, phone cards, toilet paper, or simply begging for small change. Are they the county’s future?

And if the state collapses, too?  Afghans of a certain age remember well the last time the country was left on its own, after the Soviets departed in 1989, and the U.S. also terminated its covert aid.  The mujahideen parties -- Islamists all -- agreed to take turns ruling the country, but things soon fell apart and they took turns instead lobbing rockets into Kabul, killing tens of thousands of civilians, reducing entire districts to rubble, raiding and raping -- until the Taliban came up from the south and put a stop to everything.

Afghan civilians who remember that era hope that this time Karzai will step down as he promises, and that the usual suspects will find ways to maintain traditional power balances, however undemocratic, in something that passes for peace.  Afghan civilians are, however, betting that if a collision comes, one-third of those Afghan Security Forces trained at fabulous expense to protect them will fight for the government (whoever that may be), one-third will fight for the opposition, and one-third will simply desert and go home.  That sounds almost like a plan.

Scientists strive to save dying spoken language of Jesus

British scientists are attempting to preserve the Aramaic language spoken by Jesus and tied to Hebrew and Arabic.

­Professor of linguistics at the University of Cambridge, Geoffrey Khan, has begun a quest to record the ancient language that’s been around for three thousand years before it finally disappears.

Prof Khan decided to record the language after speaking to a Jew from Erbil in northern Iraq. “It completely blew my mind,” Khan told Smithsonian.com.

“To discover a living language through the lips of a living person, it was just incredibly exhilarating,” he added.

By recording some of the remaining native Aramaic speakers, the linguist hopes to preserve the 3,000-year-old language on the verge of extinction. Speakers can be found in different parts of the world, from America to Iraq.

Over the past twenty years Prof. Khan has published several important books on the previously undocumented dialects of Barwar, Qaraqosh, Erbil, Sulemaniyya and Halabja, all areas in Iraq, as well as Urmi and Sanandaj, in Iran. He is also working on a web-based database of text and audio recordings that allows word-by-word comparisons across dozens of Aramaic dialects, Smithsonian.com reported.

Aramaic which belongs to the Semitic family of languages is known for its use in large sections of the biblical books of Daniel and Ezra. It is also the main language of Rabbinic Judaism’s key text, the Talmud. Parts of the ancient Dead Sea scrolls were written in Aramaic

The language was used in Israel from 539 BC to 70 AD. According to linguists it was most likely spoken by Jesus.

Pentagon’s New Massive Expansion of ‘Cyber-Security’ Unit is About Everything Except Defense

As the US government depicts the Defense Department as shrinking due to budgetary constraints, the Washington Post this morning announces "a major expansion of [the Pentagon's] cybersecurity force over the next several years, increasing its size more than fivefold."

The National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland. Among other forms of intelligence-gathering, the NSA secretly collects the phone records of millions of Americans, using data provided by telecom firms AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. (Photo: NSA/Getty Images)

Specifically, says the New York Times this morning, "the expansion would increase the Defense Department's Cyber Command by more than 4,000 people, up from the current 900." The Post describes this expansion as "part of an effort to turn an organization that has focused largely on defensive measures into the equivalent of an Internet-era fighting force." This Cyber Command Unit operates under the command of Gen. Keith Alexander, who also happens to be the head of the National Security Agency, the highly secretive government network that spies on the communications of foreign nationals - and American citizens.

The Pentagon's rhetorical justification for this expansion is deeply misleading. Beyond that, these activities pose a wide array of serious threats to internet freedom, privacy, and international law that, as usual, will be conducted with full-scale secrecy and with little to no oversight and accountability. And, as usual, there is a small army of private-sector corporations who will benefit most from this expansion.

Disguising aggression as "defense"

Let's begin with the way this so-called "cyber-security" expansion has been marketed. It is part of a sustained campaign which, as usual, relies on blatant fear-mongering.

In March, 2010, the Washington Post published an amazing Op-Ed by Adm. Michael McConnell, Bush's former Director of National Intelligence and a past and current executive with Booz Allen, a firm representing numerous corporate contractors which profit enormously each time the government expands its "cyber-security" activities. McConnell's career over the last two decades - both at Booz, Allen and inside the government - has been devoted to accelerating the merger between the government and private sector in all intelligence, surveillance and national security matters (it was he who led the successful campaign to retroactively immunize the telecom giants for their participation in the illegal NSA domestic spying program). Privatizing government cyber-spying and cyber-warfare is his primary focus now.

McConnell's Op-Ed was as alarmist and hysterical as possible. Claiming that "the United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are losing", it warned that "chaos would result" from an enemy cyber-attack on US financial systems and that "our power grids, air and ground transportation, telecommunications, and water-filtration systems are in jeopardy as well." Based on these threats, McConnell advocated that "we" - meaning "the government and the private sector" - "need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace" and that "we need to reengineer the Internet to make attribution, geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment - who did it, from where, why and what was the result - more manageable." As Wired's Ryan Singel wrote: "He's talking about changing the internet to make everything anyone does on the net traceable and geo-located so the National Security Agency can pinpoint users and their computers for retaliation."

The same week the Post published McConnell's extraordinary Op-Ed, the Obama White House issued its own fear-mongering decree on cyber-threats, depicting the US as a vulnerable victim to cyber-aggression. It began with this sentence: "President Obama has identified cybersecurity as one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation, but one that we as a government or as a country are not adequately prepared to counter." It announced that "the Executive Branch was directed to work closely with all key players in US cybersecurity, including state and local governments and the private sector" and to "strengthen public/private partnerships", and specifically announced Obama's intent to "to implement the recommendations of the Cyberspace Policy Review built on the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) launched by President George W. Bush."

Since then, the fear-mongering rhetoric from government officials has relentlessly intensified, all devoted to scaring citizens into believing that the US is at serious risk of cataclysmic cyber-attacks from "aggressors". This all culminated when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, last October, warned of what he called a "cyber-Pearl Harbor. This "would cause physical destruction and the loss of life, an attack that would paralyze and shock the nation and create a profound new sense of vulnerability." Identifying China, Iran, and terrorist groups, he outlined a parade of horribles scarier than anything since Condoleezza Rice's 2002 Iraqi "mushroom cloud":

"An aggressor nation or extremist group could use these kinds of cyber tools to gain control of critical switches. They could derail passenger trains, or even more dangerous, derail passenger trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country."

As usual, though, reality is exactly the opposite. This new massive new expenditure of money is not primarily devoted to defending against cyber-aggressors. The US itself is the world's leading cyber-aggressor. A major purpose of this expansion is to strengthen the US's ability to destroy other nations with cyber-attacks. Indeed, even the Post report notes that a major component of this new expansion is to "conduct offensive computer operations against foreign adversaries".

It is the US - not Iran, Russia or "terror" groups - which already is the first nation (in partnership with Israel) to aggressively deploy a highly sophisticated and extremely dangerous cyber-attack. Last June, the New York Times' David Sanger reported what most of the world had already suspected: "From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America's first sustained use of cyberweapons." In fact, Obama "decided to accelerate the attacks . . . even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet." According to the Sanger's report, Obama himself understood the significance of the US decision to be the first to use serious and aggressive cyber-warfare:

"Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons - even under the most careful and limited circumstances - could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks."

The US isn't the vulnerable victim of cyber-attacks. It's the leading perpetrator of those attacks. As Columbia Professor and cyber expert Misha Glenny wrote in the NYT last June: Obama's cyber-attack on Iran "marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual militarization of the Internet."

Indeed, exactly as Obama knew would happen, revelations that it was the US which became the first country to use cyber-warfare against a sovereign country - just as it was the first to use the atomic bomb and then drones - would make it impossible for it to claim with any credibility (except among its own media and foreign policy community) that it was in a defensive posture when it came to cyber-warfare. As Professor Glenny wrote: "by introducing such pernicious viruses as Stuxnet and Flame, America has severely undermined its moral and political credibility." That's why, as the Post reported yesterday, the DOJ is engaged in such a frantic and invasive effort to root out Sanger's source: because it reveals the obvious truth that the US is the leading aggressor in the world when it comes to cyber-weapons.

This significant expansion under the Orwellian rubric of "cyber-security" is thus a perfect microcosm of US military spending generally. It's all justified under by the claim that the US must defend itself from threats from Bad, Aggressive Actors, when the reality is the exact opposite: the new program is devoted to ensuring that the US remains the primary offensive threat to the rest of the world. It's the same way the US develops offensive biological weapons under the guise of developing defenses against such weapons (such as the 2001 anthrax that the US government itself says came from a US Army lab). It's how the US government generally convinces its citizens that it is a peaceful victim of aggression by others when the reality is that the US builds more weapons, sells more arms and bombs more countries than virtually the rest of the world combined.

Threats to privacy and internet freedom

Beyond the aggressive threat to other nations posed by the Pentagon's cyber-threat programs, there is the profound threat to privacy, internet freedom, and the ability to communicate freely for US citizens and foreign nationals alike. The US government has long viewed these "cyber-security" programs as a means of monitoring and controlling the internet and disseminating propaganda. The fact that this is all being done under the auspices of the NSA and the Pentagon means, by definition, that there will be no transparency and no meaningful oversight.

Back in 2003, the Rumsfeld Pentagon prepared a secret report entitled "Information Operations (IO) Roadmap", which laid the foundation for this new cyber-warfare expansion. The Pentagon's self-described objective was "transforming IO into a core military competency on par with air, ground, maritime and special operations". In other words, its key objective was to ensure military control over internet-based communications:

dod cyber

It further identified superiority in cyber-attack capabilities as a vital military goal in PSYOPs (Psychological Operations) and "information-centric fights":

dod cyber

And it set forth the urgency of dominating the "IO battlespace" not only during wartime but also in peacetime:

dod cyber

As a 2006 BBC report on this Pentagon document noted: "Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans." And while the report paid lip service to the need to create "boundaries" for these new IO military activities, "they don't seem to explain how." Regarding the report's plan to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum", the BBC noted: "Consider that for a moment. The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet."

Since then, there have been countless reports of the exploitation by the US national security state to destroy privacy and undermine internet freedom. In November, the LA Times described programs that "teach students how to spy in cyberspace, the latest frontier in espionage." They "also are taught to write computer viruses, hack digital networks, crack passwords, plant listening devices and mine data from broken cellphones and flash drives." The program, needless to say, "has funneled most of its graduates to the CIA and the Pentagon's National Security Agency, which conducts America's digital spying. Other graduates have taken positions with the FBI, NASA and the Department of Homeland Security."

In 2010, Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, gave a speech explicitly announcing that the US intends to abandon its policy of "leaving the Internet alone". Noting that this "has been the nation's Internet policy since the Internet was first commercialized in the mid-1990s", he decreed: "This was the right policy for the United States in the early stages of the Internet, and the right message to send to the rest of the world. But that was then and this is now."

The documented power of the US government to monitor and surveil internet communications is already unfathomably massive. Recall that the Washington Post's 2010 "Top Secret America" series noted that: "Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications." And the Obama administration has formally demanded that it have access to any and all forms of internet communication.

It is hard to overstate the danger to privacy and internet freedom from a massive expansion of the National Security State's efforts to exploit and control the internet. As Wired's Singel wrote back in 2010:

"Make no mistake, the military industrial complex now has its eye on the internet. Generals want to train crack squads of hackers and have wet dreams of cyberwarfare. Never shy of extending its power, the military industrial complex wants to turn the internet into yet another venue for an arms race.

Wildly exaggerated cyber-threats are the pretext for this control, the "mushroom cloud" and the Tonkin Gulf fiction of cyber-warfare. As Singel aptly put it: "the only war going on is one for the soul of the internet." That's the vital context for understanding this massive expansion of Pentagon and NSA consolidated control over cyber programs.

Bonanza for private contractors

As always, it is not just political power but also private-sector profit driving this expansion. As military contracts for conventional war-fighting are modestly reduced, something needs to replace it, and these large-scale "cyber-security" contracts are more than adequate. Virtually every cyber-security program from the government is carried out in conjunction with its "private-sector partners", who receive large transfers of public funds for this work.

Two weeks ago, Business Week reported that "Lockheed Martin Corp., AT&T Inc., and CenturyLink Inc. are the first companies to sign up for a US program giving them classified information on cyber threats that they can package as security services for sale to other companies." This is part of a government effort "to create a market based on classified US information about cyber threats." In May, it was announced that "the Pentagon is expanding and making permanent a trial program that teams the government with Internet service providers to protect defense firms' computer networks against data theft by foreign adversaries" - all as "part of a larger effort to broaden the sharing of classified and unclassified cyberthreat data between the government and industry."

Indeed, there is a large organization of defense and intelligence contractors devoted to one goal: expanding the private-public merger for national security and intelligence functions. This organization - the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) - was formerly headed by Adm. McConnell, and describes itself as a "collaboration by leaders from throughout the US Intelligence Community" and " combines the experience of senior leaders from government, the private sector, and academia."

As I detailed back in 2010, one of its primary goals is to scare the nation about supposed cyber-threats in order to justify massive new expenditures for the private-sector intelligence industry on cyber-security measures and vastly expanded control over the internet. Indeed, in his 2010 Op-Ed, Adm. McConnell expressly acknowledged that the growing privatization of internet cyber-security programs "will muddy the waters between the traditional roles of the government and the private sector." Indeed, at the very same time McConnell published this Op-Ed, the INSA website featured a report entitled "Addressing Cyber Security Through Public-Private Partnership." It featured a genuinely creepy graphic showing the inter-connectedness between government institutions (such as Congress and regulatory agencies), the Surveillance State, private intelligence corporations, and the Internet:

Private-sector profit is now inextricably linked with the fear-mongering campaign over cyber-threats. At one INSA conference in 2009 - entitled "Cyber Deterrence Conference" - government officials and intelligence industry executives gathered together to stress that "government and private sector actors should emphasize collaboration and partnership through the creation of a model that assigns specific roles and responsibilities."

As intelligence contractor expert Tim Shorrock told Democracy Now when McConnell - then at Booz Allen - was first nominated to be DNI:

Well, the NSA, the National Security Agency, is really sort of the lead agency in terms of outsourcing . . . . Booz Allen is one of about, you know, ten large corporations that play a very major role in American intelligence. Every time you hear about intelligence watching North Korea or tapping al-Qaeda phones, something like that, you can bet that corporations like these are very heavily involved. And Booz Allen is one of the largest of these contractors. I estimate that about 50% of our $45 billion intelligence budget goes to private sector contractors like Booz Allen.

This public-private merger for intelligence and surveillance functions not only vests these industries with large-scale profits at public expense, but also the accompanying power that was traditionally reserved for government. And unlike government agencies, which are at least subjected in theory to some minimal regulatory oversight, these private-sector actors have virtually none, even as their surveillance and intelligence functions rapidly increase.

What Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex has been feeding itself on fear campaigns since it was born. A never-ending carousel of Menacing Enemies - Communists, Terrorists, Saddam's chemical weapons, Iranian mullahs - has sustained it, and Cyber-Threats are but the latest.

Like all of these wildly exaggerated cartoon menaces, there is some degree of threat posed by cyber-attacks. But, as Single described, all of this can be managed with greater security systems for public and private computer networks - just as some modest security measures are sufficient to deal with the terrorist threat.

This new massive expansion has little to do with any actual cyber-threat - just as the invasion of Iraq and global assassination program have little to do with actual terrorist threats. It is instead all about strengthening the US's offensive cyber-war capabilities, consolidating control over the internet, and ensuring further transfers of massive public wealth to private industry continue unabated. In other words, it perfectly follows the template used by the public-private US National Security State over the last six decades to entrench and enrich itself based on pure pretext.

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited

Glenn Greenwald

Pentagon’s New Massive Expansion of ‘Cyber-Security’ Unit is About Everything Except Defense

As the US government depicts the Defense Department as shrinking due to budgetary constraints, the Washington Post this morning announces "a major expansion of [the Pentagon's] cybersecurity force over the next several years, increasing its size more than fivefold."

The National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland. Among other forms of intelligence-gathering, the NSA secretly collects the phone records of millions of Americans, using data provided by telecom firms AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. (Photo: NSA/Getty Images)

Specifically, says the New York Times this morning, "the expansion would increase the Defense Department's Cyber Command by more than 4,000 people, up from the current 900." The Post describes this expansion as "part of an effort to turn an organization that has focused largely on defensive measures into the equivalent of an Internet-era fighting force." This Cyber Command Unit operates under the command of Gen. Keith Alexander, who also happens to be the head of the National Security Agency, the highly secretive government network that spies on the communications of foreign nationals - and American citizens.

The Pentagon's rhetorical justification for this expansion is deeply misleading. Beyond that, these activities pose a wide array of serious threats to internet freedom, privacy, and international law that, as usual, will be conducted with full-scale secrecy and with little to no oversight and accountability. And, as usual, there is a small army of private-sector corporations who will benefit most from this expansion.

Disguising aggression as "defense"

Let's begin with the way this so-called "cyber-security" expansion has been marketed. It is part of a sustained campaign which, as usual, relies on blatant fear-mongering.

In March, 2010, the Washington Post published an amazing Op-Ed by Adm. Michael McConnell, Bush's former Director of National Intelligence and a past and current executive with Booz Allen, a firm representing numerous corporate contractors which profit enormously each time the government expands its "cyber-security" activities. McConnell's career over the last two decades - both at Booz, Allen and inside the government - has been devoted to accelerating the merger between the government and private sector in all intelligence, surveillance and national security matters (it was he who led the successful campaign to retroactively immunize the telecom giants for their participation in the illegal NSA domestic spying program). Privatizing government cyber-spying and cyber-warfare is his primary focus now.

McConnell's Op-Ed was as alarmist and hysterical as possible. Claiming that "the United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are losing", it warned that "chaos would result" from an enemy cyber-attack on US financial systems and that "our power grids, air and ground transportation, telecommunications, and water-filtration systems are in jeopardy as well." Based on these threats, McConnell advocated that "we" - meaning "the government and the private sector" - "need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace" and that "we need to reengineer the Internet to make attribution, geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment - who did it, from where, why and what was the result - more manageable." As Wired's Ryan Singel wrote: "He's talking about changing the internet to make everything anyone does on the net traceable and geo-located so the National Security Agency can pinpoint users and their computers for retaliation."

The same week the Post published McConnell's extraordinary Op-Ed, the Obama White House issued its own fear-mongering decree on cyber-threats, depicting the US as a vulnerable victim to cyber-aggression. It began with this sentence: "President Obama has identified cybersecurity as one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation, but one that we as a government or as a country are not adequately prepared to counter." It announced that "the Executive Branch was directed to work closely with all key players in US cybersecurity, including state and local governments and the private sector" and to "strengthen public/private partnerships", and specifically announced Obama's intent to "to implement the recommendations of the Cyberspace Policy Review built on the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) launched by President George W. Bush."

Since then, the fear-mongering rhetoric from government officials has relentlessly intensified, all devoted to scaring citizens into believing that the US is at serious risk of cataclysmic cyber-attacks from "aggressors". This all culminated when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, last October, warned of what he called a "cyber-Pearl Harbor. This "would cause physical destruction and the loss of life, an attack that would paralyze and shock the nation and create a profound new sense of vulnerability." Identifying China, Iran, and terrorist groups, he outlined a parade of horribles scarier than anything since Condoleezza Rice's 2002 Iraqi "mushroom cloud":

"An aggressor nation or extremist group could use these kinds of cyber tools to gain control of critical switches. They could derail passenger trains, or even more dangerous, derail passenger trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country."

As usual, though, reality is exactly the opposite. This new massive new expenditure of money is not primarily devoted to defending against cyber-aggressors. The US itself is the world's leading cyber-aggressor. A major purpose of this expansion is to strengthen the US's ability to destroy other nations with cyber-attacks. Indeed, even the Post report notes that a major component of this new expansion is to "conduct offensive computer operations against foreign adversaries".

It is the US - not Iran, Russia or "terror" groups - which already is the first nation (in partnership with Israel) to aggressively deploy a highly sophisticated and extremely dangerous cyber-attack. Last June, the New York Times' David Sanger reported what most of the world had already suspected: "From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America's first sustained use of cyberweapons." In fact, Obama "decided to accelerate the attacks . . . even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet." According to the Sanger's report, Obama himself understood the significance of the US decision to be the first to use serious and aggressive cyber-warfare:

"Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons - even under the most careful and limited circumstances - could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks."

The US isn't the vulnerable victim of cyber-attacks. It's the leading perpetrator of those attacks. As Columbia Professor and cyber expert Misha Glenny wrote in the NYT last June: Obama's cyber-attack on Iran "marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual militarization of the Internet."

Indeed, exactly as Obama knew would happen, revelations that it was the US which became the first country to use cyber-warfare against a sovereign country - just as it was the first to use the atomic bomb and then drones - would make it impossible for it to claim with any credibility (except among its own media and foreign policy community) that it was in a defensive posture when it came to cyber-warfare. As Professor Glenny wrote: "by introducing such pernicious viruses as Stuxnet and Flame, America has severely undermined its moral and political credibility." That's why, as the Post reported yesterday, the DOJ is engaged in such a frantic and invasive effort to root out Sanger's source: because it reveals the obvious truth that the US is the leading aggressor in the world when it comes to cyber-weapons.

This significant expansion under the Orwellian rubric of "cyber-security" is thus a perfect microcosm of US military spending generally. It's all justified under by the claim that the US must defend itself from threats from Bad, Aggressive Actors, when the reality is the exact opposite: the new program is devoted to ensuring that the US remains the primary offensive threat to the rest of the world. It's the same way the US develops offensive biological weapons under the guise of developing defenses against such weapons (such as the 2001 anthrax that the US government itself says came from a US Army lab). It's how the US government generally convinces its citizens that it is a peaceful victim of aggression by others when the reality is that the US builds more weapons, sells more arms and bombs more countries than virtually the rest of the world combined.

Threats to privacy and internet freedom

Beyond the aggressive threat to other nations posed by the Pentagon's cyber-threat programs, there is the profound threat to privacy, internet freedom, and the ability to communicate freely for US citizens and foreign nationals alike. The US government has long viewed these "cyber-security" programs as a means of monitoring and controlling the internet and disseminating propaganda. The fact that this is all being done under the auspices of the NSA and the Pentagon means, by definition, that there will be no transparency and no meaningful oversight.

Back in 2003, the Rumsfeld Pentagon prepared a secret report entitled "Information Operations (IO) Roadmap", which laid the foundation for this new cyber-warfare expansion. The Pentagon's self-described objective was "transforming IO into a core military competency on par with air, ground, maritime and special operations". In other words, its key objective was to ensure military control over internet-based communications:

dod cyber

It further identified superiority in cyber-attack capabilities as a vital military goal in PSYOPs (Psychological Operations) and "information-centric fights":

dod cyber

And it set forth the urgency of dominating the "IO battlespace" not only during wartime but also in peacetime:

dod cyber

As a 2006 BBC report on this Pentagon document noted: "Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans." And while the report paid lip service to the need to create "boundaries" for these new IO military activities, "they don't seem to explain how." Regarding the report's plan to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum", the BBC noted: "Consider that for a moment. The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet."

Since then, there have been countless reports of the exploitation by the US national security state to destroy privacy and undermine internet freedom. In November, the LA Times described programs that "teach students how to spy in cyberspace, the latest frontier in espionage." They "also are taught to write computer viruses, hack digital networks, crack passwords, plant listening devices and mine data from broken cellphones and flash drives." The program, needless to say, "has funneled most of its graduates to the CIA and the Pentagon's National Security Agency, which conducts America's digital spying. Other graduates have taken positions with the FBI, NASA and the Department of Homeland Security."

In 2010, Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, gave a speech explicitly announcing that the US intends to abandon its policy of "leaving the Internet alone". Noting that this "has been the nation's Internet policy since the Internet was first commercialized in the mid-1990s", he decreed: "This was the right policy for the United States in the early stages of the Internet, and the right message to send to the rest of the world. But that was then and this is now."

The documented power of the US government to monitor and surveil internet communications is already unfathomably massive. Recall that the Washington Post's 2010 "Top Secret America" series noted that: "Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications." And the Obama administration has formally demanded that it have access to any and all forms of internet communication.

It is hard to overstate the danger to privacy and internet freedom from a massive expansion of the National Security State's efforts to exploit and control the internet. As Wired's Singel wrote back in 2010:

"Make no mistake, the military industrial complex now has its eye on the internet. Generals want to train crack squads of hackers and have wet dreams of cyberwarfare. Never shy of extending its power, the military industrial complex wants to turn the internet into yet another venue for an arms race.

Wildly exaggerated cyber-threats are the pretext for this control, the "mushroom cloud" and the Tonkin Gulf fiction of cyber-warfare. As Singel aptly put it: "the only war going on is one for the soul of the internet." That's the vital context for understanding this massive expansion of Pentagon and NSA consolidated control over cyber programs.

Bonanza for private contractors

As always, it is not just political power but also private-sector profit driving this expansion. As military contracts for conventional war-fighting are modestly reduced, something needs to replace it, and these large-scale "cyber-security" contracts are more than adequate. Virtually every cyber-security program from the government is carried out in conjunction with its "private-sector partners", who receive large transfers of public funds for this work.

Two weeks ago, Business Week reported that "Lockheed Martin Corp., AT&T Inc., and CenturyLink Inc. are the first companies to sign up for a US program giving them classified information on cyber threats that they can package as security services for sale to other companies." This is part of a government effort "to create a market based on classified US information about cyber threats." In May, it was announced that "the Pentagon is expanding and making permanent a trial program that teams the government with Internet service providers to protect defense firms' computer networks against data theft by foreign adversaries" - all as "part of a larger effort to broaden the sharing of classified and unclassified cyberthreat data between the government and industry."

Indeed, there is a large organization of defense and intelligence contractors devoted to one goal: expanding the private-public merger for national security and intelligence functions. This organization - the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) - was formerly headed by Adm. McConnell, and describes itself as a "collaboration by leaders from throughout the US Intelligence Community" and " combines the experience of senior leaders from government, the private sector, and academia."

As I detailed back in 2010, one of its primary goals is to scare the nation about supposed cyber-threats in order to justify massive new expenditures for the private-sector intelligence industry on cyber-security measures and vastly expanded control over the internet. Indeed, in his 2010 Op-Ed, Adm. McConnell expressly acknowledged that the growing privatization of internet cyber-security programs "will muddy the waters between the traditional roles of the government and the private sector." Indeed, at the very same time McConnell published this Op-Ed, the INSA website featured a report entitled "Addressing Cyber Security Through Public-Private Partnership." It featured a genuinely creepy graphic showing the inter-connectedness between government institutions (such as Congress and regulatory agencies), the Surveillance State, private intelligence corporations, and the Internet:

Private-sector profit is now inextricably linked with the fear-mongering campaign over cyber-threats. At one INSA conference in 2009 - entitled "Cyber Deterrence Conference" - government officials and intelligence industry executives gathered together to stress that "government and private sector actors should emphasize collaboration and partnership through the creation of a model that assigns specific roles and responsibilities."

As intelligence contractor expert Tim Shorrock told Democracy Now when McConnell - then at Booz Allen - was first nominated to be DNI:

Well, the NSA, the National Security Agency, is really sort of the lead agency in terms of outsourcing . . . . Booz Allen is one of about, you know, ten large corporations that play a very major role in American intelligence. Every time you hear about intelligence watching North Korea or tapping al-Qaeda phones, something like that, you can bet that corporations like these are very heavily involved. And Booz Allen is one of the largest of these contractors. I estimate that about 50% of our $45 billion intelligence budget goes to private sector contractors like Booz Allen.

This public-private merger for intelligence and surveillance functions not only vests these industries with large-scale profits at public expense, but also the accompanying power that was traditionally reserved for government. And unlike government agencies, which are at least subjected in theory to some minimal regulatory oversight, these private-sector actors have virtually none, even as their surveillance and intelligence functions rapidly increase.

What Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex has been feeding itself on fear campaigns since it was born. A never-ending carousel of Menacing Enemies - Communists, Terrorists, Saddam's chemical weapons, Iranian mullahs - has sustained it, and Cyber-Threats are but the latest.

Like all of these wildly exaggerated cartoon menaces, there is some degree of threat posed by cyber-attacks. But, as Single described, all of this can be managed with greater security systems for public and private computer networks - just as some modest security measures are sufficient to deal with the terrorist threat.

This new massive expansion has little to do with any actual cyber-threat - just as the invasion of Iraq and global assassination program have little to do with actual terrorist threats. It is instead all about strengthening the US's offensive cyber-war capabilities, consolidating control over the internet, and ensuring further transfers of massive public wealth to private industry continue unabated. In other words, it perfectly follows the template used by the public-private US National Security State over the last six decades to entrench and enrich itself based on pure pretext.

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited

Glenn Greenwald

Only Three Choices for Afghan Endgame: Compromise, Conflict, or Collapse

KABUL, Afghanistan – Compromise, conflict, or collapse: ask an Afghan what to expect in 2014 and you’re likely to get a scenario that falls under one of those three headings. 2014, of course, is the year of the double whammy in Afghanistan: the next presidential election coupled with the departure of most American and other foreign forces. Many Afghans fear a turn for the worse, while others are no less afraid that everything will stay the same.  Some even think things will get better when the occupying forces leave.  Most predict a more conservative climate, but everyone is quick to say that it’s anybody’s guess.

Only one thing is certain in 2014: it will be a year of American military defeat.  For more than a decade, U.S. forces have fought many types of wars in Afghanistan, from a low-footprint invasion, to multiple surges, to a flirtation with Vietnam-style counterinsurgency, to a ramped-up, gloves-off air war.  And yet, despite all the experiments in styles of war-making, the American military and its coalition partners have ended up in the same place: stalemate, which in a battle with guerrillas means defeat.  For years, a modest-sized, generally unpopular, ragtag set of insurgents has fought the planet’s most heavily armed, technologically advanced military to a standstill, leaving the country shaken and its citizens anxiously imagining the outcome of unpalatable scenarios.

The first, compromise, suggests the possibility of reaching some sort of almost inconceivable power-sharing agreement with multiple insurgent militias.  While Washington presses for negotiations with its designated enemy, “the Taliban,” representatives of President Hamid Karzai’s High Peace Council, which includes 12 members of the former Taliban government and many sympathizers, are making the rounds to talk disarmament and reconciliation with all the armed insurgent groups that the Afghan intelligence service has identified across the country. There are 1,500 of them.

One member of the Council told me, “It will take a long time before we get to Mullah Omar [the Taliban’s titular leader].  Some of these militias can’t even remember what they’ve been fighting about.”

The second scenario, open conflict, would mean another dreaded round of civil war like the one in the 1990s, after the Soviet Union withdrew in defeat -- the one that destroyed the Afghan capital, Kabul, devastated parts of the country, and gave rise to the Taliban.

The third scenario, collapse, sounds so apocalyptic that it’s seldom brought up by Afghans, but it’s implied in the exodus already underway of those citizens who can afford to leave the country.  The departures aren’t dramatic.  There are no helicopters lifting off the roof of the U.S. Embassy with desperate Afghans clamoring to get on board; just a record number of asylum applications in 2011, a year in which, according to official figures, almost 36,000 Afghans were openly looking for a safe place to land, preferably in Europe.  That figure is likely to be at least matched, if not exceeded, when the U.N. releases the complete data for 2012.

In January, I went to Kabul to learn what old friends and current officials are thinking about the critical months ahead.  At the same time, Afghan President Karzai flew to Washington to confer with President Obama.  Their talks seem to have differed radically from the conversations I had with ordinary Afghans. In Kabul, where strange rumors fly, an official reassured me that the future looked bright for the country because Karzai was expected to return from Washington with the promise of American radar systems, presumably for the Afghan Air Force, which is not yet “operational.” (He actually returned with the promise of helicopters, cargo planes, fighter jets, and drones.) Who knew that the fate of the nation and its suffering citizens hinged on that?  In my conversations with ordinary Afghans, one thing that never came up was radar.

Another term that never seems to enter ordinary Afghan conversation, much as it obsesses Americans, is “al-Qaeda.” President Obama, for instance, announced at a joint press conference with President Karzai: “Our core objective -- the reason we went to war in the first place -- is now within reach: ensuring that al-Qaeda can never again use Afghanistan to launch attacks against America.”  An Afghan journalist asked me, “Why does he worry so much about al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Doesn’t he know they are everywhere else?”

At the same Washington press conference, Obama said, “The nation we need to rebuild is our own.” Afghans long ago gave up waiting for the U.S. to make good on its promises to rebuild theirs. What’s now striking, however, is the vast gulf between the pronouncements of American officialdom and the hopes of ordinary Afghans.  It’s a gap so wide you would hardly think -- as Afghans once did -- that we are fighting for them.

To take just one example: the official American view of events in Afghanistan is wonderfully black and white.  The president, for instance, speaks of the way U.S. forces heroically “pushed the Taliban out of their strongholds.” Like other top U.S. officials over the years, he forgets whom we pushed into the Afghan government, our “stronghold” in the years after the 2001 invasion: ex-Taliban and Taliban-like fundamentalists, the most brutal civil warriors, and serial human rights violators.

Afghans, however, haven’t forgotten just whom the U.S. put in place to govern them -- exactly the men they feared and hated most in exactly the place where few Afghans wanted them to be.  Early on, between 2002 and 2004, 90% of Afghans surveyed nationwide told the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission that such men should not be allowed to hold public office; 76% wanted them tried as war criminals.

In my recent conversations, many Afghans still cited the first loya jirga, an assembly convened in 2003 to ratify the newly drafted constitution, or the first presidential election in 2004, or the parliamentary election of 2005, all held under international auspices, as the moments when the aspirations of Afghans and the “international community” parted company. In that first parliament, as in the earlier gatherings, most of the men were affiliated with armed militias; every other member was a former jihadi, and nearly half were affiliated with fundamentalist Islamist parties, including the Taliban.

In this way, Afghans were consigned to live under a government of bloodstained warlords and fundamentalists, who turned out to be Washington’s guys.  Many had once battled the Soviets using American money and weapons, and quite a few, like the former warlord, druglord, minister of defense, and current vice-president Muhammad Qasim Fahim, had been very chummy with the CIA.

In the U.S., such details of our Afghan War, now in its 12th year, are long forgotten, but to Afghans who live under the rule of the same old suspects, the memory remains painfully raw.  Worse, Afghans know that it is these very men, rearmed and ready, who will once again compete for power in 2014.

How to Vote Early in Afghanistan

President Karzai is barred by term limits from standing for reelection in 2014, but many Kabulis believe he reached a private agreement with the usual suspects at a meeting late last year. In early January, he seemed to seal the deal by announcing that, for the sake of frugality, the voter cards issued for past elections will be reused in 2014.  Far too many of those cards were issued for the 2004 election, suspiciously more than the number of eligible voters.  During the 2009 campaign, anyone could buy fistfuls of them at bargain basement prices.  So this decision seemed to kill off the last faint hope of an election in which Afghans might actually have a say about the leadership of the country.

Fewer than 35% of voters cast ballots in the last presidential contest, when Karzai’s men were caught on video stuffing ballot boxes.  (Afterward, President Obama phoned to congratulate Karzai on his “victory.”) Only dedicated or paid henchmen are likely to show up for the next “good enough for Afghans” exercise in democracy. Once again, an “election” may be just the elaborate stage set for announcing to a disillusioned public the names of those who will run the show in Kabul for the next few years.

Kabulis might live with that, as they’ve lived with Karzai all these years, but they fear power-hungry Afghan politicians could “compromise” as well with insurgent leaders like that old American favorite from the war against the Soviets, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who recently told a TV audience that he intends to claim his rightful place in government. Such compromises could stick the Afghan people with a shaky power-sharing deal among the most ultra-conservative, self-interested, sociopathic, and corrupt men in the country.  If that deal, in turn, were to fall apart, as most power-sharing agreements worldwide do within a year or two, the big men might well plunge the country back into a 1990s-style civil war, with no regard for the civilians caught in their path.

These worst-case scenarios are everyday Kabuli nightmares.  After all, during decades of war, the savvy citizens of the capital have learned to expect the worst from the men currently characterized in a popular local graffiti this way: “Mujahideen=Criminals. Taliban=Dumbheads.”

Ordinary Kabulis express reasonable fears for the future of the country, but impatient free-marketeering businessmen are voting with their feet right now, or laying plans to leave soon. They’ve made Kabul hum (often with foreign aid funds, which are equivalent to about 90% of the country’s economic activity), but they aren’t about to wait around for the results of election 2014.  Carpe diem has become their version of financial advice.  As a result, they are snatching what they can and packing their bags.

Millions of dollars reportedly take flight from Kabul International Airport every day: officially about $4.6 billion in 2011, or just about the size of Afghanistan’s annual budget. Hordes of businessmen and bankers (like those who, in 2004, set up the Ponzi scheme called the Kabul Bank, from which about a billion dollars went missing) are heading for cushy spots like Dubai, where they have already established residence on prime real estate.

As they take their investments elsewhere and the American effort winds down, the Afghan economy contracts ever more grimly, opportunities dwindle, and jobs disappear.  Housing prices in Kabul are falling for the first time since the start of the occupation as rich Afghans and profiteering private American contractors, who guzzled the money that Washington and the “international community” poured into the country, move on.

At the same time, a money-laundering building boom in Kabul appears to have stalled, leaving tall, half-built office blocks like so many skeletons amid the scalloped Pakistani palaces, vertical malls, and grand madrassas erected in the past four or five years by political and business insiders and well-connected conservative clerics.

Most of the Afghan tycoons seeking asylum elsewhere don’t fear for their lives, just their pocketbooks: they’re not political refugees, but free-market rats abandoning the sinking ship of state.  Joining in the exodus (but not included in the statistics) are countless illegal émigrés seeking jobs or fleeing for their lives, paying human smugglers money they can’t afford as they head for Europe by circuitous and dangerous routes.

Threatened Afghans have fled from every abrupt change of government in the last century, making them the largest population of refugees from a single country on the planet.  Once again, those who can are voting with their feet (or their pocketbooks) -- and voting early.

Afghanistan’s historic tragedy is that its violent political shifts -- from king to communists to warlords to religious fundamentalists to the Americans -- have meant the flight of the very people most capable of rebuilding the country along peaceful and prosperous lines.  And their departure only contributes to the economic and political collapse they themselves seek to avoid.  Left behind are ordinary Afghans -- the illiterate and unskilled, but also a tough core of educated, ambitious citizens, including women’s rights activists, unwilling to surrender their dream of living once again in a free and peaceful Afghanistan.

The Military Monster

These days Kabul resounds with the blasts of suicide bombers, IEDs, and sporadic gunfire.  Armed men are everywhere in anonymous uniforms that defy identification.  Any man with money can buy a squad of bodyguards, clad in classy camouflage and wraparound shades, and armed with assault weapons.  Yet Kabulis, trying to carry on normal lives in the relative safety of the capital, seem to maintain a distance from the war going on in the provinces.

Asked that crucial question -- do you think American forces should stay or go? -- the Kabulis I talked with tended to answer in a theoretical way, very unlike the visceral response one gets in the countryside, where villages are bombed and civilians killed, or in the makeshift camps for internally displaced people that now crowd the outer fringes of Kabul. (By the time U.S. Marines surged into Taliban-controlled Helmand Province in the south in 2010 to bring counterinsurgency-style protection to the residents there, tens of thousands of them had already moved to those camps in Kabul.)  Afghans in the countryside want to be rid of armed men.  All of them.  Kabulis just want to be secure, and if that means keeping some U.S. troops at Bagram Air Base near the capital, as Afghan and American officials are currently discussing, well, it’s nothing to them.

In fact, most Kabulis I spoke to think that’s what’s going to happen.  After all, American officials have been talking for years about keeping permanent bases in Afghanistan (though they avoid the term “permanent” when speaking to the American press), and American military officers now regularly appear on Afghan TV to say, “The United States will never abandon Afghanistan.”  Afghans reason: Americans would not have spent nearly 12 years fighting in this country if it were not the most strategic place on the planet and absolutely essential to their plans to “push on” Iran and China next.  Everybody knows that pushing on other countries is an American specialty.

Besides, Afghans can see with their own eyes that U.S. command centers, including multiple bases in Kabul, and Bagram Air Base, only 30 miles away, are still being expanded and upgraded.  Beyond the high walls of the American Embassy compound, they can also see the tall new apartment blocks going up for an expanding staff, even if Washington now claims that staff will be reduced in the years to come.

Why, then, would President Obama announce the drawdown of U.S. troops to perhaps a few thousand special operations forces and advisors, if Washington didn’t mean to leave?  Afghans have a theory about that, too.  It’s a ruse, many claim, to encourage all other foreign forces to depart so that the Americans can have everything to themselves.  Afghanistan, as they imagine it, is so important that the U.S., which has fought the longest war in its history there, will be satisfied with nothing less.

I was there to listen, but at times I did mention to Afghans that America’s post-9/11 wars and occupations were threatening to break the country.  “We just can’t afford this war anymore,” I said.

Afghans only laugh at that.  They’ve seen the way Americans throw money around.  They’ve seen the way American money corrupted the Afghan government, and many reminded me that American politicians like Afghan ones are bought and sold, and its elections won by money. Americans, they know, are as rich as Croesus and very friendly, though on the whole not very well mannered or honest or smart.

Operation Enduring Presence      

More than 11 years later, the tragedy of the American war in Afghanistan is simple enough: it has proven remarkably irrelevant to the lives of the Afghan people -- and to American troops as well.  Washington has long appeared to be fighting its own war in defense of a form of government and a set of long-discredited government officials that ordinary Afghans would never have chosen for themselves and have no power to replace.

In the early years of the war (2001-2005), George W. Bush’s administration was far too distracted planning and launching another war in Iraq to maintain anything but a minimal military presence in Afghanistan -- and that mainly outside the capital.  Many journalists (including me) criticized Bush for not finishing the war he started there when he had the chance, but today Kabulis look back on that soldierless period of peace and hope with a certain nostalgia.  In some quarters, the Bush years have even acquired something like the sheen of a lost Golden Age -- compared, that is, to the thoroughgoing militarization of American policy that followed.

So commanding did the U.S. military become in Kabul and Washington that, over the years, it ate the State Department, gobbled up the incompetent bureaucracy of the U.S. Agency for International Development, and established Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in the countryside to carry out maniacal “development” projects and throw bales of cash at all the wrong “leaders.”

Of course, the military also killed a great many people, both “enemies” and civilians.  As in Vietnam, it won the battles, but lost the war.  When I asked Afghans from Mazar-e-Sharif in the north how they accounted for the relative peacefulness and stability of their area, the answer seemed self-evident: “Americans didn’t come here.”

Other consequences, all deleterious, flowed from the militarization of foreign policy.  In Afghanistan and the United States, so intimately ensnarled over all these years, the income gap between the rich and everyone else has grown exponentially, in large part because in both countries the rich have made money off war-making, while ordinary citizens have slipped into poverty for lack of jobs and basic services.

Relying on the military, the U.S. neglected the crucial elements of civil life in Afghanistan that make things bearable -- like education and health care.  Yes, I’ve heard the repeated claims that, thanks to us, millions of children are now attending school.  But for how long?   According to UNICEF, in the years 2005-2010, in the whole of Afghanistan only 18% of boys attended high school, and 6% of girls.  What kind of report card is that?  After 11 years of underfunded work on health care in a country the size of Texas, infant mortality still remains the highest in the world.

By 2014, the defense of Afghanistan will have been handed over to the woeful Afghan National Security Force, also known in military-speak as the “Enduring Presence Force.”  In that year, for Washington, the American war will be officially over, whether it’s actually at an end or not, and it will be up to Afghans to do the enduring.

Here’s where that final scenario -- collapse -- haunts the Kabuli imagination.  Economic collapse means joblessness, poverty, hunger, and a great swelling of the ranks of children cadging a living in the streets.  Already street children are said to number a million strong in Kabul, and 4 million across the country.  Only blocks from the Presidential Palace, they are there in startling numbers selling newspapers, phone cards, toilet paper, or simply begging for small change. Are they the county’s future?

And if the state collapses, too?  Afghans of a certain age remember well the last time the country was left on its own, after the Soviets departed in 1989, and the U.S. also terminated its covert aid.  The mujahideen parties -- Islamists all -- agreed to take turns ruling the country, but things soon fell apart and they took turns instead lobbing rockets into Kabul, killing tens of thousands of civilians, reducing entire districts to rubble, raiding and raping -- until the Taliban came up from the south and put a stop to everything.

Afghan civilians who remember that era hope that this time Karzai will step down as he promises, and that the usual suspects will find ways to maintain traditional power balances, however undemocratic, in something that passes for peace.  Afghan civilians are, however, betting that if a collision comes, one-third of those Afghan Security Forces trained at fabulous expense to protect them will fight for the government (whoever that may be), one-third will fight for the opposition, and one-third will simply desert and go home.  That sounds almost like a plan.

© 2013 Ann Jones

Ann Jones

Ann Jones, writer and photographer, is the author of seven previous books, including War Is Not Over When It's Over, Kabul in Winter, Women Who Kill, and Next Time She'll Be Dead. Since 2001, Jones has worked with women in conflict and post-conflict zones, principally Afghanistan, and reported on their concerns. An authority on violence against women, she has served as a gender adviser to the United Nations. Her work has appeared in numerous publications, including The New York Times and The Nation. For more information, visit her website.

Only Three Choices for Afghan Endgame: Compromise, Conflict, or Collapse

KABUL, Afghanistan – Compromise, conflict, or collapse: ask an Afghan what to expect in 2014 and you’re likely to get a scenario that falls under one of those three headings. 2014, of course, is the year of the double whammy in Afghanistan: the next presidential election coupled with the departure of most American and other foreign forces. Many Afghans fear a turn for the worse, while others are no less afraid that everything will stay the same.  Some even think things will get better when the occupying forces leave.  Most predict a more conservative climate, but everyone is quick to say that it’s anybody’s guess.

Only one thing is certain in 2014: it will be a year of American military defeat.  For more than a decade, U.S. forces have fought many types of wars in Afghanistan, from a low-footprint invasion, to multiple surges, to a flirtation with Vietnam-style counterinsurgency, to a ramped-up, gloves-off air war.  And yet, despite all the experiments in styles of war-making, the American military and its coalition partners have ended up in the same place: stalemate, which in a battle with guerrillas means defeat.  For years, a modest-sized, generally unpopular, ragtag set of insurgents has fought the planet’s most heavily armed, technologically advanced military to a standstill, leaving the country shaken and its citizens anxiously imagining the outcome of unpalatable scenarios.

The first, compromise, suggests the possibility of reaching some sort of almost inconceivable power-sharing agreement with multiple insurgent militias.  While Washington presses for negotiations with its designated enemy, “the Taliban,” representatives of President Hamid Karzai’s High Peace Council, which includes 12 members of the former Taliban government and many sympathizers, are making the rounds to talk disarmament and reconciliation with all the armed insurgent groups that the Afghan intelligence service has identified across the country. There are 1,500 of them.

One member of the Council told me, “It will take a long time before we get to Mullah Omar [the Taliban’s titular leader].  Some of these militias can’t even remember what they’ve been fighting about.”

The second scenario, open conflict, would mean another dreaded round of civil war like the one in the 1990s, after the Soviet Union withdrew in defeat -- the one that destroyed the Afghan capital, Kabul, devastated parts of the country, and gave rise to the Taliban.

The third scenario, collapse, sounds so apocalyptic that it’s seldom brought up by Afghans, but it’s implied in the exodus already underway of those citizens who can afford to leave the country.  The departures aren’t dramatic.  There are no helicopters lifting off the roof of the U.S. Embassy with desperate Afghans clamoring to get on board; just a record number of asylum applications in 2011, a year in which, according to official figures, almost 36,000 Afghans were openly looking for a safe place to land, preferably in Europe.  That figure is likely to be at least matched, if not exceeded, when the U.N. releases the complete data for 2012.

In January, I went to Kabul to learn what old friends and current officials are thinking about the critical months ahead.  At the same time, Afghan President Karzai flew to Washington to confer with President Obama.  Their talks seem to have differed radically from the conversations I had with ordinary Afghans. In Kabul, where strange rumors fly, an official reassured me that the future looked bright for the country because Karzai was expected to return from Washington with the promise of American radar systems, presumably for the Afghan Air Force, which is not yet “operational.” (He actually returned with the promise of helicopters, cargo planes, fighter jets, and drones.) Who knew that the fate of the nation and its suffering citizens hinged on that?  In my conversations with ordinary Afghans, one thing that never came up was radar.

Another term that never seems to enter ordinary Afghan conversation, much as it obsesses Americans, is “al-Qaeda.” President Obama, for instance, announced at a joint press conference with President Karzai: “Our core objective -- the reason we went to war in the first place -- is now within reach: ensuring that al-Qaeda can never again use Afghanistan to launch attacks against America.”  An Afghan journalist asked me, “Why does he worry so much about al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Doesn’t he know they are everywhere else?”

At the same Washington press conference, Obama said, “The nation we need to rebuild is our own.” Afghans long ago gave up waiting for the U.S. to make good on its promises to rebuild theirs. What’s now striking, however, is the vast gulf between the pronouncements of American officialdom and the hopes of ordinary Afghans.  It’s a gap so wide you would hardly think -- as Afghans once did -- that we are fighting for them.

To take just one example: the official American view of events in Afghanistan is wonderfully black and white.  The president, for instance, speaks of the way U.S. forces heroically “pushed the Taliban out of their strongholds.” Like other top U.S. officials over the years, he forgets whom we pushed into the Afghan government, our “stronghold” in the years after the 2001 invasion: ex-Taliban and Taliban-like fundamentalists, the most brutal civil warriors, and serial human rights violators.

Afghans, however, haven’t forgotten just whom the U.S. put in place to govern them -- exactly the men they feared and hated most in exactly the place where few Afghans wanted them to be.  Early on, between 2002 and 2004, 90% of Afghans surveyed nationwide told the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission that such men should not be allowed to hold public office; 76% wanted them tried as war criminals.

In my recent conversations, many Afghans still cited the first loya jirga, an assembly convened in 2003 to ratify the newly drafted constitution, or the first presidential election in 2004, or the parliamentary election of 2005, all held under international auspices, as the moments when the aspirations of Afghans and the “international community” parted company. In that first parliament, as in the earlier gatherings, most of the men were affiliated with armed militias; every other member was a former jihadi, and nearly half were affiliated with fundamentalist Islamist parties, including the Taliban.

In this way, Afghans were consigned to live under a government of bloodstained warlords and fundamentalists, who turned out to be Washington’s guys.  Many had once battled the Soviets using American money and weapons, and quite a few, like the former warlord, druglord, minister of defense, and current vice-president Muhammad Qasim Fahim, had been very chummy with the CIA.

In the U.S., such details of our Afghan War, now in its 12th year, are long forgotten, but to Afghans who live under the rule of the same old suspects, the memory remains painfully raw.  Worse, Afghans know that it is these very men, rearmed and ready, who will once again compete for power in 2014.

How to Vote Early in Afghanistan

President Karzai is barred by term limits from standing for reelection in 2014, but many Kabulis believe he reached a private agreement with the usual suspects at a meeting late last year. In early January, he seemed to seal the deal by announcing that, for the sake of frugality, the voter cards issued for past elections will be reused in 2014.  Far too many of those cards were issued for the 2004 election, suspiciously more than the number of eligible voters.  During the 2009 campaign, anyone could buy fistfuls of them at bargain basement prices.  So this decision seemed to kill off the last faint hope of an election in which Afghans might actually have a say about the leadership of the country.

Fewer than 35% of voters cast ballots in the last presidential contest, when Karzai’s men were caught on video stuffing ballot boxes.  (Afterward, President Obama phoned to congratulate Karzai on his “victory.”) Only dedicated or paid henchmen are likely to show up for the next “good enough for Afghans” exercise in democracy. Once again, an “election” may be just the elaborate stage set for announcing to a disillusioned public the names of those who will run the show in Kabul for the next few years.

Kabulis might live with that, as they’ve lived with Karzai all these years, but they fear power-hungry Afghan politicians could “compromise” as well with insurgent leaders like that old American favorite from the war against the Soviets, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who recently told a TV audience that he intends to claim his rightful place in government. Such compromises could stick the Afghan people with a shaky power-sharing deal among the most ultra-conservative, self-interested, sociopathic, and corrupt men in the country.  If that deal, in turn, were to fall apart, as most power-sharing agreements worldwide do within a year or two, the big men might well plunge the country back into a 1990s-style civil war, with no regard for the civilians caught in their path.

These worst-case scenarios are everyday Kabuli nightmares.  After all, during decades of war, the savvy citizens of the capital have learned to expect the worst from the men currently characterized in a popular local graffiti this way: “Mujahideen=Criminals. Taliban=Dumbheads.”

Ordinary Kabulis express reasonable fears for the future of the country, but impatient free-marketeering businessmen are voting with their feet right now, or laying plans to leave soon. They’ve made Kabul hum (often with foreign aid funds, which are equivalent to about 90% of the country’s economic activity), but they aren’t about to wait around for the results of election 2014.  Carpe diem has become their version of financial advice.  As a result, they are snatching what they can and packing their bags.

Millions of dollars reportedly take flight from Kabul International Airport every day: officially about $4.6 billion in 2011, or just about the size of Afghanistan’s annual budget. Hordes of businessmen and bankers (like those who, in 2004, set up the Ponzi scheme called the Kabul Bank, from which about a billion dollars went missing) are heading for cushy spots like Dubai, where they have already established residence on prime real estate.

As they take their investments elsewhere and the American effort winds down, the Afghan economy contracts ever more grimly, opportunities dwindle, and jobs disappear.  Housing prices in Kabul are falling for the first time since the start of the occupation as rich Afghans and profiteering private American contractors, who guzzled the money that Washington and the “international community” poured into the country, move on.

At the same time, a money-laundering building boom in Kabul appears to have stalled, leaving tall, half-built office blocks like so many skeletons amid the scalloped Pakistani palaces, vertical malls, and grand madrassas erected in the past four or five years by political and business insiders and well-connected conservative clerics.

Most of the Afghan tycoons seeking asylum elsewhere don’t fear for their lives, just their pocketbooks: they’re not political refugees, but free-market rats abandoning the sinking ship of state.  Joining in the exodus (but not included in the statistics) are countless illegal émigrés seeking jobs or fleeing for their lives, paying human smugglers money they can’t afford as they head for Europe by circuitous and dangerous routes.

Threatened Afghans have fled from every abrupt change of government in the last century, making them the largest population of refugees from a single country on the planet.  Once again, those who can are voting with their feet (or their pocketbooks) -- and voting early.

Afghanistan’s historic tragedy is that its violent political shifts -- from king to communists to warlords to religious fundamentalists to the Americans -- have meant the flight of the very people most capable of rebuilding the country along peaceful and prosperous lines.  And their departure only contributes to the economic and political collapse they themselves seek to avoid.  Left behind are ordinary Afghans -- the illiterate and unskilled, but also a tough core of educated, ambitious citizens, including women’s rights activists, unwilling to surrender their dream of living once again in a free and peaceful Afghanistan.

The Military Monster

These days Kabul resounds with the blasts of suicide bombers, IEDs, and sporadic gunfire.  Armed men are everywhere in anonymous uniforms that defy identification.  Any man with money can buy a squad of bodyguards, clad in classy camouflage and wraparound shades, and armed with assault weapons.  Yet Kabulis, trying to carry on normal lives in the relative safety of the capital, seem to maintain a distance from the war going on in the provinces.

Asked that crucial question -- do you think American forces should stay or go? -- the Kabulis I talked with tended to answer in a theoretical way, very unlike the visceral response one gets in the countryside, where villages are bombed and civilians killed, or in the makeshift camps for internally displaced people that now crowd the outer fringes of Kabul. (By the time U.S. Marines surged into Taliban-controlled Helmand Province in the south in 2010 to bring counterinsurgency-style protection to the residents there, tens of thousands of them had already moved to those camps in Kabul.)  Afghans in the countryside want to be rid of armed men.  All of them.  Kabulis just want to be secure, and if that means keeping some U.S. troops at Bagram Air Base near the capital, as Afghan and American officials are currently discussing, well, it’s nothing to them.

In fact, most Kabulis I spoke to think that’s what’s going to happen.  After all, American officials have been talking for years about keeping permanent bases in Afghanistan (though they avoid the term “permanent” when speaking to the American press), and American military officers now regularly appear on Afghan TV to say, “The United States will never abandon Afghanistan.”  Afghans reason: Americans would not have spent nearly 12 years fighting in this country if it were not the most strategic place on the planet and absolutely essential to their plans to “push on” Iran and China next.  Everybody knows that pushing on other countries is an American specialty.

Besides, Afghans can see with their own eyes that U.S. command centers, including multiple bases in Kabul, and Bagram Air Base, only 30 miles away, are still being expanded and upgraded.  Beyond the high walls of the American Embassy compound, they can also see the tall new apartment blocks going up for an expanding staff, even if Washington now claims that staff will be reduced in the years to come.

Why, then, would President Obama announce the drawdown of U.S. troops to perhaps a few thousand special operations forces and advisors, if Washington didn’t mean to leave?  Afghans have a theory about that, too.  It’s a ruse, many claim, to encourage all other foreign forces to depart so that the Americans can have everything to themselves.  Afghanistan, as they imagine it, is so important that the U.S., which has fought the longest war in its history there, will be satisfied with nothing less.

I was there to listen, but at times I did mention to Afghans that America’s post-9/11 wars and occupations were threatening to break the country.  “We just can’t afford this war anymore,” I said.

Afghans only laugh at that.  They’ve seen the way Americans throw money around.  They’ve seen the way American money corrupted the Afghan government, and many reminded me that American politicians like Afghan ones are bought and sold, and its elections won by money. Americans, they know, are as rich as Croesus and very friendly, though on the whole not very well mannered or honest or smart.

Operation Enduring Presence      

More than 11 years later, the tragedy of the American war in Afghanistan is simple enough: it has proven remarkably irrelevant to the lives of the Afghan people -- and to American troops as well.  Washington has long appeared to be fighting its own war in defense of a form of government and a set of long-discredited government officials that ordinary Afghans would never have chosen for themselves and have no power to replace.

In the early years of the war (2001-2005), George W. Bush’s administration was far too distracted planning and launching another war in Iraq to maintain anything but a minimal military presence in Afghanistan -- and that mainly outside the capital.  Many journalists (including me) criticized Bush for not finishing the war he started there when he had the chance, but today Kabulis look back on that soldierless period of peace and hope with a certain nostalgia.  In some quarters, the Bush years have even acquired something like the sheen of a lost Golden Age -- compared, that is, to the thoroughgoing militarization of American policy that followed.

So commanding did the U.S. military become in Kabul and Washington that, over the years, it ate the State Department, gobbled up the incompetent bureaucracy of the U.S. Agency for International Development, and established Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in the countryside to carry out maniacal “development” projects and throw bales of cash at all the wrong “leaders.”

Of course, the military also killed a great many people, both “enemies” and civilians.  As in Vietnam, it won the battles, but lost the war.  When I asked Afghans from Mazar-e-Sharif in the north how they accounted for the relative peacefulness and stability of their area, the answer seemed self-evident: “Americans didn’t come here.”

Other consequences, all deleterious, flowed from the militarization of foreign policy.  In Afghanistan and the United States, so intimately ensnarled over all these years, the income gap between the rich and everyone else has grown exponentially, in large part because in both countries the rich have made money off war-making, while ordinary citizens have slipped into poverty for lack of jobs and basic services.

Relying on the military, the U.S. neglected the crucial elements of civil life in Afghanistan that make things bearable -- like education and health care.  Yes, I’ve heard the repeated claims that, thanks to us, millions of children are now attending school.  But for how long?   According to UNICEF, in the years 2005-2010, in the whole of Afghanistan only 18% of boys attended high school, and 6% of girls.  What kind of report card is that?  After 11 years of underfunded work on health care in a country the size of Texas, infant mortality still remains the highest in the world.

By 2014, the defense of Afghanistan will have been handed over to the woeful Afghan National Security Force, also known in military-speak as the “Enduring Presence Force.”  In that year, for Washington, the American war will be officially over, whether it’s actually at an end or not, and it will be up to Afghans to do the enduring.

Here’s where that final scenario -- collapse -- haunts the Kabuli imagination.  Economic collapse means joblessness, poverty, hunger, and a great swelling of the ranks of children cadging a living in the streets.  Already street children are said to number a million strong in Kabul, and 4 million across the country.  Only blocks from the Presidential Palace, they are there in startling numbers selling newspapers, phone cards, toilet paper, or simply begging for small change. Are they the county’s future?

And if the state collapses, too?  Afghans of a certain age remember well the last time the country was left on its own, after the Soviets departed in 1989, and the U.S. also terminated its covert aid.  The mujahideen parties -- Islamists all -- agreed to take turns ruling the country, but things soon fell apart and they took turns instead lobbing rockets into Kabul, killing tens of thousands of civilians, reducing entire districts to rubble, raiding and raping -- until the Taliban came up from the south and put a stop to everything.

Afghan civilians who remember that era hope that this time Karzai will step down as he promises, and that the usual suspects will find ways to maintain traditional power balances, however undemocratic, in something that passes for peace.  Afghan civilians are, however, betting that if a collision comes, one-third of those Afghan Security Forces trained at fabulous expense to protect them will fight for the government (whoever that may be), one-third will fight for the opposition, and one-third will simply desert and go home.  That sounds almost like a plan.

© 2013 Ann Jones

Ann Jones

Ann Jones, writer and photographer, is the author of seven previous books, including War Is Not Over When It's Over, Kabul in Winter, Women Who Kill, and Next Time She'll Be Dead. Since 2001, Jones has worked with women in conflict and post-conflict zones, principally Afghanistan, and reported on their concerns. An authority on violence against women, she has served as a gender adviser to the United Nations. Her work has appeared in numerous publications, including The New York Times and The Nation. For more information, visit her website.

Pentagon to increase cyber security force fivefold – report

AFP Photo / Philippe Huguen

AFP Photo / Philippe Huguen

The Pentagon will expand its cyber security force from 900 personnel to a massive 4,900 troops and civilians over the next few years following numerous concerns over the dangerously vulnerable state of their defenses, according to US officials.

­The Washington Post exposed details of the plan for the wide-scale expansion late on Sunday.  An official confirmed that plans for an extremely significant expansion were underway, but remained ambiguous about the precise figure.

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said earlier this month that a ‘cyber Pearl Harbor’ would soon hit the US.  

Whilst the Washington Post reported the official statistic to be 4,900, a US official told Reuters that the exact figures were “pre-decisional,” whilst still confirming that Cyber Command was planning an enormous increase in the number of security personnel, potentially putting it on the same level as major combatant commands.

However, there are not yet any formal plans to change Cyber Command into a ‘unified’ command in the likeness of US Strategic Command, which is currently responsible for cyber security.

Included in the expansion would be the establishment of three separate forces united under the Cyber Command banner: ‘national mission forces’ (in charge of protecting computer systems that administer the US’s power grid and critical infrastructure); ‘combat mission forces’ (in charge of planning and executing attacks on enemies); and ‘cyber protection forces’ (in charge of Pentagon computer system security).

The Pentagon will be on the lookout for “world class cyber personnel,” to recruit, a defense official told the Washington Post on Sunday. They continued to report that as the expansion takes place, the Pentagon is making many cuts elsewhere, including in the size of its conventional armed forces.

An official who was not authorized to speak publicly told Reuters that any changes would be based on strategic and operational demands, and would take in to consideration the necessity to use taxpayers’ money efficiently.

It has frequently been pointed out that the United States is in dire need of improving its cyber defenses, and particular concern has been aired over a series of attacks which destroyed the functions of over 30,000 computers at the Saudi Arabian state oil company, Saudi Aramco, in October. The decision to expand the security force was also made late last year.

The US suspected that the attacks were orchestrated in Iran, and some officials stated the deep-rooted concern that full-on cyber warfare was emerging between the two countries.

On January 18, RT reported the concerns of US General William Shelton, who described the atmosphere in Iran following the Stuxnet virus attack which targeted Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility.

"It's clear that the Natanz situation generated a reaction by them. They are going to be a force to be reckoned with, with the potential capabilities that they will develop over the years and the potential threat that will represent to the United States," he said.

A newsletter published by the Homeland Security Department’s Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team, (ICS-CERT Monitor), reported earlier this month that 2012’s cyber assault statistics demonstrated a ‘terrifying’ increase. While they identified 198 incidents last year, in 2009 that number was only nine.

These attacks are directed at important US infrastructure, and have been conducted primarily against the US’s energy sector, which accounted for 40 per cent of all reported incidents. The ICS-CERT Monitor additionally stated the belief that there are only 18 to 20 people in the whole country qualified to protect the nation from such concerted attacks.

US Increases Aid to France for Mali Quagmire

The U.S. has significantly increased its aid to France for its current military operations in Mali, the Pentagon announced Saturday night, including aerial refueling and more planes to transport soldiers from other African nations.

French soldiers check an aircraft at Bamako airport on Jan. 26, 2013.War in Mali (Source: Washington Post) The Pentagon made the announcement after Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta spoke to "his French counterpart" Jean-Yves Le Drian on Saturday about the conflict in Mali, the Washington Post reports.

The move comes as French forces attempt to violently regain power in the former French Colony and current 'trade partner', alongside the Mali military, for fear that Islamists will take over the West African nation.

Critics of U.S. support for French intervention have pointed out that U.S. law forbids foreign assistance funds to leaders that came to power through a coup, the Post reports. Mali’s military leaders, many of whom were trained by U.S. troops, seized power last year via military coup, causing an increase in conflict in the country—a hint towards the complex effects of U.S. foreign policy on Mali's internal politics, which, as many have argued, has largely been exasperated in the rifts created in the region by the recent U.S. and NATO intervention in Libya.

As the current conflict heightens, French forces reportedly move quickly through the country, and reports surface of innocent civilians being killed—including children—many commentators have shown that an imminent quagmire has already formed for the involved nations.

Victor Kotsev for WhoWhatWhy recently wrote:

The situation could easily spin out of control and become a West African quagmire for France and the neighboring countries which are participating in the UN-sanctioned intervention. The Islamists have threatened to turn Mali into a “French Afghanistan,” and this appears to be more than an empty threat. Mali is almost twice the size of Afghanistan, and with its desert and mountainous terrain in the north, somewhat resembles its Asian counterpart. Central authority was never very well established in that part of the country, if at all. [...]

The mixture of rugged terrain, a vast expanse populated sparsely with nomadic tribes, and the presence of numerous militias with diverging agendas suggests that the war will be long, brutal and asymmetric.

Thus, when at the start of the operation the French government said that the military was going into Mali merely for several weeks, a colleague who specializes in Russia giggled. “This is exactly what the Russians said before they invaded Afghanistan,” he said. Mere days later, French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian announced that his country would continue to be involved in the conflict for “as long as necessary.”

And Pepe Escobar for Asia Times adds today:

It's enlightening to regard all this under the perspective of President Obama 2.0 administration's foreign policy, as (vaguely) outlined in his inauguration. Obama promised to end US wars (shadow wars are much more cost-efficient). He promised multilateral cooperation with allies (while Washington effectively calls the shots), negotiation (as in our way or the highway) and no new war in the Middle East.

To take the president at his word, this translates into no US war against Syria (just the shadow variety); no Bomb, Bomb Iran (just murderous sanctions); and France gets the Mali prize. Or will it?

Syria vows to ease return of opposition

Syrian Interior Minister says Damascus will facilitate the return of opposition members to take part in a national dialogue called by President Bashar al-Assad.

"Executive orders will be issued to border crossings to facilitate and guarantee that all political opposition forces may enter the country, maintain residency and leave at will," Syrian state news agency SANA quoted Mohammed al-Shaar as saying on Saturday.

The orders were outlined during a meeting between high-ranking ministry officials and Shaar, who reiterated his country’s critical stance towards the foreign-backed insurgents who use violence against the people and government of Syria.

"There is a big difference between those who safeguard their nation and those who are complicit in foreign agendas," he said.

In a key speech on January 6, Assad called for an end to the terrorist operations inside Syria and urged "concerned states and parties" to stop funding, arming and harboring militants.


He said his government is always ready to hold talks with the opposition and political parties and will call for a “comprehensive national dialog” after foreign parties end their support for the militants and the terrorist activities cease in the country.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of army and security personnel, have been killed in the turmoil.

Iran hosted a two-day meeting between the representatives of the Syrian government and opposition groups in November 2012 with participants unanimously opposing foreign interference and calling for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Arab country.

According to a UN report, militants from 29 countries have so far filtered into Syria to fight against the Damascus government, most of whom are extremist Salafists.

The Syrian government has repeatedly said that the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and that a very large number of the militants operating in the country are foreign nationals.

TE/PKH

Kiriakou and Stuxnet: The Danger of the Still-Escalating Obama Whistleblower War

The permanent US national security state has used extreme secrecy to shield its actions from democratic accountability ever since its creation after World War II. But those secrecy powers were dramatically escalated in the name of 9/11 and the War on Terror, such that most of what the US government now does of any significance is completely hidden from public knowledge. Two recent events - the sentencing last week of CIA torture whistleblower John Kirikaou to 30 months in prison and the invasive investigation to find the New York Times' source for its reporting on the US role in launching cyberwarfare at Iran - demonstrate how devoted the Obama administration is not only to maintaining, but increasing, these secrecy powers.Former CIA officer John Kiriakou becomes the only government official convicted in connection with the US torture program: not for having done it, but for having talked about it. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

When WikiLeaks published hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic cables in 2010, government defenders were quick to insist that most of those documents were banal and uninteresting. And that's true: most (though by no means all) of those cables contained nothing of significance. That, by itself, should have been a scandal. All of those documents were designated as "secret", making it a crime for government officials to reveal their contents - despite how insignificant most of it was. That revealed how the US government reflexively - really automatically - hides anything and everything it does behind this wall of secrecy: they have made it a felony to reveal even the most inconsequential and pedestrian information about its actions.

This is why whistleblowing - or, if you prefer, unauthorized leaks of classified information - has become so vital to preserving any residual amounts of transparency. Given how subservient the federal judiciary is to government secrecy claims, it is not hyperbole to describe unauthorized leaks as the only real avenue remaining for learning about what the US government does - particularly for discovering the bad acts it commits. That is why the Obama administration is waging an unprecedented war against it - a war that continually escalates - and it is why it is so threatening.

To understand the Obama White House's obsession with punishing leaks - as evidenced by its historically unprecedented war on whistleblowers - just consider how virtually every significant revelation of the bad acts of the US government over the last decade came from this process. Unauthorized leaks are how we learned about the Bush administration's use of torture, the NSA's illegal eavesdropping on Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the secret network of CIA "black sites" beyond the reach of law or human rights monitoring, the targeting by Obama of a US citizen for assassination without due process, the re-definition of "militant" to mean "any military age male in a strike zone", the video of a US Apache helicopter gunning down journalists and rescuers in Baghdad, the vastly under-counted civilians deaths caused by the war in Iraq, and the Obama administration's campaign to pressure Germany and Spain to cease criminal investigations of the US torture regime.

In light of this, it should not be difficult to understand why the Obama administration is so fixated on intimidating whistleblowers and going far beyond any prior administration - including those of the secrecy-obsessed Richard Nixon and George W Bush - to plug all leaks. It's because those methods are the only ones preventing the US government from doing whatever it wants in complete secrecy and without any accountability of any kind.

Silencing government sources is the key to disabling investigative journalism and a free press. That is why the New Yorker's Jane Mayer told whistleblowing advocate Jesselyn Radack last April: "when our sources are prosecuted, the news-gathering process is criminalized, so it's incumbent upon all journalists to speak up."

Indeed, if you talk to leading investigative journalists they will tell you that the Obama war on whistleblowers has succeeded in intimidating not only journalists' sources but also investigative journalists themselves. Just look at the way the DOJ has pursued and threatened with prison one of the most accomplished and institutionally protected investigative journalists in the country - James Risen - and it's easy to see why the small amount of real journalism done in the US, most driven by unauthorized leaks, is being severely impeded. This morning's Washington Post article on the DOJ's email snooping to find the NYT's Stuxnet source included this anonymous quote: "People are feeling less open to talking to reporters given this uptick. There is a definite chilling effect in government due to these investigations."

For authoritarians who view assertions of government power as inherently valid and government claims as inherently true, none of this will be bothersome. Under that mentality, if the government decrees that something shall be secret, then it should be secret, and anyone who defies that dictate should be punished as a felon - or even a traitor. That view is typically accompanied by the belief that we can and should trust our leaders to be good and do good even if they exercise power in the dark, so that transparency is not only unnecessary but undesirable.

But the most basic precepts of human nature, political science, and the American founding teach that power exercised in the dark will be inevitably abused. Secrecy is the linchpin of abuse of power. That's why those who wield political power are always driven to destroy methods of transparency. About this fact, Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1804 letter to John Tyler [emphasis added]:

"Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is freedom of the press. It is therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions."

About all that, Yale law professor David A Schultz observed: "For Jefferson, a free press was the tool of public criticism. It held public officials accountable, opening them up to the judgment of people who could decide whether the government was doing good or whether it had anything to hide. . . . A democratic and free society is dependent upon the media to inform."

There should be no doubt that destroying this method of transparency - not protection of legitimate national security secrets- is the primary effect, and almost certainly the intent, of this unprecedented war on whistleblowers. Just consider the revelations that have prompted the Obama DOJ's war on whistleblowers, whereby those who leak are not merely being prosecuted, but threatened with decades or even life in prison for "espionage" or "aiding the enemy".

Does anyone believe it would be better if we remained ignorant about the massive waste, corruption and illegality plaguing the NSA's secret domestic eavesdropping program (Thomas Drake); or the dangerously inept CIA effort to infiltrate the Iranian nuclear program but which ended up assisting that program (Jeffrey Sterling); or the overlooking of torture squads in Iraq, the gunning down of journalists and rescuers in Baghdad, or the pressure campaign to stop torture investigations in Spain and Germany (Bradley Manning); or the decision by Obama to wage cyberwar on Iran, which the Pentagon itself considers an act of war (current DOJ investigation)?

Like all of the Obama leak prosecutions - see here - none of those revelations resulted in any tangible harm, yet all revealed vital information about what our government was doing in secret. As long-time DC lawyer Abbe Lowell, who represents indicted whistleblower Stephen Kim, put it: what makes the Obama DOJ's prosecutions historically unique is that they "don't distinguish between bad people - people who spy for other governments, people who sell secrets for money - and people who are accused of having conversations and discussions". Not only doesn't it draw this distinction, but it is focused almost entirely on those who leak in order to expose wrongdoing and bring about transparency and accountability.

That is the primary impact of all of this. A Bloomberg report last October on this intimidation campaign summarized the objections this way: "the president's crackdown chills dissent, curtails a free press and betrays Obama's initial promise to 'usher in a new era of open government.'"

The Obama administration does not dislike leaks of classified information. To the contrary, it is a prolific exploiter of exactly those types of leaks - when they can be used to propagandize the citizenry to glorify the president's image as a tough guy, advance his political goals or produce a multi-million-dollar Hollywood film about his greatest conquest. Leaks are only objectionable when they undercut that propaganda by exposing government deceit, corruption and illegality.

Few events have vividly illustrated this actual goal as much as the lengthy prison sentence this week meted out to former CIA officer John Kiriakou. It's true that Kiriakou is not a pure anti-torture hero given that, in his first public disclosures, he made inaccurate claims about the efficacy of waterboarding. But he did also unequivocally condemn waterboarding and other methods as torture. And, as FAIR put it this week, whatever else is true: "The only person to do time for the CIA's torture policies appears to be a guy who spoke publicly about them, not any of the people who did the actual torturing."

Despite zero evidence of any harm from his disclosures, the federal judge presiding over his case - the reliably government-subservient US District Judge Leonie Brinkema - said she "would have given Kiriakou much more time if she could." As usual, the only real criminals in the government are those who expose or condemn its wrongdoing.

Exactly the same happened with revelations by the New York Times of the illegal Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. None of the officials who eavesdropped on Americans without the warrants required by law were prosecuted. The telecoms that illegally cooperated were retroactively immunized from all legal accountability by the US Congress. The only person to suffer recriminations from that scandal was Thomas Tamm, the mid-level DOJ official who discovered the program and told the New York Times about it, and then had his life ruined with vindictive investigations.

This Obama whistleblower war has nothing to do with national security. It has nothing to do with punishing those who harm the country with espionage or treason.

It has everything to do with destroying those who expose high-level government wrongdoing. It is particularly devoted to preserving the government's ability to abuse its power in secret by intimidating and deterring future acts of whistleblowing and impeding investigative journalism. This Obama whistleblower war continues to escalate because it triggers no objections from Republicans (who always adore government secrecy) or Democrats (who always adore what Obama does), but most of all because it triggers so few objections from media outlets, which - at least in theory - suffer the most from what is being done.

© 2012 The Guardian

Glenn Greenwald

Kiriakou and Stuxnet: The Danger of the Still-Escalating Obama Whistleblower War

The permanent US national security state has used extreme secrecy to shield its actions from democratic accountability ever since its creation after World War II. But those secrecy powers were dramatically escalated in the name of 9/11 and the War on Terror, such that most of what the US government now does of any significance is completely hidden from public knowledge. Two recent events - the sentencing last week of CIA torture whistleblower John Kirikaou to 30 months in prison and the invasive investigation to find the New York Times' source for its reporting on the US role in launching cyberwarfare at Iran - demonstrate how devoted the Obama administration is not only to maintaining, but increasing, these secrecy powers.Former CIA officer John Kiriakou becomes the only government official convicted in connection with the US torture program: not for having done it, but for having talked about it. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

When WikiLeaks published hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic cables in 2010, government defenders were quick to insist that most of those documents were banal and uninteresting. And that's true: most (though by no means all) of those cables contained nothing of significance. That, by itself, should have been a scandal. All of those documents were designated as "secret", making it a crime for government officials to reveal their contents - despite how insignificant most of it was. That revealed how the US government reflexively - really automatically - hides anything and everything it does behind this wall of secrecy: they have made it a felony to reveal even the most inconsequential and pedestrian information about its actions.

This is why whistleblowing - or, if you prefer, unauthorized leaks of classified information - has become so vital to preserving any residual amounts of transparency. Given how subservient the federal judiciary is to government secrecy claims, it is not hyperbole to describe unauthorized leaks as the only real avenue remaining for learning about what the US government does - particularly for discovering the bad acts it commits. That is why the Obama administration is waging an unprecedented war against it - a war that continually escalates - and it is why it is so threatening.

To understand the Obama White House's obsession with punishing leaks - as evidenced by its historically unprecedented war on whistleblowers - just consider how virtually every significant revelation of the bad acts of the US government over the last decade came from this process. Unauthorized leaks are how we learned about the Bush administration's use of torture, the NSA's illegal eavesdropping on Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the secret network of CIA "black sites" beyond the reach of law or human rights monitoring, the targeting by Obama of a US citizen for assassination without due process, the re-definition of "militant" to mean "any military age male in a strike zone", the video of a US Apache helicopter gunning down journalists and rescuers in Baghdad, the vastly under-counted civilians deaths caused by the war in Iraq, and the Obama administration's campaign to pressure Germany and Spain to cease criminal investigations of the US torture regime.

In light of this, it should not be difficult to understand why the Obama administration is so fixated on intimidating whistleblowers and going far beyond any prior administration - including those of the secrecy-obsessed Richard Nixon and George W Bush - to plug all leaks. It's because those methods are the only ones preventing the US government from doing whatever it wants in complete secrecy and without any accountability of any kind.

Silencing government sources is the key to disabling investigative journalism and a free press. That is why the New Yorker's Jane Mayer told whistleblowing advocate Jesselyn Radack last April: "when our sources are prosecuted, the news-gathering process is criminalized, so it's incumbent upon all journalists to speak up."

Indeed, if you talk to leading investigative journalists they will tell you that the Obama war on whistleblowers has succeeded in intimidating not only journalists' sources but also investigative journalists themselves. Just look at the way the DOJ has pursued and threatened with prison one of the most accomplished and institutionally protected investigative journalists in the country - James Risen - and it's easy to see why the small amount of real journalism done in the US, most driven by unauthorized leaks, is being severely impeded. This morning's Washington Post article on the DOJ's email snooping to find the NYT's Stuxnet source included this anonymous quote: "People are feeling less open to talking to reporters given this uptick. There is a definite chilling effect in government due to these investigations."

For authoritarians who view assertions of government power as inherently valid and government claims as inherently true, none of this will be bothersome. Under that mentality, if the government decrees that something shall be secret, then it should be secret, and anyone who defies that dictate should be punished as a felon - or even a traitor. That view is typically accompanied by the belief that we can and should trust our leaders to be good and do good even if they exercise power in the dark, so that transparency is not only unnecessary but undesirable.

But the most basic precepts of human nature, political science, and the American founding teach that power exercised in the dark will be inevitably abused. Secrecy is the linchpin of abuse of power. That's why those who wield political power are always driven to destroy methods of transparency. About this fact, Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1804 letter to John Tyler [emphasis added]:

"Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is freedom of the press. It is therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions."

About all that, Yale law professor David A Schultz observed: "For Jefferson, a free press was the tool of public criticism. It held public officials accountable, opening them up to the judgment of people who could decide whether the government was doing good or whether it had anything to hide. . . . A democratic and free society is dependent upon the media to inform."

There should be no doubt that destroying this method of transparency - not protection of legitimate national security secrets- is the primary effect, and almost certainly the intent, of this unprecedented war on whistleblowers. Just consider the revelations that have prompted the Obama DOJ's war on whistleblowers, whereby those who leak are not merely being prosecuted, but threatened with decades or even life in prison for "espionage" or "aiding the enemy".

Does anyone believe it would be better if we remained ignorant about the massive waste, corruption and illegality plaguing the NSA's secret domestic eavesdropping program (Thomas Drake); or the dangerously inept CIA effort to infiltrate the Iranian nuclear program but which ended up assisting that program (Jeffrey Sterling); or the overlooking of torture squads in Iraq, the gunning down of journalists and rescuers in Baghdad, or the pressure campaign to stop torture investigations in Spain and Germany (Bradley Manning); or the decision by Obama to wage cyberwar on Iran, which the Pentagon itself considers an act of war (current DOJ investigation)?

Like all of the Obama leak prosecutions - see here - none of those revelations resulted in any tangible harm, yet all revealed vital information about what our government was doing in secret. As long-time DC lawyer Abbe Lowell, who represents indicted whistleblower Stephen Kim, put it: what makes the Obama DOJ's prosecutions historically unique is that they "don't distinguish between bad people - people who spy for other governments, people who sell secrets for money - and people who are accused of having conversations and discussions". Not only doesn't it draw this distinction, but it is focused almost entirely on those who leak in order to expose wrongdoing and bring about transparency and accountability.

That is the primary impact of all of this. A Bloomberg report last October on this intimidation campaign summarized the objections this way: "the president's crackdown chills dissent, curtails a free press and betrays Obama's initial promise to 'usher in a new era of open government.'"

The Obama administration does not dislike leaks of classified information. To the contrary, it is a prolific exploiter of exactly those types of leaks - when they can be used to propagandize the citizenry to glorify the president's image as a tough guy, advance his political goals or produce a multi-million-dollar Hollywood film about his greatest conquest. Leaks are only objectionable when they undercut that propaganda by exposing government deceit, corruption and illegality.

Few events have vividly illustrated this actual goal as much as the lengthy prison sentence this week meted out to former CIA officer John Kiriakou. It's true that Kiriakou is not a pure anti-torture hero given that, in his first public disclosures, he made inaccurate claims about the efficacy of waterboarding. But he did also unequivocally condemn waterboarding and other methods as torture. And, as FAIR put it this week, whatever else is true: "The only person to do time for the CIA's torture policies appears to be a guy who spoke publicly about them, not any of the people who did the actual torturing."

Despite zero evidence of any harm from his disclosures, the federal judge presiding over his case - the reliably government-subservient US District Judge Leonie Brinkema - said she "would have given Kiriakou much more time if she could." As usual, the only real criminals in the government are those who expose or condemn its wrongdoing.

Exactly the same happened with revelations by the New York Times of the illegal Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. None of the officials who eavesdropped on Americans without the warrants required by law were prosecuted. The telecoms that illegally cooperated were retroactively immunized from all legal accountability by the US Congress. The only person to suffer recriminations from that scandal was Thomas Tamm, the mid-level DOJ official who discovered the program and told the New York Times about it, and then had his life ruined with vindictive investigations.

This Obama whistleblower war has nothing to do with national security. It has nothing to do with punishing those who harm the country with espionage or treason.

It has everything to do with destroying those who expose high-level government wrongdoing. It is particularly devoted to preserving the government's ability to abuse its power in secret by intimidating and deterring future acts of whistleblowing and impeding investigative journalism. This Obama whistleblower war continues to escalate because it triggers no objections from Republicans (who always adore government secrecy) or Democrats (who always adore what Obama does), but most of all because it triggers so few objections from media outlets, which - at least in theory - suffer the most from what is being done.

© 2012 The Guardian

Glenn Greenwald

Palestinians Preparing to Take Israel to International Criminal Court

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item. Bio Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow and the Director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. She is the author of Before and After: US Foreign Pol...

SYRIA: CIA-MI6 Intel Ops and Sabotage

SYRIA: CIA-MI6 Intel Ops and Sabotage

This incisive article by veteran war correspondent  Felicity Arbuthnot was published by Global Research a year ago, on February 2, 2012.

You will not read it in the New York Times.

At a time of  mounting media fabrications –when “objective truths are fading” and  “lies are passing into history”– this analysis reveals the diabolical modus operandi of US-NATO terrorism and  how covert intelligence ops are applied to trigger conditions for the collapse of nation states. One of these “conditions” is the outright killing of  innocent civilians as part of a cover operation and then blaming president Bashar Al Assad of  have committed atrocities against his own people

Michel Chossudovsky,  Global Research , January 27, 2012


“In order to facilitate the action of liberative (sic) forces, …a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. …[to] be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention, …

Once a political decision has been reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS (MI6) will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals. …Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus …

Further : a “necessary degree of fear .. frontier incidents and (staged) border clashes”, would “provide a pretext for intervention… the CIA and SIS [MI6 should use … capabilitites in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.” (Joint US-UK leaked Intelligence Document, London and Washington, 1957)


“'The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history."
(George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair, 1903-1950.)

For anyone in two minds about what is really going on in Syria, and whether President Assad, hailed a decade ago as “A Modern Day Attaturk”, has become the latest megalomaniacal despot, to whose people a US-led posse of nations, must deliver “freedom”, with weapons of mass, home, people, nation and livelihood destruction, here is a salutary tale from modern history.

Have the more recent sabre rattlings against Syria* been based on US-UK government papers, only discovered in 2003 - and since air brushed (or erroneously omitted) from even BBC timelines, on that country?(i)

In late 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, Matthew Jones, a Reader in International History, at London’s Royal Holloway College, discovered “frighteningly frank” documents:1957 plans between then UK Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, and then President, Dwight Eisenhower, endorsing: “a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion (of Syria) by Syria’s pro-western neighbours.” (ii)

At the heart of the plan was the assassination of the perceived power behind then President Shukri al-Quwatli. Those targeted were: Abd al-Hamid Sarraj, Head of Military Intelligence; Afif al-Bizri, Chief of Syrian General Staff: and Khalid Bakdash, who headed the Syrian Communist Party.

The document was drawn up in Washington in the September of 1957:

“In order to facilitate the action of liberative (sic) forces, reduce the capabilities of the regime to organize and direct its military actions … to bring about the desired results in the shortest possible time, a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals.

“Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention, and in the light of circumstances existing at the time.”

In the light of President Assad’s current allegations of foreign forces and interventions, cross border incursions (as Colonel Qadafi’s before him, so sneered at by Western governments and media – and, of course, ultimately proved so resoundingly correct.) there are some fascinating, salutary phrases:

“Once a political decision has been reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS (MI6) will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals.

“Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus … care should be taken to avoid causing key leaders of the Syrian regime to take additional personal protection measures.”

Further : a “necessary degree of fear .. frontier incidents and (staged) border clashes”, would “provide a pretext for intervention”, by Iraq and Jordan - then still under British mandate.

Syria was to be: “made to appear as sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments … the CIA and SIS [Her Majesty's Secret International Serivce, MI6] should use … capabilities in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.”

Incursions in to Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, would involve: “sabotage, national conspiracies, and various strong arms activities”, were, advised the document, to be blamed on Damascus.

In late December 2011 an opposition “Syria National Council” was announced, to “liberate the country”, representatives met with Hilary Clinton. There now seems to be a US – endorsed “Syrian Revolutionary Council.”

The Eisenhower-Macmillan plan was for funding of the: “Free Syria Committee” and “arming of political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities”, within Syria.

CIA-MI6, planned fomenting internal uprisings and replacing the Ba’ath-Communist-leaning government, with a Western, user-friendly one. Expecting this to be met by public hostility, they planned to: “probably need to rely first on repressive measures and arbitrary exercise of power.”

The document was signed off in both London and Washington. It was, wrote Macmillan in his diary: “a most formidable report.” A Report which was: “withheld even from British Chiefs of Staff …”

Washington and Whitehall had become concerned at Syria’s increasingly pro-Soviet, rather than pro-Western sympathies – and the Ba’ath (Pan Arab) and Communist party alliance, also largely allied within the Syrian army.

However, even political concerns, were trumped by Syria then controlling a main pipeline from the Western bonanza of Iraq’s oil fields, in those pre-Saddam Hussein days.

Briefly put: in 1957, Syria allied with Moscow (which included an agreement for military and economic aid) also recognized China – and then as now, the then Soviet Union warned the West against intervening in Syria.

Syria, is unchanged as an independent minded country, and the loyalties remain. It broadly remains the cradle of the Pan Arab ideal of Ba’athism, standing alone, since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

In 1957, this independent mindedness caused Loy Henderson, a Senior State Department official, to say that:“the present regime in Syria had to go …”

Ultimately, the plan was not used, since, British mandate or not, neighbouring countries refused to play. However, the project, overtly, bears striking similarity to the reality of events over the last decade, in Syria – and the region.

In a near 1957 re-run, Britain’s Foreign Minister, William Hague has said President Assad “will feel emboldened” by the UN Russia-China vote in Syria’s favour.

Hilary (“We came, we saw, he died”) Clinton, has called for: “friends of a democratic Syria”, to unite and rally against the Assad government:

“We need to work together to send them a clear message: you cannot hold back the future at the point of a gun”, said the women filmed purportedly watching the extrajudicial, illegal assassination of may be, or may be not, Osma Bin Laden and others – but certainly people were murdered – by US illegal invaders – at the point of lots of guns.

Supremely ironically, she was speaking in Munich (5th February) historically: “The birth place of the Nazi party.”

The Russia-China veto at the UN on actions against Syria, has been condemned by the US, varyingly, as: “Disgusting”, ‘shameful”, “deplorable”, “a travesty.”

Eye opening, is the list of US vetoes to be found at (iii). Jaw dropping double standards can only be wondered at (again.).

Perhaps the bottom line is: in 1957, Iraq’s oil was at the top of the agenda, of which Syria held an important key. Today, it is Iran’s – and as Michel Chossudovsky notes so succinctly: “The road to Tehran is through Damascus.”(iv)

Notes

i. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995

ii. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/27/uk.syria1

iii. http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/4237/us-on-un-veto_disgusting-shameful-deplorable-a-tra

iv. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25955

‘Muslim unity must end Zionism’

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the 26th International Islamic Unity Conference in Tehran on January 27, 2013.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on Muslim nations to pursue “specific aims” to achieve unity, saying putting an end to Zionism should be among the goals of unity.

“Under circumstances that the corrupt, uncultured and murderous Zionists are occupying and killing oppressed people, we should not sit idly by,” President Ahmadinejad said in an address to the 26th International Islamic Unity Conference in Tehran on Sunday.

He added that Muslims should unite against the evil and bullying powers and noted that monotheism, justice and love for humans are among other objectives of unity among Muslim nations.

The Iranian chief executive censured the existence of dissension among Muslims and stated that an incomplete understanding of the Holy Quran and Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) is the reason behind such differences.

Ahmadinejad further criticized the ongoing economic system in the world, saying the global economic system transferes the assets of nations to the pockets of certain powers.


The 26th International Islamic Unity Conference started in Iran’s capital, Tehran, with the presence of Shia and Sunni thinkers from 102 countries. The participants are scheduled to discuss the issue of unity among Islamic Ummah and the existing problems of the Muslim world during the two-day event.

The 25th International Islamic Unity Conference was held in Tehran in February 2012. A major part of the conference revolved around the topic of Islamic Awakening and the popular uprisings in the Arab world.

The Islamic unity conference provides an opportunity for scholars to share views and review problems facing Muslims while presenting solutions.

SF/MA

A Terrible Normality: The Massacres and Aberrations of History

parenti2

 Through much of history the abnormal has been the norm.

This is a paradox to which we should attend. Aberrations, so plentiful as to form a terrible normality of their own, descend upon us with frightful consistency.

The number of massacres in history, for instance, are almost more than we can record.  There was the New World holocaust, consisting of the extermination of indigenous Native American peoples throughout the western hemisphere, extending over four centuries or more, continuing into recent times in the Amazon region.

There were the centuries of heartless slavery in the Americas and elsewhere, followed by a full century of lynch mob rule and Jim Crow segregation in the United States, and today the numerous killings and incarcerations of Black youth by law enforcement agencies.

Let us not forget the extermination of some 200,000 Filipinos by the U.S. military at the beginning of the twentieth century, the genocidal massacre of 1.5 million Armenians by the Turks in 1915, and the mass killings of African peoples by the western colonists, including the 63,000 Herero victims in German Southwest Africa in 1904, and the brutalization and enslavement of millions in the Belgian Congo from the late 1880s until emancipation in 1960—followed by years of neocolonial free-market exploitation and repression in what was Mobutu’s Zaire.

French colonizers killed some 150,000 Algerians. Later on, several million souls perished in Angola and Mozambique along with an estimated five million in the merciless region now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The twentieth century gave us—among other horrors—more than sixteen million lost and twenty million wounded or mutilated in World War I, followed by the estimated 62 million to 78 million killed in World War II, including some 24 million Soviet military personnel and civilians, 5.8 million European Jews, and taken together:  several million Serbs, Poles, Roma, homosexuals, and a score of other nationalities.

In the decades after World War II, many, if not most, massacres and wars have been openly or covertly sponsored by the U.S. national security state. This includes the two million or so left dead or missing in Vietnam, along with 250,000 Cambodians, 100,000 Laotians, and 58,000 Americans.

Today in much of Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East there are “smaller” wars, replete with atrocities of all sorts. Central America, Colombia, Rwanda and other places too numerous to list, suffered the massacres and death-squad exterminations of hundreds of thousands, a constancy of violent horrors. In Mexico a “war on drugs” has taken 70,000 lives with 8,000 missing.

There was the slaughter of more than half a million socialistic or democratic nationalist Indonesians by the U.S.-supported Indonesian military in 1965, eventually followed by the extermination of 100,000 East Timorese by that same U.S.-backed military.

Consider the 78-days of NATO’s aerial destruction of Yugoslavia complete with depleted uranium, and the bombings and invasion of Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Western Pakistan, Afghanistan, and now the devastating war of attrition brokered against Syria. And as I write (early 2013), the U.S.-sponsored sanctions against Iran are seeding severe hardship for the civilian population of that country.

All the above amounts to a very incomplete listing of the world’s violent and ugly injustice. A comprehensive inventory would fill volumes. How do we record the countless other life-searing abuses: the many millions who survive wars and massacres but remain forever broken in body and spirit, left to a lifetime of suffering and pitiless privation, refugees without sufficient food or medical supplies or water and sanitation services in countries like Syria, Haiti, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Mali.

Think of the millions of women and children around the world and across the centuries who have been trafficked in unspeakable ways, and the millions upon millions trapped in exploitative toil, be they slaves, indentured servants, or underpaid laborers. The number of impoverished is now growing at a faster rate than the world’s population.  Add to that, the countless acts of repression, incarceration, torture, and other criminal abuses that beat upon the human spirit throughout the world day by day.

Let us not overlook the ubiquitous corporate corruption and massive financial swindles, the plundering of natural resources and industrial poisoning of whole regions, the forceful dislocation of entire populations, the continuing catastrophes of Chernobyl and Fukushima and other impending disasters awaiting numerous aging nuclear reactors.

The world’s dreadful aberrations are so commonplace and unrelenting that they lose their edge and we become inured to the horror of it all. “Who today remembers the Armenians?” Hitler is quoted as having said while plotting his “final solution” for the Jews. Who today remembers the Iraqis and the death and destruction done to them on a grand scale by the U.S. invasion of their lands? William Blum reminds us that more than half the Iraq population is either dead, wounded, traumatized, imprisoned, displaced, or exiled, while their environment is saturated with depleted uranium (from U.S. weaponry) inflicting horrific birth defects.

What is to be made of all this? First, we must not ascribe these aberrations to happenstance, innocent confusion, and unintended consequences.  Nor should we believe the usual rationales about spreading democracy, fighting terrorism, providing humanitarian rescue, protecting U.S. national interests and other such rallying cries promulgated by ruling elites and their mouthpieces.

The repetitious patterns of atrocity and violence are so persistent as to invite the suspicion that they usually serve real interests; they are structural not incidental.  All this destruction and slaughter has greatly profited those plutocrats who pursue economic expansion, resource acquisition, territorial dominion, and financial accumulation.

Ruling interests are well served by their superiority in firepower and striking force. Violence is what we are talking about here, not just the wild and wanton type but the persistent and well-organized kind. As a political resource, violence is the instrument of ultimate authority. Violence allows for the conquest of entire lands and the riches they contain, while keeping displaced laborers and other slaves in harness.

The plutocratic rulers find it necessary to misuse or exterminate restive multitudes, to let them starve while the fruits of their land and the sweat of their labor enrich privileged coteries.

Thus we had a profit-driven imperial rule that helped precipitate the great famine in northern China, 1876-1879, resulting in the death of some thirteen million. At about that same time the Madras famine in India took the lives of as many as twelve million while the colonial forces grew ever richer.  And thirty years earlier, the great potato famine in Ireland led to about one million deaths, with another desperate million emigrating from their homeland. Nothing accidental about this: while the Irish starved, their English landlords exported shiploads of Irish grain and livestock to England and elsewhere at considerable profit to themselves.

These occurrences must be seen as something more than just historic abnormalities floating aimlessly in time and space, driven only by overweening impulse or happenstance. It is not enough to condemn monstrous events and bad times, we also must try to understand them. They must be contextualized in the larger framework of historical social relations.

The dominant socio-economic system today is free-market capitalism (in all its variations). Along with its unrelenting imperial terrorism, free-market capitalism provides “normal abnormalities” from within its own dynamic, creating scarcity and maldistributed excess, filled with duplication, waste, overproduction, frightening environmental destruction, and varieties of financial crises, bringing swollen rewards to a select few and continual hardship to multitudes.

Economic crises are not exceptional; they are the standing operational mode of the capitalist system. Once again, the irrational is the norm. Consider U.S. free-market history: after the American Revolution, there were the debtor rebellions of the late 1780s, the panic of 1792, the recession of 1809 (lasting several years), the panics of 1819 and 1837, and recessions and crashes through much of the rest of that century. The serious recession of 1893 continued for more than a decade.

After the industrial underemployment of 1900 to 1915 came the agrarian depression of the 1920s—hidden behind what became known to us as “the Jazz Age,” followed by a horrendous crash and the Great Depression of 1929-1942. All through the twentieth century we had wars, recessions, inflation, labor struggles, high unemployment—hardly a year that would be considered “normal” in any pleasant sense. An extended normal period would itself have been an abnormality. The free market is by design inherently unstable in every aspect other than wealth accumulation for the select few.

What we are witnessing is not an irrational output from a basically rational society but the converse: the “rational” (to be expected) output of a fundamentally irrational system. Does this mean these horrors are inescapable? No, they are not made of supernatural forces. They are produced by plutocratic greed and deception.

So, if the aberrant is the norm and the horrific is chronic, then we in our fightback should give less attention to the idiosyncratic and more to the systemic. Wars, massacres and recessions help to increase capital concentration, monopolize markets and natural resources, and destroy labor organizations and popular transformative resistance.

The brutish vagaries of plutocracy are not the product of particular personalities but of systemic interests. President George W. Bush was ridiculed for misusing words, but his empire-building and stripping of government services and regulations revealed a keen devotion to ruling-class interests.  Likewise, President Barack Obama is not spineless. He is hypocritical but not confused. He is (by his own description) an erstwhile “liberal Republican,” or as I would put it, a faithful servant of corporate America.

Our various leaders are well informed, not deluded. They come from different regions and different families, and have different personalities, yet they pursue pretty much the same policies on behalf of the same plutocracy.

So it is not enough to denounce atrocities and wars, we also must understand who propagates them and who benefits. We have to ask why violence and deception are constant ingredients.

Unintended consequences and other oddities do arise in worldly affairs but we also must take account of interest-driven rational intentions. More often than not, the aberrations—be they wars, market crashes, famines, individual assassinations or mass killings—take shape because those at the top are pursuing gainful expropriation. Many may suffer and perish but somebody somewhere is benefiting boundlessly.

Knowing your enemies and what they are capable of doing is the first step toward effective opposition. The world becomes less of a horrific puzzlement.  We can only resist these global (and local) perpetrators when we see who they are and what they are doing to us and our sacred environment.

Democratic victories, however small and partial they be, must be embraced. But the people must not be satisfied with tinseled favors offered by smooth leaders. We need to strive in every way possible for the revolutionary unraveling, a revolution of organized consciousness striking at the empire’s heart with the full force of democracy, the kind of irresistible upsurge that seems to come from nowhere while carrying everything before it.

Michael Parenti’s most recent books are The Culture Struggle (2006), Contrary Notions: The Michael Parenti Reader (2007), God and His Demons (2010), Democracy for the Few (9th ed. 2011), and The Face of Imperialism (2011). For further information about his work, visit his website: www.michaelparenti.org.

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”

The term “New Middle East” was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the “Greater Middle East.”

Salehi arrives in Ethiopia for AU summit

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has arrived in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa to attend the 20th summit of the African Union.

Salehi arrived at Addis Ababa Bole International Airport on Saturday evening and was welcomed by officials from the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry and Iranian Ambassador Ali Bahraini.

AU Commission Chairwoman Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma invited Salehi to attend the 20th AU summit, which is being held on January 27 and 28.

During his stay, the Iranian foreign minister will discuss Tehran’s cooperation with the AU and diplomatic relations with some African countries, meet several African heads of state and foreign ministers, elaborate on Iran’s national and international policies, and attend press conferences.

Iran’s accession to the rotating presidency of the Non-Aligned Movement is one of the issues that spotlight Iran’s presence at the summit.

Every year, the African Union convenes two summits, one in January and another June.

There are reports that Israel made efforts to participate in the event but was rebuffed.

In line with Iran’s agenda to expand ties with African states, Iranian diplomatic envoys have attended all the AU summits over the past six years.

MP/HGL

First NATO Patriot battery goes operational in Turkey

Dutch soldiers, with the Patriot system in the background, chat during media day at a military airbase in Adana, southern Turkey, January 26, 2013. (Reuters / Murad Sezer)

Dutch soldiers, with the Patriot system in the background, chat during media day at a military airbase in Adana, southern Turkey, January 26, 2013. (Reuters / Murad Sezer)

NATO has declared operational the first Patriot anti-missile battery deployed in southern Turkey, set to intercept possible rockets fired from Syria. The other five units are expected to be in place and operational over the next few days.

The first battery to go combat ready was provided by the Netherlands, according to NATO. The unit is the latest version of the US-made Patriots, which is optimized for intercepting incoming rockets. It’s deployed in the city of Adana.

Other Patriot systems, which are expected to be set up and made fully operational by the end of January, will be stationed in the Turkish cities of Kahramanmaras and Gaziantep.

The United States, Germany and the Netherlands are providing two such anti-missile facilities each. NATO claims the deployment of the surface-to-air missile Patriot systems is ‘defensive only’ and ‘it will in no way support a no-fly zone or any offensive operation’.

Turkey has raised fears that more violence could spread across the border from Syria, including the possible use of chemical weapons, following an incident earlier in October, when several shells of Syrian origin fell on Turkish territory, killing several civilians. Ankara retaliated with artillery strikes. It later asked for NATO help in December to beef up its air defenses against a possible Syrian attack. The request was granted, as the United States, Germany and the Netherlands decided to send Patriots to Turkey, along with a contingent of 1,200 soldiers to operate them.

Military vehicles of a Patriot missile system are loaded on a ship in the harbour of Travemuende, January 8, 2013. (Reuters / Fabian Bimmer)
Military vehicles of a Patriot missile system are loaded on a ship in the harbour of Travemuende, January 8, 2013. (Reuters / Fabian Bimmer)

The Syrian government has described the NATO deployment as a provocation, while Russia and Iran have protested against the deployment of Patriot missile systems.

“The more military hardware you accumulate in one place the more risk you have that this hardware one day would be used,” Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told RT earlier in December. “As for the purpose of this deployment, yes, I read and hear that some experts believe that if it is intended to prevent any Syrian crossfire then it could be positioned a bit differently. And as it is envisaged to be positioned, some people say it is quite useful to protect the American radar which is part of the American missile defense system they are building quoting, ‘the threat from Iran’. If this is the case then it is even more risky, I would say, because this multiple purpose deployment could create additional temptations.”

Turkey has already witnessed some negative reaction inside the country, amid protest still underway. Many of the local population in the port cities, where the missiles due to be based, are strongly against the deployment. In the town of Kahramanmaras protesters burnt US, NATO and Israeli flags several days ago.

The Patriot system is pictured during media day at a military airbase in Adana, southern Turkey, January 26, 2013. (Reuters / Murad Sezer)
The Patriot system is pictured during media day at a military airbase in Adana, southern Turkey, January 26, 2013. (Reuters / Murad Sezer)

“Is there a war of Syria against Turkey? No, there isn’t. These missiles are for Israel and against Iran,” Turkish citizen Malik Ecder Kirecci, told the media.

Like many Turkish locals, independent observers are also skeptical about the nature of the Patriot’s mission and if the missiles will protect the Turks at all.

“Considering that the US wants to use Turkey as an advance missile shield, the Patriots might be stationed there forever. Turkey wanted to modernize its weapons anyway and had already started taking bids for similar weapons systems. Under these circumstances, the weapons are most likely directed against Iran," Dmitry Polikanov, the vice president of the Moscow-based PIR Center and an independent think-tank, told RT.

The North Atlantic alliance also deployed Patriot batteries on Turkish soil during the US-led invasion of Iraq 10 years ago. However, they were never used and were withdrawn a few months later.

Dutch soldiers Geroal Bakker and Nick Hoetjes (R), with the Patriot system in the background, chat during media day at a military airbase in Adana, southern Turkey, January 26, 2013. (Reuters / Murad Sezer)
Dutch soldiers Geroal Bakker and Nick Hoetjes (R), with the Patriot system in the background, chat during media day at a military airbase in Adana, southern Turkey, January 26, 2013. (Reuters / Murad Sezer)

One fifth of the world had swine flu due to 2009 pandemic — WHO...

Children wearing a surgical masks to protect themselves against influenza A (H1N1). (Reuters / Henry Romero)

Children wearing a surgical masks to protect themselves against influenza A (H1N1). (Reuters / Henry Romero)

A fifth of the global population was infected with swine flu during the 2009-2010 pandemic, with nearly half of them children, a new study by the WHO reveals. But despite extensive fears, it proved less deadly people than seasonal flu.

The WHO’s report found that between 20 and 27 per cent of people worldwide caught the H1N1 virus, commonly known as swine flu, during that period.

The study revealed that those aged between five and 19 showed the greatest rate of infection, with around forty-seven per cent suffering.In contrast around 11 per cent of people aged 65 and over were infected with the virus.

To draw such conclusions researchers from the World Health Organization (WHO) and Imperial College London examined 90,000 blood samples collected during and after the pandemic from as many as 19 countries where the disease was present.

The study, published in the journal Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, is based on data from published and unpublished H1N1 seroepidemiological studies, scientists explained.

"This study is the result of a combined effort by more than 27 research groups worldwide, who all shared their data and experience with us to help improve our understanding of the impact the pandemic had globally," one of the authors, Maria Van Kerkhove, from Imperial College London said.

The countries from which data was gathered include: Australia, Canada, China, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong SAR, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Reunion Island, Singapore, United Kingdom, United States, and Vietnam.

Seen as every time a person became infected the virus’ antibodies are produced, the research group looked for traces of antibodies to H1N1 virus in numerous blood samples to determine the rates of infection. Therefore, by simply analyzing the prevalence of people with the antibodies before and after the virus pandemic, the researchers managed to estimate the number of those who were infected. At the same time while antibodies are evidence of infection, it does not mean that the person fell ill.

Scientists believe that the low rate among older people was due to previous influenza viruses they already had in their blood. So to say, during the H1N1 pandemic, antibodies reacted to swine flu and protected them from being completely infected. Thus, in 14 percent of blood taken from that group showed the presence of such a ‘protection’.

In some countries data was not available, but researchers believe the infection rates there were likely to have been similar.

"Knowing the proportion of the population infected in different age groups and the proportion of those infected who died will help public health decision-makers plan for … pandemics," said the WHO's Anthony Mounts who helped lead the study.

The WHO declared H1N1 swine flu a pandemic in June 2009, after laboratories had identified cases in 74 countries. That status was officially lifted only in August 2010.

In 2009 the world was overwhelmed by fear and panic over the ‘deadly’ virus.

In countries like Britain or Japan travelers with flu-like symptoms weren’t allowed to disembark without a certificate.

In Tokyo’s airport passengers arriving from Mexico, where the outbreak affected many people, were screened for swine flu.

In Ukraine the spread of the virus was even depicted as a political act ahead of presidential elections as then president Viktor Yushchenko wanted to postpone the vote. It was seen by the critics as an attempt to win time to gain more support.

Critics alleged that the WHO declared the disease a "pandemic" – meaning the disease affects the population of an extensive region, multiple countries or even worldwide – after advice from doctors with close links to pharmaceutical companies as the 16-month episode sparked a surge in demand for vaccines.

Some states announced a program of mandatory swine flu vaccination for their public sector workers, sparking fears that it may become compulsory for all of their citizens and residents. The vaccine’s safety has also been also doubted. The latest report by European scientists linked the use of the vaccine to the sleep disorder narcolepsy, in some 800 children and teenagers across Europe.

More than 30 million people in 47 countries were inoculated with Pandemrix, which was produced by UK pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in 2009.

It took people more than a year to realize that what was supposed to be a deadly pandemic, turned out to be nothing more than a serious cold.

“Our results taken together with recent global pandemic respiratory-associated mortality estimates suggest that the case fatality ratio of the pandemic virus was approximately 0,02%," the WHO report said in June 2012.

That figure is in the low range of death tolls from annual "seasonal" flu.

The recent study is said to be crucial for better understanding of the H1N1 virus and preparing efforts to improve prediction of future pandemics.

“That's incredibly important because we know this will happen again and there is a lot of effort being put into trying to prepare now…for the next one," Maria Van Kerkhove told Reuters in a phone interview.

Why Are Right-Wingers So Crazy in Love With Israel?

It's much more than evangelical Christians hoping for the rapture.

Ever since word leaked that Chuck Hagel would be nominated for Secretary of Defense, Senate Republicans have launched a non-stop attack against their former colleague from Nebraska. It’s not just neoconservatives. The assault comes from across the ranks of the GOP. The charge that first dominated the headlines and is still, in many quarters, the loudest: Hagel is “anti-Israel.”

To call the evidence for this charge thin is an understatement. In the Senate Hagel went on record with the same pro-Israel sentiments expected of every senator: “The United States will remain committed to defending Israel. Our relationship with Israel is a special and historic one,” he said.

The L.A. Times notes that he put American money where his mouth was, “voting repeatedly to provide [Israel] with military aid.” He supported an Israeli-Palestinian peace as long as it did not compromise Israel's security or its Jewish identity -- a crucial demand for most Israelis.

So what are his alleged “anti-Israel” crimes?

  1. He suggested that Israel should negotiate directly with Hamas -- which in fact Israel is already doing, since it’s obvious that no peace agreement can endure and keep Israel secure unless Hamas signs on to it.

  1. When Hagel affirmed America's enduring support for Israel, he added that “it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships.” In other words, he wants an even-handed policy that puts American interests first.

  1. In an interview Hagel once said that, as a senator, he did put U.S. interests first: "The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people [on Capitol Hill]. … I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States.” The interviewer, the State Department’s long-time (and Jewish) Mideast expert Aaron David Miller, saidthat Hagel was merely stating “a fact: the pro-Israeli community or lobby has a powerful voice. … To deny that is simply to be completely out of touch with reality." Miller called the attempts to paint Hagel as anti-Semitic "shameful and scurrilous."

To sum up the charge, Hagel has shown that when it comes to the Israel-Palestine issue he faces the facts, takes a reasonable view, and as Secretary of Defense would put his own country’s interest first.

To his critics, that’s simply unacceptable. Like most supporters of the Israeli government, they treat even the slightest hint of criticism as if it were a mortal attack on Israel itself. The slightest deviation from their “Israel can do no wrong” agenda evokes howls of condemnation.

Who are these American devotees of (right-wing) Israel? Here is the one place Hagel can be faulted. His widely cited comment about the power of “the Jewish lobby” suggests that Jews are to blame for keeping U.S. Mideast policy so blatantly one-sided all these years. Hagel later apologized, saying that he really meant the “pro-Israel lobby.” But the mistaken stereotype persists that Jews control U.S. Mideast policy.

In fact, what American Jews do is debate vigorously among themselves about Israel and U.S. policy. There are multiple Jewish “pro-Israel” lobbies promoting quite different views. A spokesman for one of those lobbies, J Street, rightly says that by now “the center of the community is exactly where Sen. Hagel is on issues relating to Israel.” And J Street has recent polling data to prove it.

Maybe that’s one big reason AIPAC (the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee), the Anti-Defamation League, and other old-guard Jewish groups that typically support Israel, right-wing and wrong, are so far remaining silent on the Hagel nomination. Maybe they’re finally recognizing the truth that Peter Beinart and so many others are revealing: Those big-name organizations are run by aging conservatives who are out of step with the rest of American Jewry. Few serious observers credit their claim to speak for the Jewish community as a whole. As their credibility fades, so does their political power.

Another sign of the changing times: Even the Senate’s most prominent Jewish “pro- (right-wing) Israel”  hawk, Charles Schumer, has announced his support for the Hagel nomination.

Recent polls from CNNthe Huffington Post, and Pew make it clear that, in the U.S., the strongest support for Israel’s right-wing policies now comes not from Jews but from Republicans. They’re roughly twice as likely as Democrats to take Israel’s side, while Democrats are about five times as likely as GOP’ers to sympathize with Palestinians. (About 70 percent of Jews vote Democratic.)

These polls, taken after Israel attacked Gaza in November 2012, showed that men, whites and older people (dare we say, “Romney voters”?) were most likely to support Israel unreservedly in the conflict.

Now we know that Republicans will attack an Obama nominee unreservedly, even when their charges on his Mideast views are irrational, to say the least. The Republican Party has become the strongest “pro- (right-wing) Israel” lobby, demanding 100% blind support for whatever Israel’s government does.

Why are Republicans so crazy in love with Israel?

One common explanation points to a love triangle: Republicans, Israel and evangelical Christianity. But after studying the interface of religion and politics in America for many years, I’m convinced that the power of religion to shape political life is usually overrated.

Some evangelical theologies do preach that Jews must control all of the Holy Land before the second coming of Christ. (The organized “Christian Zionist” movement is based on this concept, but as a political group they get little press and have relatively little clout in Washington.)

However, in the evangelical vision of the future, the powerful Jewish state is just a passing phase. In the next phase (to oversimplify a bit) all the Jews become Christians or go to hell. The New Testament image of Jews as “Christ-killers,” rejecting and therefore rejected by the true God, has never been totally erased either. So, although white evangelicals are more likely than other Americans to support Israel, their religion makes them rather ambivalent toward the Jewish religion, to say the least.

What’s more, conservative evangelicals were enthusiastic supporters of Israel in the state’s earliest years, when a large majority of Israelis were strictly secular and avoided anything that smacked of religion.

In fact many of those first Israelis were socialists. Yet American conservatives, evangelical or not, gave full support to the fledgling Jewish state.

The main reason was not religion, but politics. Israel was created in 1948, the very same year that the U.S. committed itself wholeheartedly to cold war against the "communists.” Israel soon agreed (under strong U.S. pressure, some historians say) to be the main U.S. ally in the Middle East, where, most Americans believed (inaccurately), the Arabs were all turning pro-communist.

Israel served U.S. military needs in various ways, especially as an intelligence-gathering outpost. When Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger formulated their doctrine of appointing regional “policemen” to serve U.S. interests around the world, Israel and the Shah’s Iran got the job for the Middle East. With the fall of the Shah in 1979, Israel was left alone as our cop on the Mideast beat.

But Republican affection for Israel reflects much more than that nation’s military usefulness. The deepest root of the feeling is the symbolic meaning of Israel in the conservative worldview. The cold war reinforced the conservative penchant for seeing the world in moral absolutes. So Israel became the Middle East’s only “good guy,” surrounded by a sea of “bad guys.”

The Israeli government played on this simplistic dualism with a skillful PR campaign, depicting their nation as an outpost of civilized American values in a savage Arab wilderness. To most Americans, it looked like our own “Wild West” story all over again: Brave pioneers turning the desert into a fertile garden, with a plow in one hand and a gun in the other, using the gun only when they were forced to defend themselves.

In the Israeli narrative, Jews were always the victims, constantly on guard against unprovoked attacks -- just like the pioneers of the American Wild West. The fact that Jews had displaced Arabs, just as whites displaced Native Americans, often by violent means, simply wasn’t allowed into the story. Nor was the fact that Israel’s military strength made its existence quite secure. Few Americans questioned the myth of Israel’s constant insecurity.

Americans of the Cold War era empathized with Israel all the more because here in the U.S. we were immersed in our own myth of homeland insecurity, constantly on guard against the imagined threat of communist aggression. In this way as in so many others Israel seemed like a miniature America, a partner in the global battle of good against evil.

Though the Cold War is long gone, that sense of kinship remains just as strong among conservatives, who still see the U.S. and Israel as champions of absolute good in a war against the “evildoers.” Indeed Israel looks even better now because conservatives assume that the “evildoers” plotting to destroy us are the very same Arab “terrorists” who are supposedly trying to wipe out Israel.

Conservatives simply ignore the facts. West Bank Palestinians have shifted almost entirely to nonviolent tactics in their struggle against military occupation. Even in Gaza, Hamas has long observed a truce, firing rockets only when Israeli attacks provoke them. And for years Hamas leaders have been supporting a two-state peace agreement. But none of this fits the conservatives’ beloved Wild West stereotype or their narrative of endless insecurity. So they mistakenly go on assuming that Israel is constantly under attack by vicious savages.

The conservative love for Israel has been strengthened by another mistaken belief: that all Israeli Jews are white folks. In fact a sizeable number of Jewish Israelis came from Muslim lands; they and their descendants have brown skin. But few Americans know it. Yet all know that Arabs generally have brown skin. No one can say exactly how strong the racial (and sometimes, no doubt, racist) factor is in the Republican feeling for Israel. But no one can deny that it’s part of the picture.

Conservatives’ tenuous sense of security depends on the reassurance they get from believing that there’s a permanent structure in the world, based on permanent dividing lines -- between nations, races, religions, and most importantly, between good and evil, with their own kind carrying the banner of the good.

As long as they can see good battling evil, it doesn’t matter exactly who the “good guys” and “bad guys” are. It’s all essentially a matter of symbolism. So the roles can switch in surprising ways. (Osama bin Laden was once the darling of the right-wingers when he fought the communists in Afghanistan.)

Israelis are well aware of how easily American affections can change. Their press is full of discussions about the risk of losing their sole remaining ally.

For now, though, the Republican love for Israel is holding firm. It has been cemented by the recent shift to the right among Israeli Jews. Politically, the last few years in Israel have looked a lot like the Reagan years in the U.S., making it easier for the GOP to feel that sense of kinship.

Even if Israel moves back toward the center, it’s not likely to lose the fervent devotion of Republicans. They’ve been so convinced for so long that Israel can do no wrong, it hardly matters to them what Israel does. It’s Israel the symbol, not the reality, that the Republicans love.

Now they are demonstrating their ardor by acting out a symbolic drama in the Senate, attacking Chuck Hagel on the flimsiest grounds. The “pro- (right-wing) Israel” stance is “very much a litmus test for many in the Republican Party,” as Washington Post analyst Aaron Blake says, “and it will make it difficult for any Republican senator to vote for him.” Like all true lovers, they let their passion overrule reason.

So they’re taking a political gamble. In the latest polls, between 39% and 59% of Americans say they support Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians. (Between 9% and 13% support Palestine.) That imbalance might make the Republican position look safe enough. But it leaves a huge portion of the electorate holding no clear preference. How all those undecided voters respond to this latest display of Republican fanaticism is anyone’s guess.

And even among those who back Israel, many will agree with what Chuck Hagel has said: "I'm a supporter of Israel, always have been. It's in Israel's best interest to get a peace. …Peace comes through dealing with people. Peace doesn’t come at the end of a bayonet or the end of a gun."

The Hagel confirmation hearings should trigger a public debate, weighing the nominee’s view against the Republicans’ irrational love for Israel, which may serve their own needs in a perverse way but wreaks such terrible harm on Arabs, Israelis and the U.S. position in the Middle East. 

Iraqis Demand Justice After Troops Shoot Down Six Unarmed Sunni Protesters

Sunni Arab tribes in Falluja (presumably branches of Dulaim) on Saturday demanded that the government turn over to them within 7 days the troops who fired on protesters on the outskirts of the western city of Falluja, killing 6 and wounding 19 on Friday. Otherwise, they say, they will declare jihad on government troops. The protesters came from a nearby village and were attempting to join a demonstration in downtown Falluja, but were blocked by an army road block. When the protesters began throwing stones and water bottles, and then advanced on a police care, attempting to set it ablaze, the troops began firing live ammunition, first in the air and then at the protesters. The army says that the protesters tries to set a police care afire.

Residents carry a coffin during teh funeral of a victim killed in clashes with security forces in Fallujah, January 26, 2013 (Reuters/Thaier Al-Sudani) The mistake of the al-Maliki government was to attempt to prevent people freely from coming to Falluja for a peaceful demonstration in the first place. A second error was to use troops who had automatic weapons and live ammunition, instead of riot police with rubber bullets.

The killings of unarmed protesters has worsened al-Maliki’s crisis. Protesters in Falluja say they will camp out in the city square until their demands are met, and similar protests and small tent cities are popping up in Ramadi, Baquba, Samarra and other Sunni Arab urban centers. Many of them are now saying that al-Maliki must step down, and that they will camp out until he does (thus echoing tactics deployed by Cairo protesters at Tahrir Square in 2011).

During the past few weeks, Sunni Arabs have been regularly demonstrating against the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Initially they were demanding the release of Sunni Arab youth who they assert were falsely arrested. They also wanted an end to ‘debaathification’ or the exclusion of members of the Baath Party from public office (Sunnis were disproportionately prominent in that party). Al-Maliki has released hundreds of prisoners, but has not reached out to leaders in the Sunni-dominated provinces in an attempt to bring them back into the Iraqi mainstream. Because there are also Sunni Arab guerrilla groups who engage in massive terrorism, the Shiite government of al-Maliki views the whole Sunni Arab population as dangerous and as perhaps running interference for the terrorists. (I suppose there is an analogy to the view the British took of Catholic neighborhoods in Northern Ireland during the troubles; but the British were better about trying to develop community policing methods).

It may be that al-Maliki’s support for Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad is among the grievances driving the protesters to come out. Many Sunni Arabs in northers and western Iraq are supporting the Syrian rebels.

Many Sunni Arabs feel cheated because the Iraqi Party, which they largely backed, got the most votes in the 2010 parliamentary elections. But it was still a minority in a divided parliament and it was al-Maliki’s Islamic Mission (Da`wa) Party that was able to form the government by creating a coalition with more than 51 percent of the seats.

One of al-Maliki’s coalition partners in fall of 2010, the Sadr II Bloc of Muqtada al-Sadr, has withdrawn from his cabinet and denounced his government as dictatorial, and although it is strongly Shiite, it is supporting the Falluja demonstrators. Muqtada al-Sadr condemned the killing of the demonstrators, but called on them to pursue peaceful protest and to exercise self-restraint in their continued confrontation with the government.

Theoretically, al-Maliki could, in accordance with the constitution, be removed from power by a parliamentary vote of no confidence. If he lost the backing of more Shiite groups and of the Kurds, his government could fall, which is what many Sunni Arabs are now seeking.

In speeches on Saturday, some in Falluja asked who the Iraqi army serves, implying that it has become a tool of Shiite Iran.

Aljazeera English reports:

© 2012 Juan Cole

Forging an Independent Foreign Policy

On January 23, 2013, The Jerusalem Post reported on a meeting held by Chuck Hagel, President Barak Obama’s defense secretary nominee, in which Hagel stated his strong commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge. In addition, Hagel’s office stated, “Hagel appreciated the opportunity to have a constructive, informed and wide-ranging discussion.” What is wrong with this picture?Chuck Hagel shakes hands with t Leon Panetta, at a convention in Washington on May 9, 2012. (Photo: Glenn Fawcett)

At the meeting were present US Vice President Joe Biden, and leaders of the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). This meeting followed a previous one held by Hagel with top Jewish Democrats in which he apologized for a 2006 comment in which he described the “Jewish lobby” as intimidating”. During the meeting, he reassured them that despite his past critical stance on war with Iran to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon, he was now on board with President Obama’s stand on this issue.

And the inevitable question is why does a nominee for defense secretary of an independent country have to explain his intentions to anybody, least of all to people who advocate an aggressive policy against another independent country? And why does the United States Vice President have to be present to give additional authority to his statements?

And the obvious answer seems to be that these organizations, widely known as the pro-Israel lobby, are the ones that through their influence could derail Hagel’s confirmation as secretary of defense. What is the meaning of all of this? Let me bring the voice of Uri Avnery, one of the most honest, lucid and courageous observers of the US and Israel political scene, a former member of the Knesset and a staunch peace activist.

“Americans must be race of angels,” he writes, “how else to explain the incredible patience with which they suffer the fact that in a vital sphere of US interests, American foreign policy is dictated by a foreign country? For five decades, at least, US Middle East policy has been decided in Jerusalem. Almost all American officials dealing with this area are, well, Jewish. The Hebrew-speaking American ambassador in Tel Aviv could easily be the Israeli ambassador in Washington. Sometimes I wonder if in meetings of American and Israeli diplomats, they don’t sometimes drop into Yiddish.”

If anyone doubts the accuracy of Avnery’s characterization, it would be a good memory exercise to remember Netanyahu’s last address to the US congress, where practically all senators and congressmen wildly applauded Netanyahu’s every single sentence, while at the same time jumping up and down like children at a “piñata” party. Is this the behavior one should expect from representatives of an independent country? Why are they so subservient to the interests of a foreign country?

Lawrence Davidson, a professor of history at West Chester University in West Chester, Pennsylvania, offers an explanation through a process that he calls “lobbification.” According to him, at some point in time every single Congressman or Senator has been approached by a lobbyist—in the case of the Middle East, by one representing AIPAC.

The lobbyist offers the representatives financial campaign assistance, good media coverage, briefings on the Middle East and even trips to Israel. All that he is asked in return is that they consistently vote in a pro-Israel way. Should they refuse this offer the lobbyist group will probably support the opponent party, making sure that those who refuse the offer are defeated in the next election.

As a result, Davidson points out, “…the national interest is replaced by the parochial interests of lobbies that are successful at suborning Congress and the White House

-Zionists pushing support for a racist and expansionist foreign power, Cuban-Americans carrying on a 53 year old vendetta against the government in Havana, the NRA striving to protect the right of every American to own a submachine gun, and the like.” Is this the kind of foreign policy we want our country to have? Is this how we want our democracy to work?

César Chelala

 César Chelala, MD, PhD, is a co-winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award. He is also the foreign correspondent for Middle East Times International (Australia).

Farhadi finishes new film shooting

Academy Award-winning Iranian director Asghar Farhadi has completed shooting of his new project The Past in Paris during recent days.

The movie’s shooting which started on October 8, 2012, was completed on its schedule few days ago after three-month shooting plan.

The internationally acclaimed Iranian cinematographer Mahmoud Kalari has contributed to Farhadi’s new film production as a cinematographer.

The Artist’s Argentine-French actress Bérénice Bejo who replaced former candidate Marion Cotillard along with the French actor of Algerian origin, Tahar Rahim and the renowned Iranian actor Ali Mosaffa star in the movie.

As Farhadi’s sixth directorial experience, The Past depicts the story of an Iranian girl and a boy of North African origin.

Farhadi’s new project as an immigrant romantic drama has been named among the top 100 most anticipated films of 2013.

Pitched at €11-million budget, The Past is Farhadi’s first filmmaking experience in a foreign country.

Produced by International Memento Films Production co-director Alexander Mallet-Guy, the movie is scheduled to hit French screens from May, 2013.

The Memento Films Production has also distributed Farhadi’s previous films About Elly and A Separation in France.

Farhadi's Nader and Simin: A Separation won the Oscar for the Best Foreign Language Film at the 84th Academy Awards.

FGP/FGP

US-NATO “Economic Terrorism”: The Collapse of Syria’s Industry and Agriculture

syriaflag

The Syrian economy is being hit by the combined impacts of the US-NATO sponsored terrorist attacks and the economic sanctions regime. 

The ultimate objective of the US-NATO covert war on Syria is the destabilization of the Syria economy and the destruction of Syria as a nation state.

Economic destabilization is conducted through various means:

  • An economic sanctions regime which has contributed to paralyzing trade and investment,
  • Acts of deliberate sabotage and piracy directed against the country’s industrial base.

Confirmed by the Syrian Chamber of Commerce, the Turkish government has sponsored the outright “stealing of production lines and machines from hundreds of factories in Aleppo city” with a view to disabling Syria’s industrial base.

  • The closing down and/or bankruptcy of the country’s industrial enterprises.

According to a recent report: “More than half of the country’s larger factories and small- and medium-sized workshops have shut down”.

“The state-owned Syrian General Organisation of Engineering Industries announced that it had shut eight of the 12 companies it owns because of sabotage, looting, burning of production lines and warehouses, and the destruction of machines.” albawaba.com

  • The destruction of the country’s agricultural base, leading to food shortages, undernourishment and child malnutrition.

The Sanctions Regime

The Obama administration  has imposed sweeping sanctions on Syria. The sanctions regime was initiated in August 2011 through the issuing of  an executive order “prohibiting the exportation, sale or supply of services from the United States to Syria.” as well as concurrent legislation by the US Congress.

Obama’s Executive order:

“…blocks investment and the export of oil from Syria. On May 30 [2011], the U.S. levied sanctions on the Syria International Islamic Bank. The Treasury Department said the bank has acted as a front for other Syrian financial institutions seeking to circumvent sanctions. A few days prior to this, the U.S. and around a dozen other countries expelled Syrian diplomats following a massacre in al-Houla, Syria, that was blamed without conclusive evidence on al-Assad’s military.

In August of 2011, Congress introduced S.1472, a “bill to impose sanctions on persons making certain investments that directly and significantly contribute to the enhancement of the ability of Syria to develop its petroleum resources, and for other purposes.”

In November 2011, the Arab League suspended Syria’s membership and adopted “unprecedented sanctions at a meeting in Cairo by a vote of 19 to three,”

In the United States, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the Syrian Freedom Support Act by a unanimous vote in March of this year. It is intended to “strengthen sanctions against the Government of Syria, to enhance multilateral commitment to address the Government of Syria’s threatening policies, to establish a program to support a transition to a democratically-elected government in Syria, and for other purposes.” (See  Kurt Nimmo Crippling Sanctions against Damascus,  Global Research,  June 2012)

The Collapse of Syrian Agriculture

The terrorist actions of the US-NATO sponsored “Free Syrian Army” (FSA)  and its affiliated death squads directed against civilians including farmers has led to the dislocation of agriculture.  The supply of farm inputs including seeds and fertilizer has been disrupted.

The distribution of agricultural goods in urban areas is affected.  Terrorist attacks on the transportation and distribution of agricultural commodities is another related factor.

The terror attacks have uprooted small scale agriculture and have led to the devastation of commercial agriculture.

In a recent report, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) confirms a massive drop in agricultural production:

“Twenty-two months of conflict have left Syria’s agricultural sector in tatters with cereal, fruit and vegetable production dropping for some by half and massive destruction of irrigation and other infrastructure, a UN mission has found.

“Destruction of infrastructure in all sectors is massive and it is clear that the longer the conflict will last, the longer it will take to rehabilitate it,” he said.

Of the 10 million Syrians who live in rural areas – about 46 percent of the population – 80 percent derive their livelihoods from agriculture.

Wheat and barley production dropped to less than 2 million tonnes last year from 4 to 4.5 million tonnes in normal years.

Vegetable, fruit and olive production declined significantly in both Homs and Dara’a Governorates, including a 60 percent drop in vegetable production in Homs and a 40 percent drop in olive oil production in Dara’a.

Only 45 percent of the farmers were able to fully harvest their cereal crops while 14 percent reported they could not harvest due to insecurity and lack of fuel. There is a lack of access to agricultural inputs including quality seeds and fertilizers. There is a lack of irrigation due to damage to main irrigation canals especially in Homs and lack of fuel for irrigation pumps. Movement of livestock to grazing areas has not been possible and their survival is compromised by the lack of animal feed and veterinary drugs, the importation of which is hampered by sanctions. The production of poultry, a traditional source of cheap animal protein has also been severely hit with major farms destroyed in Homs, Hama and Idleb.FAO Media Centre: Syrian agricultural production drops massively as conflict continues

Hikes in Fuel and Gasoline Prices

In recent developments, there have been significant hikes in fuel and gasoline prices which have contributed to disrupting production as well as transportation. These hikes in prices have also led the compression of real purchasing power by households.

The economic sanctions as well as the demise of local industries have led to shortages in essential commodities including medicine.

The monetary system and foreign exchange market are  in crisis, characterized by a major decline in the value of the Syrian pound.

The State fiscal structure  has been disrupted as the government is no longer able to collect taxes from companies which have closed down.

Reversing the Achievements of Economic and Social Development

Prior to 2011, Syria’s external debt was low when compared to other developing countries.Syria’s foreign debt burden had been reduced through bilateral rescheduling deals with its main creditors including Russia, Germany, Iran and France. Syria also managed to settle its debt with the World Bank

According to World Bank figures:

  • primary school enrollment (% gross) was of the order of 118% (2010),
  • life expectancy at birth –which is an indicator of the state of health of the population– was of the order of 76 years, compared to 72 for the Middle East and 65.5 years for the average of  lower middle income countries.  (World Bank, Data on the Syrian Arab Republic)
  • secondary school enrollment was of the order of 72 percent (% gross) World Bank data on Secondary School Enrollment

‘Torture in Saudi jails shows savagery’

An Iranian lawmaker says torture of Yemeni nationals in Saudi Arabia prisons proves Al Saud regime’s savagery and extensive violation of human rights.

“Al Saud security forces send thousands of Yemenis, who are only guilty of illegal entry into Saudi Arabia for finding a job, to ghastly prisons without mentioning any reason for the arrest,” Hadi Shoushtari said on Friday.

He went on to say that the Western countries, which claim to be advocates of human rights, have turned a blind eye to Al Saud’s anti-human rights measures.

“Rights organizations have always been critical of the harsh torturing in Saudi Arabia prisons and have announced that a large number of prisoners have been killed due to torture and some have suffered mental illnesses and physical disabilities,” Shoushtari noted.


According to rights activists, many prisoners remain locked up in Saudi jails under harsh conditions and without access to legal representation.

Reports say a large number of Yemenis are detained in Saudi Arabia prisons. In October 2012, an 18-year-old Yemeni youth died of severe torture by jail officers in a prison of the Saudi intelligence agency.

Al Saud even treats with “utter brutality” the criminals who have rights in the civilized world today and this is a sign of extreme savagery, the Iranian lawmaker said.

TNP/HMV/SS

Tehran Reds, Blues settle for drab draw

A view of the match between Iranian football clubs Perspolis and Esteqlal at Tehran’s Azadi Stadium on January 25, 2013

The derby between Tehran football clubs Esteqlal and Perspolis in the 27th week of Iran’s Premier League (IPL) has ended in a goalless draw following an anemic display from both sides.

The popular Iranian clubs exhibited the lackluster performance in the presence of nearly 100,000 spectators at Azadi Stadium in western Tehran on Friday.

The first half was a particularly drab affair with both sides cautious and defensive and neither producing any real opportunity. After the break, however, the Reds played with more vigor and valor, conjuring and squandering in equal number their few goal scoring opportunities.

Esteqlal and Persepolis have played each other 76 times, with the Blues winning 24 games, the Reds recording 18 victories, and 34 ties.

Esteqlal currently leads the IPL standings with 43 points from 22 games, followed by Traktorsazi and Foulad with 41 and 38 points respectively. Perspolis is 8th in the 18-team table with 30 points.

MP/HMV

Finally, the Republicans Are Afraid

For anyone who has lived through the past several decades of Republican bullying – from Richard Nixon’s anything-goes politics through Karl Rove’s dreams of a “permanent Republican majority” – it had to be startling to hear House Speaker John Boehner complaining that President Barack Obama’s goal was “to annihilate” the GOP.

During a private luncheon of the Republican Ripon Society on Tuesday, Boehner cited Obama’s progressive agenda as outlined in his Second Inaugural Address as representing an existential threat to the GOP.

“It’s pretty clear to me that he knows he can’t do any of that as long as the House is controlled by Republicans,” Boehner said. “So we’re expecting over the next 22 months to be the focus of this administration as they attempt to annihilate the Republican Party.” The Ohio Republican also claimed that it was Obama’s goal “to just shove us into the dustbin of history.”

Of course, Boehner may be wildly exaggerating the Republican plight to shock the party out of its funk, raise more money, and get right-wing activists back to the barricades. Still, his comments marked a remarkable reversal of fortune, like the playground bully getting his nose bloodied and running to the teacher in tears.

Even if hyped from political effect, Boehner’s lament also might force some progressives to rethink their negative views about President Obama. If indeed Obama has gotten the upper hand on America’s swaggering Right, then he might not be the political wimp that many on the Left have pegged him to be.

Without doubt, America’s political landscape has shifted from what it was just eight years ago when President George W. Bush was talking about using his political capital to privatize Social Security and Bush’s political guru, Karl Rove, was contemplating an enduring Republican control of all three branches of the U.S. government.

As part of that Zeitgeist of 2005, as Bush entered his second term, right-wing activist Grover Norquist joked about keeping the Democrats around as neutered farm animals. The president of Americans for Tax Reform – most famous for getting Republicans to pledge never to raise taxes – told the Washington Post that congressional Democrats should grow accustomed to having no power and no reproductive ability.

“Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans,” Norquist said. “Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant. But when they’ve been ‘fixed,’ then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful.”

How We Got There

That moment of right-wing arrogance represented a culmination of decades of hardball Republican politics, a take-no-prisoners style that usually encountered only the softest of responses from the Democrats and progressives.

Arguably the pattern was set in fall 1968 when President Lyndon Johnson learned that GOP presidential nominee Nixon was sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks to ensure his victory over Vice President Hubert Humphrey – but Johnson stayed silent about what he called Nixon’s “treason” out of concern that its exposure would not be “good for the country.” [See Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.]

Nixon’s success in 1968 – and the Democratic silence – contributed to his decision several years later to create an extra-legal intelligence unit to spy on and undermine the Democrats heading into Election 1972. Finally, Nixon’s political chicanery undid him when his team of burglars was arrested inside the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate building. The resulting scandal led to his resignation in 1974.

But the Republican response to Watergate wasn’t to mend the party’s ways but rather to learn how to protect against ever again being held accountable. That reality became the political back story of the next three decades, as the Right built up a fearsome media apparatus and deployed well-funded operatives to shield Republicans and to discredit anyone who presented a threat, whether untamed Democrats, nosy reporters or average citizens.

This Right-Wing Machine showed off its value during the 1980s and early 1990s when President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush were caught up in the Iran-Contra national security scandal but succeeded in skating away with only minimal political damage. Instead of Reagan and Bush being held accountable for their crimes, far worse damage was inflicted on the careers of investigators, journalists and witnesses who tried to expose the wrongdoing.

Within this political/media framework, when Democrats did win elections, Republicans immediately demeaned them as illegitimate interlopers. For instance, Bill Clinton’s electoral victory in 1992 was an opportunity for the Right-Wing Machine to demonstrate that it could play offense as well as defense, tying up Clinton’s presidency endlessly in trivial “scandals” and setting the stage for the GOP congressional comeback in 1994.

Over those decades, the Republicans behaved as if national power was their birthright. In Election 2000, they saw nothing wrong with aggressively disrupting the recount in Florida, both with rioters on the ground and partisan justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. It didn’t matter that Vice President Al Gore had won the nation’s popular vote and would have carried Florida if all legal ballots were counted. What mattered was putting a Republican in the White House by whatever means necessary. [For details, see Neck Deep.]

The Republican Apex

After the 9/11 attacks, even as Democrats set aside partisan concerns to support President George W. Bush’s response to the crisis, Bush and the Republicans painted the Democrats as “soft on terror” and unpatriotic. The GOP did whatever it took to expand and solidify power.

In 2004, the Republicans and the Right went so far as to portray Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry as a fake Vietnam War hero. GOP activists even mocked his war wounds by passing out “Purple Heart Band-Aids” at the Republican National Convention.

Then, after Bush rode his post-9/11 reputation as a “war president” to a second term, Republican operatives like Rove and Norquist saw their moment for making their political power permanent, in effect turning the United States into a one-party state with the Democrats kept around for the necessary cosmetics of a “democracy.” The GOP would use its money, its media and its control of the judicial process to make successful electoral challenges unthinkable.

But 2005 instead turned out to be the GOP’s high-water mark, a time of premature celebration, the last moment of sunlight before the arrival of darkening clouds, or in this case, the American people’s realization that the Right’s anti-government extremism – mixed with the neocons’ imperialist wars – was a recipe for disaster.

Bush’s inept handling of Hurricane Katrina and the devastation that it inflicted along the Gulf of Mexico showed the downside of a hollowed-out federal government. And the bloody stalemate in Iraq revealed the dangers of ill-conceived military adventures.

Bush’s tax-cutting and deregulation produced other harmful consequences, including soaring federal deficits, rising income inequality, an eroding middle class and an unstable “bubble” economy that finally burst in 2008. The electorate’s recognition of Bush’s failures led to Democratic victories, including Obama’s election as President.

Yet, despite the extraordinary national crisis that Bush left behind – millions of Americans losing their jobs and their homes as well as two unfinished wars – the Republicans refused to play the role of “loyal opposition.” They pulled out their successful playbook from the early Clinton years and confronted Obama with unrelenting hostility.

Once again, the obstructionist strategy worked at least in a narrow political sense. By mid-2009, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other loud voices from the muscular Right-Wing Machine had whipped up a passionate Tea Party opposition to Obama, including crypto-racist allegations that the President was born in Kenya, despite the evidence of birth records in Hawaii.

Meanwhile, America’s weak and disorganized Left mostly complained that Obama hadn’t delivered on everything that he should have. For his part, Obama squandered valuable time reaching out for a bipartisanship that never came, and the mainstream news media faulted him anyway for failing to achieve that bipartisanship.

Getting Obama

So, the Right surged to electoral victories in 2010. Republicans reclaimed the House and seized control of many state governments. Senior Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, openly declared that their top priority would be to ensure Obama’s failure as President and his defeat in 2012. Part of the Republican strategy to reclaim national power was to disenfranchise blacks and other minorities by creating obstacle courses of legal impediments to voting, such as onerous voter ID laws and reduced hours.

Many top GOP operatives, including Rove, remained confident of success as late as Election Night 2012, expecting Mitt Romney to unseat Barack Obama. However, Democrats blocked many of the voter-suppression schemes and Obama marshaled an unprecedented coalition of African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, women and the young to decisively defeat Romney.

In Congress, Democrats strengthened their control of the Senate and narrowed the Republican majority in the House. That GOP majority was retained only because Republicans had gerrymandered districts after the 2010 elections enabling the party to keep most seats despite losing the popular vote nationally.

During his Second Inaugural Address, Obama also made clear that he had finally forsaken the “inside game” of trying to sweet talk the Republicans into cooperation or negotiating from positions of weakness. Instead, Obama delivered a strong defense of American progressivism. He tied that tradition to the ideals of the Framers who wrote the Constitution with the intent of creating a vibrant Republic, a government of, by and for the people.

Obama’s speech and its warm reception apparently unnerved Speaker Boehner who suddenly saw something akin to an existential threat to the GOP. There were the painful election results, the nation’s shifting demographics, the newly assertive President, and hundreds of thousands of Americans again packing the Mall to celebrate Obama’s victory.

After his Inaugural Address as he stepped back into the U.S. Capitol, President Obama paused, turned around and looked back at the throngs of people waving American flags as far as the eye could see. He said wistfully, “I’m not going to see this again.”

From his seat in the Inaugural reviewing stands, Speaker Boehner saw the same impressive scene, and he may have grasped its implicit message. The large and diverse crowd personified the Obama coalition — and the mortal threat that it represents to traditional American politics, always dominated by white men of means.

Of course, the Republicans still have the Right-Wing Machine churning out propaganda to rally the party’s angry white-male base. Plus, the GOP is coming up with more new plans for minimizing the votes of black and brown people and maximizing the political clout of whites, such as a scheme in several states to apportion presidential electors based on the Republicans’ gerrymandered congressional districts.

But Boehner seems to sense that something fundamental has changed. Perhaps he was playacting a bit when he warned fellow Republicans that Obama hoped to “annihilate” the Republican Party. But – overdramatized or not – Boehner’s alarm suggests that finally it is the Republicans who are afraid.

‘Power struggle to crush Syria militants’

A militant fires an RPG at Syrian Army forces during heavy clashes in a neighborhood of central Aleppo. (File photo)

An Iranian lawmaker says the Syrian opposition members have become engaged in a “power struggle,” which will be the key to their undoing.

“There are many personal and political disagreements among various Syrian opposition groups to assume key positions and the leadership,” Seyyed Hossein Naqavi-Hosseini said on Friday.

The spokesman for the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee added that the opposition in Syria has failed to establish a transitional government in the country due to internal disputes among its members.

Naqavi-Hosseini noted that there are two major reasons behind the failure of the militants and opposition groups in Syria.

“The first cause for the militants’ failure is that [they are] a tool in the hands of Western and Arab powers; therefore, they do not have any popularity and legitimacy among the Syrian nation.”


He cited the militants’ use of weapons, assassination and bombing for resolving the crisis in the Arab state as another reason for their failure.

“This is while the Syrian people seek to make decisions for the future of their country by holding elections in a peaceful and democratic climate,” Naqavi-Hosseini added.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of army and security personnel, have been killed in the violence.

The Syrian government says the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and that a very large number of the militants operating in the country are foreign nationals.

TNP/HMV/SS

‘West targets Iraq after Syria failure’

An Iranian lawmaker has warned against West-Arab plots against Iraq’s stability and peace, urging the Iraqi people to remain vigilant to thwart conspiracies.

“Arab reactionary countries accompanied by their masters are trying to damage stability and tranquility which are being institutionalized in Iraq,” a member of the Majlis Presiding Board Javad Jahangirzadeh told ICANA on Friday.

He added that Western countries seek to create a new crisis in Iraq following their failed policies in Syria and emphasized that such scenarios would fail to yield any result thanks to the vigilance of the Iraqi people and political figures.

The Iranian legislator noted that Iraq is paying for the failure of a project aimed at toppling Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.


Sectarian, tribal and political challenges prepare the ground for Western countries’ interference, he added.

Several anti-government demonstrations have been held in Iraq since December 23, 2012, when bodyguards of Finance Minister Rafie al-Issawi were arrested on terrorism-related charges.

The demonstrators allege that the arrests were made on sectarian grounds. They demand an end to anti-terrorism laws, but the government in Baghdad says it is up to the Iraqi parliament to decide on abolishing those laws. The government says there are foreign agendas behind the protests.

Supporters of the Iraqi government have also held demonstrations in several cities over the past few weeks.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki promised on January 2 to consider some of the protesters’ demands but he warned of police intervention if protesters abused their freedom, caused chaos, and compromised national security.

SF/MA

Royal torture ring: Bahraini princess on trial

A Bahraini princess is in court for the torture of three pro-democracy activists in detention. The princess’s case is the latest in a string of cases of torture and violence has seen the light in a report issued by Bahraini opposition.

Princess Nora Bint Ebrahim al-Khalifa who serves in Bahrain’s Drugs Control Unit, allegedly collaborated with another officer to torture three activists held in detention following a pro-democracy rally against the island kingdom’s monarchy.

The princess categorically denies the charges of torture set against her.

Two of the princess’s alleged victims were Doctors Ghassan Daif and Bassem Daif, who went to help the hundreds wounded when police opened fire with teargas and birdshot during protests in 2011. They were taken into custody in March of that year when it is thought that al-Khalifa tortured them.

Ayat al-Qurmazi
Ayat al-Qurmazi

The third victim, 21-year-old Ayat al-Qurmazi, was arrested for public reading of inflammatory poetry criticizing the royal family. She claims her blindfold slipped while she was being tortured and she caught a glimpse of al-Khalifa.

As Muslim women have never before been known to take part in interrogations and tortures, Nora Al-Khalifa stands out as the grossest character in the human rights activists’ report, RT’s Nadezhda Kevorkova said.

Princess Nora’s case is the latest in a series of torture scandals highlighted in a report by the Bahrain Forum for Human Rights.

A 55-pages report titled ‘Citizens in the Grip of Torture’ is based on the nine interviews with named and anonymous witnesses. It was published both in English and Arabic.

The report states that two of the Bahraini King’s sons Nasser Bin Hammad Al-Khalifa and Khalid Bin Hammad Al-Khalifa, as well as two other members of the royal family, Khalifa Bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa and Nora Bint Ebrahim Al-Khalifa, directly took part in torturing the activists.

Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa (L), Khalid bin Hamad Al Khalifa (M), Khalifa bin Ahmed Al Khalifa (R). (Photos from Report: Citizens in the Grip of Torturers)
Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa (L), Khalid bin Hamad Al Khalifa (M), Khalifa bin Ahmed Al Khalifa (R). (Photos from Report: Citizens in the Grip of Torturers)

Torture stories include rare details that Muslims usually prefer to shun for ethical reasons, Bahraini opposition activists told Kevorkova.

After getting numerous letters from torture victims who mentioned the four members of the royal family among the arresters and torturers, the report’s authors decided it was vital to get an investigation going, RT’s Kevorkova said.

Included in the report are short CVs of those four members of the Bahrain’s royal family accused of human rights violations.

Nasser Bin Hamad, the fourth son of the King Hamad, is a colonel and commander of Bahrain’s royal guard. Bin Hamad, his 23-year-old brother, has also held a number of senior positions despite his young age and is married to Saudi Arabian King’s daughter.

The other two Al-Khalifas directly responsible for cases of torture and violence as stated in the report are Colonel Khalifa Bin Ahmed, a high-ranking police officer dismissed from his post in September 2011, and Lieutenant Nora Bint Ebrahim Al-Khalifa of Bahrain’s Drug Enforcement Administration.

Tortured for reading verses

Poet Ayat Al-Qurmozy was arrested in March 2011 after reciting a poem against the Bahraini regime during a peaceful demonstration in Pearl Roundabout. She was detained by masked men dressed in civilian clothing. On her release, al-Qurmozy told of tortures used on her by both men and women. One of the women involved was identified as Nora al-Khalifa.

The report states that Nora spat on al-Qurmozy and into her mouth, slapped her in the face repeatedly, administered electric shocks and shouted anti-Shia slurs.

On the eighth day of her arrest, al-Qurmozy was brought blindfolded into a room full of men, documents the report. They shouted abuse at her and demanded she tell them by whom she was given the verses and how much she was paid for reading them.

“I was surprised by a woman grabbing me and slapping me hard in the face… When she was screaming, cursing and slapping me hard on my face, the blindfold came down off my eyes and I saw her face a bit but they rushed to lift it,” al-Qurmozy later said, as cited in the report.

Al-Qurmozy was then brutally beaten, and Nora gave her electric shocks every time she lost consciousness, the report says. After that Nora allegedly went on torturing the young poet every night, beating her on the face and spitting on her every time she found her without a blindfold.

Threatened by rape, the poet girl was forced to confess to her ‘guilt’ in front of a camera. But her torture continued after al-Qurmozy was thrown into a car, the report says, elaborating on how Nora slapped her on the head, threatened to cut out her tongue, spat and put a wooden bathroom broom into her mouth and beat her continually. All these abuses were witnessed by another arrested woman, Jalila Salman, who was put in the same car.

Tortured for taking part in demonstration

Sheikh Mohammad Habib al-Mekdad, president of Zahraa Association for Orphans, was arrested at home in April 2011 by a group of 50-60 people wearing civilian clothes and masks. He was still in detention at the time of the report.

Mohammed Habib Al Mekdad
Mohammed Habib Al Mekdad

Al-Mekdad was stripped naked and beaten, and then put in pitch-dark prison cell, where he was continually tortured, the report says. According to al-Mekdad, he was hung head down, beaten for hours, and had sensitive body parts exposed to electric shock.

Prince Nasser Bin Hamad came to interrogate al-Mekdad and other detainees, making sure they recognized him before their questioning, the report says. On learning that al-Mekdad took part in a Safriya protest march in front of the Bahraini king’s palace, where some people shouted “Down with King Hamad,” the prince began beating him.

Prince Nasser then supervised the torture in person, Al-Mekdad said at the February 2012 court trial according to the report. There he showed more than 50 electric shock traces on his body and told the judge he was tortured by a drill piercing his leg and humiliated by spitting in his mouth. Prince Nasser forced al-Mekdad to kiss pictures of the royal family in between the torture sessions.

None of these words were taken down in the court, and the judge asked al-Mekdad to remain silent, saying that “this court has its respect,” the report states.

Tortured for SMS

This is what happens in Bahrain if the king’s son finds a suspicious SMS in your phone, RT’s Kevorkova said, citing the story of the man speaking on condition of anonymity.

According to the report, the man was stopped at a checkpoint near Safriya Palace in May 2011 while driving in a car with his wife and children. He recognized one of the patrolmen as Prince Khalid Bin Hamad. Unsatisfied with the fact that nothing was found in the car, the prince started searching through text messages on the man’s phone, and found an old SMS on the Pearl Roundabout demonstration.

The prince then ordered the man’s brother be called to take the woman and children home, but on his arrival both were arrested, the report says. They were thrown to the ground, beaten and forced “to repeat the royal greeting,” with Khalid Bin Hamad ordering to beat them again for every royal family member’s name they didn’t know.

The men were also forced to eat hot chili peppers and insult some opposition figures. The reports states that the police has also started beating the men on coming to the scene.

Both were sentenced to 60 days in prison and dismissed from their jobs.

Another man cited in the report was also arrested at a checkpoint after policemen noticed his car was parked near Pearl Roundabout and took the car’s number down.

For that he was put in al-Qalaa prison and tortured daily with the use of special devices and techniques, including chaining, limb piercing and beating with clubs, the report claims. He was also deprived of sleep and his religious practices, the report adds.

Prince Nasser Bin Hamad allegedly supervised the man’s torture, which was carried out by foreigners.

“This is not Iran, we came to you from Iraq, and we are Saddamists,” they shouted as they tortured him, according to the report.

The man was cited as saying that his friend Karim Fakhrawi, who was also detained, died during one such torture session.

RT sent a letter to Bahraini Information Affairs Authority last week asking for the comment on the report, but has so far not received an answer.

­RT's Nadezhda Kevorkova contributed to this report

Royal torture ring: Bahraini princess on trial

A Bahraini princess is in court for the torture of three pro-democracy activists in detention. The princess’s case is the latest in a string of cases of torture and violence has seen the light in a report issued by Bahraini opposition.

Princess Nora Bint Ebrahim al-Khalifa who serves in Bahrain’s Drugs Control Unit, allegedly collaborated with another officer to torture three activists held in detention following a pro-democracy rally against the island kingdom’s monarchy.

The princess categorically denies the charges of torture set against her.

Two of the princess’s alleged victims were Doctors Ghassan Daif and Bassem Daif, who went to help the hundreds wounded when police opened fire with teargas and birdshot during protests in 2011. They were taken into custody in March of that year when it is thought that al-Khalifa tortured them.

Ayat al-Qurmazi
Ayat al-Qurmazi

The third victim, 21-year-old Ayat al-Qurmazi, was arrested for public reading of inflammatory poetry criticizing the royal family. She claims her blindfold slipped while she was being tortured and she caught a glimpse of al-Khalifa.

As Muslim women have never before been known to take part in interrogations and tortures, Nora Al-Khalifa stands out as the grossest character in the human rights activists’ report, RT’s Nadezhda Kevorkova said.

Princess Nora’s case is the latest in a series of torture scandals highlighted in a report by the Bahrain Forum for Human Rights.

A 55-pages report titled ‘Citizens in the Grip of Torture’ is based on the nine interviews with named and anonymous witnesses. It was published both in English and Arabic.

The report states that two of the Bahraini King’s sons Nasser Bin Hammad Al-Khalifa and Khalid Bin Hammad Al-Khalifa, as well as two other members of the royal family, Khalifa Bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa and Nora Bint Ebrahim Al-Khalifa, directly took part in torturing the activists.

Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa (L), Khalid bin Hamad Al Khalifa (M), Khalifa bin Ahmed Al Khalifa (R). (Photos from Report: Citizens in the Grip of Torturers)
Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa (L), Khalid bin Hamad Al Khalifa (M), Khalifa bin Ahmed Al Khalifa (R). (Photos from Report: Citizens in the Grip of Torturers)

Torture stories include rare details that Muslims usually prefer to shun for ethical reasons, Bahraini opposition activists told Kevorkova.

After getting numerous letters from torture victims who mentioned the four members of the royal family among the arresters and torturers, the report’s authors decided it was vital to get an investigation going, RT’s Kevorkova said.

Included in the report are short CVs of those four members of the Bahrain’s royal family accused of human rights violations.

Nasser Bin Hamad, the fourth son of the King Hamad, is a colonel and commander of Bahrain’s royal guard. Bin Hamad, his 23-year-old brother, has also held a number of senior positions despite his young age and is married to Saudi Arabian King’s daughter.

The other two Al-Khalifas directly responsible for cases of torture and violence as stated in the report are Colonel Khalifa Bin Ahmed, a high-ranking police officer dismissed from his post in September 2011, and Lieutenant Nora Bint Ebrahim Al-Khalifa of Bahrain’s Drug Enforcement Administration.

Tortured for reading verses

Poet Ayat Al-Qurmozy was arrested in March 2011 after reciting a poem against the Bahraini regime during a peaceful demonstration in Pearl Roundabout. She was detained by masked men dressed in civilian clothing. On her release, al-Qurmozy told of tortures used on her by both men and women. One of the women involved was identified as Nora al-Khalifa.

The report states that Nora spat on al-Qurmozy and into her mouth, slapped her in the face repeatedly, administered electric shocks and shouted anti-Shia slurs.

On the eighth day of her arrest, al-Qurmozy was brought blindfolded into a room full of men, documents the report. They shouted abuse at her and demanded she tell them by whom she was given the verses and how much she was paid for reading them.

“I was surprised by a woman grabbing me and slapping me hard in the face… When she was screaming, cursing and slapping me hard on my face, the blindfold came down off my eyes and I saw her face a bit but they rushed to lift it,” al-Qurmozy later said, as cited in the report.

Al-Qurmozy was then brutally beaten, and Nora gave her electric shocks every time she lost consciousness, the report says. After that Nora allegedly went on torturing the young poet every night, beating her on the face and spitting on her every time she found her without a blindfold.

Threatened by rape, the poet girl was forced to confess to her ‘guilt’ in front of a camera. But her torture continued after al-Qurmozy was thrown into a car, the report says, elaborating on how Nora slapped her on the head, threatened to cut out her tongue, spat and put a wooden bathroom broom into her mouth and beat her continually. All these abuses were witnessed by another arrested woman, Jalila Salman, who was put in the same car.

Tortured for taking part in demonstration

Sheikh Mohammad Habib al-Mekdad, president of Zahraa Association for Orphans, was arrested at home in April 2011 by a group of 50-60 people wearing civilian clothes and masks. He was still in detention at the time of the report.

Mohammed Habib Al Mekdad
Mohammed Habib Al Mekdad

Al-Mekdad was stripped naked and beaten, and then put in pitch-dark prison cell, where he was continually tortured, the report says. According to al-Mekdad, he was hung head down, beaten for hours, and had sensitive body parts exposed to electric shock.

Prince Nasser Bin Hamad came to interrogate al-Mekdad and other detainees, making sure they recognized him before their questioning, the report says. On learning that al-Mekdad took part in a Safriya protest march in front of the Bahraini king’s palace, where some people shouted “Down with King Hamad,” the prince began beating him.

Prince Nasser then supervised the torture in person, Al-Mekdad said at the February 2012 court trial according to the report. There he showed more than 50 electric shock traces on his body and told the judge he was tortured by a drill piercing his leg and humiliated by spitting in his mouth. Prince Nasser forced al-Mekdad to kiss pictures of the royal family in between the torture sessions.

None of these words were taken down in the court, and the judge asked al-Mekdad to remain silent, saying that “this court has its respect,” the report states.

Tortured for SMS

This is what happens in Bahrain if the king’s son finds a suspicious SMS in your phone, RT’s Kevorkova said, citing the story of the man speaking on condition of anonymity.

According to the report, the man was stopped at a checkpoint near Safriya Palace in May 2011 while driving in a car with his wife and children. He recognized one of the patrolmen as Prince Khalid Bin Hamad. Unsatisfied with the fact that nothing was found in the car, the prince started searching through text messages on the man’s phone, and found an old SMS on the Pearl Roundabout demonstration.

The prince then ordered the man’s brother be called to take the woman and children home, but on his arrival both were arrested, the report says. They were thrown to the ground, beaten and forced “to repeat the royal greeting,” with Khalid Bin Hamad ordering to beat them again for every royal family member’s name they didn’t know.

The men were also forced to eat hot chili peppers and insult some opposition figures. The reports states that the police has also started beating the men on coming to the scene.

Both were sentenced to 60 days in prison and dismissed from their jobs.

Another man cited in the report was also arrested at a checkpoint after policemen noticed his car was parked near Pearl Roundabout and took the car’s number down.

For that he was put in al-Qalaa prison and tortured daily with the use of special devices and techniques, including chaining, limb piercing and beating with clubs, the report claims. He was also deprived of sleep and his religious practices, the report adds.

Prince Nasser Bin Hamad allegedly supervised the man’s torture, which was carried out by foreigners.

“This is not Iran, we came to you from Iraq, and we are Saddamists,” they shouted as they tortured him, according to the report.

The man was cited as saying that his friend Karim Fakhrawi, who was also detained, died during one such torture session.

RT sent a letter to Bahraini Information Affairs Authority last week asking for the comment on the report, but has so far not received an answer.

­RT's Nadezhda Kevorkova contributed to this report

“محو الدول عن الخارطة”: من ذا الذي يفشل “الدول الفاشلة”ØŸ

 

البروفيسور ميشيل شوسودوفسكي

ترجمة: علي شكري

“ثمة شائعة خطيرة يجري تداولها حول العالم ويمكنها أن تفضي إلى عواقب خطيرة، مفادها أن الرئيس الإيراني قد هدد بتدمير إسرائيل، أو، طبقاً للعبارة الملفقة المنسوبة إليه “يجب محو إسرائيل من على الخارطة”. وخلافاً للاعتقاد الشائع، فإن هذا العبارة لم ترد إطلاقاً على لسانه” (أراش نوروزي، المحو عن الخارطة: شائعة العصر كانون الثاني/يناير 2007)

لقد هاجمت الولايات المتحدة، على نحو مباشر أو غير مباشر، نحو 44 بلداً في العالم منذ العام 1945، بل إنها هاجمت بعضها على نحو متكرر. وكان الهدف المعلن لتلك التدخلات العسكرية إحداث “تغيير في نظام الحكم”. وفي كل الحالات كانت تستخدم ذرائع “الديمقراطية” و”حقوق الإنسان” لتبرير تلك الأعمال الأحادية غير القانونية. (البروفيسور إريك واندل، حملة الولايات المتحدة الصليبية (1945 – )، غلوبال ريسيرتش، شباط/فبراير 2007)

هذه مذكرة [للبنتاغون] تصف كيف سنقوم باجتياح سبعة بلدان خلال خمس سنوات، بدءاً بالعراق ثم سورية، لبنان، ليبيا، الصومال، السودان، وانتهاءاً بإيران. قلت هل هي سرية للغاية؟ قال “نعم يا سيدي”، فقلت إذن لا ترني إياها.” (الجنرال ويسلي كلارك، ديموكراسي ناو، 2 آذار/مارس، 2007)

* * * * * *

إن واشنطن هي بصدد تدمير قائمة طويلة جداً من البلدان.

فمن ذا الذي يمارس “محو البلدان من على الخارطة” إذن؟ إيران أم الولايات المتحدة؟

 خلال الفترة التي تسمى من قبيل الكياسة “حقبة ما بعد الحرب”—والتي تمتد من العام 1945 وحتى الآن— شنت الولايات المتحدة هجمات عسكرية مباشرة أو غير مباشرة على أكثر من 40 بلداً.

وفيما تقوم السياسة الخارجية الأمريكية على مبدأ نشر الديمقراطية، فإن النزعة التدخلية الأمريكية –بالوسائل العسكرية والعمليات السرية—أدت إلى إشاعة عدم الاستقرار وتمزيق وحدة دول ذات سيادة.

إن تدمير الدول جزء من المشروع الإمبريالي لبسط هيمنتها العالمية. وطبقاً للمصادر الرسمية، فإن لدى الولايات المتحدة 737 قاعدة عسكرية خارج حدودها. (إحصائية 2005)

مصطلح “الدول الفاشلة”

“يتوقع” تقرير التوجهات العالمية (كانون الأول/ديسمبر 2012) الصادر عن مجلس الاستخبارات القومي في واشنطن NIC، أن تتحول 15 دولة في أفريقيا وآسيا والشرق الأوسط إلى “دول فاشلة” بحلول العام 2030 كنتيجة للمنازعات المحتملة والمعضلات البيئية.

وتشمل قائمة البلدان في تقرير المجلس للعام 2012 كلاً من أفغانستان، النيجر، مالي، كينيا، بوروندي، إثيوبيا، راوندا، الصومال، جمهورية الكونغو الديمقراطية، ملاوي، هايتي، اليمن. (انظر ص 39)

وفي تقريرها للعام 2005 والذي نشر عشية التجديد للولاية الثانية للرئيس جورج بوش، توقع مجلس الاستخبارات القومي أن تصبح الباكستان دوبة فاشلة بحلول العام 2015 “تحت تأثير الحرب الأهلية والطلبنة والصراع من أجل السيطرة على الأسلحة النووية.

وقورنت الحالة الباكستانية وقتها بيوغسلافيا التي تشظت إلى سبع دول تابعة بعد عقد من “الحروب الأهلية” التي رعاها وأدارها الناتو والولايات المتحدة.

وتوقعت NIC أن تتحول الباكستان إلى دولة شبيهة بيوغسلافيا تمزقها الحروب الأهلية وحمامات الدم والصراعات الإفليمية (إينرجي كومباس 2 آذار/مارس 2005).

وفيما يشير إلى أن الدول الفاشلة تصبح ملاذاً آمناً للمتطرفين دينياً وسياسياً (ص 143)، فإن التقرير لا يعترف بحقيقة أن الولايات المتحدة وحلفاءها قد دأبت منذ السبعينات من القرن الماضي على تقديم الدعم السري لقوى التطرف الديني كوسيلة لزعزعة استقرار دول وطنية علمانية. فكلا اليلدين باكستان وأفغانستان كان علمانياً خلال السبعينات.

الدول الفاشلة من الطراز اليوغسلافي أو الصومالي ليست نتيجة للانفسامات الاجتماعية الداخلية، بل هي هدف استراتيجي تم تحقيقه عبر العمليات السرية بما في ذلك العسكرية.

يقوم صندوق السلام Fund for Peace في واشنطون المتخصص في “الأبحاث من أجل الأمن المستدام” سنوياً بنشر مؤشر الدول الفاشلة Failed States Index بالاستناد إلى تقييم المخاطر (انظر الخارطة). ثمة 33 دولة جرى تصنيفها كدول فاشة (ضمن فئتي الإنذار Alert أو التنبيه Warn).

ووفقاً لصندوق السلام، فإن “الدول الفاشلة” هي أهداف للإرهابيين المرتبطين بالقاعدة.

ويأتي التصنيف التراتبي السنوي لصندوق السلام ومجلة فورين بوليسي للدول الفاشلة والهشة بمؤشرات عالمية مثيرة للقلق في وقت تتصاعد فيه المخاوف الدولية من إقامة المتطرفين المرتبطين بالقاعدة دويلة حاضنة في شمال مالي لتوسيع نشاطاتهم الجهادية.

وبطبيعة الحال، لم يشر التفرير إلى تاريخ القاعدة بوصفها أداة استخبارية أمريكية أو إلى دورها في نشر الانقسامات والاضطرابات في الشرق الأوسط وآسيا الوسطى وأفريقيا، حيث تشكل نشاطاتها في معظم هذه المناطق جزءاً من الأجندات الاستخبارية السرية الشيطانية.

الدول الضعيفة والفاشلة: تهديد لأمريكا

بمنطق ملتوٍ، يزعم الكونغرس الأمريكي أن الدول الفاشلة الضعيفة إنما تمثل تهديداً لأمن الولايات المتحدة. وتتضمن هذه “عدداً من التهديدات الصادرة عن دول توصف بدرجات متفاوتة كدول ضعيفة، هشة، واهنة، غير مستقرة، مضطربة، فاشلة، مأزومة، أو منهارة“.

عندما انتهت الحرب الباردة في مطلع التسعينات، لاحظ المحللون تشكل بيئة جديدة للأمن الدولي تصبح فيها الدول الفاشلة والضعيفة منصات للجريمة المنظمة العابرة للحدود، وانتشار المواد والتكنولوجيا النووية، وبؤراً ساخنة للمنازعات الأهلية والأزمات الإنسانية. وأصبحت احتمالات المخاطر التي تمثلها الدول الفاشلة والضعيفة أكثر وضوحاً مع هجوم القاعدة في 11 أيلول/سبتمبر 2001 على الولايات المتحدة التي دبرها أسامة بن لادن من ملاذه الآمن الذي وفرته له أفغانستان. وقد دفعت أحداث 11/9 الرئيس جورج دبليو بوش إلى الزعم (في وثيقة استراتيجية الأمن القومي الأمريكي للعام 2002) بأن “الدول الضعيفة، مثل أفغانستان، يمكن أن تمثل خطراً على مصالحنا القومية لا يقل عما تمثله الدول القوية.” (الدول الضعيفة والفاشلة: المخاطر المتنامية والسياسة الأمريكية، تقرير مركز خدمات أبحاث الكونغرس CRS إلى الكونغرس، واشنطن 2008)

ما أغفله تقرير مركز خدمات أبحاث الكونغرس هو أن “البؤر النشطة للجريمة المنظمة والنزاعات الأهلية” إنما هي ناتجة عن العمليات الاستخبارية السرية الأمريكية.

 من الحقائق الموثقة جيداً، أن اقتصاد المخدرات الأفغاني الذي ينتج أكثر من 90% من إجمالي الإنتاج العالمي من الهيروين يتشابك مع عمليات تبييض أموال بالمليارات تشارك فيها كبرى المؤسسات المالية العالمية. وتحظى تجارة المخدرات الأفغانية بحماية الـCIA وقوات الاحتلال الأطلسي في ذلك البلد.

تصنيف سورية كـ”بلد فاشل”

تهيء الفظائع التي ارتكبت بحق الشعب السوري من قبل الجيش السوري الحر المدعوم أمريكياً وأطلسياً الشروط الضرورية لحرب طائفية. ومن شأن التطرف الطائفي تحطيم سورية كدولة وطنية واضمحلال السلطة المركزية في دمشق.

إن هدف السياسة الخارجية لواشنطن هو تحويل سورية إلى ما يسميه المجلس الاستخباري القومي الأمريكي NIC “بلداً فاشلاً”. فتغيير النظام يعني المحافظة على وجود سلطة مركزية، ولكن تطور الأزمة السورية يشي بأن “تغيير النظام” لم يعد هو الهدف، بل تقسيم وتدمير سورية كدولة وطنية.

فالاستراتيجية الأمريكية-الأطلسية-الإسرائيلية تقوم على تقسيم البلاد إلى ثلاث دول ضعيفة. حيث نجد أن آخر التقارير الإخبارية تزعم إنه “إذا رفض بشار الأسد التنازل عن السلطة” فإن “البديل سيكون بلداً فاشلاً كالصومال.”

أحد السيناريوهات المحتملة للتقسيم والذي جاء في تقرير صحفي إسرائيلي، يتضمن دويلات “مستقلة” سنية وعلوية-شيعية وكردية ودرزية.

فبحسب الجنرال في الجيش الإسرائيلي يائير غولان فإن “سورية هي في حرب أهلية ستنتهي بها دولة فاشلة يزدهر فيها الإرهاب.” ويضيف الجنرال غولان بأن الجيش الإسرائيلي يقوم حالياً بتحليل “الكيفية التي ستتشظى بها سورية” (رويترز 31 أيار/مايو، 2012)

في شهر تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر الماضي، صرح مبعوث السلام الأممي الاخضر الابراهيمي بأن سورية قد تتحول إلى “صومال أخرى”، …”محذراً من سيناريو تملأ فيه المليشيات وأمراء الحرب الفراغ الذي سيخلفه انهيار سلطة الدولة.” (رويترز 22 تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر، 2012)

“ما أخشاه هو الأسوء …انهيار الدولة وتحول سورية إلى صومال أخرى.”

“أعتقد بأنه ما لم يتم التعامل مع القضية بشكل صحيح، فإن الخطر هو “الصوملة” وليس التقسيم؛ انهيار الدولة وبروز أمراء الحرب والميليشيات والجماعات المقاتلة.” (المصدر السابق)

بيد أن المبعوث الأممي للسلام لم يشر إلى حقيقة أن تحطيم الصومال كان عملاً مدبراً. لقد كان جزءاً من خطة عسكرية واستخبارية أمريكية سرية، يعاد تطبيقها حالياً في عدد من البلدان المستهدفة في الشرق الأوسط وأفريقيا وآسيا والتي تصنف كـ”بلدان فاشلة”.

السؤال المركزي هو: من ذا الذي يُفشل الدول فيجعلها فاشلة؟ من الذي “يمحيها عن الوجود”؟

إن التفتيت المدبر لسورية كدولة ذات سيادة لهو جزء متكامل من خطة عسكرية واستخبارية تشمل أيضاً كلاً من لبنان وإيران وباكستان. فبحسب “تنبؤات” المجلس القومي للاستخبارات [الأمريكية]، فإن تفتيت باكستان مخطط للإنجاز خلال السنوات الثلاث المقبلة.

Turks Rally Against NATO Missile Deployment Near Syrian Border

Part of the NATO Patriot anti-missile complexes, which were requested by Ankara from the Alliance, has already arrived in Turkey. They are planned to be deployed near the border with Syria, ostensibly to protect Turkey against possible missile attacks from the Syrian side.

Anti-missile complexes will be also located in the southeastern province of Kahramanmarash. Contrary to the authorities’ assertions that Patriots will only carry out defensive tasks, locals have serious concerns about their safety.

“We strongly object to the deployment of the NATO military facilities in the territory of Turkey since this exacerbates our relations with our neighbors, which were at an excellent level only 10 years ago. We went through that in 1991, when the missiles were deployed in Incirlik. Then, too, it was asserted that they were destined exclusively for defensive purposes. However, this did not prevent full-scale and unreasonable bombings of Iraq”, Esat Shengul, head of the regional branch of the main opposition Republican People’s Party said to the Voice of Russia.

In his opinion, the deployment of Patriots is part of the American Greater Middle East project, aimed at providing free access to energy resources.

Head of the local branch of the Nationalist Movement Party Mustafa Bastirmaji agrees with Shengul. “The West is trying to cause a clash between the peoples of the region. Moreover, it tries to unleash a Sunni-Shiite war in the region. Elements of such a confrontation are already evident in Syria. Later Iran’s turn will come. And it is scary to imagine what will happen then. We do not want it”, the politician stated in an interview with the Voice of Russia.

Turkish activists rally against NATO’s Patriot deployment

Turks have rallied against the NATO deployment of Patriot missiles on the country’s soil, media report.

Some 150 leftists and right-wing activists lit smoke bombs and burned an American flag outside the port area as dozens of camouflaged German military vehicles carrying Patriot batteries were offloaded in Iskenderun.

Another rally in downtown Iskenderun later gathered thousands of anti-NATO protesters, who chanted “Yankee go home!” and “Murderer America, get out of the Middle East!”

Some protesters said the root of evil was the “collaborationist government,” and not Syria. Riot police arrested several demonstrators.

Al-Qaida nel Maghreb islamico: Chi sono e chi c’è dietro?

ansar el dine

Global Research, 21 gennaio 2013

Chi c’è dietro il gruppo terroristico che ha attaccato il complesso gasifero della BP-Statoil-Sonatrach del giacimento di Amenas, che si trova al confine con la Libia nel sud-est dell’Algeria?
L’operazione era stata coordinata da Moqtar Belmoqtar, leader della brigata islamista al-Mulathamin, o “coloro che si firmano con il sangue”, affiliata ad al-Qaida. L’organizzazione di Belmoqtar è coinvolta nel traffico di droga, nel contrabbando e nel sequestro di stranieri nel Nord Africa. Sebbene la sua ubicazione sia nota, l’intelligence francese ha soprannominato Belmoqtar “l’imprendibile”. Belmoqtar si è assunta la responsabilità, per conto di al-Qaida, del rapimento di 41 ostaggi occidentali, tra cui 7 statunitensi, nel complesso gasifero della alla BP di Amenas. Belmoqtar, tuttavia, non è stato direttamente coinvolto nell’attacco vero e proprio. Il comandante sul campo dell’operazione era Abdul Rahman al-Nigeri, un veterano jihadista del Niger, che aveva fatto parte del Gruppo Algerino per la Predicazione e il Combattimento (GSPC) nel 2005. (Albawaba, 17 gennaio 2013)

L’operazione per il sequestro di Amenas è stata effettuata cinque giorni dopo l’avvio degli attacchi aerei della Francia contro i militanti di al-Qaida nel Maghreb Islamico (AQIM) nel nord del Mali. Le forze speciali francesi e le truppe del Mali hanno ripreso il controllo di Diabaly e Konna, due cittadine a nord di Mopti. La città di Diabaly era stata apparentemente presa pochi giorni prima dai combattenti guidati da uno dei principali comandanti di AQIM, Abdelhamid Abu Zeid. Mentre l’attacco terroristico e il sequestro dell’impianto gasifero d’In Amenas è stato descritto come una vendetta, non è stata per nulla improvvisato, come confermato dagli analisti, l’operazione con ogni probabilità è stata pianificata con largo anticipo: “Ufficiali europei e statunitensi dicono che il raid era quasi certamente fin troppo elaborato, per essere stato pianificato in così breve tempo, anche se l’operazione della Francia avrebbe spinto i combattenti a condurre un assalto che avevano già preparato.”
Secondo i recenti rapporti (20 gennaio 2012) ci sono state circa 80 vittime, tra ostaggi e combattenti jihadisti. Vi erano diverse centinaia di lavoratori nell’impianto gasifero, la maggior parte dei quali  algerini. “Tra le persone soccorse, solo 107 su 792 lavoratori erano stranieri”, secondo il ministero degli Interni algerino. I governi britannico e francese incolpano i jihadisti. Secondo il primo ministro britannico David Cameron: “Naturalmente la gente farà delle domande sulla reazione algerina a questi eventi, ma vorrei solo dire che la responsabilità di queste morti ricade direttamente sui terroristi che hanno lanciato questo attacco, feroce e vile. (Reuters, 20 gennaio 2013).
Notizie di stampa confermano, tuttavia, che il gran numero di morti tra gli ostaggi e i combattenti islamici è stato il risultato dei bombardamenti delle forze algerine. Dei negoziati con i rapitori, che avrebbero potuto salvare delle vite, non sono stati seriamente contemplati né dai governi algerini né da quelli occidentali. I militanti chiedevano la fine degli attacchi francesi nel nord del Mali, in cambio della sicurezza per gli ostaggi. Il leader di al-Qaida Belmoqtar aveva affermato: “Siamo pronti a negoziare con l’occidente e il governo algerino, a condizione che s’interrompano i bombardamenti dei musulmani del Mali.” (Reuters, 20 gennaio 2013) Nelle fila dei jihadisti vi erano mercenari provenienti da un certo numero di paesi musulmani, tra cui la Libia (ancora da confermare), così come dei combattenti provenienti da paesi occidentali.

Al-Qaida nel Maghreb Islamico (AQIM). Chi è?

Vi è un certo numero di gruppi affiliati attivamente presenti nel nord del Mali:
• Al-Qaida nel Maghreb Islamico (AQIM), guidato da Abdelmaleq Druqdel, “l’emiro di al-Qaida nel Maghreb islamico”,
• Ansar al-Din guidato da Iyad Ag Ghaly,
• il Movimento per l’Unicità e la Jihad in Africa occidentale (MUJAO).
Il Gruppo Islamico Armato, o Groupe Islamique Armé (GIA) che era in primo piano negli anni ’90, è in gran parte defunto. I suoi membri hanno aderito ad AQIM.
Il Movimento Nazionale per la Liberazione del Azawad (MNLA) è un movimento per l’indipendenza tuareg, nazionalista e laico.

Cenni storici

Nel settembre 2006, il Gruppo Salafita per la Predicazione e il Combattimento (GSPC) unì le forze con al-Qaida. Il GSPC è stato fondato da Hassan Hattab, un ex comandante del GIA. Nel gennaio 2007, il gruppo mutò ufficialmente il nome in al-Qaida nel Maghreb Islamico (AQIM). Nei primi mesi del 2007 la nuova formazione stabilì stretti rapporti con il Gruppo combattente islamico libico (LIFG). I comandanti del GSPC si ispirano all’insegnamento religioso del salafismo dell’Arabia Saudita, che storicamente ha svolto un ruolo importante nell’addestramento dei mujahidin in Afghanistan. La storia dei comandanti jihadisti di AQIM è importante per affrontare la questione più ampia:

• Chi c’è dietro le varie fazioni affiliate ad al-Qaida?
• Chi sostiene i terroristi?
• Quali interessi politici ed economici servono?

Il Counsil on Foreign Relations (CFR) di Washington fa risalire le origini di AQIM alla guerra in Afghanistan: “La maggior parte dei leader principali di AQIM si crede sia stato addestrata in Afghanistan durante la guerra contro i sovietici, nel 1979-1989, nell’ambito del gruppo di volontari del Nord Africa conosciuto come “arabi afghani”, che ritornarono nella regione e radicalizzarono i movimenti islamici, negli anni che seguirono. Il gruppo è diviso in “katiba” o brigate, che  raggruppano cellule diverse e spesso indipendenti. Il comandante supremo del gruppo, o emiro, dal 2004 è Abdelmaleq Druqdel, noto anche come Abu Mussab Abdelwadud, un ingegnere esperto di esplosivi che ha combattuto in Afghanistan ed ha origini nel GIA in Algeria. Fu sotto la guida di Druqdel che AQIM dichiarò che la Francia è il suo obiettivo principale. Uno dei “più violenti e radicali” leader di AQIM è Abdelhamid Abu Zeid, secondo gli esperti di antiterrorismo. Abu Zied è legato a diversi rapimenti ed esecuzioni di cittadini europei nella regione. (Council on Foreign Relations, al-Qaida nel Maghreb Islamico, Cfr.org, senza data).

Ciò che il rapporto del CFR non riesce a ricordare è che la Jihad islamica in Afghanistan fu un’iniziativa della CIA, avviata nel 1979 durante l’amministrazione Carter. Venne attivamente sostenuta dal presidente Ronald Reagan nel corso degli anni ’80. Nel 1979, la più grande operazione segreta nella storia della CIA venne attuata in Afghanistan. Missionari wahabiti provenienti dall’Arabia Saudita crearono delle scuole coraniche (madrase) in Pakistan e Afghanistan. I libri di testo islamici utilizzati nelle madrasse venivano stampati e pubblicati in Nebraska. Il finanziamento occulto veniva incanalato ai mujahidin con il sostegno della CIA: “Con l’attivo incoraggiamento della CIA e dell’ISI pakistano, che volevano trasformare la jihad afghana in una guerra globale condotta da tutti gli stati musulmani contro l’Unione Sovietica, circa 35.000 musulmani radicali provenienti da 40 paesi islamici si unirono alla lotta in Afghanistan, tra il 1982 e il 1992. Decine di migliaia di persone andarono a studiare nelle madrase pakistane. Alla fine, più di 100.000 musulmani radicali stranieri furono direttamente influenzati dalla jihad afghana.” (Ahmed Rashid,”I taliban: l’esportazione dell’estremismo”, Foreign Affairs, novembre-dicembre 1999).

La Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), usando i militari pakistani dell’Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), svolse un ruolo chiave nell’addestramento dei mujahidin. A sua volta, l’addestramento dei guerriglieri sponsorizzati dalla CIA venne integrato con gli insegnamenti dell’Islam: “Nel marzo 1985, il presidente Reagan firmava la Decisione direttiva per la Sicurezza Nazionale N° 166, … [che] autorizzava [l']intensificazione degli aiuti militari occulti ai mujahidin, e chiariva che la guerra segreta afghana aveva un nuovo obiettivo: sconfiggere le truppe sovietiche in Afghanistan attraverso azioni occulte e incoraggiare il ritiro sovietico. La nuova assistenza segreta degli Stati Uniti iniziò con un drammatico aumento delle forniture di armi, un costante aumento fino a 65.000 tonnellate all’anno nel 1987… così come un “flusso incessante” di specialisti della CIA e del Pentagono che si recarono al quartier generale segreto dell’ISI pakistana, sulla strada principale di Rawalpindi, in Pakistan. Gli specialisti della CIA incontrarono i funzionari dell’intelligence pakistana per pianificare le operazioni dei ribelli afghani.” (Steve Coll, Washington Post, 19 luglio 1992)
Moqtar Belmoqtar, la mente dietro l’attacco terroristico della brigata islamista al-Mulathamin al  complesso gasifero di Amenas, è uno dei membri fondatori di AQIM. Fu addestrato e reclutato dalla CIA in Afghanistan. Belmoqtar era un volontario nordafricano, un “afgano arabo” arruolatosi a 19 anni come mujahidin per combattere nelle fila di al-Qaida in Afghanistan, in un momento in cui la CIA e la sua affiliata pakistana, l’Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), sostenevano attivamente sia il reclutamento che l’addestramento dei jihadisti. Moqtar Belmoqar ha combattuto nella “guerra civile” in Afghanistan. Tornato in Algeria nel 1993, si unì al GSPC. La storia di Belmoqtar e il suo coinvolgimento in Afghanistan suggeriscono che sia stato sponsorizzato quale “asset dell’intelligence” statunitense.

Il ruolo degli alleati degli USA: Arabia Saudita e Qatar

Al-Qaida nel Maghreb Islamico (AQIM) fin dal 2007 aveva stabilito una stretta relazione con il Gruppo combattente islamico libico (LIFG), i cui leader erano stati addestrati e reclutati in Afghanistan dalla CIA. Il LIFG era sostenuto segretamente dalla CIA e dall’MI6 britannico. Il LIFG è stato supportato direttamente dalla NATO durante la guerra del 2011 contro la Libia, “fornendo  armi, addestramento, forze speciali e perfino aerei per aiutarlo a rovesciare il governo della Libia.” (Tony Cartalucci, The Geopolitical Reordering of Africa: US Covert Support to Al Qaeda in Northern Mali, France “Comes to the Rescue”, Global Research, gennaio 2013).

Le Forze speciali britanniche SAS giunsero in Libia prima dell’inizio dell’insurrezione, in qualità di consulenti militari del LIFG. Recentemente, relazioni confermano che AQIM ha ricevuto armi dal Gruppo combattente islamico libico (LIFG). Mercenari del LIFG si sono integrati nelle brigate di AQIM. Secondo il comandante Moqtar Belmoqtar, che ha coordinato l’operazione del sequestro  di In Amenas: “Siamo uno dei principali beneficiari delle rivoluzioni nel mondo arabo. Per quanto ci riguarda, abbiamo ottenuto delle armi (dalla Libia), questa è una cosa naturale in simili circostanze.” http://www.hanford.gov/c.cfm/oci/ci_terrorist.cfm?dossier=174

L’impianto della BP ad In Amenas è situato direttamente sul confine con la Libia. Si sospetta che vi fosse un contingente di combattenti del Gruppo combattente islamico libico (LIFG) coinvolto nell’operazione. AQIM ha anche legami con il Fronte al-Nusra in Siria, sostenuto segretamente da Arabia Saudita e Qatar.

Al-Qaida nel Maghreb Islamico è indelebilmente legato all’agenda delle intelligence occidentali. È descritto come “uno dei più ricchi e più armati gruppi militanti della regione”, finanziato segretamente da Arabia Saudita e Qatar. Il giornale francese Canard enchaîné ha rivelato (nel giugno 2012) che il Qatar (un fedele alleato degli Stati Uniti) ha finanziato varie entità terroristiche in Mali, tra cui il salafita Ansar al-Din: “I ribelli tuareg del MNLA (indipendentisti e laici), Ansar al-Din, AQIM (al-Qaida nel Maghreb islamico) e Mujao (Jihad in Africa occidentale), ricevono dollari dal Qatar, secondo un rapporto (The Examiner). Il giornale satirico francese Canard enchaîné riportava [nel giugno 2012] che il Qatar stava probabilmente finanziando gruppi armati nel nord del Mali, che si diffondevano in Algeria e nell’Africa occidentale. I sospetti che Ansar al-Din, il principale gruppo armato pro-shari’ah nella regione, abbia ricevuto finanziamenti dal Qatar, circolano in Mali da diversi mesi. Rapporti (ancora non confermati) su un aereo del ‘Qatar’ che sarebbe atterrato a Gao carico di armi, denaro e droga, per esempio, sono emersi all’inizio del conflitto. L’articolo originale cita un rapporto dell’intelligence militare francese che indicava che il Qatar forniva sostegno finanziario a tutti e tre i principali gruppi armati nel nord del Mali: l’Ansar al-Din di Iyad Ag Ghali, al-Qaida nel Maghreb Islamico (AQIM) e il Movimento per l’Unicità e la Jihad in Africa occidentale (MUJAO). L’importo del finanziamento concesso a ciascuno dei gruppi non viene menzionato, ma si parla di rapporti ripetuti del DGSE francese al ministero della Difesa, che indicavano il sostegno del Qatar al ‘terrorismo’ nel nord del Mali.”
Il ruolo di al-Qaida nel Maghreb islamico come attività dell’intelligence deve essere attentamente valutata. L’insurrezione islamica crea le condizioni che favoriscono la destabilizzazione politica del Mali come Stato-nazione. Quali interessi geopolitici vengono serviti?

Osservazioni conclusive: “The American Sudan”

Con amara ironia, il sequestro nel sud dell’Algeria e la tragedia risultante dall’operazione militare di “salvataggio” algerina, fornisce una giustificazione umanitaria all’intervento militare occidentale guidato dall’US AFRICOM. Quest’ultimo non opera solo in Mali e Algeria. Potrebbe anche includere la vasta regione che si estende sulla cintura sub-sahariana del Sahel, dalla Mauritania al confine occidentale del Sudan. Questa escalation è parte di un piano militare e strategico degli Stati Uniti, fase segeunte della militarizzazione del continente africano, “un passo successivo” della guerra USA-NATO in Libia del 2011. Si tratta di un progetto di conquista neo-coloniale degli Stati Uniti di una vasta area.
Mentre la Francia è l’ex potenza coloniale che interviene a nome di Washington, la fine del gioco  vedrà l’esclusione della Francia, infine, dal Maghreb e dall’Africa sub-sahariana. Questo declassamento della Francia come potenza coloniale, è stato avviato fin dalla guerra di Indocina nel 1950. Mentre gli Stati Uniti si preparano, a breve, a condividere il bottino di guerra con la Francia, l’obiettivo ultimo di Washington è “ridisegnare la mappa del continente africano” e infine portare l’Africa francofona nella sfera di influenza statunitense. Quest’ultima si estenderebbe su tutto il continente, dalla Mauritania sull’Atlantico a Sudan, Etiopia e Somalia. Un analogo processo di esclusione della Francia dall’Africa francofona è in corso dal 1990 in Ruanda, Burundi e  Repubblica del Congo. A sua volta, il francese quale lingua ufficiale nell’Africa francofona, viene insidiato. Oggi in Ruanda l’inglese è la lingua ufficiale, accanto al kinyarwanda e al francese. Da quando l’RPF è al governo, dal 1994, l’istruzione secondaria veniva offerta in francese o in inglese. Ma dal 2009 viene offerta solo in inglese. L’università, dal 1994, non utilizza più il francese. (Il presidente del Ruanda Paul Kagame non legge o non parla francese). Nel 2009, il Rwanda entrava a far parte del Commonwealth.
La posta in gioco è un vasto territorio che, durante il periodo coloniale francese copriva l’Africa occidentale ed equatoriale francese. Il Mali durante il periodo francese veniva indicato come Le Soudan français (il Sudan francese). Ironia della sorte, questo processo di indebolimento e, infine, di esclusione della Francia dall’Africa francofona viene effettuato con l’avallo tacito dell’ex presidente Nicolas Sarkozy e del presidente François Hollande, entrambi al servizio degli interessi geopolitici degli Stati Uniti, a danno di quelli della Repubblica francese. La militarizzazione del continente africano fa parte del mandato dell’US AFRICOM. L’obiettivo a lungo termine è esercitare il controllo geopolitico e militare su una vasta area, che storicamente rientrava nella sfera d’influenza della Francia. Questa zona è ricca di petrolio, gas, oro, uranio e minerali strategici. (Cfr. R. Teichman, The War on Mali. What you Should Know: An Eldorado of Uranium, Gold, Petroleum, Strategic Minerals…, Global Research, 15 gennaio 2013)

Copyright © 2013 Global Research

Ahmadinejad warns of Shia-Sunni rift

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned against evil plots aimed at causing division among Shia and Sunni Muslims, stressing the importance of reinforcing unity among Muslim nations across the world.

Addressing the closing ceremony of an international Quran competition of Muslim countries’ armed forces in the Iranian capital, Tehran, on Thursday, President Ahmadinejad denounced sectarian and tribal issues, saying that the Quran and Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) belong to all Muslims and even followers of all divine religions, including Jews, Christians and all human beings.

The president stated that incorrect interpretation of the Quran would cause problems, stating.

“The Zionist regime [of Israel] has established its dominance over a group of Muslims through deceit and lies, and Muslims are not united enough to confront this occupying regime because of different and incomplete interpretations of Quran.”


Ahmadinejad noted that many individuals and governments have claimed that they seek to promote freedom across the world, protect human rights, establish democracy and eradicate cruelty and discrimination “but they have turned into main elements of destruction of freedom and justice.”

The Iranian chief executive reiterated that the world is currently in need of unity and justice and eradication of discrimination and cruelty more than ever before.

SF/SS

What’s Next for Palestine?

Bio

Raja Khalidi has spent most of his professional career with UNCTAD, where he is currently Chief, Office of the Director, Division on Globalization and Development Strategies. He holds a B.A. from Oxford University and M.Sc. from University of London SOAS. From 2000-2006, Mr. Khalidi was Coordinator of UNCTAD's Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian people, which combines the analytical and operational expertise of the UNCTAD secretariat in an integrated manner. His assignments at UNCTAD have also dealt with Debt and Development Finance, the global economic crisis and institutional development and strategic management reform. His own publications include a book on the dynamics of Arab regional economic development in Israel and contributions on Palestinian economic development issues to the Palestinian Encyclopedia, the Journal of Palestine Studies, edited volumes, as well as Jadaliya online and Palestinian, Israeli and international media. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations.

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.

In the Middle East, moves are afoot, to a large extent led by Qatar and its emir. He was in Gaza recently, and he seems to have made a deal, some people calling it a shotgun marriage, where Hamas and Fatah—Hamas recently moved its head offices to Doha, and now we have a sort of peace agreement between Hamas and Qatar. We're told by our journalist in Gaza, everywhere you see a Palestinian flag, there's a Qatari flag flying next to it. And Hamas is actually allowing people to protest, carrying the portraiture of Abbas, Abbas the head of Fatah and the PA. It's a very interesting development, including the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which seems to have managed the peace agreement with Gaza in a way that has pleased President Obama.Now joining us from Geneva is Raja Khalidi. He's spent most of his professional career with the UN Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD, where he's currently chief of the Office of the Director, Division on Globalization and Development Strategies. And I have to point out, the opinions he's about to express are primarily his own; they're not necessarily those of UNCTAD. Thanks for joining us, Raja.RAJA KHALIDI, SENIOR ECONOMIST, UNCTAD, GENEVA: Nice to be with you.JAY: So, first of all, what do you make of what's going on, in terms of the UN recognition of Palestine as a nonmember state? And just what kind of Palestine does Qatar and others who are kind of moving pieces around on the chessboard, what kind of Palestine do you think is going to be built?KHALIDI: Well, I mean, with all of the regional, you know, transformations underway—and I think we haven't seen the end of them—they've started last year in a certain vein, with a largely political, economic, social content. They've been transformed this year into bloody battles around the region, unfortunately. In some places standoffs between demonstrators and the new governments, in other places various protest movements and human rights advocacy campaigns are underway. So I think, you know, the region is certainly in transformation, and we haven't seen the end of it, Arab Spring or not, whether or not we're in an "Arab Winter", as some would say. I think that's the first—you know, and you correctly noted that as the first and most important determinant for the Palestinians in the current circumstances, where things might go. The second important issue, I think, that has changed the discussion in the last month or so is, of course, the recent battle in Gaza between the Israeli military and the Hamas, largely, and other factions who, as we all now, let's say, fought to a standstill. In any case, as was—you know, we saw on Saturday with the huge celebration in Gaza, that's certainly a factor that has now also come into the equation, both the internal Palestinian equation and, I think, the regional equation. The third important issue, of course, is that [crosstalk] mentioned [incompr.] the diplomatic—let's say legal, also, to a certain extent—battle that's been fought by the PLO to upgrade its United Nations status to that of a nonmember state. Hence it's now referred to in the United Nations as the state of Palestine. So we're talking, of course, here about the PLO, which is the representative of the Palestinian people. So that upgrade is largely—so far appears to be a procedural one, in the sense that it allows the Palestinians access to certain things, like maybe instruments and courses of diplomatic, legal recourse that they didn't have, perhaps, before, but most importantly, I think, because it was a successful effort to get the world—large majority of the world to state, you know, very clearly its support for a two-state solution, most importantly for the establishment of the Palestinian state, the Palestinian rights, national rights, and sovereignty, and for the existence of state of Palestine, you know, more or less implicitly, though not so clearly in the resolution, on the '67 border. So that moment of global solidarity, I think this should not be underestimated, and the fact that, you know, both the Hamas as well as the Arab governments supported that effort.And the outcome, I think, is also indicative [incompr.] referred to pictures of Abbas being carried in Gaza, and, you know, to which one could add the presence of a Fatah delegation in Gaza on the celebrations of the 25th anniversary of Hamas. And there's clearly talk in the air of national reconciliation. So, you know, I think the United Nations, whoever, except for, you know, really, some governments, have largely supported the idea of Palestinian reconciliation. And now it's on the cards in a way that is more acceptable to the international community, it would appear, and to the region's main players than it was perhaps a year or less [incompr.] These are all factors which change the regional landscape but don't necessarily change anything on the ground as far as the Palestinians are concerned. So when you ask what sort of state we can expect to come out of this, I don't think any state—I don't think from—I mean, at least from the status of the peace process, I don't think we can expect any state to come out of this. We haven't seen a change in Israel's position. On the contrary, we've seen a hardening of the Israeli position regarding settlement of the West Bank. We haven't really seen anything in the way of a durable ceasefire that could ensure for the people. . . . Yeah. So, I mean, we haven't, I mean, seen in—as a result of the Gaza conflict, we haven't seen a relief of the siege of Gaza. So people in Gaza haven't really felt anything new as a result of a very hard-fought and widely publicized battle. So, I mean, as I said, I think the prospects for a Palestinian state haven't looked good for a long time, and they don't look any better, to me, at least, today as a result of—notwithstanding the diplomatic, military, if you wish, and regional diplomatic sort of pluses that the Palestinians have chalked up in the last few weeks.JAY: A Palestinian friend of mine, his theory of what's happening here is: Qatar, together with Saudi Arabia and in cooperation with the United States, the sort of plan is to develop the economy in Gaza and the West Bank and develop Gaza in a way that it becomes more and more integrated with Egypt, and Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood sort of manages Gaza. And in the West Bank, again, investment from Qatar and others develop the economy there in a way that strengthens the links with Jordan. He saw the whole thing as sort of the—his quote was this is the end of the Palestinian project.KHALIDI: Well, the end of the—the first person to say that was, I think, a Palestinian scholar in 2005, who said that with Arafat's death, the Palestinian national movement would start to come apart. In many ways, the last five years, six years have seen that sort of a disassembling of what was otherwise a fairly united national project now scattered into two regional, you know, political projects, as well, I mean, regional in the sense of Gaza and Ramallah, two different, separate Palestinian political entities, if you wish, political systems. And everything else we've seen in the way of disunity, if one can use that word in the Palestinian political and geographic and economic and international and regional relations sort of map. And now the fact that capital in the region might—I mean—or the idea that capital in the region might flow into Gaza or to the West Bank more readily than it has, let's say, in some better periods, i.e. periods where things were looking up, the Oslo period, for example, or even the last few years in the West Bank, you know, that it's going to somehow transform the economic prospects, I think, is unlikely. You know, there's very little what we call—in Arabic we use the word [incompr.] brave capital, courageous capital that's really willing to put its feet down in Palestinian—in investing in Palestine. So, you know, there's a Palestinian capital out there that could come back. So I don't see a major, you know, resource transfusion. We have this—yesterday we heard about this safety net, financial safety net approved by the Arab League. Basically, it's saying that, you know, if the Israelis cut off the tax revenue that's due for transfer to the PA, the Palestinian Authority, then the Arabs will step in and foot the bill, which is really, you know, almost—you know, which is a good safety net for a short period, but it's not really a sustainable one. In Gaza, you're right, there was this—there were major pledges for infrastructural development projects, and I think from Qatar prior to the last fighting. And those might actually—you know, now, in fact, you know, there's probably even more to reconstruction than there was before.But I don't think that, you know, that's—again, you know, we've had these spurts in Palestinian economic history of either donor-funded or remittance- (in some cases) funded or labor from—you know, wages-from-income-funded growth spurts, which led to, in some cases, some prosperity here and there, what we've called in UNCTAD, you know, individual prosperity and communal impoverishment. And we could see the same sort of—you know, especially in Gaza, because I don't think the West Bank has that, is really—you know, has anywhere to grow, whereas Gaza has a lot, still, to recover from. There's a lot of, you know, major infrastructural and social expenditures that could be envisaged there. And that will—you know, that could delay certain things, but we've always seen—you know, the thing comes back and bites any economic piece or any, you know, prosperity booms in the rear very badly. And it's happened—you know, it happened in 1987 with the First Intifada. It happened again after Oslo twice, both in the mid '90s, and then in 2000. The Second Intifada, we've had it again and again in Gaza. So, I mean, I think that the main issue is mainly occupation, lack of sovereignty, extremely limited, if any, economic policy space, even for the Gaza—government in Gaza, especially for the PA, in terms of its—the nature of its economic agreements and security and Oslo and Paris so-called agreements with Israel. I don't see anything yet that's—you know, with all of the links that might exist between the Hamas, Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood and their other—Egyptian and others, there are other very important forces at play. I mean, you know, the Iranian support for—the military support that has reached Gaza can't be discounted. There's a situation in North Sinai of lawlessness, which the Egyptian government hasn't gotten its handle on, hasn't gotten a handle on. And I think—you know, it worries Israel, and even worries Hamas, because it's a Salafi—sort of armed Salafi—not insurgency, but lawlessness, as I said, in the northwest Sinai. And then you have everything that's happening in Syria and Jordan in terms of regime change or potential, you know, reform, constitutional reform in Jordan. So, you know, I think the key player here in all this, even though I've, you know, made the tour of the Arab world, the key player is really Israel. I mean, the party that has it in its hands to change the prospects for a Palestinian state or a Palestinian economy, or even, you know, some achievement of Palestinian rights, is Israel. And, you know, we haven't seen any moves except, you know, further consolidation. This extraordinarily, you know, sensitive settlement plan in this area east of Jerusalem, E1, is certainly not—not to mention the tax issue, the revenue withholding. I mean, you know, that could go on as a short-term punishment, but I don't think the PA can live with it for very long. And already I think President Abbas, when he addressed the Arab League the other day, unfortunately, I think this has, you know, given us an example of the limitations of the state—status of being a state that the PLO is accorded in the UN is that he announced to them, he says that we're fast approaching becoming a collapsed state, basically, you know, probably the fastest failed state in history, between November 29 and—you know, only because we have one month of Israeli-, you know, channeled tax revenue withheld. And that's problematic. I mean, you know, it's problematic when you talk about state institutions that are supposedly there ready to function, and all that is needed is the magic wand of a political agreement. That's—you know, that's more easier said than done.JAY: So, in the next segment of our interview, let's talk further about just what kind of economy is going to be built in Palestine and Egypt, other countries of the Arab Spring. People were demanding democracy, but not just political democracy. People want something in terms of their economy. So please join us for the next segment of this interview on The Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Graphic ‘Graph Search’: New Facebook system reveals too much

Introducing its new search engine, Facebook assured users that the system is strongly privacy aware. However, prank searches made by one of the beta testers have revealed that the system may expose just a bit more people would want.

­The new ‘Graph Search’ system was presented by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his team last week. The engine was designed to search Facebook for specific information, be it a Mexican restaurant your Facebook friends like the most or single people from India in your neighborhood.

The current Graph Search is a beta version still to be tested; it is limited to searches of people, their likes, places, interests and photos. Posts and status messages so far are out of reach, but soon may become searchable as well, Forbes reported.

During the presentation Zuckerberg and his crew devoted a special part to the issue of Facebook privacy. They assured the audience that the engine is only going to process data that has been allowed to be processed by the users themselves.

To demonstrate the system at work the team conducted a number of sample searches including ‘Friends who like Star Wars and Harry Potter’, ‘Languages my friends speak’, ‘Music liked by people who like Mitt Romney’ and ‘Music liked by people who like Obama’.

However, one of the people invited to test the beta version of the engine soon found out that Graph Search can find way more than Star Wars fans and music preferences of Obama supporters.

In his blogpost published on Wednesday, computer programmer and ‘Gadget Geek’ Tom Scott revealed some peculiar searches he conducted using Graph Search. The results turned out to be quite controversial, if not scandalous.

Scott found out that the new search engine will readily find ‘Married people, who like prostitutes’ and ‘Spouses of married people who like Ashley Madison’, a dating website for people who are already in a relationship.

Furthermore, he was able to find ‘Islamic men interested in men who live in Tehran, Iran’, where homosexual relations are prohibited by law and ‘Places where they’ve worked’.

Something corporate America would not like – a search exposing ‘Current employers of people who like Racism’.

These are just some of the searches Scott was able to do using the new Graph Search. When posting the results, he blurred the names and the pictures of those he found.

Commenting on his research, Scott said that although the search does not directly violate Facebook privacy settings, users just need to be aware of the new search engine capabilities and might want to reconsider the information they put on the web.

“If it’d be awkward if it was put on a screen in Times Square, don’t put it on Facebook. Oh, and check your privacy settings again,” he said.

Facebook has repeatedly been accused of violating the privacy of its users. In early January, the EU pressured the world`s most popular social network to provide more data protection. In September, Facebook was forced to stop using its facial recognition software in Europe following an investigation by the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner in Ireland.

Envy and dissatisfaction on Facebook

A recent study conducted by German scientists revealed that envy and dissatisfaction are among most popular feelings Facebook users experience while browsing through their friends’ ‘timelines’.

The survey of some 600 Facebook users showed that one third of them have negative feelings as using the social network mostly because they are envying their ‘Facebook friends’, whose life seems more interesting and wholesome than their own.

“Although respondents were reluctant to admit feeling envious while on Facebook, they often presumed that envy can be the cause behind the frustration of ‘others’ on this platform – a clear indication that envy is a salient phenomenon in the Facebook context,” said project manager Dr. Hanna Krasnova from Humboldt-Universität.

She explained that access to positive news and the profiles of seemingly successful friends bolsters social comparison, which can easily provoke envy.

The survey found that about one-fifth of all recent online and offline events provoking envy among respondents were posted on Facebook. According to the researchers, respondents’ envy often led to “embellishing their Facebook profiles” creating what they called “envy spiral.”

It was also established that the envy provoked by looking through Facebook lead many to “greater life dissatisfaction”.

“Considering the fact that Facebook use is a worldwide phenomenon and envy is a universal feeling, a lot of people are subject to these painful consequences,” Co-author Helena Wenninger of TU-Darmstadt University said.

The Case Against Kerry

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item.

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.

With all the attention on the nomination by President Obama of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense, there hasn't been quite as much discussion about his nomination of John Kerry for secretary of state. I guess that's partly because he seems rather beloved by the Republicans and is likely to get passed without much issue. But there are issues, according to our next guest, Stephen Zunes.He now joins us where he's a professor of politics. And he is also chair of the Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco. He's also a columnist and senior analyst of Foreign Policy in Focus. I should say he's actually joining us now from North Carolina, where he's traveling. Thanks for joining us, Stephen.STEPHEN ZUNES, CHAIR, MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: My pleasure.JAY: So everyone's—generally in the mainstream media seems to like this appointment of John Kerry. But you don't. Why?ZUNES: John Kerry, though he—his earlier Senate career included some bold challenges to U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Central America, the nuclear arms race, and his support for various dictators around the world, moved sharply to the right in the past decade or so, including support for the invasion of Iraq, support for the more hardline elements in Israel, and a number of policy statements and initiatives which seem to indicate a pretty serious disdain to basic principles of human rights, international law. In addition, a series of statements ranging from his false claims about Iraq's military potential during the waning days of Saddam Hussein's reign to his attacks on Amnesty International and other reputable human rights organizations for reporting violations of human rights by U.S. allies have also raised questions about his credibility.JAY: So just to track his history a little bit, I mean, he made a name for himself 'cause he came back as this decorated war vet and opposed to the war in Vietnam. And if you listen to the rhetoric at that time, he sounds rather progressive in his foreign policy position.~~~JOHN KERRY, VIETNAM WAR VETERAN: We could come back to this country and we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam. But we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not red, not redcoats, but the crimes which we're committing are what threaten it. And we have to speak out.~~~JAY: So give us a bit of the arc of what happened to that John Kerry.ZUNES: Well, it's hard to say. I mean, some people say he did it for political expediency because he had long desired to run for president. Of course, he did in 2004, receiving the Democratic nomination and losing narrowly to President Bush. But in the post-9/11 era, he tended to take a pretty hardline position. He went around claiming that the United States has a right to invade other countries without international support. He attacked the UN secretary-general, he attacked fellow Democrats, he attacked the Spanish prime minister and others who raised questions about this kind of U.S. unilateralism, his claims, for example, that Iraq—that everybody agreed that Iraq had advanced nuclear weapons program. And, in fact, there were very well publicized, even at that time, divisions among national security analysts, even within the government, about those facts. So he claimed that they had biological and chemical weapons even more advanced than they did prior to the Gulf War of 1991 and the subsequent disarmament that was imposed by the international community. These things kind of raised serious, you know, questions [unintel.] the extent he would go to supporting a U.S. intervention in various parts of the world.JAY: And didn't he go so far as to say that if he—knowing what he knows now, he'd still vote for it?ZUNES: Yeah. This is the scary part, actually. When he was running for president in 2004, unlike, say, Chuck Hagel and some other people who immediately regretted their vote for the war and backtracked, Kerry doubled down. He said that even if he knew that Iraq did not have these chemical and biological weapons and nuclear weapons programs, he would have supported the invasion anyway, because they might have the potential [inaud.] some day and Iraq was a repressive dictatorship.But by that criteria, repressive regimes with the potential to make nonconventional weapons, there are at least 30, 40 countries around the world that meet that criteria. And he was essentially saying, we have the right to invade any one of them.JAY: Now, a lot of people breathed a sigh of relief when Susan Rice didn't get nominated, because she is known as a, quote, humanitarian imperialist—in other words, she's known to be very pro-interventionist, using humanitarian framing for the intervention. But is Kerry any different than that?ZUNES: No, not really. And indeed he's been quite supportive of intervention that doesn't even remotely resemble humanitarian initiatives. He's been a big supporter, for example, when—in backing the Bush administration's defense of Israel's wars on Lebanon and Gaza. He basically has taken this position that [unintel.] his attacks against Howard Dean for saying that the United States should work more multilaterally with other countries, saying, oh, that's just an excuse for doing nothing, he would surrender our right of self-defense, and the like. He attacked Spanish Prime Minister, you know, Zapatero as giving in to terrorism when Zapatero said, we are going to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq because the Bush administration refuses to allow the UN to play a stronger role. I mean, again, this guy is pretty hardcore. In many ways, he has embraced some of the very basic assumptions we normally associate with the right-wing Republican neoconservatives.JAY: So this tells us a lot about President Obama's foreign policy outlook, I think, because on the one hand, the reason he always said he opposed the Iraq War is 'cause it was a stupid war, not because he's against those kinds of interventions. He just saw that that particular war would actually weaken America's ability to project power. And those are virtually his words. So you see the appointment of Chuck Hagel—he thinks a war with Iran would be stupid, and he wants someone that could help keep the lid on that. On the other hand, he's not against the use of armed force to project power, and there he has Kerry. So it isn't actually contradictory, these two appointments.ZUNES: No. But in certain ways, though, it does—I do see it as something of a betrayal by Obama, in that when he was running for president, he said he promised not just to end the Iraq War, but to end the mindset which led to the Iraq War in the first place. And he was smart enough—or whether it be for, you know, pragmatic reasons or anything else, recognized that the invasion of Iraq and occupation would be a disaster. And, you know, he should be given at least some credit for that understanding. But at the same time, almost every major appointment he has made dealing with foreign policy and national security—Gates in defense; Hillary Clinton, secretary of state; Dennis Blair at DNI; Napolitano at Homeland Security; Biden as vice president; Emanuel as chief of staff—and all these people were among the right-wing minority of Democrats that supported the Iraq War. Remember, the majority of Democrats on Capitol Hill voted against the authorization. [unintel.] again, virtually every single one of Obama's appointments to these top positions have been among that right-wing minority.JAY: I interviewed Susan Rice during the New Hampshire primary in 2008, and I asked her this question directly, and she was essentially his spokesperson on foreign policy during the election campaign, and I asked her if—what is this new mindset? I said, if you're going to have a new mindset the way he's promised, doesn't that mean you have to question the whole underlying assumption that there has to be—the United States has to be a global military power? I said, you know, what do you think about closing down most or all of the foreign military bases? What is the difference in your strategy in Afghanistan? Is it going to be just troop-based or not? And I asked her essentially that question, and she essentially—not essentially—she took off her microphone and walked out of the interview. She said, I don't have to do this.ZUNES: Really? It's interesting. I think in many ways that these appointments, including Kerry, are exemplary of this idea that somehow the United States is above the law and its allies are above the law. In fact, I remember when the International Court of Justice in a unanimous (save for the U.S. judge) opinion that said that Israel, like all other countries, had to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and other principles of international humanitarian law in the occupied territories. In 2004, John Kerry sharply criticized the International Court of Justice for its unanimous ruling (save for the U.S. judge) that said that Israel, like all countries, is bound by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, specifically that while they can build a separation barrier on their internationally recognized borders, they cannot build this separation wall deep inside occupied territory in this serpentine fashion as part of a land grab to incorporate all these settlements. Well, John Kerry denounced the World Court as being anti-Israel, as not supporting Israel's right to self-defense, and even said that the World Court should have no jurisdiction whatsoever, that it should simply be a matter of the Israeli courts to decide, and the U.S. should support whatever the Israeli courts say. But when you think about the implications of this, he's basically saying that if a country invades and occupies another country, any legal question regarding international humanitarian law or anything else should be determined by the courts of the occupying power. In other words, that combined with his rationalization for the invasion of Iraq, seems to indicate that a wholesale rejection of the United Nations system, 20th-century international law, and embrace a 19th-century notion of right of conquest.JAY: Alright. Well, I guess this is just the beginning of discussions about John Kerry, 'cause it seems rather sure he's going to be nominated. Thanks for joining us, Stephen.ZUNES: My pleasure.JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

‘IAEA must avoid political stand in talks’

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of Iran's Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee

A senior Iranian lawmaker has called on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to adopt a non-political approach in its future talks with Tehran.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of Iran’s Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said Wednesday that the IAEA should take legal considerations into account if it wants to make a step forward in the talks with Iran.

“It is the Islamic Republic of Iran’s expectation from the international body to act within the IAEA regulations and the Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) so that talks will be fruitful,” he said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency should detach itself from the political pressure of the US and the West in order to be able to fulfill its duty, which is supporting the member states, he added.

The Iranian lawmaker said that the body should deal with Iran’s nuclear program technically not politically, adding it has taken a politicized approach under pressure from the West and acts according to the policies of major powers.

Iran and the IAEA wrapped up two days of talks in the Iranian capital Tehran on January 17-18. Iran’s IAEA Ambassador Ali-Asghar Soltanieh said Wednesday that the next round of the talks is scheduled for February 12 or 13.


The United States, Israel and some of their allies have falsely accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.

Iran has vehemently rejected the allegations against its nuclear energy program, arguing that as a committed signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it is entitled to use nuclear technology for peaceful objectives.

AR/HJL/MA

Assange calls WikiLeaks film ‘propaganda attack’

Julian Assange (Reuters / Luke MacGregor)

Julian Assange (Reuters / Luke MacGregor)

Julian Assange has lashed out at a Hollywood film about WikiLeaks, calling it “a massive propaganda attack” against the whistle blowing website, also accusibg it of fanning “flames of war” against Iran.

DreamWorks Studious announced Wednesday that "The Fifth Estate," starring British actor Benedict Cumberbatch as Assange, will be released in the United States in November 2013. The film’s director though says it will not try to pass final judgment on Assange.

The famous whistleblower, who managed to obtain a copy of the script, denounced the film as “a lie.” He spoke to students of Britain’s top Oxford University on Wednesday via a video-link from his refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

"It is a lie upon lie. The movie is a massive propaganda attack on WikiLeaks and the character of my staff," he told the Oxford Union debating club.

However the video of Assange's speech has not yet been posted on the Oxford Union Society’s YouTube channel, where the organization usually publishes such videos.

"'The Fifth Estate' traces the heady, early days of WikiLeaks, culminating in the release of a series of controversial and history changing information leaks," DreamWorks said describing its project.

Among those “leaks” featured in the film are implications that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb. Assange rejected such notion and claimed the film “fans the flames to start a war with Iran.”

"How does this have anything to do with us?" the Australian questioned.

"It may be decades before we understand the full impact of WikiLeaks and how it's revolutionized the spread of information,” the film’s director, Bill Condon said. “So this film won't claim any long view authority on its subject, or attempt any final judgment," said Condon in a statement.

Assange has been confined inside the Ecuadorian Embassy since the 19th of June, after Ecuador granted him political asylum. Should he leave the building the whistleblower faces immediate arrest and extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on charges of sex crimes.

Despite all the difficulties the WikiLeaks faced in 2012, Julian Assange vowed to publish some 1,000,000 new documents in the coming year. In his Christmas speech he called for people to continue fighting for democracy “from Tahrir to London.”

Up in arms: Turkey Patriots ready by weekend amid local protest (PHOTOS)

Turkish leftists and nationalists protest against the deployment of Patriot missiles in Turkey near the Mediterranean port of Iskenderun in Hatay province January 21, 2013. (Reuters / Umit Bektas)

Turkish leftists and nationalists protest against the deployment of Patriot missiles in Turkey near the Mediterranean port of Iskenderun in Hatay province January 21, 2013. (Reuters / Umit Bektas)

Patriot missile batteries sent to Turkey from NATO countries will start operating this weekend, despite continuing protests from local activists unhappy at their deployment. In the latest incident German troops were mobbed by protesters.

After Ankara asked for NATO help in December to beef up its air defenses against a possible Syrian attack, the United States, Germany and the Netherlands have sent Patriots to Turkey, along with a contingent of 1,200 soldiers to operate them.

The Dutch army will be the first to have them operational, British Brigadier Gary Deakin, a senior NATO official told Reuters.

“We expect to have an initial operating capability this weekend, that is what we are aiming at. The first units will arrive on station, they will plug in to the NATO command and control network and they will be then ready to defend the population. The full capability we are aiming to deliver at the end of this month,” he said.

German military vehicles carrying equipment for NATO patriot defence missiles are deployed at a military base in Kahramanmaras January 23, 2013.(Reuters / Umit Bektas)
German military vehicles carrying equipment for NATO patriot defence missiles are deployed at a military base in Kahramanmaras January 23, 2013.(Reuters / Umit Bektas)

But many of the local population in the areas where the missiles will be based are against the deployment and angry at the presence of foreign soldiers on Turkish soil,

“As Muslim Turks we are against foreign soldiers,” said Mr Tutuen, the President of the Kanhranmaras division of the religious Felicity Party, in the south eastern region of Anatolia, it was reported Wednesday by the UAE English language newspaper, the National.

Since NATO troops started to arrive in Turkey, there have been protests by Islamist and leftist groups. In the town of Kahramanmaras protesters burnt US, NATO and Israeli flags.

About 400 German troops will man the Patriot batteries in Kahramanmaras and will live in a Turkish army barrack overlooking the town, which is about 100 kilometers north of the Syrian border.

“Deterrence may help to diffuse tension a little,” said Col Marc Ellermann, the commander of the German unit.

Turkish leftists and nationalists protest against the deployment of Patriot missiles in Turkey near the Mediterranean port of Iskenderun in Hatay province January 21, 2013. (Reuters / Umit Bektas)
Turkish leftists and nationalists protest against the deployment of Patriot missiles in Turkey near the Mediterranean port of Iskenderun in Hatay province January 21, 2013. (Reuters / Umit Bektas)

But the locals are skeptical at the nature of the mission and if the missiles will protect them at all.

“If they put their missiles here, that means we will be the first place that will be attacked, doesn’t it?” Alaatin Namli, a local shop owner, told the National.

“Is there a war of Syria against Turkey? No, there isn’t. These missiles are for Israel and against Iran,” said Malik Ecder Kirecci, who runs a corner shop next to the barracks housing the German soldiers.

Tuesday saw several hundred protesters gather in Iskenderun and outside the Incirlik NATO airbase in Adana against the deployment. Police broke up the demonstrations with tear gas, pepper spray and batons.

Seven German soldiers have already been mobbed Tuesday in the port city of Iskenderun, in the southern Turkish province of Hatay.

A leftist group member clashes with Turkish riot policemen during a protest against NATO Patriot missiles in front of the US military base on January 21, 2013 at Incirlik in Adana. (AFP Photo / Anil Bagrik)
A leftist group member clashes with Turkish riot policemen during a protest against NATO Patriot missiles in front of the US military base on January 21, 2013 at Incirlik in Adana. (AFP Photo / Anil Bagrik)

While on their way to the market, they were attacked by a group of activists from the Turkey Youth Union who tried to throw sacks on their heads. The soldiers managed to escape with the help of locals and took shelter in a jewelry shop, before the activists were detained by riot police.

The planned stunt was a reference to an incident when US soldiers arrested Turks during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and put sacks over their heads; judged as deeply insulting by many Turks.

The fact that the soldiers in Iskenderun were German and not American did not seem to make any difference.

“Whether it was German or American soldiers whose heads we put sacks on, it does not matter. All of them are NATO soldiers. We will not allow Turkey to be the centre for attacks in the Middle East,” said the leader of the group, it was reported in the Turkish press.

The German unit will travel from Iskenderun to Kahramanmaras over the next few days by road and authorities in Kahramanmaras are trying to work out the best way of doing this with minimal disruption.

For the time being some residents are prepared to give the Germans the benefit of the doubt, as long as they behave themselves.

While Cuma Tahiroglu, a parliamentary candidate for the Felicity Party in Kahramanmaras, warned that if the Germans flaunt their weapons around town they “will turn into Americans in our eyes.”

Members of Turkish unions stage a protest against the deployment of patriot missiles by NATO in Turkey on January 20, 2013 In Ankara. (AFP Photo / Adem Altan)
Members of Turkish unions stage a protest against the deployment of patriot missiles by NATO in Turkey on January 20, 2013 In Ankara. (AFP Photo / Adem Altan)

Members of Turkish unions stage a protest against the deployment of patriot missiles by NATO in Turkey on January 20, 2013 In Ankara. The banner reads: "No to Patriots". (AFP Photo / Adem Altan)
Members of Turkish unions stage a protest against the deployment of patriot missiles by NATO in Turkey on January 20, 2013 In Ankara. The banner reads: "No to Patriots". (AFP Photo / Adem Altan)

A leftist group member bites the arm of aTurkish riot policeman during a protest against the deployment of NATO Patriot missiles, on January 21, 2013, in front of a US military base at Incirlik in Adana. (AFP Photo)
A leftist group member bites the arm of aTurkish riot policeman during a protest against the deployment of NATO Patriot missiles, on January 21, 2013, in front of a US military base at Incirlik in Adana. (AFP Photo)

Iraq: A Twenty-Two Year Genocide

Incredibly it is twenty-two years to the day since the telephone rang in the early hours and a friend said, "They are bombing Baghdad."

A Leader’s Lexicon for the 21st Century

falling

Intended to help all 21st Century leaders (Western of course) when making speeches or statements to the press and their gullible public.  N.B.: this is not an exhaustive list, and leaders will invent their own useful words and phrases, freely copied by their fellows.

Insurgents (also known as terrorists, Mujahideen, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Islamists): bad.  We don’t support them.

Rebels: good.  We support them, with weapons and other equipment, training by our own forces (that are not there) because…

Boots on the ground: we are not going to send in any of our own troops (because they went in secretly last week/month/year).

Regimes, dictatorships: legitimate governments we don’t support.

Governments: regimes and dictatorships we do support.

We are proud of our special relationship’: we buy arms from them.

Partners’: we sell arms to them.

Friendly nations: and them.

Global allies: and them too.

We welcome the new government/the overthrow of the last government: we want to sell arms to them.

Regimes: people we used to sell arms to.

Dictatorships: as above.

Rogue state: one that has got entirely out of the West’s control.

Chemical/biological/nuclear weapons: use this term to frighten your own citizens.  For example, “Iran/Iraq/Syria could attack us with their chemical/biological/nuclear weapons”.  Warning – tread carefully here because (1) they may not actually have these weapons and (2) you can’t remember if and when you sold these weapons to them.

Back your statement with: ‘We have proof they have used them on their own citizens’.  NEVER provide any proof.  The headlines in the press the next day – “Syria/Iran/Iraq accused of…” are what you want.

We have proof’: a figment of your imagination.  There are two courses you can follow. 1) Never mention it again in the hope the public will forget.  2) Plead ‘security issues’ that prevent you being entirely open and honest.

Robust security response: anything from sanctions, air strikes, boots on the ground to entire lock-down of your own country.

Threat: you can’t use this word often enough, usually with the words ‘grave’, ‘real and present’, ‘real and existential’, large and existential’ etc.  Yes- you don’t know what ‘existential’ actually means, but neither does the public, so you get to look smarter than them.  You hope.

Intervention: sanctions, air strikes, invasion (but do not mention plots, rebellions or assassinations organised by your own security forces).

Intervention to protect/defend our interests:  their resources, our multi-nationals.

Our interests: as above

Humanitarian intervention: look noble when you use this phrase.  You are going to stand between an innocent population and its cruel dictator.  Do not mention your forces’ shoot-to-kill policy.  Also known as ‘Responsibility to protect’, which requires a UN Resolution.

UN Resolution: an impossible set of demands on a rogue state.  You know they can’t comply, which gives your invasion an appearance of legitimacy.

We are upholding the terms of the UN ‘responsibility to protect’ resolution:  well done, this is quite true!  You broke all the terms before you got the resolution passed.

Liberation: offer this to invaded states as the price of modernisation.

Modernisation: handing control of their resources/services over to multinationals.

Democracy (1): arranging elections for invaded states.

Democracy (2): ensuring governments of invaded states are controlled by your preferred candidates.  If possible, they should hold American or British passports and maintain a residence in your country.

Democracy (3): ignore local, traditional systems of governance and impose ‘democratic elections’.

Democracy (4): inform your own citizens that you are their leader because they live in a democracy – of which they should be proud.

Removing dictator/regime: make clear to your own citizens that this is in their interest.  Make clear that it is also being done to free the invaded country’s citizens and that it is absolutely necessary that they should be the subjects of air strikes etc.  Who knows – you might get lucky.  One of your precisely targeted missiles might hit the dictator.

Precision bombing: anything within 1000 yards – roughly.

‘Senior Al Qaeda/Taliban /Gaddafi/Assad supporter killed in strike’: Sound proud of your armed drones.  They are so pin-point accurate and you know damned well no one can prove otherwise.

Our Brave Boys: our cannon fodder.  Use freely and equally with ‘Heroes’.

Combatants: enemy combatants, that is.  They are cannon fodder.  Synonymous with ‘terrorists’ etc.

Sacrifice: Usually by ‘our brave boys’ when they have been killed, wounded, blown up or captured by ‘the enemy’.  ‘Sacrifice’ is often ‘tragic’ – another word to be used freely.  Warning: when using the word sacrifice, please hide the satisfaction you feel in knowing you personally will never have to sacrifice anything for the good of your country.

For the good of the country: Use to convince the voters you have a wider, further-reaching vision than theirs.  Can also be used in conjunction with ‘national security’ and ‘interests’.

Innocent civilians: yours.

Collateral damage: theirs.

Targeted killing: do your best to sound clinical and leader-like when using this phrase.  It means murder or assassination – for which your own citizens would be imprisoned for.

Torture: If British, just keep repeating ‘the Government’s clear policy is not to participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment for any purpose’, and insist that ‘our brave boys’ would never do such a thing, even if it has already been proved they did and do.  If American, insist that US law allows you to do this as it has ruled that water-boarding etc. is not torture.  You can be absolutely sure on this – you or your predecessor pushed it through the courts.

We have the enemy on the run: our troops are confined to base.

Bringing our boys back home: always insist that they have ‘fulfilled their mission’.  Depend on the fact that very few people will remember what the mission was.  If pressed, use the words ‘pulling out’ rather than ‘withdrawing’.  Or say that the ‘global threat of terrorism’ has moved elsewhere and that you and your forces are prepared to go wherever it raises its ugly head.

But NEVER, never use the words ‘retreat’, ‘lost’ or ‘defeat’.

Spain MPs blame govt. for media ban

A group of Spanish lawmakers have heaped scorn on their government for pulling the plug on Iranian channels Press TV and Hispan TV under the influence of Zionist lobbies in the United States.

In a letter, the United Left deputies asked the Spanish government to explain if Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo had discussed the ban on Iranian networks in his meeting with the Zionist lobbies in October 2012.

The signatories to the letter highlighted the Israeli nationality of the owner of the European satellite provider, Eutelsat, accusing him of having been the harbinger of recent attacks on Iranian media in Europe.


The MPs also warned that according to Spanish law, Press TV and Hispan TV can take legal action against the Spanish government for its suppression of freedom of speech and interference with the affairs of private entities in violation of rules and regulations governing Spain and the European Union (EU).

They demanded that the Spanish government explain in clear terms the reasons behind yanking the Iranian channels off the air.

The Spanish government has ordered Madrid’s regional government to stop broadcast of Iran’s 24-hour Spanish-language Hispan TV as of Monday.

Hispan TV, along with Iran's 24-hour English-language news channel Press TV, have been already targeted by Hispasat's fellow European satellite providers, Eutelsat and Hotbird.

An overwhelming majority of 72 percent of respondents to a recent Press TV poll from across the globe said Iran’s media are attacked by Zionist lobbies for their revelation of truth about Israel and the West.

The ban on Press TV and Hispan TV in Spain followed a similar move by France's Eutelsat company, which had already taken several Iranian satellite channels and radio stations off the air, claiming that the channels were removed because of “a wider interpretation of EU regulations.”

Hispasat is partly owned by Eutelsat, whose French-Israeli CEO is blamed for the recent wave of attacks on Iranian media in Europe.

Eutelsat SA and Intelsat SA, which stopped the broadcast of several Iranian satellite channels in October, 2012, have cited pressure by the European Union as the main reason.

The EU has, however, denied the claims by the European satellite companies.

KA/SS

Powder Keg in the Pacific: Will China-Japan-U.S. Tensions Ignite a Conflict and Sink the...

china japan

Don’t look now, but conditions are deteriorating in the western Pacific.  Things are turning ugly, with consequences that could prove deadly and spell catastrophe for the global economy.

In Washington, it is widely assumed that a showdown with Iran over its nuclear ambitions will be the first major crisis to engulf the next secretary of defense — whether it be former Senator Chuck Hagel, as President Obama desires, or someone else if he fails to win Senate confirmation.  With few signs of an imminent breakthrough in talks aimed at peacefully resolving the Iranian nuclear issue, many analysts believe that military action — if not by Israel, then by the United States — could be on this year’s agenda.

Lurking just behind the Iranian imbroglio, however, is a potential crisis of far greater magnitude, and potentially far more imminent than most of us imagine.  China’s determination to assert control over disputed islands in the potentially energy-rich waters of the East and South China Seas, in the face of stiffening resistance from Japan and the Philippines along with greater regional assertiveness by the United States, spells trouble not just regionally, but potentially globally.

Islands, Islands, Everywhere

The possibility of an Iranian crisis remains in the spotlight because of the obvious risk of disorder in the Greater Middle East and its threat to global oil production and shipping.  A crisis in the East or South China Seas (essentially, western extensions of the Pacific Ocean) would, however, pose a greater peril because of the possibility of a U.S.-China military confrontation and the threat to Asian economic stability.

The United States is bound by treaty to come to the assistance of Japan or the Philippines if either country is attacked by a third party, so any armed clash between Chinese and Japanese or Filipino forces could trigger American military intervention.  With so much of the world’s trade focused on Asia, and the American, Chinese, and Japanese economies tied so closely together in ways too essential to ignore, a clash of almost any sort in these vital waterways might paralyze international commerce and trigger a global recession (or worse).

All of this should be painfully obvious and so rule out such a possibility — and yet the likelihood of such a clash occurring has been on the rise in recent months, as China and its neighbors continue to ratchet up the bellicosity of their statements and bolster their military forces in the contested areas.  Washington’s continuing statements about its ongoing plans for a “pivot” to, or “rebalancing” of, its forces in the Pacific have only fueled Chinese intransigence and intensified a rising sense of crisis in the region.  Leaders on all sides continue to affirm their country’s inviolable rights to the contested islands and vow to use any means necessary to resist encroachment by rival claimants.  In the meantime, China has increased the frequency and scale of its naval maneuvers in waters claimed by Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines, further enflaming tensions in the region.

Ostensibly, these disputes revolve around the question of who owns a constellation of largely uninhabited atolls and islets claimed by a variety of nations.  In the East China Sea, the islands in contention are called the Diaoyus by China and the Senkakus by Japan.  At present, they are administered by Japan, but both countries claim sovereignty over them.  In the South China Sea, several island groups are in contention, including the Spratly chain and the Paracel Islands (known in China as the Nansha and Xisha Islands, respectively).  China claims allof these islets, while Vietnam claims some of the Spratlys and Paracels.  Brunei, Malaysia, and the Philippines also claim some of the Spratlys.

Far more is, of course, at stake than just the ownership of a few uninhabited islets.  The seabeds surrounding them are believed to sit atop vast reserves of oil and natural gas.  Ownership of the islands would naturally confer ownership of the reserves — something all of these countries desperately desire.  Powerful forces of nationalism are also at work: with rising popular fervor, the Chinese believe that the islands are part of their national territory and any other claims represent a direct assault on China’s sovereign rights; the fact that Japan — China’s brutal invader and occupier during World War II — is a rival claimant to some of them only adds a powerful tinge of victimhood to Chinese nationalism and intransigence on the issue.  By the same token, the Japanese, Vietnamese, and Filipinos, already feeling threatened by China’s growing wealth and power, believe no less firmly that not bending on the island disputes is an essential expression of their nationhood.

Long ongoing, these disputes have escalated recently.  In May 2011, for instance, the Vietnamese reported that Chinese warships were harassing oil-exploration vessels operated by the state-owned energy company PetroVietnam in the South China Sea.  In two instances, Vietnamese authorities claimed, cables attached to underwater survey equipment were purposely slashed.  In April 2012, armed Chinese marine surveillance ships blocked efforts by Filipino vessels to inspect Chinese boats suspected of illegally fishing off Scarborough Shoal, an islet in the South China Sea claimed by both countries.

The East China Sea has similarly witnessed tense encounters of late.  Last September, for example, Japanese authorities arrested 14 Chinese citizens who had attempted to land on one of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands to press their country’s claims, provoking widespread anti-Japanese protests across China and a series of naval show-of-force operations by both sides in the disputed waters.

Regional diplomacy, that classic way of settling disputes in a peaceful manner, has been under growing strain recently thanks to these maritime disputes and the accompanying military encounters.  In July 2012, at the annual meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Asian leaders were unable to agree on a final communiqué, no matter how anodyne — the first time that had happened in the organization’s 46-year history.  Reportedly, consensus on a final document was thwarted when Cambodia, a close ally of China’s, refused to endorse compromise language on a proposed “code of conduct” for resolving disputes in the South China Sea.  Two months later, when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Beijing in an attempt to promote negotiations on the disputes, she was reviled in the Chinese press, while officials there refused to cede any ground at all.

As 2012 ended and the New Year began, the situation only deteriorated.  On December 1st, officials in Hainan Province, which administers the Chinese-claimed islands in the South China Sea,announced a new policy for 2013: Chinese warships would now be empowered to stop, search, or simply repel foreign ships that entered the claimed waters and were suspected of conducting illegal activities ranging, assumedly, from fishing to oil drilling.  This move coincided with an increase in the size and frequency of Chinese naval deployments in the disputed areas.

On December 13th, the Japanese militaryscrambled F-15 fighter jets when a Chinese marine surveillance plane flew into airspace near the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands.  Another worrisome incident occurred on January 8th, when four Chinese surveillance ships entered Japanese-controlled waters around those islands for 13 hours.  Two days later, Japanese fighter jets were again scrambled when a Chinese surveillance plane returned to the islands.  Chinese fighters then came in pursuit, the first time supersonic jets from both sides flew over the disputed area. The Chinese clearly have little intention of backing down, having indicated that they will increase their air and naval deployments in the area, just as the Japanese are doing.

Powder Keg in the Pacific

While war clouds gather in the Pacific sky, the question remains: Why, pray tell, is this happening now?

Several factors seem to be conspiring to heighten the risk of confrontation, including leadership changes in China and Japan, and a geopolitical reassessment by the United States.

* In China, a new leadership team is placing renewed emphasis on military strength and on what might be called national assertiveness.  At the 18th Party Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, held last November in Beijing, Xi Jinping was named both party head and chairman of the Central Military Commission, making him, in effect, the nation’s foremost civilian and military official.  Since then, Xi has made several heavily publicized visits to assorted Chinese military units, all clearly intended to demonstrate the Communist Party’s determination, under his leadership, to boost the capabilities and prestige of the country’s army, navy, and air force.  He has already linked this drive to his belief that his country should play a more vigorous and assertive role in the region and the world.

In a speech to soldiers in the city of Huizhou, for example, Xi spoke of his “dream” of national rejuvenation: “This dream can be said to be a dream of a strong nation; and for the military, it is the dream of a strong military.”  Significantly, he used the trip to visit the Haikou, a destroyer assigned to the fleet responsible for patrolling the disputed waters of the South China Sea.  As he spoke, a Chinese surveillance plane entered disputed air space over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands in the East China Sea, prompting Japan to scramble those F-15 fighter jets.

* In Japan, too, a new leadership team is placing renewed emphasis on military strength and national assertiveness.  On December 16th, arch-nationalist Shinzo Abe returned to power as the nation’s prime minister.  Although he campaignedlargely on economic issues, promising to revive the country’s lagging economy, Abe has made no secret of his intent to bolster the Japanese military and assume a tougher stance on the East China Sea dispute.

In his first few weeks in office, Abe has already announced plans to increase military spending and review an official apology made by a former government official to women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military during World War II.  These steps are sure to please Japan’s rightists, but certain to inflame anti-Japanese sentiment in China, Korea, and other countries it once occupied.

Equally worrisome, Abe promptly negotiated an agreement with the Philippines for greater cooperation on enhanced “maritime security” in the western Pacific, a move intended to counter growing Chinese assertiveness in the region.  Inevitably, this will spark a harsh Chinese response — and because the United States has mutual defense treaties with both countries, it will also increase the risk of U.S. involvement in future engagements at sea.

* In the United States, senior officials are debating implementation of the “Pacific pivot” announced by President Obama in a speech before the Australian Parliament a little over a year ago.  In it, he promised that additional U.S. forces would be deployed in the region, even if that meant cutbacks elsewhere.  “My guidance is clear,” he declared.  “As we plan and budget for the future, we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region.”  While Obama never quite said that his approach was intended to constrain the rise of China, few observers doubt that a policy of “containment” has returned to the Pacific.

Indeed, the U.S. military has taken the first steps in this direction, announcing, for example, that by 2017 all three U.S. stealth planes, the F-22, F-35, and B-2, would be deployed to bases relatively near China and that by 2020 60% of U.S. naval forces will be stationed in the Pacific (compared to 50% today).  However, the nation’s budget woes have led many analysts to question whether the Pentagon is actually capable of fully implementing the military part of any Asian pivot strategy in a meaningful way.  A study conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) at the behest of Congress, released last summer,concluded that the Department of Defense “has not adequately articulated the strategy behind its force posture planning [in the Asia-Pacific] nor aligned the strategy with resources in a way that reflects current budget realities.”

This, in turn, has fueled a drive by military hawks to press the administration to spend more on Pacific-oriented forces and to play a more vigorous role in countering China’s “bullying” behavior in the East and South China Seas.  “[America’s Asian allies] are waiting to see whether America will live up to its uncomfortable but necessary role as the true guarantor of stability in East Asia, or whether the region will again be dominated by belligerence and intimidation,” former Secretary of the Navy and former Senator James Webb wrote in the Wall Street Journal.  Although the administration has responded to such taunts by reaffirming its pledge to bolster its forces in the Pacific, this has failed to halt the calls for an even tougher posture by Washington.  Obama has already been chided for failing to provide sufficient backing to Israel in its struggle with Iran over nuclear weapons, and it is safe to assume that he will face even greater pressure to assist America’s allies in Asia were they to be threatened by Chinese forces.

Add these three developments together, and you have the makings of a powder keg — potentially at least as explosive and dangerous to the global economy as any confrontation with Iran.  Right now, given the rising tensions, the first close encounter of the worst kind, in which, say, shots were unexpectedly fired and lives lost, or a ship or plane went down, might be the equivalent of lighting a fuse in a crowded, over-armed room.  Such an incident could occur almost any time.  The Japanese press has reported that government officials there are ready to authorize fighter pilots to fire warning shots if Chinese aircraft penetrate the airspace over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands.  A Chinese general has said that such an act would count as the start of “actual combat.” That the irrationality of such an event will be apparent to anyone who considers the deeply tangled economic relations among all these powers may prove no impediment to the situation — as at the beginning of World War I — simply spinning out of everyone’s control.

Can such a crisis be averted?  Yes, if the leaders of China, Japan, and the United States, the key countries involved, take steps to defuse the belligerent and ultra-nationalistic pronouncements now holding sway and begin talking with one another about practical steps to resolve the disputes.  Similarly, an emotional and unexpected gesture — Prime Minister Abe, for instance, pulling a Nixon and paying a surprise goodwill visit to China — might carry the day and change the atmosphere.  Should these minor disputes in the Pacific get out of hand, however, not just those directly involved but the whole planet will look with sadness and horror on the failure of everyone involved.

Michael Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, a TomDispatch regular, and the author, most recently, ofThe Race for What’s Left, just published in paperback.  A documentary movie based on his book Blood and Oil can be previewed and ordered at www.bloodandoilmovie.com. You can follow Klare on Facebook by clickinghere.

IAEA urged to be realist in N-talks

Iran’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says the outcome of February nuclear talks in Tehran would depend on the Agency's realism.

“The success of [the upcoming round of] negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program depends on the Agency’s adaptation to realities,” Ali Asghar Soltanieh told IRNA on Wednesday.

“In our previous meetings, some differences were settled, but there are still issues which we [still] insist upon,” he added.

Soltanieh stated that the next round of Iran-IAEA talks are scheduled to be held on February 12 or 13.

“We have announced that we will have another meeting and if considerations and expectations pertaining to our national security are incorporated [in the agenda of the negotiations] we would be ready to finalize them and remove ambiguities,” Soltanieh added.


“These negotiations need to be held with high precision because they deal with state security. Furthermore, they are held within a framework different from routine inspections conducted under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” he noted.

Soltanieh said that Iran should be also assured that its nuclear case will be closed in the end because “it is one of the principles we have always underscored.”

Iran and IAEA wrapped up two days of talks in Tehran on January 17-18.

The United States, Israel, and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.

Iran argues that as a committed signatory to the NPT and a member of the IAEA, it is entitled to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

KA/SS

Qatar, Sponsor of Islamist Political Movements, Major Ally of America

persiangulf

Qatar and U.S. : Collusion or Conflict of Interests

In his inaugural address on January 21, U.S. President Barak Obama made the historic announcement that “a decade of war is ending” and declared his country’s determination to “show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully,” but his message will remain words that have yet to be translated into deeds and has yet to reach some of the U.S. closest allies in the Middle East who are still beating the drums of war, like Israel against Iran and Qatar against Syria.

In view of the level of “coordination” and “cooperation” since bilateral diplomatic relations were established in 1972 between the U.S. and Qatar , and the concentration of U.S. military power on this tiny peninsula, it seems impossible that Qatar could move independently apart, in parallel with, away or on a collision course with the U.S. strategic and regional plans.

According to the US State department’s online fact sheet, “bilateral relations are strong,” both countries are “coordinating” diplomatically and “cooperating” on regional security, have a “defense pact,” “ Qatar hosts CENTCOM Forward Headquarters,” and supports NATO and U.S. regional “military operations. Qatar is also an active participant in the U.S. – led efforts to set up an integrated missile defense network in the Gulf region. Moreover, it hosts the U.S. Combined Air Operations Center and three American military bases namely Al Udeid Air Base, Assaliyah Army Base and Doha International Air Base, which are manned by approximately 5,000 U.S. forces.

Qatar, which is bound by such a most intimate and closest alliance with the United States , has recently developed into the major sponsor of Islamist political movements. Qatar appears now to be the major sponsor of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, which, reportedly, disbanded in Qatar in 1999 because it stopped to view the ruling family as an adversary.

The Qatar –Brotherhood marriage of convenience has created the natural incubator of Islamist armed fundamentalists against whom the U.S. , since September 11, 2001, has been leading what is labeled as the “global war on terrorism.”

The war in the African nation Mali offers the latest example on how the U.S. and Qatar , seemingly, go on two separate ways. Whereas US Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, was in London on January 18 “commending” the French “leadership of the international effort” in Mali to which his country was pledging logistical, transportation and intelligence support, Qatar appeared to risk its special ties with France, which peaked during the NATO – led war on Libya, and to distrust the U.S. and French judgment.

On January 15, Qatari Prime and Foreign Minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, told reporters he did not believe “power will solve the problem,” advised instead that this problem be “discussed” among the “neighboring countries, the African Union and the (U.N.) Security Council,” and joined the Doha – based ideologue for the Muslim Brotherhood and their Qatari sponsors, Yusuf Abdullah al – Qaradawi — the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars who was refused entry visa to U.K. in 2008 and to France last year – in calling for “dialogue,” “reconciliation” and “peaceful solution” instead of “military intervention.”

In a relatively older example, according to WikiLeaks , Somalia ’s former president in 2009, Sharif Ahmed, told a U.S. diplomat that Qatar was channeling financial assistance to the al-Qaeda – linked Shabab al-Mujahideen, which the U.S. listed as “terrorist.”

In Syria, for another example, the Brotherhood is the leading “fighting” force against the ruling regime and in alliance with and a culprit in the atrocities of the terrorist bombings of the al-Qaeda – linked Al-Nusra Front, designated by the United States as a terrorist organization last December; while the Brotherhood – led and U.S. and Qatar – sponsored Syrian opposition publicly protested the U.S. designation, the silence of Qatar on the matter could only be interpreted as in support of the protest against the U.S. decision.

Recently, Qatar has, for another example, replaced Syria , which has been on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1979, as the sponsor of Hamas, whose leadership relocated from Damascus to Doha , which the U.S. lists as a “terrorist” group, and which publicly admits being the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood.

Qatar, in all these examples, seems positioning itself to be qualified as a mediator, with the U.S. blessing, trying to achieve by the country’s financial leverage what the U.S. could not achieve militarily, or could achieve but with a much more expensive cost in money and souls.

In the Mali case, the Qatari PM Sheikh Hamad went on record to declare this ambition: “We will be a part of the solution, (but) not the sole mediator,” he said. The U.S. blessing could not be more explicit than President Obama’s approval of opening the Afghani Taliban office in Doha “to facilitate” a “negotiated peace in Afghanistan ,” according to the Qatari Foreign Ministry on January 16.

However, a unilateral Qatari mediation failed in Yemen, a Qatar – led Arab mediation in Syria has similarly proved a failure two years on the Syrian crisis, the “Doha Declaration” to reconcile Palestinian rival factions is still a paper achievement, the Qatari mediation in Sudan’s Darfur crisis has yet to deliver, the Qatari “mediation” in Libya was condemned as intervention in the country’s internal affairs by the most prominent among the post – Gaddafi leaders, and in post – “Arab Spring” Egypt Qatar dropped its early mediation efforts to align itself publicly to the ruling Brotherhood. But in spite of these failures, Qatar ’s “mediation” efforts were successful in serving the strategy of its U.S. “ally.”

Hence the U.S. blessing. The Soufan Group’s intelligence analysts on last December 10 concluded that “Qatar continues to prove itself to be a pivotal U.S. ally, … Qatar is often able to implement shared U.S.-Qatari objectives that Washington is unable or unwilling to undertake itself.

The first term Obama administration, under the pressure of “fiscal austerity,” blessed the Qatari funding of arming anti – Gaddafi Islamists in Libya, closed its eyes to Qatar’s shipment of Gaddafi’s military arsenal to Syrian and non – Syrian Islamists fighting the regime in Syria, “understood” the visit of Qatar’s Emir to Gaza last October as “a humanitarian mission,” and recently approved to arm the Qatar – backed and Brotherhood – led Egypt with 20 F-16 fighter jets and 200 M1A1 Abrams tanks.

This contradiction raises the question about whether this is a U.S. – Qatari mutual collusion or it is really a conflict of interests; the Obama administration during his second term has to draw the line which would give an explicit answer.

Seemingly nowadays, Doha and Washington do not see eye to eye on Islamic and Islamist movements, but on the battle grounds of the “war on terror” both capitals could hardly argue that in practice their active roles are not coordinated and do not complement each other.

Drawing on the historical experience of an Iranian similar “religious” approach, but on a rival “Shiite” sectarian basis, this Qatari “Sunni” Islamist” connection will inevitably fuel sectarian polarization in the region, regional instability, violence and civil wars.

Given the U.S. – Qatar alliance, the Qatari Islamist connection threatens to embroil the U.S. in more regional strife, or at least to hold the U.S. responsible for the resulting strife, and would sustain a deep – seated regional anti – Americanism, which in turn has become another incubator of extremism and terrorism and which is exacerbated by the past “decade of war,” which President Obama in his inaugural address promised to “end.”

Traditionally, Qatar, which stands in the eye of the storm in the very critical geopolitical volatile Gulf region, the theatre of three major wars during the last three decades, did its best to maintain a critical and fragile balance between the two major powers which determine its survival, namely the decades – old U.S. military presence in the Gulf and the rising regional power of Iran.

In 1992 it signed a comprehensive bilateral defense pact with the United States and in 2010 it signed a military defense agreement with Iran, which explains its warming up to closer ties with the Iran – supported Islamic anti – Israel resistance movements of the Hezbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Israeli – occupied Palestinian territories and explains as well Qatar’s “honey moon” with Iran’s ally in Syria.

However, since the eruption of the bloody Syrian crisis two years ago, the Qatari opening up to regional pro – Iran state and non-state powers was exposed as merely a tactical maneuver to lure such powers away from Iran. In the Syrian and Hezbullah cases, the failure of this tactic has led Qatar to embark on a collision course with both Syria and Iran, which are backed by Russia and China, and is leading the country to a U-turn shift away from its long maintained regional balancing act, a shift that Doha seems unaware of its threat to its very survival under the pressure of the international and regional conflicting interests as bloodily exposed in the Syrian crisis.

During the rise of the massive Pan-Arab, nationalist, socialist and democratic movements in the Arab world early in the second half of the twentieth century, the conservative authoritarian Arab monarchies adopted the Brotherhood, other Islamists and Islamic political ideology and used them against those movements to survive as allies of the United States, which in turn used both, spearheaded by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, against the former Soviet Union and the communist ideology, to their detriment after the collapse of the bipolar world order.

However history seems to repeat itself as the U.S. – backed Arab monarchies, spearheaded by Qatar, are resorting to their old tactic of exploiting the Islamist ideology to undermine and preempt an Arab anti – authoritarian revolution for the rule of law, civil society, democratic institutions and social and economic justice in Arab countries on the periphery of their U.S. protected bastion in the Arabian peninsula, but they seem unaware they are opening a Pandora’s box that would unleash a backlash in comparison to which al – Qaeda’s fall back on the U.S. will prove a minor precedent.

 Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Bir Zeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

* nassernicola@ymail.com

Mali: The Fastest Blowback Yet in This Disastrous War on Terror

To listen to David Cameron's rhetoric this week, it could be 2001 all over again. Eleven years into the war on terror, it might have been Tony Blair speaking after 9/11. As the bloody siege of the part BP-operated In Amenas gas plant in Algeria came to an end, the British prime minister claimed, like George Bush and Blair before him, that the country faced an "existential" and "global threat" to "our interests and way of life".Diabaly, 21 January 2013. ‘France is the last country to sort out Mali's problems, having created quite a few of them in the first place.' (Photograph: Arnaud Roin/ECPAD/EPA)

While British RAF aircraft backed French military intervention against Islamist rebels in Mali, and troops were reported to be on alert for deployment to the west African state, Cameron promised that a "generational struggle" would be pursued with "iron resolve". The fight over the new front in the terror war in North Africa and the Sahel region, he warned, could go on for decades.

So in austerity-blighted Britain, just as thousands of soldiers are being made redundant, while Barack Obama has declared that "a decade of war is now ending", armed intervention is being ratcheted up in yet another part of the Muslim world. Of course, it's French troops in action this time. But even in Britain the talk is of escalating drone attacks and special forces, and Cameron has refused to rule out troops on the ground.

You'd think the war on terror had been a huge success, the way the western powers keep at it, Groundhog Day-style. In reality, it has been a disastrous failure, even in its own terms – which is why the Obama administration felt it had to change its name to "overseas contingency operations", until US defence secretary Leon Panetta revived the old title this week.

Instead of fighting terror, it has fuelled it everywhere it's been unleashed: from Afghanistan to Pakistan, from Iraq to Yemen, spreading it from Osama bin Laden's Afghan lairs eastwards to central Asia and westwards to North Africa – as US, British and other western forces have invaded, bombed, tortured and kidnapped their way across the Arab and Muslim world for over a decade.

So a violent jihadist movement that grew out of western intervention, occupation and support for dictatorship was countered with more of the same. And the law of unintended consequences has meanwhile been played out in spectacular fashion: from the original incubation of al-Qaida in the mujahideen war against the Soviet Union, to the spread of terror from western-occupied Afghanistan to Pakistan, to the strategic boost to Iran delivered by the US-British invasion of Iraq.

When it came to Libya, the blowback was much faster – and Mali took the impact. Nato's intervention in Libya's civil war nearly two years ago escalated the killing and ethnic cleansing, and played the decisive role in the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime. In the ensuing maelstrom, Tuareg people who had fought for Gaddafi went home to Mali and weapons caches flooded over the border.

Within a couple of months this had tipped longstanding demands for self-determination into armed rebellion – and then the takeover of northern Mali by Islamist fighters, some linked to al-Qaida. Foreign secretary William Hague acknowledged this week that Nato's Libyan intervention had "contributed" to Mali's war, but claimed the problem would have been worse without it.

In fact, the spillover might have been contained if the western powers had supported a negotiated settlement in Libya, just as all-out war in Mali might have been avoided if the Malian government's French and US sponsors had backed a political instead of a military solution to the country's divisions.

The past decade has demonstrated beyond doubt that such interventions don't solve crises, let alone deal with the causes of terrorism, but deepen them and generate new conflicts.

French intervention in Mali has now produced the fastest blowback yet in the war on terror. The groups that seized the In Imenas gas plant last week – reportedly with weapons supplied to Libya by France and Britain – insisted their action was taken in response to France's operation, Algeria's decision to open its airspace to the French and western looting of the country's natural resources.

It may well be that the attack had in fact been planned for months. And the Algerian government has its own history of bloody conflict with Islamist movements. But it clearly can't be separated from the growing western involvement across the region.

France is in any case the last country to sort out Mali's problems, having created quite a few of them in the first place as the former colonial power, including the legacy of ethnic schism within artificial borders – as Britain did elsewhere. The French may have been invited in by the Malian government. But it's a government brought to power by military coup last year, not one elected by Malians – and whose troops are now trading atrocities and human rights abuses with the rebels.

Only a political settlement, guaranteed by regional African forces, can end the conflict. Meanwhile, French president François Hollande says his country will be in Mali as long as it takes to "defeat terrorism in that part of Africa". All the experience of the past decade suggests that could be indefinitely – as western intervention is likely to boost jihadist recruitment and turn groups with a regional focus towards western targets.

All this is anyway about a good deal more than terrorism. Underlying the growing western military involvement in Africa – from the spread of American bases under the US Africa Command to France's resumption of its post-colonial habit of routine armed intervention – is a struggle for resources and strategic control, in the face of China's expanding economic role in the continent. In north and west Africa, that's not just about oil and gas, but also uranium in countries like Niger – and Mali. Terrorism has long since become a catch-all cover for legitimising aggressive war.

The idea that jihadists in Mali, or Somalia for that matter, pose an existential threat to Britain, France, the US or the wider world is utter nonsense. But the opening of a new front in the war on terror in north Africa and the Sahel, accompanied by another murderous drone campaign, is a potential disaster for the region and risks a new blowback beyond it.

The past decade has demonstrated beyond doubt that such interventions don't solve crises, let alone deal with the causes of terrorism, but deepen them and generate new conflicts. More military intervention will bolster authoritarian regimes – and its rhetoric further poison community relations in the intervening states. It seems the price has to be paid over and over again.

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited

Seumas Milne

Seumas Milne is a Guardian columnist and associate editor. His most recent book is The Revenge of History: The Battle for the 21st Century. His previous books include, The Enemy Within and Beyond the Casino Economy (co-authored with Nicholas Costello). He tweets @SeumasMilne

The Israeli Elections: Dominant Israeli Parties Spurn Democracy

On January 22, Israelis voted. Over 5.6 million were eligible. About 1,000 polling stations accommodated them. In most places, they stayed open until 10PM. Rural areas, small towns, and hospitals closed theirs at 8PM. Voting required presenting a valid ID, passport or driver’s license. Anyone not sure where to go can check. Israel’s Central Elections Committee posted relevant information online. A hotline was set up for the same purpose.Voters further than 20km from assigned polling stations got free rides or public transportation there and back. Tickets were supplied. Getting them required presenting valid IDs or other form of identification.

Specially adapted polling stations accommodated disabled voters. For the first time, Israelis could follow ballot counting online in real time. Special cell phones permitted it.

Within hours after polls close, an estimated 85% of votes were counted. Before end of day January 23, they’ll all be. They’ll be published as soon as available.

Likud/Yisrael Beiteinu has minority support. It’s enough to stay dominant. Coalition partners will be chosen. Negotiations can take days, weeks or at times longer.

Near final results show Likud/Yisrael Beiteinu won 31 of 120 seats. Netanyahu will remain prime minister. He said he’ll begin working toward forming “as broad a (coalition) government as possible.”

Follow-up reports will explain more.

Money power rules America and other Western societies. Israel chose the same path. Wealth, power and privilege alone matter. Hardline rule is entrenched.

Democracy is more hypocrisy than real. In October 2007, Haaretz contrasted “occupying Land of Israel to the democratic Israel.”

It called for “debate about Israel’s control over the lives of Palestinians deprived of civil rights….Israeli democracy suffers from an essential flaw.” It’s more hypocrisy than real.

Fast forward five years. Things today are far worse. Democracy exists for privileged few alone. Inequality, racism, sexism, exploitation, capitalist excess, imperialism, and repressive harshness define policy.

Affording Netanyahu four more years deprives millions of Israelis of their rights. Palestinians have none. Arab citizens are called fifth column threats.

Haaretz contributors had their say. Their concerns reflect crisis conditions becoming graver.

An editorial said

“Israelis are being called upon to vote at a time when the country’s democracy faces real and present dangers.”

Right-wing hardliners are diabolical. Their agenda is clear. They intend “to undermine the state’s social and governmental institutions.”

Democratic freedoms are threatened. Extremists target “equal rights for all citizens, human rights, the judicial system, freedom of the press, and the right of citizens’ groups to operate unhindered.”

Voting right-wing “indicates a preference for territories over peace.”

Doing so undermines “democratic values.” Extremists govern Israel. Its future hangs in the balance.

Yehonatan Geffen headlined

“This election, there’s only one option for Israelis.”

Social justice and democratic freedoms depend on ending occupation harshness.

Coalition partners “spread confusion and (disingenuous) populist declarations about social justice and sharing the burden. (They’re) like doctors who” lie to their patients.

“Cancer here has been spreading here for” decades. It’s “metastasiz(ing).” It’s “terminal.” Few “will mourn (Israel’s) demise.”

It’s become the “State of Netanyahu,” said Yossi Verter. “He controls the broadcast media to a great extent.”

He does it directly through the Israel Broadcasting Authority. He has indirect control through commercial television and dominant right-wing publications.

They spread his lies. They propagate his message. They ignore “dark corners” he wants concealed.

Israeli electoral politics reflects America’s. Horse race journalism dominates political reporting. Rhetoric substitutes for reality. Issues aren’t discussed. Voters are left uninformed in the dark.

Israel’s election lacked substance. Party politics, personality profiles, likely coalition partners, he said, she said, and who’s ahead, who’s behind reflected daily discourse.

Likud/Yisrael Beiteinu presented no party platform. Netanyahu got away with it. Major issues went unaddressed.

Trust him on faith, he urged. Israel’s dominant media didn’t hold his feet to the fire.

Sefi Rachlevsky headlined”A wasted vote is a vote for Bibi,” saying:

This year’s election was “existential.” Iran didn’t disappear. Along with US/Israeli relations, its Netanyahu’s main foreign policy issue.

“There’s no excitement about” supporting him. He’s “viewed as the oppressor of the people.” He reflects “fascism” writ large. Imagine affording him four more years.

Nehemia Shtrasler headlined “The mission: Fool the voters today,” saying:

“Bibi’s method” prioritized winning right-wing votes. Late in the game he sought centrist ones. His strategy reflected “hocus-pocus, deception and outright lies.”

He won votes anyway he could. His politics are down and dirty. They reflect his dark side. Rhetorically he supports peace. In reality, he deplores it. He calls it a waste of time.

In two terms, he did nothing to pursue it. As long as he’s prime minister, achieving it is impossible. He prioritizes conflict and instability. He invents enemies to hype fear.

He menaces the entire region. He threatens to embroil it in war. He doesn’t negotiate. He demands. He wants Israel made ethnically pure.

He wants Arabs marginalized, denied and brutalized. He imposes harsh conditions. He hopes they’re tough enough to get them to vote with their feet and leave. Dispossessions give others no choice.

Israeli voters have few. Facts and truth don’t matter. Strategy calls for “fool(ing) the public – just for today, at the polling booth.”

Idan Sasson “love(s) Israel,” he says. “Don’t vote for democracy’s death certificate,” he urges.

Conditions today reflect Israel’s “most existentially troubling period,” he believes.

Likely new coalition partners worry him. He may never again be able to call Israel a democracy. Others are likeminded. Israeli scholars agree.

He quoted an unnamed friend saying:

“Israel is the biggest project of the Jewish people in history, and the occupation is the biggest problem facing Israel right now.”

Other major problems exist. War is prioritized over peace. Neoliberal harshness is policy. Social inequality harms Jews and Arabs alike.

“Many Israelis don’t seem to understand that by voting for Netanyahu they are signing democracy’s death certificate.”

The “whole world is watching,” he said. He cares and prioritizes Israeli/Arab coexistence. He needs majority caring to achieve it. It’s nowhere in sight.

Gideon Levy and Alex Levac headlined “Good night and good luck.” Television news pioneer Edward R. Murrow first said it. He used it to end broadcasts.

Levy and Levac chose good company. Israel reflects complacency and apathy, they said. Electoral fervor is absent. Netanyahu’s unfit to serve. Former Shin Bet heads deplore giving him another four years.

They went public saying so. It didn’t make enough of a difference to matter. Nor do occupation harshness, social injustice, or Israel’s “abominable international standing.”

“(N)one of this seemed to faze” people. “The candidates were groggy. Their listeners were sleepy. The parlor meetings, assemblies and rallies were all somnolent, with candidates and voters snoring in unison.”

Everything in the campaign was a “big yawn.” Public anger was absent. Candidates’ feet weren’t held to the fire. Voters asked “polite questions.”

“(T)rivial matters” substituted for real ones. Candidates ducked them.

“Where is the hatred when you need it? Where is the fervor and the fire – or at least a little smoke?” It was out of sight and mind.

Gatherings were absent. Rallies weren’t held. Parlor meetings were sparsely attended. Electoral campaigning was boring.

Platform committees used to conduct fiery debates. Parlor meetings and assemblies once mattered. Party branches became “kindergartens and stores.”

Hotels stand on former party headquarters ground. Except in Arab communities, posters were absent. Once they hung from balconies and trees everywhere.

“Where are the flyers that used to be dropped from the sky and covered the ground of our youth? Where are the cars with their blaring loudspeakers?”

Tourists arriving had no idea about election season. They had to ask or be told to know.

“How lacking was this election campaign in great ideas; how shallow and empty of ideals.”

Netanyahu was the only issue – “what he wears and how he looks.” What about what he stands for? What about great harm he caused Arabs, Jews, and regional neighbors?

What about prioritizing peace, rule of law principles, and real democracy. What about social justice, supporting Palestinian rights, and a nation fit to live in? What about doing what’s right, not wrong?

“Thank God it’s over,” Levy and Levac said. “(S)noozefest” substituted for substance.”

Maybe next time something will change. Maybe Israelis will decide it matters.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/dominant-israeli-parties-spurn-democracy/

Mehdi’s Morning Memo: The London Speech

The ten things you need to know on Wednesday 23rd January 2013...

1) THE LONDON SPEECH

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Nope, it's David Cameron's long-awaited, much-anticipated, repeatedly-delayed, 'tantric' speech on Britain's relationship with the European Union. You only need to know two words to understand the main message: "in" and "out".

From the Times splash:

"Voters will have the chance to leave the European Union before the end of 2017, David Cameron will pledge today as he sets Britain on course for a momentous referendum.

"The Prime Minister will commit himself to winning an 'in-out' vote even if the campaign puts him at odds with much of his party or even if the EU remains largely unreformed. But he will seek to give the referendum unstoppable momentum by publishing a draft Bill before 2015 and setting a deadline of November 2017 before which it must be held.

"'It is time for the British people to have their say,' he will declare."

The prime minister is on his feet right now at Bloomberg's HQ in the City of London telling his audience why they shouldn't vote Ukip. Well, not quite.

But to pretend this speech is anything other than an attempt to head off Nigel Farage's gang, and see off the internal threat to his leadership from his eurosceptic backbenchers, is either naive or disingenuous. Remember: Cameron never wanted - or planned - to give this speech and, thanks to a combination of Al Qaeda and Angela Merkel, had to keep putting it off.

To be fair, though, as the Guardian's Patrick Wintour acknowledges: "The prime minister's call for an in-out referendum is a moment of truth for a pragmatic man assumed to be instinctively opposed to political risk."

The morning papers almost all lead on the PM's 'London speech' (why didn't he just go to Bruges and be done with it? Bloomberg? Ed Balls beat him to it in 2010):

"You will get an in or out vote on Europe" (Daily Mail)

"Cameron to pledge an 'in-out' vote on Europe" (Financial Times)

"Cameron: I'll hold an in-out vote on Europe" (Telegraph)

"Cameron pledges in-out referendum on Europe" (Times)

"In or out? PM pledges EU exit vote by 2017" (Independent)

You can read full coverage and analysis of Cameron's EU address at www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/politics

2) BIBI'S BACK

From the BBC:

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pledged to form 'as broad a government as possible' after his alliance won a narrow election victory.

"His right-wing Likud-Beitenu bloc will have 31 seats in parliament - a sharp drop from 42, exit polls suggest.

"In a major surprise, the centrist Yesh Atid (There is a Future) party came second with a predicted 18-19 seats, with Labour next on 17.

"Analysts now predict weeks of political horse-trading to form a new cabinet."

Here are my own two predictions: 1) Bibi will continue to pay no attention to the so-called 'peace process' with the Palestinians, who were barely mentioned in this Israeli election campaign. 2) Bibi will continue to fear-monger about Iran in order try and divert attention away from Israel's ongoing (and illegal) settlement programme in the occupied West Bank.

3) BACK TO THE FUTURE

From the Financial Times:

"A-level grades could be awarded solely on marks for examinations taken and coursework submitted at the end of two years of study, as they once were, under proposals to be unveiled today by the government.

"In a letter to Ofqual, the qualifications regulator, Michael Gove, the education secretary, has said the 'primary purpose of A-levels is to prepare students for degree-level study' and that he wanted to 'restore' the reputation of the A-level with changes to its structure.

"... Stephen Twigg, shadow education secretary, said the government 'is all about turning the clock back. This plan would narrow the options for young people.'"

Meanwhile, the Mirror reports that nearly 100 groups, including the National Theatre, say the Tory-led Coalition is "pushing through [its GCSE] reforms too fast".

4) THE KING'S SPEECH

Watch out, Mark Carney! From the Guardian:

"Sir Mervyn King last night launched a thinly disguised attack on his successor as Bank of England governor, deriding proposals to ditch the central bank's inflation target in favour of a growth target based as 'wishful thinking'.

"King warned that policies designed to meet a growth target - a strategy backed by the incoming governor, Mark Carney - was unrealistic and for 'dreamers', signalling a rift with the man due to take over in Threadneedle Street in the summer after being lured by George Osborne from his post as Canada's central bank chief.

"... King told an audience in Belfast: 'To drop the objective of low inflation would be to forget a lesson from our postwar history... So a long-run target of 2% inflation should be an essential part of our macroeconomic framework.'"

Is Merv perhaps miffed because the 2% inflation target is something that he came up with, as chief economist at the bank, in the 1990s?

5) CAMPAIGNING LIKE IT'S 2005

From the Guardian:

"A coalition of 100 UK development charities and faith groups will today launch a campaign to lobby David Cameron to use Britain's presidency of the G8 to leverage action on ending global hunger. The If campaign is the largest coalition of its kind since Make Poverty History in 2005, the last time Britain held the G8 presidency. This time, organisers are seeking more radical change. Although pegged around hunger and malnutrition, the campaign focuses more on the underlying causes of hunger, such as 'land grabs', tax avoidance and a lack of transparency over investments in poor countries."

Tax avoidance and land grabs? Progressives will be pleased.

BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR...

Watch this video of Hollywood actor James Franco's unintentionally hilarious poem on Obama inauguration.

6) GOING, GOING, GONG

The war between ministers and civil servants moves onto a new front. From the Independent:

"Ministers are to be given the power to 'fast-track' nominations for knighthoods and other awards as part of plans to radically shake up Britain's ancient honours system.

"Under proposals, discussed by the Cabinet, ministers would be able to circumvent Civil Service vetting procedures and recommend candidates for awards directly to the independent Honours Committee.

"... The move is facing resistance from some senior officials, who fear it will politicise the honours system and insist that ministers must follow the same procedures as charities and members of the public who want to nominate individuals for awards."

7) BLACKLISTED?

From the Times:

"Trade union officials helped to blacklist their own members from working on some of the most prestigious construction projects of the past 20 years, The Times has learnt.

"The names and personal details of workers deemed 'perennial troublemakers' by unions including Ucatt, the construction union, and Amicus, now part of Unite, were fed to a database run by a secretive vetting company set up and financed by several of Britain's biggest builders.

"In a Commons debate this afternoon, Labour is expected to call for an investigation into allegations that publicly funded construction projects, including the Olympics and Crossrail, consulted the... blacklist."

8) LIAR, LIAR, BENEFITS ON FIRE

The demonisation of welfare claimants continues apace. From the Metro:

"A lie detector test will be used by a council to see if benefits claimants are telling the truth, it emerged yesterday.

"The method called 'voice risk analysis' has been introduced to check details that people have provided about their claims.

"... But numerous academic studies have cast doubt on the accuracy of lie detectors with some claiming they are little better than chance."

The Guardian reports that a Conservative councillor, Fiona Ferguson, has quit the council after claiming that using voice risk analysis wouldn't help the council pursue fraud and would be "extremely damaging to our reputation". Let's hope so...

9) STRIVERS VS SHIRKERS, PART 44

From the Independent:

"A Treasury minister has warned the Conservative Party not to divide the British people into "shirkers and strivers" as it defends the squeeze on the welfare budget.

"Greg Clark, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, appeared to distance himself from the more hardline approach of George Osborne...

"Writing on the ConservativeHome website, he said there is nothing wrong with being a "striver", but argued that not everyone wants to be one... 'Not being a striver doesn't make you a shirker - it's simply a matter of working to live, not living to work.'"

10) BEYONCE'S BLUFF

"Oh, say could you see Beyoncé was just miming," reads the headline on the front of today's Times, which broke the story yesterday of how the first pop star in US inauguration history to be invited to sing the national anthem was, believe it or not, lip-syncing:

"It was the most celebrated rendition of America’s national anthem in a generation, but Beyoncé had left nothing to chance... Unbeknownst to millions of viewers, however, The Times has learned that the perfect note had been struck in advance: in a recording studio on the eve of Inauguration Day."

Uh oh. Then again, as my US colleagues over at HuffPost Hill tweeted last night: "Can't believe someone lip synched... AT THE FAKE INAUGURATION."

(On a side note, Kelly Clarkson's representative was quick to point out that her client "sang live as always". Oooohh...)

QUOTE UNQUOTE

"The fact is that ours is not just an island story – it is also a continental story." David Cameron's throws a bone to the dwindling band of British europhiles during his eurosceptic speech at Bloomberg this morning.

PUBLIC OPINION WATCH

From today's Sun/YouGov poll:

Labour 41
Conservatives 31
Lib Dems 12
Ukip 10

That would give Labour a majority of 110.

140 CHARACTERS OR LESS

@chrisshipitv Farage on #EUspeech: the genie is out of the bottle. Once the "out" word is out there - it's going to be difficult to put it back in

@rafaelbehr So, the big speech, eh. Looks like Cam buying security for himself now in exchange for certain Tory split c.2017

@AliAbunimah Did you hear the scandal about how Beyoncé ordered the extrajudicial murders of Americans and others? Oh wait, sorry, that was Obama.

900 WORDS OR MORE

Mary Riddell, writing in the Telegraph, says: "Fear of the grey vote has turned politicians into cowards."

Daniel Finkelstein, writing in the Times, says: "Obama is far better at hope than at audacity."

Seumas Milne, writing in the Guardian, says: "French intervention in Mali will fuel terrorism, but the west's buildup in Africa is also driven by the struggle for resources."


Got something you want to share? Please send any stories/tips/quotes/pix/plugs/gossip to Mehdi Hasan (mehdi.hasan@huffingtonpost.com) or Ned Simons (ned.simons@huffingtonpost.com). You can also follow us on Twitter: @mehdirhasan, @nedsimons and @huffpostukpol

Egypt’s Constitutional Referendum: Did President Morsi Hijack Democracy?

Egypt Referendum

President Morsi created a new constitution for Egypt on December 26, 2012. Prior to this, Morsi was forced by massive street protests in Egypt to rescind an executive decree that granted him sweeping presidential powers. His opponents called it an empty gesture as Morsi’s government rolled out the tanks and brought out the Egyptian military from their barracks into the streets. Opponents of Morsi and the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood accused him and his Freedom and Justice Party of playing a game to stupefy Egyptians by consistently making propositions, then withdrawing them, and then making them again to create confusion. After calling out the military, Morsi’s government would then rush a constitutional referendum foreword that would guarantee him more powers.

The constitutional changes in Egypt have divided its society. Several Muslim Brotherhood offices have even been stormed by large groups of angry protesters. In what appeared to be a turning back of the clock to the Mubarak regime’s use of brute force, reports of casualties caused by attacks on protesters and activists were far spread. Morsi’s supporters and Egyptian security forces would fight in the streets across Egypt with those opposing the new constitution. A peaceful sit-in of activists in front of the presidential palace in Cairo even ended in violence and death as fighting broke out.

So does Egypt’s new constitution enjoy popular support? In the end Morsi’s new constitution appears to have become victorious. The way numerical information or data is presented or inferred, however, can be very misleading. In many cases the data about the referendum was very selectively presented. An examination of the numbers through some elementary statistical data analysis says a lot about the support that the new constitution received from Egyptian society and provides an important contextual answer to the question being posed. [1]

Reading the Numbers

The new constitution won by a 63.8% approval of yes. This is very misleading when the level of participation is used to generate further data. Only 32.9% of eligible voters cast their ballots for the election and most importantly the new constitution was approved with the support of 20.9% of eligible voters.

Only 17.1 million people out of nearly 52 million registered eligible voters in Egypt participated. Even though the Muslim Brotherhood and its political allies came out in full force to vote, the turnout for the referendum was actually low. This means that about 35 million eligible Egyptians (1) did not bother to vote or (2) boycotted the referendum or (3) were unable to go to a polling station to vote. In some countries such a turnout would be disqualified, because of the lack of citizen participation.

Demographically, only 10.9 million Egyptians voted yes to approve the new constitution. This is a not even a quarter of the population in a country of nearly 82 million people. [2] This means that about 13.3% of the Egyptian population supported the new constitution.

The numbers or data speak for themselves. Interpreting these statistics, we have a sound frame of reference to categorically state that a minority of Egyptians helped secure the Muslim Brotherhood’s new constitutional. It is little wonder that many Egyptians declared that the referendum was illegitimate.

*Estimated breakdown of the entire Egyptian population (millions)

More Political Turbulence to Come?

The leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood is being perceived more and more by Egyptian society as a corrupt organization. It has flip-flopped on many of its promises. Even ideologically the group is being perceived as corrupt by many Muslims inside Egypt. Large segments of Egyptian society believe that very little has changed in their country. For Morsi’s opponent the status quo of the Mubarak era in Egypt essentially remains intact under him and his Freedom and Justice Party.

Like the dictatorship of Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood has refused to fully open the borders with Gaza to help the Palestinians. Its calls of support for the Palestinians have proved to only be political lip service. In fact, like Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood immediately pledged to safeguard Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel when the doors of power were opened to them. Finally, Morsi’s US-supported and Israeli friendly truce between Hamas and Tel Aviv appears to be a strategy devised to de-link Hamas and the Palestinians from Iran and the Resistance Bloc.

Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood have kept all the employees of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry from the Sadat and Mubarak eras in place. The structures of Egypt’s intelligence services have remained untouched and are intact. The Muslim Brotherhood has continued to subordinate their country’s economy to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) like Mubarak did; this is in opposition to the tenets of Islam that ban interest-based banking.

Morsi’s attempts to viciously repress Egyptian protesters with force also resemble the use of force from the Sadat and Mubarak eras. The violent crackdowns on Egyptian protests by the Muslim Brotherhood have resulted in many protesters saying that the new government is just as murderous as the last. Political instability and turbulence lies ahead for Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood. The country’s economy is not doing any better and a new parliamentary election, which is scheduled for the end of February 2013, will see more heated battles between the Muslim Brotherhood and its opponents as the country is further galvanized.

The Flaws of So-called Democratic Voting Processes

Although determining the exact reasons is a different research topic, it can categorically be stated on the basis of the referendum’s numbers that Morsi’s constitution does not have the support of the majority of Egyptians. The votes of approval that were cast were unrepresentative of most Egyptian society. Is this democracy?

It is here that one can see the flaws in voting procedures that emerge in so-called “democratic processes.” To be candid, a country or society cannot be considered democratic just because voting takes place. This is not democracy, but a “motion of democracy.” In paradox, democracy has continuously been hijacked through the ballot box and under seemingly democratic mechanisms or motions. Egypt is not the only case. Other countries, like the US and Canada, face similar problems where minorities are making decisions for the majority of the population under the guise of democracy.

Democracy is not about voting per se, it is about active participation and collective decision making by all the members of a society. This is called “direct democracy.” Anything else is not real or authentic democracy. Voting in larger societies has been presented as a substitute representing an individual citizen’s voice in charting the course of their society under what is called “indirect democracy.” Indirect democracies are preferably referred to as “representative democracies” to conceal or gloss over the fact that they are not direct democracies.

NOTES

[1] These calculations were made by the author for the Chinese press right after the Egyptian constitutional referendum and based on the Arab Republic of Egypt’s Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics official population figure for 2012 and two pieces of numerical information or data about the referendum provided by the Associated Press (AP) on December 25, 2012. The data from AP is the following: (1) 63.8% of voters said yes; and (2) 32.9% of nearly 52 million registered voters went to referendum polling stations. It should also be noted that the data provided are estimates and that among the non-eligible members of the Egyptian population there are those that are under age.

[2] According to the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics, the Egyptian population is 83,774,037 as of January 18, 2013.

Will America’s Next War Be in the Pacific?

Escalating tensions among China, Japan and the U.S. could ignite armed conflict -- and sink the global economy.

January 22, 2013  |  

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com  here.

Don’t look now, but conditions are deteriorating in the western Pacific.  Things are turning ugly, with consequences that could prove deadly and spell catastrophe for the global economy.

In Washington, it is widely assumed that a showdown with Iran over its nuclear ambitions will be the first major crisis to  engulf the next secretary of defense — whether it be former Senator Chuck Hagel, as President Obama desires, or someone else if he fails to win Senate confirmation.  With few signs of an imminent breakthrough in talks aimed at peacefully resolving the Iranian nuclear issue, many analysts believe that military action — if not by Israel, than by the United States — could be on this year’s agenda.

Lurking just behind the Iranian imbroglio, however, is a potential crisis of far greater magnitude, and potentially far more imminent than most of us imagine.  China’s determination to assert control over disputed islands in the potentially energy-rich waters of the East and South China Seas, in the face of stiffening resistance from Japan and the Philippines along with greater regional assertiveness by the United States, spells trouble not just regionally, but potentially globally.

Islands, Islands, Everywhere

The possibility of an Iranian crisis remains in the spotlight because of the obvious risk of disorder in the Greater Middle East and its threat to global oil production and  shipping.  A crisis in the East or South China Seas (essentially, western extensions of the Pacific Ocean) would, however, pose a  greater perilbecause of the possibility of a U.S.-China military confrontation and the threat to Asian economic stability.

The United States is  bound by treaty to come to the assistance of Japan or the Philippines if either country is attacked by a third party, so any armed clash between Chinese and Japanese or Filipino forces could trigger American military intervention.  With so much of the world’s trade focused on Asia, and the American, Chinese, and Japanese economies tied so closely together in ways too essential to ignore, a clash of almost any sort in these vital waterways might paralyze international commerce and trigger a global recession (or worse).

All of this should be painfully obvious and so rule out such a possibility — and yet the likelihood of such a clash occurring has been on the rise in recent months, as China and its neighbors continue to  ratchet up the bellicosity of their statements and bolster their military forces in the contested areas.  Washington’s continuing statements about its ongoing plans for a “pivot” to, or “rebalancing” of, its forces in the Pacific have only  fueled Chinese intransigence and intensified a rising sense of crisis in the region.  Leaders on all sides continue to affirm their country’s inviolable rights to the contested islands and vow to use any means necessary to resist encroachment by rival claimants.  In the meantime, China has  increased the frequency and scale of its naval maneuvers in waters claimed by Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines, further enflaming tensions in the region.

Ostensibly, these disputes revolve around the question of who owns a constellation of largely uninhabited atolls and islets claimed by a variety of nations.  In the  East China Sea, the islands in contention are called the Diaoyus by China and the Senkakus by Japan.  At present, they are administered by Japan, but both countries claim sovereignty over them.  In the  South China Sea, several island groups are in contention, including the Spratly chain and the Paracel Islands (known in China as the Nansha and Xisha Islands, respectively).  China claims  all of these islets, while Vietnam claims some of the Spratlys and Paracels.  Brunei, Malaysia, and the Philippines also claim some of the Spratlys.

IIPU urges nuclear-free Mideast

File photo shows a nuclear Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM).

The Islamic Inter-Parliamentary Union (IIPU) has underscored Iran’s call for the denuclearization of the Middle East.

In a 17-point resolution closing its two-day meeting in Khartoum on Tuesday, the 48-member IIPU demanded that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and particularly nuclear weapons be removed from the Middle East.

This proposal was put forwarded by the Iranian parliamentary delegation to the eighth General Assembly Meeting of the IIPU.

The union also underlined the rights of all nations to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes while expressing profound concern over the nuclear arsenal of Israel.


Israel, the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, is widely known to have between 200 and 400 nuclear warheads.

The Israeli regime rejects all the regulatory international nuclear agreements -- the Non-Proliferation Treaty in particular -- and refuses to allow its nuclear facilities to come under international regulatory inspections.

The IIPU also condemned the assassination of nuclear scientists in the Muslim world.

Several Iranian scientists have been assassinated since 2007, including Majid Shahriari (November 2010), Dariush Rezaei Nejad (July 2011), and Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan (January 2012).

The IIPU was established in 1999 based on an initiative by Iran. It seeks to strengthen parliamentary cooperation among Islamic countries in order to solve challenges facing the Islamic world.

KA/SS

World concerned at US HR situation: MP

UN reports raise intl. concerns over HR situation in US: Lawmaker

US Park Police arrest an Occupy DC movement protestor at McPherson Square in Washington, DC. (File photo)

An Iranian legislator says the international community is concerned about the widespread violation of human rights in the United States.

“Concerns were raised at a meeting of the [UN] Human Rights Council (UNHRC) convened to discuss reports on the human rights situation in the US and Western countries,” Seyyed Hossein Naqavi-Hosseini said on Tuesday.

The spokesman of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee referred to torturing prisoners, illegal raids on people’s homes and detention of American citizens, as well as harsh interrogation methods in the US as cases of human rights violations documented in the UNHRC reports.


“More reports released about the violation of human rights in other Western countries such as Britain and France have also raised concerns,” he added.

Naqavi-Hosseini stated that the reports come despite the West’s hypocritical claims of supporting human rights and their accusations of human rights violations against other countries.

The lawmaker noted that the Iranian parliament has embarked on a mission along with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Islamic Inter-Parliamentary Union to expose violations of human rights by Western countries, including the US.

MRS/SS

S Pars gas recovery tops 500 bcm

File photo shows general view of South Pars Gas Field in southern Iran.

Iran has recovered 500 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas over the past 15 years from the giant offshore South Pars Gas Field which it shares with Qatar in the Persian Gulf, Iranian Oil Ministry data show.

The official data indicated that Iran is recovering 285 to 300 million cubic meters (mcm) of natural gas from the massive field, divided into 28 phases. The daily gas recovery would soar past 700 mcm after the development of all phases.

Iran has extracted 2.65 bcm of rich gas from Phase 1 of the field since the beginning of the current Persian calendar year in March 2012. Over the same period, more than 14.7 bcm of rich gas has been extracted from phases 2 and 3, 15.7 bcm from phases 3 and 4, 18.7 bcm from phases 6-8 and more than 11.11 bcm from phases 9 and 10.

During the Iranian year ending in March 2012, Iran recovered more than 84.7 bcm of natural gas from the developed South Pars phases, earning the country nearly USD42 billion in revenues.


If the projected 700-800 mcm daily recovery of natural gas from South Pars is realized, the country would gain more than USD120 billion a year from selling gas and its products a year.

Covering an area of 3,700 square kilometers, South Pars gas field is located in the Persian Gulf straddling the common border between Iran and Qatar. The field's reserves are estimated at 14 trillion cubic meters of gas and 18 billion barrels of condensate.

South Pars makes nearly 50 percent of the country’s and 8 percent of the world’s gas reserves.

Iran, which sits on the world's second largest natural gas reserves after Russia, has been trying to enhance its gas production by increasing foreign and domestic investments, especially in its South Pars gas field.

KA/SS

Powder Keg in the Pacific

Don’t look now, but conditions are deteriorating in the western Pacific.  Things are turning ugly, with consequences that could prove deadly and spell catastrophe for the global economy.Chinese marine surveillance ship Haijian No. 51 (l.) as a Japan Coast Guard ship Ishigaki near disputed islands in East China Sea, September 14, 2012. (Kyodo/Reuters)

In Washington, it is widely assumed that a showdown with Iran over its nuclear ambitions will be the first major crisis to engulf the next secretary of defense -- whether it be former Senator Chuck Hagel, as President Obama desires, or someone else if he fails to win Senate confirmation.  With few signs of an imminent breakthrough in talks aimed at peacefully resolving the Iranian nuclear issue, many analysts believe that military action -- if not by Israel, than by the United States -- could be on this year’s agenda.

Lurking just behind the Iranian imbroglio, however, is a potential crisis of far greater magnitude, and potentially far more imminent than most of us imagine.  China’s determination to assert control over disputed islands in the potentially energy-rich waters of the East and South China Seas, in the face of stiffening resistance from Japan and the Philippines along with greater regional assertiveness by the United States, spells trouble not just regionally, but potentially globally.

Islands, Islands, Everywhere

The possibility of an Iranian crisis remains in the spotlight because of the obvious risk of disorder in the Greater Middle East and its threat to global oil production and shipping.  A crisis in the East or South China Seas (essentially, western extensions of the Pacific Ocean) would, however, pose a greater peril because of the possibility of a U.S.-China military confrontation and the threat to Asian economic stability.

The United States is bound by treaty to come to the assistance of Japan or the Philippines if either country is attacked by a third party, so any armed clash between Chinese and Japanese or Filipino forces could trigger American military intervention.  With so much of the world’s trade focused on Asia, and the American, Chinese, and Japanese economies tied so closely together in ways too essential to ignore, a clash of almost any sort in these vital waterways might paralyze international commerce and trigger a global recession (or worse).

All of this should be painfully obvious and so rule out such a possibility -- and yet the likelihood of such a clash occurring has been on the rise in recent months, as China and its neighbors continue to ratchet up the bellicosity of their statements and bolster their military forces in the contested areas.  Washington’s continuing statements about its ongoing plans for a “pivot” to, or “rebalancing” of, its forces in the Pacific have only fueled Chinese intransigence and intensified a rising sense of crisis in the region.  Leaders on all sides continue to affirm their country’s inviolable rights to the contested islands and vow to use any means necessary to resist encroachment by rival claimants.  In the meantime, China has increased the frequency and scale of its naval maneuvers in waters claimed by Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines, further enflaming tensions in the region.

Ostensibly, these disputes revolve around the question of who owns a constellation of largely uninhabited atolls and islets claimed by a variety of nations.  In the East China Sea, the islands in contention are called the Diaoyus by China and the Senkakus by Japan.  At present, they are administered by Japan, but both countries claim sovereignty over them.  In the South China Sea, several island groups are in contention, including the Spratly chain and the Paracel Islands (known in China as the Nansha and Xisha Islands, respectively).  China claims all of these islets, while Vietnam claims some of the Spratlys and Paracels.  Brunei, Malaysia, and the Philippines also claim some of the Spratlys.

Far more is, of course, at stake than just the ownership of a few uninhabited islets.  The seabeds surrounding them are believed to sit atop vast reserves of oil and natural gas.  Ownership of the islands would naturally confer ownership of the reserves -- something all of these countries desperately desire.  Powerful forces of nationalism are also at work: with rising popular fervor, the Chinese believe that the islands are part of their national territory and any other claims represent a direct assault on China’s sovereign rights; the fact that Japan -- China’s brutal invader and occupier during World War II -- is a rival claimant to some of them only adds a powerful tinge of victimhood to Chinese nationalism and intransigence on the issue.  By the same token, the Japanese, Vietnamese, and Filipinos, already feeling threatened by China’s growing wealth and power, believe no less firmly that not bending on the island disputes is an essential expression of their nationhood.

Long ongoing, these disputes have escalated recently.  In May 2011, for instance, the Vietnamese reported that Chinese warships were harassing oil-exploration vessels operated by the state-owned energy company PetroVietnam in the South China Sea.  In two instances, Vietnamese authorities claimed, cables attached to underwater survey equipment were purposely slashed.  In April 2012, armed Chinese marine surveillance ships blocked efforts by Filipino vessels to inspect Chinese boats suspected of illegally fishing off Scarborough Shoal, an islet in the South China Sea claimed by both countries.

The East China Sea has similarly witnessed tense encounters of late.  Last September, for example, Japanese authorities arrested 14 Chinese citizens who had attempted to land on one of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands to press their country’s claims, provoking widespread anti-Japanese protests across China and a series of naval show-of-force operations by both sides in the disputed waters.

Regional diplomacy, that classic way of settling disputes in a peaceful manner, has been under growing strain recently thanks to these maritime disputes and the accompanying military encounters.  In July 2012, at the annual meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Asian leaders were unable to agree on a final communiqué, no matter how anodyne -- the first time that had happened in the organization’s 46-year history.  Reportedly, consensus on a final document was thwarted when Cambodia, a close ally of China’s, refused to endorse compromise language on a proposed “code of conduct” for resolving disputes in the South China Sea.  Two months later, when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Beijing in an attempt to promote negotiations on the disputes, she was reviled in the Chinese press, while officials there refused to cede any ground at all.

As 2012 ended and the New Year began, the situation only deteriorated.  On December 1st, officials in Hainan Province, which administers the Chinese-claimed islands in the South China Sea, announced a new policy for 2013: Chinese warships would now be empowered to stop, search, or simply repel foreign ships that entered the claimed waters and were suspected of conducting illegal activities ranging, assumedly, from fishing to oil drilling.  This move coincided with an increase in the size and frequency of Chinese naval deployments in the disputed areas.

On December 13th, the Japanese military scrambled F-15 fighter jets when a Chinese marine surveillance plane flew into airspace near the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands.  Another worrisome incident occurred on January 8th, when four Chinese surveillance ships entered Japanese-controlled waters around those islands for 13 hours.  Two days later, Japanese fighter jets were again scrambled when a Chinese surveillance plane returned to the islands.  Chinese fighters then came in pursuit, the first time supersonic jets from both sides flew over the disputed area. The Chinese clearly have little intention of backing down, having indicated that they will increase their air and naval deployments in the area, just as the Japanese are doing.

Powder Keg in the Pacific

While war clouds gather in the Pacific sky, the question remains: Why, pray tell, is this happening now?

Several factors seem to be conspiring to heighten the risk of confrontation, including leadership changes in China and Japan, and a geopolitical reassessment by the United States.

* In China, a new leadership team is placing renewed emphasis on military strength and on what might be called national assertiveness.  At the 18th Party Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, held last November in Beijing, Xi Jinping was named both party head and chairman of the Central Military Commission, making him, in effect, the nation’s foremost civilian and military official.  Since then, Xi has made several heavily publicized visits to assorted Chinese military units, all clearly intended to demonstrate the Communist Party’s determination, under his leadership, to boost the capabilities and prestige of the country’s army, navy, and air force.  He has already linked this drive to his belief that his country should play a more vigorous and assertive role in the region and the world.

In a speech to soldiers in the city of Huizhou, for example, Xi spoke of his “dream” of national rejuvenation: “This dream can be said to be a dream of a strong nation; and for the military, it is the dream of a strong military.”  Significantly, he used the trip to visit the Haikou, a destroyer assigned to the fleet responsible for patrolling the disputed waters of the South China Sea.  As he spoke, a Chinese surveillance plane entered disputed air space over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands in the East China Sea, prompting Japan to scramble those F-15 fighter jets.

* In Japan, too, a new leadership team is placing renewed emphasis on military strength and national assertiveness.  On December 16th, arch-nationalist Shinzo Abe returned to power as the nation’s prime minister.  Although he campaigned largely on economic issues, promising to revive the country’s lagging economy, Abe has made no secret of his intent to bolster the Japanese military and assume a tougher stance on the East China Sea dispute.

In his first few weeks in office, Abe has already announced plans to increase military spending and review an official apology made by a former government official to women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military during World War II.  These steps are sure to please Japan’s rightists, but certain to inflame anti-Japanese sentiment in China, Korea, and other countries it once occupied.

Equally worrisome, Abe promptly negotiated an agreement with the Philippines for greater cooperation on enhanced “maritime security” in the western Pacific, a move intended to counter growing Chinese assertiveness in the region.  Inevitably, this will spark a harsh Chinese response -- and because the United States has mutual defense treaties with both countries, it will also increase the risk of U.S. involvement in future engagements at sea.

* In the United States, senior officials are debating implementation of the “Pacific pivot” announced by President Obama in a speech before the Australian Parliament a little over a year ago.  In it, he promised that additional U.S. forces would be deployed in the region, even if that meant cutbacks elsewhere.  “My guidance is clear,” he declared.  “As we plan and budget for the future, we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region.”  While Obama never quite said that his approach was intended to constrain the rise of China, few observers doubt that a policy of “containment” has returned to the Pacific.

Indeed, the U.S. military has taken the first steps in this direction, announcing, for example, that by 2017 all three U.S. stealth planes, the F-22, F-35, and B-2, would be deployed to bases relatively near China and that by 2020 60% of U.S. naval forces will be stationed in the Pacific (compared to 50% today).  However, the nation’s budget woes have led many analysts to question whether the Pentagon is actually capable of fully implementing the military part of any Asian pivot strategy in a meaningful way.  A study conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) at the behest of Congress, released last summer, concluded that the Department of Defense “has not adequately articulated the strategy behind its force posture planning [in the Asia-Pacific] nor aligned the strategy with resources in a way that reflects current budget realities.”

This, in turn, has fueled a drive by military hawks to press the administration to spend more on Pacific-oriented forces and to play a more vigorous role in countering China's "bullying" behavior in the East and South China Seas.  “[America’s Asian allies] are waiting to see whether America will live up to its uncomfortable but necessary role as the true guarantor of stability in East Asia, or whether the region will again be dominated by belligerence and intimidation,” former Secretary of the Navy and former Senator James Webb wrote in the Wall Street Journal.  Although the administration has responded to such taunts by reaffirming its pledge to bolster its forces in the Pacific, this has failed to halt the calls for an even tougher posture by Washington.  Obama has already been chided for failing to provide sufficient backing to Israel in its struggle with Iran over nuclear weapons, and it is safe to assume that he will face even greater pressure to assist America’s allies in Asia were they to be threatened by Chinese forces.

Add these three developments together, and you have the makings of a powder keg -- potentially at least as explosive and dangerous to the global economy as any confrontation with Iran.  Right now, given the rising tensions, the first close encounter of the worst kind, in which, say, shots were unexpectedly fired and lives lost, or a ship or plane went down, might be the equivalent of lighting a fuse in a crowded, over-armed room.  Such an incident could occur almost any time.  The Japanese press has reported that government officials there are ready to authorize fighter pilots to fire warning shots ig Chinese aircraft penetrate the airspace over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands.  A Chinese general has said that such an act would count as the start of "actual combat." That the irrationality of such an event will be apparent to anyone who considers the deeply tangled economic relations among all these powers may prove no impediment to the situation -- as at the beginning of World War I -- simply spinning out of everyone’s control.

Can such a crisis be averted?  Yes, if the leaders of China, Japan, and the United States, the key countries involved, take steps to defuse the belligerent and ultra-nationalistic pronouncements now holding sway and begin talking with one another about practical steps to resolve the disputes.  Similarly, an emotional and unexpected gesture -- Prime Minister Abe, for instance, pulling a Nixon and paying a surprise goodwill visit to China -- might carry the day and change the atmosphere.  Should these minor disputes in the Pacific get out of hand, however, not just those directly involved but the whole planet will look with sadness and horror on the failure of everyone involved.

© 2012 Tom Dispatch

Michael T. Klare

Michael T. Klare is the Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. His newest book, The Race for What's Left: The Global Scramble for the World's Last Resources, has just recently been published.  His other books include: Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy and Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum. A documentary version of that book is available from the Media Education Foundation.

EU Officials ‘Should Oversee Press’, Committee Urges

A "high level" committee set up by the European Commission to produce proposals for EU-wide regulation of the press has attacked David Cameron for rejecting the Leveson Report.

The High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism, established in October 2011 and chaired by the former president of Latvia, Professor Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, reported back on Monday.

Among the recommendations likely to outrage eurosceptic Tory MPs is that press regulation bodies in individual countries should ultimately answer to Brussels.

"Media councils should have real enforcement powers, such as the imposition of fines, orders for printed or broadcast apologies, or removal of journalistic status," the report suggests.

"The national media councils should follow a set of European-wide standards and be monitored by the Commission to ensure that they comply with European values."

The report is also heavily critical of the prime minister's decision to oppose Lord Justice Leveson's call for the statutory underpinning of independent press regulation in Britain.

"The gross abuses revealed in the Leveson inquiry have led its author to propose much more stringent institutional supervision, where the media would be much more closely monitored, become far more accountable to the public and be subject to heavy fines in the case of infractions," it says.

"That judge Leveson’s recommendations should have been rejected out of hand by some politicians in high office, is not very reassuring. If nothing else, this resistance by itself underscores the urgent need for supervisory bodies that can and do act, instead of being supervisory in name only."

Tory MP Douglas Carswell told the Daily Telegraph the report showed the EU was "incompatibile with the notion of a free society".

“Having EU officials overseeing our free press - and monitoring newspapers to ensure they comply with "European values" - would be quite simply intolerable,” he said.

“This is the sort of mind-set that I would expect to find in Iran, not the West. This kooky idea tells us little about the future of press regulation."

A DCMS spokesperson said: "We have no intention of allowing Europe to regulate the British press. We have been clear that, as set out in the Leveson report, we expect the British press industry to implement tough, independent, self-regulation, in adherence with the Leveson principles.”

European Publishers Council executive director Angela Mills Wade said: “The free and independent press faces deeply challenging times in spite of soaring audiences online but where profits are elusive. In the consultation that now follows we must work together to nurture a truly independent press that promotes democracy and cultural diversity throughout the world."

“We are quite taken aback by some of the report’s recommendations. The EU does not have legal competence under the treaties to harmonise substantive media laws such as defamation. Any notion of harmonised rules of the game, monitored by the EU, is anathema to press freedom – the very thing the group was tasked to protect.”

Ukip leader Nigel Farage said the European plan was "a flagrant attack on press freedom by the European Commission".

"To think that unelected bureacrats in Brussels want the power to ultimately fine and suspend journalists is just outrageous," he said.

"National governments and the EU should stay out of media control. Regulation is something the media can well do themselves. With this new grab for EU regulation of the national media supervisors, it really is becoming like Orwell's 1984. Commisioner Neelie Kroes wants to send out the the thought police. Well, don't let her succeed. Politicians always want to control the media but it is something which should always be resisted."

Related on HuffPost:

Spanish Filmfest invites Kiarostami

The Internationally-acclaimed Iranian auteur Abbas Kiarostami has been invited to attend the Ibn Arabi Film Festival (IBAFF) in the southeastern Spanish city of Murcia.

Kiarostami along with the renowned French screenwriter and actor Jean-Claude Carrière is slated to present workshops on filmmaking during the festival.

The 2013 edition of the festival will also hold a retrospective of Kiarostami’s films and discussion meetings.

The event’s Honorary Award will also be granted to Jean-Claude Carrière for his screenwriting in great works such as The Tin Drum(1979), Danton (1983), The Return of Martin Guerre (1982), The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988).

Kiarostami’s diverse works of art such as painting, photography, Poetry and filmmaking are also to be reviewed during artistic workshops and programs in France in February.

As a filmmaker, painter, designer and photographer, Kiarostami has received many prestigious international awards, including the 1997 Cannes Golden Palm award and the 2008 Glory to the Filmmaker award of the Venice Film Festival.

He has staged Mozart's opera buffa (comic opera), Cosi Fan Tutte at London's Coliseum Theater and the 2008 Festival of Lyric Art in Aix-en-provence in France.

Kiarostami participated in the third edition of the Spanish festival while grabbed the Honorary Award of last year’s event.

Moreover, Iranian scholar and critic Bahman Maqsoudlou also presided over the jury panel of the last year’s IBAFF.

The fourth edition of Ibn Arabi Film Festival is scheduled to take place from March 4 to 9, 2013.

FGP/FGP

Israelis vote in elections seen swinging to the right

Israelis vote Tuesday in a general election expected to return Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to power at the head of a government of hardline right-wing and religious parties. The ballot to choose Israel's 19th parliament is likely to usher in a g...

US Intelligence Mission in Bolivia Busted: US preparing to Destabilize Bolivia again?

Bolivia: Electoral Victory Highlights Obstacles to the Process of Economic and Social Change

The scandal over the «scientific team from the USA» broke out, despite attempts by the U.S. Embassy in Bolivia to kill it off. In June 2012, a team of team of specialists numbering 50 people came to the country, ostensibly to study the adverse effects of high altitude on humans and their capacity for rapid recovery of their fighting ability. To avoid attracting attention, the Americans used tourist visas and passed through border control in small groups. One group of these specialists went to the Yungas area, and another group to the slopes of Mount Chacaltaya. «Tourist» trails have been laid in the border areas with Peru and Chile.

The expedition’s activities in the country continued for a few months. Only after a series of articles in the U.S. media did the Bolivian authorities begin an investigation. Vice President Alvaro Garcia stated that the actions of the U.S. «scholars» in the country were in serious doubt. Initially, they assured that they were exploring issues of human adaptation to high altitude. Then it was announced that the experiments were being carried out in the interests of the U.S. / NATO troops in Afghanistan. Wow, more than ten years into the war against the Taliban, with the deadlines for withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan approaching, the Pentagon suddenly remembered the «problem of high altitude «! Of course, after these confused explanations appeared, the assumption was made that not all those from the U.S. were scientists.

Officially, the expedition was headed by Robert Roach of the University of Colorado, but in reality, the «research team» was subordinate to U.S. military intelligence officers (Defense Intelligence Agency – DIA)… In Bolivia, its work was coordinated by the Defense Attaché of the U.S. Embassy. Col. Patrick Mathes and his staff provided operational cover. $ 4 million in funds was allocated by the Pentagon DIA for the expeditions scientific and intelligence work.

To carry out such operations without the formal permission of the host country, is an open challenge, demonstrating a disregard for the laws of Bolivia and its leadership. According to Vice-President Garcia, this is an «attack on the sovereignty of the country, and a preparation for a military attack on Bolivia.»

There is a basis for such a statement. At the first sign of scandal Mathes left Bolivia and Colonel Dennis Fiemeyer became chief Defense Attaché. He is considered a leading expert in the Pentagon on South America. He previously worked in Paraguay and Peru, and is aware of the balance of power in the region, Bolivia’s strategy to achieve access to the Pacific Ocean, the current state of the Bolivian armed forces and their defense capabilities. The U.S. military attaches constantly monitor sentiment in the army, recruit agents, and use «dissidents» to destabilize and overthrow «the Morales regime».

«The U.S. government has abused our trust and generosity,” said the vice-president of Bolivia. “This is a very negative signal against the background of attempts to restore full diplomatic relations between the two countries. We cannot remain indifferent to this aggression. We have the right to take measures to prevent such a thing from happening again. The executive branch intends to keep all the actions of the North American representatives in Bolivia under constant surveillance».

The U.S. Embassy was hostile from the start to Indian president, Evo Morales, and tried to prevent his coming to power in 2006, and re-election to the presidency in 2010. To get rid of Morales and return Bolivia to Washington control, the U.S. intelligence services have used every opportunity to conduct a «secret war without rules,» including the direction of terrorist groups. The surviving terrorists and their accomplices later fled from Bolivia to the United States.

Along the borders with Bolivia, The U.S. Southern Command has established military bases in Iquitos (Peru), Concon (Chile), and Mariscal Estigarribia (Paraguay). The current Paraguayan President Federico Franco, who came to power in a US-backed plot, is working with the Pentagon and acts as a consistent enemy of the integration process on the continent, which is carried out by the countries of ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Latin America. Paraguay is considered by the Pentagon an important base from which to destabilize Bolivia. For this reason, an information and propaganda campaign was launched in Paraguay «to expose the export of the Bolivarian revolution» to Paraguay. Political analysts do not rule out that the «appropriate response» of the puppet regime in Paraguay to the «hostile acts of Morales” may become the implementation of» the Syrian scenario “. Bolivia is considered by U.S. intelligence analysts as a weak point in the ALBA integration bloc.

Separatist tendencies in lowland regions of Bolivia persist. The dissatisfaction of the traditional elites is becoming more radical, because they are unhappy that the Indian majority in the country is ruled by «Marxists» that mimic the experiences of Cuba and Venezuela. Episodes of corruption which involved government officials have been inflated by the media, compromising the positive things that Evo Morales and his associates have achieved during the presidency. The conflict in relations between Indians and white populations remain and are used by the U.S. secret services to strengthen the operational positions of the warring camps. Washington always makes the same complaints about Morales: his maintenance of friendly relations with Iran; strengthening of ties, including military, with China; and not doing enough in the fight against the drug cartels.

After four years of absence of the American ambassador from La Paz, a ray of hope finally dawned for the normalization of bilateral relations. Washington announced that it planned to send diplomat James Nealon to Bolivia, who has thirty years of experience working within the State Department. The last U.S. ambassador was Philip Goldberg, who in September 2008, was declared persona non grata by the Bolivian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for contacts with the separatists and financing subversive activities of non-governmental organizations. Goldberg conspired almost openly, confident in the fact that the Bolivian leadership did not dare touch him. But he had to quickly pack his bags. Also because Goldberg, when talking to some western colleagues in the diplomatic corps, allowed racist attacks on Morales.

The Bolivians have learned from that history. Before arriving in Bolivia, Goldberg had a reputation as a specialist in the «overthrow of unfriendly regimes,» which he did not deny. La Paz now intends to conduct a thorough study of Nealon’s diplomatic path in terms of any «contradictions», and to see if there is evidence of his involvement in subversive operations in Latin America. A decision will be made depending on the results of the investigation.

At the moment, the only material to come up compromising the American was a publication in WikiLeaks: in an analytical document sent to the State Department from Lima, Nealon called Evo Morales an anti-system president and predicted the negative impact of his radical politics on the economic progress of Peru and the Indian population of that country. Nealon also noted that Morales was «taking steps» to destabilize the U.S. government loyalist Peruvian President Alan Garcia, enlisting the support of the «radical regimes» of Venezuela and Ecuador. So, in terms of U.S. national interests, Morales interpretation is that Nealon is an extremely dangerous character. What kind of objectivity can be expected from the American in the event of his arrival in La Paz?

By the way, Nealon figures little in WikiLeaks material. He is an experienced diplomat, who has worked in Chile, Uruguay, Peru, and Canada, but was not mentioned in regular correspondence with the State Department. This suggests one conclusion: Nealon worked for another office, the CIA.

The impression is that the Bolivian leadership is not too interested in the presence of the U.S. ambassador in La Paz. The fears of Morales and his team are understandable. Bolivia is subjected to complex destabilizing attacks on the domestic and external fronts. Inside of the country a «fifth column» is newly consolidating. The government has announced its intention to verify the legality of the operation of 22-NGOs, the sources of their finances and compliance of their real operations with the respective statutes. The opposition openly shows its relationship with the U.S. Embassy. At the recent congress of the party «Movement without fear” (MSM), Geoffrey Schadrack, the CIA chief in the country and political advisor to the U.S. Embassy, was invited. MSM is positioned as the party of right-wing conservatism and opposes the ruling MAS.

Bolivia has difficulties in its relations with its neighbors – Paraguay, Peru and Chile. Competing claims, situations of conflict, and accusations of «foul play» are ongoing. Washington consistently and competently drives a wedge of conflict in the region. Special attention is paid to the Indian issue, and the «incitement» of Bolivia in attempts to «revolutionize» the Indian movements in these countries. This creates the conditions for future conflict. The main defendant is known in advance.

Four more years: Will Obama’s next term be paved with progress or broken promises?

All eyes were on Washington today as US President Barack Obama recited the oath of office in front of an estimated 800,000 people. As the leader prepares for the next four years, the world waits to see whether he’ll follow through with his previous pledge

Obama’s inaugural speech was filled with inspiration, as the leader promised to “support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East,” while peacefully resolving conflicts with other nations.

However, if the leader’s first term is any indication, his promises may not be so easy to fulfill.

Economic issues

Five years since the beginning of the financial crisis, Americans are still waiting for a sign of fiscal improvement. Economic recovery has taken longer than most people ever imagined – including Obama.

“If we can’t get this done in three years, this is going to be a one-term proposition,” Obama said early in his presidency.

Fast forward to 2013, Obama is beginning his second term, despite the fact that the US unemployment rate is still hovering around 7.9 per cent.

It seems there is little indication of improvement anytime soon. “It will take more than a few years to solve challenges that have built up over decades,” Obama said during his 2012 campaign.

The freshest of Obama’s economic battles is the nation’s traditional Fiscal Cliff showdown. In February, congressional Republicans are expected to fight the president once again, demanding that funding for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare be slashed.

As Congress gears up for the debate, the nation remains divided on the most effective way to handle the dispute.

Gun control

Last Wednesday, Obama called on Congress to pass a number of proposals that could allow for sweeping new gun laws across the country.

If approved, the measures would ban the buying and selling of certain assault weapons, close loopholes that circumvent background check requirements, impose limits on ammunition purchases and more.

“If there was even one thing we could do to reduce this violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we have an obligation to try it. And I’m going to do my part,” Obama said.

But “doing his part” may be easier said than done. In fact, many say the proposal has little or no chance of making it through Congress.

“In this country I don’t think [gun control] is going to happen anywhere in the near future, because we are a country that is very deeply in love with our guns,” constitutional lawyer Roger Pilon told RT.

Obama’s battles with Congress are nothing new. But while it may be difficult to pass laws within the US, it’s a bit easier for the leader to focus on foreign policy.

“Presidents who have trouble with Congress like to do international things because they have to worry about Congress much less,” political opinion writer Brent Budowsky told RT.

Foreign Policy

From Iran to Russia, critics are quick to speculate on how the Obama administration will handle foreign policy over the next four years.

In the past, Obama has stated that “all options remain on the table” to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

However, some say the selection of Chuck Hagel – Obama’s pick for Defense Secretary – acts as an early sign that the administration will monger less war than in years past. Why? Because Hagel is against launching a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

But Middle East experts aren’t so easily swayed.

“I’d bet a certain amount of money we will hear the words ‘all options are on the table' come out of his mouth,” Middle East expert Flynt Leverett told RT.

Hagel’s views on Iran are countered with those of John Brennan, the man nominated to lead the CIA.

“Brennan is someone who will continue many of the covert programs at the CIA, and who will be very much to Israel’s liking and serve to undermine any attempts or possibilities for a real rapprochement or coming to terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Hillary Mann Leverett, CEO of political risk consultancy Strategic Energy and Global Analysis, told RT.

In his speech, Obama mentioned the upcoming departure of American troops from Afghanistan. However, it remains debatable whether a decade of war has left Afghanistan – or America – any better off.

“There are extensive drone attacks still going on that I think put Americans in international environments in great danger,” security analyst Patricia DeGennaro told RT.

The Obama administration’s movements surrounding Syria have been frowned upon too, with many criticizing the US for giving the country's insurgency strategic information.

“It’s a violation of international law and aggression under the UN charter. Plus, we have the very worrisome deployment of American missiles in Turkey, as if it were Turkey who needs defense against Syrian aggression rather than the other way around,” US Senate foreign policy advisor James Jatras told RT.

And if talks of moves to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad come to fruition, Jatras says, the Obama administration isn’t prepared for a post-Assad Syria.

“One of the problems with the various American-led interventions over the years, whether we’re talking about Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, and hopefully not in the future, Syria, is that the goal immediately defined comes first, and we worry about the consequences later. Look, for example, at the aftershocks of Libya in Mali and Algeria,” Jatras said.

Obama faces yet another obstacle when it comes to Mali, with African forces asking for Western allies to do more to save the country from Islamist militants. Thus far, however, the US has ruled out the deployment of ground troops.

Closer to home is the on-going controversy surrounding Guantanamo Bay. The prison camp has been in the limelight since 2009, when Obama gave orders for it to be closed by January 22, 2010.

However, it remains open and operational.

It’s yet another example of Congress overpowering the president, bundling it with the National Defense Authorization Act, which serves as the overall defense budget for the country.Obama has the power to veto the entire act, but not to individually challenge the administration of Guantanamo Bay.

Obama has threatened to do so several times, as Congress has imposed more and more stringent measures on Guantanamo – yet the president has backed down on every occasion.

While the future of Obama’s foreign policy remains largely unclear, the future of his domestic agenda seems easier to predict. That is, unless he develops a sweeter relationship with Congress, there’s a good chance that many of his ideas will never make it beyond inspiring speeches.

Banking Crisis on Wall Street: Wrist Slap for “Too Big to Fail or Jail”...

bankster

With money laundering “lapses” and CEO mea culpas all the rage on Wall Street and the City of London, you would think that Hope and Change™ grifter Barack Obama’s Justice and Treasury Departments would want to send a strong message to banksters who break the law.

You’d be wrong of course.

‘There’s Nothing to See Here…’

While the financial press is all aflutter over news that JPMorgan Chase (JPMC) CEO Jamie Dimon had his annual pay package cut by 50 percent, from $23 million (£14.5m) to $11.5 million (£7.25m) over $6.2 billion (£3.91bn) in losses in the risky derivatives market, you’d almost believe that Dimon was lining up for food stamps or hunting down mittens to stave off New York’s bone-chilling winter.

Despite allusions to what are euphemistically called “bad bets” by JPMC trader Bruno Iksil, the so-called “London Whale” on the hook for proverbial “shitty deals” that cost shareholders billions, Bloomberg News reported that JPMC’s “fourth-quarter profit rose 53 percent, beating analysts’ estimates as mortgage revenue more than doubled on record-low interest rates and government incentives.”

Incentives? Now there’s a polite word for a megabank with more than $2.3 trillion (£1.45tn) in assets handed some $600 billion (£378.24bn) in TARP funds, which included Federal Reserve engineered deals for their buy-out of Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual that wiped out shareholder equity as the capitalist system threatened to implode in 2008.

Adding to the sleaze factor, it emerged in 2011 that JPMC had wrongfully overcharged thousands of military families on their mortgages, including active duty personnel serving in Afghanistan. As a result of a class-action lawsuit, the bank was forced to admit they had illegally overcharged 6,000 active duty military personnel, had seized the homes of 18 military families and then paid out $27 million (£17.05m) in compensation. At a shareholder’s meeting later that year Dimon “apologized” for the “error” and lending chief David Lowman fell on his sword as he was shown the door.

Talk about stand-up guys!

And never mind, as Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi pointed out, “at the same moment that leading banks were taking trillions in secret loans from the Fed, top officials at those firms were buying up stock in their companies, privy to insider info that was not available to the public at large.”

While drug-tainted Citigroup’s former CEO Vikram Pandit “bought nearly $7 million in Citi stock in November 2008, just as his firm was secretly taking out $99.5 billion in Fed loans,” that other paragon of banking virtue, Jamie Dimon, who “respects” the JPMC board’s decision to slice his pay in half “bought more than $11 million in Chase stock in early 2009, at a time when his firm was receiving as much as $60 billion in secret Fed loans.”

Such “stock purchases by America’s top bankers,” Taibbi wrote, “raise serious questions of insider trading.” Yet not a single bankster has been seriously investigated let alone held to account, by the Justice Department.

How sweet a year was it for JPMorgan Chase? Pretty sweet by all accounts.

Overall, Bloomberg reported, “revenue increased 10 percent to $23.7 billion [£14.96bn] from $21.5 billion [£13.57bn] in the fourth quarter of 2011. Annual revenue was $97 billion [£61.23bn], down from $97.2 billion [£61.35bn] the prior year.” This included investment banking fees which jumped 54 percent to $1.7 billion (£1.07bn) and revenue in the commercial banking sector which rose to $1.75 billion (£1.1bn). And with the formation of a new housing bubble due to taxpayer-subsidized record low interest rates, JPMC’s profits in the mortgage writing mill rose to $418 million (£263.5m) in 2012, compared to losses which topped $263 million (£165.8m) a year earlier.

But far from being a sign that the economic black hole opened by 2008′s financial collapse has contracted, there’s bad news on the horizon for distressed homeowners and taxpayers who will be forced to pay the piper for the next round of predatory loans.

As analyst Mike Whitney recently pointed out in CounterPunch a new rule defining a “qualified mortgage” by the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “creates vast new opportunities for the nation’s biggest banks to engage in predatory lending practices with impunity.”

According to Whitney, while the financial press have described the rule “as an attempt to protect borrowers from the risky types of loans that caused the financial crisis, the opposite is true. The real purpose of the rule is to provide legal protection for the banks from homeowner lawsuits, and to lay the groundwork for more reckless lending that could inflate another housing bubble.”

“In other words,” Whitney noted, “the rule was designed to serve the interests of the banks and the banks alone. This is why bankers everywhere are celebrating the final draft.”

Never mind that leading financial institutions were forced to cough up $25 billion (£15.76bn) in a settlement with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve over shady foreclosure practices and wrongful homeowner evictions that ruined millions of lives.

JPMC’s $2 billion (£1.26bn) portion of the settlement, which included “a one-time pretax charge [write down] of $700 million [£441.77m] in the fourth quarter to cover the costs associated with [the] settlement” according to Bloomberg, was a pittance compared to the trillions of dollars in assets controlled by the bank.

‘A Trillion Here, a Trillion There…’

But as bad as these gift horses are, they pale in comparison with federal government inaction when it comes to policing financial predators who inflate their balance sheets with laundered drug money and loot derived from terrorist financing and organized crime.

As Yury Fedotov, the Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), pointed out in that agency’s 2011 report, Estimating Illicit Financial Flows Resulting from Drug Trafficking and Other Transnational Organized Crime: “Prior to this report, perhaps the most widely quoted figure for the extent of money laundering was the IMF’s ‘consensus range’ of between 2-5 per cent of global GDP, made public in 1998. A study-of-studies, or meta-analysis, conducted for this report, suggests that all criminal proceeds are likely to have amounted to some 3.6 per cent of GDP (2.3-5.5 per cent) or around US$2.1 trillion in 2009.”

The UNODC research team averred: “If only flows related to drug trafficking and other transnational organized crime activities were considered, related proceeds would have been equivalent to around US$650 billion per year in the first decade of the new millennium, equivalent to 1.5% of global GDP or US$870 billion in 2009 assuming that the proportions remained unchanged. The funds available for laundering through the financial system would have been equivalent to some 1% of global GDP or US$580 billion in 2009.”

However you slice these grim estimates, it should be obvious that banks have every incentive to remain key players in the transnational narcotics complex and will continue to do so thanks to the federal government.

Last week, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) released their cease-and-desist order against JPMC.

Unlike other drug money laundering banks such as Wells Fargo-owned Wachovia Bank, which agreed to a mere $160 million (£100.86m) settlement in 2010 in a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) after admitting to laundering upwards of $368 billion (£231.99bn) for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels or the recent $1.9 billion (£1.2bn) DPA with Britain’s HSBC global financial empire, the OCC’s consent order didn’t even impose a fine on JPMC for money laundering “lapses.”

Now that’s juice!

Though short on details the order however, is a damning indictment of JPMC “indiscretions” when it comes to drug and other criminal money laundering. Keep in mind this is an institution that was slapped with an $88.3 million (£55.66m) fine less than 18 months ago for shipping a ton of gold bullion to Iran in breach of harsh Treasury Department sanctions. (I neither endorse nor support draconian sanctions imposed by the imperialists on the Islamic Republic, my purpose here is to point out the double standards which would land the average citizen in the slammer under “material support” statutes for trading with Iran). The January 2013 Consent Order stated although the Comptroller found serious “flaws” in their accounting practices, “the Bank neither admits nor denies” the following:

(1) The OCC’s examination findings establish that the Bank has deficiencies in its BSA/AML [Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering] compliance program. These deficiencies have resulted in the failure to correct a previously reported problem and a BSA/AML compliance program violation under 12 U.S.C. § 1818(s) and its implementing regulation, 12 C.F.R. § 21.21 (BSA Compliance Program). In addition, the Bank has violated 12 C.F.R. § 21.11 (Suspicious Activity Report Filings).

(2) The Bank has failed to adopt and implement a compliance program that adequately covers the required BSA/AML program elements due to an inadequate system of internal controls, and ineffective independent testing. The Bank did not develop adequate due diligence on customers, particularly in the Commercial and Business Banking Unit, a repeat problem, and failed to file all necessary Suspicious Activity Reports (“SARs”) related to suspicious customer activity.

(3) The Bank failed to correct previously identified systemic weaknesses in the adequacy of customer due diligence and the effectiveness of monitoring in light of the customers’ cash activity and business type, constituting a deficiency in its BSA/AML compliance program and resulting in a violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1818(s)(3)(B).

Wait a minute, if these were “previously identified systemic weaknesses” and if JPMC “failed to adopt and implement a compliance program” that would shield the American financial system from a tsunami of drug-tainted cash annually washing through the economy, especially “in light of the customers’ cash activity and business type,” why then has OCC issued another toothless Consent Order rather than forcing the bank to comply with the law? Accordingly, federal regulators charge:

(4) Some of the critical deficiencies in the elements of the Bank’s BSA/AML compliance program, resulting in a violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1818(s)(3)(A) and 12 C.F.R. § 21.21, include the following:

(a) The Bank has an inadequate system of internal controls and independent testing.
(b) The Bank has less than satisfactory risk assessment processes that do not provide an adequate foundation for management’s efforts to identify, manage, and control risk.
(c) The Bank has systemic deficiencies in its transaction monitoring systems, due diligence processes, risk management, and quality assurance programs.
(d) The Bank does not have enterprise-wide policies and procedures to ensure that foreign branch suspicious activity involving customers of other bank branches is effectively communicated to other affected branch locations and applicable AML operations staff. The Bank also does not have enterprise-wide policies and procedures to ensure that on a risk basis, customer transactions at foreign branch locations can be assessed, aggregated, and monitored.
(e) The Bank has significant shortcomings in SAR decision-making protocols and an ineffective method for ensuring that referrals and alerts are properly documented, tracked, and resolved.

(5) The Bank failed to identify significant volumes of suspicious activity and file the required SARs concerning suspicious customer activities, in violation of 12 C.F.R. § 21.11. In some of these cases, the Bank self-identified the issues and is engaged in remediation.

(6) The Bank’s internal controls, including filtering processes and independent testing, with respect to Office of Foreign Asset Control (“OFAC”) compliance are inadequate.

How large were the “significant volumes” of “suspicious activity” alluded to opaquely? Where did they originate? Who were the “suspicious customers” and why did JPMC not have “enterprise-wide policies and procedures” after being previously ordered to do so to ensure that said “suspicious customers” at foreign bank branches didn’t include drug lords or terrorist financiers? All of these are unanswered questions for which the Obama administration should be held to account.

In fact, according to OCC’s own regulations, 12 C.F.R. § 21.21 clearly states that the federal government “requires every national bank to have a written, board approved program that is reasonably designed to assure and monitor compliance with the BSA.”

At a minimum, an anti-money laundering program “must” (this is not optional): “1. provide for a system of internal controls to assure ongoing compliance; 2. provide for independent testing for compliance; 3. designate an individual responsible for coordinating and monitoring day-to-day compliance; and 4. provide training for appropriate personnel. In addition, the implementing regulation for section 326 of the PATRIOT Act requires that every bank adopt a customer identification program identification program as part of its BSA compliance program.”

Keep in mind that Wachovia and HSBC under terms of their DPA’s were forced to admit that illegal transactions “ignored the money laundering risks associated with doing business with certain Mexican customers and failed to implement a BSA/AML program that was adequate to monitor suspicious transactions from Mexico.”

Furthermore, those risks were compounded, wilfully in this writer’s opinion, in order to inflate bank balance sheets with drug money, through their failure to correct “systemic deficiencies in its transaction monitoring systems, due diligence processes, risk management, and quality assurance programs.”

On every level, JPMorgan Chase failed to comply with existing rules and regulations that have earned penny-ante offenders terms in federal prison.

In fact, just last week Los Angeles-based “G&A Check Cashing, its manager, Karen Gasparian, and its compliance officer, Humberto Sanchez” were sentenced by US Judge John Walker to stiff prison terms, The Wall Street Journal reported. For violating the Bank Secrecy Act, Gasparian was “ordered to prison for five years and Sanchez for eight months.”

Are you kidding me! The Journal averred, “While it is common for banks to face scrutiny from the U.S. for complying with the Bank Secrecy Act, it is rare for authorities to pursue check-cashing businesses for anti-money laundering compliance issues, as they are often used by the poor, who may not have the funds to maintain a bank account.”

In full clown-car mode, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, Obama’s chieftain over at the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, who last month refused to file criminal charges against drug-money laundering banksters at HSBC said in a statement: “Karen Gasparian, Humberto Sanchez and their company G&A Check Cashing purposefully thwarted the Bank Secrecy Act, making it easier for others to use G&A to commit illegal activity. They knew they were required to report transactions over $10,000, but deliberately failed to do so.”

Although the OCC Consent Order does not spell out who benefited from JPMC’s “systemic weaknesses” when it came to lax drug money laundering controls, the suspicion persists that somewhere fugitive billionaire drug lord Chapo Guzmán is smiling as he enlarges his stable of thoroughbreds.

(Image courtesy of Daniel Hopsicker’s MadCow Morning News)

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, he is a Contributing Editor with Cyrano’s Journal Today. His articles can be read on Dissident Voice, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military “Civil Disturbance” Planning, distributed by AK Press and has contributed to the new book from Global Research, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.

Russia sending two planes to pick Russians who want to leave Syria

Russia sending two planes to pick Russians who want to leave Syria

Russia sending two planes to pick Russians who want to leave Syria

Russia’s Emergencies Ministry is sending two planes to the Lebanese capital to pick those Russians who want to leave Syria torn by the ongoing civil conflict. The aircraft leave for Beirut on Tuesday, some 100 Russians are expected to be evacuated.

Two planes, Il-76 and Yak-42, both able to cary up to 120 passengers onboard will be dispatched for Beirut, the ministry confirmed on Monday.

Earlier there were rumors that Russia was considering using warships to evacuate its citizens from Syria.

In December a member of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, a newly formed opposition body recognized by the West, called Russian citizens in Syria ‘legitimate targets.’

"Russia, like Iran, supports the Assad regime with weapons and ammunition, as well as in the political arena, so the citizens of these countries are legitimate targets for militants in Syria," Haitham al-Maleh, a member of the coalition told RT.­

DETAILS TO FOLLOW.

Crazed Kamikaze Counterfeiters

Kamikaze2
From Slope of Hope: Well, my fellow Slope-a-Dopes, your selfless Idiotic Savant servant, whom is securely chained to his desk, has spent a significant part of the long weekend, perusing nearly every finance blog on the world wide web for you.  Therefore, I can reliably report to the SOH, that the overwhelming consensus out there in the financial blogosphere, which has now reached a nearly universal feverish pitch, is boldly & proudly heralding that a most encouraging new economic dawn is finally upon us.  It seems, a pristine permanent plateau of prosperity has been patently perfected.

According to many, we are leaving behind the hostile, unruly, nearly catastrophic financial crisis which began in early 2008, and replacing it with a new era of sublime, totally tamed, and completely captured capital markets.  All this, courtesy of our brilliant public authorities, who so astutely and capably swooped in to save the day for us all.

303_1swear_in_wideJust in case, you are still one of the few sage equity exchange participants, that remains unconvinced by the great

USA! USA! USA! capital markets comeback pompoms, we have arranged a special effects holiday treat to bring you on-board the super flagship of State. We sure hope you enjoy the show. The relentless media driven smoke & mirrors, incessantly producing red white and blue Wonder Bread & hypnotic Carnival Cruise circuses, are in full force this weekend. Capped off by the fanatical Obonga inauguration palapalooza, which has everybody in America enthusiastically and stupefyingly, utterly stoned silly. I curiously ponder what the venerable, eloquent, deep thinking MLK would really feel about all this spectacularly superficial, overly hyped, completely bogus, self satisfied apple pie splendor.  But, I digress.  Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.  Back to the party line......
Sunshine_sunflower-Summer_romance_Feelings_1680x1050The warm glow of the sun is upon us again, and will soon shine as brightly as before, SPX 1700 here we come.  The main thrust of this new found optimism stems from the notion that the parched & wilting private consumption Crocuses of old, have effectively been replaced by a special strain of fast growing Government spending Sunflower shoots.  Our green thumbed Treasury & Central Bank planters, assure us that the fertile financial hybrid flowers will splendifferously bloom once again, with a magic turbo boost delivered by the new Miracle-Grow monetary & fiscal fertilizer. Most flower pot pundits are singing the same happy horticulture harmony.

The melodic musical notes sound something like this:

  • The original culprit, the devastated & destructive housing sector has now bottomed out, and there should be further constructive smooth nailing ahead.  
  • The all important U.S. equity markets have soared back towards the heavens, like an unGodly shiny new Sphinx, up over 120% from the harrowing SPX 666 Lucifer hell hole, since the money mayhem of March 2009.
  • The sick expiring latin PIIGS, instead of ending up on Iggy's breakfast plate, are being fattened up at the ECB trough with copious free flowing OMT hog feed.
  • The chief EU emergency room cardiologists, have miraculously breathed life back into the flat-lining EKG of the EURO heart attack patient, using the latest LTRO defibrillation techniques.
  • The global Inflation lion has been skillfully slayed, and the neatly folded Origami paper tiger is about to ferociously roar once again in China.  
  • The Bond bubble will gently deflate its overly pressurized pent up air, right into an eagerly awaiting, warm and welcoming, stock market hot air balloon. 
  • Even the dismal job market is being jack hammered back into satisfactory street shape.

Well, you get the picture...............it's all coming up roses!                                                                                                                                                                                           

Are we really to believe that persistent and massive government spending, from the fiscally bankrupt Nation States of the developed world, combined with their Central Banks' perpetual programs of counterfeit money printing, can actually make for a sound and sustainable new global economic paradigm in the 21st century?  You can't be serious, can you?  Can we really print & spend our way to prosperity?  Yes we can!!!!  Break out the Obonga bong & Pakalolo, we have found the holy grail.                                                                                                                                            

You mean to tell me that the popular Dire Straits lyrics; "money for nothing and your chicks for free", is to be the new economic business model for the United States of America.  Can this frantically fabricated financial fairy tale actually materialize?  Are we really ready to sound the all clear?  Nothing but cloudless azure skies ahead, they tell us.  Our economic leaders would have us genuinely believe in this delightfully dazed panorama, which conjures up much the same feeling one gets, right after a torrentially drenching, early afternoon tropical thunderstorm, abruptly lifts & clears, as the sunny bright blue sky stunningly unveils itself once again, for all to enjoy.   Can this really be?                                                                                                                               

Something is clearly amiss in this deluded depiction of bliss.......                              

Private+Planes_wallpapers_240Your most skeptical Idiot Savant is definitely not buying into this "sunshine day dream", to quote another musical lyric, this one from the all American band The Grateful Dead.  I really wonder, if that very same, warm and comfortable, sun filled feeling, gloriously graced the quiet islands of Hawaii on the Pacific morning of December 7, 1941?  I trust you can see where I'm going with this Kimosabe-son?  We are in dire straits alright.  Tora! Tora! Tora!

As you can see from the captivating header post art work displayed above, Japan is where this artiste is applying his brush strokes today.  To me, the land of the rising sun is the most intriguing landscape to paint at the moment. The newly elected prime minister, or should I say prime printer, crazed Kamikaze pilot Shinzo Abe, may well be the man that strikes the match which lights the stack.  He was put into office on a platform that was primarily based upon forcing the Bank of Japan to ramp up its stimulus efforts, indeed to run what amounts to unlimited easing until inflation hits 2%.  Make no mistake, this stimulating samurai most certainly means business, as the Yen is down a head spinning 12%, since he drew his razor sharp, double edged sword.

So, let me get this straight.  This honorable, devoted, suicidal dive bomber, is somehow convinced he can print the Yen into oblivion, all the while, maintaining the lowest yielding major bond market on the planet???   How, in this glowing Blowfish Japanese sea world of his, does manufactured inflation not bring on higher interest rates?  Just one look at the diagram below, should scare the living sushi out of you!  Hara-Kiri anybody?  Once Japan falls, all the California rolls follow.  

Japan-infographic-final

Japan now has a breathtaking 230% ratio of government debt to GDP (the last estimate I have seen), and it is growing at 10% plus a year.  The government will borrow nearly 45% of its budget this year.  Has there ever been a more clear disaster on the horizon?  Holy Tsunami!  Once interest rates get away from the BOJ, even in the slightest, BOOM goes the Bonsai!                                                                                

John Mauldin knows the score, he coined the phrase; Japan is a bug in search of a windshield:   

"The new Japanese government, led by Prime Minister Abe and former Prime Minister and now Minister of Finance Aso, have very explicitly demanded that the Bank of Japan target 2% inflation. They have made clear their intention to replace the governors of the current BoJ board with members who agree with this policy. They have the political clout to do so. Whether at the upcoming meeting or after April, when a new head of the BoJ is appointed, that is going to happen. These moves mean there will be a massive printing of yen. In response, the yen has already weakened by over 10%.

 

You can control the quantity of money or the price of money but not both. (Yes, I know that one influences the other, but I am referring here to large-scale printing of money.) One has to assume that the law of gravity will not be repealed and that investors will want something more than 2% on the ten-year bond if inflation is at 2%. If the ten-year bond were to rise by 2%, Japan would soon be spending over 50% of its tax revenues on the interest carry alone. I submit that this is not a workable business model.

Why now and not sometime during the past ten years? I see a number of factors coming together this year:

 

1. The Japanese had a 15%+ savings rate in 1990. That is now down below 1%. (Exact numbers are difficult, because Japanese data on this topic has severe lags, and thus my number is an extrapolation but a reasonable one, I think.) Due to the nature of their retirement system, they have channeled the vast bulk of these savings into JGBs. When the savings rate goes negative or is no longer sufficient to buy all the issued debt, the choice will be to monetize the debt or cut spending. The latter choice does not appear to be part of their national conversation. Cutting spending by the amount required will mean a serious recession and further deflation, an option the new government explicitly rejects.

 

2.  Both the trade deficit and the current account have recently turned negative. The vaunted Japanese export machine seems to have hit a wall, and this will limit options in controlling the price of the yen, even if the government wants to. Understand,  inflation targeting is also currency-valuation targeting. They clearly want the yen to devalue. I have been writing for years that the yen would eventually be 125, then 150, then 200 to the dollar. It has been 300 in my lifetime, and unless the Japanese change direction, there is no reason it can’t get there again. This means that Mrs. Watanabe will see her energy bills double. This will call into question the Japanese decision to close their nuclear energy plants – something that Abe is already reconsidering.

 

Think the Koreans will be happy when you can buy a Lexus cheaper than you can buy a Kia? (Disclosure: I love my Japanese Infiniti, the first “foreign” car I have bought, except for a two-month dalliance with a disaster of a Volkswagen 30 years ago.) Think Samsung and LG will be happy when Panasonic and Sony can eat their lunch pricewise? Welcome to the era of real currency wars."

 

This note is worth about $11 today. In the future?  Not so much.

800px-1000_yen_banknote_2004

 

                                                               

All four major central banks of the developed world (FED/ECB/BOE/BOJ), are now entrenched in full tilt printing mode, with no end in sight.  Can you say currency wars?  The zero sum global warfare has begun, and beggar thy neighbor is the battle cry of choice.  No growth?  Pas de problème says La Banque Centrale Européenne, we can export our way out. Massive external debt?  No problem say the Federal Reserve & Bank of Japan, we can devalue our way out.  What's wrong with this picture?  If we all devalue together, as an ensemble, aren't we simply spitting in the wind, whistling dixie.  Got Gold?

                                                                                                                                                     

First come the currency wars, then come the resource wars. Take a quick look at oil & other basic commodities today, smell the inflationary warheads my friends.  Military conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Mali, etc.....Iran?  Do you really think the non western nations of China, Russia, India, Brazil,.....etc, are simply gonna stand down, as the developed, so called "civilized" world, blatantly abuses it's global reserve currency status, while simultaneously plundering the globe's natural resources?  Can you say WWIII?  The intensifying China vs. Japan sabre rattling is just the beginning mes amis. Rest assured, along with the ensuing destruction, will come an inevitable economic depression of epic duration.  That is the true score boys & girls, and don't you doubt it for one minute.  As my fellow frogs are fond of saying;  Les jeux son't fait!                                                                                                                                                                    

As for the stock market, although, I do believe we are due for a shallow correction in the very short term here, the U.S. can continue to paper things over for a while longer, and yes we can, and probably will continue to drift higher in the intermediate term.  Please be advised however, that this is certainly NOT because your average investors have suddenly found exuberant optimism in the dubious global economic developments of today's modern industrialized world, as the pundits would have you believe.

The actual faux fantasy reason that this market continues to listlessly drift higher, is mostly due to the fact that investors have nowhere else to turn.  The bond market is DOA, saving account CDs have been practically neutered, the USD is being systematically devalued, real estate is dicey at best, and the art market is a freak show.  Let's face it, the capital markets are completely upside down & FUBAR.  The Bernanke and the rest of the global kamikaze money printers, are determined to force you into higher risk equity assets.  So far, they are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams, in this rapacious incendiary dooms day endeavor.                       

Remember the tranquility of Pearl Harbor, just before the flying bombs appeared in the sky........................

                                                                                                         

Evil Plan 105.0........................Beware the Ides of March!

Japanese_Ohka_rocket_plane
         BDI Slope of Hope's Idiot Savant

Your rating: None

‘Pedal to the Metal’: Obama’s Drone Program Escalates as Second Term Begins

Three US drone attacks in Yemen in as many days—which have left as many as fifteen people dead— gives further proof that the CIA, according to recent comments made to the Washington Post by a former government official familiar with Obama's assassination program, has "put the pedal to the metal" when it comes to administering the controversial tactic.

And, as Obama was sworn in to his second term in Washington Monday, critics of the 'kill list' took the opportunity to once again warn against the insidious consequences of his ongoing program.

On Saturday, two separate attacks saw US missiles destroy a house and its occupants in the province of al-Bayda and later a car and those it carried was targeted in the city of Maarib.

In the early hours Monday, reports say a vehicle carrying perhaps five men was fired on by a US drone in an area northeast of the nation's capital city of Sanaa.

These latest strikes in Yemen continue a noted escalation of US attacks that began near the end of 2012.

As Agence France-Presse reports, "Monday's raid brings to at least 25 the number of people killed in US drone strikes since such assaults were intensified on December 24."

As experts and human rights organizations continue to warn the Obama administration that such attacks are counterproductive—increasing, not lessening, al Qaeda's position in Yemen or elsewhere—the Washington Post's weekend report that the White House was "institutionalizing" the practice of assassination by drone with a new "playbook" was met with deep criticism.

According to Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberty Union’s National Security Project, the 'playbook'—which seeks to codify some of the administrative procedures that will guide the program going forward— is “a step in exactly the wrong direction, a further bureaucratization of the CIA’s paramilitary killing program.”

On the day of his inauguration, as crowds lined the National Mall in Washington to see Obama sworn in for a second term, Glenn Greenwald observed the deep irony of the president being sworn in on the same day that the country celebrates the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., a man who spoke out eloquently and forcefully against the kind of militarism that Obama—with much of the nation cheering along—has now so fully embraced.

Greenwald writes:

Arguing that "we must drone-bomb people in order to stop terrorism" is the equivalent of arguing that "we must continue to smoke cigarettes in order to stop lung cancer". As ample evidence proves, the so-called "solution" to Terrorism - endless violence and killing - is actually its primary cause. As the Yemeni blogger Noon Arabia put it this weekend after a series of multiple drones strikes on her country: "For those arguing effectiveness of drones, let me explain: civilians killed => animosity towards US = Qaeda members increase = Vicious [circle]!"

_____________________________

MLK’s Vehement Condemnations of US Militarism are More Relevant Than Ever

Martin Luther King at Washington DC's Lincoln Memorial in 1968. Barack Obama used the day before his inauguration to honour the spirit of King. (Photograph: Francis Miller/Getty)The civil right achievements of Martin Luther King are quite justly the f...

The Real Reasons Why Germany Is Demanding that the U.S. Return Its Gold

gold_bars_7_200

The German’s are demanding that the U.S. return all of the 374 tons of gold held by the Bank of France, and 300 tons of the 1500 tons of bullion held by the New York Federal Reserve.

Some say that Germany is only demanding repatriation of its gold due to internal political pressures, and that no other countries will do so.

But Pimco co-CEO El Erian says:

In the first instance, it could translate into pressures on other countries to also repatriate part of their gold holdings. After all, if you can safely store your gold at home — a big if for some countries — no government would wish to be seen as one of the last to outsource all of this activity to foreign central banks.

As we noted last November:

Romania has demanded for many years that Russia return its gold.

Last year, Venezuela demanded the return of 90 tons of gold from the Bank of England.

***

As Zero Hedge notes (quoting Bloomberg):

Ecuador’s government wants the nation’s banks to repatriate about one third of their foreign holdings to support national growth, the head of the country’s tax agency said.

Carlos Carrasco, director of the tax agency known as the SRI, said today that Ecuador’s lenders could repatriate about $1.7 billion and still fulfill obligations to international clients. Carrasco spoke at a congressional hearing in Quito on a government proposal to raise taxes on banks to finance cash subsidies to the South American nation’s poor.

Four members of the Swiss Parliament want Switzerland to reclaim its gold.

Some people in the Netherlands want their gold back as well.

(Forbes notes that Iran and Libya have recently repatriated their gold as well).

The Telegraph’s lead economics writer – Ambrose Evans Pritchard – argues that the German repatriation demand shows that we’re switching to a de facto gold standard:

Central banks around the world bought more bullion last year in terms of tonnage than at any time in almost half a century.

They added a net 536 tonnes in 2012 as they diversified fresh reserves away from the four fiat suspects: dollar, euro, sterling, and yen.

The Washington Accord, where Britain, Spain, Holland, South Africa, Switzerland, and others sold a chunk of their gold each year, already seems another era – the Gordon Brown era, you might call it.

That was the illusionary period when investors thought the euro would take its place as the twin pillar of a new G2 condominium alongside the dollar. That hope has faded. Central bank holdings of euro bonds have fallen back to 26pc, where they were almost a decade ago.

Neither the euro nor the dollar can inspire full confidence, although for different reasons. EMU is a dysfunctional construct, covering two incompatible economies, prone to lurching from crisis to crisis, without a unified treasury to back it up. The dollar stands on a pyramid of debt. We all know that this debt will be inflated away over time – for better or worse. The only real disagreement is over the speed.

***

My guess is that any new Gold Standard will be sui generis, and better for it. Let gold will take its place as a third reserve currency, one that cannot be devalued, and one that holds the others to account, but not so dominant that it hitches our collective destinies to the inflationary ups (yes, gold was highly inflationary after the Conquista) and the deflationary downs of global mine supply.

***

A third reserve currency is just what America needs. As Prof Micheal Pettis from Beijing University has argued, holding the world’s reserve currency is an “exorbitant burden” that the US could do without.

The Triffin Dilemma – advanced by the Belgian economist Robert Triffin in the 1960s – suggests that the holder of the paramount currency faces an inherent contradiction. It must run a structural trade deficit over time to keep the system afloat, but this will undermine its own economy. The system self-destructs.

A partial Gold Standard – created by the global market, and beholden to nobody – is the best of all worlds. It offers a store of value (though no yield). It acts a balancing force. It is not dominant enough to smother the system.

Let us have three world currencies, a tripod with a golden leg. It might even be stable.

How Much Gold Is There?

It’s not confidence-inspiring that CNBC’s senior editor John Carney argues that it doesn’t matter whether or not the U.S. has the physical gold it claims to hold.

In fact, many allege that the gold is gone:

Cheviot Asset Management’s Ned Naylor-Leyland says that the Fed and Bank of England will never return gold to its foreign owners.

Jim Willie says that the gold is gone.

***

Others allege that the gold has not been sold outright, but has been leased or encumbered, so that the U.S. does not own it outright.

$10 billion dollar fund manager Eric Sprott writes – in an article entitled “Do Western Central Banks Have Any Gold Left???“:

If the Western central banks are indeed leasing out their physical reserves, they would not actually have to disclose the specific amounts of gold that leave their respective vaults. According to a document on the European Central Bank’s (ECB) website regarding the statistical treatment of the Eurosystem’s International Reserves, current reporting guidelines do not require central banks to differentiate between gold owned outright versus gold lent out or swapped with another party. The document states that, “reversible transactions in gold do not have any effect on the level of monetary gold regardless of the type of transaction (i.e. gold swaps, repos, deposits or loans), in line with the recommendations contained in the IMF guidelines.”6 (Emphasis theirs). Under current reporting guidelines, therefore, central banks are permitted to continue carrying the entry of physical gold on their balance sheet even if they’ve swapped it or lent it out entirely. You can see this in the way Western central banks refer to their gold reserves.

Indeed, it is now well-documented that the Fed has leased out a large chunk of its gold reserves, and that big banks borrow gold from central banks and then to multiple parties.

As such, it might not entirely surprising that the Fed needs 7 years to give Germany back its 300 tons of gold … even though the Fed claims to hold 6,720 tons at the New York Federal Reserve Bank alone:

Even Pimco co-CEO Bill Gross says:

When the Fed now writes $85 billion of checks to buy Treasuries and mortgages every month, they really have nothing in the “bank” to back them. Supposedly they own a few billion dollars of “gold certificates” that represent a fairy-tale claim on Ft. Knox’s secret stash, but there’s essentially nothing there but trust..  When a primary dealer such as J.P. Morgan or Bank of America sells its Treasuries to the Fed, it gets a “credit” in its account with the Fed, known as “reserves.” It can spend those reserves for something else, but then another bank gets a credit for its reserves and so on and so on. The Fed has told its member banks “Trust me, we will always honor your reserves,” and so the banks do, and corporations and ordinary citizens trust the banks, and “the beat goes on,” as Sonny and Cher sang. $54 trillion of credit in the U.S. financial system based upon trusting a central bank with nothing in the vault to back it up. Amazing!

And given that gold-plated tungsten has turned up all over the world, and that a top German gold expert found fake gold bars imprinted with official U.S. markings, Germans may have lost confidence in the trustworthiness of the Fed.  See this, this, this and this.

This may especially be true since the Fed refused to allow Germans to inspect their own gold stored at the Fed.

Currency War?

The gold repatriation is – without doubt- related to currency.

As Forbes notes:

Officials at the Bundesbank … acknowledged the move is “preemptive” in case a “currency crisis” hits the European Monetary Union.

***

“No, we have no intention to sell gold,” a Bundesbank spokesman said on the phone Wednesday, “[the relocation] is in case of a currency crisis.”

Reggie Middleton thinks that Germany’s demand for its gold is part of a currency war.

Jim Rickards has previously said that the Fed had plans to grab Germany gold:

Jim Rickards has outlined possible plans by the Federal Reserve to commandeer Germany’s and all foreign depositors of sovereign gold at the New York Federal Reserve in the event of a dollar and monetary crisis leading to intensified “currency wars” and the ‘nuclear option’ of a drastic upward revision of the price of gold and a return to a quasi gold standard is contemplated by embattled central banks to prevent debt deflation.

Is that one reason that Germany is demanding its gold back now?

China is quietly becoming a gold superpower, and China has long been rumored to be converting the Yuan to a gold-backed currency.

The Telegraph’s James Delingpole points out:

Back in the mid-1920s, the head of the German Central Bank, Herr Hjalmar Schacht, went to New York to see Germany’s gold. However the NY Fed officials were unable to find the palette of Germany’s gold bullion. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Benjamin Strong was mortified, but to put him at ease Herr Schacht turned to him and said ‘Never mind, I believe you when you when you say the gold is there. Even if it weren’t you are good for its replacement.’ (H/T The Real Asset Company)

But that was then and this is now. In the eyes of the Germans – and who can blame them? – America has lost its mojo to such a degree that it can no longer be trusted honour its debts, even in the unlikely event that it were financially capable of doing so. Which is why, following in the footsteps of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez (who may be an idiot but is definitely no fool), Germany is repatriatriating its gold from the US federal reserve.  It will now be stored in Frankfurt.

***

[Things] may look calm on the surface, but this latest move by the Bundesbank gives us a pretty good indication that beneath the surface that serene-seeming swan is paddling for dear life.

If you want a full analysis I recommend this excellent summary by Jan Skoyles. The scary part is this bit:

Every few months there is a discussion regarding what China are planning on doing with the gold they both mine and import every year, with many believing they are hoarding the metal as an insurance against the billions of US Treasury bonds, notes and bills they hold. Many believe they will issue some kind of gold-backed currency in the short-term and dump its one trillion dollars’ worth of US Treasury securities. Whilst, at the moment the US seem to take their monopoly currency for granted, should the Chinese or anyone else behave in such a manner, the US will need to respond – most likely with gold, which on its own it does not have enough of.

Anyone who thinks this isn’t going to happen eventually should read Peter Schiff’s parable How An Economy Grows And Why It Crashes. If something can’t go on forever, it won’t.

In other words, Rickards and Skoyles appear to argue that Germany may be repatriating gold in the first round of musical chairs in which China is preparing to roll out a gold-backed Yuan.   Under this theory, the rest of the world’s currencies will sink unless their nations’ can scramble to get their hands on enough gold to lend credibility to their paper.

Postscript: Michael Rivero thinks that the war in Mali is connected:

Mali is one of the world’s largest gold producers. Together with neighboring Ghana they account for 7-8% of world gold output. That makes them a rich prize for nations desperate for real physical gold. So, even as Germany started demanding their gold back from the Bank of France and the New York Federal Reserve, France (aided by the US) decided to invade Mali to fight “Islamists” working for “Al Qaeda.” Of course, “Islamists” has become the catch-all label for people that need to be killed to get them out of the way of the path to riches, and the people being bombed by France (aided by the US) are not “Al Qaeda” but Tawariqs, who have been fighting for their independence for 150 years, long before the CIA created “Al Qaeda”. Left to themselves, the Tawariqs could sell gold to whoever they want for whatever they want, and right now China can outbid the US and France.

Barack Obama versus Martin Luther King Jr.

obamadoublespeak (2)

The Greatest Way to Dishonor Martin Luther King Jr.

What’s the greatest way to dishonor Martin Luther King Jr.? Compare him with US President Barack Obama – a servant of an engine for the greatest disparity, inequality, and injustice on Earth – driven by the very corporate-financier interests King stood up against, was opposed by throughout his entire life, and most likely was killed by. For Martin Luther King Jr. – whose famous speeches still echo through the halls of time, who spoke a message of peace and of the importance of character over the mere color of one’s skin – he is ironically compared to Barack Obama simply because of the color of their skin, despite the fact that these two men possess the opposite in character, and represent infinitely opposing causes.

Image: A visual representation of the corporate-financier special interests represented by US President Barack Obama’s cabinet, past and present. 

….

Indeed, despite the left-leaning facade President Obama displays publicly, his entire cabinet, past and present, is a collection of corporate-financier special interests, warmongers, criminals, and elitists who merely couch a corporate-fascist, self-serving agenda behind well-meaning liberal-esque causes. A look at these characters more closely reveals just this:

Timothy Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury): Group of 30, Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve
Eric Holder (Attorney General): Covington & Burling lobbying for Merck and representing Chiquita International Brands in lawsuits brought by relatives of people killed by Colombian terrorists.
Eric Shinseki (Secretary of Veteran Affairs): US Army, Council on Foreign Relations, Honeywell director (military contractor), Ducommun director (military contractor).
Rahm Emanuel (former Chief of Staff): Freddie Mac
William Daley (former Chief of Staff): JP Morgan executive committee member
Jacob “Jack” Lew (Chief of Staff) Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution (Hamilton Project)
Susan Rice (UN Ambassador): McKinsey and Company, Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations
Peter Orszag, (former Budget Director): Citi Group, Council on Foreign Relations
Paul Volcker: Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve, Group of 30
Ronald Kirk (US Trade Representative): lobbyist, part of Goldman Sachs, Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts, and Texas Pacific Group partnership to buyout Energy Future Holdings.
Lawrence Summers (National Economic Council Director): World Bank, Council on Foreign Relations

Image: Brookings Institution’s corporate backers – clearly nothing to do with left-leaning liberal a

….

Of course, representation of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution (page 19, .pdf) should give any genuine left-leaning liberal pause for thought. These are think-tanks created by and for big business. The Brookings Institution in particular is home of the very architects of “George Bush’s” myriad of wars – wars the faux-left in America claim Obama only grudgingly has been stuck with.

In reality, his policy is driven by not only the exact same corporate-financier interests that drove Bush’s, but in fact, many of the exact same individuals are writing the policy versus nations like Libya, Syria, and Iran today who were behind “Bush’s” Iraq and Afghanistan wars – the consequences of which still are reverberating. This is what is called, “continuity of agenda,” with the feigned political proclivities of both Bush and Obama being nothing more than carefully orchestrated theater to divide and distract the public as a singular agenda transcends presidencies and perceived political lines.

And in reality, Martin Luther King Jr., should he still walk this world today, would undoubtedly be taking the podium and speaking out against this outrageous conspiracy against free humanity, and the affront to equality poseurs like President Barack Obama are attempting to foist upon the public and the world at large. He would undoubtedly condemn the global war Obama is waging from Mali to Libya, from Syria to Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan, from Yemen to Somalia, to Uganda and beyond.

In a speech given on April 4, 1967 in New York City titled, “Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence,” King gives what is perhaps the widest encapsulation of his philosophy and worldview, one that would undoubtedly criticize and clash with the disingenuous US presidents of today, celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. Day. And the beauty of the equality King helped usher in is, the fact that Obama is black should not shield him from the criticism of the very man that helped pave the way for his accession to office.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/KlM87dwYPjg” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

One section of King’s enlightening speech criticizing the Vietnam War states:

“It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin…we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, “This is not just.” The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.”

It is safe to say that America has not mended its ways and only traveled further down the dark path King warned us of back in 1967. The man “leading” us, or at least the front-man for the corporate-financier interests that drive America’s destiny, may honor King with carefully contrived words and well orchestrated public stunts, but in deeds and actions Obama and the corporate-financier elite that hold his leash, defame and dishonor King in every way imaginable.

If you want to honor King and his life’s work, honor it by implementing the words he uttered while alive, not by playing along with a system that resisted him until his death, and has since dishonored and exploited his memory with disingenuous praise while maliciously carrying out an agenda contra to everything King ever stood for.

You can read and listen to the whole April 4, 1967 speech, “Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence” on AmericanRhetoric.com.

Oil deposits found in southeastern Iraq

Iraq has discovered substantial crude oil reserves in the southeastern province of Maysan after its state-run petroleum production companies conducted the first exploration activities in almost three decades.

Iraqi Oil Ministry spokesman Assem Jihad told AFP on Sunday that exploration started in Maysan, on the border with neighboring Iran, last year and the deposits of crude equivalent to one billion barrels of oil were found after studies were commissioned.

The spokesman termed the discovery as a big success for Iraq’s oil industry.

"The initial assessment from this discovery is about one billion barrels of oil," Jihad said, adding, "It will increase production capacity for Maysan Oil Company."


Iraq largely depends on oil revenues to support most state expenditures.

In recent years, the government in Baghdad has explored avenues to increase oil production in order to finance infrastructure projects across Iraq.

Iraq has proven reserves of 143.1 billion barrels of crude oil and 3.2 trillion cubic meters (111.9 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas.

MP/SZH

German Patriot missile troops in Turkey

Germany has dispatched 240 soldiers to southern Turkey to operate Patriot missiles deployed along the Turkish-Syrian border.

The German contingent flew out of Berlin-Tegel International Airport on Sunday, and arrived at the Incirlik Air Base in the southern Turkish province of Adana later in the day, Xinhua reported.

The German soldiers are headed for Kahramanmaras Province, situated 100 kilometers (62 miles) inside Turkey's border with Syria, where two German Patriot units are to be fully operational by early February.

The troops, comprising mostly of air forces personnel, reportedly include soldiers specialized in the areas of logistics, command, control systems, health services, and nuclear-biological-chemical weapons defenses.

An advanced German military team is already on site and the missiles with launch equipment are due to arrive by ship in Turkey on Monday.

A total of 350 German soldiers are to be sent to Turkey.

In early December 2012, NATO approved Turkey’s request for the deployment of Patriot surface-to-air missiles in its territory.

The United States, Germany, and the Netherlands will each deploy two Patriot batteries in southeastern Turkey.

Germany's Bundestag parliament approved the deployment - limited to one year - on December 14, 2012.

Russia, Syria, and Iran have strongly opposed to the stationing of Patriot missile systems in Turkey.

Russia says the threats facing Ankara have been exaggerated in order to justify NATO’s deployment of advanced Patriot missiles in Turkey along the Syrian border.


Moscow also says that the deployment of Patriot missiles in Turkey would increase “the risk that these arms will be used.”

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast urged Turkey on December 22, 2012, to cooperate with Iran in order to provide security in the region, saying that the unrest was only to Israel’s benefit.

MP/SZH

The Radicalization of Martin Luther King

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item.

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.

The revolutionary leader the governing elites would render harmless they name streets after. The number of streets named after Martin Luther King is increasing every year, and about 70 percent of those streets are in southern states. King's home state of Georgia has the most, with over 105 streets. At least 730 cities have named streets after Martin Luther King—only 11 states in the country without a street named after him. Now joining us from Philadelphia to talk about the radical Martin Luther King and the real significance of his life is professor of African-American studies Anthony Monteiro. He's at Temple University in Philadelphia.Thanks for joining us, Anthony.MONTEIRO: Thank you, Paul, for having me.JAY: So talk about the memory of Martin Luther King. When I go on the internet and I look at Martin Luther King Day, the first thing I see is you should volunteer on that day, do some service for your community for the day. MONTEIRO: Yeah. Well, that seems to be the way a lot of people think that you celebrate the life of King, by having a day——and the emphasis being on a day of service, rather than a week of service and a month of service, and maybe a year or a lifetime of service, to the causes of peace, antiwar, the fight against racism, and the overcoming of this deepening poverty in our society.JAY: Now, Martin Lutherc King, certainly near the end of his life, and perhaps earlier, but he was not shy about using words like imperialism and capitalism, and his language became increasingly radical as he became older. What was this process of the radicalization of King?MONTEIRO: Well, you know, Paul, I contend that King's radicalization goes back to his time at Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, outside of Philadelphia. And, you know, this was right after World War II and Christian theologians and public intellectuals in general were asking questions about the German churches, Protestant and Lutheran, and their going along with Hitler except for a few people. And one of those people was a pastor, Lutheran pastor, by the name of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who along with others set up an underground church called the anti-Nazi church of Germany. And King encounters Bonhoeffer through his studies at Crozer. And I am of the opinion that when we look at King's writings, in particular let us say the Letter from a Birmingham Jail and his last really great speech, which was the one at Riverside Church on the war in Vietnam, we hear him using phrases like "the fierce urgency of Now," "procrastination is still the thief of time." In the Letter from Birmingham Jail he talks about "the tragic misconception of time." So he's always talking about this urgent need for Christians to act. And I think he comes to that position after examining, among other things, the situation in Germany, where Christians espouse their beliefs, but when it came to action, they were either intimidated or felt that time would resolve all of these problems. So I think King begins a radical trajectory pretty much in his years at Crozer Theological Seminary. And, of course, we see the same thing when he goes to Boston University and he studies systematic theology, which is really a radical turn for that day in the study of theology, where reason is not seen as the opposite and a competitor with faith. But he was trying—as others were doing—synthesize reason with faith, the world with Christian belief, and that the Christians, as King would conclude, are defined not by what they say, but ultimately by what they do in the struggles for justice.JAY: And this trajectory takes him to a place where he doesn't—if you look at the language of his, you know, last speeches, he doesn't define the struggle as one between good and evil, really, and he certainly doesn't define it as one between white and black. He talks about imperialism as a system. He talks about U.S. imperialism. And he talks about capitalism. He talks about class.MONTEIRO: Yeah. Well, he never defined the struggle as a struggle between white and black. And good and evil were metaphors, ultimately, for social forces in the society. And he would become more concrete in defining good and evil. Well, evil, of course, was the system of segregation, of the oppression of black people that went back, of course, to slavery. But then, of course, evil ultimately became the system that produces war and produces and reproduces poverty and the exploitation of working people. So you're absolutely right. That kind of moral framing of the issue was not disconnected from a deep political and economic understanding of, as you put it, the capitalist system. And that's precisely where he was going.His life is ended in Memphis, Tennessee, where he is organizing workers. Now, we have to take a step back, perhaps, to really understand the significance of that. First of all, the South was even viewed by most trade unionists as unorganizable because of the existence of racism and because of the fact that the political and economic establishments of the South not only oppressed black people but prevented workers from organizing. But even deeper than that, if we go back to W. E. B. Du Bois's great work, Black Reconstruction in America, Du Bois begins that work—the first chapter is entitled "The Black Worker". And Du Bois is talking about the southern black worker. So it seems to me that King ends his life in this great campaign to organize the unorganized and to organize the poor. And to me that is a great legacy. And it is a 21st-century legacy. And that is the legacy that we have to celebrate. But more than celebrate, we have to defend it.JAY: So if you look at how Martin Luther King Day is celebrated now, Michelle Obama, you know, calling on people to volunteer for the day, people get the day off in governments and banks—I don't know about other workplaces; I guess some do—the reason for doing this is because the man had such impact that they have to do something with his historical memory. Speak a bit about that.MONTEIRO: Oh, yeah. Yeah. That legacy is too powerful for the elites. They have to minimize it. They have to distort it. They have to eviscerate it. They have to cheapen it. Besides, you know, First Lady Obama calling for people to do service, I am particularly offended by the fact that the president will be sworn in using Martin Luther King's Bible. To me it's a cheap PR trick. This president has nothing in common with King the man, and his presidency is the opposite of the great legacy of Martin Luther King. You know, King's legacy is a gift not only to black Americans or to America but to humanity. And here we have a president who in many ways is George Bush on steroids—wars in every part of the world, preparation for war, economic wars against nations like Iran, actual wars in Africa, and so on and so forth. This is the very opposite of what Martin Luther King represents. And therefore, you know, we've got to defend that legacy. And that's part of the battle of ideas that we're involved in at this time.JAY: Now, Martin Luther King led a civil rights movement. He didn't call it, I don't think, a black civil rights movement. It may have been majority African Americans that were in it, African Americans may have led it, but it was a people's movement. In a lot of cities—and I have to talk a bit about my experience here in Baltimore—there's a great divide between the white left and the black left. You see, you hear young black militants talking about, well, you know, blacks need to just organize blacks first, and there's a kind of unease about working or allying with whites. I mean, what's the lesson for King in terms of dealing with this kind of a question?MONTEIRO: Well, of course, you're hitting on the current realities that grow out of the great and evil legacy that is the United States of America and slavery and the wounds and the fact that too often—you mention the white left—has been less than effective in the mobilization and organization of white working people to join in solidarity with black working people. So, you know, while we can point to black nationalism as a problem—.JAY: Can I just jump in for one sec on this?MONTEIRO: Go ahead. Yes.JAY: Do you not think that what you're describing is post-Cold War? Like, in the 1930s, '20s, do you not think there was far more mobilization of white workers in solidarity with black workers? But when they kind of cleanse the trade unions of militants and the left and communists and such, they also got rid of those people that would do such things.MONTEIRO: Well, there's no question about that. I mean, you know, when you have a communist party of over 100,000 members who are activists and who are committed to the fight against racism, that can make a profound difference.Now, at the same time, even while that was going on in these great campaigns of the CIO and the Scottsboro case and, you know, the Southern Negro Youth Congress and the National Negro Congress and all of these things going on and headway was being made against racism and there were campaigns to get anti-lynching laws, a federal anti-lynching law, the fact of the matter is the job was only partially completed. And you're absolutely right. After World War II, as we enter the Cold War, we have a frontal attack, beginning with the Truman administration, with, ultimately, the collaboration of George Meany and that leadership of the AFL-CIO, which said that even the fight against racism was an act promoted by subversives and communists.So I don't know whether I'm making myself perfectly clear, but I would agree with you that these 60-some, almost 70 years of the Cold War and Cold War ideology has severely damaged the struggle for unity of blacks and whites in the country. And you're absolutely right about the fact that, you know, there's damage on both sides of the color line. But the overarching problem remains the problem of racism and white supremacy and its influence upon vast numbers of white Americans, and the lack of leadership, either coming from the trade union movement or other progressive civil society organizations, or for that matter from the left, that can effectively reverse that tide.JAY: So in terms of the kind of momentum and such mass mobilization that took place under King, why do we see so little of it now?MONTEIRO: Oh, boy. That is—. Well, you know, I would say that, as you mentioned, the assassination of Martin Luther King could be considered a Cold War imperative. King threatened not just the domestic arrangements of race and class, but King's leadership threatened the capacity of the United States government to impose its will and to become, as King said, the policemen of the whole world, and thus impose its empire, its military, upon the rest of the world. And so I consider the assassination of King to have been a Cold War imperative.JAY: Well, this is just the beginning of a discussion. And we won't wait for another Martin Luther King Day to come around, because we believe in voluntary service more than one day a year. Thanks very much for joining us.MONTEIRO: Thank you, Paul.JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Sanctions: Weapons of Mass Death and Destruction

eagle

Iran hasn’t been in the headlines in recent months, but there’s a lot of talk that 2013 will be the year of decision on Iran—whether a deal will be struck between the U.S. and its allies and Iran on ending or restricting Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, or whether the U.S., Israel and other big powers will attack Iran.

The debate about confirming former Sen. Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, revolves around whether he’s “tough enough” on Iran, while leading think-tank strategists are calling for overt preparations for attacking Iran, tougher economic sanctions and “more explicit threats to destroy its nuclear programme by military means.” (Jim Lobe, January 16)

“In 2013, perhaps in the next few months, President Obama will face a crisis on Iran. He has categorically ruled out living with a nuclear-armed Iran under a Cold War—style policy of containment,” Fareed Zakaria writes. “That means either Iran will capitulate to U.S. demands or the U.S. will go to war with Iran. Since the first option is extremely unlikely and the second extremely unattractive, the Obama administration needs to find a negotiated solution. That means using sticks and carrots—or what is often called coercive diplomacy—to get a deal that Washington and Tehran can live with….Otherwise, 2013 will be the year that we accepted a nuclear Iran or went to war.” (“The Year We Reckon With Iran,” January 21, Time)

In short, tough sanctions are being promoted as a kinder, gentler alternative to war. And perhaps some people voted for Obama in part because they perceived him as less likely to start a war with Iran than Romney.

But let’s get clear: Stiffening sanctions is a form of war against an entire population—a real weapon of mass destruction that is already imposing enormous suffering and death on the Iranian population. The U.S. is literally murdering babies and other vulnerable sections of the populations, but this fact is rarely mentioned by the cheerleaders of empire—aka the U.S. media—and there is no debate about it within the U.S. ruling class.

“Targeted” Sanctions Target the Iranian People

The U.S. claims that its sanctions are “smart” or “targeted” and only aimed at Iran’s government—the Islamic Republic—and its top leaders. But because the U.S. and its big power allies (Germany, France, Britain and other European countries) are sanctioning and embargoing Iranian banks, they have crippled Iran’s ability to pay for urgently needed imports—including medicines—and halted many shipments. In addition, many drugs and needed chemicals aren’t getting into Iran thanks to the banning under the sanctions of “dual-use” chemicals with possible military applications.

Here are some of the impacts being felt, just in terms of drugs and medicines:

“Hundreds of thousands of Iranians with serious illnesses have been put at imminent risk by the unintended consequences of international sanctions, which have led to dire shortages of life-saving medicines such as chemotherapy drugs for cancer and blood-clotting agents for haemophiliacs,” Guardian UK reports.

Iran produces most of its medicines internally, but sanctions have crippled domestic production making many Iranian-made drugs unavailable or very costly. This past October, two pharmaceutical companies closed and others are facing closure or bankruptcy.

The director general of Iran’s largest biggest pharmaceutical firm told the Guardian, “There are patients for whom a medicine is the different between life and death. What is the world doing about this? Are Britain, Germany, and France thinking about what they are doing? If you have cancer and you can’t find your chemotherapy drug, your death will come soon. It is as simple as that.”

His firm can no longer buy medical equipment including sterilizing machines essential for making many drugs, and some of the biggest western pharmaceutical companies refuse to have anything to do with Iran. “The west lies when it says it hasn’t imposed sanctions on our medical sector. Many medical firms have sanctioned us,” he said.

According to the Guardian, there’s a “looming” health crisis in Iran. Each year 85,000 new cancer patients are diagnosed who need chemotherapy and radiotherapy, now in short supply.

“Iranian health experts say that annual figure has nearly doubled in five years, referring to a ‘cancer tsunami’ most likely caused by air, water and soil pollution and possibly cheap low-quality imported food and other products….An estimated 23,000 Iranians with HIV/Aids have had their access to the drugs they need to keep them alive severely restricted. The society representing the 8,000 Iranians suffering from thalassaemia, an inherited blood disorder, has said its members are beginning to die because of a lack of an essential drug, deferoxamine, used to control the iron content in the blood.”

Iran’s over 8,000 hemophiliacs are in grave peril. It’s more and more difficult for them to get blood clotting agents, and operations on hemophiliacs “have been virtually suspended because of the risks created by the shortages,” the Guardian reports. At the end of October 2012, a 15-year-old child died for lack of coagulant medication. The head of Iran’s Hemophilia Society said, “This is a blatant hostage-taking of the most vulnerable people by countries which claim they care about human rights. Even a few days of delay can have serious consequences like haemorrhage and disability.” (See, Mehrnaz Shahabi, “The unfolding humanitarian catastrophe of economic sanctions on the people of Iran.”)

Last year, Iran’s Hemophilia Society told the World Federation of Hemophilia that tens of thousands of children’s lives were being threatened by shortages of medicines.

Again, this is just the sanctions’ impact on Iran’s healthcare—it is also devastating the population in a hundred other ways big and small.

They Know…And They’re Killing Babies Anyway

The Obama administration and its allies know full well how sanctions are impacting the people of Iran—including helpless babies. In fact, they’ve admitted in rare moments of truth-telling (mainly within their own ranks in discussions of strategy and tactics) that the whole point of sanctions is to cause suffering and discontent among Iran’s population, in order to pressure or collapse the Islamic Republic. An article last year in an article titled, “Public ire one goal of Iran sanctions, U.S. official says, the Washington Post reported, “The Obama administration sees economic sanctions against Iran as building public discontent that will help compel the government to abandon an alleged nuclear weapons program, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official.”

A column in the rightwing Wall Street Journal – “What Iran Sanctions Can and Can’t Do,” — was more explicit:  sanctions were a “tool to precipitate the regime’s collapse.”

Too many people see sanctions as a thoughtful, peaceful, or diplomatic alternative to war. Bullshit.

It’s nonsensical as well as criminal because sanctions are already in effect killing people, but it’s also because sanctions can be part of the preparations or strategy for war. This is what the U.S. did to Iraq before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. Between these two wars and the intervening 13 years of sanctions, well over a million—probably over 2 million—Iraqis were killed. And did those sanctions prevent war? No. Because one goal of imperialist sanctions is to win political support for war if that’s deemed necessary: “We tried sanctions and had to resort to war,” they’ll claim.

Another goal is to soften an enemy up so waging war will prove easier—again, if the imperialists deem it necessary.

Sanctions or War = Imperialist Aggression

Neither imperialist war, nor imperialist sanctions, nor imperialist “diplomacy” are anything other than different forms of imperialist aggression. None of them are moral, or just. All must be opposed. It’s unconscionable for people in the U.S. to sit passively and silently by as these crimes are being carried out in our names, resulting in the suffering and deaths of thousands of people, thousands of miles away.

We can’t accept the terms that it’s either sanctions or war – either slow death or fast death. The U.S. is killing Iranian civilians in the interests of an unjust empire, and this is something that everyone with a conscience and a basic sense of right and wrong should oppose and protest.

Larry Everest is a correspondent for Revolution newspaper (revcom.us), where this article first appeared, and author of Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda (Common Courage 2004).  In 1991 he traveled to Iraq and documented the impact of the Persian Gulf War and sanctions in his film: Iraq: War Against the People.  He can be reached at larryeverest@hotmail.com.

Revolving Wars: Towards An Age of Constant and Perpetual Conflict

british empire

We have entered an age of constant conflict….Only the foolish will fight fair. Lt Col Ralph Peters

It seems to be a worldwide given that senior politicians and military personnel make use of the revolving door when they retire from politics, and mostly it involves getting highly-paid directorships in arms manufacturing and other defence-related businesses.  Britain’s record is as good as it gets – depending on your interpretation of ‘good’.

For example: Lord Reid, Defence Secretary to G4S; Michael Portillo, Defence Secretary to BAE Systems; Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, chief of staff to BAE Systems; Admiral Sir John Slater, to Lockheed Martin UK; Major-General Graham Binns to Aegis Defence Services; Sir Kevin Tebbit, MoD permanent under-secretary to Finmeccanica UK, owner of Westlands; David Gould, MoD procurement to Selex Systems, part of Finmeccanica; and Lady Taylor, defence equipment minister then minister for international defence and security until May 2010.  In December 2010 she joined the arms contractor Thales.  This last revolver is particularly indefensible, seeing that as the procurement minister she oversaw a huge budget deficit, much of it caused by a contract with Thales.

According to research done by the Guardian, senior military officers and Ministry of Defence officials have taken up more than 3,500 jobs in arms companies over the past 16 years.  Let’s not forget the civil servants who follow the same route.

And what of the rule that prohibits them from taking a post related to their governmental responsibilities too soon after leaving office?  (Mind you, other members of the great and good also benefit from revolving doors.  Archbishop Rowan Williams, giving his final sermon in Canterbury Cathedral before retiring, exhorted his flock to give more respect to the elderly (apparently including those in their late fifties) who are ignored, marginalised and unable to gain or keep a job consistent with their qualifications and experience.  Then he tottered off to a comfortable ‘retirement’ (housing and servants included) as Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge.)

But, with such a well-trodden path from Defence to Arms, it is no wonder that to a man and woman they’re all gung-ho for war, wherever it might be – all in the name of defending our country’s interests of course.  It is also no wonder that we are now engaged in a revolving war.

Prime Ministers don’t help.  David Cameron likes travelling abroad with an escort of arms manufacturers and dealers, taking them to Cairo’s Tahrir Square only days after Mubarak fell.  Late last year he was in Saudi Arabia, UAE and Jordan, drumming up business for arms manufacturers while telling the world he is on the side of peace and democracy, neither of which he appears to care for when money is on the table.

None of these people recognise that international law says a state can only wage war on another state if the second state has physically attacked the first – not threatening the state or their interests or by possessing weapons of mass destruction – which we sold them.  They get round all that by drafting a UN resolution which allows them to ‘intervene’ in the name of peace.  Or they do it under the umbrella of Nato, which seems to have greatly increased the area covered by the North Atlantic.  Or they give themselves fancy titles like ISAF (International Security Assistance Force).  And they hope that no one notices that all of this is illegal, that they are interfering in countries that are truly no threat to our safety but are often resource rich.

Since 9/11 and the illegal ‘war on terror’ no war is ever won nor does it actually end.  It simply migrates.  So we went into Afghanistan, then Iraq, then turned our attention back to Afghanistan.  Drones took the war into the Yemen and Pakistan, then into Somalia.  We took sides in Libya, provided ‘support’ including illegal boots on the ground and arms to the rebels, and reduced much of Tripoli and Misrata to rubble with air strikes.  We took sides again over Syria, supporting the rebels (a dodgy term this, seeing that many of the fighters hold non-Syrian passports) against ‘the regime’ although we haven’t yet sent in troops.  There are constant mutterings about Iran.  And now Mali – and more innocent civilians will be killed, not by their own people but by French air strikes.

President Hollande is worried about Islamists ‘on Europe’s doorstep’.  Unless Europe has expanded since I last looked, his geography is a little at fault.  I’d interpret ‘on Europe’s doorstep’ as being something that was literally on the border of a European state, which Mali isn’t, although it had the misfortune of being a French colony.  But on our doorstep?  No.

Admittedly Europe in its imperial and colonial heyday treated Africa as its backyard, much as the US has treated South and Central America.  Most people’s backyards used to contain the outside toilet and a vegetable patch.  In the colonial backyards we still dump our rubbish but instead of potatoes we did, and still do, dig for gold, diamonds, oil and other goodies to put on the corporate plate.

Of course the UK was only ‘helping’ France by providing transport planes, planes which had to be diverted from their commitments to Afghanistan, because we really don’t have the equipment to fight all these wars.  No troops on the ground, oh no, no!  Ah… well… maybe some to help train the government forces.  Haven’t we heard that before?  Where next?  Which country will be accused of housing ‘Al Qaeda’ or other ‘Islamist rebels’?  Hardly had one asked the question when the crisis in Algeria reared its head.  We have to get involved now – after all we have nationals working at the In Amenas gas plant, prompting Hilary Clinton to come out with the very silly statement that, as hostages’ lives were in danger, ‘utmost care must be taken to preserve innocent life.’  When did that ever truly bother Western leaders as they sent in the drones?  But, of course, it is only our innocent lives that matter.

So, from Mali to Algeria, to the whole of North Africa?  Cameron, Prime Ministerial as ever, said that a diplomatic response would not be enough to tackle the growing terrorist threat in North Africa, and that Britain faced ‘a large and existential threat from organisations like Al Qaeda in the Magreb’.  Didn’t Tony Blair tell us that Saddam posed a ‘real and existential threat to Britain’?  Has it not occurred to people like Cameron and Clinton that much of the problem (apart from the West’s desire to control other people’s resources) has been their love of sending in the troops rather than diplomats? One thing you can be sure of – those dreaded people we are waging war upon will probably, at some point, have been supplied with our weapons.

‘Pakistan set to finish IP project soon’

Islamabad set to finish IP project as soon as possible: Pak min.

Pakistani Minister of Oil and Natural Resources Asim Hussain says Islamabad wants to complete Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline as soon as possible to deflect the emerging power and gas crises.

“We are dependent on this project as there is no other substitute at present to meet the growing energy demand [in Pakistan],” Hussain said on January 19.

The Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, projected to cost USD1.2-1.5 billion, is aimed to export a daily amount of 21.5 million cubic meters of Iranian natural gas to Pakistan.

Describing the project as beneficial for Iran and Pakistan, Hussain said Islamabad started work on the IP project in December 2012.

Hussain had said on September 4, 2012 that the gas pipeline project would become fully operational in 2014, adding that, “Surveys for the project are due to be completed before October 2012 and construction can start as early as December 2012.”


This is while Iran has already constructed more than 900 kilometers of the pipeline on its soil.

The Pakistani minister added that the implementation of the project showed that Islamabad had a flexible foreign policy.

According to reports, the US has been trying to lure Islamabad away from the gas pipeline project by offering cheaper gas to the country.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, however, reiterated on December 20, 2012, that Islamabad has a resolve to push ahead with the gas pipeline project.

The Pakistani foreign minister also underscored Pakistan’s daily-growing demand for Iran’s gas and said the project would continue “under any condition.”

MYA/SS

Guest Post: Fiscal Farce, Failure, Fantasy, & Fornication

Submitted by Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform blog,

I’ve put off writing an article about what is likely to happen in 2013 so I could peruse the thousands of other articles by reputable bloggers, paid pundits, Wall Street shills and captured charlatans to gather their wisdom. It’s essential that I make predictions for 2013 so I can write another article in December rationalizing why 90% of my predictions failed to materialize. Reading all of these 2013 prediction articles made things much clearer for me. I now know for sure:

  • The stock market will reach an all-time high.
  • The stock market will fall 42%.
  • The economy will strengthen as the year progresses.
  • The economy will descend into a depression.
  • The USD will strengthen.
  • The USD will collapse.
  • Gas prices will set new highs.
  • Gas prices will fall below 2012 levels.
  • Gold will rise to $10,000 per ounce.
  • Gold will drop below $1,000 per ounce.
  • We will experience hyperinflation.
  • We will experience horrific deflation.
  • Obama will compromise with the Republicans and put the country on a path to prosperity.
  • Obama will create a debt ceiling crisis and assume dictatorial powers as a result.
  • Snooki will be a better mother than Kim Kardashian.
  • Honey Boo Boo will beat I Didn’t Know I Was Pregnant in the Neilson ratings.

The majority of 2013 prediction articles are written to support the agenda of the writer. Many are trying to sell newsletter subscriptions or investment services. Their predictions will match the theme of their newsletter. Others are Wall Street paid shills who will predict what they are paid to predict by their owners. Then there are the political hacks who tow the party line with their predictions. But no one can top the predictive powers of the CBO. They just put out their ten year updated forecast reflecting the fabulous fiscal cliff deal that saved the country. According to the CBO, the “compromise” to reduce our deficits will add a mere $4 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. I’m sure this will prove to be accurate. Just take a look at their 2002 projection, after passage of the Bush tax cuts:

The CBO predicted the FY2012 surplus would be $641 billion, the national debt would total $3.5 trillion, the debt held by the public would total $1.273 trillion, and GDP would total $17.2 trillion. They missed by that much.

 

The actual FY12 results were:

  • The true deficit was $1.37 trillion (amount national debt increased – not the phony deficit number reported by the mainstream media).
  • The national debt was $16.1 trillion.
  • The debt held by the public was $11.3 trillion.
  • GDP was $15.8 trillion.

Based on these results, I won’t be asking the CBO for help with my Super Bowl bet. Making ten year predictions is beyond worthless, but public policy in Washington DC is based on these useless CBO projections. The entire fiscal cliff kabuki theater fictitious crisis reveals the politicians and mainstream media pundits to be liars, fools and frauds. The tax the rich to cut the deficit storyline was sold to the public and won the day. Of course, the highly accurate CBO immediately revealed that the Orwellian named American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 adds $4 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. Based on the accuracy of their previous predictions, it’s a guarantee the national debt goes up by $8 trillion, as the rich take advantage of the thousands of loopholes in the IRS code they paid for to avoid paying the taxes expected by the CBO.

Hypocrisy abounds on both sides of the aisle in Washington DC and on the media company propaganda channels. As the national debt soared from $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office to $16.4 trillion today, I heard shrieking liberal talking heads on MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the liberal media blame the debt on the Bush tax cuts and the Bush wars. If the Bush tax cuts were so horrific, why did Obama and his minions just make 98% of these tax cuts permanent? Liberals held protest marches across the country against Bush’s wars and burned him in effigy. Obama’s defense budgets have been larger than Bush’s and he doubled down on our miserable failure in Afghanistan. You don’t hear a peep from the liberals about the warmongering Barack Obama who has kill lists and unleashes predator drones, killing women and children across the globe. Liberals pretend to be concerned about the welfare of the citizens, but continue to support a President that uses executive orders to imprison citizens indefinitely without charges, has expanded surveillance on citizens, has kept Guantanamo open, signs the continuation of the Patriot Act, and proposes overturning the Second Amendment by executive order. Liberals shriek about the evils of an unregulated Wall Street, while remaining silent as Obama hasn’t prosecuted a single banker for the greatest financial fraud in world history. You don’t hear a peep about Jon Corzine, who stole $1.2 billion from the accounts of farmers and ranchers. Liberals talk about regulation and then stand idly by while Wall Street lobbyists wrote the Dodd Frank law and insurance and drug company lobbyists wrote the Obamacare law. Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds and is only matched by Neo-Con hypocrisy.

The Neo-Con controlled Republican Party is a pathetic joke. They have the guts to declare themselves the party of fiscal responsibility, after Bush’s eight year reign of error. He and his fiscally responsible party were handed a budget in surplus and managed to add $4.9 trillion to the national debt by waging undeclared wars, encouraging Wall Street to create the biggest fraudulent financial bubble in history, creating a new $16 trillion unfunded entitlement (Medicare Part D), cutting taxes without paying for them, and creating a massive new government agency (DHS) to take away our liberties and freedom. Federal government spending grew from $1.9 trillion to $3.0 trillion under Bush and the Republicans. Does that sound fiscally responsible?

Does anyone believe the Republican Party is serious about cutting anything? Tough guy Republicans like Big Chris Christie preach fiscal responsibility when going to war with teachers’ unions, but he squeals  like a stuck pig when a $60 billion pork filled, unpaid for, Sandy Relief bill is held up in Congress. The courageous fiscally responsible Congress critters passed the entire pork filled, unfunded, bloated, vote buying joke. It included $28 billion to mitigate future disasters, $3 billion to repair or replace Federal assets, and $6 billion for transportation projects completely unrelated to Sandy damage.   The hypocrisy of politicians who proclaim the $50 billion of 2013 fiscal cliff tax revenue as deficit cutting, and then immediately piss it away by paying people to rebuild their houses yards from the Atlantic Ocean while funding billions of non-disaster related projects is disgusting to behold. There is nothing like compromise to add another $60 billion to the national debt.

Our entire economic and political system is a farce. The American people are being played by the powerful interests that provide them with an illusion of choice. Both parties serve the interests of their masters and the fiscal cliff show and debt ceiling show are a form of reality TV to keep the masses alarmed, fearful, and believing there is actually a difference between the policies of the ruling class. The charade has played out in its full glory in the last few weeks with Obama convincing the masses he had stuck it to the rich, while in reality the working middle class got it good and hard when they got their January paychecks. This chart details the tax changes that went into effect on January 1.          

 taxbill

The funniest part this fiscal fiasco farce is watching the reaction of the sheep who believed Obama and the mainstream media storyline. Obama was able to raise the published top rate on people making over $400,000. The newly defined “rich” laughed heartily as they know only fools pay anywhere near the top rate. The rich just call their tax advisor and instruct them to use one of the thousands of tax loopholes in the 75,000 page IRS tax code to “legally” avoid the new Obama rates. Meanwhile, both parties and their mainstream media mouthpieces downplayed the 2% payroll tax increase on every working American. This tax increase has been a complete surprise to the reality TV zombies and Facebook aficionados. Even college educated professionals in my office had no idea their next monthly paycheck was going to be $150 to $200 lighter. This will wipe out most, or all, of the annual raise they received. The tax will fall heavily on the 75% of households that make less than the $113,700 Social Security cutoff. For a struggling family of four earning the median income of $50,000, the $1,000 less in their paychecks will mean less food, putting off trips to the doctor, driving on bald tires, or not taking the family on a vacation to the Jersey shore. The $2,274 increase in taxes (.57%) for the Wall Street banker making $400,000 probably won’t put too much of a crimp in his Hamptons lifestyle.

The joke is on the American people as the rich will ante up maybe $50 billion of taxes in 2013, while the working middle class will be skewered for $125 billion. How’s that “Tax the Rich” slogan working out for you?     

 

Only in the Orwellian capital of Washington DC would a bill that was supposed to provide tax relief to the middle class and spending cuts to reduce the deficit, actually increase the tax burden of a median household by $1,000 and perpetuate the pork spending payoffs to campaign contributors and friends of the slimy politicians that slither through the halls of Congress. The list of pork and bribes should be nauseating to hard working Americans across the country:

$30 billion extension of the 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, even though we are supposedly in the 3rd year of economic recovery. Continuing to pay people to not work for two years will surely boost employment.

$14.3 billion for a two-year extension of the corporate research credit benefiting large technology companies like IBM and Hewlett Packard.

$12.2 billion one-year extension of the production tax credit for wind power.

$11.2 billion two- year extension of the active financing exception, which lets GE, Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) and Citigroup Inc. (C), among others, defer taxes on financing income they earn outside the U.S.

$1.9 billion extension of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit for hiring workers from disadvantaged groups, benefitting mega-restaurant chains like McDonalds.

$1.8 billion extension of the New Markets Tax Credit for investments in low- income areas, benefitting JP Morgan and other Wall Street shyster banks.

$650 million tax credit for manufacturing energy-efficient appliances, benefitting mega-corps like Whirlpool.

$430 million for Hollywood through “special expensing rules” to encourage TV and film production in the United States. Producers can expense up to $15 million of costs for their projects. NBC thanks you.

$331 million for railroads by allowing short-line and regional operators to claim a tax credit up to 50% of the cost to maintain tracks that they own or lease.

$248 million in special expensing rules for films and television programs.

$222 million for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands through returned excise taxes collected by the federal government on rum produced in the islands and imported to the mainland.

$78 million for NASCAR by extending a “7-year cost recovery period for certain motorsports racing track facilities.”

$59 million for algae growers through tax credits to encourage production of “cellulosic biofuel” at up to $1.01 per gallon.

$4 million for electric motorcycle makers by expanding an existing green-energy tax credit for buyers of plug-in vehicles to include electric motorbikes.

So when you see the cut in your take home pay, just comfort yourself knowing that JP Morgan, Citigroup, GE and hundreds of mega-corporations were able to retain their tax breaks. As they have done for decades, Congress and the President agreed to address spending cuts at a future date. Of course, a government spending cut isn’t actually a cut. It’s a lower increase than their previous projection. Nothing is ever cut in Washington DC. The austerity storyline is a lie. Not a dime has been cut from the Federal budget. Intellectually dishonest ideologues try to peddle the wind down of the Obama $800 billion porkulus program as a cut in Federal spending. They sold this Keynesian “shovel ready” crap to a gullible public as stimulus to jumpstart the economy. Federal spending was $3.0 trillion before the Obama stimulus. After the two year stimulus was pissed away without helping the economy one iota, the baseline should have been back in the $3.2 trillion range. Instead, FY13 Federal spending will be $3.8 trillion. This hasn’t kept liberal ideologues like Krugman and his minions in the mainstream media from blaming crazy Tea Party Republicans for inflicting horrendous austerity measures on the poor and disadvantaged.

 

The chart above reveals a few truths:

  • The country has been blessed with two of the worst presidents in U.S. history over the last twelve years.
  • When Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is beyond two standard deviations over the normal range during the last sixty years, your problem is not lack of tax revenue.
  • Obama and the current Congress are spending at a level of 24% of GDP versus the 18% of GDP when Clinton left office. This amounts to a nose bleed altitude $950 billion higher than the level Clinton was spending in his final year in office.

The Op-eds in liberal rags across the land decry the lack of civility in Washington DC and plead for politicians on both sides of the aisle to come together and compromise for the good of the country. This line of bullshit would be laughable if it wasn’t so wretched in its falsity. Compromise is what has left this country with a $16.4 trillion national debt, $200 trillion of unfunded liabilities, and $1 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see. Democrats have compromised and let the Republicans create a warfare state. Republicans have compromised and let Democrats create a welfare state. The two headed monster living in the swamps of Washington DC just voted to increase taxes on all Americans. They voted to hand criminal Wall Street banks $700 billion. They voted to pass the Patriot Act. They voted to pass the NDAA. They’ve allowed the President to wage undeclared wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Iran. They voted for a $663 billion Defense bill that includes tens of billions the Secretary of Defense doesn’t even want. They will vote to raise the debt ceiling in the next two months. The last thing this country needs is more compromise. We can’t afford any more compromise. The chart above proves what can happen when gridlock ensues, spending restrictions are enforced, and confrontation displaces compromise. After the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, gridlock ensued for the next six years. PAYGO restrictions in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 didn’t allow unfettered spending increases. The result was Federal spending falling from 22% of GDP to 18% of GDP and a budget surplus. The Pay-Go restrictions expired in 2002 and Democrats and Republicans have compromised to the tune of a $10.2 trillion increase in the national debt in ten years. The hypocrisy of pandering deceitful politicians is boundless and shows utter contempt for the intelligence of the American populace.  

“Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more spending. It simply allows the country to pay for spending that Congress has already committed to. If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America’s bills on time, Social Security checks, and veterans benefits will be delayed. We might not be able to pay our troops, or honor our contracts with small business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialist who track down loose nuclear materials wouldn’t get their paychecks. Investors around the world will ask if the United States of America is in fact a safe bet. Markets could go haywire, interest rates would spike for anybody who borrows money – Every homeowner with a mortgage, every student with a college loan, every small business owner who wants to grow and hire. We are not a deadbeat nation.

It would be a self-inflicted wound on the economy. It would slow down our growth, might tip us into recession. And ironically it would probably increase our deficit. So to even entertain the idea of this happening, of the United States of America not paying its bills, is irresponsible. It’s absurd. Republicans in Congress have two choices here. They can act responsibly, and pay America’s bills, or they can act irresponsibly and put America through another economic crisis. But they will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy.” – President Barack Obama – January 14, 2013

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. The Senate continues to reject a return to the common sense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts.

The Senate had to abide by the common sense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” – Senator Barack Obama – March 16, 2006

I could have shown quotes from George W. Bush during the 2000 Presidential campaign talking about a non-interventionist foreign policy and no need for the U.S. to get involved in nation building and then proceeding to pre-emptively attack sovereign countries while wasting trillions and impoverishing unborn generations trying to create “democracy” in the Middle East at the point of a gun as a cover to protect “our” oil. The point is that we are being given the illusion of choice. Everyone knows the debt ceiling will be raised after another episode of Washington DC Kabuki Theater, presented by the corporate mainstream media in breathtaking detail, because the politicians are beholden to their owners and those owners want more of our money. That is why spending will never be willingly cut by the spineless puppet congressmen, as their strings are pulled by the corporate puppet masters and they dance to the tune of the banking oligarchs that own this country.

After witnessing the fighting of undeclared never ending wars, passage of freedom destroying legislation like the Patriot Act & NDAA, approval of pork barrel spending to the tune of hundreds of billions, rule by Executive Order, using ZIRP to extract hundreds of billions from senior citizen savers and give it to criminal Wall Street banks, forcing the American people at gunpoint to replenish the Wall Street banks with $700 billion after they had committed the greatest financial fraud in history, and a continuing trampling of the U.S. Constitution, the American people continue to remain willfully ignorant of the truth. The American Dream is dead. We’ve allowed a rich, privileged, elite few to achieve hegemony over our economic and political system with their control of the media and manipulation of our financial markets. They will collapse the country because they will never be satisfied with the amount of wealth and power they’ve accumulated. Their voracious greed will be their downfall. The sooner we can channel the anger of George Carlin, the sooner we can put an end to this corporate fascist reign of terror.         

“Politicians are put there to give you that idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, and they’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses, and the City Halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear. They’ve got you by the balls.

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want—they don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interest. You know something, they don’t want people that are smart enough to sit around their kitchen table and figure out how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

It’s a big club and you ain’t in it! You and I are not in the Big Club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you in the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table is tilted folks, the game is rigged. And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on, the fact that Americans are and will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white, and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes every day. Because the owners of this country know the truth, it’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.” George Carlin

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Torture Is Trivial

The great American torture debate has been rekindled by the nationwide release of “Zero Dark Thirty,” the hot new movie about the CIA’s hunt for Osama bin Laden.The US military's "Shock and Awe" campaign began by bombing targets in Baghdad, March, 2003. (Image: Corbis via BBC)

But all the fussing over whether or not the movie condones, glorifies, and/or misrepresents torture is trivial, because the United States’ use of torture after 9/11 is trivial in the context of larger U.S. crimes.

Let me be clear: I don’t support torture. I think torture is immoral. I think government officials who ordered or condoned torture should be held accountable. Torture crosses a line that should not be crossed.

But when I look at the decade since 9/11, torture is hardly the greatest crime of the U.S. war machine. Since 9/11, the United States has helped destroy two countries with, at best, sketchy moral and legal justification. The invasion of Afghanistan was connected to the crimes of 9/11, at least at first, but quickly devolved into a nonsensical occupation. The invasion of Iraq, which was clearly illegal, was a scandal of unprecedented scale, even by the standards of past U.S. invasions and covert operations.

While the Iraq war is over (sort of) and the Afghanistan war is coming to an end (sort of) the United States is also at war in Pakistan and Iran. The U.S. routinely unleashes murderous drone strikes in Pakistani territory, and we can assume that covert operations against Iran, such as the cyber-attack with a powerful computer virus, continue even though Iran poses no serious threat to the United States.

"The problem with “Zero Dark Thirty” is that ... it tells the story that Americans want to hear: We are an innocent nation that has earned its extraordinary wealth fair and square."

All of this was, or is, clearly illegal or of dubious legal status. None of it makes us more secure in the long run. And if one considers human beings who aren’t U.S. citizens to be fully human, there is no moral justification for any of it.

The problem with “Zero Dark Thirty” is that it ignores all of that, as do most of the movies, television shows, and journalism about the past decade. It tells the story that Americans want to hear: We are an innocent nation that has earned its extraordinary wealth fair and square. Now we want nothing more than to protect the fruits of our honest labor while, when possible, extending our superior system to others. Despite our moral virtue and benevolence, there are irrational ideologues around the world who want to kill Americans. This forces our warriors into unpleasant situations dealing with unpleasant people, regrettable but necessary to restore the rightful order.

A less self-indulgent look at the reality of the post-World War II era suggests a different story. Whether in Latin America, southern Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia, the central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been consistent: to make sure that an independent course of development did not succeed anywhere, out of a fear that it might spread to the rest of the developing world and threaten U.S. economic domination. In the Middle East, the specific task has been to make sure that the flow of oil and oil profits continues in a fashion conducive to U.S. interests.

This is not is a defense of terrorism but rather a consistent critique of terrorism, whether committed by nation-states or non-state actors. The solution to the problem is not more terrorism by one side to counter the terrorism of the other. The solution is not torture. At this point, there are no easy and obvious “solutions” available, given the hole into which we’ve dug ourselves.

But there are things we can do that would help create the conditions under which solutions may emerge, ways to support real democracy around the world and a just distribution of resources. The first step is for those with more wealth and power to tell the truth about how that wealth was accumulated and how that power has been used.

The real problem with “Zero Dark Thirty” is not that it takes artistic license with some of the facts about torture. The film’s more profound failure is that by reinforcing the same old story about American innocence, it helps obscure the larger truths we don’t want to face about ourselves.

Robert Jensen

Torture Is Trivial

The great American torture debate has been rekindled by the nationwide release of “Zero Dark Thirty,” the hot new movie about the CIA’s hunt for Osama bin Laden.The US military's "Shock and Awe" campaign began by bombing targets in Baghdad, March, 2003. (Image: Corbis via BBC)

But all the fussing over whether or not the movie condones, glorifies, and/or misrepresents torture is trivial, because the United States’ use of torture after 9/11 is trivial in the context of larger U.S. crimes.

Let me be clear: I don’t support torture. I think torture is immoral. I think government officials who ordered or condoned torture should be held accountable. Torture crosses a line that should not be crossed.

But when I look at the decade since 9/11, torture is hardly the greatest crime of the U.S. war machine. Since 9/11, the United States has helped destroy two countries with, at best, sketchy moral and legal justification. The invasion of Afghanistan was connected to the crimes of 9/11, at least at first, but quickly devolved into a nonsensical occupation. The invasion of Iraq, which was clearly illegal, was a scandal of unprecedented scale, even by the standards of past U.S. invasions and covert operations.

While the Iraq war is over (sort of) and the Afghanistan war is coming to an end (sort of) the United States is also at war in Pakistan and Iran. The U.S. routinely unleashes murderous drone strikes in Pakistani territory, and we can assume that covert operations against Iran, such as the cyber-attack with a powerful computer virus, continue even though Iran poses no serious threat to the United States.

"The problem with “Zero Dark Thirty” is that ... it tells the story that Americans want to hear: We are an innocent nation that has earned its extraordinary wealth fair and square."

All of this was, or is, clearly illegal or of dubious legal status. None of it makes us more secure in the long run. And if one considers human beings who aren’t U.S. citizens to be fully human, there is no moral justification for any of it.

The problem with “Zero Dark Thirty” is that it ignores all of that, as do most of the movies, television shows, and journalism about the past decade. It tells the story that Americans want to hear: We are an innocent nation that has earned its extraordinary wealth fair and square. Now we want nothing more than to protect the fruits of our honest labor while, when possible, extending our superior system to others. Despite our moral virtue and benevolence, there are irrational ideologues around the world who want to kill Americans. This forces our warriors into unpleasant situations dealing with unpleasant people, regrettable but necessary to restore the rightful order.

A less self-indulgent look at the reality of the post-World War II era suggests a different story. Whether in Latin America, southern Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia, the central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been consistent: to make sure that an independent course of development did not succeed anywhere, out of a fear that it might spread to the rest of the developing world and threaten U.S. economic domination. In the Middle East, the specific task has been to make sure that the flow of oil and oil profits continues in a fashion conducive to U.S. interests.

This is not is a defense of terrorism but rather a consistent critique of terrorism, whether committed by nation-states or non-state actors. The solution to the problem is not more terrorism by one side to counter the terrorism of the other. The solution is not torture. At this point, there are no easy and obvious “solutions” available, given the hole into which we’ve dug ourselves.

But there are things we can do that would help create the conditions under which solutions may emerge, ways to support real democracy around the world and a just distribution of resources. The first step is for those with more wealth and power to tell the truth about how that wealth was accumulated and how that power has been used.

The real problem with “Zero Dark Thirty” is not that it takes artistic license with some of the facts about torture. The film’s more profound failure is that by reinforcing the same old story about American innocence, it helps obscure the larger truths we don’t want to face about ourselves.

Robert Jensen

Arab Spring in 2013

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item.

Bio

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow and the Director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. She is the author of Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis , Ending the US War in Afghanistan: A Primer and Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer.

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore. And welcome to this week's edition of The Bennis Report with Phyllis Bennis, who now joins us from Washington, D.C.

Phyllis is a fellow and the director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, author of many books, including Before and After: U.S. Foreign Policy and the War on Terrorism and Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer.Thanks for joining us, Phyllis.PHYLLIS BENNIS, FELLOW, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES: Great to be with you, Paul.JAY: So 2013, what are one or two of the things you're going to be looking for?BENNIS: This is coming on to the second anniversary now of the Arab Spring. And I'm one of maybe only a few left that are still calling it a spring, because I think that despite the horrors that are right now facing people, especially in Syria, I think that what we're seeing across the Middle East, throughout the Arab world, has been a just incredible rising of peoples claiming their citizenship in a way that they just have never done for the last 40 or 50 years. And that's still going on. It's going to take a very long time. None of it's going to be easy. We're seeing, you know, five steps back for every one step forward. But still I think there's new developments that are important. If we start perhaps with Bahrain, which has been off the pages of major newspapers in the U.S., because Bahrain, of course, is a key U.S. ally—the Fifth Fleet is stationed there—but the conditions in Bahrain, where the uprising was smashed early on and continues to face horrific human rights violations, is now coming back. We saw a New York Times editorial by one of the leaders of that movement, Zainab al-Khawaja, a terrific young woman. I spent some time with her a few months ago in South Africa. We toured together doing a little speaking tour, and she's fantastic. She's 24 years old. Her father is one of the leaders of this movement. He's in prison for life. Her sister has just been imprisoned. She works in exile in Norway to get the issues of the human rights crisis in Bahrain out, and they're now having success. They're reaching people in this country. They're reaching the pages of The New York Times. And the question of the Fifth Fleet is not preventing that. So that's huge at the level of influencing the discourse in this country. If we look at the conditions in Syria, of course, there's not much good to talk about. The UN's latest report indicates that the overall conflict in Syria has become overwhelmingly a sectarian conflict. And that means it's going to be much harder to bring it to an end. The UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has just completed another visit to the region. He's gone off to Moscow to talk with officials there. He's talking again about the possibility of a transitional government.So far, both sides are pretty opposed to that. There's no clarity about how a ceasefire—the first thing that has to happen—would take place. So the Syrian opposition now has come together with a new coalition that's being recognized by the U.S., and leading European governments as well. But at the same time, the United States has said that one of the most important organizations within that coalition, the one that has the most power militarily on the ground, that's won the most victories against the regime's army, is in fact what the U.S. calls a terrorist organization linked to al-Qaeda. So it's a very uneven level of support that the U.S. is offering. The arms are still coming in via Turkey, primarily from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. There's big debates about whether it's even possible to provide arms for what the U.S. and the Europeans would like to think are the good guys in the opposition, meaning Western secular types like us, versus those who are actually getting the weapons from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which tend to be the Islamist forces that aren't like us. So it's a very messy situation in which the opposition, writ large, is winning real victories on the ground. But who is speaking for the opposition, how to take into account the needs of the original opposition movement, which was largely a secular, very democratic, open-minded kind of opposition whose voices, in their commitment to nonviolence, their commitment to not making this a civil war, as it has become, they have been largely squelched. Their voices have been silenced by the sound of the guns.At the same time, the regime is losing credibility. It's suffered significant losses of high-ranking officials, including military officials, including recently the major general of the Syrian army whose job it was to head up the division charged with preventing defections. He was the most recent defector. So it's a very uncertain question, how this is going to be resolved. The top supporter of the regime, Russia, has pulled back from its once all-sided support for Assad and is now saying, well, we're not supporting anybody, but we don't want to have a situation like we have in Libya. Libya, of course, remains completely chaotic, without a viable government that's capable of providing security for the people of Libya. The weapons that are flooding countries like Mali and elsewhere in North Africa are largely coming from Libya in the wake of this U.S.- and NATO-backed overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.And in Syria it's becoming more and more sectarian, with even those generals that are defecting tend to not be the Alawites' generals that are the most closely tied to Assad's inner circle. So this is going to be a very, very difficult and, I'm afraid, continuing very bloody scenario in Syria.But the one thing that I think: the optimism has to come back when we look at Egypt. Even though there's been this horrific political debate going on over the Egyptian constitution and some significant losses for the secular and democratic components of the opposition forces with the consolidation of power by President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood that backs him, I still think that what we're seeing in Egypt is a very exciting moment that over the long and even medium term is going to transform that country into a place where people claim their rights as citizens of their country and not subjects of a U.S.-backed dictatorship, as they were for so many years. I don't exactly know how that's going to play out. I think that the elections that are going to come for the lower house of Parliament are likely to once again lead to a Islamist-dominated Parliament. But I think that the secular opposition, the Christian opposition, the Muslim opposition, who just doesn't want as big a role for religion in the government, all of those opposition forces are beginning to cohere much more than they were before. They were really very diverse and divergent before. They're coming together. And I think they're showing themselves to be an important player in society. And Morsi has to recognize that despite the fact that in both days of the election or the referendum over the Constitution, despite the fact that he won, he won, his constitution won, by a fairly narrow margin. It was 52 one day and about 60 percent the next. But on both days, there was less than a third of the potential voters, less than a third of the eligible voters actually participated. So if you do the math, it ends up that only about 15 percent of eligible voters supported the Constitution. And that's not very many.JAY: When you look at the Palestinian-Israeli situation, there are some things happening there which are kind of new in a way—Qatar's involvement in Gaza, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt's role in sort of managing the resolution of the Gaza war, and then the Fatah-Hamas kind of unity front (we'll see how long that lasts). And then, apparently, just now, recently, President Abbas has said if the paralysis with Israel—negotiations continues to be so paralyzed, he's going to disband the P.A.BENNIS: Yeah, there's a lot of developments there, some of which are optimistic. But, again, the situation on the ground continues to be very grim. What we saw with the most recent Isreali assault on Gaza in November-December, just like what happened four years ago during Operation Cast Lead, the 22-day Israeli war on Gaza, there's been a real transition of political realities in the aftermath. So it isn't only about public awareness of the brutality of the Israeli occupation. What the assault on Gaza meant in terms of the killing of civilians, particularly the killing of children, but as well, on the political front, that's where you saw the new reality of the post-Arab Spring governments moving towards Palestine in a way that they never did before. So even while the Israeli assault was under way, you had—I think the total was somewhere like 14 or 15 Arab foreign ministers visiting not the Israelis to make sure that the U.S. saw they were on the Israeli side, and not even going to the West Bank, where the Israeli assault was not happening, but going right to Gaza under the bombs. You had the prime minister of Egypt, you had the foreign minister of Turkey, you had the foreign ministers of half the Arab League showing up. So this is a very important development in terms of not so much the rhetoric, because those governments all had the rhetoric of being pro-Palestinian for years, but they were never willing to do anything that would challenge the U.S. This time around, at least on the political front, they were willing to. Now, we saw the large grant from Qatar to the Palestinian authorities in Gaza led by Hamas. We see the break of Hamas with the Syrian government. And to a large degree it's beginning to break with Iran as well. And the result of that is that right now the key allies of Hamas in the region are not Syria and Iran, the key enemies of the United States, but they are Turkey and Qatar and Saudi Arabia, arguably among the most important allies of the U.S. in the region. So it's a very different scenario that we're working with. And then you have Egypt, where the Egyptian shift means—and, again, here, in terms of relations with Hamas, Egypt's role as well as—perhaps even more than Turkey and Qatar, becomes critical, because Egypt has emerged as the interlocutor between Israel and Hamas on the one hand—after all of Israel's claims that we'll never talk to Hamas, they're talking to them through the Egyptians—as the interlocutor between Hamas and Fatah, bringing the possibility of a Palestinian unity process more likely to be something that could happen sooner. And at the end of the day, you have the possibility that with an opening of the Gaza crossing into Egypt, at least a possibility for the people of Gaza to breathe.Overall, I think that we're moving into a period where the Arab Spring has enormous possibilities. Syria remains a disaster, and it's going to take a great deal of diplomacy to bring that to a halt. But elsewhere in the region I think that things are more hopeful than we've seen. On the ground, particularly for Palestinians, as well as Syrians, it's a disaster. But we have to look forward, and 2013 could be a year when we see some real changes.JAY: Alright. Thanks for joining us, Phyllis.BENNIS: Thank you, Paul. Always a pleasure.JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Syria Terrorists Kidnapping: Ukraine and Russia working with Syria to save Ukrainian Journalist

Anhar Kochneva

The Syrian Embassy in Ukraine has said that the Syrian, Ukrainian and Russian authorities are cooperating to ensure the speedy release of Ukrainian journalist Anhar Kochneva, who was abducted by rebels in Syria.

“Our authorities, including our embassy, in cooperation with Ukrainian and Russian authorities, are doing all they can to release her,” the embassy told Interfax-Ukraine regarding the situation with the abducted Ukrainian.

According to the embassy, Kochneva is “significant prey” for the group that abducted her, as in this way they prevented her from objectively covering the events in the country.

The embassy said that an information war was currently being waged against Syria, during which a number of leading Western and Arab media “pledged to make misleading reports about the events in Syria.”

“The fact is that Syria is the only country in the Middle East that opposes the United States and its satellites on the implementation of the plan for the New Middle East. Accordingly, these countries set the goal of breaking Syria, and they don’t want it to exist as a strong independent country,” the embassy said.

The statement says that the “so-called Free Syrian Army” uses violence and acts of terror against the civilian population.

“The number of terror attacks grows every day, thousands of victims have been killed, both civilians and military personnel, and many people have been abducted, and if a ransom is not paid for them, they are killed (and sometimes they are killed even after the receipt of a ransom), not to mention sabotage against infrastructure. Unfortunately, among those abducted is Anhar Kochneva, who was objectively performing her journalistic duties, exposing the deception of some media involved in disinformation,” the embassy said.

The statement also says that 48 Iranian pilgrims were kidnapped in Syria five months ago, and owing to the joint efforts of the Syrian authorities and a number of other countries able to resolve such a problem, the abducted persons were released a few days ago.

As reported, Kochneva was abducted by gunmen of the Free Syrian Army in Syria in October 2012. The kidnappers of the journalist threatened to kill her if a ransom of $50 million was not paid.

The kidnappers even contacted Ukrainian journalists and expressed their indignation at the inactivity of the Ukrainian authorities in this matter, but Kyiv repeatedly said that it was doing everything to release Kochneva.

Cleric Qadri to RT: ‘I’m here to empower the people of Pakistan’

The government of Pakistan is so corrupt that it has no means to ensure democratic processes, cleric Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri has told RT in an exclusive interview, urging reforms to "put the country on the right track."

­RT: Do you think the march will derail democracy in Pakistan, especially if the general election takes place within the next few months?

Cleric Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri: Democracy is not going to be derailed. It has already been derailed by corrupt political leaders. We want to put democracy on the right track. And we want to put democracy in place in its true letter and spirit. We don’t want any kind of delay in elections. The electorate reforms which I have suggested, they are already mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan. All the details which I am demanding are already there in the law, constitution and electoral laws.

And the whole thing, my electorate reforms agenda has been endorsed by the supreme court of Pakistan in its judgment which was issued on the 8 June 2012. This year we just have to enforce these articles of the constitution and sections of electoral law and the judgment of the Supreme Court. It will not take more than a month to implement and we still have three months of caretaker government. So there is no chance of derailing democracy. Elections can take place on time.

RT: You have accused the political leaders of Pakistan of corruption and other crimes. What do you expect to change?

MQ: First of all, let me substantiate what I had stated. The majority of these people are corrupt. There is a department of the government, National Accountability Bureau (NAB), and its chairman retired Admiral Fasih Bokhari is appointed by the president of Pakistan, Mr. Zardari himself. He has stated in his press conference and he has said in his official NAB statement that five thousand million rupees per annum are going to corruption. So these are the affectionate figures given by the government department. And at the same time it is declared and it’s not denied that seventy percent of members of Parliament in Pakistan are tax evaders. They do not bother to file tax returns. They conceal their source of income. So the corruption, there is nobody that can deny this reality.

So our march and movement is anti-corruption to eradicate corruption from our society and indeed the whole Muslim world, the whole third world and developing Muslim countries. We have to get rid of corruption and corrupt leaders. We have to get rid of tax evaders and law breakers. This is why we have started this struggle as a Tahrir Square of Pakistan.

Supporters of Pakistani Muslim cleric Tahir-ul Qadri flash the V-sign as they celebrate the victory of a demand for electoral reform at a protest rally in Islamabad on January 17, 2013. (AFP Photo/Asif Hassan)
Supporters of Pakistani Muslim cleric Tahir-ul Qadri flash the V-sign as they celebrate the victory of a demand for electoral reform at a protest rally in Islamabad on January 17, 2013. (AFP Photo/Asif Hassan)

RT:You mentioned Egypt and some other countries, it’s a very famous saying “ the revolution is its own children” and what happened in Egypt, Libya and other countries, those who cause the revolutions, they are not the rulers now. Do you feel that the fruits of your efforts could go to somebody else?

MQ: I do not think that somebody else will gain, because somebody else has no intention to take over power. They have lost a lot of their reputation because of past experiences and they, in fact, are not specialists at controlling civil society. They have not been trained for it.

When I say a revolution, you should keep in your mind in Egypt, in Tunis, in Libya and all these countries, there was a military dictatorship for years and years, for a really long time and the people stood up against that. In Iran, it was the monarchical rule of the Shah, people stood up against that. Pakistan’s case is a little bit different, there is neither monarchical rule or a military dictatorship.

Here it’s electoral authoritarianism. A dictatorship-democracy as far as the term exists. There’re political parties and they manipulate the elections to come back into parliament every five years. But true democracy does not exist in this society, neither in the political field, neither in social field, nor economic field. No democracy. The people are not in fact participating in the real process of democracy. They are not getting a job, they are not getting the rule of law. They are not getting protection of their life. There is no protection for their wealth and business. There are targeted killings. People are being kidnapped.

You know in the last four days, 125 dead bodies have been sitting there without a burial. No state minister was there, no provincial government was there, no members of the assembly was there. Even the Prime Minister arrived there, four days later. So there is lawlessness, total chaos and anarchy in this country. Government is totally dysfunctional.

So, this is the single nation, single country in the whole Muslim world having nuclear capability and if the same situation continues, that would be a very big disaster if we collapse. So we have to put democracy on the right track. We have to stabilize society on true basis of constitution and law. This is what this movement is for.

RT: Don’t you feel that if force is used, a lot of innocent lives could be sacrificed?

MQ: We have to stand up. The people have to stand up for their rights. People want a peaceful society.

RT: But what if they used the force?

MQ: I don’t think they are going to be able to. I know thousands of commandos have arrived from the government of Pundjab. Shabazz Sharif sent thousands of commandos this night. They have already made an attempt to drive us out – the first night that we had arrived here, and they were defeated. Our security guards and ladies moved in front of them and they ran away. They ran away. I know, and I tell you, thousands of commandoes have been sent from the government of Pundjab. And they’ve arranged more from the capital too. They are thinking of a joint venture but hundreds of thousands of people are sitting here, although, they are unarmed and peaceful. They do not have any weapons. But still, hundreds of thousands of people, despite of being peaceful, they are enough to stop these kind of terrorist attacks by the government.

RT: There are a lot of question marks on how you fund your campaign and this march in particular. Do you receive any foreign aid or funds?

MQ: A simple answer. Who funded revolution of Ahwan and people in Egypt? Who funded them? Who funded the people in Libya? Who funded the people in Tunis? These are the people. Who funded the people in Iran, in the very old days, when the people got up for revolution? They give their lives as sacrifice. But to talk about the money, every single poor person is selling his …we sold…we gave…I gave myself, my wife, my children, my daughters, my daughter in law, all of them, my whole family gave jewellery. The ladies give their jewellery, the girls give their jewellery. People are selling their house, their motorbikes , their cars, whatever savings they have, they are spending on publicity. They are spending everything for this purpose.

Supporters of Pakistani Muslim cleric Tahir-ul Qadri celebrate the victory of a demand for electoral reform at a protest rally in Islamabad on January 17, 2013. (AFP Photo/Asif Hassan)
Supporters of Pakistani Muslim cleric Tahir-ul Qadri celebrate the victory of a demand for electoral reform at a protest rally in Islamabad on January 17, 2013. (AFP Photo/Asif Hassan)

RT: It is an open secret that the Americans and some western powers, have a role in shaping the political events and scenarios in Pakistan. How do you see their role and what is your strategy towards these Americans and these Western powers?

MQ: This is because of this incompetent political leadership. If you have a competent leadership who fixes and prescribes and who knows that what are our supreme national interests and then it develops or formulates as foreign policy, exactly on the basis of our own national interest. Nobody in this world whether America or any other country is your permanent friend nor your permanent enemy. We don’t want to become the enemy of other countries and we don’t want other countries, including America to be our enemies. We want a fair, friendly relationship with them but at the same time, we want to safeguard our national interests. We want to become a peaceful country. We want to protect our neighbors and region and we want to participate in the development of peace for the whole world.

RT: Some accuse you of pursuing a foreign agenda that you’re trying to implement here in Pakistan. How do you respond to these accusations?

MQ: Can you tell me a single day when there is no crisis in Pakistan, when there is no targeted killing, where there is no bomb terrorist attack, when there is no kidnapping? Every single day is a day of crisis in the history of Pakistan because of the inability and incompetency of these rulers. My coming here, this is a farce accusation. I totally reject it. I totally rebut it, refute it. I do not come here with any agenda, my agenda is the nation of Pakistan.

Some critics can say anything to anybody. Hosni Mubarak would have said the same thing to the revolutionary people of Egypt. Colonel Gaddafi would have said the same thing. So whenever you get up for change, the people who want to maintain the status quo, they make these types of allegations and tell lies.

And this time, rising up and standing up for change and democratic revolution, it is the best time, because we do not want to disturb the political mandate of the current rulers. They got their five year term and we wanted them to complete their term. Now their term is up, almost complete. The elections are due in March, do you understand, their term is coming to an end. So without disturbing their term, we gave them time to deliver, if they could deliver anything, but they could not deliver to the people.

So this is the best time to bring in electoral reforms before we enter the process of elections. If the elections take place according to the same corrupt practices and the same corrupt traditions as has been taken place throughout the history, it means the same corrupt people, with fake degrees, the law breakers, corrupt people, tax evaders like the PM, who’s arrest has been ordered by the Supreme Court, these terrible people will once again be in parliament and they will ruin this country for the next five years. So I think this time, is the best time to bring electoral reforms and then elections should take place within the time given by the constitution without any delay. 

RT: Do you have any political ambitions?

MQ: I’m not here to empower myself, I’m here to empower the people of Pakistan. I’ve already declared that I’m not a candidate to become caretaker Prime Minister, absolutely not.

That ‘other’ Obama nominee the mainstream forgot about

While Chuck Hagel is taking all the US attention, few have noticed the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA.

New World Order – Attack On Sovereignty

Those concerned about “The New World Order” speak as if the United States is coming under the control of an outside conspiratorial force. In fact, it is the US that is the New World Order.

2007 Deja Vu As Goldman Sees $150 Oil By The Summer

While Brent closed 2012 at around its average closing price for the year, suggesting some stability, rolling a front-month contract garnered returns over 10% underscoring Jeff Currie's (Goldman's chief commodity strategist) note that money can still b...

Post-Iraq-War US Intel Chief Praised

Thomas Fingar, former Director of the National Intelligence Council, will receive the annual award from Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence in recognition of Fingar’s work from 2005 to 2008 restoring respect for the battered discipline of U.S. intelligence analysis after the fraudulent assessments on Iraq’s non-existent WMD.Thomas Fingar, who served as U.S. Director of the National Intelligence Council in the wake of the Iraq War intelligence fiasco.

In 2007, as chief of intelligence analysis, Fingar managed a thoroughly professional – and unsparingly honest – National Intelligence Estimate on the live-wire issue of Iran’s nuclear program. That NIE was instrumental in thwarting plans by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to attack Iran before they left office.

At the time, it was widely believed in the Official Washington that Tehran was developing a nuclear weapon but, as a seasoned intelligence professional, Fingar was allergic to “group think.” He recruited the best experts and ordered an empirical, bottom-up approach to the evidence. And, as luck would have it, some critical new intelligence became available in 2007 during the drafting.

Thus, in the Iran NIE of early November 2007, all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies judged “with high confidence” that Iran had halted its nuclear weapon design and weaponization work in 2003. That key judgment has been revalidated in testimony to Congress every year since.

Fingar, now a professor at Stanford, is teaching in its overseas program at Oxford in the United Kingdom. The award – named for the late CIA analyst Sam Adams who challenged the U.S. military’s overly optimistic claims about Vietcong and North Vietnamese troop strength during the Vietnam War – will be presented to Fingar at the historic Oxford Union.

Discussing his upcoming award with Sam Adams Associates, Fingar showed little patience with the nonsensical charges that he and his analysts had to endure after the NIE on Iran hit the streets. He reminded us:

“The whole purpose was to provide as accurate and objective a picture of what we knew at the time. To have done otherwise would have been unprofessional and inconsistent with the reason we have an intelligence establishment.

“Every other characterization of security-related affairs provided to decision makers has, or is assumed to have, a policy agenda. The Intelligence Community exists not just to provide analyses based on ‘all’ the information available to others – plus, when it can get it, information not available to others – but also, and more importantly, to assemble and assess the information as objectively as possible.

“The job of the Intelligence Community is to help decision makers to make better-informed decisions. It most emphatically is not to lead or pressure them to decide issues in a particular way. … It is also the reason we spend billions of dollars on intelligence analysis. … In a fundamental way, we were simply ‘doing our jobs’ when we produced the Iran NIE.

“Those who did not like the conclusions knew or soon realized that they could not challenge our findings by disputing the existence or meaning of our evidence, so they pursued a different course. The ploy was completely transparent: allege that those who wrote the NIE were intelligence amateurs who had a political agenda, and claim that the alleged principal authors had been career-long opponents of President Bush.

“There are many ‘problems’ with this line of attack – problems that were overlooked by a remarkable number of journalists. … I didn’t write the NIE but, at the time, I had 37 years of intelligence experience – probably no longer an amateur.

“Neocon critics never explained why, if I had been a career-long opponent of George W. Bush, he had nominated me to be an assistant secretary of state, endorsed my selection as the first Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis, and approved my selection to supervise preparation of materials for his daily briefing.”

Blocking a Dash to War

Without doubt, the NIE on Iran’s nuclear program made another rash decision to go to war in the Middle East untenable.

I myself have been involved in intelligence analysis for 50 years – 27 at the CIA; two as an Army infantry/intelligence officer, and the rest as a close observer. Yet, the November 2007 NIE is the only one I know of that deserves unambiguous credit for stopping an unnecessary war, one that could have been even more disastrous than the Bush administration’s excellent adventure in Iraq.

Don’t take my word for it. In his memoir Decision Points, President George W. Bush acknowledged that the “eye-popping” findings of the 2007 NIE “tied my hands on the military side. … After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?

“I don’t know why the NIE was written the way it was … I certainly hoped intelligence analysts weren’t trying to influence policy. Whatever the explanation, the NIE had a big impact – and not a good one.”

As Bush’s comment made clear, intelligence analysts do not operate in a political vacuum. The real professionals, however, construct a protective shield against political influence, bias and an understandable-but-anathema eagerness to please superiors in the White House.

When I tell Washington cognoscenti that this shielding can actually work, and that the debacle with “intelligence” on Iraq was the “Cheney/Bush exemption to the rule,” their eyes roll in disbelief. Everyone in Washington is perceived to have a political agenda. It takes guts for senior intelligence officials to avoid playing into that perception.

Perhaps President Bush and Vice President Cheney can be forgiven for assuming that all senior intelligence officials are as eager to politicize their work as were former CIA Director George Tenet, his deputy John McLaughlin, and the senior managers who had bubbled to the top – with disastrous consequences for Iraq.

More than two decades had gone by since Director William Casey and his protégé, Robert Gates, began politicizing intelligence big-time. That is usually enough time to corrupt thoroughly any institution – and that proved to be true for the CIA. However, after the Iraq WMD catastrophe, professionals like Fingar stepped in to begin righting the intelligence ship.

The November 2007 NIE landed like a dead fish on the White House doorstep, causing the neocons and other war hawks to challenge the unanimous judgment of all 16 intelligence agencies as naïve. The drafters were pilloried with charges that they were soft on Iran and just trying to stop a war! But the deed was done; and we were spared another unnecessary bloodletting.

Oxford Site for Award

The Oxford Union will be hosting the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence award ceremony on Jan. 23. The ceremony will feature several individuals well known in the field of intelligence and related topics, including an exclusive address via videolink from Julian Assange, who won the award in 2010.

The award is one of the few accolades for high-level whistleblowers who have taken risks to honor the public’s need to know. Also at the Oxford ceremony will be several previous Sam Adams awardees, including Coleen Rowley, Katharine Gun, Craig Murray, and Thomas Drake. The acceptance speech by Dr. Fingar will be followed by briefer remarks from a few previous Sam Adams awardees.

Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence was established in 2002 by colleagues and admirers of the late CIA intelligence analyst Sam Adams to recognize those who uphold his example as a model for those in intelligence who would aspire to the courage to speak truth to power. In honoring Adams’s memory, SAAII confers an award each year to someone in intelligence or related work who exemplifies Sam Adam’s courage, persistence, and devotion to truth — no matter the consequences.

It was Adams who discovered in 1967 that there were more than a half-million Vietnamese Communists under arms. This was roughly twice the number that the U.S. command in Saigon would admit to, lest Americans learn that claims of “progress” were bogus. As proven later in court, Gen. William Westmoreland had simply limited the number Army intelligence was allowed to carry on its books. His deputy, Gen. Creighton Abrams revealed the deception in a cable from Saigon:

A SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Abrams on Aug. 20, 1967 stated: “We have been projecting an image of success over recent months,” and cautioned that if the higher figures became public, “all available caveats and explanations will not prevent the press from drawing an erroneous and gloomy conclusion.”

The Communist countrywide offensive during Tet (January/February 1968) made it clear that the generals had been lying and that Sam Adams’ higher figures were correct. Senior officials of the Washington Establishment were aware of the deception, but lacked the courage to stand up to Westmoreland. Sam Adams himself was too much a creature of the system to go “outside channels.”

A few weeks after Tet, however, Daniel Ellsberg rose to the occasion. Ellsberg learned that Westmoreland was asking for 206,000 more troops to widen the war into Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam — right up to the border with China, and perhaps beyond. Someone (we still don’t know who) promptly leaked to the New York Times Westmoreland’s troop request, emboldening Ellsberg to do likewise with Sam Adams’ figures.

It was Ellsberg’s first unauthorized disclosure. He had come to the view that leaking truth about a deceitful war would be “a patriotic and constructive act.” On March 19, 1968, the Times published a stinging story based on Adams’s figures.

On March 25, President Johnson complained to a small group, “The leaks to the New York Times hurt us. … We have no support for the war. This is caused by the 206,000 troop request and the leaks. … I would have given Westy the 206,000 men.”  On March 31, 1968, Johnson ordered a bombing pause, opted for negotiations, and announced that he would not run for another term in November.

Sam Adams continued to press for honesty but stayed “inside channels” — and failed. He died at 55 of a heart attack in 1988, nagged by the thought that, had he gone to the media, thousands of lives might have been saved. His story is told in War of Numbers, published posthumously.

The annual Sam Adams Award has been given in previous years to truth tellers Coleen Rowley of the FBI; Katharine Gun of British Intelligence; Sibel Edmonds of the FBI; Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan; Sam Provance; former US Army Sgt at Abu Ghraib; Maj. Frank Grevil of Danish Army Intelligence; Larry Wilkerson, Col., U.S. Army (ret.), former chief of staff to Colin Powell at State; Julian Assange of WikiLeaks; and (ex aequo) to Thomas Drake, former senior official of NSA and Jesselyn Radack, Director of National Security and Human Rights, Government Accountability Project.

© 2012 Consortium News

Ray McGovern

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. During his career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and briefed the President's Daily Brief and chaired National Intelligence Estimates. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Post-Iraq-War US Intel Chief Praised

Thomas Fingar, former Director of the National Intelligence Council, will receive the annual award from Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence in recognition of Fingar’s work from 2005 to 2008 restoring respect for the battered discipline of U.S. intelligence analysis after the fraudulent assessments on Iraq’s non-existent WMD.Thomas Fingar, who served as U.S. Director of the National Intelligence Council in the wake of the Iraq War intelligence fiasco.

In 2007, as chief of intelligence analysis, Fingar managed a thoroughly professional – and unsparingly honest – National Intelligence Estimate on the live-wire issue of Iran’s nuclear program. That NIE was instrumental in thwarting plans by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to attack Iran before they left office.

At the time, it was widely believed in the Official Washington that Tehran was developing a nuclear weapon but, as a seasoned intelligence professional, Fingar was allergic to “group think.” He recruited the best experts and ordered an empirical, bottom-up approach to the evidence. And, as luck would have it, some critical new intelligence became available in 2007 during the drafting.

Thus, in the Iran NIE of early November 2007, all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies judged “with high confidence” that Iran had halted its nuclear weapon design and weaponization work in 2003. That key judgment has been revalidated in testimony to Congress every year since.

Fingar, now a professor at Stanford, is teaching in its overseas program at Oxford in the United Kingdom. The award – named for the late CIA analyst Sam Adams who challenged the U.S. military’s overly optimistic claims about Vietcong and North Vietnamese troop strength during the Vietnam War – will be presented to Fingar at the historic Oxford Union.

Discussing his upcoming award with Sam Adams Associates, Fingar showed little patience with the nonsensical charges that he and his analysts had to endure after the NIE on Iran hit the streets. He reminded us:

“The whole purpose was to provide as accurate and objective a picture of what we knew at the time. To have done otherwise would have been unprofessional and inconsistent with the reason we have an intelligence establishment.

“Every other characterization of security-related affairs provided to decision makers has, or is assumed to have, a policy agenda. The Intelligence Community exists not just to provide analyses based on ‘all’ the information available to others – plus, when it can get it, information not available to others – but also, and more importantly, to assemble and assess the information as objectively as possible.

“The job of the Intelligence Community is to help decision makers to make better-informed decisions. It most emphatically is not to lead or pressure them to decide issues in a particular way. … It is also the reason we spend billions of dollars on intelligence analysis. … In a fundamental way, we were simply ‘doing our jobs’ when we produced the Iran NIE.

“Those who did not like the conclusions knew or soon realized that they could not challenge our findings by disputing the existence or meaning of our evidence, so they pursued a different course. The ploy was completely transparent: allege that those who wrote the NIE were intelligence amateurs who had a political agenda, and claim that the alleged principal authors had been career-long opponents of President Bush.

“There are many ‘problems’ with this line of attack – problems that were overlooked by a remarkable number of journalists. … I didn’t write the NIE but, at the time, I had 37 years of intelligence experience – probably no longer an amateur.

“Neocon critics never explained why, if I had been a career-long opponent of George W. Bush, he had nominated me to be an assistant secretary of state, endorsed my selection as the first Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis, and approved my selection to supervise preparation of materials for his daily briefing.”

Blocking a Dash to War

Without doubt, the NIE on Iran’s nuclear program made another rash decision to go to war in the Middle East untenable.

I myself have been involved in intelligence analysis for 50 years – 27 at the CIA; two as an Army infantry/intelligence officer, and the rest as a close observer. Yet, the November 2007 NIE is the only one I know of that deserves unambiguous credit for stopping an unnecessary war, one that could have been even more disastrous than the Bush administration’s excellent adventure in Iraq.

Don’t take my word for it. In his memoir Decision Points, President George W. Bush acknowledged that the “eye-popping” findings of the 2007 NIE “tied my hands on the military side. … After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?

“I don’t know why the NIE was written the way it was … I certainly hoped intelligence analysts weren’t trying to influence policy. Whatever the explanation, the NIE had a big impact – and not a good one.”

As Bush’s comment made clear, intelligence analysts do not operate in a political vacuum. The real professionals, however, construct a protective shield against political influence, bias and an understandable-but-anathema eagerness to please superiors in the White House.

When I tell Washington cognoscenti that this shielding can actually work, and that the debacle with “intelligence” on Iraq was the “Cheney/Bush exemption to the rule,” their eyes roll in disbelief. Everyone in Washington is perceived to have a political agenda. It takes guts for senior intelligence officials to avoid playing into that perception.

Perhaps President Bush and Vice President Cheney can be forgiven for assuming that all senior intelligence officials are as eager to politicize their work as were former CIA Director George Tenet, his deputy John McLaughlin, and the senior managers who had bubbled to the top – with disastrous consequences for Iraq.

More than two decades had gone by since Director William Casey and his protégé, Robert Gates, began politicizing intelligence big-time. That is usually enough time to corrupt thoroughly any institution – and that proved to be true for the CIA. However, after the Iraq WMD catastrophe, professionals like Fingar stepped in to begin righting the intelligence ship.

The November 2007 NIE landed like a dead fish on the White House doorstep, causing the neocons and other war hawks to challenge the unanimous judgment of all 16 intelligence agencies as naïve. The drafters were pilloried with charges that they were soft on Iran and just trying to stop a war! But the deed was done; and we were spared another unnecessary bloodletting.

Oxford Site for Award

The Oxford Union will be hosting the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence award ceremony on Jan. 23. The ceremony will feature several individuals well known in the field of intelligence and related topics, including an exclusive address via videolink from Julian Assange, who won the award in 2010.

The award is one of the few accolades for high-level whistleblowers who have taken risks to honor the public’s need to know. Also at the Oxford ceremony will be several previous Sam Adams awardees, including Coleen Rowley, Katharine Gun, Craig Murray, and Thomas Drake. The acceptance speech by Dr. Fingar will be followed by briefer remarks from a few previous Sam Adams awardees.

Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence was established in 2002 by colleagues and admirers of the late CIA intelligence analyst Sam Adams to recognize those who uphold his example as a model for those in intelligence who would aspire to the courage to speak truth to power. In honoring Adams’s memory, SAAII confers an award each year to someone in intelligence or related work who exemplifies Sam Adam’s courage, persistence, and devotion to truth — no matter the consequences.

It was Adams who discovered in 1967 that there were more than a half-million Vietnamese Communists under arms. This was roughly twice the number that the U.S. command in Saigon would admit to, lest Americans learn that claims of “progress” were bogus. As proven later in court, Gen. William Westmoreland had simply limited the number Army intelligence was allowed to carry on its books. His deputy, Gen. Creighton Abrams revealed the deception in a cable from Saigon:

A SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Abrams on Aug. 20, 1967 stated: “We have been projecting an image of success over recent months,” and cautioned that if the higher figures became public, “all available caveats and explanations will not prevent the press from drawing an erroneous and gloomy conclusion.”

The Communist countrywide offensive during Tet (January/February 1968) made it clear that the generals had been lying and that Sam Adams’ higher figures were correct. Senior officials of the Washington Establishment were aware of the deception, but lacked the courage to stand up to Westmoreland. Sam Adams himself was too much a creature of the system to go “outside channels.”

A few weeks after Tet, however, Daniel Ellsberg rose to the occasion. Ellsberg learned that Westmoreland was asking for 206,000 more troops to widen the war into Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam — right up to the border with China, and perhaps beyond. Someone (we still don’t know who) promptly leaked to the New York Times Westmoreland’s troop request, emboldening Ellsberg to do likewise with Sam Adams’ figures.

It was Ellsberg’s first unauthorized disclosure. He had come to the view that leaking truth about a deceitful war would be “a patriotic and constructive act.” On March 19, 1968, the Times published a stinging story based on Adams’s figures.

On March 25, President Johnson complained to a small group, “The leaks to the New York Times hurt us. … We have no support for the war. This is caused by the 206,000 troop request and the leaks. … I would have given Westy the 206,000 men.”  On March 31, 1968, Johnson ordered a bombing pause, opted for negotiations, and announced that he would not run for another term in November.

Sam Adams continued to press for honesty but stayed “inside channels” — and failed. He died at 55 of a heart attack in 1988, nagged by the thought that, had he gone to the media, thousands of lives might have been saved. His story is told in War of Numbers, published posthumously.

The annual Sam Adams Award has been given in previous years to truth tellers Coleen Rowley of the FBI; Katharine Gun of British Intelligence; Sibel Edmonds of the FBI; Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan; Sam Provance; former US Army Sgt at Abu Ghraib; Maj. Frank Grevil of Danish Army Intelligence; Larry Wilkerson, Col., U.S. Army (ret.), former chief of staff to Colin Powell at State; Julian Assange of WikiLeaks; and (ex aequo) to Thomas Drake, former senior official of NSA and Jesselyn Radack, Director of National Security and Human Rights, Government Accountability Project.

© 2012 Consortium News

Ray McGovern

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. During his career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and briefed the President's Daily Brief and chaired National Intelligence Estimates. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Hit Movies Miss Mideast Realities

Maya is the name of the determined protagonist of Zero Dark Thirty who pursues Osama bin Laden to his death.Controversies generated by the film include whether torture was essential to the success of the original mission, whether the producers were given special access to the CIA, and whether the film amounts to propaganda that excuses illegal methods of countering terrorism.

Director Kathryn Bigelow has been accused of wanting the film to be seen as both documentary and fiction, not unlike the way Rush Limbaugh wants to be seen as both a factual cultural power broker and mere entertainer.

Zero Dark Thirty, along with actor-director Ben Affleck’s film Argo, a thriller based on the joint CIA-Canadian rescue of rescue of six American diplomats during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, can generate some useful reflection upon American methods for achieving security in a dangerous world.

Both films pander to crude stereotypes of malevolent, swarthy-skinned, bearded jihadis. They intensify the “us and them” paradigm that suffuses our thinking about a region of the world going through paroxysmal changes.

Argo begins with a brief montage that acknowledges the U.S. role in the creation of modern Iran. The film mentions that the C.I.A. overturned Iranian elections in the 1950s, deposed the popular democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, and installed the Shah, causing severe blowback. We experienced more blowback when bin Laden was with us against the Soviets (during their Afghan War) before he was against us (leading to our Afghan War).

Ironically, Argo’s reduction of Iranians to brutal thugs is countered by the supremely subtle and human Iranian 2011 film of director and writer Asghar Farhadi, A Separation, in which an Iranian couple must decide whether to move to another country to provide opportunities for their child, or stay in Iran to care for a family member with Alzheimer’s; a work vastly higher in quality than either Argo or Zero Dark Thirty.

The two American films celebrate our ingenuity, courage and perseverance against adversaries, but our own integrity requires that we look more deeply into the dominant narrative that produced them.

While these are “only” films, Zero Dark Thirty points us back to the painfulness of the events out of which it came, illuminating the questions: How and when can the “war on terror” come to an end, and how will we know when it does? In the same way, Argo questions how to prevent a war between us — or Israel — and Iran, a war that would resolve nothing.

Bin Laden was apparently motivated to attack the West out of revenge—the ancient paradigm of an “eye for an eye.” In an extensive 2002 letter to the American people, printed in the British publication The Observer, bin Laden laid out his specific justifications for horrific violence against innocents.

He began by citing passages from the Koran that give permission to Islamists to fight “disbelievers.” Immediately this sets up a pathological context, because it contains what philosophers call a performative contradiction:

He proclaimed Islam as a universal religion, but his vision was radically exclusivist. He believed that a universal God is on the side of pure Islam against impure or non-Islamists. Religionists of many faiths, including Christianity, have occasionally fallen into this moral trap.

Bin Laden went on to say that he and his colleagues are fighting the U.S. because the U.S. supports Israel against Palestine. He was explicitly anti-Semitic; to him the creation of Israel was a crime, implying no willingness to accept a more inclusive, multi-ethnic vision of the region’s future.

Not all of bin Laden’s justifications for violence were based in irrational fantasies of revenge. He raised issues, like the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq as the result of U.S. sanctions, or our double standards about whom we allow to have nuclear weapons and whom we do not, that have also been raised by patriotic and loyal Americans.

When I spoke at a Rotary club a few years ago, I said that however horrific bin Laden’s crimes were, it was important to hear his rationalizations and understand his frame of reference.  It was important to consider what effect actions of our own, like stationing troops on bases in Saudi Arabia, had upon extremists — or those who could be recruited to their ranks from amongst offended citizens — and it was important to bring murderers to trial as ordinary criminals rather than exterminate them. A number of listeners to my talk stood up and walked out.

Our decision to assassinate bin Laden was not an act of restorative justice. Killing him would not have brought back to life those who perished on 9/11. It was an act of retributive, consciously decided, cold-minded payback.

In the intent eyes of our heads of government as they followed the actions of the Navy Seals, eyes that included a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, it was possible to see how an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

In the nuclear age, this lack of moral imagination becomes a great deal more important than the issue of how entertaining or truthful are the products of Hollywood. Our planetary misery and fear will never decrease by an endless cycle of revenge and counter-revenge.

A pathological level of revenge is built into the very deterrence that rationalizes the possession of massive nuclear arsenals — the mother of all performative contradictions: a revenge-cycle that could kill us all, as it very nearly did in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Shouldn’t any sane narrative of our response to terrorism include fewer drones that create more terrorists than they kill, and a few more initiatives of reconciliation between the West and Muslim regions? It is past time to set aside, from the trillions we spend on weapons and war, a few millions for a Department of Peace.

Otherwise we are fooling ourselves — moving deck chairs around on the Titanic. “Maya” is the Sanskrit word for illusion.

Post Iraq War US Intel Chief Praised

Thomas Fingar, former Director of the National Intelligence Council, will receive the annual award from Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence in recognition of Fingar’s work from 2005 to 2008 restoring respect for the battered discipline of U.S. intelligence analysis after the fraudulent assessments on Iraq’s non-existent WMD.

In 2007, as chief of intelligence analysis, Fingar managed a thoroughly professional – and unsparingly honest – National Intelligence Estimate on the live-wire issue of Iran’s nuclear program. That NIE was instrumental in thwarting plans by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to attack Iran before they left office.

At the time, it was widely believed in the Official Washington that Tehran was developing a nuclear weapon but, as a seasoned intelligence professional, Fingar was allergic to “group think.” He recruited the best experts and ordered an empirical, bottom-up approach to the evidence. And, as luck would have it, some critical new intelligence became available in 2007 during the drafting.

Thus, in the Iran NIE of early November 2007, all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies judged “with high confidence” that Iran had halted its nuclear weapon design and weaponization work in 2003. That key judgment has been revalidated in testimony to Congress every year since.

Fingar, now a professor at Stanford, is teaching in its overseas program at Oxford in the United Kingdom. The award – named for the late CIA analyst Sam Adams who challenged the U.S. military’s overly optimistic claims about Vietcong and North Vietnamese troop strength during the Vietnam War – will be presented to Fingar at the historic Oxford Union.

Discussing his upcoming award with Sam Adams Associates, Fingar showed little patience with the nonsensical charges that he and his analysts had to endure after the NIE on Iran hit the streets. He reminded us:

“The whole purpose was to provide as accurate and objective a picture of what we knew at the time. To have done otherwise would have been unprofessional and inconsistent with the reason we have an intelligence establishment.

“Every other characterization of security-related affairs provided to decision makers has, or is assumed to have, a policy agenda. The Intelligence Community exists not just to provide analyses based on ‘all’ the information available to others – plus, when it can get it, information not available to others – but also, and more importantly, to assemble and assess the information as objectively as possible.

“The job of the Intelligence Community is to help decision makers to make better-informed decisions. It most emphatically is not to lead or pressure them to decide issues in a particular way. … It is also the reason we spend billions of dollars on intelligence analysis. … In a fundamental way, we were simply ‘doing our jobs’ when we produced the Iran NIE.

“Those who did not like the conclusions knew or soon realized that they could not challenge our findings by disputing the existence or meaning of our evidence, so they pursued a different course. The ploy was completely transparent: allege that those who wrote the NIE were intelligence amateurs who had a political agenda, and claim that the alleged principal authors had been career-long opponents of President Bush.

“There are many ‘problems’ with this line of attack – problems that were overlooked by a remarkable number of journalists. … I didn’t write the NIE but, at the time, I had 37 years of intelligence experience – probably no longer an amateur.

“Neocon critics never explained why, if I had been a career-long opponent of George W. Bush, he had nominated me to be an assistant secretary of state, endorsed my selection as the first Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis, and approved my selection to supervise preparation of materials for his daily briefing.”

Blocking a Dash to War

Without doubt, the NIE on Iran’s nuclear program made another rash decision to go to war in the Middle East untenable.

I myself have been involved in intelligence analysis for 50 years – 27 at the CIA; two as an Army infantry/intelligence officer, and the rest as a close observer. Yet, the November 2007 NIE is the only one I know of that deserves unambiguous credit for stopping an unnecessary war, one that could have been even more disastrous than the Bush administration’s excellent adventure in Iraq.

Don’t take my word for it. In his memoir Decision Points, President George W. Bush acknowledged that the “eye-popping” findings of the 2007 NIE “tied my hands on the military side. … After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?

“I don’t know why the NIE was written the way it was … I certainly hoped intelligence analysts weren’t trying to influence policy. Whatever the explanation, the NIE had a big impact – and not a good one.”

As Bush’s comment made clear, intelligence analysts do not operate in a political vacuum. The real professionals, however, construct a protective shield against political influence, bias and an understandable-but-anathema eagerness to please superiors in the White House.

When I tell Washington cognoscenti that this shielding can actually work, and that the debacle with “intelligence” on Iraq was the “Cheney/Bush exemption to the rule,” their eyes roll in disbelief. Everyone in Washington is perceived to have a political agenda. It takes guts for senior intelligence officials to avoid playing into that perception.

Perhaps President Bush and Vice President Cheney can be forgiven for assuming that all senior intelligence officials are as eager to politicize their work as were former CIA Director George Tenet, his deputy John McLaughlin, and the senior managers who had bubbled to the top – with disastrous consequences for Iraq.

More than two decades had gone by since Director William Casey and his protégé, Robert Gates, began politicizing intelligence big-time. That is usually enough time to corrupt thoroughly any institution – and that proved to be true for the CIA. However, after the Iraq WMD catastrophe, professionals like Fingar stepped in to begin righting the intelligence ship.

The November 2007 NIE landed like a dead fish on the White House doorstep, causing the neocons and other war hawks to challenge the unanimous judgment of all 16 intelligence agencies as naïve. The drafters were pilloried with charges that they were soft on Iran and just trying to stop a war! But the deed was done; and we were spared another unnecessary bloodletting.

Oxford Site for Award

The Oxford Union will be hosting the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence award ceremony on Jan. 23. The ceremony will feature several individuals well known in the field of intelligence and related topics, including an exclusive address via videolink from Julian Assange, who won the award in 2010.

The award is one of the few accolades for high-level whistleblowers who have taken risks to honor the public’s need to know. Also at the Oxford ceremony will be several previous Sam Adams awardees, including Coleen Rowley, Katharine Gun, Craig Murray, and Thomas Drake. The acceptance speech by Dr. Fingar will be followed by briefer remarks from a few previous Sam Adams awardees.

Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence was established in 2002 by colleagues and admirers of the late CIA intelligence analyst Sam Adams to recognize those who uphold his example as a model for those in intelligence who would aspire to the courage to speak truth to power. In honoring Adams’s memory, SAAII confers an award each year to someone in intelligence or related work who exemplifies Sam Adam’s courage, persistence, and devotion to truth — no matter the consequences.

It was Adams who discovered in 1967 that there were more than a half-million Vietnamese Communists under arms. This was roughly twice the number that the U.S. command in Saigon would admit to, lest Americans learn that claims of “progress” were bogus. As proven later in court, Gen. William Westmoreland had simply limited the number Army intelligence was allowed to carry on its books. His deputy, Gen. Creighton Abrams revealed the deception in a cable from Saigon:

A SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Abrams on Aug. 20, 1967 stated: “We have been projecting an image of success over recent months,” and cautioned that if the higher figures became public, “all available caveats and explanations will not prevent the press from drawing an erroneous and gloomy conclusion.”

The Communist countrywide offensive during Tet (January/February 1968) made it clear that the generals had been lying and that Sam Adams’ higher figures were correct. Senior officials of the Washington Establishment were aware of the deception, but lacked the courage to stand up to Westmoreland. Sam Adams himself was too much a creature of the system to go “outside channels.”

A few weeks after Tet, however, Daniel Ellsberg rose to the occasion. Ellsberg learned that Westmoreland was asking for 206,000 more troops to widen the war into Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam — right up to the border with China, and perhaps beyond. Someone (we still don’t know who) promptly leaked to the New York TimesWestmoreland’s troop request, emboldening Ellsberg to do likewise with Sam Adams’ figures.

It was Ellsberg’s first unauthorized disclosure. He had come to the view that leaking truth about a deceitful war would be “a patriotic and constructive act.” On March 19, 1968, the Times published a stinging story based on Adams’s figures.

On March 25, President Johnson complained to a small group, “The leaks to the New York Times hurt us. … We have no support for the war. This is caused by the 206,000 troop request and the leaks. … I would have given Westy the 206,000 men.”  On March 31, 1968, Johnson ordered a bombing pause, opted for negotiations, and announced that he would not run for another term in November.

Sam Adams continued to press for honesty but stayed “inside channels” — and failed. He died at 55 of a heart attack in 1988, nagged by the thought that, had he gone to the media, thousands of lives might have been saved. His story is told in War of Numbers, published posthumously.

The annual Sam Adams Award has been given in previous years to truth tellers Coleen Rowley of the FBI;Katharine Gun of British Intelligence; Sibel Edmonds of the FBI; Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan; Sam Provance; former US Army Sgt at Abu Ghraib; Maj. Frank Grevil of Danish Army Intelligence;Larry Wilkerson, Col., U.S. Army (ret.), former chief of staff to Colin Powell at State; Julian Assange of WikiLeaks; and (ex aequo) to Thomas Drake, former senior official of NSA and Jesselyn Radack, Director of National Security and Human Rights, Government Accountability Project.

Worldwide Political and Financial Tensions, Spiralling Debt Crisis in America

recession

Until now the course of the crisis has been accurately described according to the five phases identified by our team from May 2006 (GEAB n°5) and completed in February 2009 (GEAB n°32): release, acceleration, impact, decanting and global geopolitical dislocation, the last two stages developing simultaneously. In the last issues and in particular the GEAB n°70 (December 2012), we commented extensively on the ongoing processes of the two last phases, a decantation from which the world-after painfully emerges on the rubble of world geopolitical dislocation.

But we had underestimated the decanting period’s duration which we have gone through for more than four years, a period during which all the crisis’ players have worked to a common goal, to gain time: the United States, whilst making every effort to prevent the appearance of alternative solutions to the dollar, in spite of the catastrophic situation of all its systemic fundamentals, to prevent its creditors from abandoning it (discrediting other currencies including the Yen from now on, tenacity against the attempts to disconnect oil from the dollar, etc…); the rest of the world, in setting up skilful strategies consisting of maintaining its assistance towards the United States to avoid a sudden collapse from which it would be the first to suffer, and at the same time constructing alternative and of decoupling solutions.At the end of this long period of the system’s apparent “anaesthesia”, we consider it necessary to add a sixth phase to our description of the crisis: the last impact phase which will occur in 2013.

The United States certainly believed that the rest of the world would have an interest in keeping its economy on artificial respiratory assistance ad infinitum but it is likely that they don’t believe it any more today. As regards the rest of the world, the final chapters of the US crisis (major political crisis, decisional paralysis, near miss of the fiscal cliff, perspective of a payment default in March, and always the incapacity to implement the least structural solution) convinced it of the imminence of a collapse, and all the players are on the look-out for the least sign of a swing to extricate themselves, conscious that by doing so they will precipitate the final collapse.

Our team considers that in the context of the extreme tensions – both domestic political and world financial tensions – induced by the next raising of the US debt ceiling in March 2013, the signs will not be lacking to cause the disappearance of US treasury bonds’ last purchasers, a disappearance which the Fed will no longer be able to compensate for, resulting in an increase in interest rates which will propel American indebtedness to astronomical levels, leaving no hope of ever being repaid to creditors who will prefer to throw in the towel and let the dollar collapse… a collapse of the dollar which will de facto correspond to the first genuine solution, painful certainly but real, for US indebtedness.

It’s for this reason also that our team anticipates that 2013, the first year of the World-Afterwards, will see a setting up of this “purifying” of US and world accounts. All the players are tending towards this step whose consequences are very difficult to predict but which is also an unavoidable solution to the crisis taking into account the United States structural incapacity to set up genuine debt-reduction strategies.But in order to take the measure of the causes and consequences of this last impact phase, let’s reconsider the reasons for which the system lasted for so long. Our team will then analyze the reasons for which the shock will take place in 2013 afterwards.

Saving time: When the world rejoices at the US status-quo

Since 2009 and the temporary measures to save the global economy, the world has been waiting for the famous “double dip”, the relapse, as the situation continues to worsen day by day for the United States: breathtakingly high national debt, mass unemployment and poverty, political paralysis, loss of influence, etc. However, this relapse still hasn’t arrived. Admittedly, the “exceptional measures” of assistance to the economy (lowest interest rates, public expenditure, debt repurchase, etc.) are still in force. But against all expectations and contrary to any objective and rational judgment, the markets still seem to have confidence in the United States.

Actually, the system isn’t based on confidence any more but on calculating the best moment to extricate themselves and the means of hanging on until then.The time has passed when China challenged the United States to implement a second round of quantitative easing (1): the world seems to have adapted itself to the fact that this country is still growing its debt and is inescapably turning towards a payment default, provided that it’s still standing and doesn’t make too many waves again. Why don’t the other countries press the United States to reduce its deficit, but on the contrary are delighted (2) when agreement on the fiscal cliff keeps the status-quo? However nobody is fooled, the situation cannot last indefinitely, and the world economy’s main problem is really the United States and its dollar (3).

Countries’ public debt by the number of months tax receipts (4) - Source: LEAP / European Commission, ONS, FRB

Countries’ public debt by the number of months tax receipts (4) – Source: LEAP / European Commission, ONS, FRB

According to the LEAP/E2020 team, the various players are seeking to gain time. For the markets, it is a question of gaining maximum benefit from the Fed and the US government’s largesse in order to make easy money; for the foreign countries, it’s a question of extracting their economies to the maximum from that of the United States in order to be able to shelter themselves at the time of the coming shock. Thus, for example, it’s how Euroland makes the most of it in order to strengthen itself and China takes advantage of it to sink its dollars in foreign infrastructures (5) which will always be better value than dollars when that currency is on the floor.

Acceleration of the tempo and a build-up of challenges

But this period of complicit leniency is coming to an end because of intense pressures. It is interesting to note that the pressures don’t really come from abroad, confirming our analysis above; those are rather of two sorts, internal and financial-economic.On the one hand, it’s the internal political battle which threatens the house of cards. If Obama appears to be traversing a period of political grace facing a seemingly subjugated republican camp, the battle will begin again even more violently than ever starting from March. Indeed, if the republican representatives will be undoubtedly obliged to vote the increase in the debt ceiling, they will make Obama pay dearly for this “capitulation”, pushed here by their electoral base half of which in fact wants a US default considered by them as the only solution to free them from the country’s pathological debt (6). The republicans thus hope to do battle on the many issues and challenges which are shaping up: on the social side, firearms regulation (7), taking a new look at immigration and the legalization of 11 million illegal immigrants (8), health care reform, and more generally questioning the Federal state’s role; on the economic side, lowering expenditure, debt settlement (9), fiscal cliff « redux » (10), etc… All these issues are on the next few months’ agenda and the least hitch can prove to be fatal. Given the republicans’ pugnacity and their supporters’ even more so, it’s rather the hope that there is no hitch which is utopian.On the other hand, it’s the international markets, Wall Street at the forefront, which threaten not to extend their confidence in the US economy. Since Hurricane Sandy and especially since the episode of the fiscal cliff which hasn’t fixed any problems, the pessimistic analyses and doubts are becoming increasingly strong (11). It’s necessary to keep in mind that the stock markets are stateless and, even domiciled in New York, have only one goal, profits. In 2013, the world is sufficiently extensive so that investors and their capital, just like a flight of sparrows, slip away to other skies on the slightest warning (12).Whereas agreement on the debt ceiling in 2011 settled the question for 18 months (13), that on the fiscal cliff defers the problem for only two months. Whilst one felt the effects of QE1 for a year, QE3 had an effect for only a few weeks (14). Besides, with a diary loaded with negotiations to come, one sees the tempo accelerate significantly, a sign that the abyss is approaching and players’ nervousness along with it.

S&P performance during each quantitative easing action - Source: ZeroHedge/SocGen

S&P performance during each quantitative easing action – Source: ZeroHedge/SocGen

March-June 2013, extreme tension: the least spark lights the blue touch-paper

In addition to these US challenges, the whole world also has many tests to pass, here again its economic challenges above all. In particular it’s Japan and the United Kingdom, key elements in the US sphere of influence, which are fighting for their survival, both in recession, with insupportable debts, household savings on the deck and with no prospect of a short-term solution. We will examine these two countries in detail later in this issue. But it’s also a Brazilian economy which is just ticking over (15); difficulty to manage inflation rates in the emerging powers; the deflation of the Canadian, Chinese and European real estate bubbles (16), etc…

The challenges are also of a geopolitical nature: to quote only three examples, African conflicts among which of course France’s intervention in Mali, conflicts and indirect confrontation of the Middle Eastern powers around Syria, Israel and Iran, as well as the territorial tensions around China which we will examine during our following analysis on Japan.All these factors, economic, geopolitical, American, global, are coming together at the same moment in time: the second quarter of 2013.

Our team has identified the period running from March to June 2013 as being explosive, in particular at the conclusion of the negotiations in the United States on the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff. The least spark will light the blue touch-paper, unleashing the second impact phase of the global systemic crisis. \

And there are many opportunities to create sparks, as we have seen.So what are the consequences of and the calendar for this second impact phase? On the markets initially, a significant fall will spread out until the end of 2013. All economies being inter-connected, the impact will spread throughout the whole planet and will drag the global economy into recession. Nevertheless, thanks to other countries’ decoupling which we mentioned previously, all countries won’t be affected in the same way. Because, more so than in 2008, opportunities exist for capital in Asia, Europe and Latin America, in particular.

In addition to the United States, the countries the most affected will be those in the US sphere, namely the United Kingdom and Japan primarily. And, while these countries will still struggle in 2014 with the social and political consequences of the impact, the other regions, BRICS and Euroland at the forefront, will finally see the end of the tunnel at that time.In order to understand the formation of this second impact phase, we next review the “suicidal tendencies” of four powers of the world before: the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and Israel.

Then we will present the traditional January “Ups & Downs”, rising and falling trends for 2013, also serving as recommendations for this New Year. Finally, as in each month, our readers will also find the GlobalEurometre.

Notes:

(1) One can refresh one’s memory here (Wall Street Journal, 18/10/2010) or here (US News, 29/10/2010).

(2) « Relief after the happy epilogue of the fiscal cliff » headline ForexPros.fr (02/01/2013); « Relief at fiscal cliff crisis deal » headline BBC (03/01/2013)…

(3) As identified by LEAP/E2020 since 2006 from the GEAB n°2.

(4) The banks’ public reflation is included in the United Kingdom’s debt.

(5) The Chinese being very active in this arena; one has numerous examples such as the port of Piraeus in Greece, Heathrow airport in the UK, in Africa, but also the takeover of industrial jewels (Volvo for example) etc. See, for example Emerging Money (China to invest in Western infrastructure, 28/11/2011).

(6) Read, for example, ZeroHedge, 14/01/2013.

(7) Source: Fox News, 30/12/2012.

(8) Source: New York Times, 12/01/2013.

(9) Source: New York Times, 15/01/2013.

(10) The budgetary cuts debate has simply been pushed back two months. Source: New Statesman, 02/01/2013.

(11) Like here (CNBC, 11/01/2013), here (MarketWatch, 14/01/2013) or here (CNBC, 08/01/2013).

(12) The United States will in their turn taste the irony of history: the financial market deregulation and globalisation which they promoted so much is going to turn round dramatically against them.

(13) It’s as at this point in time that the automatic cuts of 01/01/2013 were enacted to force a bipartisan agreement. Source: CNN Money (02/08/2011) or Wikipedia.

(14) For a reminder on these quantitative easing operations, one can refer to BankRate.com, Financial crisis timeline.

(15) Source: Les Échos, 05/12/2012.(16) See previous GEAB issues.

Government Pushes Propaganda Through Video Games

war is fun

We documented yesterday that American movies, television and news are dominated by the CIA and other government agencies.

The government also spreads propaganda through video games.

By way of example, former CIA director William Colby went to work for a video game company after he retired, and a former United States marine allegedly confessed to working at a video game company which was really a CIA front to create a game to drum up support for war against Iran.

The Guardian reports:

“For decades the military has been using video-game technology,” says Nina Huntemann, associate professor of communication and journalism at Suffolk University in Boston and a computer games specialist. “Every branch of the US armed forces and many, many police departments are using retooled video games to train their personnel.”

Like much of early computing, nascent digital gaming benefited from military spending. The prototype for the first home video games console, the 1972 Magnavox Odyssey, was developed by Sanders Associates, a US defence contractor. Meanwhile, pre-digital electronic flight simulators, for use in both military and civilian training, date back to at least the second world war.

Later, the games industry began to repay its debts. Many insiders note how instruments in British Challenger 2 tanks, introduced in 1994, look uncannily like the PlayStation’s controllers, one of the most popular consoles of that year. Indeed, warfare’s use of digital war games soared towards the end of the 20th century.

“By the late 1990s,” says Nick Turse, an American journalist, historian and author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives, “the [US] army was pouring tens of millions of dollars into a centre at the University of Southern California – the Institute of Creative Technologies – specifically to build partnerships with the gaming industry and Hollywood.” [The Washington Times reports on the link as well.]

It’s a toxic relationship in Turse’s opinion, since gaming leads to a reliance on remote-controlled warfare, and this in turn makes combat more palatable.

“Last year,” says Turse, “the US conducted combat missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. There are a great many factors that led to this astonishing number of simultaneous wars, but the increasing use of drones, and thus a lower number of US military casualties that result, no doubt contributed to it.”

The Christian Science Monitor noted in 2009:

In 1999, the military had its worst recruiting year in 30, and Congress called for “aggressive, innovative” new approaches. Private-sector specialists were brought in, including the top advertising agency Leo Burnett, and the Army Marketing Brand Group was formed. A key aim of the new recruitment strategy was to ensure long-term success by cultivating the allegiance of teenage Americans.

Part of the new campaign, helping the post-9/11 recruiting bump, was the free video game America’s Army. Since its release, different versions of the war game have been downloaded more than 40 million times, enough to put it in the Guinness book of world records. According to a 2008 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “the game had more impact on recruits than all other forms of Army advertising combined.”

***

That these efforts are unfaithful to war’s reality has not gone unnoticed. Protesting the Army Experience Center in Philadelphia, Sgt. Jesse Hamilton, who served two tours inIraq and nine total in the military, expressed disgust that the Army has “resorted to such a deceiving recruitment strategy.”

It’s an approach that could have detrimental long-term effects. “The video game generation is worse at distorting the reality” of war, according to one Air Force colonel. Although they may be more talented at operating predator drones, the colonel told theBrookings Institution, “They don’t have that sense of what [is] really going on.”

NBC News reported in 2003:

Video games are increasingly viewed by top brass as a way to get teenagers interested in enlisting.

Games such as “America’s Army,” developed and published by the Army, and “Guard Force,” which the Army National Guard developed with Alexandria, Va.-based Rival Interactive, can be downloaded or picked up at recruitment offices.

“America’s Army” has been a hit online since its July 2002 release, attaining 1.5 million registered users who endure a basic training regiment complete with barbed-wire obstacle courses and target practice.

“Guard Force” has been less successful. Released last year, it features bland synth-rock music that blares in the background. Between video commercials touting the thrills of enlisting in the Army National Guard, gamers pluck flood victims from rooftops or defend a snowy base. In the training mission, gamers deploy helicopters, even tanks, to rescue skiers trapped in an avalanche.

Foreign Policy argued last year:

Video games would seem to be ideal propaganda tools. Where comic books and newsreels once enthralled the Greatest Generation, today’s millennials are in love with video games. American consumers, for example, spent $25 billion on games in 2010, while gamers worldwide play 3 billion hours a week. Games also offer advantages over traditional propaganda mediums like television or newspapers: They are interactive and immersive, they and deliver challenge, competition, and the hands-on triumph of personally gunning down enemies.

***

Who could blame a CIA spymaster for pondering whether games could be used to demonize Iran or vilify Venezuela?

Michael Bauch writes:

Governments are increasingly trying to twist the [video game] business into a brainwashing machine to promote their agendas, just as has been done with the movie industry.

Why are video games such a perfect tool for governments and why are governments stepping up their usage of them? Because the Internet generation now have easy access to all information and points of view. Governments don’t want kids using the Internet to learn about these things. So governments need to keep kids distracted and under constant brainwashing. A typical American kid might go to school all morning learning about how great America is and how dangerous the rest of the world is, then come home and play some video games like Strategy 2012.

This game was free during the Presidential campaign and tells you who you should vote for and how political campaigns are run (or at least how the government would like you to think it’s done). This is the official game description: “Help Mitt Romney win the Nomination by beating his conservative rivals. Then choose Romney or Obama and fight for the presidency in Ohio.”

***

Not only are government-developed games spreading propaganda. Game developers are now accepting the norms set by the government like in Scribblenaughts where the game set’s a puzzle for you to solve by conjuring items. In one puzzle you get a mission called “Peacefully break up the Rioters!” What would a sane person try first? Well, I tried “Diplomat” and “Peacekeeper”. Neither had any effect. So I tried “Tear Gas” and had the crowd crying and disbursing in seconds, immediately earning a gold star just as you would in school when you have done something right! You can watch the video … of me playing the mission.

***

Now that the gaming industry have been infected by government propaganda they are now constantly sending the information they want to your kids.

You might assume that only foreigners are depicted as enemy targets in the propaganda video games.  But remember that peaceful protest and any criticism of the government is now considered potential terrorism.

As such, it should not be entirely surprising that the enemy target in the most popular video game series,Call of Duty – which is more popular than virtually any movie or musical album – is a Julian Assange like character who is the “leader of the 99%”.

And see this and this.  

By Design: French Mali Invasion Spills into Algeria

Exactly as predicted, the ongoing French “intervention” in the North African nation of Mali has spilled into Algeria – the next most likely objective of Western geopolitical interests in the region since the successful destabilization of Libya in 2011.

In last week’s “France Displays Unhinged Hypocrisy as Bombs Fall on Mali” report, it was stated specifically that:

“As far back as August of 2011, Bruce Riedel out of the corporate-financier funded think-tank, the Brookings Institution, wrote “Algeria will be next to fall,” where he gleefully predicted success in Libya would embolden radical elements in Algeria, in particular AQIM. Between extremist violence and the prospect of French airstrikes, Riedel hoped to see the fall of the Algerian government. Ironically Riedel noted:

Algeria has expressed particular concern that the unrest in Libya could lead to the development of a major safe haven and sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other extremist jihadis.

And thanks to NATO, that is exactly what Libya has become – a Western sponsored sanctuary for Al-Qaeda. AQIM’s headway in northern Mali and now French involvement will see the conflict inevitably spill over into Algeria. It should be noted that Riedel is a co-author of “Which Path to Persia?” which openly conspires to arm yet another US State Department-listed terrorist organization (list as #28), the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) to wreak havoc across Iran and help collapse the government there – illustrating a pattern of using clearly terroristic organizations, even those listed as so by the US State Department, to carry out US foreign policy.”

Now, it is reported that “Al Qaeda-linked” terrorists have seized American hostages in Algeria in what is being described by the Western press as “spill over” from France’s Mali operations.

The Washington Post, in their article, “Al-Qaida-linked militants seize BP complex in Algeria, take hostages in revenge for Mali,” claims:

“As Algerian army helicopters clattered overhead deep in the Sahara desert, Islamist militants hunkered down for the night in a natural gas complex they had assaulted Wednesday morning, killing two people and taking dozens of foreigners hostage in what could be the first spillover from France’s intervention in Mali.”

The Wall Street Journal, in its article, “Militants Grab U.S. Hostages in Algeria,” reports that:

“Militants with possible links to al Qaeda seized about 40 foreign hostages, including several Americans, at a natural-gas field in Algeria, posing a new level of threat to nations trying to blunt the growing influence of Islamist extremists in Africa.

As security officials in the U.S. and Europe assessed options to reach the captives from distant bases, Algerian security forces failed in an attempt late Wednesday to storm the facility.”

The WSJ also added:

“Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the U.S. would take “necessary and proper steps” in the hostage situation, and didn’t rule out military action. He said the Algeria attack could represent a spillover from Mali.”

And it is military action, both covert and incrementally more overt, that will see the West’s extremist proxies and the West’s faux efforts to stem them, increasingly creep over the Mali-Algerian border, as the old imperial maps of Europe are redrawn right before our eyes.

Image: The French Empire at its height right before the World Wars. The regions that are now Libya, Algeria, Mali, and the Ivory Coast all face reconquest by the French and Anglo-Americans, with French troops literally occupying the region and playing a pivotal role in installing Western-friendly client regimes. Also notice Syria too, was a French holding – now under attack by US-British-French funded, armed, and backed terrorists – the same terrorists allegedly being fought in Mali and now Algeria.

….

Meanwhile, these very same terrorist forces continue to receive funding, arms, covert military support, and diplomatic recognition in Syria, by NATO, and specifically the US and France who are both claiming to fight the “Free Syrian Army’s” ideological and very literal allies in North Africa.

In reality, Al Qaeda is allowing the US and France to intervene and interfere in Algeria, after attempts in 2011 to trigger political subversion was soundly defeated by the Algerian government. Al Qaeda is essentially both a casus belli and mercenary force, deployed by the West against targeted nations. It is clear that French operations seek to trigger armed conflict in Algeria as well as a possible Western military intervention there as well, with the Mali conflict serving only as a pretense.

US Interior secretary also leaving post

US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar intends to step down from his post at the end of March, becoming the fifth cabinet member to leave the Obama administration.

The news of Salazar’s plan to leave the administration came on Wednesday as The Denver Post reported that the former Colorado senator intends to “return to Colorado to spend time with his family.”

Salazar’s office has reportedly confirmed news of his intent to leave Obama’s cabinet.

Others leaving the Obama administration in his second term in office are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leaon Panetta, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.

White House Chief of Staff Jacob Lew is also due to leave his post since he has been nominated by President Barack Obama to replace Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Obama intends to appoint “a key national security deputy,” Denis McDonough, as his new White House chief of staff, widely viewed as the closest advisor to the US president and “the gatekeeper to the Oval Office.”


Democratic Massachusetts Senator and former US presidential nominee John Kerry has been nominated to replace Clinton at the State Department and is widely expected to win a Senate confirmation.

Former Republican Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel has been nominated to take over as the next US Defense Secretary, replacing Leon Panetta.

Hagel’s confirmation, however, is expected to be difficult as he has come under harsh attacks from pro-Israeli Republican conservatives for criticizing the “Jewish Lobby” in the United States and opposing US or Israeli military strikes as well as economic sanctions against Iran while he was in the US Senate.

MFB/MFB

Obama-Netanyahu row strains ties ahead of Israeli elections

Barack Obama (R) and Benjamin Netanyahu (AFP Photo / Jim Warson)

Barack Obama (R) and Benjamin Netanyahu (AFP Photo / Jim Warson)

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has dismissed damning comments by US President Barack Obama on Israel’s settlement policy. The heated rhetoric may signal a split in Israel-US relations, as Netanyahu is expected to win his country’s upcoming elections.

Responding to President Obama’s warning that Israel was “going down the path to near-total isolation,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stressed Israel’s right to self-determination.

“Everyone understands only Israelis will determine who faithfully represents Israel’s vital interests,” Netanyahu said during a visit to the Israel Defense Forces’ Gaza division. He emphasized that the US sought for Israel to “restrain our pressure on Iran, withdraw to the 1967 lines, divide Jerusalem and cease construction in Jerusalem.”

Shrugging off US influence, Netanyahu said that Israel had “fended off those pressures.”

The Israeli Prime Minister’s comments came after American political commentator Jeffrey Goldberg published a blog post on Bloomberg on Obama’s response to Israel’s announcement it will build thousands of homes in the West Bank.

“Obama said privately and repeatedly that Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are,” Goldberg wrote, quoting Obama. “With each new settlement announcement, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation.”

Following the UN’s recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state last year, Netanyahu announced plans to build 4,000 housing units in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The plans provoked international condemnation by human rights groups and world governments.

The US voted against Palestine’s bid for de facto statehood in the UN General Assembly, but Goldberg warned in his blog that in the future, Israel may not be able to rely on US support and vetoes in the UN.

Members of Netanyahu’s Likud party were enraged by the US president’s comments, condemning them as “gross interference” and a US attempt to meddle in the upcoming Israeli elections.

The Obama administration’s relationship with Netanyahu has become increasingly frosty over the past year.

Netanyahu and Obama came close to diplomatic blows on a number of occasions over how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. Last year, the Israeli prime minister repeatedly called for US aid for a military strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities. Obama has sought to defuse Netanyahu’s aggression towards Israel’s rival, and has preferred to ratchet up pressure on Tehran through financial sanctions.

The two leaders’ increasingly stormy relationship could herald a rift in a traditional alliance now that polls project that Netanyahu will win the upcoming Israeli elections.

Obama’s America Expands Its Global Overreach

In January 2003, headlines such as "American Empire: Get used to it" seemed commonplace. In the wake of 9/11, the United States had already invaded Afghanistan, was weeks away from invading Iraq and in the middle of a "global war on terror."

Mehdi’s Morning Memo: Cable Vs Cameron

The ten things you need to know on Thursday 17 January 2013...

1) CABLE VS CAMERON

First there was an American diplomat. Then a German politician. Then a former British ambassador. And then, of course, a group of eurosceptic Tory backbenchers. Everyone seems to have something to say on Britain's relationship with Europe ahead of David Cameron's 'tantric' speech on the subject in the Netherlands tomorrow.

Tonight, just a few hours ahead of the PM's address, it's Vince Cable's turn. As Ned Simons and I report:

"In a speech to business leaders on Thursday, the Lib Dem business secretary will say it is a 'terrible time' to have the 'diversion and uncertainty' which build up to a referendum would entail.

“'Uncertainty is the enemy of investment. At a time of extreme fragility in business confidence such uncertainty would add to the sense of unresolved crisis and weaken Britain’s ability to deliver more reform inside the EU,' he will say.

"... Taking aim at eurosceptic Tory backbenchers, Cable will use his speech on Thursday evening to say that it will be “next to impossible” to safeguard the UK national interest in the Single Market if London tries to disengage from its existing commitments.

“'The eurosceptic calculation is that British permission is necessary for closer integration- via treaty change- and that this permission can be traded for the negotiating objectives. That seems to me a dangerous gamble to make,' he will say."

There aren't many Tories who like Vince Cable and there'll be even fewer after he delivers tonight's speech in Oxfordshire. A senior Lib Dem official tells us that the the party wants "to give the Tories enough rope to hang themselves with".

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports:

"In the runup to the [Cameron] speech, a group of prominent City figures have written to the Telegraph in support of an in-out referendum, and a group of 30 pro-European Tory MPs, including Ken Clarke and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, have written a letter charging the prime minister with jeopardising Margaret Thatcher's foremost European legacy, the single market. The MPs warn: 'We fear that a renegotiation which seems to favour the UK alone would force other capitals to ask why they cannot simply dispense with those parts of the single market that don't suit them, potentially endangering Margaret Thatcher's defining European legacy.'"

2) 'THE EDGE OF THE CLIFF'

The Tories' seem pretty divided on Europe - something Ed Miliband was keen to highlight during prime minister's questions yesterday. But what's Labour's position? We may found out today when shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander gives his own speech on Europe (yep, everyone's at it!) in which he will say:

“The gap between the minimum the Tories will demand and the maximum our European partners can accept remains unbridgeable."

Meanwhile, his boss, the Labour leader Ed Miliband, has told the Financial Times that David Cameron was about to take Britain "to the edge of an economic cliff" with a promise of an EU referendum, which he believes will also reawaken "collective" hysteria" in the Conservative Party.

Miliband told the FT that he is "not in favour now of committing to an in-out referendum - it wouldn't be the right thing for our country. The priority for this country is to focus on our economic difficulties and getting out of those difficulties and you don't do that by putting a big 'closed for business' sign around Britain."

Cameron "should be listening to the CBI and not Nigel Farage", the Labour leader added.

Oooh...

3) COLLECTIVE (IR)RESPONSIBILITY

Europhobes in the cabinet (IDS? Owen Paterson? Chris Grayling?) will be delighted - from the Guardian:

"The prime minister has refused to confirm or deny claims that he has given cabinet colleagues freedom to campaign for Britain to exit the European Union in a future referendum."

It could be 1975 all over again...

4) 'ROM THEIR WAY'

That's the headline in the Sun this morning, which reports:

"Up to 350,000 Romanians and Bulgarians could flock to Britain when restrictions are lifted at the end of this year, a report warns today.

"The influx would equal a city the size of Leicester.

"A new analysis estimates 50,000 Romanians and Bulgarians could arrive each year — or 250,000 over the next five years. But that figure could hit 70,000 annually — or 350,000 over five years, according to..."

Hmm. According to who? Yep, you guessed it:

"...campaign group Migration Watch."

But earlier this week, the prime minister said that the detail for such calculations "wasn't there yet" and as the BBC reports:

"Sarah Mulley, of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) think tank said that although it was 'very difficult to predict migration flows with any degree of confidence in these circumstances' the estimates put forward by Migration Watch 'look high'.

"She said: 'The UK is opening access to its labour markets along with the rest of Europe and the process of opening up to Bulgaria and Romania has been a gradual one, in contrast with 2004 when the UK was the only large EU country to open its labour market and when borders and labour market access were opened at the same time.

"'So it would be very surprising if net migration from Bulgaria and Romania was on the scale predicted by Migration Watch.'"

Watch this space.

5) BARACK OBAMA VS THE NRA

Second-term Obama seems to have found his cojones - from my HuffPost colleagues in the US:

"In a bold and potentially historic attempt to stem the increase in mass gun violence, President Barack Obama unveiled on Wednesday the most sweeping effort at gun control policy reform in a generation.

"'This is our first task as a society: keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged,' Obama said. 'We can’t put this off any longer.'

"... [T]he president recommended requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales; reinstating the assault weapons ban; restoring a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines; eliminating armor-piercing bullets; providing mental health services in schools; allocating funds to hire more police officers; and instituting a federal gun trafficking statute, among other policies. The cost of the package, senior officials estimated, would be roughly $500 million, some of which could come from already budgeted funds."

The NRA isn't happy. Prior to the president's announcement, America's largest gun lobby released a TV ad in which

"... a narrator argued that the Secret Service protection provided to Obama's two daughters, Sasha and Malia, is evidence that the president is an 'elitist hypocrite,' who wants armed guards for his own daughters, but not for other people's children. The ad was widely panned as soon as it was released, and White House spokesman Jay Carney called it 'repugnant and cowardly.'"

"Has the NRA lost it entirely?" asks Salon's Joan Walsh.

Er, yes.

BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR...

Watch this video of two dogs Skypeing each other.

6) AFGHAN REDUX?

From the Times splash:

"British special forces were on standby last night to mount a rescue mission after al-Qaeda militants in Algeria took scores of foreign workers hostage, including up to five Britons.

"One British citizen was killed in the bloody siege at a BP gas plant in the East of the country — the worst terrorist crisis of David Cameron's premiership and one of the largest foreign kidnappings of recent times. The militants, from neighbouring Mali, claimed that they were responding to a decision by France, supported by Britain, to attack al-Qaeda Islamists in their country."

The paper adds:

"In a move that could increase tensions further, MPs approved plans yesterday to send a small number of British military personnel to help to train Mali's demoralised army as it battles to reclaim the sprawling north of the country from jihadists.

"Britain has contributed two transport aircraft to help the French mission, but was expected to send a small number of soldiers to Bamako, the Malian capital, as early as next month under proposals drawn up by the European Union."

But the Daily Mail's leader argues that "it would surely be disastrous for Britain to commit more of our overstretched men and equipment to a cause not obviously our own". It says:

"Indeed, in the rapidly escalating conflict in Mali, where France will triple its troop deployment 'within days', aren't there chilling echoes of Afghanistan? There, too - where the bloodshed continues after more than a decade - Britain took arms against a tribal enemy as a gesture of solidarity with an ally.

"In Mali, as in Afghanistan, the insurgents are proving a more formidable foe than expected, armed as they are with heavy machine guns, Kalashnikovs and rocketpropelled grenades.

"... As France calls for more international support, is it too much to hope that David Cameron will remember the British lives lost and the sobering lessons of our oh-so-recent history - and just say No?"

7) LABOUR'S IRON MAN?

The cover story of the Guardian's G2 supplement has a rather startling headline this morning: "Could Ed be Labour's Thatcher?"

Author Andy Beckett, a long-time Miliband-watcher, draws a fascinating comparison between the Labour leader and the Tories' most famous, successful and right-wing leader. He writes:

"Members of Miliband's unusually small inner circle are also open about their preoccupation with – and even sometimes admiration for – what Thatcher subsequently achieved in her 15 years as opposition leader and prime minister."

The whole thing is worth a read - and not just because Beckett plugs my biog of the Labour leader in the opening paragraph.

8) AUSTERITY WATCH, PART 129

From the Times:

"More than 100,000 disabled people will lose basic home support under government reforms of social care, leading disability groups are warning.

"Five charities including Scope, Mencap and Leonard Cheshire argue that the care system is already underfunded by at least £1.2 billion and “is on the verge of breakdown”.

"... In a report published today the charities say that 40 per cent of disabled people are already failing to get the basic care they need, such as help with washing, dressing, cooking and eating."

9) FORMER ISRAELI PM ACCUSES CURRENT ISRAELI PM

From the Daily Beast:

"Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says the government of Benjamin Netanyahu spent almost $3 billion in the past two years preparing for a war against Iran's nuclear program that it probably never intended to wage.

In an interview with The Daily Beast, Olmert said the sum was above and beyond the billions allocated to the defense budget and helped raise Israel’s fiscal deficit to heights it hadn’t reached in years. As a result, he said, Netanyahu would be forced to make broad spending cuts, if reelected next week..."

Now that's what I call a deficit debate...

10) 'MY MATHS ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH'

From the HuffPost UK:

"Wonga's head of regulatory and public affairs has told a committee of MPs that he could not work out the interest on a loan from his own company because 'my maths isn't good enough.'

"Henry Raine, head of regulatory and public affairs at the payday loans company, defended his business to the House of Commons Public Accounts committee, where he was grilled by chair and Labour MP Margaret Hodge on the effectiveness of consumer credit regulation."

PUBLIC OPINION WATCH

From the latest Ipsos-MORI poll:

Labour 43
Conservatives 30
Ukip 9
Lib Dems 8

That would give Labour a majority of 124.

140 CHARACTERS OR LESS

@DanHannanMEP The lobby is covering the PM's coming speech in terms of party management. They're missing the epochal significance of an In/Out referendum.

@edballsmp When David Cameron gets so desperate he has to claim Labour wants Britain to join the single currency, you know he's really losing it..

@TheOnion On Tonight's ONNCast: NRA Fights Legislation That Would Ban Gun Sales To Those Currently On Killing Sprees

900 WORDS OR MORE

James Forsyth, writing in this week's Spectator, says: "Cameron’s European moment has come – a year late."

Peter Oborne, writing in the Telegraph, says: "Tony Blair’s record in the Middle East is a sorry one – it’s time he quit."

Slavoj Zizek, writing in the Guardian, says: "The west's crisis is one of democracy as much as finance."


Got something you want to share? Please send any stories/tips/quotes/pix/plugs/gossip to Mehdi Hasan (mehdi.hasan@huffingtonpost.com) or Ned Simons (ned.simons@huffingtonpost.com). You can also follow us on Twitter: @mehdirhasan, @nedsimons and @huffpostukpol

War in Syria, Lebanon Remains in Limbo

lebanon

BEIRUT – On arrival to Lebanon’s capital city, all seems very functional and normal on the surface, as the city runs business as usual.

Below the surface however, there is a feeling of trepidation, an unspoken collective worry that a city and country who has gradually managed to pick up the pieces from the decades-long conflict which stretched through the 70’s and 80’s, an Israeli occupation of its south, followed by a brief, albeit destructive, ‘33 Day War’ with Israel in 2006 – might once again be dragged into another sub-regional conflict. It goes without saying that police and security services in Lebanon are on high alert.

Tourism Hit

The neighboring conflict has also had a very negative impact on Lebanon’s tourism, keeping away the much-needed outside currency for which many jobs, small hotels and other SMEs are dependent for their economic survival. But despite the recent problems, Beirut is still moving ahead, still attracting some foreign investment made visible by the hundreds of new building projects springing up all over the city. And as expected, the restaurants seem busy and the cafes are still buzzing.

Already there is a tangible presence of Syrian refugees in Lebanon and in the capital Beirut, who have fled from the fighting and breakdown of society currently unfolding next door. The impact of the Syrian conflict on its neighbor Lebanon in such a short space of time is substantial.

Latest reports put the number of Syrian refugees recently accumulated in Lebanon at 300,000. This figure is contrasted by the number of Palestinian refugees whose ancestors fled Israel’s ethnic cleanings in 1947-48, still housed in Lebanon today – which is currently estimated at 500,000.

The Issue of Sectarianism

Lebanon is, more than ever, a demonstration of sectarianism par excellence. In of country of 4 million, there is differentiation within the Christian community – Greek Orthodox, Maronite, Melkite, Greek Catholic and Roman Catholic, as well as within and the Muslim community – Sunnis, Shi’ites, and Druze.  In addition to this, there is a substantial Armenian community, a large community of foreign nationals from the US and Europe, Asian and African migrant workers, and a small Jewish community. One might also note that the internal rifts between Christian and Muslim factions are almost as great as that between the polarity separating Christians and Muslim as a whole.

That said, it is also the only society in the region where contrasting religions and cultures are completely intermingled and where tolerance has evolved into a virtue.

Xmas

Co-existance: A scene from a recent Christmas illustrates the country’s diversity (PHOTO: Mary Henningsen)

In its totality, Lebanon consists of some of 19 religions and dozens more ethnic , groups. Many a thesis and book have sought to chronicle (and will continue to argue no doubt) this strive towards cultural détente in the Levant. One such writer is Lebanese-American Professor Walid Phares, who sums up the country’s current alignment as follows:

“Although multi-ethic and multi-religious, Lebanon was viewed by the political establishment as a unitary republic which can only have a majority and a minority. Therefore, and without a mechanism of decentralization, Federation or simply pluralism, that establishment was vying over who really represents the “majority” of all Lebanese, and who reduced to a “minority.” The debate was then about numbers, census, demographic changes, communities who have allegedly increased in numbers because of poverty versus communities who have decreased in numbers because of emigration. But that was a false problem.”

Much of the country’s political energy has been expended over the course of the last half century in determining who is the majority and who is the minority, and although the intention was to present a fair solution to representation in its central government, it has also been the source of internal power-politics, which some believe laid down a fertile soil for the sharp upheaval Lebanon experienced from 1975 onward.

Nowhere is the nation’s simmering ‘political ratio’ reflected more than in its own constitution – a document which goes to extraordinary lengths to secure some form of socio-religious balance. The Lebanese constitution mandates that the office President should be held by a Maronite Christian, the Speaker of the House held by a Shi’ite Muslim, and the post of Prime Minister held by a Sunni Muslim.

IMG_1457

Beirut shoulders a diverse collection of ethnic groups, along with their corresponding political issues (PHOTO: Patrick Henningsen)

Many academics such as Phares, feel that the future would be brighter if Lebanon would embrace its multicultural reality and take a feather out of Belgium’s or Canada’s cap, and consider phasing out its historical obsession with ethnic and religious minorities and majorities. In other words, if Lebanon could embrace ‘multiculturalism’, it wouldn’t need the old system. This idea is easier said than done, as vested political interests and blood spilled over decades has, to a large degree, cemented traditional political and social paradigms into place.

Syria Simmering Next Door

What’s foremost on the minds of Lebanese in 2013 is what will happen with Syria, and will Lebanon we dragged to their war. Alongside this, many are left questioning whether or not Lebanon will ever achieve some form of long-term peace with its southern neighbor Israel. The former is the key to its short-term prosperity, while the latter is the key to healing wounds still festering from the wars, as well as the influx of Palestinians it has had to shoulder since 1948.

The situation in Syria is made even more complex by the fact that a number of foreign powers with vested interests in Damascus regime change are supplying fighters, arms, logistics, money and mass media support – which has always been a recipe for chaos throughout history. Among these foreign actors vying for position in Syria are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, US, UK and France (somehow, it’s all beginning to look more and more like pre-WWI power-politics).

Syria has long played an overshadowing role in the stability – and destiny of its smaller neighbor Lebanon. The scares still run deep from Syria’s obtuse and often disjointed alliances with different factions over the course of Lebanon’s Civil Wars in the 70’s and 1980’s. The result of Syria’s hand in those affairs has been a dysfunctional, and often times confusing relationship between Damascus and Beirut, as well as the cause for political dysfunction within Beirut itself.

In 2013, however, the alignments are markedly different from previous decades. For starters, Syria, itself, is now a major piece on the global chessboard, not least of all because of its three major allies, all of whom seem to run contrary to central planning in the West – namely, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran and now Russia. All interested parties see Syria as the key domino, and this, rightly so, is the cause for much worry right now.

Lebanon has a number of internal issues I’m sure it would prefer to sort out first before being dragged into another sub-regional conflagration – like it’s own central government, its economy, its potentially massive tourism trade, and of course, the Palestinian refugee issue.

Yesterday, I was able to travel south the ancient city of Tyre, some 16km from the the Israeli border. The ruins are stunning, but so are the Palestinian refugee camp which runs alongside it. It’s was a little tragic, if not amusing to discover there that some Palestinians in need of rock for building their homes had permanently borrowed some of the antiquity ruins next door. In a certain way, some five millennia of history puts the current protracted upheaval into some perspective.

IMG_1366

Ancient city of Tyre in Lebanon (PHOTO: Patrick Henningsen)

The recent past certainly has pulled Lebanon down in a spiral of social tension and extreme economic strife, but set against the larger backdrop of successive empires and cultures who have been overlaid on to this small, but historically pivotal region, it’s merely the latest chapter in a much larger epic novel. Many people outside of Lebanon – academics, archeologists, tourists – all long to see Lebanon achieve stability and one day showcase its incredible cultural and historical wealth to the world.

In essence, making the difficult transition from a fractured state, to one of stability and eventual prosperity. I talked about this to one long-term Beirut resident, named Jamal, who put it simply, “To do all this, first we need to have peace.”

It’s that simple. On paper anyway.

Writer Patrick Henningsen is a correspondent for the UK Column, as well as host of 21st Century Wire TV programme airing Thursdays at 6pm on PSTV SKY channel 191 in the UK.

IRGC unyielding against enemy threats’

‘IRGC unyielding against enemy threats: Iran cmdr.

Commander of Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Major General Mohammad-Ali Jafari (file photo)

The Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) says the Iranian Armed Forces will be unyielding in their response to any enemy threat.

Major General Mohammad-Ali Jafari on Wednesday pointed to the complete readiness of Iranian Armed Forces to face enemy threats, saying, “In response to any kind of enemy threats, we have envisioned unyielding reactions.”

“The enemies of the Islamic Revolution are in crisis and think that by spreading this crisis to other parts [of the world] they will be able to control the public opinion of their nations, ” the general said.


Jafari stated that the threadbare, outdated and tried scenarios that enemies use against the Iranian nation will have no result but strengthening the pillars of the Islamic Revolution.

“We are determined to use all capacities to safeguard the achievements of the [Islamic] establishment and revolution like before, and on this path, we are moving towards brighter horizons,” Jafari stated.

Israel has frequently threatened to attack Iran's nuclear facilities based on the unfounded allegation that Iran's nuclear energy program has been diverted towards military purposes.

Iran rejects the allegation, arguing that as a committed signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Iranian officials have also vowed a crushing response to any military strike against the country, warning that any such measure could result in a war that would spread beyond the Middle East.

KA/HGH/SS

Deafness at Doomsday

To our great peril, the scientific community has had little success in recent years influencing policy on global security. Perhaps this is because the best scientists today are not directly responsible for the very weapons that threaten our safety, and are therefore no longer the high priests of destruction, to be consulted as oracles as they were after World War II.(Image: Yarek Waszul)

The problems scientists confront today are actually much harder than they were at the dawn of the nuclear age, and their successes more heartily earned. This is why it is so distressing that even Stephen Hawking, perhaps the world’s most famous living scientist, gets more attention for his views on space aliens than his views on nuclear weapons.Scientists’ voices are crucial in the debates over the global challenges of climate change, nuclear proliferation and the potential creation of new and deadly pathogens. But unlike in the past, their voices aren’t being heard.

Indeed, it was Albert Einstein’s letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, warning of the possibility that Hitler might develop a nuclear weapon, that quickly prompted the start of the Manhattan Project, the largest scientific wartime project in history. Then, in 1945, the same group of physicists who had created the atomic bomb founded the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to warn of the dangers of nuclear weapons, and to promote international cooperation to avoid nuclear war. As Einstein said in May 1946, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

The men who built the bomb had enormous prestige as the greatest physics minds of the time. They included Nobel laureates, past and future, like Hans A. Bethe, Richard P. Feynman, Enrico Fermi, Ernest O. Lawrence and Isidor Isaac Rabi.

In June 1946, for instance, J. Robert Oppenheimer, who had helped lead the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos, N.M., argued that atomic energy should be placed under civilian rather than military control. Within two months President Harry S. Truman signed a law doing so, effective January 1947.

Today, nine nuclear states have stockpiled perhaps 20,000 nuclear weapons, many of which dwarf the weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet proliferation is as alarming as ever, even though President Obama signed, and Congress ratified, the new strategic arms-reduction treaty in 2010. Iran’s nuclear program could lead to conflict. So could the animosity between India and Pakistan, which both have nuclear weapons.

The United States is complicit, because whatever our leaders may say, our actions suggest that we have no real intention to disarm. The United Nations adopted the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which would ban countries from testing nuclear weapons, in 1996. But it has not come into force; the Senate rejected ratification in 1999, and while President Obama has promised to obtain ratification, he has not shown enough urgency in doing so.

What’s striking is that today’s version of the Manhattan Project scientists — not the weapons researchers at our maximum-security national laboratories, but distinguished scientific minds at our research universities and other national labs — provide advice that is routinely ignored.

Last year, the National Academy of Sciences published a report demonstrating that all the technical preconditions necessary for ratifying the United Nations treaty were in place. But this vital issue did not come up in the presidential campaign and is barely mentioned in Washington. Another study by the academy last year, on flaws in America’s costly ballistic missile defense program, has had little impact even as the Pentagon considers cuts in military spending.

I am co-chairman of the board of sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which has supported the call for a world free of nuclear weapons — a vision backed by major foreign policy figures in both parties. But ideological biases have become so ingrained in Washington that scientific realities are subordinated to political intransigence.

Do scientists need to develop new doomsday tools before our views are again heard? Will climate researchers remain voiceless unless they propose untested geoengineering technologies that could have insidious consequences? Will biologists be heard only if their work spawns new biotechnologies that could be weaponized?

Because the threat of nuclear proliferation is not being addressed, because missile defense technologies remain flawed and because new threats exposed by scientists have been ignored, the Bulletin’s annual Doomsday clock — which was updated on Tuesday — still sits at five minutes to midnight. The clock is meant to convey the threats we face not only from nuclear weapons, but also from climate change and the potential unintended consequences of genetic engineering, which could be misused by those seeking to create bioweapons.

Until science and data become central to informing our public policies, our civilization will be hamstrung in confronting the gravest threats to its survival.

© 2012 The New York Times

Lawrence Krauss

Lawrence M. Krauss, member of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and a theoretical physicist at Arizona State University, is the author, most recently, of “A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing.”

Mission Impossible? Ex-Ministers suggest ways to restore Russia-US partnership

As relations between Moscow and Washington turn increasingly frosty, two former high-ranking Russian and American officials have called for a series of measures to bring the two nuclear superpowers back in from the cold.

Former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, together with former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, co-wrote an article in The New York Times (“A New Agenda for U.S.-Russia Cooperation,” Dec. 30, 2012) that suggests various bilateral-building initiatives between the two former Cold War foes.

Albright and Ivanov believe that since Presidents Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama are back in power for another six years and four years, respectively, the time is ripe for Moscow and Washington to restore the shine to the partnership.

But is the nostalgia for the Clinton-Yeltsin era, when Russia and America – not to mention Albright and Ivanov – enjoyed all the advantages of a rock-solid Russia-US relationship, clouding their perception of the current realities?

On the other hand, are the two former high-ranking Russian and American officials correct in their assumption that putting the Russia-US relationship back on track simply requires the fine-tuning of a few diplomatic channels?

Whatever the case may be, the first step, they advise, is to put arms reduction between the two countries on the fast track.

Considering the question as to whether it is necessary to wait until 2018 for reducing nuclear stockpiles, "START III has become a truly important achievement in (the reduction of nuclear weapons), but it is possible to do more,” they write.

Reminding that "Russia and the United States control 90 to 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons,” Albright and Ivanov believe it is possible to “continue negotiations of further reductions and still safely ensure our security.”

There is just one problem, however, with Russia agreeing to any substantial cuts in its ballistic missile arsenal: America has shown its determination to build an all-encompassing missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. In other words, Washington apparently thinks that Moscow will drop its sword at precisely the same time the US is constructing a mighty shield .

Albright and Ivanov, admitting that the US missile defense project “continues to cast a shadow over possible progress on arms control, even though both NATO and Russia say they want to cooperate in that sphere,"  may be underestimating the chances for setting things straight.

Indeed, there is a vast difference between words and deeds, as Russia is keenly aware as the US and NATO hold out promises on cooperation on the project that continually lead to a diplomatic dead-end.

Moscow, clearly at the end of its political patience, has warned that the construction of the system – without Russia’s participation – would upset the strategic applecart, thus putting the world at risk of another arms race. Despite such unappealing prospects, the US and NATO refuse to heed Russia’s warning, continuing on the construction of the project just miles from the Russian border.

Nevertheless, Albright and Ivanov remain positive that their two governments will find a way to overcome the atmosphere of mistrust that the ABM system has created.

Saying that “now is the time to be creative,” they go so far as to argue that missile defense could ultimately prove to be a “game-changer,” thereby uniting NATO and Russia “in protecting Europe."

While such a turn of events would certainly put the shine back in the bilateral relationship, are Madeleine Albright and Igor Ivanov being overly optimistic and even unrealistic about the chances of such a change of heart on the part of Washington?

After all, many Americans, and not least of all Americans who belong to the Democratic party, have given up hope on Barack Obama, who has backtracked on a number of dusty campaign pledges, including his promise to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, as well as the pledge to “sit down and talk with America’s enemies.”

If unleashing aerial hell on America’s enemies courtesy of drone attacks may be considered “talking,” then Obama has certainly kept his word on that point (the US leader has authorized just under 300 drone attacks in Pakistan, six times more than during George W. Bush's two-term presidency).

In other words, if Barack Obama finds it so easy to retreat from his promises to members of his own constituency, it seems highly probable that he will find it equally easy to go back on his word with the Russians.

Meanwhile, Albright and Ivanov argue that the combined efforts of their respective governments in slashing nuclear stockpiles will set an example for other countries, possibly even enhancing the “credibility of our diplomacy in mobilizing international pressure on Iran to refrain from trying to build a nuclear weapon.”

Some countries, including the United States and Israel, believe that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon. Tehran vehemently denies the claims, saying they are conducting nuclear research in an effort to provide a reliable energy source for their people.

Albright and Ivanov mentioned other trouble spots in the relationship, including their stance on Syria, where a western-backed militant opposition is attempting to usurp President Bashar al-Assad.

Despite differences in the bilateral relationship, “[I]t is essential not to interrupt dialogue even on those issues where positions differ substantially,” the article says.

On the question of Afghanistan, that has been the scene of a long war between Coalition forces and the Taliban,“Washington and Moscow, together with others, should support Afghan leadersinconstructingastablesociety, ableto withstand pressure from violent extremist groups," it says.

Indeed, the cornerstone of the Russia-US relationship has been the declared willingness to work together in the fight against terrorism, as well as on other fronts.

Albright and Ivanov called on Moscow and Washington to put disagreements behind them and “embark on a historic mission to start a new chapter” in relations between the two countries.

While that would represent a chapter of a book that many people on both sides of the Atlantic would like to read, it will be interesting to see if Moscow and Washington have the political will to move their relations forward the next four years.

Albright currently serves as a Professor of International Relations at Georgetown University's Walsh School of Foreign Service, while Igor Ivanov serves as President of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).

Robert Bridge, RT

IAEA delegation arrives in Tehran

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Deputy Director General Herman M.G. Nackaerts (C) talks with reporters upon returning from his trip to Iran, December 14, 2012.

A delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has arrived in the Iranian capital of Tehran for a new round of negotiations with Iranian officials.

The delegation, led by the agency’s Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts, was welcomed by Iran's Ambassador to the IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh on Wednesday.

The IAEA experts are expected to discuss issues regarding Tehran’s nuclear energy program with Iranian officials in the coming hours.

The agency says the visit is aimed at finalizing a framework agreement with Iran.

Nackaerts, who is also the head of the IAEA Department of Safeguards, said on Tuesday that the Agency’s inspectors also hope to win Iran’s green light to visit the country’s Parchin military site.

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano had earlier claimed that Iran was making efforts to ‘clean up traces of nuclear activity’ at the Parchin site.

Iran has rejected the allegation of nuclear activities being carried out at the Parchin military site. Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has further pointed out that it is technically impossible to clean up places where nuclear work has been done.


Iran and the IAEA had last met and held talks in Tehran on December 14, 2012. Nackaerts said, at that time, progress had been made in negotiations between the agency and the Islamic Republic.

The United States, Israel and some of their allies accuse Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.

Iran refutes the allegation and argues that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the IAEA, it is entitled to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

TE/PKH/HJL

Syria a Humanitarian Disaster – People Demand a Political Settlement Without Assad

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item.

Bio

Omar S. Dahi is an assistant professor of economics. He received his B.A. in economics from California State University at Long Beach, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in economics from the University of Notre Dame, Indiana. His research and teaching interests are in the areas of economic development and international trade, with a special focus on South-South economic cooperation, and on the political economy of the Middle East and North Africa.

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.

On January 6, President Assad of Syria gave a speech to his nation. Here are a few excerpts of what he had to say....ASSAD (AS PER PAUL JAY): Terrorists holding the views of al-Qaeda who call themselves jihadists are the ones running the terrorist operations here, and we are fighting them. It's not impossible to destroy them if we have the courage. Whoever talks of a solely political solution only is turning a blind eye to the facts, and he is either ignorant or has been fooled into selling his people in the blood of martyrs for free, and we will not allow this. We are now in a state of war in every sense of the word. This war targets Syria using a handful of Syrians and many foreigners. Thus this is a war of defending the nation. We will have dialog with all those who opposed us politically and all who have rejected our positions, as long as their positions were not based on trying to destroy our principles and our foundations....JAY: Now joining us to talk about Assad's speech and the situation in Syria is Omar Dahi. He's an assistant professor of economics at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. He's also editor at The Middle East Report. And he grew up in Syria.Thanks very much for joining us, Omar.OMAR DAHI, ASSISTANT ECONOMICS PROF., HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE: Thanks for having me.JAY: So, first of all, what's your reaction to Assad's speech?DAHI: Well, in general it was similar to many speeches that he gave before. He explored the same themes, that the country overall is under attack by terrorists internally and under attack by the international sort of conspiracy by the West aimed to destroy Syria because of its anti-Israel resistant position, more broadly its sort of anti-imperialist position. It also in many ways was worse than previous speeches, in that in previous speeches he usually started off by saying that there were initially some demands, there were initially some peaceful demonstrations, but they turned violent. In this speech, he seemed to say that from the very beginning this was a plot and this was violent and these were terrorist acts and it was never an opposition versus a government, it was never a revolution, it was always a big plot against the nation. He ended the speech with some things that people who were trying to look for hopeful signs saw [as] perhaps encouraging, saying that maybe there will be a process where there's going to be a dialog, and then there is going to be perhaps a transition with a new constitution that'll be voted on. But in reality, most of those themes in one way or another were in previous speeches. Overall, it was a negative speech, but not something unexpected, given the pattern of previous ones.JAY: Well, what do you make of what he says? In the news reports, we see increasing reports that the resistance, actual fighters on the ground seem to be al-Qaeda type jihadist fighters, and in the new government that met in Doha, the government in exile that the Americans and French and others have recognized, there seems to be this split with the people that are actually doing the fighting. I mean, how much of the fighting is jihadist-led now?DAHI: Sure. In terms of what has changed—so I mentioned that from the very beginning the themes in the speeches were the same. But what has changed on the ground is that you've seen the rise to prominence of these fighting groups, many of which have—who can be broadly termed the Salafi, very conservative ideology in terms of their tactics. They seem to employ improvised explosive devices; they seem to employ attacks that do not necessarily avoid civilian targets. And Jabhat al-Nusra, which is the most prominent one that is—you can consider it al-Qaeda type group—in terms of fighting is fairly prominent. It's slightly two different questions how prominent it is in the overall numerical representation and how prominent it is in terms of the most success in terms of fighting the regime. I would say that the Salafi groups and the Jabhat al-Nusra in many areas in Syria have been the most prominent, particularly in the northern areas. But you've seen a very fluid and dynamic situation in Syria, where over the course of the battles in the past year, these jihadi groups have grown in influence and have actually, even though some of them include fighters who came from outside of Syria, but I would say they were able to draw many people from inside Syria who felt that they were more serious, who were more skillful, who were more prepared to militarily fight the regime. So I would say that in the past several months in particular, you've seen more and more the Free Syrian Army, even though it's still active—and the Free Syrian Army was mainly made of defectors, former soldiers who took up weapons against the regime, or local people who took up arms. But in terms of overall ideology, there's been more openly, explicitly Islamist ideology. In many ways it has represented itself in a very sectarian, anti-Shiite, anti-Alawite type discourse. So that trend is on the upswing. It's hard to pin down the exact numbers, because it's hard to really get a sense of what's happening overall inside the country, but definitely their prominence is quite high at this point.JAY: Now, Assad's basic charge against the revolution from the very beginning is that it hasn't really been popular-resistant, it's been externally-manipulated small groups, terrorist groups and such. I mean, what's your take on the truth of this?DAHI: Well, that's not accurate. I mean, it depends on if you look at the first six months of the uprising. I would say that was overwhelmingly nonviolent, even though not exclusively there were rather violent episodes from few months into the uprising. But overall, in terms of the people on the street, it was broadly representative, much more than perhaps it is at this point, at least in terms of the people doing the fighting. So it has evolved over time. And I would say from the very beginning there is some truth and there is a great deal of truth, and increasingly so, that there are attempts to manipulate it, most prominently from the Gulf Arab states, who's openly supported the uprising from the very beginning, and increasingly became the main financiers of the opposition, in particular the external opposition groups and the armed forces.Now, a lot of the financing, I would say, over the first year, most of it came from Syrians themselves, whether Syrians inside Syria or expatriates outside of Syria. But increasingly, as the conflict became more militarized—and it's probably accurate to say that in many cases the militarization was facilitated by the flow of weapons from these groups, but not exclusively. But definitely in the past six months, you've seen more and more the sense that the external opposition is completely in line with the policy objectives of the Gulf Arab groups.JAY: So then this—as this—you could say, the struggle increasingly gotten influenced, and perhaps even directed, by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, to a large extent, Turkey obviously very involved, step back a bit and give us the geopolitical picture here.DAHI: Sure. I think the geopolitics has been misread somewhat in the uprising, at least among people who are sort of somewhat critical of the overall reporting or overall picture. In my view, there has been points of agreement within the allies, and disagreement, and points of agreement/disagreement among the adversaries, in this sense, that on the one hand you have the U.S. and its regional allies broadly supporting the uprising, and Russia, Iran, the Syrian regime, Hezbollah, China, on the other hand, more supporting the Syrian regime itself. Within this broad picture, I think there is some agreement between Russia and the U.S. on keeping the Syrian regime or the Syrian army intact. I think both sides have an interest in preventing a complete collapse, each for their own purposes, Russia because of the fact that they contain—they have ties with the Syrian regime, they have a base in Syria in Tartus; the U.S. because the U.S. is afraid of a power vacuum that would essentially create a place where, for example, Israel might be threatened. And I think the U.S.-Israeli position on this, my own analysis is that they're very close in that, despite the fact that they outwardly criticized Assad. For many years, Assad had a de facto peace treaty with Israel and protected the northern borders of Israel. So I feel the U.S. didn't have a problem with Syria weakening, didn't have a problem with laying siege to the Syrian regime, but they don't want a complete collapse, and I think they've been putting pressure on their allies not to supply the opposition with weapons that might ensure a complete victory for the opposition.That's not been the case for the Gulf Arab states, who do not have to pay the costs of a complete regime collapse. From their opinion, weakening the Syrian regime is the key to weakening Hezbollah and weakening Iran and weakening Iran's influence in the region, which is, I believe, their primary goal of the uprising. And second, they're trying to transform the Arab uprising, they're trying to go on a counteroffensive on all the Arab uprisings, to position their allies in power, to turn it into a Sunni-Shiite battle, and to try to head back any democratic movements in their countries. So I believe they've played a very destructive role. But increasingly what you see with the formation of the new coalition is an attempt by Russia and the U.S. to manage the conflict more directly and to put pressure on their allies to follow a line. Turkey increasingly has been trying to extricate itself from the crisis after initially—as you probably know, in the last decade, the Turkish and Syrian governments were very close. At the start of the uprising, Turkey wavered a little bit, and then took a very strong position against the regime. But as the fighting has continued and as you've seen the Kurdish movements really stirring in northern Syria, and as the conflict has had a severe toll in terms of refugees, in terms of instability, they're also trying to extricate themselves. So I feel even though the external parties are fueling the conflict, they're also trying to manage the conflict in a way that suits their interests. And there seems to be some agreement. Now, having said that, most of the dynamics of the Syrian uprising can also be understood in terms of the internal militarization of the conflict, in terms of the internal polarization that's happened inside the country. So there's a sort of a inside-outside loop that has happened as a result of this.JAY: And where are we at in terms of the inside part of the loop? I mean, where—if you can—it's hard to answer the question I'm about to ask, but I'll ask it anyway. Your sense of what the majority of Syrians want now, what is it?DAHI: Well, it's been very hard to say. And I have been from the very beginning against trying to make claims on what most people want.But I would say that given the extraordinary level of suffering and hunger and destruction that has happened, given the recent dire warnings by the World Food Programme, by the refugee councils, of inability to feed hundreds of thousands of people, warnings of a catastrophic collapse, something even much worse than the perhaps 50,000 people who have already died, which is already incredibly tragic and really hard to fathom, most people want a political settlement. Most people want the ability to be able to survive. And I think that's quite rational. The question is: on what terms will the political settlement be? A lot of people want anything that ends the violence at the moment, even if it means entering into some sort of transitional government that includes the regime. And the sticking point is whether or not Assad himself will be in power. In my opinion, most people, the overwhelming majority of Syrians, would probably support immediately a transition if Assad was to step down. If Assad is not going to step down, anyone who enters into an agreement, anyone who enters into a transition, will be immediately branded as a traitor by the opposition, can be credibly branded as a traitor, or ostracized, and the cycle of violence, I feel, will continue.So I could probably confidently say that most people really just want the violence to stop and for the humanitarian situation and medical situation to be addressed right away. But the question is: how is it going to be stopped? And I think that's the tough question.JAY: Now, why don't we see what happened in Egypt? Why doesn't the Syrian elite throw Assad under the bus and, you know, in other words, try to keep Assad-ism going without Assad?DAHI: That's a good question, and I think many people thought that something like that might have happened several months ago, perhaps a year and a half ago. It hasn't happened, and the Syrian elite has shown quite remarkable unity. And I think it has to do with the fact that the structure of the Syrian regime is much more of an organic whole than the Egyptian regime. The Egyptian regime, the army, the military, the presidential sort of group, had more autonomy from one another. And they were intertwined together in Syria at the level of sect, kinship, family ties. And I think in Syria what matters is the presidential Republican Guard, the national guard, the army, and the security intelligence apparatus and the paramilitary groups. And all of these have very close ties. Assad is the sense of the symbol that unifies them together. And so there is not an obvious other figure that can simply replace him around which there is unity within those groups. And I think many of them believe that they're fighting for the preservation—many of the lower-ranking people, many of them feel that they're fighting for the preservation of the Alawite community. And as the conflict becomes more militarized, as the sectarian voices, partly from inside the country and partly coming from propagandistic escalation from the Gulf and other sources, many of their fears have some truth to them. They're founded to some extent. I don't think they're completely founded, and I think the best way to address them is to have this transition and is to end the violence. But I think they've clung closer together, rather than fragmented, as the uprising has continued. And I think that's partly what the regime's strategy has been from the very beginning. They escalated into a zero-sum game, all or nothing, and gave people a very clear choice: you're either with us, we either stick together under no compromises, or the whole country will be destroyed. And I think that marginalized many people who would have been interested in a negotiated settlement who even had critiques of Assad. In many ways this was a successful strategy. It was an insane strategy, but it was successful. Of course, we're paying the cost for it, as we can see in the sort of the tragic daily events. JAY: Now, if—as you say, if Russia and the United States have kind of decided for their own reasons not to let the Assad regime completely fall, in other words, not to let the amount of arms go in that would tip the balance of power, I guess, is the only effective way they could do that, but if Iran keeps sending arms to Syria—and I don't know where else Syria's getting arms. I guess that's part of my question. Is the Syrian regime getting arms other than Iran? Is Russia still sending arms to Assad? But that seems like a scenario for this conflict just keeps going.DAHI: Yes, and it's possible the conflict will keep going and that there won't be a settlement any time soon. As I mentioned, there is an internal logic to the conflict that is still very strong. It's not completely the case, as some people claim, that this is only a proxy war. To some extent it is, but to a large extent it's still determined by the logic of the violence and the events inside the country. And both sides have a lot of leverage over their respective allies or people that they influence within the opposition and the regime, but they don't have complete control. Yes, the Syrian regime is receiving weapons from Iran and there are reports that they're also receiving financial aid from Russia, and possibly military aid, although it's hard to really confirm this. And I don't know for sure. Many of the reports I've read are speculative in terms of military aid from Russia. But they're at least receiving—there are credible reports that they're receiving financial aid, and I think that hasn't been even a secret that the Syrian regime has tried to hide. So yes. And it's also the case that even though the U.S. is pressuring its Gulf allies to stop the flow of weapons, they also don't control them completely, and many of the weapons are coming from individual benefactors, who are not necessarily under the control of the royal family. So you've seen many people trying to make a name for themselves inside Syria by funding one group or another. Some of them are trying to read out their names and sort of pay loyalty to them that this so-and-so prince has supported the Syrian revolution and so forth. So in many ways you've seen sort of the rise of small warlords being funded by different people.Nevertheless, I do believe Iran also wants to extricate itself from this crisis in a way that doesn't signal a complete defeat, doesn't mean that Syria will become a place that will be a launching pad for attacks against Iran. And I think that's what they're concerned about. And they have some founded fears, given the level of rhetorical escalation, given the fact that they've been under siege by the West for decades. [Their fears] may be founded.JAY: So, just finally, for people who are not Syrian, who are outside, what sort of things should they be demanding from their governments?DAHI: Well, I think the main thing they should be demanding is assistance, humanitarian assistance. All the Western governments, all the European governments, North American governments who openly supported the uprising, who claimed that they cared about the Syrian people, should be ashamed of the scenes we're seeing from the refugee camps in Jordan, in Lebanon, and Turkey, the absolute level of malnutrition, hunger, the threat of mass starvation. So all those who really claim to support Syria really need to support it in terms of material assistance. I think that's the primary concern now, because we have an impending mass catastrophe that can possibly happen according to the World Food Programme and the United Nations.The second thing they should be demanding is really a political settlement, a meaningful political settlement. In my view, the political settlement cannot include Assad, because any inclusion of Assad will mean a continuation of the violence. But a meaningful political settlement and the beginning of a transition to try and salvage what's basically left of the country. JAY: Alright. Thanks very much for joining us, Omar.DAHI: Thanks for having me.JAY: And thanks for joining us on The Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

The Geopolitical Reordering of Africa: US Covert Support to Al Qaeda in Northern Mali,...

africa2

A deluge of articles have been quickly put into circulation defending France’s military intervention in the African nation of Mali. TIME’s article, “The Crisis in Mali: Will French Intervention Stop the Islamist Advance?” decides that old tricks are the best tricks, and elects the tiresome “War on Terror” narrative.TIME claims the intervention seeks to stop “Islamist” terrorists from overrunning both Africa and all of Europe. Specifically, the article states:

“…there is a (probably well-founded) fear in France that a radical Islamist Mali threatens France most of all, since most of the Islamists are French speakers and many have relatives in France. (Intelligence sources in Paris have told TIME that they’ve identified aspiring jihadis leaving France for northern Mali to train and fight.) Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), one of the three groups that make up the Malian Islamist alliance and which provides much of the leadership, has also designated France — the representative of Western power in the region — as a prime target for attack.”

What TIME elects not to tell readers is that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is closely allied to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG whom France intervened on behalf of during NATO’s 2011 proxy-invasion of Libya – providing weapons, training, special forces and even aircraft to support them in the overthrow of Libya’s government.

As far back as August of 2011, Bruce Riedel out of the corporate-financier funded think-tank, the Brookings Institution, wrote “Algeria will be next to fall,” where he gleefully predicted success in Libya would embolden radical elements in Algeria, in particular AQIM. Between extremist violence and the prospect of French airstrikes, Riedel hoped to see the fall of the Algerian government. Ironically Riedel noted:

Algeria has expressed particular concern that the unrest in Libya could lead to the development of a major safe haven and sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other extremist jihadis.

And thanks to NATO, that is exactly what Libya has become – a Western sponsored sanctuary for Al-Qaeda. AQIM’s headway in northern Mali and now French involvement will see the conflict inevitably spill over into Algeria. It should be noted that Riedel is a co-author of “Which Path to Persia?” which openly conspires to arm yet another US State Department-listed terrorist organization (list as #28), the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) to wreak havoc across Iran and help collapse the government there – illustrating a pattern of using clearly terroristic organizations, even those listed as so by the US State Department, to carry out US foreign policy.Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar noted a more direct connection between LIFG and AQIM in an Asia Times piece titled, “How al-Qaeda got to rule in Tripoli:”

“Crucially, still in 2007, then al-Qaeda’s number two, Zawahiri, officially announced the merger between the LIFG and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM). So, for all practical purposes, since then, LIFG/AQIM have been one and the same – and Belhaj was/is its emir. “

“Belhaj,” referring to Hakim Abdul Belhaj, leader of LIFG in Libya, led with NATO support, arms, funding, and diplomatic recognition, the overthrowing of Muammar Qaddafi and has now plunged the nation into unending racist and tribal, genocidal infighting. This intervention has also seen the rebellion’s epicenter of Benghazi peeling off from Tripoli as a semi-autonomous “Terror-Emirate.” Belhaj’s latest campaign has shifted to Syria where he was admittedly on the Turkish-Syrian border pledging weapons, money, and fighters to the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” again, under the auspices of NATO support.

Image: NATO’s intervention in Libya has resurrected listed-terrorist organization and Al Qaeda affiliate, LIFG. It had previously fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now has fighters, cash and weapons, all courtesy of NATO, spreading as far west as Mali, and as far east as Syria. The feared “global Caliphate” Neo-Cons have been scaring Western children with for a decade is now taking shape via US-Saudi, Israeli, and Qatari machinations, not “Islam.” In fact, real Muslims have paid the highest price in fighting this real “war against Western-funded terrorism.”

….

LIFG, which with French arms, cash, and diplomatic support, is now invading northern Syria on behalf of NATO’s attempted regime change there, officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007 according to the US Army’s West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC). According to the CTC, AQIM and LIFG share not only ideological goals, but strategic and even tactical objectives. The weapons LIFG received most certainly made their way into the hands of AQIM on their way through the porous borders of the Sahara Desert and into northern Mali.

In fact, ABC News reported in their article, “Al Qaeda Terror Group: We ‘Benefit From’ Libyan Weapons,” that:

A leading member of an al Qaeda-affiliated terror group indicated the organization may have acquired some of the thousands of powerful weapons that went missing in the chaos of the Libyan uprising, stoking long-held fears of Western officials.”We have been one of the main beneficiaries of the revolutions in the Arab world,” Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a leader of the north Africa-based al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [AQIM], told the Mauritanian news agency ANI Wednesday. “As for our benefiting from the [Libyan] weapons, this is a natural thing in these kinds of circumstances.”

It is no coincidence that as the Libyan conflict was drawing to a conclusion, conflict erupted in northern Mali. It is part of a premeditated geopolitical reordering that began with toppling Libya, and since then, using it as a springboard for invading other targeted nations, including Mali, Algeria, and Syria with heavily armed, NATO-funded and aided terrorists.

French involvement may drive AQIM and its affiliates out of northern Mali, but they are almost sure to end up in Algeria, most likely by design.

Algeria was able to balk subversion during the early phases of the US-engineered “Arab Spring” in 2011, but it surely has not escaped the attention of the West who is in the midst of transforming a region stretching from Africa to Beijing and Moscow’s doorsteps – and in a fit of geopolitical schizophrenia – using terrorists both as a casus belli to invade and as an inexhaustible mercenary force to do it.

America’s War for Reality

The real struggle confronting the United States is not between the Right and the Left in any traditional sense, but between those who believe in reality and those who are entranced by unreality. It is a battle that is testing whether fact-based people have the same determination to fight for their real-world view as those who operate in a fact-free space do in defending their illusions.President Ronald Reagan.

These battle lines do relate somewhat to the Right/Left divide because today’s right-wing has embraced ideological propaganda as truth more aggressively and completely than those on the Left, though the Left (and the Center, too) are surely not immune from the practice of ignoring facts in pursuit of some useful agit-prop.

But key elements of the American Right have set up permanent residence in the world of make-believe, making any commonsense approach to the real-world challenges nearly politically impossible. The Right’s fantasists also have the passions of true-believers, like a cult that gets angrier the more its views are questioned.

So, it doesn’t matter that scientific evidence proves global warming is real; the deniers will insist the facts are simply a government ploy to impose “tyranny.” It doesn’t matter how many schoolchildren are slaughtered by semi-automatic assault rifles – or what the real history of the Second Amendment was. To the gun fanatics, the Framers wanted armed rebellion against the non-violent political process they worked so hard to create.

On more narrow questions, it doesn’t matter whether President Barack Obama presents his short or long birth certificates, he must have somehow fabricated the Hawaiian state records to hide his Kenyan birth. Oh, yes, and Obama is “lazy” even though he may appear to an objective observer to be a multi-tasking workaholic.

Simply put, the Right fights harder for its fantasyland than the rest of America does for the real world.

The American Right’s collective departure from reality can be traced back decades, but clearly accelerated with the emergence of former actor Ronald Reagan on the national stage. Even his admirers acknowledge that Reagan had a strained relationship with facts, preferring to illustrate his points with distorted or apocryphal anecdotes.

Reagan’s detachment from reality extended from foreign policy to economics. As his rival for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination, George H.W. Bush famously labeled Reagan’s supply-side policies – of massive tax cuts for the rich which would supposedly raise more revenues – as “voodoo economics.”

But Bush, who knew better, then succumbed to Reagan’s political clout as he accepted Reagan’s vice presidential offer. In that way, the senior Bush would become a model for how other figures in the Establishment would pragmatically bend to Reagan’s casual disregard for reality.

Perception Management

The Reagan administration also built around the President a propaganda infrastructure that systematically punished politicians, citizens, journalists or anyone who dared challenge the fantasies. This private-public collaboration – coordinating right-wing media with government disinformationists – brought home to America the CIA’s strategy of “perception management” normally aimed at hostile populations.

Thus, the Nicaraguan Contras, who in reality were drug-connected terrorists roaming the countryside murdering, torturing and raping, became “the moral equivalent” of America’s Founding Fathers. To say otherwise marked you as a troublemaker who had to be “controversialized” and marginalized.

The remarkable success of Reagan’s propaganda was a lesson not lost on a young generation of Republican operatives and the emerging neoconservatives who held key jobs in Reagan’s Central American and public-diplomacy operations, the likes of Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan. The neocons’ devotion to imperialism abroad seemed to motivate their growing disdain for empiricism at home. Facts didn’t matter; results did. [See Robert Parry’s Lost History.]

But this strategy wouldn’t have worked if not for gullible rank-and-file right-wingers who were manipulated by an endless series of false narratives. The Republican political pros manipulated the racial resentments of neo-Confederates, the religious zeal of fundamentalist Christians, and the free-market hero worship of Ayn Rand acolytes.

"What was left of the Left often behaved like disgruntled fans in the bleachers booing everyone on the field, the bad guys who were doing terrible things as well as the not-so-bad guys who were doing the best they could under impossible conditions."

That these techniques succeeded in a political system that guaranteed freedom of speech and the press was not only a testament to the skills of Republican operatives like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. It was an indictment of America’s timid Center and the nation’s ineffectual Left. Simply put, the Right fought harder for its fantasyland than the rest of America did for the real world.

There were a number of key turning points in this “info-war.” For instance, Reagan’s secret relationship with the Iranian mullahs was partly revealed in the Iran-Contra scandal, but its apparent origins in treacherous Republican activities during Campaign 1980 – contacting Iran behind President Jimmy Carter’s back – were swept under the rug by mainstream Democrats and the Washington press corps.

Similarly, evidence of Contra drug-trafficking – and even CIA admissions about covering up and protecting those crimes – were downplayed by the major newspapers, including the Washington Post and the New York Times. Ditto the work of Central American truth commissions exposing massive human rights violations that Reagan aided and abetted.

The fear of taking on the Reagan propaganda machine in any serious or consistent way was so great that nearly everyone looked to their careers or their personal pleasures. One side dug in for political warfare and the other, too often, favored trips to wine country.

Distrusting the MSM

As this anti-empiricism deepened over several decades, the remaining thinking people in America came to distrust the mainstream. The initials “MSM” – standing for “mainstream media” – became an expression of derision and contempt, not undeserved given the MSM’s repeated failure to fight for the truth.

National Democrats, too, showed little fight. When evidence of Republican misconduct was available – as in the investigations of the early 1990s into Iran-Contra, Iraq-gate and the October Surprise case – accommodating Democrats, such as Rep. Lee Hamilton and Sen. David Boren chose to look the other way. [See Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative.]

The Democrats even submitted when the Right and the Republicans overturned the electoral will of the American people, as happened in Election 2000 when George W. Bush stole the Florida election and thus the White House from Al Gore. [For details, see the book, Neck Deep.]

In the decades after the Vietnam War, the American Left also drifted into irrelevance. Indeed, it’s common in some circles on the Left to observe that “America has no Left.” But what was left of the Left often behaved like disgruntled fans in the bleachers booing everyone on the field, the bad guys who were doing terrible things as well as the not-so-bad guys who were doing the best they could under impossible conditions.

"The country is going to need its conscious inhabitants of the real world to stand up with at least the same determination as the deluded denizens of the made-up world."

This post-modern United States may have reached its nadir with George W. Bush’s presidency. In 2002-03, patently false claims were made about Iraq’s WMD and virtually no one in a position of power had the courage to challenge the lies. Deceived by Bush and the neocons – with the help of centrists like Colin Powell and the editors of the Washington Post – the nation lurched off into an aggressive war of choice.

Sometimes, the Right’s contempt for reality was expressed openly. When author Ron Suskind interviewed members of the Bush administration in 2004, he encountered a withering contempt for people who refused to adjust to the new faith-based world.

Citing an unnamed senior aide to George W. Bush, Suskind wrote: “The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ …

“‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’”

Reality Bites Back

Despite this imperial arrogance, real reality gradually reasserted itself, both in the bloody stalemate in Iraq and in the economic crises that Bush’s anti-regulatory and low-tax policies created at home. By Election 2008, the American people were awaking with a terrible hangover from a three-decade binge on anti-reality moonshine.

In that sense, the election of Barack Obama represented a potential turning point. However, the angry Right that Ronald Reagan had built – and the corresponding crippling effects on the Center and the Left – didn’t just disappear.

The Right counterattacked ferociously against the nation’s first African-American president, even intimating violent revolution if Obama acted on his electoral mandate; Obama often behaved like one of those accommodating Democrats (in retaining much of Bush’s national security team, for instance); the mainstream press remained careerist; and the Left demanded perfection regardless of the political difficulties.

This combination of dysfunction contributed to the rise of the Tea Party and the Republican congressional victories in 2010. But Election 2012, with Obama’s reelection and a general rejection of Tea Party fanaticism, has created the chance of a do-over for American rationalists.

After all, the United States continues to see the consequences of three decades of right-wing delusions, including high unemployment; massive deficits; self-inflicted financial crises; a degraded middle class; poor health care for millions; a crumbling infrastructure; an overheating planet; costly foreign wars; a bloated Pentagon budget; and children massacred by troubled young men with ridiculously easy access to semi-automatic assault rifles.

Yet, if rational and pragmatic solutions are ever going to be applied to these problems, it is not just going to require that President Obama display more spine. The country is going to need its conscious inhabitants of the real world to stand up with at least the same determination as the deluded denizens of the made-up world.

Of course, this fight will be nasty and unpleasant. It will require resources, patience and toughness. But there is no other answer. Reality must be recovered and protected – if the planet and the children are to be saved.

© 2012 Consortium News

Robert Parry

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat. His two previous books are Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth'.

Hagel Prostrates Himself Before the Lobby, Gets Votes

The drama around Chuck Hagel's nomination for Secretary of Defense seems to be heading into its predictable third act. While much attention has been given to Hagel's heterodox views (for D.C.) on the Middle East, and the threat that several Democrats might oppose his nomination over Israel, both the nominee and the party seem to be getting in line behind the President (and conveniently the lobby).Chuck Hagel's nomination for Secretary of Defense seems to be heading into its predictable third act.

Politico is reporting this morning on a letter Hagel sent to California Sen. Barbara Boxer answering her concerns regarding his views on U.S. policy towards Iran and Israel, the Israel lobby, as well as issues pertaining to women and gays and lesbians in the military. You can read Hagel's letter here. In it he does an about face on several positions to move towards the conventional wisdom in Washington. The most glaring example is the issue of sanctions against Iran, where Hagel had previously argued against unilateral U.S. sanctions in favor of multilaterial action. No longer. From the letter:

I have long supported economic sanctions that are applied in concert with allies and partners. I strongly supported the Obama Administation's approach which has brought to bear unprecedented multilateral sanctions on Iran, including UN Council Resolution 1929. Regarding unilateral sanctions, I have told the President I completely support his policy on Iran. I agree that with Iran's continued rejection of diplomatic overtures, further effective sanctions, both multilateral and unilateral -- may be necessary and I will support the President.

Hagel also apologized for using the term "Jewish lobby" and promised the special relationship is in safe hands if he is confirmed:

As to my use of the phrase "Jewish lobby" to describe those who advocate for a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship, I've acknowledged that this was a very poor choice of words. I've said so publicly and I regret saying it. I used that terminology only once, in an interview. I recognize that this kind of language can be construed as anti-Israel.  I know the pro-Israel lobby is comprised of both Jewish and non-Jewish Americans. In the Senate, I was a strong supporter of Defense appropriations, which provided enduring support for Israel’s security. Most Americans, myself included, are overwhelmingly supportive of a strong U.S.-Israel strategic and security relationship.

Hagel proves his pro-Israel bona fides by promising to deepen military cooperation with Israel and repeating a beltway mantra as American as baseball and apple cake:

America’s relationship with Israel is one that is fundamentally built on our nations shared values, common interests and democratic ideals. The Middle East is undergoing dramatic and historic changes, ones which surround Israel with tremendous uncertainty. We are working together daily, hand in hand, in unprecedented ways, to counter old, new and emerging mutual threats. I fully intend to expand the depth and breadth of U.S.-Israel cooperation.

Caving to political pressure sure pays quick dividends. Following the letter, Boxer annoucned she is on board with the Hagel nomination. Charles Schumer also announced he will support Hagel following similar outreach. From the New York Times:

Of deepest concern to Mr. Schumer and many Israel advocacy groups, are Mr. Hagel’s positions on the nuclear threat posed by Iran, particularly his suggestions in the past that a military strike against Iran would be counterproductive. It is a position that is out of step with the Obama administration, which became increasingly hawkish on Iran during the 2012 campaign.

“On Iran, Senator Hagel rejected a strategy of containment and expressed the need to keep all options on the table in confronting that country,” Mr. Schumer said. “But he didn’t stop there. In our conversation, Senator Hagel made a crystal-clear promise that he would do ‘whatever it takes’ to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including the use of military force.”

As a senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel voted against several rounds of sanctions against Iran that ultimately passed the Senate, citing unilateral sanctions are ineffective. On this matter too, Mr. Schumer seemed to find comfort. “Senator Hagel clarified that he ‘completely’ supports President Obama’s current sanctions against Iran,” Mr. Schumer said. “He added that further unilateral sanctions against Iran could be effective and necessary.”

On nearly every other issue that Mr. Schumer brought up with Mr. Hagel — his views on the militant Islamist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, his prior comments about gays, his use of the term “Jewish lobby” to refer to Israel advocacy groups — all seemed to be tamped down in the meeting.

“I know some will question whether Senator Hagel’s assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post,” Mr. Schumer said. “But I don’t think so. Senator Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago.”

Eight Things I Miss About the Cold War

At a book festival in Los Angeles recently, some writers (myself included) were making the usual arguments about the problems with American politics in the 1950s -- until one panelist shocked the audience by declaring, “God, I miss the Cold War.”  His grandmother, he said, had come to California from Oklahoma with a grade-school education, but found a job in an aerospace factory in L.A. during World War II, joined the union, got healthcare and retirement benefits, and prospered in the Cold War years.  She ended up owning a house in the suburbs and sending her kids to UCLA.

Several older people in the audience leaped to their feet shouting, “What about McCarthyism?”  “The bomb?”  “Vietnam?”  “Nixon?”

All good points, of course.  After all, during the Cold War the U.S. did threaten to destroy the world with nuclear weapons, supported brutal dictators globally because they were anti-communist, and was responsible for the deaths of several million people in Korea and Vietnam, all in the name of defending freedom. And yet it’s not hard to join that writer in feeling a certain nostalgia for the Cold War era.  It couldn’t be a sadder thing to admit, given what happened in those years, but -- given what’s happened in these years -- who can doubt that the America of the 1950s and 1960s was, in some ways, simply a better place than the one we live in now? Here are eight things (from a prospectively longer list) we had then and don’t have now.

1. The president didn’t claim the right to kill American citizens without “the due process of law.”

Last year we learned that President Obama personally approved the killing-by-drone of an American citizen living abroad without any prior judicial proceedings. That was in Yemen, but as Amy Davidson wrote at the New Yorker website, “Why couldn’t it have been in Paris?”  Obama assures us that the people he orders assassinated are “terrorists.”  It would, however, be more accurate to call them “alleged terrorists,” or “alleged terrorist associates,” or “people said by some other government to be terrorists, or at least terroristic.”

Obama’s target in Yemen was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was said to be a senior figure in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  According to the book Kill or Capture by Daniel Klaidman, the president told his advisors, “I want Awlaki. Don’t let up on him.”  Steve Coll of the New Yorker commented that this appears to be “the first instance in American history of a sitting president speaking of his intent to kill a particular U.S. citizen without that citizen having been charged formally with a crime or convicted at trial.”  (Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, whom no one claims was connected to terrorist activities or terror plots, was also killed in a separate drone attack.)

The problem, of course, is the due-process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits “any person” from being deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”   It doesn’t say: "any person except for those the president believes to be terrorists."

It gets worse: the Justice Department can keep secret a memorandum providing the supposed “legal” justification for the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen, according to a January 2013 decision by a federal judge.  Ruling on a Freedom of Information lawsuit brought by the ACLU and the New York Times, Judge Colleen McMahon, wrote in her decision, “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.”

It's true that the CIA has admitted it had an assassination program during the Cold War -- described in the so-called “family jewels” or “horrors book,” compiled in 1973 under CIA Director James Schlesinger in response to Watergate-era inquiries and declassifiedin 2007.  But the targets were foreign leaders, especially Fidel Castro as well as the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba and the Dominican Republic’s Rafael Trujillo.  Still, presidents preferred “plausible deniability” in such situations, and certainly no president before Obama publicly claimed the legal right to order the killing of American citizens.  Indeed, before Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. regularly condemned “targeted killings” of suspected terrorists by Israel that were quite similar to those the president is now regularly ordering in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, Yemen, and possibly elsewhere.

2. We didn’t have a secret “terrorism-industrial complex.”

That’s the term coined by Dana Priest and William Arkin in their book Top Secret America to describe the ever-growing post-9/11 world of government agencies linked to private contractors charged with fighting terrorism.  During the Cold War, we had a handful of government agencies doing “top secret” work; today, they found, we have more than 1,200.

For example, Priest and Arkin found 51 federal organizations and military commands that attempt to track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.  And don’t forget the nearly 2,000 for-profit corporate contractors that engage in top-secret work, supposedly hunting terrorists.  The official budget for “intelligence” has increased from around $27 billion in the last years of the Cold War to $75 billion in 2012. Along with this massive expansion of government and private security activities has come a similarly humongous expansion of official secrecy: the number of classified documents has increased from perhaps 5 million a year before 1980 to 92 million in 2011, while Obama administration prosecutions of government whistleblowers have soared.

It’s true that the CIA and the FBI engaged in significant secret and illegal surveillance that included American citizens during the Cold War, but the scale was small compared to the post-9/11 world.

3. Organized labor was accepted as part of the social landscape. 

“Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of their right to join the union of their choice.” That’s what President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in 1952.  “Workers,” he added, “have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers,” and he affirmed that “a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society.”  He caught the mood of the moment this way: “Should any political party attempt to… eliminate labor laws, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.”  “There is,” he acknowledged, “a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible... And they are stupid.” 

You certainly wouldn’t catch Barack Obama saying anything like that today.  

Back then, American unions were, in part, defended even by Republicans because they were considered a crucial aspect of the struggle against Communism.  Unlike Soviet workers, American ones, so the argument went, were free to join independent unions.  And amid a wave of productive wealth, union membership in Eisenhower’s America reached an all-time high: 34% of wage and salary workers in 1955.  In 2011, union membership in the private sector had fallen under 7%, a level not seen since 1932.

Of course, back in the Cold War era the government required unions to kick communists out of any leadership positions they held and unions that refused were driven out of existence.  Unions also repressed wildcat strikes and enforced labor peace in exchange for multi-year contracts with wage and benefit increases. But as we’ve learned in the last decades, if you’re a wageworker, almost any union is better than no union at all.

4. The government had to get a warrant before it could tap your phone. 

Today, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act (yes, thatrepetitive tongue twister is its real name) gives the government vast powers to spy on American citizens -- and it’s just been extended to 2017 in a bill that Obama enthusiastically signed on December 29th.  The current law allows the monitoring of electronic communications without an individualized court order, as long as the government claims its intent is to gather “foreign intelligence.”  In recent years, much that was once illegal has been made the law of the land.  Vast quantities of the emails and phone calls of Americans are being “data-mined.”  Amendments approved by Congress in 2008, for instance, provided "retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that assisted the Bush administration in its warrantless wiretapping program," which was then (or should have been) illegal, as the website Open Congress notes

There were several modest congressional attempts to amend the 2012 FISA extension act, including one that would have required the director of national intelligence to reveal how many Americans are being secretly monitored.  That amendment would in no way have limited the government’s actual spying program.  The Senate nevertheless rejected it, 52-43, in a nation that has locked itself down in a way that would have been inconceivable in the Cold War years.

It’s true that in the 1950s and 1960s judges typically gave the police and FBI the wiretap warrants they sought.  But it’s probably also true that having to submit requests to judges had a chilling effect on the urge of government authorities to engage in unlimited wiretapping.

5. The infrastructure was being expanded and strengthened.

Today, our infrastructure is crumbling: bridges are collapsing, sewer systems are falling apart, power grids are failing.  Many of those systems date from the immediate post-World War II years.  And the supposedly titanic struggle against communism at home and abroad helped build them.  The best-known example of those Cold War infrastructure construction programs was the congressionally mandated National Defense Highways Act of 1956, which led to the construction of 41,000 miles of the Interstate Highway System. It was the largest public works project in American history and it was necessary, according to the legislation, to “meet the requirements of the national defense in time of war.”  People called the new highways “freeways” or “interstates,” but the official name was "the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways."

Along with the construction of roads and bridges came a similar commitment to expanding water delivery systems and the electrical and telephone grids.  Spending on infrastructure as a share of gross domestic product peaked in the 1960s at 3.1%.  In 2007, it was down to 2.4% and is assumedly still falling.

Today the U.S. has dropped far behind potential global rivals in infrastructure development.  An official panel of 80 experts noted that China is spending $1 trillion on high-speed rail, highways, and other infrastructure over the next five years.  The U.S., according to the report, needs to invest $2 trillion simply to rebuild the roads, bridges, water lines, sewage systems, and dams constructed 40 to 50 years ago, systems that are now reaching the end of their planned life cycles.  But federal spending cuts mean that the burden of infrastructure repair and replacement will fall on state and local governments, whose resources, as everyone knows, are completely inadequate for the task.

Of course, it’s true that the freeways built in the 1950s made the automobile the essential form of transportation in America and led to the withering away of public mass transit, and that the environment suffered as a result.  Still, today’s collapsing bridges and sewers dramatize the loss of any serious national commitment to the public good.

6. College was cheap.

Tuition and fees at the University of California system in 1965 totaled $220.  That’s the equivalent of about $1,600 today, and in 1965 you were talking about the best public university in the world.  In 2012, the Regents of the University of California, presiding over an education system in crisis, raised tuition and fees for state residents to $13,200.  And American students are now at least $1 trillion in debt, thanks to college loans that could consign many to lifetimes as debtors in return for subprime educations.

In 1958, in the panic that followed the Soviet Union’s successful launch of Sputnik, the first satellite, public universities got a massive infusion of federal money when the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) was passed.  The Department of Education website today explains that the purpose of the NDEA was “to help ensure that highly trained individuals would be available to help America compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical fields.”  For the first time, government grants became the major source of university funding for scientific research.  The Act included a generous student-loan program.

With the end of the Cold War, federal funding was cut and public universities had little choice but to begin to make up the difference by increasing tuitions and fees, making students pay more -- a lot more.

True, the NDEA grants in the 1960s required recipients to sign a demeaning oath swearing that they did not seek the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, and that lots of government funding then supported Cold War military and strategic objectives.  After all, the University of California operated the nuclear weapons labs at Livermore and Los Alamos. Still, compare that to today’s crumbling public education system nationwide and who wouldn’t feel nostalgia for the Cold War era?

7. We had a president who called for a “war on poverty.”

In his 1966 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Baines Johnson argued that “the richest Nation on earth… people who live in abundance unmatched on this globe” ought to “bring the most urgent decencies of life to all of your fellow Americans.”  LBJ insisted that it was possible both to fight communism globally (especially in Vietnam) and to fight poverty at home.  As the phrase then went, he called for guns and butter.  In addition, he was determined not simply to give money to poor people, but to help build “community action” groups that would organize them to define and fight for programs they wanted because, the president said, poor people know what’s best for themselves.

Of course, it’s true that Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” unlike the Vietnam War, was woefully underfunded, and that those community action groups were soon overpowered by local mayors and Democratic political machines.  But it’s also true that President Obama did not even consider poverty worth mentioning as an issue in his 2012 reelection campaign, despite the fact that it has spread in ways that would have shocked LBJ, and that income and wealth inequalities between rich and poor have reached levels not seen since the late 1920s.  Today, it’s still plenty of guns -- but butter, not so much.

8. We had a president who warned against “the excessive power of the military-industrial complex.”

In Eisenhower’s “farewell address,” delivered three days before John F. Kennedy’s inauguration, the departing president warned against the “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” He declared that “the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”  The speech introduced the phrase “military-industrial complex” into the vernacular.  It was a crucial moment in the Cold War: a president who had also been the nation’s top military commander in World War II was warning Americans about the dangers posed by the military he had commanded and its corporate and political supporters.

Ike was prompted to give the speech because of his disputes with Congress over the military budget.  He feared nuclear war and firmly opposed all talk about such a war being fought in a “limited” way.  He also knew that, when it came to the Soviet Union, American power was staggeringly preponderant.  And yet his opponents in the Democratic Party, the arms industry, and even the military were claiming that he hadn’t done enough for “defense” -- not enough weapons bought, not enough money spent.  President-elect Kennedy had just won the 1960 election by frightening Americans about a purely fictitious “missile gap” between the U.S. and the Soviets.

It’s true that Ike’s warning would have been far more meaningful had it been in his first or even second inaugural address, or any of his State of the Union speeches.  It’s also true that he had approved CIA coups in Iran and Guatemala, and had green-lighted planning for an invasion of Cuba (that would become Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs disaster).  He had also established Mutual Assured Destruction as the basis for Cold War military strategy, backed up with B-52s carrying atomic bombs in the air 24/7.

By the end of his second term, however, Ike had changed his mind.  His warning was not just against unnecessary spending, but also against institutions that were threatening a crisis he feared would bring the end of individual liberty.  “As one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization,” the president urged his fellow citizens to resist the military-industrial complex.  None of his successors has even tried, and in 2013 we’re living with the results.

...But there is one thing I do NOT miss about the Cold War: nuclear arsenals on hair-trigger alert.

Our Cold War enemy had nuclear weapons capable of destroying us, and the rest of the planet, many times over.  In 1991, when the Cold War ended, the Soviet Union had more than 27,000 nuclear weapons.  According to the Federation of American Scientists, these included more than 11,000 strategic nuclear weapons -- warheads on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched missiles, and weapons on bombers capable of attacking the US -- along with more than 15,000 warheads for “tactical” use as artillery shells and short-range “battlefield” missiles, as well as missile defense interceptors, nuclear torpedoes, and nuclear weapons for shorter-range aircraft.  We learned in 1993 that the USSR at one time possessed almost 45,000 nuclear warheads, and still had nearly 1,200 tons of bomb-grade uranium.  (Of course, sizeable Russian -- and American -- nuclear arsenals still exist.)  In comparison to all that, the arsenalsof al-Qaeda and our other terrorist enemies are remarkably insignificant.

Hollywood’s Waterboard: Review of the CIA’s “Zero Dark Thirty”

spy

The Oscar nominations have been announced and despite much hope on this side of the pond there is no place for Skyfall in the Best Picture category. There is, however, a place for not one but two spy films telling good old fashioned patriotic tales: Argo and Zero Dark Thirty.  Argo tells the 1979-80 story of the ‘Canadian Caper’, part of the Iran hostage crisis in the wake of the ’79 revolution.  Zero Dark Thirty is the first big budget, big name production to depict the official story of the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, culminating in his death in May 2011.  Along with Lincoln, it is looking to be a great year for chest-beating, flag-saluting U!-S!-A!-chanting types.

Like Skyfall, Zero Dark Thirty is primarily a human story, focusing on the work of one CIA agent who is trying to find Bin Laden. Unsurprisingly, she is an attractive, young, white female, the demographic of character with the broadest appeal in the Western world.  ’Maya’ is shown tracking down Bin Laden over a number of years via a closely-trusted courier. Her insistence and persistence are a major factor in the success of the narrative in reaching its bloody climax. The other major factor is torture.

The film opens with an audio montage from 9/11, including the most-discussed ‘is this real world or exercise?’ dialogue from the NORAD tapes. With the horror of the attacks still ringing in our ears we are thrown forward several years and shown a ‘black site’ at an ‘undisclosed location’ where we are party to extended scenes of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’.

Hollywood’s Waterboard

The ‘detainees’ are portrayed being waterboarded, beaten, constantly degraded and insulted, generally abused and in one scene dehumanised by being made to strip naked and then led around on the floor via a dog collar and lead.  The sexual undertones to all this, particularly when S&M bonkbuster 50 Shades of Grey is the most successful book in recent memory, are presumably intended to titillate the audience.  This is Hollywood torture, where attractive young white spies dominate and humiliate tall dark strange terrorists.

This theme of dehumanising the ‘terrorists’ while sympathetically humanising the intelligence agents torturing them makes up most of the first hour of this lengthy film.  The implication is clear: the torture was a necessary response to 9/11.  This is the first major untruth of Zero Dark Thirty, as everything from the court record to declassified CIA ‘interrogation’ manuals proves that torture was an accepted practice in the more secretive agencies of governments in the US and beyond for decades prior to 9/11.

There has been considerable criticism of the films apparent advocation of torture in both the mainstream and alternative media, and some criticism of whether it is accurate to portray torture as being essential to the success of the hunt for Bin Laden.  Even acting CIA director Michael Morell said that the film, ‘creates the strong impression that the enhanced interrogation techniques that were part of our former detention and interrogation program were the key to finding Bin Laden. That impression is false.’  That torture was not only a necessary response to 9/11 but also that it was essential in finding the alleged sponsor of 9/11 – Bin Laden – is the second major untruth of the movie.

Despite this criticism, the question that hasn’t been asked is whether anything in this story is actually true.  Despite immense and perhaps unprecedented official co-operation in the making of Zero Dark Thirty struggled with basic facts.  For example, the film includes what was obviously a quite expensive CGI-laced reconstruction of the bus bombing in London on 7/7.  The film not only gets the route number of the bus wrong, it also shows it blowing up while moving rapidly (which it certainly wasn’t) and in the wrong spot in Tavistock Square.

These are quite basic details that one can establish with only a few minutes research.  That the filmmakers got these facts wrong illustrates that they weren’t really concerned with accuracy, but with telling a story in such a way that it would have an emotional impact.  The simulated bus explosion is just about the only action in the opening 40 minutes of the film that isn’t either torture sequences or CIA agents drinking coffee and looking stressed.  It livens up what is otherwise a horrifying but very tedious narrative.

Did they find Bin Laden?

According to Zero Dark Thirty, and much of the official information leaked or published before the film’s release, the CIA found Bin Laden’s courier and right-hand man Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti and he led them to the house in Abbottabad.  However, they were unable to get any kind of photographic or otherwise physical evidence of exactly who was in the house, and therefore whether it was Bin Laden.

The movie includes a scene showing then CIA director Leon Panetta asking his analysts how certain they are that Bin Laden is actually in the large, walled house in Abbottabad.  The answer comes back: 60% sure, with the notable exception of our sympathetic, flame-haired go-getting protagonist, who is 100% sure.  We never seen what Panetta said to President Obama because, despite Judicial Watch’s efforts to claim so, this wasn’t actually a party political film.  It was something far, far worse than that.  The presence of James Gandolfini – a man most famous for playing neurotic, serial killing gangster Tony Soprano – as head of the CIA is a sick joke that symbolises what this film is truly about.

According to the film the CIA and DOD were far from certain that they had actually found Bin Laden before the raid took place.  Nonetheless the order is given, and two stealth helicopters are provided for the job of getting over the Afghan border into Pakistan to carry out the assault.  The action is notably understated, with no musical score underpinning the various packs of SEALs running around the house shooting at people.  This is presumably to give the climax a realistic feel though it only requires a brief examination to find problems and questions.

The film offers a third version of events in the third floor of the house in Abbottabad.  Initial, officially-supported reports say that Bin Laden, or whoever the man was who was killed on the third floor of the house, used a woman as a human shield and fired shots at the encroaching SEALs before they killed him.

This story stood until it was directly contradicted in the 2012 book No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission that Killed Osama bin Laden.  In that book the pseudonymous Mark Owen says that ‘Bin Laden’ was unarmed and did not use anyone as a human shield.  Instead, he records how he was behind the ‘point man’ going up the stairs and that ‘Less than five steps’ from the top of the stairs he heard gunfire.  Apparently, ‘Bin Laden’ was shot when he ducked his head out from inside the room where he died.  No Easy Day replaced 50 Shades of Grey at the top of the bestseller lists shortly after September 11th 2012.

Zero Dark Thirty contradicts this again, showing no exchange of fire or human shields, but showing several SEALs waiting at the top of the stairs (not one with ‘Mark Owen’ a few steps further down).  They whisper ‘Osama’, and then when ‘Bin Laden’ opens the door they shoot him in the face.  While this is considerably closer to ‘Mark Owen’s version than to the White House version, it doesn’t fully replicate either story.

There are no sequences in Zero Dark Thirty depicting any kind of DNA testing, or the reported burial at sea that officially explains why there can be absolutely no external verification of who the man was that the SEALs shot on the third floor of that house.  Following the mission Zero Dark Thirty shows the body of ‘Bin Laden’ being flown back to a base in Afghanistan where it is quickly and unequivocally identified by the female CIA agent.

‘Maya’ is then shown getting into an immense cargo plane to fly home (on her own, a typically Pentagonian waste of resources) whereupon she breaks down and cries.  Again, the message is clear: what’s at stake here is not an illegal military operation and deception on a grand scale, but the fact that this pretty young woman doesn’t have anything to focus her life on anymore.

Official Secrets

The Bin Laden raid of early May 2011 was conducted in near-total secrecy.  No word of it leaked out beforehand.  In fact, and as Zero Dark Thirty highlights, by April 2011 there wasn’t much talk about Bin Laden and many people thought he was already dead and perhaps had been for several years.  It appears that no one even told the Pakistanis, despite the assault taking place on their soil.

It seems that the CIA had no specific information linking Bin Laden to the house before the raid.  The process by which the body was identified after the raid has been shrouded in secrecy.  FOIA requests from major mainstream news and ‘reputable’ lobbying organisations have been refused.  The DOD denies having a death certificate or any records of DNA testing or an autopsy.  They have also denied having any photographs of the body.

The DOD have released a small number of largely-redacted emails from people on the USS Vinson involved in the preparation and burial of the body.  While it does seem that a body was wrapped and buried at sea, none of the emails provide any confirmation of whose body it was and less than a dozen people were informed about what was happening.  No sailors watched the sea burial.  An email summarising the burial notes that, ‘The paucity of documentary evidence in our possession is a reflection of emphasis placed on operational security during the execution of this phase of the operation.’ The CIA have acknowledged that they hold some relevant records, both documents and photographs, but they have refused to release anything at all and so far the courts have backed them.

To fill the space left by ‘the paucity of documentary evidence’ we have been offered Zero Dark Thirty and we can expect a handful of copycat movies in the years to come.  It is a film that enjoyed truly extraordinary co-operation from the CIA, not just from the Office of Public Affairs but from everyone they dealt with in their pre-production meetings.  Even this was a largely secret matter, that we only know about now because the extremely partisan group Judicial Watch obtained many pages of emails detailing meetings between Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal and various people from the DOD and CIA.

Filling in the blanks

What is abundantly clear from these emails is just how enthusiastic the CIA were about the project, almost as though they had been sitting around waiting for someone to call them and ask about the Bin Laden raid.  The DOD were slightly more reticent, but ultimately very keen to help.  One email from July 17th 2011 details how meetings between CIA officials and Bigelow “went really, really well.  Mr Morell gave them 40 minutes, talked some of the substance again, told them we’re here to help with whatever they need, and gushed to Kathryn about how much he loved ‘The Hurt Locker’.”

Another CIA email says that, ‘We really do have a sense that this is going to be the movie about UBL – and we all want the CIA to be as well-represented in it as possible.’  Another email from the same person – Marie E Harf of the Office of Public Affairs – says, ‘I know we don’t pick favorites but it makes sense to get behind a winning horse… Mark and Kathryn’s movie is going to be the first and the biggest. It’s got the most money behind it, and two Oscar winners on board.’  It wasn’t all one way as another email records how Mark Boal ‘agreed to share scripts and details about the movie with us, so we’re absolutely comfortable with what he will be showing.’

The CIA even granted the filmmakers access to ‘The Vault’, an office where some of the key planning for the raid took place.  Similarly in one meeting with Boal and Bigelow the DOD even suggested a specific Navy SEAL for them to talk to about the raid.  These agencies have been so secretive about the assault itself, even when it is the mainstream news asking for information, and yet both the CIA and DOD were apparently willing to tell two Hollywood filmmakers all about it.  This is not just a hypocrisy, to fail to release evidence to the public while offering maximum possible information and assistance to Hollywood filmmakers.  It is the double dealing ‘secrecy’ of the security state.

In amongst the inaccuracies, the official revisionism, the humanising of faceless, murdering institutions and the endless glowering of the protagonist there is a dynamic at play that is crucial to understand and to resist.  The same pattern of behaviour can be found across almost all security services: refuse to release any facts, but give huge support to the fiction.  Just as the FAA/NORAD recordings asked ‘Is this real world or exercise?’ we might ask of Zero Dark Thirty: is this real world or myth-making? All the documents cited in this review can be download here, and they are perhaps as important for what they don’t record as they are for what they do.

The ultimate effect of this dynamic is the advanced of the security state.  Whoever was truly in that house in Abbottabad were actually killed, there appears to be no dispute about that.  There is no good reason, and certainly no hard evidence in the public domain, to believe that among those killed was Osama Bin Laden.  By refusing to release any evidence, but giving tremendous assistance to a Hollywood film depicting them in a very sympathetic light, the CIA and DOD have got away with murder, and even managed to get huge numbers of people to praise them for murder.

Indeed, the most poignant moment in the whole film, complete with emotive swelling music and softly edited slow-mo is when the SEALs have to blow up the downed stealth helicopter.  It is as though amongst all the murder and torture and traumatising of children and adults alike the loss of a helicopter is the greatest tragedy.  This truly alienated, immoral and boring film will no doubt win awards and make a handsome profit, but it is a vehicle for ongoing secrecy and ongoing violence.  It deserves to be boycotted, or at least to only be watched for free online at zero profit to the people who made it.

Ike’s Dream, Obama’s Reality: 8 Things I Miss About the Cold War

At a book festival in Los Angeles recently, some writers (myself included) were making the usual arguments about the problems with American politics in the 1950s -- until one panelist shocked the audience by declaring, “God, I miss the Cold War.”  His grandmother, he said, had come to California from Oklahoma with a grade-school education, but found a job in an aerospace factory in L.A. during World War II, joined the union, got healthcare and retirement benefits, and prospered in the Cold War years.  She ended up owning a house in the suburbs and sending her kids to UCLA.

Several older people in the audience leaped to their feet shouting, “What about McCarthyism?”  “The bomb?”  “Vietnam?”  “Nixon?”

All good points, of course.  After all, during the Cold War the U.S. did threaten to destroy the world with nuclear weapons, supported brutal dictators globally because they were anti-communist, and was responsible for the deaths of several million people in Korea and Vietnam, all in the name of defending freedom. And yet it’s not hard to join that writer in feeling a certain nostalgia for the Cold War era.  It couldn’t be a sadder thing to admit, given what happened in those years, but -- given what’s happened in these years -- who can doubt that the America of the 1950s and 1960s was, in some ways, simply a better place than the one we live in now? Here are eight things (from a prospectively longer list) we had then and don’t have now.

1. The president didn’t claim the right to kill American citizens without “the due process of law.

Last year we learned that President Obama personally approved the killing-by-drone of an American citizen living abroad without any prior judicial proceedings. That was in Yemen, but as Amy Davidson wrote at the New Yorker website, “Why couldn’t it have been in Paris?”  Obama assures us that the people he orders assassinated are “terrorists.”  It would, however, be more accurate to call them “alleged terrorists,” or “alleged terrorist associates,” or “people said by some other government to be terrorists, or at least terroristic.”

Obama’s target in Yemen was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was said to be a senior figure in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  According to the book Kill or Capture by Daniel Klaidman, the president told his advisors, “I want Awlaki. Don’t let up on him.”  Steve Coll of the New Yorker commented that this appears to be “the first instance in American history of a sitting president speaking of his intent to kill a particular U.S. citizen without that citizen having been charged formally with a crime or convicted at trial.”  (Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, whom no one claims was connected to terrorist activities or terror plots, was also killed in a separate drone attack.)

The problem, of course, is the due-process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits “any person” from being deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”  It doesn’t say: "any person except for those the president believes to be terrorists."

It gets worse: the Justice Department can keep secret a memorandum providing the supposed “legal” justification for the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen, according to a January 2013 decision by a federal judge.  Ruling on a Freedom of Information lawsuit brought by the ACLU and the New York Times, Judge Colleen McMahon, wrote in her decision, “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.”

It's true that the CIA has admitted it had an assassination program during the Cold War -- described in the so-called “family jewels” or “horrors book,” compiled in 1973 under CIA Director James Schlesinger in response to Watergate-era inquiries and declassified in 2007.  But the targets were foreign leaders, especially Fidel Castro as well as the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba and the Dominican Republic’s Rafael Trujillo.  Still, presidents preferred “plausible deniability” in such situations, and certainly no president before Obama publicly claimed the legal right to order the killing of American citizens.  Indeed, before Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. regularly condemned “targeted killings” of suspected terrorists by Israel that were quite similar to those the president is now regularly ordering in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, Yemen, and possibly elsewhere.

2. We didn’t have a secret “terrorism-industrial complex.”

That’s the term coined by Dana Priest and William Arkin in their book Top Secret America to describe the ever-growing post-9/11 world of government agencies linked to private contractors charged with fighting terrorism.  During the Cold War, we had a handful of government agencies doing “top secret” work; today, they found, we have more than 1,200.

For example, Priest and Arkin found 51 federal organizations and military commands that attempt to track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.  And don’t forget the nearly 2,000 for-profit corporate contractors that engage in top-secret work, supposedly hunting terrorists.  The official budget for “intelligence” has increased from around $27 billion in the last years of the Cold War to $75 billion in 2012. Along with this massive expansion of government and private security activities has come a similarly humongous expansion of official secrecy: the number of classified documents has increased from perhaps 5 million a year before 1980 to 92 million in 2011, while Obama administration prosecutions of government whistleblowers have soared.

It’s true that the CIA and the FBI engaged in significant secret and illegal surveillance that included American citizens during the Cold War, but the scale was small compared to the post-9/11 world.

3. Organized labor was accepted as part of the social landscape. 

“Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of their right to join the union of their choice.” That’s what President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in 1952.  “Workers,” he added, “have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers,” and he affirmed that “a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society.”  He caught the mood of the moment this way: “Should any political party attempt to… eliminate labor laws, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.”  “There is,” he acknowledged, “a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible... And they are stupid.” 

You certainly wouldn’t catch Barack Obama saying anything like that today.  

Back then, American unions were, in part, defended even by Republicans because they were considered a crucial aspect of the struggle against Communism.  Unlike Soviet workers, American ones, so the argument went, were free to join independent unions.  And amid a wave of productive wealth, union membership in Eisenhower’s America reached an all-time high: 34% of wage and salary workers in 1955.  In 2011, union membership in the private sector had fallen under 7%, a level not seen since 1932.

Of course, back in the Cold War era the government required unions to kick communists out of any leadership positions they held and unions that refused were driven out of existence.  Unions also repressed wildcat strikes and enforced labor peace in exchange for multi-year contracts with wage and benefit increases. But as we’ve learned in the last decades, if you’re a wageworker, almost any union is better than no union at all.

4. The government had to get a warrant before it could tap your phone. 

Today, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act (yes, that repetitive tongue twister is its real name) gives the government vast powers to spy on American citizens -- and it’s just been extended to 2017 in a bill that Obama enthusiastically signed on December 29th.  The current law allows the monitoring of electronic communications without an individualized court order, as long as the government claims its intent is to gather “foreign intelligence.”  In recent years, much that was once illegal has been made the law of the land.  Vast quantities of the emails and phone calls of Americans are being “data-mined.”  Amendments approved by Congress in 2008, for instance, provided "retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that assisted the Bush administration in its warrantless wiretapping program," which was then (or should have been) illegal, as the website Open Congress notes

There were several modest congressional attempts to amend the 2012 FISA extension act, including one that would have required the director of national intelligence to reveal how many Americans are being secretly monitored.  That amendment would in no way have limited the government’s actual spying program.  The Senate nevertheless rejected it, 52-43, in a nation that has locked itself down in a way that would have been inconceivable in the Cold War years.

It’s true that in the 1950s and 1960s judges typically gave the police and FBI the wiretap warrants they sought.  But it’s probably also true that having to submit requests to judges had a chilling effect on the urge of government authorities to engage in unlimited wiretapping.

5. The infrastructure was being expanded and strengthened.

Today, our infrastructure is crumbling: bridges are collapsing, sewer systems are falling apart, power grids are failing.  Many of those systems date from the immediate post-World War II years.  And the supposedly titanic struggle against communism at home and abroad helped build them.  The best-known example of those Cold War infrastructure construction programs was the congressionally mandated National Defense Highways Act of 1956, which led to the construction of 41,000 miles of the Interstate Highway System. It was the largest public works project in American history and it was necessary, according to the legislation, to “meet the requirements of the national defense in time of war.”  People called the new highways “freeways” or “interstates,” but the official name was "the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways."

Along with the construction of roads and bridges came a similar commitment to expanding water delivery systems and the electrical and telephone grids.  Spending on infrastructure as a share of gross domestic product peaked in the 1960s at 3.1%.  In 2007, it was down to 2.4% and is assumedly still falling.

Today the U.S. has dropped far behind potential global rivals in infrastructure development.  An official panel of 80 experts noted that China is spending $1 trillion on high-speed rail, highways, and other infrastructure over the next five years.  The U.S., according to the report, needs to invest $2 trillion simply to rebuild the roads, bridges, water lines, sewage systems, and dams constructed 40 to 50 years ago, systems that are now reaching the end of their planned life cycles.  But federal spending cuts mean that the burden of infrastructure repair and replacement will fall on state and local governments, whose resources, as everyone knows, are completely inadequate for the task.

Of course, it’s true that the freeways built in the 1950s made the automobile the essential form of transportation in America and led to the withering away of public mass transit, and that the environment suffered as a result.  Still, today’s collapsing bridges and sewers dramatize the loss of any serious national commitment to the public good.

6. College was cheap.

Tuition and fees at the University of California system in 1965 totaled $220.  That’s the equivalent of about $1,600 today, and in 1965 you were talking about the best public university in the world.  In 2012, the Regents of the University of California, presiding over an education system in crisis, raised tuition and fees for state residents to $13,200.  And American students are now at least $1 trillion in debt, thanks to college loans that could consign many to lifetimes as debtors in return for subprime educations.

In 1958, in the panic that followed the Soviet Union’s successful launch of Sputnik, the first satellite, public universities got a massive infusion of federal money when the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) was passed.  The Department of Education website today explains that the purpose of the NDEA was “to help ensure that highly trained individuals would be available to help America compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical fields.”  For the first time, government grants became the major source of university funding for scientific research.  The Act included a generous student-loan program.

With the end of the Cold War, federal funding was cut and public universities had little choice but to begin to make up the difference by increasing tuitions and fees, making students pay more -- a lot more.

True, the NDEA grants in the 1960s required recipients to sign a demeaning oath swearing that they did not seek the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, and that lots of government funding then supported Cold War military and strategic objectives.  After all, the University of California operated the nuclear weapons labs at Livermore and Los Alamos. Still, compare that to today’s crumbling public education system nationwide and who wouldn’t feel nostalgia for the Cold War era?

7. We had a president who called for a “war on poverty.”

In his 1966 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Baines Johnson argued that “the richest Nation on earth… people who live in abundance unmatched on this globe” ought to “bring the most urgent decencies of life to all of your fellow Americans.”  LBJ insisted that it was possible both to fight communism globally (especially in Vietnam) and to fight poverty at home.  As the phrase then went, he called for guns and butter.  In addition, he was determined not simply to give money to poor people, but to help build “community action” groups that would organize them to define and fight for programs they wanted because, the president said, poor people know what’s best for themselves.

Of course, it’s true that Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” unlike the Vietnam War, was woefully underfunded, and that those community action groups were soon overpowered by local mayors and Democratic political machines.  But it’s also true that President Obama did not even consider poverty worth mentioning as an issue in his 2012 reelection campaign, despite the fact that it has spread in ways that would have shocked LBJ, and that income and wealth inequalities between rich and poor have reached levels not seen since the late 1920s.  Today, it’s still plenty of guns -- but butter, not so much.

8. We had a president who warned against “the excessive power of the military-industrial complex.”

In Eisenhower’s “farewell address,” delivered three days before John F. Kennedy’s inauguration, the departing president warned against the “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” He declared that “the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”  The speech introduced the phrase “military-industrial complex” into the vernacular.  It was a crucial moment in the Cold War: a president who had also been the nation’s top military commander in World War II was warning Americans about the dangers posed by the military he had commanded and its corporate and political supporters.

Ike was prompted to give the speech because of his disputes with Congress over the military budget.  He feared nuclear war and firmly opposed all talk about such a war being fought in a “limited” way.  He also knew that, when it came to the Soviet Union, American power was staggeringly preponderant.  And yet his opponents in the Democratic Party, the arms industry, and even the military were claiming that he hadn’t done enough for “defense” -- not enough weapons bought, not enough money spent.  President-elect Kennedy had just won the 1960 election by frightening Americans about a purely fictitious “missile gap” between the U.S. and the Soviets.

It’s true that Ike’s warning would have been far more meaningful had it been in his first or even second inaugural address, or any of his State of the Union speeches.  It’s also true that he had approved CIA coups in Iran and Guatemala, and had green-lighted planning for an invasion of Cuba (that would become Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs disaster).  He had also established Mutual Assured Destruction as the basis for Cold War military strategy, backed up with B-52s carrying atomic bombs in the air 24/7.

By the end of his second term, however, Ike had changed his mind.  His warning was not just against unnecessary spending, but also against institutions that were threatening a crisis he feared would bring the end of individual liberty.  “As one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization,” the president urged his fellow citizens to resist the military-industrial complex.  None of his successors has even tried, and in 2013 we’re living with the results.

...But there is one thing I do NOT miss about the Cold War: nuclear arsenals on hair-trigger alert.

Our Cold War enemy had nuclear weapons capable of destroying us, and the rest of the planet, many times over.  In 1991, when the Cold War ended, the Soviet Union had more than 27,000 nuclear weapons.  According to the Federation of American Scientists, these included more than 11,000 strategic nuclear weapons -- warheads on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched missiles, and weapons on bombers capable of attacking the US -- along with more than 15,000 warheads for “tactical” use as artillery shells and short-range “battlefield” missiles, as well as missile defense interceptors, nuclear torpedoes, and nuclear weapons for shorter-range aircraft.  We learned in 1993 that the USSR at one time possessed almost 45,000 nuclear warheads, and still had nearly 1,200 tons of bomb-grade uranium.  (Of course, sizeable Russian -- and American -- nuclear arsenals still exist.)  In comparison to all that, the arsenals of al-Qaeda and our other terrorist enemies are remarkably insignificant.

© 2013 Jon Wiener

Jon Wiener

Jon Wiener teaches US history at UC Irvine. His latest book, How We Forgot the Cold War: A Historical Journey Across America (University of California Press), has just been published. He sued the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act for its files on John Lennon. With the help of the ACLU of Southern California, Wiener v. FBI went all the way to the Supreme Court before the FBI settled in 1997. That story is told in Wiener's book, Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon FBI Files.

Ike’s Dream, Obama’s Reality: 8 Things I Miss About the Cold War

At a book festival in Los Angeles recently, some writers (myself included) were making the usual arguments about the problems with American politics in the 1950s -- until one panelist shocked the audience by declaring, “God, I miss the Cold War.”  His grandmother, he said, had come to California from Oklahoma with a grade-school education, but found a job in an aerospace factory in L.A. during World War II, joined the union, got healthcare and retirement benefits, and prospered in the Cold War years.  She ended up owning a house in the suburbs and sending her kids to UCLA.

Several older people in the audience leaped to their feet shouting, “What about McCarthyism?”  “The bomb?”  “Vietnam?”  “Nixon?”

All good points, of course.  After all, during the Cold War the U.S. did threaten to destroy the world with nuclear weapons, supported brutal dictators globally because they were anti-communist, and was responsible for the deaths of several million people in Korea and Vietnam, all in the name of defending freedom. And yet it’s not hard to join that writer in feeling a certain nostalgia for the Cold War era.  It couldn’t be a sadder thing to admit, given what happened in those years, but -- given what’s happened in these years -- who can doubt that the America of the 1950s and 1960s was, in some ways, simply a better place than the one we live in now? Here are eight things (from a prospectively longer list) we had then and don’t have now.

1. The president didn’t claim the right to kill American citizens without “the due process of law.

Last year we learned that President Obama personally approved the killing-by-drone of an American citizen living abroad without any prior judicial proceedings. That was in Yemen, but as Amy Davidson wrote at the New Yorker website, “Why couldn’t it have been in Paris?”  Obama assures us that the people he orders assassinated are “terrorists.”  It would, however, be more accurate to call them “alleged terrorists,” or “alleged terrorist associates,” or “people said by some other government to be terrorists, or at least terroristic.”

Obama’s target in Yemen was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was said to be a senior figure in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  According to the book Kill or Capture by Daniel Klaidman, the president told his advisors, “I want Awlaki. Don’t let up on him.”  Steve Coll of the New Yorker commented that this appears to be “the first instance in American history of a sitting president speaking of his intent to kill a particular U.S. citizen without that citizen having been charged formally with a crime or convicted at trial.”  (Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, whom no one claims was connected to terrorist activities or terror plots, was also killed in a separate drone attack.)

The problem, of course, is the due-process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits “any person” from being deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”  It doesn’t say: "any person except for those the president believes to be terrorists."

It gets worse: the Justice Department can keep secret a memorandum providing the supposed “legal” justification for the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen, according to a January 2013 decision by a federal judge.  Ruling on a Freedom of Information lawsuit brought by the ACLU and the New York Times, Judge Colleen McMahon, wrote in her decision, “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.”

It's true that the CIA has admitted it had an assassination program during the Cold War -- described in the so-called “family jewels” or “horrors book,” compiled in 1973 under CIA Director James Schlesinger in response to Watergate-era inquiries and declassified in 2007.  But the targets were foreign leaders, especially Fidel Castro as well as the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba and the Dominican Republic’s Rafael Trujillo.  Still, presidents preferred “plausible deniability” in such situations, and certainly no president before Obama publicly claimed the legal right to order the killing of American citizens.  Indeed, before Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. regularly condemned “targeted killings” of suspected terrorists by Israel that were quite similar to those the president is now regularly ordering in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, Yemen, and possibly elsewhere.

2. We didn’t have a secret “terrorism-industrial complex.”

That’s the term coined by Dana Priest and William Arkin in their book Top Secret America to describe the ever-growing post-9/11 world of government agencies linked to private contractors charged with fighting terrorism.  During the Cold War, we had a handful of government agencies doing “top secret” work; today, they found, we have more than 1,200.

For example, Priest and Arkin found 51 federal organizations and military commands that attempt to track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.  And don’t forget the nearly 2,000 for-profit corporate contractors that engage in top-secret work, supposedly hunting terrorists.  The official budget for “intelligence” has increased from around $27 billion in the last years of the Cold War to $75 billion in 2012. Along with this massive expansion of government and private security activities has come a similarly humongous expansion of official secrecy: the number of classified documents has increased from perhaps 5 million a year before 1980 to 92 million in 2011, while Obama administration prosecutions of government whistleblowers have soared.

It’s true that the CIA and the FBI engaged in significant secret and illegal surveillance that included American citizens during the Cold War, but the scale was small compared to the post-9/11 world.

3. Organized labor was accepted as part of the social landscape. 

“Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of their right to join the union of their choice.” That’s what President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in 1952.  “Workers,” he added, “have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers,” and he affirmed that “a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society.”  He caught the mood of the moment this way: “Should any political party attempt to… eliminate labor laws, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.”  “There is,” he acknowledged, “a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible... And they are stupid.” 

You certainly wouldn’t catch Barack Obama saying anything like that today.  

Back then, American unions were, in part, defended even by Republicans because they were considered a crucial aspect of the struggle against Communism.  Unlike Soviet workers, American ones, so the argument went, were free to join independent unions.  And amid a wave of productive wealth, union membership in Eisenhower’s America reached an all-time high: 34% of wage and salary workers in 1955.  In 2011, union membership in the private sector had fallen under 7%, a level not seen since 1932.

Of course, back in the Cold War era the government required unions to kick communists out of any leadership positions they held and unions that refused were driven out of existence.  Unions also repressed wildcat strikes and enforced labor peace in exchange for multi-year contracts with wage and benefit increases. But as we’ve learned in the last decades, if you’re a wageworker, almost any union is better than no union at all.

4. The government had to get a warrant before it could tap your phone. 

Today, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act (yes, that repetitive tongue twister is its real name) gives the government vast powers to spy on American citizens -- and it’s just been extended to 2017 in a bill that Obama enthusiastically signed on December 29th.  The current law allows the monitoring of electronic communications without an individualized court order, as long as the government claims its intent is to gather “foreign intelligence.”  In recent years, much that was once illegal has been made the law of the land.  Vast quantities of the emails and phone calls of Americans are being “data-mined.”  Amendments approved by Congress in 2008, for instance, provided "retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that assisted the Bush administration in its warrantless wiretapping program," which was then (or should have been) illegal, as the website Open Congress notes

There were several modest congressional attempts to amend the 2012 FISA extension act, including one that would have required the director of national intelligence to reveal how many Americans are being secretly monitored.  That amendment would in no way have limited the government’s actual spying program.  The Senate nevertheless rejected it, 52-43, in a nation that has locked itself down in a way that would have been inconceivable in the Cold War years.

It’s true that in the 1950s and 1960s judges typically gave the police and FBI the wiretap warrants they sought.  But it’s probably also true that having to submit requests to judges had a chilling effect on the urge of government authorities to engage in unlimited wiretapping.

5. The infrastructure was being expanded and strengthened.

Today, our infrastructure is crumbling: bridges are collapsing, sewer systems are falling apart, power grids are failing.  Many of those systems date from the immediate post-World War II years.  And the supposedly titanic struggle against communism at home and abroad helped build them.  The best-known example of those Cold War infrastructure construction programs was the congressionally mandated National Defense Highways Act of 1956, which led to the construction of 41,000 miles of the Interstate Highway System. It was the largest public works project in American history and it was necessary, according to the legislation, to “meet the requirements of the national defense in time of war.”  People called the new highways “freeways” or “interstates,” but the official name was "the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways."

Along with the construction of roads and bridges came a similar commitment to expanding water delivery systems and the electrical and telephone grids.  Spending on infrastructure as a share of gross domestic product peaked in the 1960s at 3.1%.  In 2007, it was down to 2.4% and is assumedly still falling.

Today the U.S. has dropped far behind potential global rivals in infrastructure development.  An official panel of 80 experts noted that China is spending $1 trillion on high-speed rail, highways, and other infrastructure over the next five years.  The U.S., according to the report, needs to invest $2 trillion simply to rebuild the roads, bridges, water lines, sewage systems, and dams constructed 40 to 50 years ago, systems that are now reaching the end of their planned life cycles.  But federal spending cuts mean that the burden of infrastructure repair and replacement will fall on state and local governments, whose resources, as everyone knows, are completely inadequate for the task.

Of course, it’s true that the freeways built in the 1950s made the automobile the essential form of transportation in America and led to the withering away of public mass transit, and that the environment suffered as a result.  Still, today’s collapsing bridges and sewers dramatize the loss of any serious national commitment to the public good.

6. College was cheap.

Tuition and fees at the University of California system in 1965 totaled $220.  That’s the equivalent of about $1,600 today, and in 1965 you were talking about the best public university in the world.  In 2012, the Regents of the University of California, presiding over an education system in crisis, raised tuition and fees for state residents to $13,200.  And American students are now at least $1 trillion in debt, thanks to college loans that could consign many to lifetimes as debtors in return for subprime educations.

In 1958, in the panic that followed the Soviet Union’s successful launch of Sputnik, the first satellite, public universities got a massive infusion of federal money when the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) was passed.  The Department of Education website today explains that the purpose of the NDEA was “to help ensure that highly trained individuals would be available to help America compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical fields.”  For the first time, government grants became the major source of university funding for scientific research.  The Act included a generous student-loan program.

With the end of the Cold War, federal funding was cut and public universities had little choice but to begin to make up the difference by increasing tuitions and fees, making students pay more -- a lot more.

True, the NDEA grants in the 1960s required recipients to sign a demeaning oath swearing that they did not seek the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, and that lots of government funding then supported Cold War military and strategic objectives.  After all, the University of California operated the nuclear weapons labs at Livermore and Los Alamos. Still, compare that to today’s crumbling public education system nationwide and who wouldn’t feel nostalgia for the Cold War era?

7. We had a president who called for a “war on poverty.”

In his 1966 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Baines Johnson argued that “the richest Nation on earth… people who live in abundance unmatched on this globe” ought to “bring the most urgent decencies of life to all of your fellow Americans.”  LBJ insisted that it was possible both to fight communism globally (especially in Vietnam) and to fight poverty at home.  As the phrase then went, he called for guns and butter.  In addition, he was determined not simply to give money to poor people, but to help build “community action” groups that would organize them to define and fight for programs they wanted because, the president said, poor people know what’s best for themselves.

Of course, it’s true that Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” unlike the Vietnam War, was woefully underfunded, and that those community action groups were soon overpowered by local mayors and Democratic political machines.  But it’s also true that President Obama did not even consider poverty worth mentioning as an issue in his 2012 reelection campaign, despite the fact that it has spread in ways that would have shocked LBJ, and that income and wealth inequalities between rich and poor have reached levels not seen since the late 1920s.  Today, it’s still plenty of guns -- but butter, not so much.

8. We had a president who warned against “the excessive power of the military-industrial complex.”

In Eisenhower’s “farewell address,” delivered three days before John F. Kennedy’s inauguration, the departing president warned against the “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” He declared that “the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”  The speech introduced the phrase “military-industrial complex” into the vernacular.  It was a crucial moment in the Cold War: a president who had also been the nation’s top military commander in World War II was warning Americans about the dangers posed by the military he had commanded and its corporate and political supporters.

Ike was prompted to give the speech because of his disputes with Congress over the military budget.  He feared nuclear war and firmly opposed all talk about such a war being fought in a “limited” way.  He also knew that, when it came to the Soviet Union, American power was staggeringly preponderant.  And yet his opponents in the Democratic Party, the arms industry, and even the military were claiming that he hadn’t done enough for “defense” -- not enough weapons bought, not enough money spent.  President-elect Kennedy had just won the 1960 election by frightening Americans about a purely fictitious “missile gap” between the U.S. and the Soviets.

It’s true that Ike’s warning would have been far more meaningful had it been in his first or even second inaugural address, or any of his State of the Union speeches.  It’s also true that he had approved CIA coups in Iran and Guatemala, and had green-lighted planning for an invasion of Cuba (that would become Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs disaster).  He had also established Mutual Assured Destruction as the basis for Cold War military strategy, backed up with B-52s carrying atomic bombs in the air 24/7.

By the end of his second term, however, Ike had changed his mind.  His warning was not just against unnecessary spending, but also against institutions that were threatening a crisis he feared would bring the end of individual liberty.  “As one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization,” the president urged his fellow citizens to resist the military-industrial complex.  None of his successors has even tried, and in 2013 we’re living with the results.

...But there is one thing I do NOT miss about the Cold War: nuclear arsenals on hair-trigger alert.

Our Cold War enemy had nuclear weapons capable of destroying us, and the rest of the planet, many times over.  In 1991, when the Cold War ended, the Soviet Union had more than 27,000 nuclear weapons.  According to the Federation of American Scientists, these included more than 11,000 strategic nuclear weapons -- warheads on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched missiles, and weapons on bombers capable of attacking the US -- along with more than 15,000 warheads for “tactical” use as artillery shells and short-range “battlefield” missiles, as well as missile defense interceptors, nuclear torpedoes, and nuclear weapons for shorter-range aircraft.  We learned in 1993 that the USSR at one time possessed almost 45,000 nuclear warheads, and still had nearly 1,200 tons of bomb-grade uranium.  (Of course, sizeable Russian -- and American -- nuclear arsenals still exist.)  In comparison to all that, the arsenals of al-Qaeda and our other terrorist enemies are remarkably insignificant.

© 2013 Jon Wiener

Jon Wiener

Jon Wiener teaches US history at UC Irvine. His latest book, How We Forgot the Cold War: A Historical Journey Across America (University of California Press), has just been published. He sued the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act for its files on John Lennon. With the help of the ACLU of Southern California, Wiener v. FBI went all the way to the Supreme Court before the FBI settled in 1997. That story is told in Wiener's book, Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon FBI Files.

Internet Freedom and Copyright Reform: Aaron Swartz’s Suspicious Death

aaron-swartz-100021334-orig

 The Wall Street Journal headlined “An Internet Activist Commits Suicide.”

New York’s medical examiner announced death by “hang(ing) himself in his Brooklyn apartment.”

Lingering suspicions remain. Why would someone with so much to give end it all this way? He was one of the Internet generation’s best and brightest.

He advocated online freedom. Selflessly he sought a better open world. Information should be freely available, he believed. A legion of followers supported him globally.

Alive he symbolized a vital struggle to pursue. Death may elevate him to martyr status but removes a key figure important to keep alive.

The New York Times headlined “Internet Activist, a Creator of RSS, Is Dead at 26, Apparently a Suicide.”

He was an Internet folk hero. He supported online freedom and copyright reform. He advocated free and open web files. He championed a vital cause. He worked tirelessly for what’s right.

Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle called him “steadfast in his dedication to building a better and open world. He is among the best spirits of the Internet generation.”

Who’ll replace him now that he’s gone? He called locking up the public domain sinful. He selflessly strove to prevent it.

In July 2011, he was arrested. At the time, he was downloading old scholarly articles. He was charged with violating federal hacking laws. MIT gave him a guest account to do it.

He developed RSS and co-founded Reddit. It’s a social news site.

He was found dead weeks before he was scheduled to stand trial. He was targeted for doing the right thing. He didn’t steal or profit. He shared. His activism was more than words.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) defends online freedom, free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights. It “champion(s) the public interest in every critical battle affecting digital rights.”

On January 12, it headlined “Farewell to Aaron Swartz, an extraordinary hacker and activist.” It called him “a close friend and collaborator.” Tragedy ended his life.

Vital questions remain unanswered. Supporters demand answers. So do family members.They blame prosecutors for what happened. Their statement following his death said the following:

“Aaron’s death is not simply a personal tragedy. It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach. Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts US Attorney’s office and at MIT contributed to his death.”

Swartz did as much or more than anyone to make the Internet a thriving open knowledge ecosystem. He strove to keep it that way. He challenged repressive Internet laws.

He founded Demand Progress. It “works to win progressive policy changes for ordinary people through organizing and grassroots lobbying,” he said.

It prioritizes “civil liberties, civil rights, and government reform.” It ran online campaigns for justice. It advocated in the public interest. It challenged policies harming it.

He mobilized over a million online activists. His other projects included RSS specification, web.py, tor2web, the Open Library, and the Chrome port of HTTPS Everywhere.

He launched Creative Commons. He co-founded Reddit. He and others made it successful. His Raw Thought blog discussed “politics and parody.” He had much to say worth hearing.

In 2011, he used the MIT campus network. He downloaded millions of journal articles. He used the JSTOR database. Authorities claimed he changed his laptop’s IP and Mac addresses. They said he did it to circumvent JSTOR/MIT blocks.

He was charged with “unauthorized (computer) access” under the Computer and Abuse Act. He did the equivalent of checking out too many library books at the same time.

Obama prosecutors claim doing so is criminal. They’ve waged war on Internet freedom. They want Net Neutrality and free expression abolished. They want fascist laws replacing them.

They usurped diktat power. They spurn rule of law principles and other democratic values. They enforce police state authority. They prioritize what no civil society should tolerate.

They claimed Aaron intended to distribute material on peer-to-peer networks. He never did. It hardly mattered. Documents he secured were returned. No harm. No foul. Federal authorities charged him anyway.

In July 2011, a Massachusetts grand jury indicted him. He was arraigned in Boston US District Court. He pled not guilty to all charges. He was freed on a $100,000 unsecured bond.

If convicted, he faced up to 35 years imprisonment and a $1 million dollar fine. He wanted scientific/scholarly articles liberated. They belong in the public domain. He wanted everyone given access. It’s their right, he believed.

He wanted a single giant dataset established. He did it before. He wasn’t charged. Why now?

“While his methods were provocative,” said EFF, his goal was “freeing the publicly-funded scientific literature from a publishing system that makes it inaccessible to most of those who paid for it.”

EFF calls it a cause everyone should support. Aaron was politically active. He fought for what’s right. Followers supported him globally.

In the “physical world,” at worst he’d have faced minor charges, said EFF. They’re “akin to trespassing as part of political protests.”

Doing it online changed things. He faced possible long-term incarceration. For years, EFF fought this type injustice.

Academic/political activist Lawrence Lessig called Aaron’s death just cause for reforming computer crime laws. Overzealous prosecutors are bullies. They overreach and cause harm.

EFF mourned his passing, saying:

“Aaron, we will sorely miss your friendship, and your help in building a better world.” Many others feel the same way.

Did Aaron take his own life or was he killed? Moti Nissani is Wayne State University Department of Biology Professor Emeritus. “Who Killed Aaron Swartz,” he asked?

He quoted Bob Marley saying: “How long shall they kill our prophets while we stand aside and look?” He listed reasons why Obama administration scoundrels wanted him dead.

His death “was preceded by a vicious, totally unjustified, campaign of surveillance, harassment, vilification, and intimidation.”

CIA/FBI/Mossad/MI5 assassins expertly “mak(e) murder look like suicide.” Numerous “enemies of the state” die under suspicious circumstances. Media scoundrels don’t explain.

US authorities “had excellent reasons to kill” Aaron. He was legendary in his own right like John Lennon, MLK, Malcolm X and others. He threatened status quo dominance. He denounced Obama’s kill list and anti-Iranian cyber attacks.

Powerful government and business figures deplored him. In 2009, FBI elements investigated him. Charges didn’t follow.

Despite extreme pressure, he pressed on. He defied prosecutorial authority. In October 2009, he posted his FBI file online. Doing do “probably signed his own lynch warrant,” said Nissani.

Two days before his death, JSTOR, his alleged victim, declined to press charges. It went further. It “announced that the archives of more than 1,200 of its journals would be available to the public free.”

Aaron had just cause to celebrate. “Are we to believe” he hanged himself instead?

Government officials and corporate bosses “had plenty of reasons” to want him dead. He challenged their totalitarian agenda. “He was creative, idealistic and unbendable.”

“He was young and admired by many.” Did “invisible government” elements kill him?

“They did so either indirectly through constant harassment….or, most likely, directly by hanging him and” blaming him for their crime.

“All this raises a dilemma for those of us possessing both conscience and a functioning brain.” How much longer will we stand by and do nothing?

How long will we tolerate what demands condemnation? When will we defend our own interests?

Freedom is too precious to lose. Preserving it depends on us. No one will do it for us. It’s not possible any other way. It never was. It never will be.

Aaron’s Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto

His own words say it best.

“Information is power,” he said. “But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves.”

“The world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations.”

“Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You’ll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.”

“There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it.”

“But even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. Everything up until now will have been lost.”

“That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them?”

“Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to children in the Global South? It’s outrageous and unacceptable.”

” ‘I agree,’ many say, but what can we do?’ The companies hold the copyrights. They make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it’s perfectly legal – there’s nothing we can do to stop them. But there is something we can, something that’s already being done: we can fight back.”

“Those with access to these resources – students, librarians, scientists – you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out.”

“But you need not – indeed, morally, you cannot – keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.”

“Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends.”

“But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It’s called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn’t immoral – it’s a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.”

“Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it – their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can make copies.”

“There is no justice in following unjust laws. It’s time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture.”

“We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that’s out of copyright and add it to the archive.”

“We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerrilla Open Access.”

“With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge – we’ll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?”

Does Aaron’s manifesto sound like someone planning suicide?

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

 http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

 Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/aaron-swartzs-suspicious-death/

‘No nuclear activity at Parchin site’

File photo shows centrifuges at Natanz uranium enrichment site in central Iran.

Iran has dismissed allegations about clandestine nuclear activities at Parchin military site, which is situated near the capital, Tehran.

“Parchin is a military site and continues its own specific activities without having anything to do with [Iran’s] nuclear work,” Iran Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said on Tuesday.

He noted that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have so far visited Parchin twice.

Mehmanparast said Iran and the IAEA can reach an agreement on the full recognition of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear rights in return for addressing concerns and removing possible ambiguities about Iran’s nuclear energy program.


Iran and the IAEA will hold a new round of talks in Tehran on Wednesday. They last met in December 2012.

On Tuesday, IAEA Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts said the Agency’s inspectors hope to win Iran’s green light to visit Parchin.

“We hope that we will be allowed to go to Parchin and if access is granted we will welcome the chance to do so,” Reuters quoted Nackaerts as saying.

Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman criticized IAEA’s foot-dragging on closing Iran’s nuclear dossier.

“If every day fresh allegations are raised over one location in Iran and based on these allegations they (IAEA) demand to visit all our military sites without showing any commitment to our peaceful nuclear activities, this process will never end,” he added.

The United States, Israel and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.

Iran argues that as a committed signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the IAEA, it is entitled to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

KA/SS

Afghanistan’s Forgotten Refugees

In 2008, Seyed Hasan, a father of 6, fled his home in the Wardak province of eastern Afghanistan. Hasan and his family were targeted by the Taliban for resisting their demands. It had been seven years since the United States had intervened to oust the group, but the Taliban was still acting with impunity in broad swaths of the country.

Hasan’s family applied for refugee status in Turkey, but their initial claim was rejected, leading them to seek assistance from the Istanbul-based Helsinki Citizens Assembly Refugee Advocacy and Support Program (HCA-RASP), an NGO for which I work. Over four years later, the family was finally granted refugee status. But their situation did not improve. Employers continued to exploit Hasan when he was lucky enough to find work, multiple family members were in need of medical assistance, and the children young enough to enroll in school lacked the resources to do well. 

Years of living life at an impasse led Hasan to recently ask me, his legal adviser, “Why do they treat us Afghans this way?” 

Turkey is not the worst place in the world to be a refugee, but nor is it the best. When signing the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, Turkey applied a “geographical limitation,” or reservation whereby only individuals fleeing European countries would be recognized and afforded full rights as refugees. As a result, non-European asylum-seekers are granted access to “temporary asylum” while they await a determination of their status by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Once recognized as refugees, they are allowed residence in Turkey while the UNHCR attempts to have them resettled to third countries. Permanent legal residence, or local integration, is not an option. 

Hasan’s question arose from having watched many newly arrived Iranian and Iraqi refugees pass through the asylum system with relative ease, spending sometimes as little as one year in Turkey before having an opportunity for a fresh start in the West. Meanwhile, Afghans did not seem to be going anywhere. Young Afghan men lost prime years of their lives practically begging for access to education while others established informal refugee camps in public parks. Many took notice of the government’s generous provision of camps and other services for Syrian refugees. Conditions lead Hasan’s eldest son to attempt an illegal crossing to Greece, only to end up back with his family after being detained, returned, and fined. 

The New York Times and New American Media each recently featured compelling pieces highlighting the predicament facing thousands of Iraqis who have sacrificed their own personal safety cooperating with American service members and contractors, but face enduring obstacles in their ability to gain protection in the United States. Is the very same thing happening as the United States plans its withdrawal from Afghanistan?

The Refugee Admissions Program, administered by the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), is the mechanism that allows for recognized refugees in other parts of the world to start new lives in the United States. As the world's top receiver of refugees by far, the United States has set a ceiling for overall refugee admission at 80,000 for each of the last several years. In reality, only about 58,000 are actually admitted annually. The fact that over 20,000 spots have gone unfilled each year is indeed a problem, but not the only one. 

Only 428—or 0.8 percent of the total refugees admitted to the United States in 2011—were from Afghanistan. The U.S. government had allocated 35,500 of the yearly available spots for refugees from the Near East and South Asia, including Iraq, Bhutan, and Afghanistan. Almost 20 percent of the overall 2011 admissions, or 9,388 persons, were Iraqi. The recent articles advocate for an increase in this number and an ease in access to the system, but even a cursory look at the statistics should elicit a double-take at the tiny number of Afghans admitted. 

Hasan and other Afghans in Turkey represent only a small fraction of the over 2.6 million Afghan refugees worldwide, most of whom live in neighboring Pakistan and Iran. As new sanctions cripple Iran's economy, Afghans are crossing the border into Turkey in increasing numbers and are expected to surpass Iranians to form the second-largest group of refugees in Turkey next year. 

Certainly responsibility for these refugees must be shared by various actors, not just the United States. Only 26 countries currently have resettlement programs, and those that do should increase their quotas. Turkey itself must open up local integration as a durable solution. But for now, Hasan must await an answer from the nation that put boots on the ground in his country in 2001.    

What response can our NGO give to Hasan? Is there anything more to it than the apparent brutal truth: among the already unwanted, you are the least favored? The standard explanation by UNHCR-Turkey that refugees from countries sharing a border with Turkey get priority due to security considerations has lost credibility, particularly since three times as many Somalis have left Turkey in the last seven years than Afghans. Although they may not know the specific name of the American law (the Lautenberg Amendment), Afghans know from experience that Iranian religious minorities are given priority in the resettlement system.

The recent attention to Iraqi refugees and their resettlement plight provides an opportunity to take stock of the broader inequities and inefficiencies of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. If our generous resettlement program is in fact an indication of our commitment to international law and humanitarianism, then we should establish a system that is transparent and does not favor specific religious groups while others wait endlessly. 

Resettlement quotas should reflect the size of each refugee group in first-countries of asylum like Turkey—and barring major vulnerability, referrals should be made according to the date of refugee recognition, so that new arrivals do not jump ahead of others. Simplifying the system will also lead to more resettlement for Afghans. In doing so, we will gain back the confidence and trust of many, like Hasan, who have lost their home and their future, at least in part to American geopolitical adventures.

© 2012 Foreign Policy In Focus

Zaid Hydari is an American attorney and currently the co-coordinator of the Helsinki Citizens Assembly Refugee Advocacy and Support Program’s (HCA-RASP) Refugee Status Determination Legal Assistance Unit in Istanbul. He is also the founder and chair of the board of directors of the Refugee Solidarity Network, a start-up American non-profit organization that aims to bring together American and Turkish refugee rights advocates.

Great Fallout: NDAA Chinese tunnel scare ‘smokescreen for US nuclear intentions’

A US defense report has called for contingency planning to neutralize a vast Chinese tunnel network with both “conventional and nuclear forces.”

The Pentagon as a Global NRA

Given these last weeks, who doesn’t know what an AR-15 is? Who hasn’t seen the mind-boggling stats on the way assault rifles have flooded this country, or tabulations of accumulating Newtown-style mass killings, or noted that there are barely more gas stations nationwide than federally licensed firearms dealers, or heard the renewed debates over the Second Amendment, or been struck by the rapid shifts in public opinion on gun control, or checked out the disputes over how effective an assault-rifle ban was the last time around? Who doesn’t know about the NRA’s suggestion to weaponize schools, or about the price poor neighborhoods may be paying in gun deaths for the present expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment? Who hasn’t seen the legions of stories about how, in the wake of the Newtown slaughter, sales of guns, especially AR-15 assault rifles, have soared, ammunition sales have surged, background checks for future gun purchases have risen sharply, and gun shows have been besieged with customers?

If you haven’t stumbled across figures on gun violence in America or on suicide-by-gun, you’ve been hiding under a rock. If you haven’t heard about Chicago’s soaring and Washington D.C.'s plunging gun-death stats (and that both towns have relatively strict gun laws), where have you been?

Has there, in fact, been any aspect of the weaponization of the United States that, since the Newtown massacre, hasn’t been discussed? Are you the only person in the country, for instance, who doesn’t know that Vice President Joe Biden has been assigned the task of coming up with an administration gun-control agenda before Barack Obama is inaugurated for his second term? And can you honestly tell me that you haven’t seen global comparisons of killing rates in countries that have tight gun laws and the U.S., or read at least one discussion about life in countries like Colombia or Guatemala, where armed guards are omnipresent?

After years of mass killings that resulted in next to no national dialogue about the role of guns and how to control them, the subject is back on the American agenda in a significant way and -- by all signs -- isn’t about to leave town anytime soon. The discussion has been so expansive after years in a well-armed wilderness that it’s easy to miss what still isn’t being discussed, and in some sense just how narrow our focus remains.

Think of it this way: the Obama administration is reportedly going to call on Congress to pass a new ban on assault weapons, as well as one on high-capacity ammunition magazines, and to close the loopholes that allow certain gun purchasers to avoid background checks. But Biden has already conceded, at least implicitly, that facing a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a filibuster-prone Senate, the administration’s ability to make much of this happen -- as on so many domestic issues -- is limited.

That will shock few Americans. After all, the most essential fact about the Obama presidency is this: at home, the president is a hamstrung weakling; abroad, in terms of his ability to choose a course of action and -- from drones strikes and special ops raids to cyberwar and other matters -- simply act, he’s closer to Superman. So here’s a question: while the administration is pledging to try to curb the wholesale spread of ever more powerful weaponry at home, what is it doing about the same issue abroad where it has so much more power to pursue the agenda it prefers?

Flooding the World With the Most Advanced Weaponry Money Can Buy

As a start, it’s worth noting that no one ever mentions the domestic gun control debate in the same breath with the dominant role the U.S. plays in what’s called the global arms trade. And yet, the link between the two should be obvious enough.

In the U.S., the National Rifle Association (NRA), an ultra-powerful lobbying group closely allied with weapons-making companies, has a strong grip on Congress -- it gives 288 members of that body its top “A-rating” -- and is in a combative relationship with the White House. Abroad, it’s so much simpler and less contested. Beyond U.S. borders, the reality is: the Pentagon, with the White House in tow, is the functional equivalent of the NRA, and like that organization, it has been working tirelessly in recent years in close alliance with major weapons-makers to ensure that there are ever less controls on the ever more powerful weaponry it wants to see sold abroad.

Between them, the White House and the Pentagon -- with a helping hand from the State Department -- ensure that the U.S. remains by far the leading purveyor of the “right to bear arms” globally. Year in, year out, in countries around the world, they do their best to pave the way (as the NRA does domestically) for the almost unfettered sales of ever more lethal weapons. In fact, the U.S. now has something remarkably close to a monopoly on what’s politely called the “transfer” of weaponry on a global scale. In 1990, as the Cold War was ending, the U.S. had cornered an impressive 37% of the global weapons trade. By 2011, the last year for which we have figures, that percentage had reached a near-monopolistic 78% ($66.3 billion in weapons sales), with the Russians coming in a distant second at 5.6% ($4.8 billion).

Admittedly, that figure was improbably inflated, thanks to the Saudis who decided to spend a pile of their oil money as if there were no tomorrow. In doing so, they created a bonanza year abroad for the major weapons-makers. They sealed deals on $33.4 billion in U.S. arms in 2011, including 84 of Boeing’s F-15 fighter jets and dozens of that company’s Apache attack helicopters as well as Sikorsky Blackhawk helicopters -- and those were just the highest-end items in a striking set of purchases. But if 2011 was a year of break-the-bank arms-deals with the Saudis, 2012 doesn’t look bad either. As it ended, the Pentagon announced that they hadn’t turned off the oil spigot. They agreed to ante up another $4 billion to Boeing for upgrades on their armada of jet fighters and were planning to spend up to $6.7 billion for 20 Lockheed 25 C-130J transport and refueling planes. Some of this weaponry could, of course, be used in any Saudi conflict with Iran (or any other Middle Eastern state), but some could simply ensure future Newtown-like carnage in restive areas of that autocratic, fundamentalist regime’s land or in policing actions in neighboring small states like Bahrain.

And don’t think the Saudis were alone in the region. When it came to U.S. weapons-makers flooding the Middle East with firepower, they were in good company. Among states purchasing (or simply getting) infusions of U.S. arms in recent years were Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Tunisia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Yemen. As Nick Turse has written, “When it comes to the Middle East, the Pentagon acts not as a buyer, but as a broker and shill, clearing the way for its Middle Eastern partners to buy some of the world's most advanced weaponry.”

Typically, for instance, on Christmas Day in 2011, the U.S. signed a deal with the UAE in which, for $3.5 billion, it would receive Lockheed Martin’s Theater High Altitude Area Defense, an advanced antimissile interception system, part of what Reuters termed “an accelerating military buildup of its friends and allies near Iran.” Of course, selling to Arab allies without offering Israel something even better would be out of the question, so in mid-2012 it was announced that Israel would purchase 20 of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, America’s most advanced jet (and weapons boondoggle), still in development, for $2.7 billion.

From tanks to littoral combat ships, it would be easy to go on, but you get the idea. Of course, U.S. weapons-makers in Pentagon-brokered or facilitated deals sell their weaponry and military supplies to countries planet-wide, ranging from Brazil to Singapore to Australia. But it generally seems that the biggest deals and the most advanced weaponry follow in the wake of Washington’s latest crises. In the Middle East at the moment, that would be the ongoing U.S.-Israeli confrontation with Iran, for which Washington has long been building up a massive military presence in the Persian Gulf and on bases in allied countries around that land.

A Second Amendment World, Pentagon-Style

It’s a given that every American foreign policy crisis turns out to be yet another opportunity for the Pentagon to plug U.S. weapons systems into the “needs” of its allies, and for the weapons-makers to deliver. So, from India to South Korea, Singapore to Japan, the Obama administration’s announced 2012 “pivot to” or “rebalancing in” Asia -- an essentially military program focused on containing China -- has proven the latest boon for U.S. weapons sales and weapons-makers.

As Jim Wolf of Reuters recently reported, the Aerospace Industries Association, a trade group that includes Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and other weapons companies, “said sales agreements with countries in the U.S. Pacific Command's area of activity rose to $13.7 billion in fiscal 2012, up 5.4% from a year before. Such pacts represent orders for future delivery.” As the vice president of that association put it, Washington’s Asian pivot “will result in growing opportunities for our industry to help equip our friends." We’re talking advanced jet fighters, missile systems, and similar major weapons programs, including F-35s, F-16s, Patriot anti-missile batteries, and the like for countries ranging from South Korea to Taiwan and India.

All of this ensures the sharpening of divides between China and its neighbors in the Pacific amid what may become a regional arms race. For the Pentagon, it seems, no weaponry is now off the table for key Asian allies in its incipient anti-China alliance, including advanced drones. The Obama administration is already brokering a $1.2 billon sale of Northrop Grumman's RQ-4 "Global Hawk" spy drones to South Korea. Recently, it has been reported that Japan is preparing to buy the same model as its dispute sharpens with China over a set of islands in the East China Sea. (The Obama administration has also been pushing the idea of selling advanced armed drones to allies like Italy and Turkey, but -- a rare occurrence -- has met resistance from Congressional representatives worrying about other countries pulling a “Washington”: that is, choosing its particular bad guys and sending drone assassins across foreign borders to take them out.)

Here’s the strange thing in the present gun control context: no one -- not pundits, politicians, or reporters -- seems to see the slightest contradiction in an administration that calls for legal limits on advanced weaponry in the U.S. and yet (as rare press reports indicate) is working assiduously to remove barriers to the sale of advanced weaponry overseas. There are, of course, still limits on arms sales abroad, some imposed by Congress, some for obvious reasons. The Pentagon does not broker weapons sales to Iran, North Korea, or Cuba, and it has, for example, been prohibited by Congress from selling them to the military regime in Myanmar. But generally the Obama administration has put effort into further easing the way for major arms sales abroad, while working to rewrite global export rules to make them ever more permeable.

In other words, the Pentagon is the largest federally licensed weapons dealer on the planet and its goal -- one that the NRA might envy -- is to create a world in which the rights of those deemed our allies to bear our (most advanced) armaments “shall not be infringed.” The Pentagon, it seems, is intent on pursuing its own global version of the Second Amendment, not for citizens of the world but for governments, including grim, autocratic states like Saudi Arabia which are perfectly capable of using such weaponry to create Newtowns on an unimaginable scale.

A well regulated militia indeed.

Hawks on Iraq Prepare for War Again, Against Hagel

In the bitter debate that led up to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Senator Chuck Hagelof Nebraska said that some of his fellow Republicans, in their zest for war, lacked the perspective of veterans like him, who have “sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off.”       

Those Republicans in turn called him an “appeaser” whose cautious geopolitical approach dangerously telegraphed weakness in the post-Sept. 11 world.       

The campaign now being waged against Mr. Hagel’s nomination as secretary of defense is in some ways a relitigation of that decade-old dispute. It is also a dramatic return to the public stage by the neoconservatives whose worldview remains a powerful undercurrent in the Republican Party and in the national debate about the United States’ relationship with Israel and the Middle East.       

To Mr. Hagel’s allies, his presence at the Pentagon would be a very personal repudiation of the interventionist approach to foreign policy championed by the so-called Vulcans in the administration of President George W. Bush, who believed in pre-emptive strikes against potential threats and the promotion of democracy, by military means if necessary.       

“This is the neocons’ worst nightmare because you’ve got a combat soldier, successful businessman and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force,” said Richard L. Armitage, who broke with the more hawkish members of the Bush team during the Iraq war when he was a deputy to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.       

William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, who championed the Iraq invasion and is leading the opposition to Mr. Hagel’s nomination, says the former senator and his supporters are suffering from “neoconservative derangement syndrome.”       

Mr. Kristol said he and other like-minded hawks were more concerned about Mr. Hagel’s occasional arguments against sanctions (he voted against some in the Senate), what they deem as his overcautious attitudes about military action against Iran and his tougher approach to Israel than they were about his views on Iraq — aside from his outspoken opposition to the American troop surge there that was ultimately deemed successful.       

Mr. Kristol’s latest editorial argues that Mr. Hagel’s statement that he is an unequivocal supporter of Israel is “nonsense,” given his reference in a 2006 interview to a “Jewish lobby” that intimidates lawmakers into blindly supporting Israeli positions.       

“I’d much prefer a secretary of defense who was a more mainstream internationalist — not a guy obsessed by how the United States uses its power and would always err on the side of not intervening,” he added. Of Mr. Hagel and his allies, Mr. Kristol said, “They sort of think we should have just gone away.”       

In fact, the neoconservatives have done anything but disappear. In the years since the war’s messy end, the most hawkish promoters have maintained enormous sway within the Republican Party, holding leading advisory posts in both the McCain and Romney presidential campaigns as their counterparts in the “realist” wing of the party, epitomized by Mr. Powell, gravitated toward Barack Obama.       

And while members of both parties think the chances are good that Mr. Hagel will win confirmation, the neoconservatives are behind some of the most aggressive efforts to derail it, through television advertisements, op-ed articles in prominent publications and pressure on Capitol Hill, where some Democrats, including Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, have also indicated reservations.       

Their prominence in the fight over Mr. Hagel’s nomination is testament to their continued outsize voice in the public debate, helped by outlets like The Weekly Standard, research groups like the American Enterprise Institute and wealthy Republican financiers like the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, whose nearly $100 million in political donations last year were driven largely by his interest in Israel. The Republican Jewish Coalition, on whose board of directors Mr. Adelson sits, was among the first to criticize the Hagel nomination.       

The most outspoken among them had leading roles in developing the rationale and, in some cases, the plan for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein.       

One critic is Elliott Abrams, a national security adviser to Mr. Bush during the Iraq war who pleaded guilty in the Iran-contra scandal to withholding information from Congress. He called Mr. Hagel an anti-Semite who has “some kind of problem with Jews” in an interview on NPR last week. (The Council on Foreign Relations, where Mr. Abrams is a senior fellow, distanced itself from his comments.)       

The Emergency Committee for Israel, a conservative group, has run a TV advertisement and has a Web site calling Mr. Hagel an inappropriate choice for the Defense Department, citing some of his votes against sanctions on Iran and Libya and his calls to engage in direct talks with groups like Hamas. Its donors have included the activist financier Daniel S. Loeb, and Mr. Abrams’s wife, Rachel, serves on its board.       

And of course, there is Mr. Kristol himself, who in the late 1990s helped form a group called the Project for a New American Century. In 1998, the organization released a letter to President Bill Clinton arguing that Saddam Hussein posed a potential nuclear threat to the United States, Israel and moderate Arab states and should be ousted.       

It was signed by several future members of the Bush national security team: Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as defense secretary; Paul D. Wolfowitz, who served under Mr. Rumsfeld; Mr. Abrams; and outsider advisers, including Richard N. Perle, a former chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee; and Mr. Armitage. Serving as a research associate was Michael Goldfarb, who is helping to direct the Emergency Committee for Israel’s attacks against Mr. Hagel.       

Around the same time in the late 1990s, Mr. Hagel was allied with Mr. Kristol and other hawks calling for the commitment of ground troops in support of the Clinton administration’s intervention in Kosovo. Mr. Kristol went so far as to suggest Mr. Hagel as a potential running mate for Mr. Bush in 2000, calling him an “impressive and attractive first-term senator.”       

Their relationship broke with Mr. Hagel’s criticism of the Iraq war, and his rare status as a Congressional Republican critical of the intervention led to plentiful TV bookings and the antipathy of the war’s architects and supporters. Besides being a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Hagel had added cachet by way of two Purple Hearts from his service in Vietnam, which left shrapnel embedded in his chest and, he has said, a unique perspective on war.       

“Here was a Republican with national security credentials saying that the Republican president was being irresponsible on national security — that’s potent,” said Kenneth L. Adelman, a member of the Defense Policy Review Board at the time and a frequent sparring partner with Mr. Hagel on television. “It drove me up the wall not so much that he was Republican, because I didn’t care that much from a political point of view — I thought the substance of his arguments were just wrong and unfounded.”       

Mr. Hagel’s earliest concerns arose before the Congressional vote authorizing the use of force. “You can take the country into a war pretty fast,” he said in an interview with The New York Times in 2002, “but you can’t get us out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are.” In the interview, he took a swipe at Mr. Perle, then one of the most visible promoters of the war, saying, “Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad.”       

Mr. Perle had never served in the military. Along with Mr. Hagel’s comment in Newsweek that many of the war’s most steadfast proponents “don’t know anything about war,” his criticism prompted a national discussion about “chicken hawks,” a derisive term for those advocating war with no direct experience of it. And his comments drew a rebuke from The Weekly Standard that Mr. Hagel was part of an “axis of appeasement.”       

Mr. Hagel’s words appear to sting to this day. “Normally you hope your cabinet officers don’t resort to ad hominem argument,” said Mr. Perle, who is now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In an interview, he said his opposition to the nomination stemmed from his fear that Mr. Hagel was among those who “so abhor the use of force that they actually weaken the diplomacy that enables you to achieve results without using force.”       

Yet Mr. Hagel did ultimately vote to give Mr. Bush the authority to go to war. He has said that he did so to give the administration diplomatic leverage and that he now regrets it. Explaining his vote on the floor of the Senate, he warned, “We should not be seduced by the expectations of ‘dancing in the streets’ after Saddam’s regime has fallen.”       

If Mr. Hagel’s call for caution seems prescient, several opponents have argued that his prediction that the 2006 troop surge would fail was not — a position sure to come up frequently as confirmation hearings get closer.

Aaron Swartz: Reddit Co-Founder Killed Himself Due to Government Censorship and Harassment?

Reddit co-founder and free speech activist Aaron Swartz killed himself due to government censorship and harassment. (He was probably clinically depressed and apparently committed suicide; no one is alleging that he was murdered.)

Is AIPAC Waging A Shadow War On Hagel?

Is the Israel lobby’s premier organization outsourcing its assault on Chuck Hagel?

January 14, 2013  |  

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

“A lobby is like a night flower: It thrives in the dark and dies in the light.” – former AIPAC foreign policy director Steve Rosen

If the most powerful Israel lobbying group in America is to be believed, it has no involvement in the increasingly ugly campaign to sabotage the nomination of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to Secretary of Defense. According to Eli Lake, a reliable water carrier for the Israeli government and its various Beltway lobbying arms, the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is “sitting out” the Hagel fight. The same day, another faithful pro-Israel partisan, Jeffrey Goldberg, speculated on his blog at the Atlantic that “AIPAC will not mount a significant campaign” against Hagel.

“AIPAC does not take positions on presidential nominations,” insisted AIPAC spokesman Marshall Wittman.

But a closer investigation of the campaign against Hagel indicates that AIPAC -- and by extension, the Israeli government -- may be outsourcing the attacks to its longtime former spokesman, the notoriously combative pro-Israel operative Josh Block. Through Block, who was until very recently quoted by reporters as a “former AIPAC spokesman,” AIPAC has apparently been able to assail one of President Barack Obama’s key nominees without risking the political fallout that such a gambit might invite.

“Because Josh Block does not work for AIPAC anymore, he can say whatever he wants,” MJ Rosenberg, a former editor of AIPAC's weekly newsletter and ex-congressional aide who is now one of the Israel lobby’s premier critics, told me. “And he does: when AIPAC wants a message sent, it tells journalists, ‘We have no comment but you can call Josh Block.’ And Block, who is in constant contact with AIPAC, gives the line but AIPAC has deniability – they can just say, he doesn’t work for us.”

AIPAC has good reasons to keep its fingerprints off the public campaign to demonize Hagel. For one, AIPAC thrives on its ability to influence lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, requiring it to avoid alienating the key congressional Democrats who rubberstamp the anti-Palestinian resolutions and Iran sanctions legislation it routinely authors. If AIPAC waded into the Republican-led crusade against Hagel in a public way, it might enrage some of its most reliable Democratic allies in Congress, generating unnecessary acrimony that might complicate future lobbying initiatives.

What’s more, were AIPAC to openly oppose President Barack Obama on a key cabinet pick, it would risk deepening the tension between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who came dangerously close to openly campaigning for Obama’s Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, during the 2012 presidential campaign. Given the already icy relationship between Netanyahu and Obama, it is no surprise that AIPAC has gone to such lengths to distance itself from the campaign against Hagel.

Another reason for AIPAC’s reluctance to publicly oppose Hagel is its complicated legal status. Though it functions as a virtual arm of the Israeli government, AIPAC is not regulated by the US Department of Justice as other foreign agents are. If it were ever exposed for directly coordinating with the Israeli government, AIPAC would be required to register with the DoJ under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Its staff members would then be allowed to carry the line of the Israeli government, but only under strict regulations that would severely hamper their effectiveness, and erode their image as a homegrown reflection of America’s supposedly pro-Israel sensibility.

According to Rosenberg, this is where Block enters the picture.

“The Josh Block phenomenon is a strategem to get around laws relating to foreign lobbying,” Rosenberg explained. “He talks to the Israeli embassy constantly and can and does convey what the Netanyahu government wants. But, hey, he isn't AIPAC, so he can do that. He's just a citizen. That’s why Josh Block is infinitely more valuable as ex-AIPAC than he was before.”

Syrian prime minister due in Tehran

Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast says Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi will arrive in the Iranian capital, Tehran, on Tuesday.

“The Syrian Prime Minister will arrive in Tehran tomorrow (Tuesday), leading a high-ranking political and economic delegation,” Mehmanparast said on Monday.

He also reaffirmed Iran’s support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s roadmap for the restoration of peace in his crisis-stricken country.

“The most peaceful way to stop more damage to people [of Syria] in the shortest possible time and create appropriate conditions to meet people's demands is the plan announced by Bashar Assad which conforms to the plan we [Iran] had earlier outlined,” Mehmanparast noted.


In an address on January 6, the Syrian president proposed a new strategic roadmap for dialogue with the opposition and political parties to resolve the unrest in Syria.

Assad called for an end to terrorist operations in Syria and urged “concerned states and parties” to stop funding, arming and harboring militants.

“We believe that the self-declared advocates of democracy in different countries should support solutions which would restore peace and stability to Syria and create suitable conditions for people to participate in an election and cast their votes,” Mehmanparast said.

“We believe that Syria is home to 24 million people, but the armed groups, regardless of the fact that some of them are foreign nationals or backed by foreign countries, are just a small part of that population who number 100,000 at most. Based on what criteria, one can say that they represent the majority of the Syrian people to determine conditions for Assad to step down?” he asked.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011, and many people, including large numbers of security forces, have been killed in the turmoil.

The Syrian government says the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants are foreign nationals.

KA/SS/MA

Sen. Corker Claims There are Questions Regarding Hagel’s ‘Temperament’

As Sarah Jones at Politicususa rightfully noted, this is pretty rich coming from today's Republican party: The Party of Hotheads Cheney and McCain is Concerned About Hagel’s Temperament:

On ABC’s This Week, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) concern trolled about the ‘temperament’ of Republican former Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NB), whom Obama has nominated as Secretary of Defense. To back up his concern, Corker referenced possible issues with staffers, “I think there are numbers of staffers who are coming forth now just talking about the way he has dealt with them.” [...]

What staffers? Can he name one of them? Does Corker “think” they are coming forth or have they come forth? And since Hagel’s staffers would have most likely been Republican, it’s possible that such a desperate move might stink to high heaven of a Republican Party agenda, if in fact they ever do “come forth.” But really, since when do staffers weigh in on nominations?

Corker is worried about temperament, and he’s proving that by spreading unfounded rumors from alleged anonymous staffers that may or may not be a figament of his imagination. [...]

The real issue Republicans have with Hagel is that not only has he been to war, unlike most in the chicken hawk party, but he is a two-time recipient of the Purple Heart and he is against a war-first strategy. Hagel warned us before invading Iraq that it is very easy to start a war, and not so easy to end one. Republicans were outraged at Hagel for suggesting such a fact.

I never thought I’d see the day when a modern day Republican suggested that temperament should be an issue. After all, this is the party of distemper. This is the party that allegedly can’t control its members from shouting insults during a State of the Union address. This is the party that lied us into war and ran Sarah Palin as a Vice President.

It’s ironic that the party of irascible hotheads Dick Cheney and John McCain is concerned about Hagel’s temperament, because if they had listened to him, we never would have invaded Iraq. Hagel’s temperament is actually an argument for his confirmation.

I'm wondering when Corker has ever expressed any concern for this guy's temperament?


(Bob Schieffer asks McCain why he's opposed to every one of President Obama's cabinet picks on his gazillionth appearance on the Sunday talk shows.)

Transcript via below the fold.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Corker, you had some positive things to say about Senator Hagel last month when his name was first floated. You said you had good relations on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Do you see anything out there now that should disqualify him from the Pentagon post?

CORKER: Well, I think like a lot of people, the hearings are going to have a huge effect on me. I know I talked to Chuck this week. He's coming in to see me next week. But I think the hearings, this is going to be a real hearing process, unlike many of the people who end up being confirmed or not confirmed.

You know, I have a lot of questions about just this whole nuclear posture views. Those are things that haven't really been discussed yet. Obviously people have concerned about his stance towards Iran and Israel.

But I think another thing, George, that's going to come up is just his overall temperament, and is he suited to run a department or a big agency or a big entity like the Pentagon, and so look --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have questions about his temperament?

CORKER: -- forward to sitting down -- I -- what's that?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have questions about his temperament?

CORKER: I think -- I think there are numbers of staffers who are coming forth now just talking about the way he has dealt with them. I have certainly questions about a lot of things. I begin all of these confirmation processes with an open mind. I did have a good relationship with him. I had a good conversation with him this week. But I think this is one where people are going to be listening to what he has to say, me in particular about the things I just mentioned, but especially some of the positions he's taken generally speaking about our nuclear posture.

I think you know that I affirmed the new START Treaty. A lot of modernization was supposed to take place as a result of that on our nuclear arsenal. That's not happening at the pace that it should. The Pentagon is going to have a big effect on that, and for me, that is going to be a very big issue.

Obama’s Cabinet of Austerity and War

The two most significant nominations of the past ten days have been John Brennan for director of the Central Intelligence Agency and Jacob Lew for secretary of the treasury.

How 20 Tents Rocked Israel: Palestinians Take the Fight to their Occupiers

israelmap

When the Palestinian leadership won their upgrade to non-member observer status at the United Nations in November, plenty of sceptics on both sides of the divide questioned what practical benefits would accrue to the Palestinians. The doubters have not been silenced yet.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has done little to capitalise on his diplomatic success. There have been vague threats to “isolate” Israel, hesitant talk of “not ruling out” a referral to the International Criminal Court, and a low-key declaration by the Palestinian Authority of the new “state of Palestine”.

At a time when Palestinians hoped for a watershed moment in their struggle for national liberation, the Fatah and Hamas leaderships look as mutually self-absorbed as ever. Last week they were again directing their energies into a new round of reconciliation talks, this time in Cairo, rather than keeping the spotlight on Israeli intransigence.

So instead, it was left to a group of 250 ordinary Palestinians to show how the idea of a “state of Palestine” might be given practical meaning. On Friday, they set up a tent encampment that they intended to convert into a new Palestinian village called Bab al-Shams, or Gate of the Sun.

On Sunday, in a sign of how disturbed Israel is by such acts of popular Palestinian resistance, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had the the occupants removed in a dawn raid — despite the fact that his own courts had issued a six-day injunction against the government’s “evacuation” order.

Intriguingly, the Palestinian activists not only rejected their own leaders’ softly-softly approach but also chose to mirror the tactics of the hardcore settlers.

First, they declared they were creating “facts on the ground”, having understood, it seems, that this is the only language Israel speaks or understands. Then, they selected the most contentious spot imaginable for Israel: the centre of the so-called E-1 corridor, 13 square-kilometres of undeveloped land between East Jerusalem and Israel’s strategic city-settlement of Maale Adumim in the West Bank.

For more than a decade, Israel has been planning to build its own settlement in E-1, though on a vastly bigger scale, to finish the encirclement of East Jerusalem, cutting off the future capital of a Palestinian state from the West Bank.

The US had stayed Israel’s hand, understanding that completion in E-1 would signal to the world and the Palestinians the end of a two-state solution. But following the UN vote, Netanyahu announced plans to build an additional 4,000 settler homes there as punishment for the Palestinians’ impertinence.

The comparison between the Bab al-Shams activists and the settlers should not be extended too far. One obvious difference is that the Palestinians were building on their own land, whereas Israel is breaking international law in allowing hundreds of thousands of settlers to move into the West Bank.

Another is that Israel’s response towards the two groups was preordained to be different. This is especially clear in relation to what Israel itself calls the “illegal outposts” — more than 100 micro-settlements, similar to Bab al-Shams, set up by hardcore settlers since the mid-1990s, after Israel promised the US it would not authorise any new settlements.

Despite an obligation to dismantle the outposts, successive Israeli governments have allowed them to flourish. In practice, within days of the first caravans appearing on a West Bank hilltop officials hook up the “outposts” to electricity and water, build them access roads and redirect bus routes to include them. The spread of the settlements and outposts has been leading inexorably to Israel’s de facto annexation of most of the West Bank.

In stark contrast, all access to Bab al-Shams was blocked within hours of the tents going up and the next day Netanyahu had the site declared a closed military zone. As soon as the Jewish Sabbath was over, troops massed around the camp. Early on Sunday morning they stormed in.

Netanyahu was clearly afraid to allow any delay. Palestinians started using social media over the weekend to plan mass rallies at road-blocks leading to the camp site.

However futile the activists’ efforts prove to be on this occasion, the encampment indicates that ordinary Palestinians are better placed to find inventive ways to embarrass Israel than the hidebound Palestinian leadership.

Senior PLO official Hanan Ashrawi extolled the activists for their “highly creative and legitimate nonviolent tool” to protect Palestinian land. But the failure of PA officials, including Saeb Erekat, to make it to the site before it was cordoned off by Israel only heightened the impression of a leadership too slow and unimaginative to respond to events.

By establishing Bab al-Shams, the activists visibly demonstrated the apartheid nature of Israel’s rule in the occupied territories. Although one brief encampment is unlikely by itself to change the dynamics of the conflict, it does show Palestinians that there are ways they themselves can take the struggle to Israel.

Following the Israeli raid, that point was made eloquently by Mohammed Khatib, one of the organisers. “In establishing Bab al-Shams, we declare that we have had enough of demanding our rights from the occupier — from now on we shall seize them ourselves.”

That, of course, is also Netanyahu’s great fear. The scenario his officials are reported to be most concerned about is that this kind of popular mode of struggle becomes infectious. If Palestinians see popular non-violent resistance, unlike endless diplomacy, helping to awaken the world to their plight, there may be more Bab al-Shamses — and other surprises for Israel — around the corner.

It was precisely such thinking that led Israel’s attorney-general, Yehuda Weinstein, to justify Netanyahu’s violation of the injunction on the grounds that the camp would “bring protests and riots with national and international implications”.

What Bab al-Shams shows is that ordinary Palestinians can take the fight for the “state of Palestine” to Israel — and even turn Israel’s own methods against it.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His new website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

France to screen Farhadi’s latest film

Academy Award-winning Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi’s latest creation The Past is programmed to be screened in the French movie theaters.

The movie which is Farhadi’s sixth directorial experience is scheduled to hit French screens from May, 2013.

Depicting the story of an Iranian girl and a boy of North African origin, the movie was shot in the French capital, Paris.

While the movie is currently passing its last phase of production, its shooting started on October 8, 2012.

Farhadi’s immigrant romantic drama The Past has been named among the top 100 most anticipated films of 2013.

International Memento Films Production co-director Alexander Mallet-Guy produced the film.

The Artist’s Argentine-French actress Bérénice Bejo who replaced former candidate Marion Cotillard along with the French actor of Algerian origin, Tahar Rahim and the acclaimed Iranian actor Ali Mosaffa star in the movie.

Pitched at €11-million budget, The Past is Farhadi’s first filmmaking experience in a foreign country.

The Memento Films Production distributes Farhadi’s previous films About Elly and A Separation in France.

Farhadi's Nader and Simin: A Separation won the Oscar for the Best Foreign Language Film at the 84th Academy Awards.

The film also received the award for the Best Foreign Language film at the 2012 edition of Golden Globes as well as the Best Foreign Film Award of the 2012 César Awards in Paris.

FGP/FGP

‘US must show change in practice’

US must show change in practice: Iranian cmdr.

Deputy Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami

A top Iranian commander says the Islamic Republic has not trusted and will not trust claims made by US officials unless they make practical changes to their attitude vis-à-vis Iran.

“The Islamic Republic has not and will not trust the words of US authorities, unless practical changes are made,” Deputy Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Brigadier General Hossein Salami said on Monday.

Referring to the nomination of former US Senator Chuck Hagel for the position of defense secretary in the US, Salami said, “The US policy-makers make interesting claims, but, considering their actions, their words are meaningless for us.”

US President Barack Obama on January 7 nominated Hagel for the position of defense secretary despite political uproar over the nomination.

At a White House press conference Obama said Hagel is "the leader our troops deserve,” and praised his “willingness to speak his mind."

Salami said the US strategy and interests dictate the policies of the country’s officials.


Hagel left the Senate in 2008. Certain comments by him have been interpreted as being against the Israeli regime.

The 66-year-old was the first Republican senator to publicly criticize the war in Iraq, calling it the worst foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War, and has, on several occasions, opposed any plan to launch a military strike against Iran.

MYA/HMV/HJL

As NSA Pairs With Banks To “Fight Hackers”, Will It Also Gain Access To...

Just because there was not enough encroachment by the government into virtually every corner of private life, here is another "collaboration" that will further enmesh big brother into every aspect of private life, in this case private financial life, because as the WaPo reports, "major U.S. banks have turned to the National Security Agency for help protecting their computer systems after a barrage of assaults that have disrupted their Web sites, according to industry officials. The attacks on the sites, which started about a year ago but intensified in September, have grown increasingly sophisticated, officials said. The NSA, the world’s largest electronic spying agency, has been asked to provide technical assistance to help banks further assess their systems and to better understand the attackers’ tactics."

And while we salute the great diversionary pretext that "Iranian hackers" pose a greater risk to the stability of the US financial system than, say, the ongoing monetization of US debt at a pace of $85 billion per month, which has made the Fed's DV01 rise to a mindboggling $2.75 billion, or idiot pundits who claim all American problems can be resolved with one coin, we can't help but wonder what happens when the most intrusive of US spy agencies, one which as reported last year is free "to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store" virtually every electronic communication in the entire world, now has full explicit access to all bank data, and, incidentally, every American's financial snapshot at any given moment?

More on the official spin:

The cooperation between the NSA and banks, industry officials say, underscores the government’s fears about the unprecedented assault against the financial sector and is part of a broader effort by the government to work with U.S. firms on cybersecurity. Nonetheless, the assistance is likely to dismay privacy advocates, who say that the NSA has no business peering inside private companies’ systems, even if for the strict purpose of improving computer security.

U.S. intelligence officials said last year they believe the attacks against the banks and other companies have been carried out by Iran, although some experts have cautioned that it is difficult to accurately determine who is behind them.

The banks whose Web sites have been disrupted include Bank of America, PNC Bank, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, HSBC and SunTrust. In recent weeks, attackers have targeted up to seven banks a day, but only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

So Monday and Friday are holy days for Iranian hackers we take it?

It appears that the private anti-hacker sector is completely powerless to withstand this massive onslaught of millions of Iranian hackers hell bent on seeing just how much money the average American has in their Bank of America online account page:

The banks whose Web sites have been disrupted include Bank of America, PNC Bank, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, HSBC and SunTrust. In recent weeks, attackers have targeted up to seven banks a day, but only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

Enter the NSA, which has generously agreed to provide its expertise in learning all there is to know about everyone's finances thwarting evil Iranian hacks.

The government’s willingness to engage “is emblematic of how these cyber-related risks are evolving,” the bank official said. “Agencies like the NSA have tremendous expertise for very sophisticated types of information-security programs.”

In general, it can provide assistance to private-sector companies when their systems are seen as critical to national security, said Richard George, a former computer security official at the NSA. The request must come from a government agency, such as the Treasury Department or the Department of Homeland Security, that has authority to work with the company.

But don't worry - the NSA is with the government, and it is here to help:

“The dual mission of the NSA, to promote security and to pursue surveillance, creates an intractable privacy problem,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Former NSA officials say privacy concerns are overblown and note that requests for NSA assistance are denied when there is no national security interest at stake. George said that, over the past decade, the agency has aided about 10 companies a year after their networks were compromised.

“If NSA is involved [with the banks], it’s because they would love to see what’s happening on the victim’s side,” a second former defense official said. “There’s probably more for the government to learn than to give.”

In conclusion:

The NSA declined to comment for this article beyond a statement saying that the agency provides assistance “in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.”

Enlighten us, please, which applicable laws and regulations are these? The same ones that give the government the right to detain citizens indefinitely. Or the one granting it the right to spy and monitor all Americans' emails and calls without a warrant? Because we are confused.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Permanent Afghanistan Occupation Planned

 America came to stay. Accelerated withdrawal claims reflect subterfuge. Washington officials and media scoundrels don’t explain. Msinformation and illusion substitute for reality.

Reuters headlined “Obama, Karzai accelerate end of US combat role in Afghanistan.”

“Obama’s determin(ed) to wind down a long, unpopular war.”

The New York Times headlined ‘Obama Accelerates Transition of Security to Afghans.”

Obama is “eager to turn a page after more than a decade of war.”

“(B)eginning this spring American forces (will) play only a supporting role in Afghanistan.”

The Washington Post headlined “Obama announces reduced US role in Afghanistan starting this spring.”

Plans are “for a small troop presence in the country after the American mission formally ends there in 2014.”

On January 11, Obama and Karzai’s joint press conference was more surreal than honest. Duplicitous doublespeak substituted for truth.

“(T)ransition is well underway,” said Obama. Plans are for Afghan forces to replace Americans. By yearend 2014, they’ll “have full responsibility for their security, and this war will come to a responsible end.”

At the same time, US forces will “continue to fight alongside (Afghans) when necessary.” Obama didn’t say what troop strength will remain.

Drone wars continue daily. US Special Forces and CIA elements came to stay. Search and destroy missions are prioritized.

By spring 2013, “our troops will have a different mission – training, advising, assisting Afghan forces. It will be a historic moment and another step toward full Afghan sovereignty.”

“Afghanistan (has) a long-term partner in the United States of America.”

It’s Washington’s longest war. Iraq and Afghanistan are its most costly ones.

Iraq boils out of sight and mind. Afghanistan rages. Experts agree. The war was lost years ago. It continues. Why US officials don’t explain.

A previous article discussed Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis. He assessed conditions accurately. His 84-page unclassified report called them disastrous.

“How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding,” he asked? His report’s opening comments said:

“Senior ranking U.S. military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the US Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable.”

“This deception has damaged America’s credibility among both our allies and enemies, severely limiting our ability to reach a political solution to the war in Afghanistan.”

His classified report was more explicit.

“If the public had access to these classified reports,” he explained, “they would see the dramatic gulf between what is often said in public by our senior leaders and what is actually true behind the scenes.”

“It would be illegal for me to discuss, use, or cite classified material in an open venue, and thus I will not do so.”

He traveled thousands of miles throughout the country. He spoke to US commanders, subordinates, and low-ranking soldiers. He talked at length with Afghan security officials, civilians and village elders.

What he learned bore no resemblance to rosy scenario official accounts. Insurgent forces control “virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a US or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base.”

Everywhere he visited, “the tactical situation was bad to abysmal.”

Afghanistan’s government can’t “provide for the basic needs of the people.” At times, local security forces collude with insurgents.

Davis hoped to learn something positive. He “witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.” One senior enlisted leader spoke for others. He hoped to get out alive in one piece.

Why war continues remains for Obama to explain. He dissembles instead.

Afghanistan is strategically important. It straddles the Middle East, South and Central Asia. It’s in the heart of Eurasia.

Occupation projects America’s military might. It targets Russia, China, Iran, and other oil-rich Middle East States. It furthers Washington’s imperium. It prioritizes unchallenged global dominance.

China and Russia matter most. Allied they rival US superpower strength. Beijing is economically robust. Russia’s nuclear capability and military pose the only threat to America’s formidable might.

Russia is also resource rich. Its oil reserves are vast. Its natural gas supply is the world’s largest. Expect neither country to roll over for Washington. They’re a vital last line of defense.

More on Washington’s plans below. A previous article discussed Afghanistan’s troubled history.

In his book titled, “Freedom Next Time: Resisting the Empire,” John Pilger addressed it, saying:

“Through all the humanitarian crises in living memory, no country has been abused and suffered more, and none has been helped less than Afghanistan.”

 For centuries, Afghans endured what few can imagine. Marauding armies besieged cities, slaughtered thousands, and caused vast destruction.

Great Game 19th century struggles followed. Wars, devastation, and deplorable human misery reflect daily life for millions. America bears full responsibility now.

Wherever US forces show up, mass killings, destruction and incalculable human misery follow. After over 11 years of war and occupation, Afghans perhaps suffer most of all.

Living conditions are deplorable. Millions remain displaced. Makeshift dwellings substitute for real ones. Little protection from harsh Afghan weather is afforded. People freeze to death in winter.

Dozens of children die daily. Millions have little or no access to clean water. Life expectancy is one of the world’s lowest. Infant mortality is one of the highest. So is pre-age five mortality. Electricity is scarce.

Extreme poverty, unemployment, human misery, and constant fear reflect daily life. Afghans worry about surviving. Many don’t get enough food. Forced evictions affect them. They lack healthcare, education, and other vital services.

Occupation related violence harms innocent men, women, children and infants. Civilians always suffer most. Washington prioritizes conquest, colonization, plunder and dominance. War without end rages. Human needs go begging.

Displaced Afghans lack virtually everything necessary to survive. Included are proper housing, clean water, sanitation, healthcare, education, employment, enough income, and sufficient food to avoid starvation.

America and Afghanistan’s puppet government don’t help. Karzai is a pathetic stooge. He’s a caricature of a leader. He wasn’t elected. He was installed. He’s a former CIA asset/UNOCAL Oil consultant.

He’s little more than Kabul’s mayor. He’s despised. He wouldn’t last five minutes unprotected anywhere.

Afghanistan is the world’s leading opium producer. During the 1990s, Taliban officials largely eradicated it. Washington reintroduced it.

Crime bosses and CIA profit hugely. So do major banks. Money laundering is a major profit center. An estimated $1.5 trillion is laundered annually. Around $500 billion reflects elicit drug money.

Obama lied about ending combat operations by 2014. America came to stay. Permanent occupation is planned. Washington’s empire of bases reflect it.

During WW II, Brits complained that Americans were “overpaid, overfed, oversexed, and over here.” They virtually everywhere now. Planet earth is Washington occupied territory. Bases vary in size.

They include large main operating bases to medium and smaller-sized ones. Covert ones supplement them. US Special Forces operate in over 120 countries. CIA elements are everywhere.

National sovereignty rights are violated. America’s malevolent agenda is hostile. Public land is expropriated.

Toxic pollution, environmental damage, intolerable noise, violence, occupation related criminality, and unaccountability reflect Washington’s presence.

It’s hugely destructive. Afghanistan’s dystopian hell reflects it. Status of forces (SOFA) agreements establish a framework under which US forces operate abroad.

They provide an illusion of legitimacy. Nations are pressured and bullied to accept what harms their national interest.

In his book, “The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic,” Chalmers Johnson explained SOFAs as follows:

“America’s foreign military enclaves, though structurally, legally, and conceptually different from colonies, are themselves something like microcolonies in that they are completely beyond the jurisdiction of the occupied nation.”

“The US virtually always negotiates a ‘status of forces agreement’ (SOFA) with the ostensibly independent ‘host’ nation.”

They’re a modern day version of 19th century China’s extraterritoriality agreements. They granted foreigners charged with crimes the right to be tried by his (or her) own government under his (or her) own national law.

SOFAs prevent local courts from exercising legal jurisdiction over American personnel. Murder and rape go unpunished unless US officials yield to local authorities. Offenders are usually whisked out of countries before they ask.

America’s total number of SOFAs is unknown. Most are secret. Some are too embarrassing to reveal. America has hundreds of known, shared, and secret bases in over 150 countries.

Johnson said they “usurp, distort, or subvert whatever institutions of democratic (or other form of) government may exist with the host society.”

Their presence is troubling. Locals lose control of their lives. They have no say. There’s virtually no chance for redress. Permanent occupations harm most.

America built city-sized Iraq and Afghanistan super bases. They weren’t established to be abandoned. Washington came to stay. Both countries are US occupied territory.

Tens of thousands of private military contractors supplement military forces. Their skills range from technical to hired guns.

Obama suppressed Washington’s agenda. Permanent occupation is planned. America came to stay. Abandoning what’s strategically important won’t happen. How much longer Americans will tolerate war without end, they’ll have to explain.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

 Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/permanent-afghanistan-occupation-planned-2/

US ‘kill list’ critic found dead in NY

Prominent American blogger and computer prodigy Aaron Swartz, who spoke against US President Barack Obama’s “kill list” and cyber attacks against Iran, has been found dead in New York.

Police found the body of the 26-year-old in his apartment in New York City borough of Brooklyn on Friday, said a spokeswoman for the city’s chief medical examiner.

Brooklyn’s chief medical examiner ruled the death a suicide by hanging, but no further detail is available about the mysterious death.

Last year, Swartz openly criticized the US and the Israeli regime for launching joint cyber attacks against Iran.

The blogger was also vocal in criticizing Obama’s so-called kill list and other policies.

Obama has been reportedly approving the names put on the “kill lists” used in the targeted killing operations carried out by US assassination drones.

Every week or so, more than 100 members of the US national security team gather via secure video teleconference run by the Pentagon and go over the biographies of suspects in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, and “nominate” those who should be targeted in the attacks.


Obama is then provided with the identities of those put on the “kill list” and signs off on every strike in Yemen and Somalia as well as the risky strikes in Pakistan.

Swartz was also widely credited for co-authoring the specifications for the Web feed format RSS 1.0 (Rich Site Summary) which he worked on at age 14.

RSS is designed to deliver content from sites that change constantly, such as news pages, to users.

Swartz was critical of monopoly of information by corporate cartels and believed that information should be shared and available for the benefit of society.

“Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves,” he wrote in an online “manifesto” in 2008.

Based on that belief, the computer prodigy founded the nonprofit group DemandProgress.

The group launched a successful campaign to block a 2011 bill that the US House of Representatives called the Stop Online Piracy Act.

Had it been approved, the bill would have allowed court orders to restrain access to some websites considered to be involved in illegal sharing of intellectual property.

DemandProgress argued that the thwarted Stop Online Piracy Act would have broadly authorized the US government to censor and restrict legitimate Web communication.

ASH/HSN/MA

Mahdavikia is top of the pops in Asia

Iranian football player Mehdi Mahdavikia has been voted the most popular footballer in Asia and the second most well-liked in the world for the year 2012.

The results of a poll recently conducted on the website of the International Federation of Football History & Statistics showed that the 35-year-old Iranian, who currently plays for the Persepolis football club in Iran's Premier League, tops the list as Asia’s most popular football player with 103,703 votes.

He was also chosen as the world’s second most popular footballer after Juan Fernando Arango Saenz, who plays for Borussia Monchengladbach in Germany. The 32-year-old Venezuelan received 104,297 votes.

Goalkeeper Seyyed Mehdi Rahmati, who currently plays for the Iranian national football team and Esteqlal in Iran's Premier League, got 79,533 votes and was named the world’s and Asia’s third most popular footballer.

MP/HGL

Amnesty International’s Propaganda against Pakistan

pak

by Abdullah Mansoor

Human rights watchdog, Amnesty International (AI), in its new report titled “The Hands of Cruelty – Abuses by Armed Forces and Taliban in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas” claimed that millions of people in Pakistan’s north-western tribal areas were locked in perpetual lawlessness where human rights were allegedly violated by Pakistan armed forces.

A diminutive portion of the report also blamed the Taliban and other armed militant groups for killing thousands of civilians in indiscriminate attacks. The report was based on more than 100 testimonies from victims of human rights violations in detention, witnesses, relatives, lawyers, representatives of Pakistani authorities and armed groups.

Pakistan military and foreign ministry spokespersons rejected the report as a biased document and termed it as a part of sinister propaganda campaign against Pakistan and its armed forces.

A first glance at the report gives an impression that both the Pakistan Army and the Taliban are violating human rights in the tribal areas. However, its critical analysis reveals that the report is a sequel of international hostile elements’ propaganda against Pakistan’s security institutions, which is launched with the sole aim to malign Pakistani security forces and discredit military operations in the tribal areas.

To serve this malicious purpose, exaggerated stories of individuals victimized by armed forces are blown out of proportion to validate the propaganda claim. A deep insight into the report also reflects that militants’ inhuman activities are inappropriately discussed, whereas criticism against them is deliberately incorporated in the report to increase its authenticity and project it as an unbiased investigation. The report overlooks accounts of various inhabitants of tribal areas, who opposed terrorists’ radical beliefs and consequently experienced their cruelty. Thus, the report can be termed as biased and one-sided.

Such a misinformation against Pakistan Army is not something new, as ever since the advent of war on terror in Afghan-Pak region, Pakistan is being fallaciously maligned for allegedly providing sanctuaries to terrorists, being involved in extra judicial killings in KPK and FATA or forced disappearances in Balochistan. But, in reality, Pakistan Army is fighting for the survival of Pakistan and protecting its people from hostile elements in tribal areas, while its personnel are sacrificing their lives for the global cause of eradicating terrorism and extremism from this region. Yet ironically, both sides of the picture are never shown by such so-called human rights organizations that are working in accordance with their nefarious objective of undermining Pakistan’s efforts in war on terror.

Amnesty International claims that it is an internationally recognized human rights organization and independent of any government, political ideology, economic interests or religion, has proved categorically false. A well-reputed geopolitical researcher, Tony Cartalucci writes in his article on infowars.com that “AI is in fact one of the greatest obstacles to real human rights advocacy on earth. Its funds are not only run by governments, but the organization is also entwined with political ideology and economic interests. UK Department for International Development continued to fund a four-year human rights education project of AI in Africa, while the European Commission also awarded it with a multi-year grant for education work in Europe.

Amnesty’s leadership also tells its true agenda; Suzanne Nossel, Executive Director of AI’s USA chapter, was drawn directly from the US State Department, which utterly contradicts Amnesty’s claims of being “independent” of governments’ interests. Nossel also promotes US foreign policy regarding Iran, Syria and Libya behind AI’s logo.

A glance at AmnestyUSA.org also reveals that at each and every front the US State Department is currently working on and has prioritized, is also coincidentally being prioritized by AI.”
Ordinary people are given the false impression that “someone is watching out” for human rights abuses, but in reality, AI is managing public perception of selective global human rights abuses, fabricating and/or manipulating many cases specifically to suit its agenda. For instance, Pakistan Army is in no comparison with the human rights violations by the US military in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghareb and Bagram Jails, yet their plight is seldom highlighted at the international level. The US, a major proponent of human rights in the world, carried out heinous crimes and massive human rights violations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where thousands of innocent civilians were killed in unprovoked air strikes.

Organizations like AI must raise voice for the detainees of Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan prisons, who have complained of enduring beatings, sleep deprivation, prolonged constraints in uncomfortable positions, prolonged hooding, and other physical and psychological mistreatment by the US forces. Moreover, it is imperative that all human rights organizations advocate transparency and project both sides of the picture without singling out a particular group, faction or country so that people may become able to distinguish between illusion and reality.

‘Bahrain oppression backed by US’

Bahraini troops fire tear gas at anti-regime protesters. (File photo)

An Iranian lawmaker has slammed the US support for the ongoing violation of human rights by Al Khalifa regime in Bahrain and called for international action against Manama’s iron fist policies.

In a Friday interview, Fathollah Hosseini, a member of Iran's Majlis (parliament) Committee on National Security and Foreign Policy, pointed to Al Khalifa regime’s unfair prison sentences for Bahraini political activists, saying, “If the West’s puppet regime in Bahrain did not have the US support, it would have collapsed by now.”

On Monday, Bahrain’s highest court upheld prison terms for 13 pro-democracy activists, including eight life sentences already handed down for their role in anti-regime protests in 2011.

The Iranian lawmaker argued that the US gives the green light to Al Khalifa regime to commit the atrocities in Bahrain and pointed to destruction of 50 mosques and homes and the killing of scores of people during the peaceful popular demonstrations in the country as the evidence of the West’s consent.

Hosseini noted that the majority of the Bahraini political detainees have been incarcerated without trial and they are in improper conditions and called on the Manama regime to embark on political and judicial reforms.


The Iranian legislator called for UN action with regard to the blatant violation of human rights in Bahrain, adding, “The international organizations which claim to be the advocates of human rights in the 21st century should deal with the crimes of a regime which tortures and detains its citizens merely over their legitimate demands.”

“Bahrain’s revolution is currently the most oppressed revolution in the Arab world, because it has been completely subject to the media blackout by the Arab states,” Hosseini added.

The Bahraini uprising began in February 2011. The Manama regime promptly launched a brutal crackdown on peaceful protests, calling in Saudi-led Arab forces from neighboring states.

Bahraini protesters say they will continue holding anti-regime demonstrations until their demand for the establishment of a democratically elected government is met.

ASH/AZ/MA

‘Riyadh executive arm of US in Mideast’

An Iranian lawmaker says Saudi Arabia acts as the "executive arm" of the United States to help Washington implement its policies in the Middle East.

“Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia has turned into an executive arm of Washington’s policies in the Middle East,” a member of the Majlis (parliament) Committee on National Security and Foreign Policy Abbas-Ali Mansouri-Arani said on Saturday.

On January 4, the UK newspaper Times quoted a US intelligence source as saying that some of the drone missions in Yemen were actually carried out by the Saudi Air Force.


However, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal on January 5 denied the press reports, saying the country’s fighter jets had not attacked al-Qaeda targets in Yemen.

The Iranian legislator also said that Saudi Arabia has broad cooperation with CIA agents to carry out drone attacks in Yemen.

Mansouri-Arani said that the money, paid for Saudi oil, are spent on the implementation and promotion of the global arrogance’s policies.

He warned that cooperation between the US and any country in the Middle East can threaten regional security.

“Security in the Middle East will only be maintained through cooperation and interaction among regional countries and experience has shown that whenever foreign forces have entered the region, balance and security have been disturbed,” the lawmaker pointed out.

Yemen has been the scene of CIA-operated drone strikes over the past months. Washington claims the airstrikes target militants, but local officials and witnesses say civilians are the main victims.

Some reports say US assassination drone operations in the country nearly tripled in 2012 compared with the previous year.

It is not the first time that Saudi Arabia has sent warplanes over the Yemeni skies.

In 2009, Saudi troops and fighter jets were actively involved in Yemen’s military crackdown on Houthi Shias in the north of the country.

However, the latest revelation is feared to complicate the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the Yemeni government and the influential tribal leaders controlling large parts of Yemen, including areas where members of al-Qaeda are reportedly holed in.

SF/AZ/MA

Fajr festival to host Tarkovsky Quartet

A group of German and French musicians known as Tarkovsky Quartet is slated to perform their program at the 2013 Fajr International Music Festival.

The ensemble led by the French jazz pianist and composer François Couturier is comprised of Jean-Marc Larché (soprano saxophonist), Jean-Louis Matinier (accordionist) and German violoncellist Anja Lechner.

Established in 1977, the quartet creates the works mainly inspired by the Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky’s films.

Some 57 ensembles from over 70 submitted groups were selected to participate in this year’s festival.

The event is programmed to be presented at six music halls in the Iranian capital city of Tehran.

Tehran Symphony Orchestra and Iran’s National Orchestra are also to perform their programs at the 2013 Fajr music festival.

Iran's Fajr International Music Festival is part of the country's cultural programs held every year to commemorate the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The 28th Fajr International Music Festival is programmed to take place from February 13 to 19, 2013.

FGP/FGP

Patriot Dawn — The Resistance Rises: “The Government of the United States of America...

The following excerpt appears in the new book Patriot Dawn – The Resistance Rises, by Max Velocity. Max has served in both, the British and the U.S. armies, and also as a high threat security contractor. He has served on six military operational deployments, including to Afghanistan immediately post-9/11, and additionally he spent five years serving as a security contractor in both Iraq and Afghanistan. During his career in the British Army he served with British SOF (The Parachute Regiment), to include a role training and selecting recruits for the Regiment. More recently, he has served in a Combat Medic and Civil Affairs role in the US Army Reserves. He is the author of two previous books: Contact! A Tactical Manual for Post Collapse Survival  and Rapid Fire! Tactics for High Threat, Protection and Combat Operations.

His latest book, Patriot Dawn – The Resistance Rises, is a step away from the user friendly tactical manuals he is known for, and combines the excitement of an action-packed fictional novel with real-world battle hardened experience in offensive, defensive and counter-insurgency strategies and tactics.

The United States has descended into Civil War. The storm was rising for some time, a Resistance in the hearts of American Patriots to the strangulation of liberty by creeping authoritarianism. The scene was set. It just took a little push.

A terrorist attack on the United States leads to war with Iran, followed by collapse, as the economy goes over the cliff. The final blow is a widespread opportunistic Chinese cyber attack, taking down the North American Power Grid.

From the ashes, the Regime emerges. Liberty is dead. What remains of the United States of America is polarized.

The Resistance Rises.

Jack Berenger is a former Army Ranger Captain, living in northern Virginia with his family. Following the collapse, they fall foul of Regime violence and evacuate to the farm of an old Army friend. Jack is recruited into the resistance, to train the fledgling forces in the Shenandoah Valley. The fight begins. Resist.


The following excerpt appears in the prologue of Patriot Dawn – The Resistance Rises and takes place just after a large-scale terrorist attack on Washington D.C.

The terrorist attackers were reported to have been recruited, abetted, directed and sponsored by Iran, although the details were unclear and it appeared that an investigation was not the top priority of the Administration.

How had the terrorists managed to charter this plane, which had apparently originated in Dubai on a one stop flight to the US, loading it with two hundred heavily armed fighters, without alerting any suspicion?

However, the focus following the attack was not international but domestic, and the priority was the ‘safety and security’ of the public by the accelerated implementation of the massive domestic surveillance and policing drive.

Fear was paramount and the masses were even more convinced that giving up their freedom and rights was in their best interests for their ‘safety and security’. Many internet bloggers and alternative media sites were describing the attack as a ‘False Flag’, abetted by the ‘Powers That Be’, but those crackpots were soon shut down by the Department of Homeland Security, in order to prevent further ‘panic mongering’.

The attack also provided the justification for war against Iran. However, that war was prosecuted by the Administration in the form of a primarily naval and air campaign that limited the involvement of ground troops.

This limitation allowed for the deployment of troops as convenient to the agenda of the Administration and the military-industrial complex, but ensured that sufficient active duty units remained available for domestic operations.

The attack on Iran was however the final straw that preceded the total meltdown of the Middle East.

As part of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, measures were in place to allow Posse Comitatus laws to be ignored domestically. This was activated by executive order and active duty and reserve U.S. Army units were used to reinforce the National Guard in operations against domestic terrorists and sleeper cells.

The terrorist attack had precipitated the final mortal blow to liberty and the destruction of the United States of America as a Constitutional Republic. It was true that the erosion of liberty and the Bill of Rights had been going on for some time; the Constitution was viewed by many as a dead document, and the measures had already been put in place for the implementation of a state of emergency.

The attack had been a terrible thing, but at the same time it was so convenient to the agenda of the Administration. Everything since the attack had been the death rattle of liberty as the police surveillance state was fully imposed.

Due process and Habeus Corpus were suspended, and the NDAA allowed arrest and internment without probable cause or trial on the simple suspicion by the authorities that someone posed a terrorist threat; a system that was easily abused.

Everything in society was now centered on compliance and obedience to authority. Questioning of the orders of those in authority positions was not tolerated. America was no longer the land of the free, but anyone with a mind had seen that coming for a long time.

Anyone with ideas counter to the official line, or who argued or challenged authority, was labeled a ‘domestic terrorist’, arrested and interned in ‘corrective and reeducation facilities’.

Following the activation of the NDAA by Executive Order, a state of emergency was implemented. It was necessary, because another terrorist attack could happen at any time, and anyone could be a terrorist. There was a lot of talk about sleeper cells and many citizens were arrested and interned without trial. ‘Extremist terrorist’ organizations, including Patriot and conservative organizations such as the Tea Party, were outlawed.

It wasn’t really clear to the general public exactly what happened next, given that they only got their information from the Administration via the heavily state directed mainstream media, and the internet was now under heavy lockdown. However, the economic dangers that had been looming and fueled by the continuous policy of ‘Quantitive Easing’, or money printing by the Federal Reserve, finally came home to roost.

The economy went over the cliff. There was much discussion that the actual precipitator of the plunge was the cabal of bankers who were the real power behind the Regime; they had pulled the financial plug, causing a massive run on the banks and hyperinflation, just like they had done in 1929 to cause the Great Depression. But who really knew, given the lockdown?

The effect was ultimately to cripple the economy, destroying the middle classes. What better way to turn the screws of citizen compliance when so many were now reliant on entitlement handouts?

The ‘progressive’ agenda of collective socialism was nearing its ultimate fulfillment; coerced redistribution of wealth, except now no-one was generating any wealth to feed the monster of the dependent welfare classes.

Statist authoritarian big central government was the order of the day, even though those policies spelled the death of the country. Many ‘progressives’ yearned for that, so that the ‘United Socialist States of America’ could rise from the ashes.

The government of the United States of America was no longer an ‘Administration’; it was a totalitarian Regime.


You can continue reading the remainder of this prologue at Max Velocity Tactical

Order your copy of Patriot Dawn – The Resistance Rises at Amazon.com or Create Space

Also available for Kindle

Week in Review: Dr. Drone Heads the CIA, Hollywood “Nominates” the CIA

week in review
Week in Review: Drone Slaughter and the Covert War on Iran

Will Israel Launch a False Flag Against Iran to Start War?, Washington’s Blog, September 28, 2012

Russia, BRICS and Non-Aligned Blame West For Syrian Terrorism, Chaos, Stop NATO, September 27, 2012

The Syrian Crisis: “Polarization of Opinion” at the…

‘Rejection of Assad bid worsens crisis’

Militants take position during clashes with the Syrian Army in Idlib governorate in western Syria. (File photo)

An Iranian lawmaker says UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s rejection of President Bashar al-Assad’s latest proposal for ending the Syrian conflict complicates the crisis.

“Although the UN[-Arab League Special] Envoy to Syria [Lakhdar Brahimi] has traveled to this country several times seeking a peaceful transition of power via consultation with other states and the Syrian government, the remarks made by the UN Secretary-General have caused [further] tension in the Syria crisis,” Hossein Sobhaninia said Friday.

He added that Ban’s comments would give militants and their supporters the green light to continue warmongering in Syria.

In a key speech on January 6, Assad said his government is always ready to hold talks with the opposition and political parties and will call for a “comprehensive national dialog” after foreign parties end their support for the militants and the terrorist activities end in the country.

The Syrian president also called for an end to terrorist operations inside Syria and urged "concerned states and parties" to stop funding, arming and harboring militants.

On January 7, the UN chief shunned Assad’s calls and proposals for ending the ongoing unrest in the crisis-stricken country, echoing a Western call for regime change in Syria.

“Today, the United Nations and its Secretary-General are not fulfilling their duty to protect the independence and sovereignty of countries and with their hostile stance they are violating the UN Charter,” Sobhaninia pointed out.


Syria has been the scene of unrest since early 2011 and has witnessed the deaths of many people, including large numbers of army and security personnel in the violence.

The Syrian government says the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants in Syria are foreign nationals.

TNP/HGH/SS

United States ill-prepared for skyrocketing cyberattacks against critical infrastructure

Cyber security analysts work to defend a network during a drill at a Department of Homeland Security cyber security defense lab at the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, Idaho (Reuters/Jim Urquhart)

Cyber security analysts work to defend a network during a drill at a Department of Homeland Security cyber security defense lab at the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, Idaho (Reuters/Jim Urquhart)

Cyberattacks against the United States’ critical infrastructure are increasing, but even the Department of Homeland Security is reporting that the country is ill-prepared to respond.

America’s cyberdefense situation is in need of improvement, according at least to a newsletter published by the Homeland Security Department’s Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team, the ICS-CERT Monitor [PDF].

In the late-2012 edition of the Monitor, cyber experts working for the United States government confirm that as attacks waged against America’s essential sectors are on the rise, the number of qualified personnel able to respond is hardly adequate.

Between October 1, 2011 and September of last year, ICE-CERT claims to have received and responded to 198 cyber incidents as reported by asset owners and industry partners. In an analysis of the report by CNN, they report that the figure for Fiscal Year 2012 is 52 percent larger than the year before.

Elsewhere in the Monitor, ICE-CERT quotes noted security expert Alan Paller as saying that there are no more than 20 individuals in the entire country that could counter a substantial attack against the States’ cyber infrastructure.

“Paller believes there are only 18 to 20 people in the whole country qualified to protect the nation’s infrastructure from a concerted cyberattack,” the Monitor says, quoting from a Wall Street Journal article published in November.

“That’s an incredible small number of people considering the hundreds of thousands of engineers working in the private, public and military sectors,” says the Journal.

Of those nearly 200 incidents reported to DHS, several resulted in successful break-ins. In one example given of a power generation facility in the US, the Monitor says DHS employees identified malware installed on their systems that were so sophisticated that they posed the possibility of a very real disaster to the plant’s control environment.

“Detailed analysis was conducted as these workstations had no backups, and an ineffective of failed cleanup would have significantly impaired their operations,” the report reads.

While The Monitor neglects to name individual companies that found malware and other attempted cyber-intrusions, the DHS says that the nation’s energy, water, communications and transportation sectors were all subject to attack during the last year. Also at risk, the Monitor reports, is America’s nuclear infrastructure, where at least 6 incidents were identified during a 12-month span.

Compared to recent years, the cyberassaults waged during 2012 demonstrate an alarming trend. While ICS-CERT identified 198 incidents last year, in 2009 that number was only nine.

"I believe that people will not truly get this until they see the physical implications of a cyberattack," former FBI cybercrime official Shawn Henry said last year, as quoted by CNN. "We knew about Osama bin Laden in the early '90s. After 9/11, it was a worldwide name. I believe that type of thing can and will happen in the cyber environment."

Leading figures in Washington have warned just as much, equating an eventual assault on the United States’ cyber-grid as being on par with national tragedies of historic proportions. In October, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the country was at risk of facing a “Cyber Pearl Harbor.” In December, former National Security Agency Director Mike McConnel said a “Cyber 9/11” should be imminent.

"We have had our 9/11 warning. Are we going to wait for the cyber equivalent of the collapse of the World Trade Centers?" McConnell told Financial Times in an interview published last month.

"All of a sudden, the power doesn't work, there's no way you can get money, you can't get out of town, you can't get online, and banking, as a function to make the world work, starts to not be reliable," McConnell said. "Now, that is a cyber-Pearl Harbor, and it is achievable."

In the latest edition of The Monitor, the DHS acknowledges that one particular power company in the US was infected with a virus as recently as this October that damaged the facility’s turbine control system and around 10 computers connected to it. By the time the country’s cyber-experts identified and treated the issue, the facility suffered from three weeks of setbacks. In another instance noted in the report, a team of DHS researchers found 98,000 organizations within the United States that had Internet-facing devices that could easily be hijacked by hackers.

Cyberattacks against the United States’ energy sector accounted for 40 percent of all reported incidents last year, with the water sector targeted in around 30 separate attacks, the Monitor reports.

Only one banking or financial institution contacted the DHS about a possible cyberattack last year, but skyrocketing numbers suggest that assaults are likely to increase in Fiscal Year 2013. Just in the last few months, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Capital One have all been targeted by computer criminals.

"These attacks are representative of the longest persistent cyberattack on an industry sector in history – in fact, nearly every major commercial bank has been affected," Carl Herberger, vice president of security solutions at Radware, tells CSO Online.

Anti-American hackers from Iran are believed responsible for the renewed series of attacks aimed at the computer of US banks, according to Washington sources. On Friday, the Washington Post reported that the National Security Agency has been approached by a number of US banks in hopes that they will be able to protect them against the increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks waged at the American financial sector.

We Share Life in Kabul

We are two weeks into our stay with the Afghan Peace Volunteers and the time is filled with many meetings and discussions. Before their departure our British delegates interviewed several of the peace volunteers about conditions in their country. Zekerullah’s testimony stood out to me; he held such compassion and wisdom beyond his years. He was asked what he would have to say to a young man from the U.K. who is considering joining the military and possibly coming to fight in Afghanistan. He stated that he hoped the man (his counterpart) would not become a soldier but would stay home, do the work that is needed there, and take care of his parents. Zekerullah’s insightfulness typifies the responses I’ve heard, again and again, from the Afghan Peace Volunteers when they talk about the ravages of war and their visions for the future.

Despite the long-term degradations of poverty and war, we are hearing sentiments of hope from a variety of individuals and groups. The majority of Afghanistan’s population is under 25 years of age and they want reform and an end to the violence and corruption perpetrated by foreign, regional and internal self-interests.

We sat with the secretary-general of the Afghanistan Youth Peace National Jirga, a governmental organization of 1,700 members that has a central office in Kabul. Members come from all 34 provinces around the country and include those involved in different Afghan political parties. The purpose of the Youth Jirga is to create a space for a national discourse on Afghanistan’s peace process, involving all domestic groups. There are significant obstacles to peace for the Afghan people who find themselves caught between so many hostile interests with complex alignments that can easily shift. The U.S., U.K., Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Iran and Saudi Arabia all play varying roles. Internal factions include the Taliban (often described as a mask which hides many players), Hezb-i-Islami, past warlords turned ministers, and Karzai’s puppet government.

The Youth Peace National Jirga’s agenda consists of these points:

1. Establish a way forward for the peace process.

2. Address corruption in governmental administration.

3. Discuss/clarify the Bilateral Security Agreement and the future of the U.S. military presence.

4. Address the higher educational needs of the population.

5. Generate employment for both educated and uneducated youth.

This is a very tall order but the issues are clearly identified by the younger generation.

The Youth Peace National Jirga met with President Karzai last summer, hoping to have their voices heard. The Jirga is aware of the peace processes held in or mediated by Doha, with Japan, Turkey, France, Germany and the U.S. Many Afghans feel this effort is being used for political purposes and that a genuine peace process has yet to emerge.

We frequently hear concerns being expressed over the upcoming transitional period of 2014. The importance of this time hinges on the movement of power from Karzai’s administration to a new government, as well as the shifting of security from foreign military to local and national entities. If the power falls into the hands of those who would continue to neglect the peoples’ needs, there will be another lost decade and generation. But many of the young people do have a vision for peace and reconciliation. Our delegation members have listened to dozens of young men and women who are ready to transform the old military and political strategies into a different model. They want a new approach that is based on humanitarian rights and the social well-being of the people, especially those left in abject poverty. It is work and education that will keep the youth out of the hands of the military and Islamic fundamentalists who preach the taking up of arms.

The statistics are grim with many new refugees being displaced daily, the deaths of one in five children under age five, and half of Afghan children unable to attend school. Two billion dollars have been spent weekly on maintaining foreign troops. Despite these realities the young people continue to envision a peaceful and independent tomorrow with education for everyone.

We visited elderly widows who live on the surrounding hillsides above Kabul City where the paths are steep and icy. With no other option, it is the cheapest housing that they can afford. When the water lines freeze they must carry heavy containers up the treacherous paths.

We met victims of U.S. rocket attacks as well as people with other disabilities who work valiantly to organize and provide humane care for those in need.

These small-level efforts are happening all over Kabul. When I look out the window in the early mornings I see the bustle of life, people carrying on with work and school. It is hard to imagine that our friends live with memories that are “painted in blood” as Hakim, our mentor, tells us. I am convinced that the human heart is created for love and love is a stronger force than fear or hatred. I see it every day in the eyes and smiles of those who work so hard to get by each day and who keep hope for tomorrow.

Billion-dollar US nuclear sub comes off worst in Strait of Hormuz collision with ‘fishing...

USS Jacksonville (SSN-699)

USS Jacksonville (SSN-699)

The USS Jacksonville, a large nuclear submarine, has broken its periscope after colliding with a vessel which escaped unscathed. This is the latest collision to involve a US vessel in the busy and tense oil chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz.

The American sub was performing a routine pre-dawn patrol when seamen heard a “thump”, according to a Navy source who spoke to several news agencies. The crew tried to ascertain the damage by looking into its periscope, only to realize it was no longer working. The other periscope on the submarine revealed that the first one had been “sheared off”.

It appears the ‘fishing trawler’ that collided with the 7,000-tonne submarine was not only undamaged, but barely noticed the accident.

“The vessel continued on a consistent course and speed, offering no indication of distress or acknowledgement of a collision,” says an official statement published on the US Navy website.

Authorities insist that USS Jacksonville is in no immediate danger.

“The reactor remains in a safe condition, there was no damage to the propulsion plant systems and there is no concern regarding watertight integrity,” they said.

The cost of repairing the damaged periscope are as yet unclear, but the discontinued Los Angeles-class submarines, to which USS Jacksonville belongs, would cost over $1 billion to build in today’s money (the sub was launched in 1978).

USS Jacksonville has now returned to Bahrain, where its damage will be assessed.

The Strait of Hormuz, by far the world’s busiest oil choke point and less than 40km across at its narrowest, has been a scene of several collisions since tension has risen between Iran and the US over the past two years.

The latest spiral of tension in the waterway, which is controlled by Iran on the north side, and US allies Oman and the United Arab Emirates on south, started with the gradual imposition of sanctions on the export of Iranian oil to most Western countries over the last two years.

In response, Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the strait, which transits a third of the world’s sea-borne oil, through ‘asymmetrical’ measures such as laying extensive minefields.

To counter the threat, the US and its allies have deployed what UK media has reported is the biggest concentrated naval force since World War II.

In the crowded passageway, with distrustful captains from dozens of nations operating at cross-purposes, collisions are inevitable.

Most notably, in August last year a Japanese oil tanker left a 3-meter-wide hole in the side of Navy destroyer USS Porter.

‘US, Israel want civil war in Iraq’

Tehran's Interim Friday Prayers Leader Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati says the United States and Israel are trying to throw Iraq into chaos and civil war.

“The United States and the Zionist regime [of Israel] have devised a scheme for Iraq and seek to ignite the flames of sedition and civil war in the country,” Ayatollah Jannati said.

He went on to say that the United States and Israel are trying to create in Iraq the unrest which they have caused in Syria.

The senior Iranian cleric further stressed that the people of Iraq should remain vigilant and not pay attention to the enemy efforts which aim to sow discord among Iraqis.


Iraq has been the scene of anti-government demonstrations since December 23, 2012, when bodyguards of Finance Minister Rafie al-Issawi were arrested on terrorism-related charges.

The demonstrators allege that the arrests were made on sectarian grounds and demand an end to anti-terrorism laws. But the government says it is up to parliament to decide on abolishing those laws.

On January 6, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maleki warned against foreign interference, saying it would push the country toward sectarian violence.

TNP/HGH/SS

‘Shia-Suuni rift Islam enemies plot’

Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi (R) and the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar Ahmed Al-Tayeb meet in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, on January 10, 2013.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi says the so-called issue of divide between Shia and Sunni Muslims is a plot hatched by the enemies of Islam.

In a meeting with the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar Ahmed Al-Tayeb in Cairo on Thursday, Salehi also called on Muslims to avoid conflicts and rely on commonalties instead.

“Enemies have made great efforts during recent years to cause a rift among Muslims and also to intensify it,” he added.

Salehi invited the Sheikh of Al-Azhar to visit Iran to hold talks with Iranian clerics and observe the peaceful coexistence of Shia and Sunni Muslims in the Islamic Republic.

Al-Tayeb, for his part, urged Muslims to foster unity and said enemies should not be allowed to achieve their objectives to create conflicts in the Muslim world.

Meanwhile, in a meeting with Patriarch of Egypt's Coptic Christians Pope Tawadros II, the Iranian minister highlighted the significance of peaceful coexistence of Muslims and Christians.


Pope Tawadros, for his part, said Iran has a historical civilization and followers of different religions, including Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians and Muslims, have had a brotherly coexistence in the country.

Salehi wrapped up his day-long visit to Egypt and arrived in Tehran early on Friday.

During his Cairo trip, the Iranian minister held talks with senior Egyptian officials, including President Mohamed Morsi and Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr on Thursday.

Salehi also exchanged views with UN-Arab League special envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi and Arab League Secretary-General Nabil al-Arabi on the latest developments in the region and the Syrian unrest in particular.

The Iranian minister began his tour of African countries on Saturday and visited Benin, Ghana and Burkina Faso.

SF/MA/AZ

‘Dialog only solution to Syria crisis’

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi (L) and his Egyptian counterpart Mohammed Kamel Amr attend a joint press conference in Cairo on January 10, 2013.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has repeated Tehran’s call for dialog as the only solution towards the return of calm to the crisis-stricken country.

“Now, Syria is in a situation that requires dialog and negotiations…We hope these negotiations begin before the moment passes,” the visiting Iranian foreign minister told a joint news conference with his Egyptian counterpart Mohammed Kamel Amr in Cairo on Thursday.

He expressed hope that regional states would meet to find a “Syrian-Syrian solution.”

Syria has been experiencing unrest since mid-March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of Army and security personnel, have been killed in the violence.

The Syrian government says that the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants fighting the Syrian government are foreign nationals.

Several international human rights organizations have accused foreign-sponsored militants of committing war crimes.

KA/HN

Ahmadinejad to visit Egypt in February

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (C-R) and Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsi shake hands during their meeting in the Iranian capital city, Tehran, on August 30, 2012.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is scheduled to visit Egypt in early February upon the invitation of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Ahmadinejad will visit the Egyptian capital, Cairo, to attend the summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation which will kick off on February 7.

The news comes as Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi is in Cairo for talks with Morsi to discuss ways of enhancing bilateral ties between the two Muslim nations.


Salehi arrived in the Egyptian capital on Wednesday night and is expected to convey a message from Ahmadinejad to Morsi.

Iran severed ties with Egypt after Cairo signed the 1978 Camp David Accord with the Israeli regime and offered asylum to Iran's deposed monarch, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

However, the Egyptian revolution in February 2011 which led to the ouster of Egypt’s former dictator, Hosni Mubarak, thawed the three-decade frosty ties between Tehran and Cairo.

ASH/SS

NIOC world’s 2nd largest oil co.

File photo shows the facade of Iran's Oil Ministry.

An international energy research magazine has ranked the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) as the world’s second largest oil firm.

In a new report by Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW), the NIOC was ranked the world’s second biggest oil company after Saudi Arabia's Aramco in terms of the extent of operations as well as oil and gas reserves and products.

The PIW report which examines world’s 50 top oil and gas companies in 2011 fiscal year, ranked China’s CNPC, UK’s British Petroleum, Russia’s Gazprom and Norway’s Statoil after the NIOC.


Iran holds the world's third-largest proven oil reserves and the second-largest natural gas reserves.

The country's total in-place oil reserves have been estimated at more than 560 billion barrels, with about 140 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Moreover, heavy and extra-heavy varieties of crude oil account for roughly 70-100 billion barrels of the total reserves.

ASH/SS

The Grilling that Brennan Deserves

As Washington’s pundit class sees it, Defense Secretary-designee Chuck Hagel deserves a tough grilling over his hesitancy to go to war with Iran and his controversial detection of a pro-Israel lobby operating in the U.S. capital, but prospective CIA Director John Brennan should get only a few polite queries about his role helping to create and sustain Dick Cheney’s “dark side.”

During the upcoming confirmation hearings of these two nominees for President Barack Obama’s national security team, we all may get a revealing look into the upside-down world of Washington’s moral and geopolitical priorities, where too much skepticism about rushing to war is disqualifying and complicity in war crimes is okay, maybe even expected.

Still, there is at least a hope that Brennan’s confirmation hearing might provide an opening for the Senate Intelligence Committee to force out the secret legal justifications and the operational procedures for the lethal drone program that has expanded under Obama, including successfully targeting for death U.S. citizen and al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen.

Over the past few years, senior administration officials have praised the rigorous standards applied to these life-or-death decisions by Brennan and his counterterrorism team, but have refused to release the constitutional rationales for the President exerting these extraordinary powers or to explain exactly the methodology of selecting targets.

Presumably, some committee member will ask Brennan about such nitpicky things as constitutional due process and the Bill of Rights even if the panel will have to scurry into a classified session to hear the answers. But there is still a chance that Brennan or one of the senators will blurt something out, shedding light on one of the darkest corners of the ongoing war against al-Qaeda and other Islamic militants.

Yet, what hits closest to home for many of my Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) colleagues and me is Brennan’s earlier role, under President George W. Bush and CIA Director George Tenet, in corrupting the CIA’s analysis directorate into fabricating fraudulent intelligence to “justify” war on Iraq. From the perspective of CIA analysts who worked by a very different ethos, such treachery is truly unacceptable.

Brennan, as Tenet’s chief of staff and then the CIA’s Deputy Executive Director, had a front-row seat for all this. Former CIA colleagues who served with Brennan before and during the war with Iraq assert that there is absolutely no possibility that Brennan could have been unaware of the deliberate corruption of intelligence analysis.

Brennan’s confirmation hearing, with the nominee under oath, might be the best opportunity to hear his explanation of what he did when he faced two conflicting allegiances – his career advancement on one side and his duty to the nation as an intelligence officer on the other.

Phony Intelligence

After a five-year investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the pre-Iraq-war “intelligence” was described by committee chair Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, as “uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent.”

Hagel, then a senator from Nebraska and a member of the committee, was one of two Republicans voting to approve the Senate report, making it bipartisan and presumably annoying some of his more partisan brethren who resisted admitting to the lies that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney used to take the country to war.

Hagel also has co-chaired Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board, giving him even more insights into the challenges of rebuilding a professional intelligence service, one that puts a commitment to objective analysis over pleasing the boss. If only Brennan could show such a commitment.

A principal objection to Brennan’s return to the CIA is that he has rarely displayed any rigorous discipline in his approach to the truth. One of his most famous deviations from reality was his gilding-the-lily presentation of Seal Team 6’s killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011, in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Just hours after Osama bin Laden was killed, Brennan gave the press this rendition of what had happened and how bin Laden had died: “He was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in. … Just thinking about that from a visual perspective: here is bin Laden … living in this million-dollar-plus compound … in an area that is far removed from the front …  hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield. I think it really just speaks to just, to how false his narrative has been over the years.”

Even giving Brennan the benefit of the doubt about the “fog of war” and such, his spin suggested not so much a lack of still-fuzzy details but an assembling of fake details, his own false narrative if you will. Brennan’s account was more agit-prop than an attempt to tell the story straight.

It was not enough to let the facts speak for themselves – Americans were surely not going to be sympathetic to the man they blame for the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people – but Brennan still chose to further belittle bin Laden as a coward hiding behind one of his wives while seeking to save himself.

Later, White House spokesman Jay Carney clarified some of Brennan’s inaccuracies. Bin Laden was not armed; he did not use one of his wives as a shield; and there was no firefight to speak of, only an initial exchange of gunfire between the U.S. commandos and one of bin Laden’s couriers in an adjacent building.

There were other details that came out subsequently, including that bin Laden’s 12-year-old daughter was in the room and watched as he was shot and killed, according to the London Guardian. Pakistani officials said bin Laden’s daughter had been hit in the ankle moments before the American assault team reached the room where they found and killed her father, and she then passed out.

Given the recent sorry history of CIA directors participating in what amount to propaganda and disinformation campaigns aimed as much at the American people as any foreign enemy, a nominee for CIA director should not have a record of making stuff up or misleading the public.

Ducking Hard Truth

Another Brennan example of ducking hard truths was his claim in June 2011 that during the previous year, “there has not been a single collateral death” from CIA drone strikes in Pakistan. Far more credible reporting shows that there have been hundreds of people killed simply for being in the vicinity of an al-Qaeda or Taliban suspect.

Yet, some administration officials are so touchy on this point that they suggest that dissenters might be terrorist sympathizers. On Feb. 5, 2012, the New York Times’ Scott Shane reported the following quote from an anonymous “senior American counterterrorism official”:

“One must wonder why an effort that has so carefully gone after terrorists … has been subjected to so much misinformation. Let’s be under no illusions – there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al Qaeda succeed.” So, raising tough questions means you’re with the terrorists.

Brennan had similar problems with forthrightness when he was assigned to explain to a press conference on Jan. 8, 2010, how the infamous “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab almost downed an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.

Clearly, Brennan did not expect to be asked a real question, like what motivates an upper-class Muslim youth from Nigeria to do such a thing, but a tenacious 89-year-old Helen Thomas was still in the White House press corps and was one of the very few journalists (as distinct from the stenographers) willing to pose such questions.

Thomas asked why Abdulmuttalab did what he did, a question of human motivation that is rarely part of the Washington conversation.

Thomas: “And what is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why.”

Brennan: “Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents. … They attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmuttalab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he’s (sic) able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death.”

Thomas: “And you’re saying it’s because of religion?”

Brennan: “I’m saying it’s because of an al Qaeda organization that used the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way.”

Thomas: “Why?”

Brennan: “I think this is a — long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.”

Thomas: “But you haven’t explained why.”

The why would be the sort of question you might wish a CIA director would want answered – and answered honestly – since enemy motivation is a crucial element in winning a war or, more importantly, avoiding one.

Just Boilerplate

But all the American public gets is boilerplate about how al-Qaeda evildoers are perverting a religion and exploiting impressionable young men. Or, as Brennan suggests, some “militants” are just hard-wired for things like knocking down aircraft over Detroit with themselves on board.

There is almost no discussion about why so many people in the Muslim world object to U.S. policies so strongly that they are inclined to resist violently and even resort to suicide attacks. Perhaps, the U.S. and Western proclivity toward intervening in their affairs over many decades – propping up corrupt dictators and favoring Israel over the Palestinians – has left some Muslims looking for any way to strike back, even self-destructive acts of terror.

Maybe today, one of the reasons for the number of “militants” willing to attack Americans might have something to do with drones buzzing over Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen,  Somalia and other locales – and with distant “pilots” getting clearance from Brennan and his associates to push some button and obliterate some unsuspecting target.

Despite the American people’s legitimate right to know what’s being done in their name, Brennan gets thin-skinned when criticized or asked tough questions. Four years ago, when President Obama was first considering Brennan to head the CIA, Brennan faced questions about what he did for the Bush/Cheney “dark side” and promptly withdrew his name. In a bitter letter, he blamed “strong criticism in some quarters, prompted by [his] previous service with the” CIA.

Yet, Brennan’s 25-year career at the CIA would seem to be fair game in evaluating whether he should run the place. His former managers in CIA’s analysis directorate tell me he was a bust as an analyst.

Instead, like former CIA Director (and more recently Defense Secretary) Robert Gates, Brennan’s career zoomed upwards after he caught the attention of key White House officials – in Brennan’s case, George Tenet who held the top intelligence advisory job under President Bill Clinton before he was made CIA deputy director and then director.

Of course, the tradeoff for that kind of advancement often is your integrity, both as an intelligence officer and as a public servant. Indeed, it’s hard to conceive how someone could have flourished in the corrupt world of U.S. intelligence, especially since its descent into the post-9/11 “dark side,” without selling out one’s professionalism and morality.

Those who stood their ground and demonstrated integrity found themselves out on the street or marginalized as “soft on terror” – or maybe they were considered suspiciously finicky when it came to “quaint and obsolete” notions like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law.

But don’t worry. Endorsing the nomination of Brennan on Wednesday, the editors of the Washington Post tell usthat, although “the administration’s current strategy of countering al-Qaeda in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia with drone strikes is unsustainable … the strikes are certainly legal under U.S. and international law … [even though they] are problematic, given the backlash they have caused in Pakistan.”

Still, it might be nice if the American people could see the secret legal justifications underpinning Brennan’s last four years as keeper of the “kill lists.”

Chavez Inauguration Postponed

On January 8, Vice President Nicolas Maduro addressed National Assembly Speaker Diosdado Cabello. He said Chavez:

“asked that (I) inform that, according to the recommendations made by the medical team that is watching over his health, the process of post-operation recovery should be extended beyond 10 January of the current year.”

“For this reason, he won’t be able to appear on that date before the national assembly.”

“This constitutes an irrefutable supervening reason to invoke article 231 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in order to formalize, at a later date, the corresponding swearing-in before the Supreme Court.”

Article 231 states:

“The candidate elected shall take office as President of the Republic on January 10 of the first year of his constitutional term, by taking an oath before the National Assembly.”

“If for any supervening reason, the person elected President of the Republic cannot be sworn in before the National Assembly, he shall take the oath of office before the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.”

No date is specified. It can happen any time. Dominant PSUV National Assembly members can extend Chavez’s absence up to six months. Vice President Nicolas Maduro can replace him for 90 days.

The NA can authorize an additional 90 days. Constitutional wiggle room may permit more.

Cabello responded, saying:

“President Chavez, this assembly concedes to you the necessary time so that you can get better and recover.”

The National Assembly approved Maduro’s request. More on Chavez below.

Presidential illnesses aren’t rare. Noted US heads of state took ill, became sidelined, couldn’t perform their duties properly, or at times at all.

Woodrow Wilson was America’s 28th president. He served two terms from 1913 – 1921. His health was a state secret.

In November 1912, he was elected president. In March 1913, he took office. Few knew his health history.

In 1896, he suffered a stroke. It caused marked right upper limb weakness. Sensory disturbances affected his fingers. For almost a year, he couldn’t write.

In 1904, he developed right upper limb weakness. It lasted months. In 1906, he lost vision on his left eye. He had multiple neurological problems. He experienced double vision.

He had severe episodic headaches. They lasted days. Hypertension and atherosclerosis affected him.

In summer 1918, he was frail. He suffered breathing problems. Much worse lay ahead.

On October 2, 1919, he collapsed. He experienced a debilitating stroke. For the rest of his presidency, he remained in seclusion. He was sidelined unable to govern.

Historian John Milton Cooper called his condition “the worst instance of presidential disability we’ve ever had.”

“We stumbled along….without a fully functioning president” for 18 months. Information about his health was suppressed. An official White House statement said he suffered from “nervous exhaustion.”

He was dying. Few knew. His top officials and congressional leaders weren’t told. His personal physician, Dr. Cary Grayson, said nothing. The public was entirely shut out.

He served two full terms. He hung on longer than expected. On February 3, 1924, he died.

Franklin Roosevelt served from 1933 – 1945. In 1921, poliomyelitis left him paralyzed below the hips. In the 1920s, an enlarged pigmented lesion affected his left eye. Some believed it was malignant melanoma.

In 1944, he was too ill to run. He was advised to step down. In January, he complained of headaches. He was visibly tired. Once he blacked out at his desk. He was gravely ill. He kept it secret.

In March 1944, he developed heart disease and high blood pressure. His condition worsened. Congestive heart disease affected him.

He was in no condition to serve. He ran in November. He was reelected. On April 12, 1945, he died.

A state-sponsored assassination ended Jack Kennedy’s presidency. Had he lived, his health might have undone him.

At age two, he nearly died from scarlet fever. He contracted measles, whooping cough, and chicken pox. He had upper respiratory infections and bronchitis problems.

In 1935, he experienced jaundice. His weak physique caused multiple sports-related injuries.

His mother called him “a very, very sick little boy.” In the 1930s, he began taking steroids for colitis. Complications followed.

They included duodenal ulcers, back problems, and underactive adrenal glands. It’s called Addison’s disease.

In 1947, his Addisonism was diagnosed. At the time, he was told he had a year to live. He was given his last rights.

As a WW II naval officer in the Pacific, he experienced malaria. The 1960 presidential campaign exhausted him.

As US senator and president, his health was kept secret. Few knew what later was revealed.

Ronald Reagan served from 1981 – 1989. Before becoming president, he suffered from severe nearsightedness, fractures, urinary tract infections, prostate stones, hearing loss, temporomandibular (jaw) joint degeneration, osteoarthritis, and a trans-urethral prostatecomy.

He had a history of benign prostatic hypertrophy. He experienced prostatis and skin cancer.

In January 1981, he took office. In March, he was shot. Loss of blood alone might have killed him. Emergency surgery saved him. He never fully recovered.

Early in his presidency, Alzheimer’s disease symptoms surfaced. They worsened. He forgot cabinet officer names. On a Brazil state visit, he toasted the people of Bolivia. He served two full terms. He lived to age 93.

Other US presidents experienced serious health problems. John Adams was diagnosed manic depressive. James Madison suffered from epilepsy. He had high fevers. It left him “deranged” for weeks.

George Washington experienced Klinefelter syndrone. Thomas Jefferson suffered from rheumatoid arthritis. Chester Arthur had chronic renal disease.

Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, James Garfield, William McKinley, and Warren Harding died in office.

Presidents are mortal like ordinary people. They carry on best they can.

Hugo Chavez took office in February 1999. He institutionalized Bolivarianism. Chavismo reflects his social justice commitment. He’s been reelected four times. On October 7, Venezuelans gave him another six years.

He’s recovering from his fourth cancer surgery in 18 months. He needs more time to regain health. He’s getting superb care in Havana.

On January 8, the Havana Times headlined “Chavez to Remain in Cuba under Treatment,” saying:

Doctors ordered continued round-the clock treatment. His scheduled January inauguration will be postponed. The governing United Socialist Unity Party (PSUV) plans a mass January 10 supportive rally.

It’ll be held outside the Miraflores Presidential Palace. Expect tens of thousands to turn out. Cabello urged everyone to come.

Bolivian President Evo Morales and Uruguay’s Jose Mujica will attend. So will Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino. Other regional leaders may come or send representatives.

The opposition Democratic Unity (MUD) coalition urged “civic strike.” Cabello said Chavismo will prevent destabilization.

On January 7, Granma International headlined “Chavez assimilating treatment and in stable condition,” saying:

Venezuelan Information Minister Ernesto Villegas said he’s “receiving rigorous and constant treatment.” He’s responding well. His condition is stable. He needs more recovery time.

Venezuelans want him to take all he needs. They pray for his full recovery. They reelected him president. They hope he’ll fully recover and serve six more years.

Media scoundrels take full advantage. Roger Noreiga is a former neocon US assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs. He’s a world class scoundrel. He’s an unindicted war criminal.

He’s been involved in Washington’s Latin American agenda since the 1980s. He aided Reagan’s Contra wars. He’s militantly hostile to Cuba. He helped force Haiti’s Aristide from office.

He wants neoliberal harshness replacing Bolivarianism. He claims Chavez gave Iran a strategic hemispheric platform. He’s helping Tehran acquire nuclear weapons. He’s developing his own.

He wants America denied Venezuelan oil. He seeks foreign buyer replacements. On January 7, his Foreign Policy article headlined “Venezuelan Roulette.”

He claims “Chavez clinge(s) to life in a Havana hospital.” An “intense struggle is under way.”

“Cuban-backed ideologues (and) narcogenerals” vie for control. The nation’s “future….hang(s) in the balance.”

He and other ideologues make this stuff up. They claim split PSUV leadership. If Chavez dies, power struggles and destabilization will follow.

MUD opposition figures spread Big Lies. Media scoundrels regurgitate them. Unnamed sources, dubious analysts, and right-wing ideologues are cited.

Chavismo is institutionalized. It’s unified and resilient. Bolivarianism is part of Venezuela’s culture. It’s too strong to die. PSUV leaders intend to preserve it.

They respect Chavez’s wishes. Before leaving for Cuba, he asked party officials to elect Nicolas Maduro president if he can’t serve. It’s unthinkable to believe they won’t do it.

Preserving Bolivarianism matters most. Chavez called for unity under Maduro to assure it. PSUV leaders will honor his wish if needed.

On January 8, The New York Times headlined “Chavez, Too Ill to Return to Venezuela, Will Be Sworn In Late, Official Says.”

Maduro announced it. He “invoked a disputed section of the Constitution that government officials say allows the swearing-in to take place in the future.”

Constitutional language is clear. Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice can administer Chavez’s oath of office at an unspecified later date. The Times didn’t explain.

The Washington Post demeaned Maduro. It called him a ‘bus driver turned vice president.” He’s a former union leader, legislator, National Assembly Speaker and Foreign Minister.

His credentials are strong. He’s well-respected. He’ll rise to the occasion if called on. In 1999, Chavez did as a relative unknown. Maduro and other PSUV leaders won’t let Venezuelans down. Preserving Bolivarianism matters most.

The Wall Street Journal headlined “Ailing Chavez Seeks to Delay Inauguration,” saying:

Failure to return by January 10 “raise(s) the possibility of a constitutional crisis.” Demeaning Chavez followed. “The former tank commander” remains hospitalized.

Opposition leaders cried foul. Delaying Chavez’s inauguration is “unconstitutional,” they claim. Venezuelan law explains otherwise.

Venezuelans “are divided on whether Mr. Chavez’s illness means he should step aside,” said the Journal. Overwhelming popularity supports him. Scoundrel media misinformation changes nothing.

Venezuela’s Catholic Church weighed in. Regional and Vatican authorities are notoriously right-wing. As Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI opposed reform.

His biographer, John Allen, said “today (he) believes the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesial totalitarian-ism.”

As cardinal and pope, he’s been hardline. He opposes liberal morality. He won’t tolerate diluting top-down authority.

On January 7, Venezuela’s Catholic Church called it “morally unacceptable” to “alter” constitutional law because of Chavez’s health.

Venezuelan Bishops Conference president Diego Parron said:

“At stake are the good of the country and the defense of ethics. To alter the Constitution to attain a political objective is morally unacceptable.”

Chavez’s illness puts “at grave risk the political and social stability of the nation.”

Expect lots more anti-Chavista rhetoric ahead. Dark forces never quit. Expect Venezuelans to have the last word. They reelected Chavez overwhelmingly. They intend to keep him.

They urge him speedy recovery. No matter how long it takes, he’s worth waiting for. He’s someone they don’t want to lose. Hopefully they won’t have to.

Note: On January 9, Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice postponed Chavez’s January 10 inauguration for an specified date to be named later.

Chief Justice Luisa Morales said:

“As president reelect, there is no interruption of performance of duties.”

“The inauguration can be carried out at a later date before the Supreme Court.”

The Constitution’s Article 231 stipulates it. Vice President Maduro will perform Chavez’s duties in his absence. Morales quashed opposition demands for a caretaker president.

 Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/chavez-inauguration-postponed-2/

Chavez Inauguration Postponed

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | On January 8, Vice President Nicolas Maduro addressed National Assembly Speaker Diosdado Cabello. He said Chavez: "asked that (I) inform that,...

Lebanese rally outside Qatar embassy

Relatives of Lebanese pilgrims abducted in Syria hold a demonstration in Beirut. (File photo)

The relatives of nine Lebanese people kidnapped in Syria have gathered outside the Qatari embassy in Beirut to demand Doha mediate the release of the abductees.

The people gathered outside the embassy at about 7:00 a.m. local time on Thursday. They blocked the entrance to the Qatari mission.

In 2012, eleven Lebanese people were kidnapped in the Syrian city of Aleppo on their way back from a pilgrimage in Iran. Two of them were released in August and September. The rest of the people are still held by the militants in Syria.


The protesters said the demonstration would continue until the end of the working hours on Thursday.

Hayat Awali, a relative of one of the abductees, said the protest was only the beginning. “We are here to say that we will no longer remain silent and today’s step is just the start of more protests.”

The relatives of the Lebanese abductees have also pledged to hold more demonstrations in 2013 in order to call for increased pressure on governments that support the militants in Syria.

Similar demonstrations have also been planned to be held outside the Turkish embassy in Lebanon and Turkish companies affiliated with the government in Ankara.

On January 2, protesters gathered outside the offices of Turkish Airline in Beirut, putting a wax seal on the entrance to avoid the staff from entering the building.

SAB/HSN/MA

Tappin: Extradited Brit Jailed For Arms Dealing

British businessman Christopher Tappin has been jailed for 33 months for trying to buy missile parts and resell them to Iran.

US District Judge David Briones, who sentenced Tappin to two years and nine months in prison, said he would recommend that the Department of Justice approve any request by Tappin to be transferred to the UK. He was also fined \$11,357 (£7,089)

The 65-year-old, who is from Orpington, Kent, tried to buy missile batteries from undercover US agents with the intention of exporting them to Iran without obtaining a license.

Tappin's extradition to the US in February 2012 touched a nerve in Britain, where many believe extradition arrangements with the US are unfairly weighted against British citizens.

The former president of the Kent Golf Union had fought extradition for two years until being denied a petition to take the case to Britain's Supreme Court.

Tappin pleaded guilty in November after reaching a plea agreement that opened the door for him to serve part of his sentence in Britain near his wife.

His lawyer, Dan Cogdell, explained at the time that Tappin "regrets his conduct, he regrets the time away from his family, he regrets the notoriety".

The plea agreement stated that prosecutors would not oppose any request by Tappin to serve part of his sentence in Britain.

The British government also would have to allow Tappin to serve time in one of its prisons.

Tappin's lawyer anticipated that his client might spend several months in a US prison before that process is completed.

In 2006, Tappin associate Robert Gibson contacted a company set up by undercover US agents to buy batteries for surface-to-air missiles.

US authorities alleged Tappin provided undercover agents with false documents to deceive authorities and circumvent the requirement for the batteries to be licensed by the US government before being exported.

Two men have already been sentenced to prison for charges related to the indictment.

Gibson, another British national, pleaded guilty in April 2007 and was sentenced to 24 months in prison.

Robert Caldwell, from Oregon, was found guilty in July of that year and received a 20-month sentence.

After he was brought to Texas, Tappin was held at the Otero County Jail for about two months, where he initially was put in solitary confinement at his request.

Tappin was later released on bond and has since lived near his lawyer's house in a gated community in Houston.

‘Most Antagonistic’ Toward Israel? That Would Be Reagan’s Defense Secretary, Not Obama’s Nominee Chuck...

Republicans like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham have political amnesia.

January 9, 2013  |  

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

 When Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina warned on national television over the weekend that Chuck Hagel "would be the most antagonistic secretary of defense toward the state of Israel in our nation's history," either his memory served him very poorly -- or he was simply lying to smear his former Senate colleague. For whatever Hagel's perspective on Mideast policy may be, it would be absurd to compare him with the Secretary of Defense whose hardline hostility toward Israel became notorious during the Reagan administration.

That would be the late Caspar W. Weinberger, of course.

Weinberger, a longtime Reagan confidant, ran the Pentagon from 1981 until 1987, when he was forced to resign over his involvement in the cover-up of the Iran-Contra affair (a ruinous scandal that involved the secret sale of missiles to the Iranian mullahs and the illegal transfer of profits from those sales to the Nicaraguan contra rebels -- and that almost sent Weinberger to prison along with more than a dozen administration officials).

In contrast to other members of the Reagan cabinet known for their sympathy toward the Jewish state, including Secretary of State George Shultz and the president himself, Weinberger developed a reputation not only for opposing Israel's interests directly but for seeking to prevent any action, including counter-terrorist operations, that might upset Arab allies of the United States.  Until the Iran-Contra scandal broke in 1986, Weinberger was perhaps best known for orchestrating the sale of AWACS jets -- the highly advanced airborne surveillance, command and control system built by Boeing -- to Saudi Arabia. Opposed by Israel and much of the American Jewish community, the Saudi AWACS deal generated enormous controversy.

Weinberger's views on the Mideast were often said to derive from his career at Bechtel Corporation, the mammoth international construction firm where, as general counsel, he had approved compliance with the Arab boycott of Israel.  Construction in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states was a major source of profits for Bechtel, and the firm's support of the boycott was so blatant that Edward Levi, a Republican attorney general, filed a civil lawsuit against the California-based company, which led to a consent decree and prolonged litigation.

Among the most outspoken sources on Weinberger's record was retired Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, the former Reagan White House aide and intelligence operative who oversaw the Iran-Contra fiasco. In his 1992 memoir "Under Fire," North explained what everyone in Washington had long known about the former Defense Secretary: (Weinberger) seemed to go out of his way to oppose Israel on any issue and to blame the Israelis for every problem in the Middle East. In our planning for counterterrorist operations, he apparently feared that if we went after Palestinian terrorists, we would offend and alienate Arab governments -- particularly if we acted in cooperation with the Israelis.

Weinberger's anti-Israel tilt was an underlying current in almost every Mideast issue. Some people explained it by pointing to his years with the Bechtel Corporation ... Others believed it was more complicated, and had to do with his sensitivity about his own Jewish ancestry.

As an Episcopalian whose paternal grandparents converted to Christianity -- and who later worked at Bechtel, a company with a terrible reputation for anti-Semitism -- Weinberger's personal feelings about Jews and Judaism may well have been "complicated." But his record as defense secretary was straightforward enough -- and considering that Graham is a self-styled expert on Reagan administration foreign policy, the South Carolina senator certainly ought to know it.

To find out more about Joe  Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at  www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013  CREATORS.COM

Failure of Current TV – Gore Wouldn’t Take on Bush

Robert Parry: Current TV could have played a critical role taking on the Bush presidency, instead it followed a confused "youth" strategy.

TRANSCRIPT:

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.

Current TV, as most people have probably heard by now, is being sold to Al Jazeera, which has been looking for a home on American cable TV for years. Current TV was founded primarily (although not on his own) by Al Gore, who was a major shareholder. And Al Gore's been mostly in the news explaining why Current TV was sold.

And to give us his take on what all of this means, the significance of these events, is Robert Parry. Robert joins us now from D.C. He's an investigative journalist that broke many of the Iran–Contra stories in the 1980s. His latest publication is America's Stolen Narrative. And he's the director and principal writer at ConsortiumNews.com.

Thanks for joining us, Bob.

ROBERT PARRY, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR: Thanks, Paul.

JAY: So what's your take on the significance of this sale?

PARRY: Well, it's kind of another sad case where an effort at a progressive media entity has not worked out the way some had hoped. When Current was being first talked about, back in the—maybe a decade ago, there was a lot of hope that it would be an effort to provide a progressive voice on news and to take on some of the challenges that were then very serious in the country—the invasion and occupation of Iraq, George W. Bush's assault on the Constitution, issues like torture. So there were a number of important issues that really needed to be confronted.

Instead, Current TV decided to go and be a sort of a voice for the 18 to 35 demographic group, providing sort of a MTV with a conscience approach. They base themseleves in San Francisco, as far as you can get from the Washington battle lines in the continental U.S., and ended up not having much impact at all. It went through a number of years of being fairly unwatched; then it went—and finally—and it wasn't until 2011 when it decided to do what it should have done back in 2004 and 2005 when it was getting off the ground, and that was to be more of a political news oriented news outlet. By then it was too late.

JAY: And that's when Keith Olbermann was asked to join, after Keith left MSNBC. But then Olbermann leaves The Current not too long after that.

PARRY: Right. It was sort of a mess all around. But at that point in 2004 and 2005, when Current was being set up, there was a tremendous need—and it would have been very hard to take on the Bush administration on these issues the way they needed to be taken on. And the decision by Al Gore, who, ironically, on an individual basis, had spoken up—he had spoken up against the Iraq War, he had spoken up against the violations of the Constitution. But when it came to putting together this business entity, he either chose to or went along with advisers who wanted to go with this sort of softer, less ideological, less political approach.

JAY: Yeah. I was out there during that time. I was—when we were getting Real News off the ground, we were doing some fundraising in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and we were talking to some of the same funders that Al Gore either knew or were involved with him, or some of the advisers, and essentially it had started with this vision of being this independent news organization, and then they decided it wasn't going to be profitable enough, they weren't going to get a big enough return on their money, and perhaps, too, what you suggest in your article, they didn't want to take on the Bush administration, although I think that also had an economic angle. You know, at the time, public opinion after 9/11 was mostly with Bush, and they didn't want to fight that and they didn't want to piss off the cable channels that were carrying them. And I was arguing at the time that, you know, this is the problem with a for-profit news model, that, you know, eventually this is what's going to happen to it. And, of course, as you said, it wasn't very long afterwards they gave up the whole news mandate completely and became just sort of youth-culture oriented.

PARRY: Right. And the ironic thing was that MSNBC, which in the period of that 2003—the Iraq War timeframe was trying to out-Fox Fox—if you remember, MSNBC got rid of Phil Donahue, who had a lot or a few antiwar voices on his show. They wanted to be even more super patriotic than Fox. They ran these propaganda videos showing American troops liberating Iraq. They avoided the ugly pictures of civilian casualties and children being harmed. They did all the same stuff, with the idea of playing to what they thought was what the American audience wanted.

But it turned out that MSNBC could not get into that market, that Fox had already cornered the conservative, super patriot market. So then with Keith Olbermann arriving and beginning to be more critical of the Bush war in Iraq and showing that it could be done—as much as Olbermann may be a difficult personality in many ways, he had the courage and the talent to devise a program which took on not just the Bush administration but Fox News and other parts of this what at that time was considered the emerging Republican majority, the permanent Republican majority, if you recall the thinking at the time.

So MSNBC saw that they could make some money in this approach, and over time they added more and more sort of liberal-oriented programming in the evening. And it worked out for them, and they developed a fairly strong following and marginalized CNN with its sort of phony-balance approach to the news and was more of a competitor to Fox. So that's what happened. So it turned out that the business model that might have worked was the one that MSNBC eventually followed.

But Current had sort of already forsaken that and gone with this youth-oriented thing, which never attracted much of an audience. And by the time they switched over, after Olbermann leaves MSNBC, they hire him at Current in 2011, by then it was too late to really—by then people were watching MSNBC if they wanted that kind of news [crosstalk]

JAY: You wrote a piece about this on Consortium—Consortium News—I should say the whole thing, ConsortiumNews.com, so you get a full plug. You wrote a piece, and it was kind of an assessment of Gore himself, that this isn't the first time Gore didn't stand up at a critical moment.

PARRY: Well, that's true. I mean, I must say Gore obviously has stood up at different times, and I've been to situations where he's given speeches. He did come out against the Iraq War fairly—before it started and was one of the few voices doing that in the sort of mainstream, if you will.

But at other key junctures he hasn't shown the kind of fight that was probably needed. The situation, obviously, during the disputed election in 2000, when he actually won the election in 2000 and did pursue through the courts an effort to get a reasonable recount in Florida, which we now know that if all the legally cast votes in Florida had been counted, he would have narrowly won that state and carried, therefore, the White House, too. However, he didn't. He chose to work within the system. And when that system turned out to be corrupt, when the Supreme Court of the United States, with five Republican partisans coming up with some made-up reasons decided to hand the election to George W. Bush, Gore had not rallied the public, and he therefore had no choice but to hand over the presidency to Bush, which then had its own horrendous consequences for the American people and the world.

So there are different times he has tried to sort of maintain his, quote, credibility within the mainstream, and that has led to him not being tough enough and aggressive enough in pursuing what really was the—what would have been in not only the democratic choice of the public, which did vote for Gore by a narrow margin, but also for what was ultimately the good of the country, which would have been not to have Bush as president.

JAY: Right. Now, you go back to the business model we were talking about at MSNBC, I mean, their model on the whole, really, is to be sort of the Fox version, but for the Democratic Party. They're almost uncritical of the Obama administration. I think there's moments midway through the administration where they were sort of critical of some of Obama's policies. You could see a bit on Rachel Maddow and maybe one of the couple of the other shows. But as soon as you get anywhere within smelling distance of an election, they go straight partisan.

PARRY: Well, I think their foreign policy has been their weak point. On domestic material they have done some good coverage. Ed Schultz, for instance, covered rather tightly the issues in Wisconsin around the labor fights. But when it comes to foreign policy, they really do—they don't challenge the conventional wisdom. And I think it's not just the Democratic position but often the Republican position. They don't really want to be seen, for instance, as being critical of the intervention in Libya. There was very much a rallying around that. Similarly, they pretty much follow not just the Democratic line, but the general mainstream position on Syria. There's not much critical reporting or critical thinking that goes on when it comes to those kinds of very tough, difficult foreign-policy issues.

JAY: I'm seeing now even on domestic issues, like, I found, like, sort of partway, midway through the term, Obama's first term, they get critical of certain Obama policies on economic stuff, bailing out the banks and not Main Street and such, but, you know, in the leadup to this last election, they became full, 100 percent Obama supporters. I personally don't watch it all the time, but whenever I did, I did not hear much of a critique. And it's continuing now. Like, if you look at their coverage of the fiscal cliff issue, they're buying into the whole thing about the fiscal cliff being this horrible thing that's going to happen, and we have to make a deal, these terrible Republicans for blocking the deal and then praising the deal that is reached, which any progressive economist I'm talking to is trashing.

PARRY: Well, I think that's a fair criticism. I do think they tend—they can be critical of Obama on certain narrow kinds of points, for instance, his performance in the first debate—they pretty much trashed that. But overall, overall I think they were—.

JAY: I think that was easy. Even he had to trash that eventually.

PARRY: But I do think that most of their focus was on the Republicans—and therefore implicitly, I guess, more supportive of Obama. But some of the work, I think, has been good. I think some of what Reverend Sharpton has done, for instance, on the issue of efforts to suppress the vote was quite important.

But that said, I think—you know, the point I was making in the article was that Current TV failed to even do that. They didn't want to engage in the kind of political battles that would have been incurred if they had sort of pointed out why Bush's war in Iraq was bad, why some of his approaches on the Constitution were threatening. Even if they had just covered what Al Gore was saying in his speeches would have been an improvement over what Current ended up doing, which was to have kind of a nice—the shows I did watch on Current were mostly things done by sort of youngish producers who looked at environmental issues. It had a conscience to it, but it had no edge to it.

JAY: Well, I think that's the problem, in the sense that it was a for-profit model from the beginning, and it helped drive most of their decisions, and in the end they cash out, they do get their venture capitalist payback in the end.

PARRY: Well, I think they probably got a sweetheart deal from Al Jazeera. I'm not sure that what Al Jazeera's paying for is entirely worth what they're getting. But Al Jazeera desperately wants to have some foothold in the American media world, which I think it deserves. It's a serious although also flawed and limited operation, but one that has a voice that Americans probably should hear. And so I guess they felt that was very important, and they were willing to pay money to get it. But it is ironic that after not having a very good business model at Current and ultimately failing and having very few viewers, that Current was able to find a way to make some money at the end of the day.

JAY: In the end, it was a real estate investment. Thanks very much for joining us, Bob.

PARRY: Thank you, Paul.

JAY: And as for our assessment of Al Jazeera America, of course, we'll wait till it's on. As for current English Al Jazeera, we have done some pieces fairly critical about some of their coverage, though I agree with Bob, other coverage has been very good. And we will post some of our Al Jazeera pieces below. Thanks very much for joining us, Bob.

PARRY: Thank you, Paul.

JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

“So Many People Died”. The American System of Suffering, 1965-2014

vietnam

Pham To looked great for 78 years old. (At least, that’s about how old he thought he was.) His hair was thin, gray, and receding at the temples, but his eyes were lively and his physique robust — all the more remarkable given what he had lived through. I listened intently, as I had so many times before to so many similar stories, but it was still beyond my ability to comprehend. It’s probably beyond yours, too.

Pham To told me that the planes began their bombing runs in 1965 and that periodic artillery shelling started about the same time. Nobody will ever know just how many civilians were killed in the years after that. “The number is uncountable,” he said one spring day a few years ago in a village in the mountains of rural central Vietnam. “So many people died.”

And it only got worse. Chemical defoliants came next, ravaging the land. Helicopter machine gunners began firing on locals. By 1969, bombing and shelling were day-and-night occurrences. Many villagers fled. Some headed further into the mountains, trading the terror of imminent death for a daily struggle of hardscrabble privation; others were forced into squalid refugee resettlement areas. Those who remained in the village suffered more when the troops came through. Homes were burned as a matter of course. People were kicked and beaten. Men were shot when they ran in fear. Women were raped. One morning, a massacre by American soldiers wiped out 21 fellow villagers. This was the Vietnam War for Pham To, as for so many rural Vietnamese.

One, Two… Many Vietnams?

At the beginning of the Iraq War, and for years after, reporters, pundits, veterans, politicians, and ordinary Americans asked whether the American debacle in Southeast Asia was being repeated. Would it be “another Vietnam”? Would it become a “quagmire”?

The same held true for Afghanistan. Years after 9/11, as that war, too, foundered, questions about whether it was “Obama’s Vietnam” appeared ever more frequently. In fact, by October 2009, a majority of Americans had come to believe it was “turning into another Vietnam.”

In those years, “Vietnam” even proved a surprisingly two-sided analogy — after, at least, generals began reading and citing revisionist texts about that war. These claimed, despite all appearances, that the U.S. military had actually won in Vietnam (before the politicians, media, and antiwar movement gave the gains away). The same winning formula, they insisted, could be used to triumph again. And so, a failed solution from that failed war, counterinsurgency, or COIN, was trotted out as the military panacea for impending disaster.

Debated comparisons between the two ongoing wars and the one that somehow never went away, came to litter newspapers, journals, magazines, and the Internet — until David Petraeus, a top COINdinista general who had written his doctoral dissertation on the “lessons” of the Vietnam War, was called in to settle the matter by putting those lessons to work winning the other two. In the end, of course, U.S. troops were booted out of Iraq, while the war in Afghanistan continues to this day as a dismally devolving stalemate, now wracked by “green-on-blue” or “insider” attacks on U.S. forces, while the general himself returned to Washington as CIA director to run covert wars in Pakistan and Yemen before retiring in disgrace following a sex scandal.

Still, for all the ink about the “Vietnam analogy,” virtually none of the reporters, pundits, historians, generals, politicians, or other members of the chattering classes ever so much as mentioned the Vietnam War as Pham To knew it. In that way, they managed to miss the one unfailing parallel between America’s wars in all three places: civilian suffering.

For all the dissimilarities, botched analogies, and tortured comparisons, there has been one connecting thread in Washington’s foreign wars of the last half century that, in recent years at least, Americans have seldom found of the slightest interest: misery for local nationals. Civilian suffering is, in fact, the defining characteristic of modern war in general, even if only rarely discussed in the halls of power or the mainstream media.

An Unimaginable Toll

Pham To was lucky. He and Pham Thang, another victim and a neighbor, told me that, of the 2,000 people living in their village before the war, only 300 survived it. Bombing, shelling, a massacre, disease, and starvation had come close to wiping out their entire settlement. “So many people were hungry,” Pham Thang said. “With no food, many died. Others were sick and with medications unavailable, they died, too. Then there was the bombing and shelling, which took still more lives.

They all died because of the war.”  Leaving aside those who perished from disease, hunger, or lack of medical care, at least 3.8 million Vietnamese died violent war deaths according to researchers from Harvard Medical School and the University of Washington. The best estimate we have is that 2 million of them were civilians. Using a very conservative extrapolation, this suggests that 5.3 million civilians were wounded during the war, for a total of 7.3 million Vietnamese civilian casualties overall. To such figures might be added an estimated 11.7 million Vietnamese forced from their homes and turned into refugees, up to 4.8 million sprayed with toxic herbicides like Agent Orange, an estimated 800,000 to 1.3 million war orphans, and 1 million war widows.

The numbers are staggering, the suffering incalculable, the misery almost incomprehensible to most Americans but not, perhaps, to an Iraqi.

No one will ever know just how many Iraqis died in the wake of the U.S. invasion of 2003. In a country with an estimated population of about 25 million at the time, a much-debated survey — the results of which were published in the British medical journal The Lancet — suggested more than 601,000 violent “excess deaths” had occurred by 2006. Another survey indicated that more than 1.2 million Iraqi civilians had died because of the war (and the various internal conflicts that flowed from it) as of 2007. The Associated Press tallied up records of 110,600 deaths by early 2009. An Iraqi family health survey fixed the number at 151,000 violent deaths by June 2006. Official documents made public by Wikileaks counted 109,000 deaths, including 66,081 civilian deaths, between 2004 and 2009. Iraq Body Count has tallied as many as 121,220 documented cases of violent civilian deaths alone.

Then there are those 3.2 million Iraqis who were internally displaced or fled the violence to other lands, only to find uncertainty and deprivation in places like Jordan, Iran, and now war-torn Syria. By 2011, 9% or more of Iraq’s women, as many as 1 million, were widows (a number that skyrocketed in the years after the U.S. invasion). A recent survey found that 800,000 to 1 million Iraqi children had lost one or both parents, a figure that only grows with the continuing violence that the U.S. unleashed but never stamped out.

Today, the country, which experienced an enormous brain drain of professionals, has a total of 200 social workers and psychiatrists to aid all those, armed and unarmed, who suffered every sort of horror and trauma. (In just the last seven years, by comparison, the U.S. Veterans Administration has hired 7,000 new mental health professionals to deal with Americans who have been psychologically scarred by war.)

Many Afghans, too, would surely be able to relate to what Pham To and millions of Vietnamese war victims endured. For more than 30 years, Afghanistan has, with the rarest of exceptions, been at war. It all started with the 1979 Soviet invasion and Washington’s support for some of the most extreme of the Islamic militants who opposed the Russian occupation of the country.

The latest iteration of war there began with an invasion by U.S. and allied forces in 2001, and has since claimed the lives of many thousands of civilians in roadside and aerial bombings, suicide attacks and helicopter attacks, night raids and outright massacres. Untold numbers of Afghans have also died of everything from lack of access to medical care (there are just 2 doctors for every 10,000 Afghans) to exposure, including shocking reports of children freezing to death in refugee camps last winter and again this year. They were among the hundreds of thousands of Afghans who have been internally displaced during the war. Millions more live as refugees outside the country, mostly in Iran and Pakistan. Of the women who remain in the country, up to 2 million are widows. In addition, there are now an estimated 2 million Afghan orphans. No wonder polling by Gallup this past summer found 96% of Afghans claiming they were either “suffering” or “struggling,” and just 4% “thriving.”

American Refugees in Mexico?

For most Americans, this type of unrelenting, war-related misery is unfathomable. Few have ever personally experienced anything like what their tax dollars have wrought in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia in the last half-century. And while surprising numbers of Americans do suffer from poverty and deprivation, few know anything about what it’s like to live through a year of war — let alone 10, as Pham To did — under the constant threat of air strikes, artillery fire, and violence perpetrated by foreign ground troops.

Still, as a simple thought experiment, let’s consider for a moment what it might be like in American terms. Imagine that the United States had experienced an occupation by a foreign military force. Imagine millions or even tens of millions of American civilians dead or wounded as a result of an invasion and resulting civil strife.

Imagine a country in which your door might be kicked down in the dead of night by heavily-armed, foreign young men, in strange uniforms, helmets and imposing body armor, yelling things in a language you don’t understand. Imagine them rifling through your drawers, upending your furniture, holding you at gunpoint, roughing up your husband or son or brother, and marching him off in the middle of the night. Imagine, as well, a country in which those foreigners kill American “insurgents” and then routinely strip them naked; in which those occupying troops sometimes urinate on American bodies (and shoot videos of it); or take trophy photos of their “kills”; or mutilate them; or pose with the body parts of dead Americans; or from time to time — for reasons again beyond your comprehension — rape or murder your friends and neighbors.

Imagine, for a moment, violence so extreme that you and literally millions like you have to flee your hometowns for squalid refugee camps or expanding slums ringing the nearest cities. Imagine trading your home for a new one without heat or electricity, possibly made of refuse with a corrugated metal roof that roars when it rains. Then imagine living there for months, if not years.

Imagine things getting so bad that you decide to trek across the Mexican border to live an uncertain life, forever wondering if your new violence- and poverty-wracked host nation will turn you out or if you’ll ever be able to return to your home in the U.S. Imagine living with these realities day after day for up to decade.

After natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy or Katrina, small numbers of Americans briefly experience something like what millions of war victims — Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghans, and others — have often had to endure for significant parts of their lives. But for those in America’s war zones, there will be no telethons, benefit concerts, or texting fund drives.

Pham To and Pham Thang had to bury the bodies of their family members, friends, and neighbors after they were massacred by American troops passing through their village on patrol. They had to rebuild their homes and their lives after the war with remarkably little help. One thing was as certain for them as it has been for war-traumatized Iraqis and Afghans of our moment: no Hollywood luminaries lined up to help raise funds for them or their village. And they never will.“We lost so many people and so much else. And this land was affected by Agent Orange, too. You’ve come to write about the war, but you could never know the whole story,” Pham Thang told me. Then he became circumspect. “Now, our two governments, our two countries, live in peace and harmony. And we just want to restore life to what it once was here. We suffered great losses. The U.S. government should offer assistance to help increase the local standard of living, provide better healthcare, and build infrastructure like better roads.”

No doubt — despite the last decade of U.S. nation-buildingdebacles in its war zones — many Iraqis and Afghans would express similar sentiments. Perhaps they will even be saying the same sort of thing to an American reporter decades from now.

Over these last years, I’ve interviewed hundreds of war victims like Pham Thang, and he’s right: I’ll probably never come close to knowing what life was like for those whose worlds were upended by America’s foreign wars. And I’m far from alone. Most Americans never make it to a war zone, and even U.S. military personnel arrive only for finite tours of duty, while for combat correspondents and aid workers an exit door generally remains open. Civilians like Pham To, however, are in it for the duration.

In the Vietnam years, there was at least an antiwar movement in this country that included many Vietnam veterans who made genuine efforts to highlight the civilian suffering they knew was going on at almost unimaginable levels. In contrast, in the decade-plus since 9/11, with the rarest of exceptions, Americans have remained remarkably detached from their distant wars, thoroughly ignoring what can be known about the suffering that has been caused in their name.

As I was wrapping up my interview, Pham Thang asked me about the purpose of the last hour and a half of questions I’d asked him. Through my interpreter, I explained that most Americans knew next to nothing about Vietnamese suffering during the war and that most books written in my country on the war years ignored it. I wanted, I told him, to offer Americans the chance to hear about the experiences of ordinary Vietnamese for the first time.

“If the American people know about these incidents, if they learn about the wartime suffering of people in Vietnam, do you think they will sympathize?” he asked me.

Soon enough, I should finally know the answer to his question.

Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch.com and a fellow at the Nation Institute. An award-winning journalist, his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and regularly at TomDispatch. He is the author most recently of Kill Anything that Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books). Published on January 15th, it offers a new look at the American war machine in Vietnam and the suffering it caused. His website is NickTurse.com. You can follow him on Tumblr and on Facebook.

West angry with PressTV truth coverage

A political commentator says the West attacks Press TV because the channel focuses on the truth and the topics that the world’s mainstream media tends not to cover.

“Iran’s 24/7 English-language international news channel hit the airwaves in 2007. Press TV appeared on TV screens around the world to cover the story - with a focus on topics that the ‘free’ world’s mainstream media tends not to cover. From revealing the real faces of democracy-looking dictatorships in Europe to divulging covert ties between the West and terror rings in Syria and highlighting the plight of women and children in war-torn countries, Press TV has sought to be a voice for the voiceless,” wrote Hamid Reza Emadi in an article on Press TV’s website.

“Press TV has established a distinctive discourse that communicates the message directly to the audience like no other,” he noted.


Emadi further explained that Press TV has raised several fundamental questions in the minds of its audience, posing a serious challenge to the West which has controlled the flow of information via its mainstream media ever since the first television program was aired.

“And the West has realized the extent of this challenge and has decided that it needs to be contained. And just like that, satellite companies are ordered to take Press TV off the air in a desperate attempt to stop the message reaching its global audience,” he added.

Referring to the removal of Press TV from several European platforms, the political commentator stated that EU is not the only organization behind the all-out war against Press TV.

Emadi pointed out that the pro-Israeli lobby group, American Jewish Committee, AJC, issued a celebratory statement on its website after Spanish satellite group Hispasat pulled the plug on Press TV and Hispan TV on December 20, 2012.

“But why are Israelis so angry with Press TV?...The answer lies in the fact that Press TV was the only international news channel with four correspondents on the ground in Gaza when Israel launched its deadly war on the besieged Palestinian coastal strip at the turn of 2008-2009.”


“They do not want Press TV to enlighten television viewers around the world. But what they just don’t seem to get is that their all-out war on Press TV only serves to show how successful the channel has been. And since it is literally impossible to silence a media outlet in the information age, the channel will continue to do what it's been doing over the years despite the bumps and bruises,” Emadi concluded.

TNP/SS

Tehran to hold Ta’zieh confab, rituals

Iran is planning to present Persian passion play (Ta’zieh) conference and performance at the Niavaran Cultural and Historical Complex in Tehran.

Ta’zieh program will be held to mark the rituals’ registration on UNESCO's List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding in 2011.

Iranian National Commission for UNESCO has organized the event in collaboration with Mellat Cultural Institute and Niavaran Cultural and Historical Complex.

Ta’zieh as an Iranian national and religious dramatic musical performance recounts religious events, historical and mythical stories and folk tales through poetry, recitation, music, song and motion.

The traditional and folkloric play, Ta’zieh, narrates the story of martyrdom of Imam Hussain (PBUH) and his companions and their tragedy in Karbala with its own specific style and rituals.

Ta’zieh rituals symbolize the eternal and unwavering stance of truth against falsehood and humanity's struggle against tyranny realized by Imam Hussein (PBUH).

This Persian passion play was registered on the UNESCO list during the fifth session of UNESCO's Intergovernmental Committee in Nairobi, Kenya in November 2011.

The 3-day event is scheduled to kick off on January 10, 2013.

FGP/FGP

Will there be World War Three?

Sergei Vasilenkov | International analysts have launched a debate about the probability of a start of a new world war. The plans to deploy Patriot...

Hagel Nomination Defies Neo-Cons and AIPAC; Brennon at CIA will Expand Drone Assassinations

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item.

Bio

Ray McGovern is a retired CIA officer. McGovern was employed under seven US presidents for over 27 years, presenting the morning intelligence briefings at the White House under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. McGovern was born and raised in the Bronx, graduated summa cum laude from Fordham University, received an M.A. in Russian Studies from Fordham, a certificate in Theological Studies from Georgetown University, and graduated from Harvard Business School's Advanced Management Program. McGovern now works for “Tell the Word," a ministry of the inner-city/Washington Church of the Saviour, which sent him forth four weeks ago to join other Justice people on "The Audacity of Hope," the U.S. Boat to Gaza.

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.

President Obama announced his nominations for the new secretary of defense and director of the CIA, Chuck Hagel at defense and John Brennan for the CIA. Now joining us to discuss these appointments is Ray McGovern. Ray is a former CIA analyst for several decades. He's a prolific writer, does many things, including he's an often-contributor to The Real News. Thanks for joining us, Ray. So let's start with Chuck Hagel at Defense. You wrote a piece for The Baltimore Sun where you thought it would be a good idea for President Obama to select Hagel, and he did. But why did you think that would be a good idea?RAY MCGOVERN, CIA AGENT (RET.): Well, in short, Paul, Hagel is no chickenhawk. He volunteered to go to Vietnam at the worst of the fighting, wounded twice. He'd been there, done that. Okay? And he's been very, very upfront about his reluctance or anyone's reluctance should be to send U.S. troops into battle for no good reason.JAY: And chickenhawk, for those that don't know, although I suppose everybody does, is somebody who sits in Washington ordering other people to go fight.MCGOVERN: That's exactly right. Or you could go back to George W. Bush, who, you know, his daddy got him a job with the Texas National Guard because expressly, explicitly George Bush said he didn't want to go to Vietnam. Or you look at Dick Cheney, with five deferments. How many deferments do you think Joe Biden had? Five. Okay? So you've got a bunch of people that have no direct experience in war. That is really important. Chuck Hagel would be the first person with combat experience to be secretary of defense in 30 years. Mel Laird was the first one. He was a naval—he was a midshipman.JAY: Okay. You would think with this kind of a record it would be a rather popular choice. He's a Republican. You would think Republicans would embrace him. But as we know, far from embracing him, there's a campaign to block this nomination. In fact, there's already a lobby group been formed with lots of money to take out ads against Hagel. Apparently there's been some website created specifically just to attack Hagel. So what's getting them all riled up?MCGOVERN: Well, Paul, Hagel has not been sufficiently passionately attached to Israel. He said some things that have really rubbed some noses out of joint. For example, he had the temerity to say that I am the American senator, not an Israeli senator. Oh. Now, on the face of that, you know, who could object to that? Well, there's an awful lot of people, like the felon Elliot Abrams, who I heard at NPR yesterday saying that Hagel was anti-Semitic. He's anti-Semitic because he's the senator from the U.S. [crosstalk]JAY: Well, no, they say he's anti-Semitic 'cause he talked about the Jewish lobby and not the Israel lobby. He used the—he didn't say Zionist or Israel; he said Jewish.MCGOVERN: Yeah. Well, okay. So he said that. The problem really is that these folks—they're called the neocons—these folks who have real difficulty distinguishing between the objective aims or the strategic aims of Israel on the one hand and the strategic needs of the United States on the other, those are the people that think that Hagel might decide that contrary to even what the president has said in terms of marching in lockstep with Israel, that Hagel might say, wait a second, wait a second, does this really make sense. I mean, Mr. President, I know you said before the Super Bowl last year that your primary objective is the defense of the United States, and also Israel; I think we should give the United States a separate sentence this year and say, your primary objective is to secure the United States, and then if you want to add as a second sentence, "And we're also interested in defending Israel," that'll be alright. But people need to know that you're interested first and foremost in U.S. policy toward the Middle East bereft of any passionate attachment, the kind of attachment that George Washington himself warned against in his—.JAY: It's a very interesting appointment by Obama, because he had to know the pressure that was going to be brought to bear against him on this. He knew that the Likud, the right-wing party in power in Israel, and their allies in AIPAC and the lobby group in the United States and all the senators and members of the House, he knew this was going to be not very well liked, and he did it anyway.MCGOVERN: Yeah, and that's a very good sign, Paul. It shows that there's a little bit of maybe a spine implant that Obama has gotten over Christmas. This is big. Last year was really a rollercoaster with respect to U.S.-Israeli relations. In February, as I already said, Obama's saying, we're going to march in lockstep with Israel. Israel is equal foot in terms of our determination to defend it. Come around September, come around late August, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is saying, I don't want to be complicit if the Israelis attack Iran. Hillary Clinton is saying, you know, these red lines about Netanyahu, that's BS; we're not interested in that. And the president is saying, sorry, I have to be on The View on TV. I can't meet with you, Netanyahu, when you come to the United States. There was a sea change there. Obama faced them down. Now, this appointment, which I dearly feared would be in jeopardy because of all this opposition, Obama stood by it. And that speaks volumes. It means that the second part of 2012 is the continuity here and not the blind, the blind support of whatever Netanyahu does, including the settlements that keep going on with just verbal opposition from the United States. But that's the thing of the past, that this is a new era, and Hagel's going to make some changes.JAY: Well, we don't know yet whether there's any change in terms of Obama and pressure on Israel vis-à-vis settlements and resolution with the Palestinians and two-state issues and those kinds of questions. What we do know from Obama's history—and if you look at what he said about the Iraq War, he opposed the Iraq War not because he's against projecting U.S. power all over the world; he just thought it was a stupid war, the Iraq War. And I think what this is telling us is he thinks an attack on Iran would be stupid and doesn't want to do it. It doesn't mean he's against projecting U.S. power. And you can see this from his second appointment of John Brennan—the guy he's been sitting with choosing who to kill with drones is now head of the CIA.MCGOVERN: Well, you're right about that. But, you know, he also realizes now, four years later, that Afghanistan is a fool's errand and he needs support in the Senate to contend with the backsniping that is already occurring about losing Afghanistan. So the Iran thing is crucial. And Hagel is one of the last people that would think that we could send U.S. service people into war with Iran simply because Israel started it or simply because Israel wanted us to do it. So that is big. Okay?Now, with respect to projecting power, you know, there's only a limited amount of power you can project. And what we're seeing now is a retrenchment. You know the problems here in this country. I think Obama will be helped by Hagel in sort of delimiting the defense budget, which is going out of all proportion to the threats that Americans face.JAY: I guess my point is I think it's a rational, it's a good thing that Hagel's there, because—I don't know if people on The Real News have heard me say this; I've been saying it informally right from the first day Obama was president, that the one thing I was actually hopeful for is he might be more rational on Iran than the Republicans would be. I didn't have a lot of expectations otherwise. And I think this Hagel appointment is that. But when you look at Brennan going to the CIA, does it not mean sort of an expansion of this drone assassination program?MCGOVERN: Sure. Now, Paul, just one little footnote about Hagel. Hagel has served on the president's foreign intelligence advisory board. That is key. He knows intelligence back and forth. And he knows very well that in November 2007, the entire intelligence community pronounced itself unanimously and with great confidence that Iran had stopped building a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003. And that judgment has been revalidated every year since by the director of national intelligence. I think Hagel will be able to use that cudgel against the neocons, say, why do we have to attack a country that's not building nuclear weapons. So that's a key thing. You're right to focus on Iran. I'm more hopeful now than I would have been if the president had sort of caved again and [crosstalk]JAY: Alright. So what do you make of the John Brennan appointment as director of the CIA?MCGOVERN: Well, I wish I could be more optimistic, Paul. I know Brennan. I know him as a young sort of failed analyst. The way you promote yourself these days at Washington is you find a job in the White House and catch the attention of people like George Tenet, who was at the White House. And Tenet brought him back when Tenet became deputy CIA director, brought him back to CIA and made him into what he is today. He even sent him to Saudi Arabia to be a chief of station. Now, Brennan pretends to know Arabic. He can say Abdulmutallab just really good—I'll practice that: Abdulmutallab. Okay? So when he goes before the press and he says "Abdulmutallab," that's very impressive. But when Helen Thomas asks him, why do they hate us, why did they do these things, why did Abdulmutallab try to knock down that plane over Deroit, he says, they're hardwired to hate us. It's their religion. Helen says, oh, so it's the—. Well, it's not the religion; it's the way—I—they just hate us, they hate us, and they're a danger to our homeland.Now, either Brennan is dumb (and that's possible, you know) or he's really sold out to the people who are profiteering on these unending wars. Right? Why would you continue to press these things? Pakistan has 175 million people. What are we doing? We're alienating hundreds of them every day with these drone strikes. They also have nuclear weapons. So, you know, it doesn't make any sense, unless—.JAY: Well, just to refresh everybody's memory here, Brennan sits in the White House with President Obama deciding who they're going to kill with drones. He helps draw up the kill list. Is that correct?MCGOVERN: That's right. Yeah. That's pretty confirmed now. You know, picture it. Now, I've been in the White House. I used to brief there. But, you know, my picture is Brennan comes in on Tuesday, 'cause that's the day they do the kill list, and he says, Mr. President, we have 13 here, here are the names, can you sign off on this. And Obama looks at him, and he says, well, number three—didn't you tell me last week number three has three small kids? Well, yes, Mr. President, but we know, we know he's a suspected militant, we know. So, well, look, take three, put him in—let's do three next week, and let's just do 12 this week. Sign off. And then he goes—Barack Obama goes to have a nice lunch with his wife.Give me a break. That's what goes on in the White House now. You know, that's almost as bad as Condoleeza Rice presiding over demonstrations of enhanced interrogation techniques, which were also done at the White House.JAY: And this was more or less leaked to The New York Times, right? It's not like you're speculating. The New York Times kind of described these meetings.MCGOVERN: Well, yeah. This was when the White House saw some incentive in showing the president to be a tough guy like Brennan, you know. I know Brennan. He's from northern New Jersey. He's a tough guy. When he says, yeah, we do this without due process, well, don't be stupid here. We do due process right here in the White House. That's how we do due process now. Eric Holder says so. Give me a break. That's the kind of mentality you have there. And what really, really is missing here: where's the legal profession in this country? You know? Due process means the judiciary, it means the courts. And here they're letting these people get away with saying no, no, we do due process here in the White House. It's unconscionable.JAY: So what does it mean for the CIA? Any changes from the way it's acting?MCGOVERN: Well, Paul, as you know, there are two CIAs, one the analysis CIA that Truman envisaged and set up. That's the one I worked in, and that's the one that prevented a war with Iran—that's no exaggeration, with that estimate saying they had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003. That one still has some people of integrity in it. The other one that Truman never envisaged, this operational, you know, covert actions sort of thing, well, they're riding high. They're flying drones all over the place. And Brennan can be expected to enhance the military capabilities that really should not belong in the CIA. And Truman said so before he died.JAY: And now President Obama has his guy controlling those drones. So in a sense it's an extension of the drone program and what they've been doing together.MCGOVERN: I think Obama, you know, has a certain confidence in Brennan that he has in nobody else. I hope it's not a misplaced confidence. Brennan's a pretty treacherous guy, and I think the way Obama looks at the CIA is, if he has his own man controlling the CIA, Brennan, that there's less danger that the CIA will play games, less prospect that the CIA will get involved in the kinds of things against John F. Kennedy that happened then.JAY: Thanks for joining us, Ray.MCGOVERN: Most welcome.JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Hagel and Brennan Nominations: The Empire’s Agenda is Covert Warfare, Targeted Assassinations and “Counterterrorism”

Senate confirmation on both is required. Expect little opposition to Brennan. More on him below.

Republicans will challenge Hagel. At issue is political opportunism more than who serves. Questions about Obama’s nominee are exaggerated. More on that below.

Rarely ever are presidential nominations rejected. Expect nothing different this time. Candidates are carefully vetted. Selection depends on full support for US policies.

Hagel is a reliable imperial supporter. His Senatorial voting record offers proof. The Peace Majority Report rated him highly. The lower the score, the higher the rating. He scored 5%. John McCain got 4%, Joe Lieberman 26%, and Bill Clinton 74%.

The American Conservative Union called him solidly Republican. It gave him a lifetime 84% rating.

In 1996, Hagel suspiciously defeated Nebraska’s popular Democrat governor Ben Nelson.

At stake was a US Senate seat. Polls suggested a close race. Hagel won by 15 points. Few Nebraskans knew about Hagel’s ties.

He was part owner, chairman and CEO of Election Systems & Software (ES&S). It’s an electronic voting machine company.

At the time, it was called American Information Systems. AIS’ parent company founder, Michael McCarthy, was Hagel’s campaign treasurer. His easy victory made winning suspect.

He never disclosed his business ties. A Senate Ethics Committee investigation was requested. It was rejected. Nothing followed. Expect little or nothing said now.

Hagel serves as chairman of the Atlantic Council (ACUS). In 1961, former Secretaries of State Dean Acheson and Christian Herter established it. It was done to support NATO.

It’s headquartered in Washington. It supports Washington’s global agenda. Past and current members include a rogue’s gallery of reliable American imperial supporters.

Among others, they include Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Schlesinger, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, James Jones, Condoleezza Rice, Richard Holbrooke, Susan Rice, and an array of current and former top military officials.

Frederick Kempe is president and CEO. He’s a former Wall Street Journal correspondent, editor and associate publisher. He’s a regular major media commentator.

Damon Wilson is executive vice president. Formerly he served on George W. Bush’s National Security Council. He’s committed to strengthening NATO. Like all past and current ACUS members, he supports America’s imperial project.

The Washington Post listed other Hagel credentials. Past and current ones include:

  • US senator (Nebraska-R.) from 1997 – 2009;
  • chairman of the US Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee;
  • co-chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and Defense Policy Board member;
  • Private Sector Council president and CEO;
  • Vanguard Cellular Systems co-founder, director and executive vice president;
  • Communications Corporation International LTD chairman;
  • Hagel & Clarke co-founder, director and president;
  • president McCarthy & Co,;
  • Veterans Administration deputy administrator;
  • Firestone Tire & Rubber government affairs director; and

He’s no dove. He’s solidly right-wing. He supported Bush’s war on terror. He backs it now. He voted for every National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). He endorsed NATO’s 1999 Yugoslavia war.

At the time he said: “When you’re in a war, you’re in a war to win.” He called Slobodan Milosevic “a butcher loose in the backyard of NATO.” He viewed Kosovo as a “goal-line stand.”

He said if America doesn’t respond, “we will be tested every day for the next who knows how many years.” He favored sending US forces to Kosovo. He said “never….take any military option off the table.”

He voted for the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts. He endorsed an “urgent need” for missile defense. He called the 1972 US/Soviet Russia Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) “obsolete.”

He said “We can’t hold America’s national security interests hostage to any threats from some other nation.”

After Bush withdrew from ABM in December 2001, he said “What the president did was responsible. I support it. I think it was the right thing to do.”

He accused North Korea of being “on the verge of fielding a ballistic missile capable not only of striking my home state of Nebraska, but anywhere in the United States.”

He supported the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

The Afghanistan war followed. It rages. It shows no signs of ending. It’s America’s longest war. It was lost years ago.

Hagel supported the 2003 Iraq war. When it was too late to matter, his tone got more dovish.

He favors lawless warrantless surveillance. He opposes habeas and due process rights for Guantanamo detainees.

On January 7, the Washington Post headlined “On Israel, Iran, and spending, Chuck Hagel looks a lot like Robert Gates,” saying:

His opponents claim he’ll dramatically change defense spending and America’s position on Israel and Iran. Reality suggests otherwise.

“The bottom line is that” Hagel and Gates “are remarkably similar and appear to share a number of policy preferences.” They include drawing down in Iraq and arguing against Libyan intervention.

Both men differ somewhat on Iran. Gates is more hardline. Hagel tried having it both ways. On the one hand, he claimed sanctions are counterproductive. At the same time, he said they’re “working.”

In his first post-nomination interview, he said critics “completely distorted” his record.

“I have said many times that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism,” he stressed. “I have also questioned some very cavalier attitudes taken about very complicated issues in the Middle East.”

Nonetheless, he favors “direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.”

He called for direct Hamas/Hezbollah engagement. In 2008, he endorsed direct talks with Syria and North Korea.

There’s “not one shred of evidence” that he’s anti-Israeli, he said. “Israel is in a very, very difficult position. No border that touches Israel is always secure. We need to work to help protect Israel so it doesn’t get isolated.”

He calls “distortions about (his) record….astonishing.” During Senate confirmation hearings, he welcomes “an opportunity to respond” to critics.

At the same time, Politico quoted him saying “I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator. I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States, not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for the Senate in Israel, I’ll do that.”

Politico added that:

“In 2006, (he) used the term ‘Jewish Lobby,’ ” saying:

“The political reality is….that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. I have always argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don’t think it’s in the interest of Israel. I just don’t think it’s smart for Israel.”

Anti-Defamation League (ADL) head Abe Foxman responded, saying:

“What I find more troubling is, he had sufficient time to distance himself from the ‘Jewish lobby’ quote, to explain, and he hasn’t.”

“He let it stand. I find that more troubling than the original statement. He sees it out there. He sees it being seen as this truly conspiratorial view, that the Jewish lobby controls foreign policy, and there’s no comment.”

AIPAC withheld comment. The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) said:

“While we have expressed concerns in the past, we trust that when confirmed, (Hagel) will follow the president’s lead of providing unrivaled support for Israel – on strategic cooperation, missile defense programs, and leading the world against Iran’s nuclear program.”

On January 8, the right-wing Jerusalem Post headlined “Ayalon: Hagel sees Israel as ‘true and natural’ ally,” saying:

Ayalon is Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister. He’s positive on Hagel’s nomination. “I have met him many times,” he said, “and he certainly regards Israel as a true and natural US ally.”

Netanyahu withheld comment. Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin expressed concerns. “Because of his statements in the past, and his stance toward Israel, we are worried,” he said.

He added that Washington’s ties to Israel don’t depend on “one person.”

The New York Times commented on Hagel and Brennan. Obama chose “two trusted advisers,” it said.

Expect Senate hearings for Hagel to be “bruising,” it added. Confirming both will likely follow.

John Brennan is Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. He’s Obama’s chief counterterrorism advisor.

He heads the administration’s Murder, Inc. agenda. He chairs a panel of National Security Council officials. CIA, FBI, Pentagon, State Department, and others are involved.

America’s war on terror is wide-ranging. It includes direct and proxy wars. Special Forces death squads operate in 120 or more countries. CIA agents are virtually everywhere. They’re licensed to kill.

US citizens are fair game. They’re vulnerable at home and abroad. Obama’s kill list picks targets. Brennan advises on who next to assassinate. Victims are a closely held secret.

Anyone can be targeted anywhere in the world. Ordinary people, distinguished ones, or officials are fair game. Their crime is opposing US imperialism.

Drone wars are prioritized. Human lives don’t matter. Rule of law principles are spurned. Summary judgment overrides them.

Obama usurped diktat authority. He appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. He and Brennan meet regularly. Eliminating America’s enemies matter most.

Washington calls innocent victims “terrorists.” Names go on kill lists. It’s called America’s “disposition matrix.” Brennan’s in charge of global assassinations. Prioritizing them made him top CIA director choice.

Expect drone wars to expand. So will targeted assassinations. Summary executions will be prioritized. Rule of law principles, standards, and protocols won’t matter. Counterterrorism takes no prisoners.

‘Assad plan based on Syria realities’

Militant snipers in Maraat al-Numan wait for a target in Aleppo, November 17, 2012.

An Iranian lawmaker says the plan proposed by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to resolve the country’s crisis is based on the current realities of the Arab state.

Seyyed Hossein Naqavi-Hosseini said on Wednesday that foreign countries are supporting terrorists in Syria and providing them with weapons, while the people are standing by their country.

“This crisis will result in the massacre of the people,” said the spokesman for the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee.

“Terrorists will never overcome the Syrian people and government,” Naqavi-Hosseini noted, saying that Assad has considered the reality that the ongoing war in Syria is between foreign powers on the one side and the Syrian people and government on the other.


In a key speech on Sunday, Assad said his government is always ready to hold talks with the opposition and political parties and will call for a “comprehensive national dialog” after foreign parties end their support for the militants and the terrorist activities end in the country.

Syria has been the scene of unrest since early 2011 and has witnessed the deaths of many people, including large numbers of army and security personnel in the violence.

TE/PKH/HJL

What Obama’s Nominations Mean: The Military Is Being Downsized, But CIA Covert Operations Are...

persiangulf

The CIA Is Taking Over the Dirty Work in Fighting America’s Wars

Obama has nominated a veteran – not a chickenhawk – to serve as Secretary of Defense.  The Washington Post reports that Chuck Hagel:

… was deputy director of the Veterans Administration during the Reagan administration and later served as president of the United Service Organizations.

U.S. News and World Report notes:

The Vietnam War veteran and the recipient of the purple heart, Hagel would be the first enlisted soldier in the military to rise to the ranks of defense secretary.

Indeed, while all of the neocon warmongers are chickenhawks who dodged service to their country, many veterans and active-duty service men are opposed to the endless wars, which only weaken our national security and increase terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

 What Obamas Nominations Mean: The Military Is Being Downsized ... But Covert Operations Are Gearing Up

No wonder Hagel is more moderate than those who want to start conflagrations all over the world.

U.S. News and World Report  continues:

While Hagel is a Republican, his views on foreign policy alarm some of his GOP colleagues. During his time in the Senate, Hagel was verbose in his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he voted against sanctioning Iran on multiple occasions and has suggested Israel should negotiate with Hamas directly. Republicans and Democrats alike worry he’s not a strong enough friend to Israel …

The Washington Post reports:

Last year, Hagel endorsed a report by the advocacy group Global Zero that called for an 80 percent reduction in the U.S. nuclear-weapons arsenal. Such a cut could save $100 billion over 10 years, the group estimated.

On the other hand, Obama’s nominee for CIA director – John Brennan – endorsed torture, assassination of unidentified strangers without due process, and spying on all Americans. As Glenn Greenwald writes:

Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush’s programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program.

***

Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser…. In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying when he claimed Obama’s drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year. He also spouted complete though highly influential falsehoods to the world in the immediate aftermath of the Osama bin Laden killing, including claiming that bin Laden “engaged in a firefight” with Navy SEALS and had “used his wife as a human shield”. Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama’s most controversial and radical policies, including “signature strikes” in Yemen – targeting people without even knowing who they are – and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for execution without any due process, oversight or transparency.

What do these two nominations tell us?

That the Obama administration doesn’t plan on fighting as many conventional wars with men in uniform – soldiers, sailors, pilots and marines – but does plan to crank up assassinations, drone strikes and other covert operations worldwide.

ECO mounts Ashura photo exhibition

An exhibition of photos on Ashura mourning rituals has been mounted at the Diplomatic Gallery of the ECO Cultural Institute in the Iranian capital, Tehran.

The exhibition titled Like This Wine displays 72 works of 30 photographers focused on the Iranian mourning ceremonies for martyrdom of Shia’s Imam Hussein (PBUH) and his companions in Ashura.

An Iranian photo agency and photographer bank, Chilik, organized the exhibition and provided the photos.

Farzaneh Biazaran, Mohsen Sajjadi, Nasibeh Khalili, Amin Rahmani, Mona Hassan, Mehdi Taheri and Yadollah Abdi are some of the artists whose works displayed at the show.

The exhibition that kicked off on January 7 will run until January 18. The show is also scheduled to be held in some other Iranian cities such as Sari, Takestan, Kashan and Qom.

FGP/FGP

Hagel likened to Gates on US policy

Obama administration’s nominee for defense secretary Chuck Hagel has been likened to the US president’s first Pentagon chief Robert Gates in terms of defense cuts as well as American policy towards the Israeli regime and Iran.

Hagel and Gates “are remarkably similar and appear to share a number of policy preferences” on military spending, Iran and Israel, a Washington Post article emphasizes in its Monday edition.

Describing Hagel’s potential leadership over the US Defense Department as “a continuation of the Gates Pentagon,” the article goes on to compare the two former Republican policy makers on their positions regarding the Israeli regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran and downsizing of the American military institution.

Hagel, a Vietnam war veteran, formerly served as a moderate Republican Senator from the state of Nebraska until 2008. Gates was CIA director from 1991 to 1993 during George H. W. Bush’s administration and Secretary of Defense from 2006 to 2011 under Presidents Bush and Obama.

According to the article, Hagel has come under criticism by pro-Israeli advocates merely for calling for a “more evenhanded” US policy towards Tel Aviv, adding that for some supporters of the Israeli regime “more evenhanded” is a “nice way of saying that he’s less supportive.”

Hagel has also come under fire for once saying that “he was a senator from Nebraska, not a senator from Israel,” the daily further notes.

Moreover, the article further cites Gates as also speaking critically about the Tel Aviv regime, counseling Obama that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “an ungrateful ally” who was “endangering his country by refusing to grapple with Israel’s growing isolation and with the demographic challenges it faces if it keeps control of the West Bank.”

Gates is also quoted in the report as telling Obama that “Netanyahu had given the United States nothing in return for its support of Israel.”

On US approach towards Tehran, according to the report, both Hagel and Gates have expressed strong opposition to any American or Israeli military strikes on Iran, also officially endorsing the idea only as a last-resort option.

Gates has gone so far as stating in a recent speech that “the results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could, in my view, prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world.”

However, although Gates has endorsed US sanctions against the Islamic Republic, Hagel has opposed the move while he was in the Senate, arguing that “direct negotiations would be the best path for resolving the conflict,” the daily adds.

The report further reiterates that both former officials also hold similar views on the need to considerably reduce huge US military spending.

MFB/MFB

‘Syria government firm about reforms’

Iranian Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani says the plan proposed by the Syrian president to end the crisis in the Arab country demonstrates Damascus’s determination to implement political reforms.

The Syrian government’s plan showed that Damascus “has a solemn resolve to implement political reforms and changes,” Larijani said on Tuesday, adding that, “Naturally, security grounds [for this objective] must be provided.”

“Majlis welcomes reformist measures based on the nation’s vote in Syria,” Larijani added.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since mid-March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of security personnel, have been killed in the violence.

In a key speech on Sunday, Assad called for an end to terrorist operations inside Syria and urged "concerned states and parties" to stop funding, arming and harboring militants.

Assad added that his government is always ready to hold talks with the opposition and political parties and would call for a “comprehensive national dialog” after foreign parties end their support for the militants and the terrorist activities cease in the country.

Larijani said the plan aims to implement reforms based on elections and the will of the people and warned the “meddlesome countries” that opposition to this bid is tantamount to “waging war on the establishment of democracy in Syria.”

Larijani expressed regret that, over the past two years, the Western countries and some regional states have “fueled insecurity” in Syria by sending arms and other equipments into the Arab country.


Meddlesome countries must now know that they cannot force changes in Syria by plotting and sending arms and forces to the Arab country, he added.

MYA/HMV/HJL

‘Syria crisis, plot to ensure Israel safety’

Iran’s Ambassador to Lebanon Ghazanfar Roknabadi says the ongoing crisis in Syria was a plot devised to ensure the security of the Israeli regime.

“The trend of the developments in Syria proved that… a plot had been hatched to create a crisis in Syria in order to ensure the security of the Zionist regime (Israel),” Roknabadi said on Monday.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since mid-March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of security personnel, have been killed in the violence.

The Syrian government says the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants are foreign nationals.

The Iranian ambassador made the remarks in a meeting with Lebanese Coptic leader Archbishop Louis Urshalimi.

Stressing the necessity of strengthening stability and solidarity in the regional countries particularly Lebanon and Syria, the Iranian ambassador said the Islamic Republic does not spare any effort to facilitate unity among nations fighting against the occupying regime of Israel.


Urshalimi, for his part, said the situation in Syria is progressing toward stability but certain media outlets are trying to portray a distorted picture of the developments.

Urshalimi stressed the necessity of a political solution to the crisis in Syria and said the continuation of conflicts has no result but more devastation.

MYA/HMV/HJL

Mehdi’s Morning Memo: Dave Won’t Win

The ten things you need to know on Tuesday 8th January 2013...

1) DAVE WON'T WIN

Last March, I penned a column which was entitled: "Why the odds are against a Tory majority."

Almost a year later, I can't help but notice that some shrewd Tory politicians are lining up to agree with me. Former Tory MP Paul Goodman wrote last week: "Two years out from 2015, one fact is already evident: David Cameron will not win an overall majority."

Today, the influential Tory peer and pollster Michael Ashcroft joins the fray. From the Huffington Post UK:

"David Cameron's chances of winning the next election are 'remote', top Tory donor and election strategist Lord Ashcroft has warned.

"Writing on the ConservativeHome website this morning, the former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party cited bookmakers' views that an overall majority for Labour is the most likely result in May 2015.

"'With the polls as they are, and political prospects as they currently seem, it would be hard to argue that the bookmakers are seriously misguided. Any realistic survey of the political landscape surely shows the odds are against the Tories metaphorically as well as literally,' he said.

"Ashcroft added: 'The odds on a Conservative majority look comparatively remote.'

"The peer concludes that the combination of traditional Labour voters and disaffected Lib Dems means Ed Miliband 'ought to be able to put together 40 per cent of the vote without getting out of bed' at the next election."

"Without getting out of bed"? Uh-oh.

2) DIVIDE AND RULE

Ahead of today's Commons vote - on the below-inflation 1% rise in benefits and tax credits announced in George Osborne's Autumn Statement last month - the Guardian splashes on Nick Clegg's attack on "Conservative efforts to single out the 'undeserving' poor":

"With the debate over welfare savings likely to form one of the central political battlegrounds of 2013, the deputy prime minister, speaking at a joint press conference with David Cameron at Downing Street, said: 'I don't think it helps at all to try and portray that decision as one that divides one set of people against another, the deserving and the undeserving poor, people in work and out of work.'

"It is understood Clegg is also involved in a backstage battle on how to ensure that coalition plans for childcare will particularly help the working poor, rather than offer reliefs to the middle class.

"... In a sign that the Lib Dem indiscipline may spread to the Commons as the pressure of the election nears, the former children's minister Sarah Teather announced she would be rebelling in Tuesday's vote to formally break the link between benefits and inflation."

As the FT's Jim Pickard observed on Twitter: "Anyone would think Teather has a tiny majority in a not very affluent London seat."

Meanwhile, Labour MPs will be delighed to see the latest report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. From the Telegraph:

"Seven million working families will lose money under Coalition plans to cut the value of benefits payments, economists have estimated.

"The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the changes set out in legislation to be debated in the Commons today will affect far more working households than workless ones.

"... The average loss will be £165 per year, the IFS calculated."

My own take - "Strivers vs Shirkers? Ten Things They Don't Tell You About the Welfare Budget" - is published online here.

Oh, and Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, has just been on the Today programme, defending the 1% squeeze on benefits and tax credits and claiming no benefit claimants have been "demonised" on his "watch". Er, okay...

3) RONSEALED WITH A RESIGNATION

Downing Street spin doctors won't be too pleased with this morning's headlines, in the wake of yesterday's Dave&Nick show in Number 10.

The FT front page headline reads:

"Strains crack coalition show of unity"

The Times front page headline reads:

"Coalition heads for new rift as Tory quits Cabinet"

The paper reports:

"David Cameron is ready to open a new split with Nick Clegg over Tory-friendly boundary changes, as a departing Cabinet minister laid bare the tensions at the top of the coalition.

"Lord Strathclyde, who resigned as Leader of the House of Lords yesterday, conceded that his 'irritation' with the Liberal Democats had prompted him to complain that the coalition in the Upper House was broken. He also criticised Mr Clegg for changing his mind on the boundary review, an issue over which he feels betrayed by the Lib Dems, The Times understands.

"Mr Cameron signalled yesterday that he was ready to confront Mr Clegg again over the issue. The Prime Minister regards it as very much alive, despite Lib Dem efforts to kill it off."

As for the actual 'performance' delivered by the two men inside their wood-panelled room in Number 10, well, to be blunt, it was pretty dull - and the sketchwriters weren't particularly impressed, either. Writing in the Times, Ann Treneman picks up on the PM's bizarre analogy ("To me it's not a marriage," he told reporters, "it is, if you like, it's a Ronseal deal, it does what it says on the tin"):

"Nick's face had that expression that married couples will recognise as one of carefully constructed blankness. Dave had just compared their relationship — the most powerful crucial relationship in the nation — to a tin of wood preserver. Surely this took winter gardening tasks, not to mention product placement, to an entirely new realm. After all, what Ronseal Shed and Fence Preserver actually says on the tin is: 'Colours, Waterproofs and Preserves Against Rot and Decay.' It says nothing about boundary changes and House of Lords reform."

Writing in the Mail, Quentin Letts says:

"As a work of drama, the two men gave performances that were controlled rather than inspiring.

"It was really just a PR exercise, something to stick in the Downing Street diary, something they could all point to when asked, on getting home to their better halves, 'so what did you do today, dear?' Was it perchance a little flat? Possibly. As flat as publican's ullage? Less fizzy than week-old taramasalata? That might be a touch harsh."

But here's a question: why on earth did David Cameron allow Lord Strathclyde, the veteran leader of the Tories in the Lords, to announce his resignation from the Cabinet on the same day that the coalition was doing its very public self-assessment? Where's Andy Coulson when you need him, eh?

The Independent's splash headline sums it up:

"Resignation of top Tory lord leaves a stain on PM's 'Ronseal' relaunch"

4) DEBATING DAVE

So what else did we discover from the Downing Street presser? My colleague Ned Simons reports:

"David Cameron has insisted he is in favour of TV election debates, but refused to commit himself to taking part in 2015.

"Speaking at a joint press conference in Downing Street on Monday, Cameron was challenged over whether he would sign up to the head-to-head clashes at the next election.

"'On TV debates, I'm in favour of them, I think they are good and I think we should go on having them, and I will play my part in trying to make that happen,' he said."

There's a simple solution that would force Dave to commit to participating in pre-election debates with Clegg and Miliband in 2015 - the broadcasters should just threaten to replace him with Nigel Farage.

5) 'CALL CLEGG'

Forget TV debates - talk radio is what it's all about. Nick Clegg's decision to moonlight as a 'presenter' on LBC has upset the Sun:

"The Deputy PM stunned Westminster by announcing he will appear on Call Clegg every Thursday morning.

"Critics branded the decision a desperate attempt by the Lib Dem leader to win back voters.

"Some Lib Dems fear the show is a gamble that could backfire, with Mr Clegg facing a torrent of abusive calls.

"The new half-hour slot at 9am will be part of Nick Ferrari's morning show on LBC and will be aired across London — and online for other parts of the country."

Set your alarm clocks!

BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR...

Watch this video of 'Hard of Hearing' Darth Vader, the rather wonderful creation of comedy writer Jon Friedman.

6) TORTURE? THAT'S OLD NEWS

Yesterday, this Memo reported on the row in the United States over President Obama's decision to nominate Vietnam veteran and former two-term Republican senator Chuck Hagel to be his new defence secretary. The neoconservatives in Washington DC don't like the fact that the plain-speaking and independent-minded Hagel doesn't seem too keen on bombing Iran or giving a pass to Israel in the occupied territories.

So shouldn't the real 'row' be over Obama's other national-security team nomination? The decision to nominate the torture-tainted White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan - also the architect of Obama's drone policy - to be the new director of the CIA?

The Guardian reports:

"To replace the disgraced general David Petraeus at the CIA, Obama picked his counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan. That choice attracted criticism because of Brennan's involvement with the Bush administration's backing for harsh interrogation techniques that many have described as torture, although Brennan denies he supported their use."

The FT adds:

"Mr Brennan's tenure at the agency during Mr Bush's presidency drew criticism from liberals when Mr Obama considered naming him CIA director after the 2008 election. Mr Brennan denied being involved in the Bush administration''s much-criticised interrogation techniques but still withdrew his name from consideration."

Yet the paper concludes:

"White House officials say they do not expect Mr Brennan to face similar trouble this time, given his four years of service in the Obama administration."

Guardian blogger Glenn Greenwald makes the case against Brennan, and reminds us of his actual record, here.

7) AUSTERITY WATCH, PART 412

From the Times splash:

"Downing Street was accused of playing politics with soldiers’ jobs last night, as commanders voiced fears that thousands of Army redundancies were leaving critical roles unfilled.

:Documents seen by The Times show how No 10 has leant on military chiefs to accept voluntary rather than compulsory redundancies when 5,000 posts are due to be cut this month.

8) PLEBGATE VS...ORDINARY CRIMES?

Is the Met's investigation into the 'Plebgate' row distracting the police from tackling more mainstream crimes? That seems to be a real concern for the Home Affairs select committee chair.

From the Mirror:

"An MP yesterday raised concerns over the number of police working on specialist operations — including the 'Plebgate' investigation.

"Home Affairs Select Committee chairman Keith Vaz asked Theresa May if the Met had enough people to deal with 'bread and butter' policing in London.

"Last week The Mirror revealed how more than 800 diplomatic protection group officers will be quizzed about Andrew Mitchell's 'pleb' row.

Later today, the committee will grill Met commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe on Mitchell, plebs and the Downing Street coppers. Watch this space.

9) 'WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER'

From the Mail's splash:

"The boss of an energy giant that has doubled its prices in just seven years could pocket a £13million payoff.

"Phil Bentley, who is to leave British Gas within months, has presided over above-inflation hikes that have pushed average bills past £1,300 a year.

"The latest punishing rise of 6 per cent comes as millions endure the greatest squeeze on living standards since the 1920s."

10) SORRELL'S STRIKER

My favourite story of the day, via the Guardian front page:

"Ronaldo, the World Cup winner and highest scorer in the tournament's history after spells at Inter and AC Milan as well as Real Madrid, plans to spend several months in London from next month studying advertising at the global ad firm WPP, run by Sir Martin Sorrell. He retired from football in 2011.

"'Eighteen years have passed and I've hardly studied at all; I feel a great need to become a student again,' Ronaldo told Brazil's Meio & Mensagem newspaper. 'I've learned a lot in life, travelling, living abroad, just in the school of life. But I also have to immerse myself in something.

"'Learning from Martin Sorrell will be perfect. I won't leave him alone, I'll be asking him questions the whole day, just like a striker. He's going to have to tell me everything.'"

You wouldn't want to take on WPP's lunchtime five-a-side team from now on, would you?

PUBLIC OPINION WATCH

From the Sun/YouGov poll:

Labour 41
Conservatives 32
Lib Dems 11

That would give Labour a majority of 96.

140 CHARACTERS OR LESS

@PickardJE Coalition mid-term review. 75 per cent what they've done; 20 per cent what we already knew they said they would do next. 5 per cent new-ish

@Labourpaul The 'Ronseal deal' line is all over the media - but was it scripted or an ad lib?

@PeterHain Labour voting tonight against cuts of up to £1300 for 4.6m women, half working. Two thirds hit by tax credit and benefit cuts are women

900 WORDS OR MORE

Rachel Sylvester, writing in the Times, says: "The austerity Government’s pledge to do what it says on the tin beyond 2015 shifts the centre of political gravity."

Steve Richards, writing in the Independent, says: "Forward, say Cameron and Clegg. But to where?"

Aditya Chakrabortty, writing in the Guardian, produces an "obituary" for the welfare state: "After decades of public illness, Beveridge's most famous offspring has died."


Got something you want to share? Please send any stories/tips/quotes/pix/plugs/gossip to Mehdi Hasan (mehdi.hasan@huffingtonpost.com) or Ned Simons (ned.simons@huffingtonpost.com). You can also follow us on Twitter: @mehdirhasan, @nedsimons and @huffpostukpol

Todays’ Most Popular Stories

Most Popular Articles since:

  • Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School

    By Prof. James F. Tracy, January 7 , 2013
  • Iran and Syria flags combined

    By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, January 7 , 2013
  • Gladio

    By Makinde Adeyinka, January 7 , 2013
  • William_Blum

    By William Blum, January 7 , 2013
  • statue

    By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, January 7 , 2013
  • policestate

    By Washington's Blog, January 7 , 2013
  • canadaleaf

    By Eric Walberg, January 7 , 2013
  • salvadordeathsquad

    By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 4 , 2013
  • email

    By Joel S. Hirschhorn, January 5 , 2013
  • radiation4

    By Washington's Blog, January 8 , 2013
  • Chuck_Hagel

    By John Glaser, January 7 , 2013
  • school

    By Prof. James F. Tracy, December 25 , 2012
  • Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”

    By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, November 12 , 2012
  • VIDEO: Exclusive Interview with President Bashar Al Assad: The West's "Media War" against Syria

    By Bashar al-Assad, January 7 , 2013
  • ukmap

    By Colin Todhunter, January 7 , 2013
  • lendman

    By Stephen Lendman, January 7 , 2013
  • "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group" and What They May Be Planning Now

    By Stephen Lendman, June 1 , 2009
  • haneen zoabi

    By Prof. Lawrence Davidson, January 7 , 2013
  • taxes

    By Danny Schechter, January 7 , 2013
  • By United Nations, January 6 , 2013
  • eagle

    By Washington's Blog, January 6 , 2013
  • Who Owns The Federal Reserve?

    By Ellen Brown, October 8 , 2008
  • mayanicon

    By Helen Jaccard, January 7 , 2013
  • obamadoublespeak (2)

    By Tom Carter, January 7 , 2013
  • tax

    By Patrick Martin, January 7 , 2013
  • taxes

    By Kevin Zeese, January 2 , 2013
  • money

    By The Economic Collapse Blog, January 4 , 2013
  • engdahl

    By F. William Engdahl, December 19 , 2012
  • The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families

    By Dean Henderson, June 1 , 2011
  • Global Financial Meltdown and the Demise of Neoliberalism

    By Prof. Akbar E. Torbat, October 13 , 2008
  • By Global Research, January 6 , 2013
  • By Russia Today, January 6 , 2013
  • drugs

    By Tony Cartalucci, January 4 , 2013
  • iraqichildren

    By Felicity Arbuthnot, January 4 , 2013
  • GLOBAL WARMING OR THE "NEW ICE AGE"? FEAR OF "THE BIG FREEZE."

    By Washington's Blog, January 2 , 2013
  • chavez2

    By Stephen Lendman, January 6 , 2013
  • By Allen L Roland, August 20 , 2006
  • Interview with Osama bin Laden. Denies his Involvement in 9/11

    By Global Research, May 9 , 2011
  • war

    By Washington's Blog, January 5 , 2013
  • Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran

    By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 2 , 2013
  • The Geopolitics of Water in the Nile River Basin

    By Prof. Majeed A. Rahman, November 15 , 2012
  • The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten “White” Slaves

    By John Martin, May 28 , 2012
  • chemtrails

    By Prof. James F. Tracy, December 14 , 2012
  • 28870

    By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 28 , 2012
  • ASSAD

    By Bashar al-Assad, January 6 , 2013
  • gunviolence

    By Prof. James F. Tracy, December 20 , 2012
  • stealing_money_safe_lg_nwm

    By Tom Burghardt, December 31 , 2012
  • NATOBLOOD

    By anomalies.net, September 3 , 2012
  • Netherlands_Map_svg

    By Hans Vogel, September 9 , 2012
  • recession

    By Barry Grey, January 5 , 2013

Doctor and Sherlock in awards fight

Doctor Who and Sherlock will go head to head for two prizes at the National Television Awards this month. The shows - both created by writer and producer Steven Moffatt - will challenge for best drama, while stars Matt Smith and Benedict Cumberbatch a...

Where Have you Gone, Joe DiMaggio? Americans Side with Al Qaeda Terrorists…

William_Blum

“France no longer recognizes its children,” lamented Guillaume Roquette in an editorial in the Figaro weekly magazine in Paris. “How can the country of Victor Hugo, secularism and family reunions produce jihadists capable of attacking a kosher grocery store?” 1

I ask: How can the country of Henry David Thoreau, separation of church and state, and family Thanksgiving dinners produce American super-nationalists capable of firing missiles into Muslim family reunions in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia?

Does America recognize its children? Indeed, it honors them. Constantly.

A French state prosecutor stated that “A network of French Islamists behind a grenade attack on a kosher market outside Paris last month also planned to join jihadists fighting in Syria.” 2

We can add these worthies to the many other jihadists coming from all over to fight in Syria for regime change, waving al-Qaeda flags (“There is no god but God”), carrying out suicide attacks, exploding car bombs, and singling out Christians for extermination (for not supporting the overthrow of the secular Syrian government.) These folks are not the first ones you would think of us as allies in a struggle for the proverbial freedom and democracy. Yet America’s children are on the same side, with the same goal of overthrowing Syrian president Bashar Al Assad.

So how do America’s leaders explain and justify this?

“Not everybody who’s participating on the ground in fighting Assad are people who we are comfortable with,” President Obama sad in an interview in December. “There are some who, I think, have adopted an extremist agenda, an anti-U.S. agenda, and we are going to make clear to distinguish between those elements.” 3

In an earlier speech, Secretary of State Clinton acknowledged the scope of the threat from such movements. “A year of democratic transition was never going to drain away reservoirs of radicalism built up through decades of dictatorship,” she said. “As we’ve learned from the beginning, there are extremists who seek to exploit periods of instability and hijack these democratic transitions.” 4

“Extremist” … “radicalism” … No mention of “terrorists” (which is what Assad calls them). No mention of “jihadists” or foreign mercenaries. Or that they were preparing their movement to overthrow the Syrian government well before any government suppression of peaceful protestors in March of 2011, which the Western media consistently cites as the cause of the civil war. As far back as 2007, Seymour Hersh was writing in The New Yorker:

The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Nor any explanation of what it says about the mission of the Holy Triumvirate (the United States, NATO and the European Union) that they have been supplying these jihadist rebels with funds, arms and training; with intelligence and communication equipment; with diplomatic recognition(!); later we’ll probably find out about even more serious stuff. But President Obama is simply “uncomfortable” with them, because Assad, like Gaddafi of Libya, is a non-Triumvirate Believer, while the Jihadists are the proverbial “enemy of my enemy”. How long before they turn their guns and explosives upon Americans, as they did in Libya?

Seeing is believing, and believing is seeing

Is it easier for a believer to deal with a tragedy like the one in Newtown, Connecticut than it is for an atheist? The human suffering surrounding the ending of life forever for 20 small children and six adults made me choke up again and again with each news report. I didn’t have the comfort that some religious people might have had – that it was “God’s will”, that there must be a “reason” for such profound agony, a good reason, which you would understand if you could receive God’s infinite wisdom, if you could be enlightened enough to see how it fit into God’s Master Plan.

“How could God let this happen?”, asked a Fox News reporter of former Republican governor of Arkansas and presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee. “Well,” replied Huckabee, “you know, it’s an interesting thing. We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we’ve systematically removed God from our schools.

Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage because we’ve made it a place where we don’t want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability? That we’re not just going to have to be accountable to the police, if they catch us. But one day, we will stand before a Holy God in judgment. If we don’t believe that, then we don’t fear that.”

So the former governor is clearly implying that the tragedy was the lord’s retribution for not believing in, or not fearing, or just ignoring His Master Plan. Believing this may well reduce the grief Huckabee feels about what happened; perhaps even provide him some satisfaction that those who were not “accountable” are being punished. Whether he includes the children in this group, or only their parents, teachers, school officials and Democrats I don’t know.

Local pastor Jim Solomon recounted the story of a girl in the first grade who, by playing dead, was the only one in her room to survive: “She ran out of the school building covered from head to toe with blood and the first thing she said to her mom was, ‘Mommy, I’m OK but all my friends are dead’.” This child was spared, said the pastor, “by God’s grace”. 5

Ah yes, God’s grace. Do I need to ask the obvious question?

It may be relevant to recall that the fellow who slaughtered 87 young people in Norway last year was a fundamentalist Christian.

“With or without religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things — that takes religion.” – Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize-winning physicist

“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”

How true. And nuclear bombs don’t kill people. Government leaders who decide to use nuclear bombs kill people. So why have any bans on nuclear bombs? Get one for each member of the family; well, for those over 16 at least.

The crazed and the disturbed will always walk amongst us. What we must do is strive to deny them the facile ability to engage in mass murder. Everything else being equal, if the Connecticut killer’s mother didn’t have an arsenal of guns at home, including an assault weapon, the story would probably have been a very different one. Ah, but I hear you asking – on the left and on the right – so you wanna let the government have all the guns and the people nothing to defend themselves with? To which I reply: Do you really think the people could hold their own in an armed battle with the police and the military? Mass suicide.

In the past decade various important rights and freedoms of Americans have been seriously curtailed by the Bush and Obama administrations. Did the 300 million guns in private hands prevent any of this from happening? No. And the rights and the freedoms were taken away much more by pieces of paper than guns.

I’d be in favor of eliminating all guns except for some law enforcement purposes. But if that is not feasible, the goal should be to have as few guns in circulation as possible. Or just ban ammunition, which would be a lot easier and probably even more effective. It would be a good start toward our cherished national goal of becoming a civilized society.

The death of Osama bin Laden. What does it profit a country?

The books and the films are coming out. The subject is a sure winner. The American tracking down and execution of Osama bin Laden in May of 2011. Has there ever been a better example of Good triumphing over Evil? Of Yankee courage and cleverness? “The bin Laden operation was a landmark achievement by our country, by our military, by our Intelligence Community, and by our Agency,” said the acting Director of the CIA, Michael Morell. 6

But even if everything the government has told us about the operation is true … How important was it really? What did it change in Washington’s glorious War on Terror? American taxpayers are not spending a penny less on the bloody spectacle. American soldiers still die in Afghanistan as before. American drones still bring extreme anxiety, death and destruction to children and parents in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa. Guantánamo still holds numerous damned souls who wonder why they are there as they bang their head against a brick wall.

Anti-American terrorists are still being regularly created as a result of US anti-terrorist operations. (Even the way bin Laden was “buried” increased the hatred.) It’s a mass-production terrorist assembly line working three shifts even if the bin Laden model has been discontinued. If only one in 10,000 of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims is moved to want to attack the US because of Washington’s repeated outrages against Muslims, the United States will have created a pool of 160,000 Muslims devoted to seeking revenge against Americans.

“Remember when the United States had a drug problem and then we declared a War on Drugs, and now you can’t buy drugs anymore? The War on Terrorism will be just like that,” declared author David Rees in 2008. 7

The fear mongering remains as is; airport security has not gotten any less stupid, embarrassing, or destructive of civil liberties than before, only worse. “Will that be frisked or naked pictures with your airline ticket, sir?” The No-Fly list grows bigger with each passing day, listing people who are too guilty to fly, but too innocent to charge with anything.

Wherever you go — “If you see something, say something!”

People are entrapped as much as ever, charged with some form of terrorism (or “terrorism”), staged and financed by government agents, put away for terribly long periods. The State Department puts a country on its terrorist list, then the FBI persecutes Americans for helping someone in that country, perhaps no more than medical aid.

And surveillance of Americans … the science fiction methods are expanded without end … no escape from Fortress America. Protestors in America are monitored and harassed and recorded as much as before; witness the recent revelations concerning the FBI/Homeland Security/et al and the Occupy Movement. The Patriot Act is still the law of the land, now joined by the National Defense Authorization Act which makes it easier than ever to hold people in indefinite detention, for any reason, or no reason, including American citizens. And now we have the president’s clandestine “kill list”. 8 Could it be any worse if bin Laden were still alive?

Just imagine

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do.
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too …

John Lennon’s “Imagine”.

Sung New Years Eve by a performer at Times Square.

Such subversive talk.

And on worldwide television.

Followed immediately by NBC-TV commentator Carson Daly declaring that we have to honor our brave soldiers.

I’m surprised that he didn’t also mention honoring God.

Toshiba sponsored the giant glass ball which rose up to the top at midnight.

Viewers had the name “Toshiba” flashed in their face a hundred times during the evening in all kinds of ways.

Imagine that John Lennon had called upon us to “Imagine there’s no Toshiba”.

Without Toshiba would there not have been a New Years Eve?

Stuck in 2012 forever?

Imagine.

“Summer, 1969: I sit next to Fidel Castro as he watches on the University of Havana’s color TV the astronauts landing on the moon. At times he asks me to render certain idioms. He watches with fascination. The program had begun with ‘TANG: THE BREAKFAST FOOD PRESENTS … THE MOON LANDING.’

“And without Tang,” Castro asks, “would there have been no moon landing?”

– Saul Landau, author of numerous books and films on Cuba

One way to look at it

Capitalism can be seen in historical evolutionary terms, independent of any moral point of view or judgement. Broadly speaking, the organization of mankind’s societies has evolved from slavery to feudalism to capitalism. And it’s now time for the next step: socialism.

Socialism or communism have always been given just one chance to work, if that much, while capitalism has been given numerous chances to do so following its perennial fiascos. Ralph Nader has observed: “Capitalism will never fail because socialism will always be there to bail it out.”

Capitalism gave rise to some very important innovations, such as mass production and distribution, and many technological advances. But now, and for some time past, the system has caused much more harm than good. It’s eating its young. And our environment. We can take the advances instituted by capitalism for the purpose of profit and use them to create a society based on putting people before profit. Just imagine.

Notes

  1. Washington Post, October 21, 2012
  2. Associated Press, October 11, 2012
  3. Washington Post, December 11, 2012
  4. Washington Post, October 15, 2012
  5. Huffington Post, December 17, 2012
  6. Washington Post, December 22, 2012
  7. In his book Get Your War On
  8. New York Times, May 29, 2012

William Blum is the author of:

  • Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
  • Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
  • West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
  • Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

Obama nominates Pentagon, CIA chiefs

US President names Chuck Hagel (L) and John Brennan (R) as new Pentagon and CIA chiefs.

US President Barack Obama has nominated former senator Chuck Hagel as his next defense secretary and tapped his chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to lead the Central Inteligence Agency (CIA).

Obama chose Hagel on Monday to replace Leon Panetta at the Pentagon for his second-term, despite political uproar over the nomination.

Obama said at a press conference in White House that Hagel, an outspoken critic of Israel, is "the leader our troops deserve,” praising his “willingness to speak his mind."

The US President called the former Nebraska senator "an American patriot," who earned "respect of national security and military leaders, Republicans and Democrats, including me."

"In the Senate, I came to admire his courage, his judgment, his willingness to speak his mind, even if it wasn't popular, even if it defied conventional wisdom," Obama said. "That's exactly the spirit I want on my national security team," he added.

Hagel left the Senate in 2008. He sometimes spoke against Israel, voted against sanctions on Iran, and even made blunt comments about the influence of the "Jewish lobby" in Washington.

The 66-year-old was the first Republican senator to publicly criticize the war in Iraq, calling it the worst foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War, and has consistently opposed any plan to launch a military strike against Iran.

Also on Monday, Obama picked Brennan as the new director of the CIA, considering him as one of the most skilled and experienced people in counterterrorism.

Brennan, a 25-year CIA veteran, will succeed retired general David Petraeus, who resigned from his post due to a scandal over an extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, on November 10, 2012.

Brennan was under Obama’s consideration for the top CIA position in 2008. However, he refused to take the job amid questions about his links to enhanced interrogation tactics during his service in the CIA under former President George W. Bush.

SAB/MA

‘Syria crisis aims to protect Israel’

Iran’s Ambassador to Beirut Ghazanfar Roknabadi says plots hatched to escalate Syria crisis are aimed at ensuring security of the Israeli regime.

“Developments in Syria proved that along with the public demand for reforms, a plot had been hatched to trigger crisis in Syria in order to maintain security of the Zionist regime [of Israel] and the depths of this plot is becoming more evident every day,” Roknabadi said in a meeting with Lebanese Coptic leader, Archbishop Louis Urshalimi, on Monday.

The Iranian envoy underlined the importance of strengthening solidarity among regional countries, particularly Syria and Lebanon.

Iran calls for unity…among nations to counter the Israeli regime and will spare no effort in this regard, the Iranian diplomat pointed out.


Urshalimi, for his part, pointed to Iran’s plan to resolve the ongoing crisis in Syria, saying that dialogue is the best solution to problems in the crisis-stricken country.

He added that continuation of conflicts would have no result but more destruction.

On December 16, Iran unveiled the details of its six-point plan for Syria which calls for an immediate end to armed violence in the Arab country.

The plan also calls for sending humanitarian aid to Syrians following the end of conflicts, lifting all economic sanctions imposed against the country, and facilitating the return of displaced Syrians to their homes.

Iran’s proposal also urges talks between the Syrian government and the representatives of all Syrian groups regardless of their political and social tendencies in order to form a national reconciliation committee.

Many people, including large numbers of security forces, have been killed in the turmoil that began in Syria in March 2011.

SF/SS/MA

Obama nominates Hagel for Secretary of Defense, Brennan for CIA head

US President Barack Obama. (AFP Photo / Chris Kleponis)

US President Barack Obama. (AFP Photo / Chris Kleponis)

President Barack Obama nominated two new members to his administration on Monday, endorsing current counterterrorism advisor John Brennan and former Sen. Chuck Hagel to serve as CIA director and secretary of defense, respectively.

The president, who will be formally sworn in to begin his second term in office in just two weeks, announced his nominations Monday afternoon from the White House in Washington, DC.

“These two leaders have dedicates their lives to protecting our country,” said Pres. Obama. “I’m confident they will do an outstanding job.”

Both Brennan and Hagel have been rumored in recent days to take on new roles within the Obama administration, but only with Monday’s announcement from the president himself did the news become official. A confirmation battle in the Senate is expected to follow the choice for these key posts, although Pres. Obama asked lawmakers to confirm both men “as soon as possible” after making his announcement.

Hagel, a 66-year-old former Republican senator from Nebraska, will replace the current US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at the Pentagon, if confirmed by the Senate. He will also be the first veteran of the Vietnam War to hold the post.

“To this day, Chuck bears the scars and the shrapnel” of service in Vietnam, the president said on Monday.

Accepting the nomination, Sen. Hagel replied, “I am grateful for this opportunity to serve our men and women in uniform again.”

Known as an outspoken critic of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as an opponent of the “Jewish lobby” in Washington and of the possible strike against Iran, Hagel has faced tough criticism for his remarks. On Monday, however, Pres. Obama saluted Sen. Hagel’s “willingness to speak his mind” in Congress, “even if it wasn’t popular.”

“That’s exactly the spirit I want on my national security team,” said the president.

Obama’s administration officials have already dismissed claims of Hagel’s anti-Israel and pro-Iran stance, saying he is “completely in line with the president” on these issues.

White House counterterrorism adviser Brennan was chosen by Obama to replace the former CIA head David Petraeus, who stepped down last November.

Brennan, 57, who has worked in CIA for 25 years and played a key role in the planning of the 2011 raid on Osama Bin Laden, has been behind the controversial US drone program. He advocated the use of drones overseas, calling targeted killing operations “legal, ethical and wise.”

During Monday’s announcement, Pres. Obama called Brennan“one of our nation’s most skilled and respected” intelligence leaders.

“He understands we are a nation of laws. In moments of debate and decision, he asks the tough questions and insists on high and rigorous standards,” he said of his nominee.

Brennan had withdrawn his CIA director nomination back in 2008, as questions about his involvement in enhanced interrogation techniques forced him to assert he is “a strong opponent” of the George W. Bush administration policies. Speaking from the White House on Monday, Brennan said, “Leading the agency I served for 15 years would be the greatest privilege of my life.”

Canada’s First Nations Confront Ottawa: “Expect Resistance”

canadaleaf

“Respect Existence or Expect Resistance”, chant First Nations as a showdown 11 January loams with Prime Minister Harper.

Sparked by Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence’s hunger strike on tiny ‘Victoria’ Island near Ottawa’s Parliament Hill, now in its third frigid week, the native uprising across Canada is in fact the latest manifestation of the world’s colonized peoples trying to throw off the shackles of imperialism. An exciting moment, one of vital import for us all.

Their warrior path brings to mind Egyptian Muslims fighting their westernizers and Mubarakite old guard since the revolution in January 2011, or the struggle by Palestinian natives against Israeli theft of their land. It is a continuation of the Iranian people’s struggle in the face of unrelenting subversion from the West. It’s no coincidence that Cairenes were some of the demonstrators at Canadian embassies, or that native activist-leader Terrance Nelson recently was offered support in Tehran for his efforts to gain a seat at the OPEC table for the real owners of Canada’s oil and gas resources.

This struggle has been going on for more than two centuries. In Canada, it really got underway in the 19th century, as the trickle of colons became a deluge and the theft of native lands accelerated. In Egypt it began in 1798, when Napoleon invaded, and crescendoed in 1875 when British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli ‘brought’ the Suez Canal — built by endentured labor at the cost of tens of thousands of Egyptian lives. In Iran, it also began in the early 19th century, when Russia seized northern Iran (present day Azerbaijan), and picked up steam when Reuter and other western businessmen bribed the Shah to grant them lucrative economic concessions. Palestine has been at the center of the anti-imperial struggle since the western powers imposed illegally a Jewish state at the heart of the Muslim world.

Canada’s natives fought for their land, but were overwhelmed by the wiley and land-hungry colons, and today represent only 3% of Canada’s population, living for the most part short, bleak lives in dire poverty on the dregs of land allotted them by the victors.

But resistance is alive and well. “Idle No More” has swept Canada since Spence pitched her tent near Parliament Hill. Egyptians have risen up four times since Disraeli’s coup, eventually taking back the Canal and today are fashioning a new political order inspired not by western imperial dictates, but by the Quran. Iran finally had its revolution in 1979 and has been affronting the imperial monster ever since, telling truth to the world’s would-be masters.

The ploys of the imperialists were all variations on the program to steal others’ lands, and tie their economies to a world order policed by imperial guns and money. There are many weapons in the imperial arsenal, including nuclear weapons capable of destroying all life on Earth many times over, the latest being the armed drone, deploying ‘depleted’ uranium bunker-buster bombs (guaranteed to ‘keep on giving’ for hundreds of thousands of years).

Postmodern imperialism, the latest fashion, cloaks itself in ‘human rights’ and the fight against WMDs and terrorism. That this is mere subterfuge is revealed by the invasion of Iraq (and planned invasions of Iran and Syria) on the pretext of WMD eradication. Instead, hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed by US-led invasions, with no one guilty, no WMDs and no end in sight.

Israel’s flagrant violation of all international norms similarly goes unpunished, indeed is subsidized by the US and and enthusiastically endorsed by Canada.

Imperialism is alive and all too well, and Canada is fortunate to at last have a clear voice shouting this grim truth to other Canadians and the world. The alarm went off for Harper last year when native activist-leader Terrance Nelson went to Tehran, defying the Conservatives’ unprovoked cutting of diplomatic relations with Iran last November. Nelson was pilloried as a traitor, though it should be clear by now to Canadians who is trading away Canada’s sovereignty and our reputation.

Attawapiskat Chief Spence was inspired by four native women in Saskatoon who began a hunger strike also last November, protesting the Harper government’s omnibus bill C-45, which: *abrogates the Indian Act, ending native sovereignty,

*gives band councils greater municipal powers,

*makes reserve lands “fee simple property” (which can be bought and sold, not only leased),

*allows taxes to be charged and collected by the new Native governments.

The battle lines are drawn. The Harperite status quo is now being mobilized to push through his agenda. Commenting on the 1905 treaty governing Attawapiskat, the National Post’s Jonathan Kay wrote: “The whole basis of the treaty was destroyed as soon as traditional native hunting life came to an end. This is the fundamental reason that the Idle No More message on treaties is irrelevant: The great challenge of native policy in the 21st century will be to integrate natives into the larger economy that is based in Canadian population centers. You can’t turn the clock back to 1905, or even to 1930.” The only answer, the assimilationists claim, is to push the remnants of the natives into urban ghettoes, where they can live like other Canadian poor on welfare handouts.

The Globe and Mail‘s Jeffery Simpson lectures natives for “living intellectually in a dream palace”, built on “mythology about environmental protection and the aboriginals’ sacred link to their lands”. Harper was correct in refusing a face-to-face meeting with the native chief, since a prime minister should not be “blackmailed” into doing what any lobby group or individual wants.

As a First Nations chief devoted to her people, it is the “lobbyist” Spence who has the creds as a Canadian leader, not the scheming power-hungry Harper, who clawed his way to the top of the Reform/ Conservative Party over broken promises and lies.

The “scattered incidents” Simpson sneers at are taking place spontaneously from coast-to-coast by First Nations protesters, closing rail lines, roads, flashdancing in malls, even disrupting and closing several bridge border crossings with the US. Demonstrations have been held around the world — Palestine, Cairo, London, the US, Aotearoa (New Zealand).

Despite media disdain, there has been an outpouring of sympathy from Canadians native and non-native. NDP MP Charlie Angus visited Spence in her tent, as did Justin Trudeau: “It was deeply moving to meet Chief Theresa today. She is willing to sacrifice everything for her people. She shouldn’t have to.”

The struggle has quickly been taken up by band leaders trying to co-opt the protests. Shawn Atleo, head of the Assembly of First Nations, has called for a renewed campaign of civil disobedience beginning 16 January with “country-wide economic disruptions” and “breach of treaty” declarations. This should climax with the proposed Crown-First Nations Summit 24 January, a repeat of last year’s meeting, when the appalling housing conditions on the Attawapiskat reserve first hit the media.

Idle No More may well act as a catalyst and ignite a broader struggle against Harper’s agenda, his hollowing out of environmental protection laws and Canada’s declining record on human rights. Perhaps Harper’s grudging agreement to meet with native leaders 11 January is too late for him. Starving a native women leader at the heart Canada’s democracy, at Christmas no less, is not conducive to good PR for a leader whose hold on power is shaky. Spence agreed to attend but refused to end the hunger strike she began 11 December until she is convinced this isn’t just another PR stunt. She insisted that Governor Geneneral David Johnston and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty be at the meeting.

Canada is at last redeeming itself in the world’s eyes after seven humiliating years of kowtowing to the US-Israeli agenda both abroad and at home, and we have the First Nations people to thank, their resolve “a conduit for the pain of the world”, comments Naomi Klein. Idle No More speaks for all Canadians against the 1% who so eagerly sell out Canada’s resources and smirch its reputation in the world. “The greatest blessing of all is indigenous sovereignty itself. If Canadians have a chance of stopping Harper’s planet-trashing plans, it will be because these legally binding rights – backed up by mass movements, court challenges, and direct action will stand in his way.”

Not only do Canada’s natives empower all Canadians against the 1%, they also help us understand Canada’s actions in Palestine and Iran, countries whose people love Canada and rout for our natives, whose struggle against the imperial order is their struggle too. Victory against Canada’s Mubarak helps Egyptians shake off the legacy of neoliberalism, helps Palestinians in their struggle against Jewish colons in Israel, and Iranians dying in hospitals for lack of medicines due to the embargo intended to crush their independence.

Eric Walberg is author of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games http://claritypress.com/Walberg.html. You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/
A version of this appeared at http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/01/07/282238/canadas-first-nations-expect-resistance/

Foreign Terrorists Wage War on Syria

Syrian authorities said so in 2011. Other reports acknowledged it then and now.

Syria is Washington’s war. It was planned years ago. America wants pro-Western puppet leadership replacing Assad.

All independent governments are targeted for regime change. Imperial rogue states operate that way.

Strategy used is longstanding. On January 4, Michel Chossudovsky discussed it. Current US proxy wars employ earlier tactics. Western-recruited death squads are used.

Using them “go(es) back to the Vietnam war.”

“Terror brigades (commit) targeted assassinations (and) countless atrocities.”

Since Syria’s conflict erupted in March 2011, Washington, key NATO allies, Israel, and other regional allies recruited, armed, trained, and directed death squads.

They’re still doing it. They’re imported from abroad. More on that below.

Washington prioritizes the “Salvador Option.” Rules of engagement proliferated massacres, torture, and gruesome atrocities in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

In Vietnam, Operation Phoenix (OP) did the same things earlier. It became a template for future counterterrorism operations.

From 1968 – 1973, CIA operatives, Special Forces, and Military Assistance Command Vietnam-Special Operations Group (MACV-SOG) conducted covert missions.

Their mandate was to crush National Liberation Front (Viet Cong) resistance. Strategy was to terrorize people into submission.

Operations were no holds barred. Indiscriminate mass murder and atrocities were committed. US military personnel and South Vietnamese government officials considered security risks were targeted.

High-value elements mattered most. Countless others were affected. Around 80,000 died before operations ended.

Later reports said OP failed. John Pilger called America’s Southeast Asian war “the grand illusion of the American cause.” What couldn’t succeed finally ended.

Many remember Washington’s humiliating April 30, 1975 Saigon embassy rooftop exit. Perhaps Middle East/North African/Central Asian ones await.

America considers state-sponsored terrorism success stories.

Johnson and Nixon prioritized them. So did Reagan, Bush I and II, Clinton and Obama. Rogue states operate no holds barred. Inviolable international and domestic laws are spurned.

Unchallenged global dominance alone matters. Unlimited body count totals and mass destruction further it. Wars of aggression are called liberating ones. Humanitarian intervention duplicity justifies them.

Patriotism means going along with criminal lawlessness. Truth is turned on its head. Media scoundrels suppress it. Rogue politicians betray their constituents.

It’s institutionalized. Empires never say they’re sorry. Policy is made through the barrel of a gun. It’s not pretty. It proliferates state terror globally. Most people haven’t a clue.

They’re hooked on bread and circuses. They’re mindless about what affects them most. Their dismissiveness compromises their own security. Their futures are jeopardized. Their children may not have one worth living. People are on their own to fight back.

Prioritized wealth, power, privilege and dominance undermine what’s too important to lose. Permanent imperial wars alone divert trillions of vitally needed dollars. They’re not available for essential domestic needs.

Popular ones go begging. Bailing out bankers and rewarding other corporate favorites matter more. So do imperial conquests. Permanent war is policy.

Direct and proxy ones are waged. Brutal assassins are used. They’re recruited abroad. A UN report said 29 countries supply them. The worst of cutthroat killers are hired guns. They’re enlisted to advance America’s imperium.

They’re waging war on Assad. It’s mischaracterized as civil. There’s nothing civil about Washington’s war on Syria. The same dirty game repeats. Independent states are targeted for regime change. All options are used.

They include full-scale war, mass killing, and gruesome atrocities. Nations are transformed into charnel houses. It’s done on the pretext of liberating them.

American-style freedom is slavery. Mainstream discourse doesn’t explain. It repeats long ago discredited notions. Responsibility to protect (R2P) duplicity justifies what demands condemnation.

Media scoundrels suppress imperial lawlessness. Western-inflicted violence and bloodshed go unnoticed. Victims are blamed for aggressor crimes. The same dirty game repeats.

Post-9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq were ravaged and destroyed. So was Libya last year. Now it’s Syria’s turn. Perhaps Iran comes next.

Most Syrians deplore violence. They oppose internal and external elements committing it. They support protective security forces. They represent a vital last line of defense.

Conflict continues without end. On January 1, Press TV headlined “Al-Qaeda, Israel’s Trojan horse in Middle East: Iranian MP,” saying:

Iranian Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee member Mohammad-Hassan Asafari said:

“The Zionist regime has become the largest training base for active terrorists in the Middle East region and the footprint of this sinister regime can be easily traced in recent terrorist operations.”

Al Qaeda and like-minded terrorists wage war on Syria. They’re closely allied with Washington. They’re recruited throughout the region and beyond.

Israel provides training and intelligence support. A separate Press TV report headlined “US, Israel major players in Syria crisis: Iran cmdr,” saying:

“Chairman of Iran’s Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff Major General Hassan Firouzabadi says the United States and Israel are major players in the Syrian crisis.”

“The number of terrorists in Syria, compared with the people and the popular army of this country, is not high and they are weak.”

“However, they have been provided with advanced weapons and shoot people from hiding places, and this is not a coherent and systematic move.”

The London Independent discussed the issue. It’s report was largely one-sided. It headlined “Foreign fighters fuel the sectarian flames in Syria.”

It called the conflict “sectarian.” Doing so implies civil war. It covered up a foreign invasion. It cited a duplicitous Human Rights Council International Commission of Inquiry for Syria report.

It claimed Syrian forces “resorted to aerial bombardments, including shelling of hospitals.” It called such attacks “disproportionate.” It blamed Assad for Western aggression.

The Media turn truth on its head. Managed news substitutes for the real thing. Readers and viewers aren’t told what they most need to know.

Offensive Patriot missiles arrived in Turkey. They’re positioned near Syria’s border. NATO maintains control.

On January 4, an AFRICOM statement said America began transporting 400 troops to Turkey. Additional equipment will arrive by sea.

US forces will be based at Gaziantep. It’s 50km north of Syria’s border. Missile batteries will be fully operational later in January. They’re for offense, not defense.

Plans may involve establishing a backdoor no-fly zone. Doing so would circumvent Security Council authority.

Washington-led NATO heads closer to full-scale intervention. The new year promises more bloodshed.

On January 6, Press TV headlined “Russian warships gathering off Syria waters to deter West: Report.”

The Sunday Times was cited. It said Russia sent sent five landing ships. On board are military vehicles, hundreds of marines, and combat vessels.

“Russia should be prepared for any developments as it believes the situation in Syria might reach its peak before Easter,” it said. An unnamed diplomatic source was quoted.

He added that Russia intends to deter “the West from deploying ground forces.” Moscow says its ships are to “improve the management, maintenance, and testing of the interaction of naval forces.”

Another Russian warship carrying marines heads for Tartus. Moscow maintains its only Mediterranean base in the Syrian port city.

On December 29, two other warships, the Azov and Nikolai Filchenkov, were deployed. They’ll arrive in Syrian waters shortly.

“In mid-December, Russia’s Defense Ministry announced that a fleet of Russian warships had been sent from the Baltic port of Baltiysk to the Mediterranean Sea near the Syrian waters.”

“Syria, Russia and Iran say” deploying offensive Patriot missiles near Syria’s border “could spark an eventual military action by NATO.”

On January 2, Iran’s Fars News Agency (FNA) headlined “Foreign Military Intervention in Syria: Red Line for Russia,” saying:

Mehdi Sanayee is a senior Iranian legislator. He’s a National Security and Foreign Policy Commission member. He’s also a Russian expert.

He told FNA:

“Causing developments through military intervention and remaining empty-handed in the developments in Syria are Moscow’s red lines.”

Deploying Russian forces represents a “new step” in the Syrian conflict.

“Russia tries to prove on the international scene that it is committed to its strategy, which is opposition to and confrontation against foreign military intervention and unilateral moves in Syria to show that it has not surrendered on them,” he said.

He referred to Vladimir Putin’s earlier comments. They suggested Moscow’s new position. It remains to be seen what follows.

Patrick Seale is a longtime Middle East analyst. On January 1, he offered grim new year tidings. “The coming year” won’t be “happy” for “the tormented Middle East,” he said.

“(T)he balance sheet of the past two years remains profoundly negative.” Nowhere throughout the region have “convincing sign(s) of peace and reconciliation” emerged.

Some countries suffered more than others. He called the “Palestine cause….all but lost. The two-state solution is virtually extinct.” He stopped short of saying it’s been that way for years.

He stressed the importance of preserving a “unitary Syrian state.” Doing so is essential to “containing Israel.” Resolving the conflict militarily can’t succeed.

The only solution is mutually agreed on ceasefire, halting weapons and funding sent insurgents, “isolat(ing) murderous extremists,” and resolving the conflict politically.

At issue isn’t whether Assad stays or goes. Syria is vitally important. It’s essential to protect its “unique historical heritage, its state institutions, its ancient minorities, and its vital role in the defense of Arab independence.”

On January 6, Assad delivered a major address. It’s his first in months. He called for “comprehensive national dialogue in the near future” with opposition elements and other political parties.

“Syria wants peace and reconciliation,” he stressed. At the same time, “(a)rmed groups must halt terrorist acts.” Outside forces direct them.

They’re “terrorists” and “criminals.” They want Syria’s government ousted. He vowed to defeat them. He called for “full national mobilization.”

“We meet today and suffering is overwhelming Syrian land. There is no place for joy while security and stability are absent on the streets of our country. The nation is for all and we all must protect it.”

“These are the enemies of the people, the enemies of God,” he said. “Eventually they resorted to terrorism to terrorize the people.”

“They call it a revolution, but it has nothing to do with revolution. A revolution needs thinkers. These are a bunch of criminals.”

“The first stage of a political solution would require that regional powers stop funding and arming (opposition forces), an end to terrorist operations, and controlling the borders.”

“We will not have dialogue with a puppet made by the West,” he stressed.

The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported what he said in detail.

He prefers responsible conflict resolution. He urged it all along. Mutually agreed on ceasefire is essential. Washington and key NATO partners spurn it.

For months, Assad made good faith efforts. A year ago, Syria’s constitution was rewritten. It was put to a popular referendum.

Despite opposition boycotts, threats, anti-Assad media campaigns, and turnout hampered in violence-torn areas, 89.4% of eligible voters approved it. Another 9% opposed, and 1.2% of ballots were invalid.

It includes 157 articles. Key reforms were instituted. They include political pluralism established for the first time. Presidential term limits and press freedom were mandated.

Last May, first time ever legislative elections were held. Doing so was a milestone political event. Independent candidates participated.

Despite ongoing insurgent violence, turnout was high. Voting went smoothly. Independent monitors supervised the process. They included intellectuals, legislators and judicial authorities from other countries.

Ba’ath party members won a 60% majority. Previously they held just over 50% control. With support from independent MPs, they comprise 90% of Syria’s parliament. Opposition party members were also elected.

Assad said nothing about stepping down. He, Russia, China, Iran, and other sources say Syrians alone should choose their government.

Outside interference is rejected. International law is clear and unequivocal. The UN Charter explains under what conditions intervention, violence and coercion (by one state against another) are justified.

Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes. Article 2(4) prohibits force or its threatened use, including no-fly zone acts of war.

In addition, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council in accordance with UN Charter provisions.

Three General Assembly resolutions also prohibit non-consensual belligerent intervention. They include:

• the 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty;

• the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and

• the 1974 Definition of Aggression.

Under no circumstances may one or more nations intervene against another without lawful Security Council authorization. Doing so constitutes illegal aggression.

Article 8 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention of Rights and Duties says “No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”

Under Article 10, differences between states “should be settled by recognized pacific methods.”

Article 11 calls sovereign state territory “inviolable….”

Washington and key NATO partners spurn international law repeatedly. In 1999, without Security Council authorization, nonbelligerent Yugoslavia was lawlessly attacked and ravaged. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya followed.

Now Syria. America prioritizes attacking one nation at a time or in multiples. Unless stopped, doing so may end up destroying humanity in the process.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

 

http://www.dailycensored.com/foreign-terrorists-wage-war-on-syria/

Moscow Talks on Syria

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | Last September, Lakhdar Brahimi replaced Kofi Annan as UN/Arab League Syrian envoy/mediator. He's strongly pro-Western. He's Washington's point man on...

Paul Craig Roberts: Agenda Driven News

Paul Craig Roberts, rinf.com | I have known for a long time that US news is agenda-driven. Tonight (December 18) I was made aware of...

Media corporations: too big to fail?

As with the banking system, Britain needs to shake up the way its media works as a whole: nothing less can tackle the unaccountable...

The Visible Government How the U.S. Intelligence Community Came Out of the Shadows

Tom Engelhardt, ICH | December 17, 2012 "Information Clearing House" - Weren’t those the greatest of days if you were in the American spy game?...

EU Ministers to Create New World Order Bank

Luis Miranda,  theintelhub.com | Contributed by The Real Agenda Ministers of Economy and Finance of the European Union reached an agreement early Thursday on the legal framework that...

Verizon turns voyeur. A Peeping Tom watching me, watching you, watching us

One of the most outrageous attempts by any company or country anywhere (including North Korea, Iran and Stalinist Russia) to spy on private citizens...

How Water Is Being Used to Enslave People

Dave Hodges, Activist Post |  Much has been written about the past wars that have been fought over oil (e.g. Gulf War 1), the wars that are...

Syria: Tightening the Noose

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | Since conflict erupted last year, Washington, other NATO states, and regional allies recruited, armed, funded, trained and directed Syrian insurgents. Public admissions...

Chomsky on Obama’s Human Rights Record

ERIC BAILEY | Professor Noam Chomsky is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology...

Our Collapsing Economy and Currency

Paul Craig Roberts, rinf.com | Is the “fiscal cliff” real or just another hoax? The answer is that the fiscal cliff is real, but it...

Israel Signals Hardline Policy Intentions

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | Observers thinking Palestinians gained from Pillar of Cloud might think again. Nothing changed. Hardline Netanyahu policies continue. Expect worse ahead. Palestinian peace,...

Supporters of Israel Seek to Ban Hamas from Social Media

Activist Post |  Social networks have become an influential part of the information battlefield, especially during uprisings and armed conflicts. In the recent conflict between Israel...

The Osama bin Laden Myth

Paul Craig Roberts, rinf.com | The interview below with Osama bin Laden was conducted by the Karachi, Pakistan, daily newspaper, Ummat and published on...

Netanyahu Plans More War

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | He admitted it. He's not finished. He has lots more killing and destruction to do. He "will not hesitate to...

Is Middle East Peace a Mirage?

Patrick J. Buchanan |  With the truce in the week-long Gaza war, Barack Obama is being prompted by right and left to re-engage and renew U.S....

We’re All Gazans Now

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | The whole world's watching. Growing millions know. Israel’s a rogue terror state. It's amoral, brutish, and ruthless. Arabs are murdered...

Puppet State America ~ Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts, rinf.com | The United States government and its subject peoples think of the US as “the world’s only superpower.” But how is...

RINF VIDEO: Israel – The Worlds Most Militarized Nation

RINF News reports the latest figures from the Bonn International Centre for Conversion, placing Israel at the top of the world's most militarized nation. The...

Naked Israeli Aggression

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | Since 1948, Israel waged varying intensity war on Palestine. Crimes of war, against humanity, and genocide are committed regularly. World...

A World in Which Truth is a Dying Species

GAITHER STEWART | Hidden away somewhere within the labyrinth of the Pentagon there must be a top secret euphemism department engaged in the invention of...

Is Impeachment Gone for Good?

War is a Crime | Henry Kissinger's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize didn't, in the end, eliminate satire from the earth (or peace prizes...

American Immorality Is At A Peak

Paul Craig Roberts, rinf.com | When Chris Floyd is at his best, as he is below, he puts things in perspective for readers that they...

Syrian Opposition Unity Deal

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | Last week, Doha hosted Washington's reinvented scheme to forge new Syrian opposition unity. Only pro-Western puppets need apply. So-called Friends...

Obama’s Presidency Through Palestinian Eyes

Dr. Elias Akleh | People worldwide were very interested and following the 2012 American election believing that their future would, somehow, be affected by the...

Waging War Without Declaring It

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | America does it in proxy wars and some direct ones. Israel waged war on Palestine since 1948. Daily violence against...

Petraeus: Resignation or Sacking?

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | Some observers call Washington a city of scandals. Lots of intrigue reflects daily life in the nation's capital. Elected and appointed...

The Political Trial of a Caring Man and the End of Justice in America

John Pilger | In 1999, I travelled to Iraq with Denis Halliday who had resigned as assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations rather than enforce...

Obama’s Post-Election Militancy

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | Obama didn't miss a beat. He picked up where he left off. He's America's most belligerent leader. He's waging multiple direct...

Iraq scraps $4.2 bln Russian arms deal

Suadad al-Salhy | The Iraqi government said on Saturday it had cancelled a $4.2 billion deal to buy military jets, helicopters and missiles from Russia,...

Israel’s Dr. Strangelove

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | Uniting Netanyahu and Lieberman is bad enough. Combined with Uzi Arad's influence makes it combustible. More on him below. Netanyahu and...

CIA using drug money to overthrow Ecuador President

Matías Rojas | The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is using drug money to fund Rafael Correa’s opposition in the coming 2013 Ecuadorian elections, intelligence sources...

Haaretz on Obama’s Reelection

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | Haaretz used most of its November 7 issue covering it. Doing so reflects the importance of America to Israeli interests. Netanyahu and...

FACT: A handful of companies control the global economy

Andrew Gavin Marshall | In October of 2011, New Scientist reported that a scientific study on the global financial system was undertaken by three complex systems theorists at...

Overreach: America’s Imperial Waterloo?

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | Arrogance defines US imperialism. In 1945, America's economic, political and military dominance stood unchallenged. In his book titled, "The World in Crisis:...

DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA IN THE 21ST CENTURY: FRAGMENT OF AN UNFINISHED BOOK BY JOHN...

    LIMITS TO DEMOCRACY: THE CIA AND KINDRED INSTITUTIONS Apart from the obvious anti-democratic business of empires or spheres of influence maintained by military force, it is a notable that in all modern democratic societies large parts of the state and its private institutions are organized along lines virtually the opposite to democracy: they […]

Poll: Israeli regime biggest threat to Mideast

Press TV | A considerable percentage of the participants in a recent survey think that the Israeli regime is the biggest threat to the Middle...

UK on standby to send warplanes to Gulf

Britain is considering stationing warplanes in the Persian Gulf as the confrontation with Iran over its nuclear programme continues amid rising tension in the...

Imperialists at it again…in Mali

Not another goddamn war. This time its not Iran, its not Syria. Its Mali (according to Western diplomats, a war will occur in a...

Romney surrogates manipulating US electoral process

Daya Gamage | Run up to the November 2000 presidential elections in the United States in which Republican George W. Bush and Democrat (vice president)...

Russian Internet surveillance plan will block political speech

On the surface, it’s all about protecting Russian kids from internet pedophiles. In reality, the Kremlin’s new “Single Register” of banned websites, which goes...

US – Beyond double standards and hypocrisy

Double standards have always been with us, but I wonder if they haven’t reached new heights, along with hypocrisy, in the age of the...

Theresa May grilled about web snooping plans

Home Secretary Theresa May appeared before peers and MPs in Westminster on Wednesday afternoon to face questions about her proposed communications data bill, which...

Police stockpiling phone data from unconvicted suspects

Sussex Police is stockpiling information harvested from the mobile phones of suspects, The Argus can reveal. The data — including text messages, call logs, pictures and...

Chomsky : Who Owns the World?

In a recent speech, Chomsky examined topics largely ignored or glossed over during the presidential campaign: China, the Arab Spring, global warming, nuclear proliferation,...

Netanyahu Pledges Continued Lawlessness

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | What else can be expected from Israel's worst ever leader. He's a serial lawbreaker. He deplores democratic values. His contempt for...

Netanyahu/Lieberman Unite for War

Stephen Lendman, rinf.com | American crimes of war and against humanity perhaps exceed all other rogue states in history combined. Pound-for-pound, however, Israeli lawlessness matches the...

The demonization of dissent in the United States

William Wraithwrite | On Oct. 3rd, 2012 Wired.Com’s (or Wired Magazine’s) Danger Room came out with Spencer Ackerman’s story of a leaked although unclassified U.S....

Christian leaders ask US Congress to withdraw aid to Israel over human rights violations

A letter signed by 15 leaders of Christian churches that calls for the US Congress to reconsider giving aid to Israel because of accusations...

Executive order allows seizure of Americans’ bank accounts

Bob Adelmann, The New American | The latest executive order (EO) emanating from the White House October 9 now claims the power to freeze all bank...

Romney surge rocks UK betting market

Paul Joseph Watson, Propaganda Matrix | Just one week after it looked like Barack Obama would win the presidential election with a landslide, a surge in money...

Iraq steps back from plans to triple oil production

AP | Iraq officially stepped back on Wednesday from its ambitious plans to more than triple its oil production by 2017, but it remains more...

Full-scale NATO war on Syria seems likely

Stephen Lendman | Waging war is easy. Instigate provocative incidents. Blame them on targeted countries. False flags work as planned. So do Big Lies repeated...

Canada’s secret human rights problem

Eric Walberg | After 10 years in Guantanamo, former child soldier Omar Khadr, the last Western national being held there, was finally repatriated last week...

Pussy Riot shortlisted for ‘freedom of though’ award

Martin Banks | Parliament has included three jailed members of the punk group Pussy Riot on the shortlist of the prestigious prize named after Soviet...

Chomsky: Why are Romney and Obama too cowardly to talk about what really matters?

Noam Chomsky | Our politicians show an extraordinary willingness to sacrifice the lives of our children and grandchildren for short-term gain. With the quadrennial presidential election...

US risks losing reserve currency

By Mark OByrne, Max Keiser | At the Clinton Global Initiative last week Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said that the US could risk its status as...

How the Government’s lies become truth

Paul Craig Roberts, Prisonplanet | In my last column, “A Culture of Delusion,” I wrote that “Americans live in a matrix of lies. Lies dominate every...

USA to continue its wars as long as dollar remains reserve currency

Pravda | Pravda.Ru interviewed Paul Craig Roberts, an American economist, who served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and became...

CIA drones cause mass civilian trauma

Daya Gamage, Asian Tribune Presentation | Two prestigious American universities, Stanford law School and New York university Law School, following an extensive investigative-research project have...

Afghan militants say deadly blast was revenge for film

Reuters | Afghan militants claimed responsibility on Tuesday for a suicide bomb attack on a minivan carrying foreign workers that killed 12 people saying it...

British bank connected to cash laundering

A British bank schemed with the Iranian government to launder $250 billion from 2001 to 2007, leaving the U.S. financial system “vulnerable to terrorists,” New York’s...

REVIEW OF JOAN MELLEN’S FAREWELL TO JUSTICE — THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION AND JIM GARRISON’S...

JOHN CHUCKMAN A note to readers: Normally, I post my book reviews only on another site of mine, Chuckman’s Miscellanea of Words, but because of the nature of this book and its being the 48th anniversary of John Kennedy’s assassination, I am also posting on this site. The blurb inside this book tells us that […]

The Infomocracy Dilemma: Revolution or Disengagement?


A very small yet conscious minority has come to the realization that the current world regime is one giant corporate infomocracy that needs to be terminated with “extreme prejudice”, disengagement being the weapon of choice.  The next revolution will not be carried out by mobs of angry people, guerrillas, terrorists or, god forbid, politicians.  It will be accomplished by a small (10%) militant minority that will simply unplug the matrix.


A Very Condensed Case for Revolution
An enormous, dictatorial corporate cartel is ruling the world through its proxies in government, banking, academia and media.  Our entire western culture has become an insidious farce with the sole purpose of maintaining the enslaved masses in their conjured up democracies, religions and histories.  Two developments have increased its control exponentially:  globalisation and the information revolution. 
The world is entering the final acts of a great social, political and economic shift.  The international currency regime, the keystone of control,  is peering into the abyss; the middle east is being turned upside down; the bankrupt United States government is fighting several wars and maintaining more than 560 military bases in over 120 countries.  The insatiable greed and desire for world control have created a breach in the system.  People are becoming aware while their masters scramble for control as the chaotic climax approaches.


Violence, crackdowns, massacres and all out wars are erupting from Libya to Bahrain.  As Yeats put it , “the centre cannot hold”.  The Arab Spring will soon reach the Wall in the West Bank and when it does the possibility of a large scale conflict and the eventual involvement of Iran are almost inevitable.  How the west reacts when this conflict erupts upon us will be the inflection point for the entire period. 
The great strides made in western liberal societies since the Enlightenment have been  firmly based on the Greco/Christian tradition.  It should be no surprise that the purveyors of consumerist agnosticism firmly reject this tradition within the western democracies.  By pulling the spiritual rug out from under Euro/American culture, they have left a black hole that can only be filled by their circus and gadgets.  We have not only paid, but have in fact indebted ourselves, to worship at the feet of their materialist God.  This has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with culture.  The West is paying a very dear price for having stopped thinking critically and educating its children.
The great European experiment (much more than simply the EU), thought by many to be the light of the world, is sinking like the Titanic.  With a total disregard for traditional culture, the ruling elites have turned our schools, universities, arts and mass media into a giant propaganda machine promoting political correctness, pseudo history & economics and the new world religion: debt based consumerism.  Anyone who questions their version of science, world history or monetary policy is immediately branded as a malcontent and removed from the public discourse.  They control the message by controlling the money. 
Many look at the twentieth century as a time of great economic and technical advance, but history, while recognizing the the technical innovation, will condemn this century as the most vile in man’s history.  The miracle that began in Greece, expanded in Rome, flourished in the Renaissance & Enlightenment and finally found its  modern form in the western liberal democracy has been been gutted by a century of materialism, enslavement, slaughter and greed.
The Corporation and Infomocracy


There is no better example of fascism in today's world than the major corporation: decisions made by a select group of insiders, bureaucratic conformism, communications ripe with propaganda, and the cult of power.  There is nothing democratic about the boardrooms of these behemoths, so how can we expect the governments they rule to be democratic?  They have created a two party charade with news programs, talking heads and opposing  media facing off in faux battles to conjure up their infomocracy.
The corporations control the creation and distribution of our money, our foreign policy, entertainment and news.  The only way to put a wedge between these monoliths and the liberty of individuals is to completely disengage from them.  They manipulate news and opinion to the extent that actual issues are never  discussed, only the distractions are debated.   
Two Examples -  Health care and Iraq
The United States has by far the most expensive health care system in the world, and a decidedly unhealthy population.  Something is clearly wrong with this system.  The debate is carefully divided into those who want to maintain the status-quo - Republicans, and those that want to enhance the status quo - Democrats.  All of the actors fall into line and go either shirts or skins, but the truth is never discussed. 
The Federal Government subsidizes the corporate health care system and the over payed doctors by  regulating the market out of the system and creating a closed corporate hegemony over the industry.  The media and academic shills stick to their subsidized scripts and the real solution is never discussed because that solution would destroy the bottom lines of  the corporate players.
Simply deregulate.  Remove ALL regulations on who can practice medicine and how.  Any drug can be sold in the US, period.  End the FDA.  Private FDA's will sprout up, vouching for the validity of drugs.  Some will be better than others, but the consumers will decide which ones work.  Any doctor can practice medicine and many private organizations will appear vouching for their credentials.  As long as there is a judicial system that can pass judgement on reasonable claims, the system will work out its kinks and we will have, without a doubt, the cheapest most effective health care system in the world.  It's that simple.  The only thing the government is doing in healthcare is subsidizing corporate profits.
Those preferring universal health coverage can certainly make their case at the local level without imposing it on a nation of over 300 million people.
The war in Iraq was started by taking advantage of the fear and confusion from 9/11 with the intention of creating a safer Middle East for the state of Israel.  While this idea is far from novel, it's not allowed to enter the mainstream discussion of the issue.  The truth is taboo because the consequences of accepting it would be beyond the pale for those who conceived of and pushed the country to war;  too much blood to be laid at the feet of the guilty.  The motives and consequences of Vietnam were argued in academia and the mainstream media ad nauseam, but you will not see a Pentagon Papers come out of The New York Times regarding Iraq because the repercussion would reverberate too close to home.  How can the purveyors of morality be nothing more than war mongers?
Why is there a world ‘economic’ crisis?  Is it a lack of able-bodied workers, natural resources, factories, or infrastructure?  Absolutely not.  It's a lack of liquidity and/or too much debt, however one decides to slice it.  The most important myth supporting the system is the belief in fractional reserve money as a valid store of value and means of exchange.  The banks are allowed to create the money out of nothing, and charge interest for turning the trick while the masses have to earn it.  The right to create money is the right to leverage, and it's that financial leverage that hoists them to the top of the pyramid.  Without this leverage they would not be able to create such massive amounts of wealth and control.  The only way to destroy this system and create fair money is by creating awareness.  Once people understand the “trick”, the whole house of cards begins to collapse.  
One simple thought experiment is to imagine what would happen if the the mega banks and the Fed came to an agreement to cut all personal debt by 50%, send a credit card with 20K to every American while at the same time paying off all government debt (federal, state and local).  In this experiment everything would be paid for by quantitative easing and removing bank reserve requirements for bad debts.  The “crisis” would be over in about three months:  anyone who wanted to work would be able to find job, factory capacity would surge and the entire world economy would rise on a massive wave of prosperity.  The only trick would be keeping inflation at bay by reducing government spending to a balanced budget and keeping interest rates high enough. This is not to say that creating money out of thin air and giving it away is the answer, but it does point out that the entire crisis is abstract and contrived and the supreme charge of the government is to protect those that live off interest and leverage.  The debts pushed on the 99% by the powers that be are its main source of leverage and wealth, and by overburdening the productive population with debt they killed the proverbial goose. 
People out of work, factories shuddered, fields unploughed, students without teachers, children without food - all because of digital debt money.  Why can’t a man with a strong back and a working brain simply go out, work, create something and exchange it for money?  That would be too easy.  First someone has to create the money, with interest.  The fractional reserve system, by design, creates artificial scarcity, allowing the ruling banker class and their political puppets to skim enough off everyone's work and turn abundant, productive labor and private property into a giant banker-run slum- turf wars included.  They put massive claims on future production until, at the end of the cycle, their debt chickens come home to roost.
Why is this basic truth not shouted from every newspaper, college classroom, church pulpit and street corner?  In a world of brands, they control who is deemed appropriate.  Anyone who states the truth is isolated, blacklisted or demonized as inappropriate, which is now just another word for honest.  An entire caste of over-educated shills dominate media, film, the arts, literature, and academia.  Organized religion, when not protecting pedophiles and apartheid states, spends the rest of its moral capital railing against the basic pleasures of humanity that have yet to be monetized and securitized by Wall Street.
They tell us to kill and we kill.  Current fashion is that it is okay to kill Yemenis, Bahrainis, Palestinians, and some other assorted Muslims.  Libyans have been put on the no kill list and Syrians may soon find themselves on the same list.  That list means only NATO can kill them (see Afghanistan).  Iraqis have the special honor of being the exclusively killed  by Americans since May 2011 
Education, Religion & Circus
One of the most amazing feats of the regime is how they coerce young people to go into extreme amounts of debt to be brainwashed and taught not to think before they ever even have a career .
Mainstream and not so mainstream religion generally tries to sell people on a hodgepodge of fear and fantasy, with a big pay-off for the self righteous who drink most from the sacred well of Kool-Aid.  What must never be attempted is to actually have an authentic spiritual experience, for this would cause the subject to run from the dogma and quite possibly bring most of the remaining parishioners with him.  Real consciousness as much an anathema to religion as critical thinking is to academia.
But even if one can escape the grasp of schools and universities, dodge the churches, few can evade the tempting trap of the circus.  The television, music, the press, spectator sports, movie stars and the like have an almost hallucinatory power over the sheeple.  Not only do these pastimes steal the money of the masses, they brainwash them to boot.  The regime's mantra: pay the master for the right to be enslaved.
SOLUTIONS


Violent Revolution?


In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato compares the awakening process to realizing the shadows on the wall are only reflections from lanterns in a cave, but he points out that there is a period during which the eyes need to get adjusted, in these moments the person can see neither the shadows nor make out the real images soaked in sunlight.  
Those who awaken go through many stages, one of which is the strong desire to plant bombs and slit throats.  As Plato points out, there is a period of disorientation as one meanders out of the cave.  While violence is the most appetizingly simple of choices, it is also the most counterproductive.  Anything one does that can be utilized by the masters to fire up their destructive paraphernalia  is a mistake.  In fact, anything that even breaks their laws is harmful to the cause and will only create useless opposition.  All forms of violent resistance only generate energy which they use to manipulate news and events in order to create fear and reactionism.  They thrive on our anxieties and use the very energy generated against them as the impetus to foment division among their opponents.
Enlightened Disengagement
The enlightened conscious man needs no school to raise his children, no church to know his God, no banker to validate his work and no government to choose his enemies.  He is free to do as he pleases, when he pleases and how he pleases.  His liberty allows him to need almost nothing, which is how the great evil matrix becomes undone: in a great fire of awareness.
Money – Use fractional reserve money only for what is needed in the short term.  Have no savings denominated in their dollars.  All savings in hard assets.
Work & Corporations – Avoid, to the greatest extent possible, working for and using corporations.  Actively pursue locally owned alternatives and self-employment.  As a consumer, avoid all corporate products whenever possible.  This includes clothes, food, religion, news, etc.
Bread & Circus – Cancel all cable subscriptions immediately. Sell all your televisions and take your best friend out for a night on the town with the proceeds.  Stop participating in the corporate entertainment network.  If you love baseball, follow a local independent team.  If you love dramas, frequent your local theater.  Read independent news services.  Always know the source of what you are consuming.   Avoid corporate food at all costs.  Pay the premium for locally, independently grown and prepared food.
Follow the Law to the Letter – That means paying all taxes, following all regulations, and submitting to all their rules while they are still in force.  The cause is not advanced by having militants ensnarled by the criminal justice system. All their efforts must be fully dedicated to disengaging themselves, their families and their friends.  Moves must be calculated to maximize strength and staying power, even if it means remaining “attached” to parts of the system longer than one would like.   A financially sound, secure militant family  disengaging and evangelizing is their worst enemy.
Politics - The obvious thing to be done is abstain from participation.  In most cases, this would be the clear strategy.  However, with an iconoclastic candidate like Ron Paul still in the running, it makes sense to give him support.  The more the mainstream avoids him and dances around his campaign, the more he should be backed.  
We don't need to convince the whole village, we only need 10% of them. A recent study has confirmed that once an idea reaches the 10% threshold and that 10% is demonstrably fixed to the idea, the majority will quickly follow.
"Three conditions are key: a majority that is flexible with their views, a minority that is intractable, and a critical threshold wherein about a tenth of the population advocate the minority opinion. They also saw that the time it takes to reach social consensus drops dramatically as the minority grows past this tipping point"
The focus must be on the best and the brightest, the rest will follow.  There is no need to dummy down the message; on the contrary, the highest level of argumentation and language should be implemented to capture the critical thinkers, leaders and trend setters.

There is only one path to freedom, and it is terribly straight and narrow.  To navigate it one must shed prejudice, education, political correctness, patriotism, greed and fear.  Realizing the profound depth of the deception can be frightening; a slew of long-held beliefs  will come tumbling down.  Much of the truth is, by design, diametrically opposed to what we have been "taught" to consider moral, ethical, even decent.  Whatever term one wishes to apply to consciousness, revolution without it is simply exchanging masters. The enemy is ignorance in all its insidious forms.
The real revolution needs no leaders, banners, or platforms.  Each awakened man's consciousness is his own guide.  Those looking for a place to sign up are simply looking for more enslavement.  The controllers are well aware of the danger to their pyramid and will surely toss out some interesting schemes to hold on to power.  The enemy of awareness is distraction, but the antidote is simple:  close out, turn off, unplug and ignore.

This article was edited by Jim Horky


Changing Lives with SEO Reselling

It is impossible to tell when SEO reselling industry has exactly started. Some say its early 2003; some predict it has been existent ever...

THE MEANINGLESS CONCEPT OF ETHICAL WAR: THE CASE AGAINST INTERVENTION

John Chuckman French air force planes struck the first blows: using “intelligent” munitions, the planes struck tanks and artillery which threatened the people of Benghazi. Now, who wouldn’t be heartened to learn that mechanized forces being used against civilians, civilians whose only demand was freedom from tyranny, were destroyed? One might easily regard intervention, limited […]

Top 10 Absolutely Free SEO Tools 2011

from fastlec
Everybody likes free stuff.  Absolutely everybody likes absolutely free!  What kind of free, cool stuff is out there this year for SEO tools?  These 10 choices have been reviewed by those who have used them...

Social Networks Used to Topple Governments?

by Shajan Thomas
Facebook has proven itself a great tool for meeting up with former classmates, keeping in touch with far flung relatives and tending to virtual farms, but apparently it is also pretty good at toppling autocratic regimes. At least, that seems to be the lesson learned after events which started in Egypt but...

Social Media Options for Connecting Online

by Claire Jarrett
Social Media is media that enables social communication through the use of web based technologies. There are a lot of social media websites available for social communications.

THE MISNOMER OF PEACE TALKS

JOHN CHUCKMAN I don’t know how anyone given the task could draw a map of Israel: it is likely the only country in the world with no defined borders, and it actually has worked very hard over many decades to achieve this peculiar state.   It once had borders, but the 1967 war took care […]

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark – Danish Web Filter

In the world of web filtering, internet surveillance and other such web meddling there are a few countries who tend to hit the headlines...

A Proxy, a Proxy, My Kingdom for a UK Proxy

It might sound a little ridiculous but if you are one of the UKs many expats living across the world, you may well recognise...

William Hague represents Conservative-Liberal Democrat government in Washington

Foreign secretary William Hague will represent the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat government in the US today as he makes his first foreign trip since the...

WALRUS BULLS BELLOWING ON A BEACH

August 22, 2009 WALRUS BULLS BELLOWING ON A BEACH John Chuckman I am disappointed with the view of some knowledgeable commentators over Scotland’s release of the dying man who was convicted of the Lockerbie-airline bombing. From a purely power-politics point of view, of course, they are right: judging by the ugly noises echoing across the […]

Israeli hires Internet soldiers

Straight out of Avigdor Lieberman’s Foreign Ministry: a new Internet Fighting Team! Israeli students and demobilized soldiers get paid to pretend they are just...

G8 leaders fail to reach agreement on global crisis

China, France, Russia challenge supremacy of US dollar The leaders of the G8 group of major industrialized countries lined up for their photo call at...

Big brother is watching

The furore around the Chinese government’s Green Dam software has raised the issue of the way modern technology is used to monitor our daily...

Elite Iraqi troops in forefront after US pullback

As Iraqi security services prepare to take back their towns from the Americans on Tuesday, the sharpest arrow in their quiver is an elite,...

The American Empire Is Bankrupt

This week marks the end of the dollar’s reign as the world’s reserve currency. It marks the start of a terrible period of economic...

New US commander in Afghanistan assembles team of assassins

By Bill Van Auken | Confirmed Wednesday as President Barack Obama’s new commander for the widening war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, General Stanley McChrystal has...

How U.S. Officials Circumvented the Bill of Rights

By Jacob G. Hornberger | In another embrace of President Bush’s war-on-terrorism policies, President Obama has announced that he might retain the Pentagon’s military-commission system...

US airstrikes kill scores of civilians in Afghanistan

By Bill Van Auken | On the eve of a tripartite summit in Washington which the Obama administration has organized with the presidents of...

UN rebuke on racism conference boycott

TOP UN officials have slammed "a handful" of Western countries for boycotting a UN conference on racism as the meeting kicked off in Geneva...

Police threatened G20 activists with Tasers

By Justin Davenport, Martin Bentham and Kiran Randhawa | SCOTLAND Yard today admitted that Territorial Support Group officers pointed Taser stun guns in a...

Human rights leaders call for investigation into Gaza conflict

A group of 16 human rights investigators and judges "shocked to the core" by the events during the most recent Gaza conflict ...

Obama lays out Afghanistan war strategy

By James Cogan | The desperation at the heart of the Obama administration's plans for escalating the war in Afghanistan was laid bare in the...

No freedom here

By John Pilger | FREEDOM is being lost in Britain. The land of Magna Carta is now the land of secret gagging orders, secret trials...

Obama ‘siding with Bush over Israel’

IRAN'S supreme leader accused US President Barack Obama on Wednesday of following the same path as the Bush administration with his "unconditional" support for...

Lendman: Obama’s ‘War on Terror’

By Stephen Lendman  The language is softened and deceptive. The strategy and tactics are not. The "war on terror" continues. Promised change is talk, not...

Condi Rice Could’ve Written Biden’s Speech

By Jim Lobe I hate to agree with Bill Kristol, but he’s right about Vice President Joe Biden’s speech at the ongoing Munich security conference when...

THE STORY THE MEDIA WON’T TOUCH

By Sam Smith Based on media coverage at least, name the largest industry in America that never contributes to political campaigns, never tries to influence...

Human Rights Watch Goes to War

The Middle East has always been a difficult challenge for Western human rights organizations, particularly those seeking influence or funding in the United States....

Gaza Invasion: Powered By The U.S.

Taxpayers are spending over $1 billion to send refined fuel to the Israeli military -- at a time when Israel doesn't need it and...

Guantanamo Bay comes to the UK

By JAMES EAGLE REFUGEE campaigners have blown the lid off a detention scandal which has been dubbed "Britain's Guantanamo." Hundreds of immigrants are being locked up...

25-years on from a UK government-ordered union ban

By Shane  I am reminded by the Stronger Unions website that today marks the 25th anniversary of the banning of trade unions at the Governments’...

Noam Chomsky Speaks About President Obama

The following is a Press TV interview with respected American author, political analyst and world-renowned linguist, Professor Noam Chomsky. By Press TV January 24, 2009 --...

Noam Chomsky On Gaza

Chomsky: Undermining Gaza By Sameer Dossani "Foreign Policy In Focus -- January 16, 2009 Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco DOSSANI: The Israeli government and many Israeli and U.S....

Cyberspace wars

By JAMES EAGLE WHILE bombs and bullets have been raining down on Gaza, a different kind of warfare has been conducted in cyberspace - and...

Israel tells aid ship for Gaza to leave

Israeli warships have ordered an Iranian vessel carrying humanitarian aid for Palestinians in Gaza to leave the area, an Iranian aid official was quoted...

The Promise Of Change, The Rules of The System… And The Real Revolution We...

Revolution | The hopes for Barack Obama’s presidency are sky-high. That’s hardly surprising. In a country where not so long ago mobs of angry whites gathered...

PILGER: Disgrace of the silent treatment

By refusing to condemn Israeli atrocities, intellectuals in the West are complicit in its crimes, argues JOHN PILGER. "WHEN the truth is replaced by silence,"...

EU and US said to favour elections over human rights

Listing countries where elections have been mixed with violence and repression, Human Rights Watch said western powers, especially the United States and European Union,...

An Israeli War Crimes Tribunal

By Francis A. Boyle The United Nations General Assembly must immediately establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel (ICTI) as a "subsidiary organ" under U.N....

What’s Wrong with the U.S. Military

By ANDREW COCKBURN Coinciding with the arrival of Obama and his deputies in Washington, the Center for Defense Information is releasing "America's Defense Meltdown --...

Security agreements mean Iraq occupation will continue to 2012 and beyond

By James Cogan | For more than five-and-a-half years, and at the cost of the lives of at least one million Iraqis and over 4,200 Americans,...

Iraq: Security pact ‘puts detainees at risk of torture’

Baghdad, 27 Nov. (AKI) - Thousands of Iraqis detained by US forces will be at risk of torture or even execution if they are...

ALEXANDER COCKBURN: The Honeymoon is Looking a Bit Wan

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN | Two years without a single leak and suddenly, last week, Obama’s operation was like a sieve. That’s what happens when you pick...

Why Obama should end the criminal “war on terror”

By Gary Kamiya | Barack Obama will confront a daunting list of priorities when he takes office on Jan. 20. Rescuing the nation's economy...

Court Backs Warrantless Searches Abroad

By BENJAMIN WEISER | The authorities may lawfully conduct searches and electronic surveillance against United States citizens in foreign countries without a warrant, a federal...

The GOP Judge Who Bolted on Gitmo

By Robert Parry | consortiumnews.com To understand how thin the evidence must have been against five Algerians held at Guantanamo Bay for nearly seven years...

Russia rejects U.S. missile proposals

By Guy Faulconbridge   MOSCOW -- The Kremlin on Wednesday rejected U.S. proposals aimed at easing concerns over a missile defense system in Europe and said...

Space-Based Domestic Spying: Kicking Civil Liberties to the Curb

By Tom Burghardt | Last month, I reported that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) space-based domestic spy program run by that agency’s National Applications...

The age of George Bush is over

By Stephen Lendman | On November 4, the world exhaled. The age of George Bush ended, and a new one under Barak Obama began....

US, Allies, Torture Kids in Iraqi Prisons

By Sherwood Ross Since it invaded Iraq in 2003, the U.S. has detained thousands of juveniles---some of whom were tortured and sexually abused, according to...

Lendman: The Wages of Sin

By Stephen Lendman - RINF | “Reaping the whirlwind” for money manager and market strategist Jeremy Grantham in his latest no-nonsense commentary. Worlds different...

Mass Media and Mass Politics

By James Petras | The role of the mass media (MM) in influencing mass and class behavior has been a central concern among critical writers, especially...

The Pentagon Is the President’s Private Army

By Fred Reed | The Pentagon, methinks, is out of control. We no longer have a military in service to the state, but a state...

US carries out more airstrikes in Pakistan

By James Cogan | In open contempt of the repeated protests by the Pakistani government, the US military carried out another two air strikes...

US defense secretary expands pre-emptive war doctrine to include nuclear strikes

By Alex Lantier | In a remarkable speech on nuclear policy delivered October 28 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), US Defense Secretary...

The Election-Industrial Complex

By Walter Smolarek | As the seemingly endless period of political campaigning in the United States will soon draw to a close, we on the...

The End is at Hand (to Leftist Conspiracy Theories)

By Dave Lindorff With the polls continuing to show Barack Obama holding a steady or even growing lead heading into Election Day, especially in the...

McCain Racism, Hypocrisy on Khalidi Issue

This Is The Lowest McCain Has Sunk Yet By Juan Cole The increasingly sleazy John McCain, who once promised to run a clean campaign, has...

Iraq seeks changes to U.S. troops pact

By Mariam Karouny and Peter Graff | BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq demanded changes to a draft security pact with the United States Tuesday after it...

VIDEO: “Bush Guilty Of First Deg Murder”

Vincent Bugliosi is heard by Congressman John Conyers, Chairman House Judiciary Committee Vincent Bugliosi is heard by Congressman John Conyers, Chairman House Judiciary Committee Inquiry Hearing...

The Morning After the Elections

WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO NOW? This is a message to those who got behind Barack Obama because they have been horrified and furious with...

Spying on the Future: The U.S. Intelligence Community as Seers Without Sizzle

By Tom Engelhardt The year is 2010 and, yes, Saddam Hussein is gone and there are no American troops in Iraq, but, as the report...

The establishment that destroyed America’s first republic

By Sam Smith | Of George Bush's many sins, one has remained unnoted. He and his aides are so absurdly inept at most of...

U.S. to fund pro-American publicity in Iraq

$300 million media program meant to 'engage and inspire' local population By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus | MSNBC.com The Defense Department will pay private U.S....

London Protesters Demand an End to US Coups

Venezuela Analysis | Scores of solidarity campaigners picketed the US embassy in London on Wednesday night before a huge rally at the National Union of...

The lies of Hiroshima are the lies of today

By John Pilger | In an article for the Guardian on the anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6,...

Bush’s War Widens Dangerously

By Tariq Ali | The decision to make public a presidential order of last July authorizing American strikes inside Pakistan without seeking the approval...

NOAM CHOMSKY: Towards a Second Cold War?

NOAM CHOMSKY | Aghast at the atrocities committed by US forces invading the Philippines, and the rhetorical flights about liberation and noble intent that...

September 20th: Stop The War Coalition Demonstration in Manchester

What will British foreign secretary David Miliband say in his speech to Labour's annual conference in Manchester? It's all too predictable. 'We' are 'winning'...

The Right Dictates MSNBC’s Programming Decisions

By Glenn Greenwald - Salon | MSNBC's announcement that it is replacing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews with David Gregory as anchors for its main...

Global Realignment

How Bush Inspired a New World Order By Ramzy Baroud | The series of unfortunate and costly decisions made during the two terms of the...

White House strategy is to help McCain win in November

The Fake U.S. Victory in Iraq The Independent | Political events in Iraq are seldom what they seem. The hand- over by the US military of...

A High Stakes US Gamble with Russia

By Stephen Lendman - RINF | Prior to entering WW II, US strategists had a clear aim in mind at its conclusion - to...

Holding murderers accountable

By William John Cox | Although Americans have access to the greatest selection of information sources in the world, including books, newspapers, magazines, radio,...

McCain Suggests Bush Has Endorsed Torture

By Zachary A. Goldfarb | Sen. John McCain today issued some of his strongest criticism of President Bush over an aggressive interrogation technique, clearly...

RNC Raids Have Been Targeting Video Activists

By Liliana Segura | In the run-up to the Republican convention, Minnesota police launched a series of preemptive raids to intimidate protesters and quash...

SchNEWS DRILLS FOR THE TRUTH IN PEAK OIL THEORY

SchNEWS | From Transition Town workshops to the city slickers at the Financial Times (to over-excited pieces in ill-researched journals like SchNEWS), there’s been...

US out of Iraq by … “2011”

By PATRICK COCKBURN | The United States is moving towards ending its military control of Iraq by agreeing to withdraw combat troops from Iraqi...

Running for War President at Any Cost

By Robert Scheer | Just great! Nuclear-armed Pakistan is falling apart, Iran’s nuclear program is unchecked and congressional legislation on cooperation with the Russians on...

Joe Biden and the political establishment’s overriding goal

By Glenn Greenwald | Writing in a New York Times blog yesterday, Clinton pollster Mark Penn hails the selection of Joe Biden as "a smart...

The Future of Death at the Pentagon

The Pentagon: Some-Things-Never-Change Department Tomgram | What a difference four and a half years makes. When I first penned "The Wild Weapons of DARPA," in March...

Reinventing the Evil Empire

By Stephen Lendman - RINF | For the West, everything changed but stayed the same, hard-wired and in place. Things just lay dormant in...

Ron Paul: How Foreign Policy Affects Gas Prices

By Rep. Ron Paul | We've heard how the value of the dollar affects gas prices — and indeed the price of everything. I...

US oil pipeline politics and the Russia-Georgia conflict

By Alex Lantier | US media claims about Georgian democracy notwithstanding, a key factor in US backing for Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in his...

Pentagon can’t find $2.3 trillion, wasting trillions on ‘national defense’

Yes, America's economy is a war economy. Not a "manufacturing" economy. Not an "agricultural" economy. Nor a "service" economy. Not even a "consumer" economy....

Bush Covered up Musharraf Ties with Qaeda, Khan

(IPS) - Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's resignation Monday brings to an end an extraordinarily close relationship between Musharraf and the George W. Bush administration,...

The US Missile Defence System

The Guardian | It's a novel way to take your own life. Just as Russia demonstrates what happens to former minions that annoy it, Poland...

US, allies contemplating action against Russia

CRAWFORD, Texas - The United States on Sunday accused Russia of stalling its military pullback in Georgia, but the Bush administration is not rushing...

Double Standards in the Global War on Terror

TomDispatch | Oh, the spectacle of it all – and don’t think I’m referring to those opening ceremonies in Beijing, where North Korean-style synchronization seemed...

Russia signs Georgia ceasefire deal

guardian.co.uk | The Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, has signed a ceasefire pact to end hostilities in Georgia. The deal calls for Russian troops to pull...

Where Are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Truthdig | In the past two decades I have had the opportunity to participate in certain experiences pertaining to my work that fall into...

Bloody cost of the new world order

By Lindsey German, convenor of the Stop The War Coalition | The outbreak of war in the Caucasus over the past week has stunned the...

Petraeus: US is flying Georgian troops into battle zone

The Times | 'US aircraft have started to fly some of Georgia’s 2,000 troops in Iraq back home to join the fight in the breakaway...

Secret deal kept British Army out of battle for Basra

By Deborah Haynes in Baquba and Michael Evans | A secret deal between Britain and the notorious al-Mahdi militia prevented British Forces from coming...

Afghanistan: Not a Good War

By Conn Hallinan | Every war has a story line. World War I was “the war to end all wars.” World War II was...

Bush Reveals True Reason for War in Push for Iraqi Agreement

Huffington Post | For five years the Bush administration has played wack-a-mole with the American people as to why we are in Iraq, with a...

The Bush Admin’s Biowarfare Agenda

By Stephen Lendman - RINF | When it comes to observing US and international laws, treaties and norms, the Bush administration is a serial...

Gitmo ‘Justice’ for US Citizens?

By Robert Parry | A conservative-dominated U.S. Appeals Court has opened the door for President George W. Bush or a successor to throw American...

U.S. House passes CIA contractor ban over veto vow

U.S. lawmakers defied a White House veto threat on Wednesday and voted to bar CIA contractors from interrogating suspected terrorists, in the latest clash...

Get spied on without doing anything wrong

By D. PARVAZ | If you're wondering how desperate of a pickle we're in in our "war on terror," check out the following item: The...

Chomsky: Bush & Cheney Always Saw Iraq as a Sweetheart Oil Deal

By Noam Chomsky | U.S. war planners want an obedient client state that will house major U.S. military bases, right at the heart of...

War, oil caused most U.S recessions since 1950

Reuters | Wars and sharp spikes in oil prices were behind most of the seven recessions in the United States since the Great Depression. Following...

Court Documents Shed Light on CIA Illegal Operations

Sibel Edmonds State Secrets Gallery Connects Pipeline Politics, Madrassas & the Turkish Proxies By Lukery  In a recent immigration court case involving Turkish Islamic Leader, Fetullah...

Pilger: How Britain wages war

By John Pilger | The military has created a wall of silence around its frequent resort to barbaric practices, including torture, and goes out...

Double standards of our ‘war on terror’

Truth about our covert alliances shatters the West’s cosy moral universe, says Matthew Carr Western governments like to depict terrorism as a uniquely moral evil...

Supreme Court, Inc.: Supremely Pro-Business

By Stephen Lendman - RINF | Pro-business Supreme Court rulings are nothing new, and it's likely most damaging one ever occurred in 1886. In Santa...

Security firms lose immunity in Iraq deal

By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad | The Iraqi armed services are likely to target widely-hated American security contractors when they lose their immunity to...

It’s the Oil, stupid!

By Noam Chomsky | The deal just taking shape between Iraq's Oil Ministry and four Western oil companies raises critical questions about the nature...

All should urge US, UK to dismantle their nuclear weapons

Kuala Lumpur | President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday that the governments and nations should urge the US and Britain to annihilate their nuclear weapons. Speaking...

Guantanamo Bay may be turned into marine ‘rapid reaction’ base

By Damien McElroy in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba | The United States is considering transforming the Guantanamo Bay terrorism prison into a base for a...

AMERICA’S CULTURE OF WAR NOT AN ISSUE THIS ELECTION

By Sherwood Ross | One issue the American people likely are not going to hear about in this presidential campaign is how to stop...

New War Brewing: US, Israel Take Dangerous Steps

By Eric Margolis | GENEVA — The U.S., Israel and Iran are playing a very dangerous game of chicken that soon could result in...

How the “Dear Leader” Blackmailed Bush

By Mike Whitney | After seven years of nonstop belligerence and saber rattling, the Bush administration has given North Korea everything it has demanded....

The Nuclear Expert Who Never Was

By Scott Ritter | I am a former U.N. weapons inspector. I started my work with the United Nations in September 1991, and between that...

New Global Energy Order Emerging

IPS | By bringing together the world’s major oil producers and consumers in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia marked a turning point in the negotiations for...

American Envoy Is Linked to Arms Deal Cover-Up

By ERIC SCHMITT | WASHINGTON – An American ambassador helped cover up the illegal Chinese origins of ammunition that a Pentagon contractor bought to supply...

The Real State of Iraq

By Juan Cole | American television loves natural disasters. The Burmese cyclones that may have carried off as many as 200,000 people offered the...

Zimbabwe Government Blocks Aid for Six Million In Need

By Ephraim Nsingo | Sixty-six year old Gogo Lethiwe Ncube gazes at a distant truck cruising towards the Avoca Shopping Centre in Insiza, Matabeleland...

Read the Government Report On Slavery and Iraq

Irregular Times | There is a report that was released by the U.S. State Department just at the end of last week, and it’s...

Government caves in to pressure from Bush

The real purpose of George Bush's visit to London became clear this afternoon, as Des Browne was set to announce more British troops are...

Change, What Change?

CounterPunch | On Tuesday June 3 Barack Obama claimed the greatest prize the Democratic Party can offer, namely his nomination as its candidate for...

Bush Pledges on Iraq Bases Pact Were a Ruse

By Gareth Porter - Inter Press Service | WASHINGTON - Two key pledges made by the George W. Bush administration on military bases in its...

Exposing Bush Administration Corruption

By Stephen Lendman - RINF | Information for this article comes from long-time business, finance and political writer and analyst Bob Chapman who publishes...

US Congressman Moves to Impeach Bush

Belfast Telegraph | Former Democratic presidential contender, Dennis Kucinich, has called for the impeachment of George W Bush claiming that the president set out to...

Can the US empire strike back?

By Alex Callinicos | Despite opposing the war, Obama is committed to US imperialism. Imagine, in a galaxy far, far away, an empire in...

BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions

By Jane Corbin | A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in...

Iraqi lawmakers say U.S. demanding 58 military bases

By Leila Fadel | Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that...

Fisk: The West’s weapon of self-delusion

By Robert Fisk | So they are it again, the great and the good of American democracy, grovelling and fawning to the Israeli lobbyists...

Iraq Tells US It Wants Troops Back in Barracks

By Deborah Haynes in Baghdad | American troops in Iraq would be confined to their bases and private security guards subject to local law...

Cheney Enrages Iraqis Over Security Deal

By GARY LEUPP | Dick Cheney wants the Iraqi government installed by the U.S. occupation to sign a “security pact” with Washington by the...

Senate report on Bush war lies: Another cover-up of war crimes

By Barry Grey | The Senate Intelligence Committee report issued Thursday on the Bush administration’s use of phony intelligence in the run-up to the...

Iraq: New US plan for total control

Socialist Worker | Revealed: George Bush’s plan to impose ‘security accords’ that will mean 400 permanent military bases and US personnel given green light...

‘Iraq Troop Pullout Would Harm Israel’

US presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain on Monday criticized Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's calls for withdrawing US troops from Iraq, saying that...

Iraq cites problems with US security pact

AP News | Iraq's chief spokesman acknowledged differences with the United States over a proposed long-term security agreement and pledged on Sunday that the...

The Genealogy of Torture and Democracy

By Shannon Jones | The horrifying scenes of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the mistreatment of detainees at the US...

Olmert urged to stand down over corruption claims

By Donald Macintyre | The Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's most powerful coalition partner has called on him to step aside in the face...

Iraq War May Have Increased Energy Costs by $6 Trillion

By Geoffrey Lean | The invasion of Iraq by Britain and the US has trebled the price of oil, according to a leading expert,...

Indictment and Trial of Bush and Cheney

By David Swanson | Remarks made on May 24, 2008, in Radford, Va., at the Building a New World Conference: http://www.wpaconference.org. In a December...

Indymedia Responds to SHIfT article

Indymedia | Before turning to the article, it is worth noting that the issue's Editorial makes similar allegations about Indymedia UK. "For many of...

Oil: A global crisis

The Iraq War means oil costs three times more than it should, says a leading expert. How are our lives going to change as...

Mass Funding For War While There’s Poverty At Home

By Paul Craig Roberts | The US Senate has voted $165 billion to fund Bush’s wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq through next...

Never Having to Say You’re Sorry

By Sam Gardiner | Earlier in the week the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) issued another of its dossiers. This one addresses nuclear...

Propaganda and the media

By Joseph L. Galloway | Once upon a time, it was widely believed that one of the greatest sins the U.S. government or its...

McCain: Most Troops Will Be Home by 2013

Senator John McCain declared on Thursday that most American troops will be home from Iraq by 2013 and that Iraq will be a functioning...

Soldiers need loans to eat, report reveals

By Jonathan Owen and Brian Brady | A highly sensitive internal report into the state of the British Army has revealed that many soldiers...

The Pentagon vs. America

By Scott Ritter | I recently heard from an anti-war student I met while I was speaking at a college in northern Vermont. The e-mail...

US Navy Deploys Around Latin America

By Lamia Oualalou | It's now official: The Pentagon is going to resuscitate its Fourth Fleet, with the mission of patrolling Latin American and...

Iraq ‘Divide and Rule’ Strategy Called Shortsighted

Inter Press Service | Five years since U.S. President George W. Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech, critics say the administration has yet to show...

Worldwide Support for Free Media

By Mick Meaney - RINF | A new major survey of world nations has found the majority of people support a free media and...

Leader: US spreading insecurity, terrorism

Press TV | The Leader of the Islamic Revolution has said that Iran's armed forces are like a strong fortress that defends people's security...

Five Years Since Mission Accomplished

It has been five years since the President declared victory in the battle for Iraq. Since that day, more than 3,900 American troops have...

British troops to stay in Basra ‘for the long term’

Richard Norton-Taylor - The Guardian | Britain will maintain a garrison of 4,000 troops at Basra airport for the forseeable future, whatever the pressures...

Corporate America

By Chris Hedges | The corporate state is our shadow government. Candidates who aspire to higher office get corporate money if they promote corporate interests....

Ominous Signs That White House Wants More Wars

By Jim Lobe | Are the latest accusations and tough language leveled against Iran, Syria, and North Korea evidence of a resurgence by the remaining...

British government lied about Persian Gulf incident

By Paul Mitchell | Secret Ministry of Defence documents released to the Times newspaper reveal that the British government lied about the circumstances surrounding the...

The US Economy and the Costs of War

By Dave Lindorff | Is the Iraq War to blame for America’s long-term economic decline and for the current economic crisis? Martin Neil Baily, a...

Pentagon Institute Calls Iraq War ‘a Major Debacle’

By Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott | The war in Iraq has become “a major debacle” and the outcome “is in doubt” despite improvements...

Peace Activist Faces up to 6 Months in Prison

By PeteinDC | David Barrows challenged Gen. Petraeus During September 2007 Hearing. Sentencing this Wednesday, April 23, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 220 of D.C....

Questions No One Is Bothering to Ask about Iraq

By Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch Can there be any question that, since the invasion of 2003, Iraq has been unraveling? And here's the curious thing: Despite...

Behind Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

By DAVID BARSTOW In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just...

Washington ‘speechless’ after 9/11 comments

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States said Wednesday it was "speechless" after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad voiced doubts about the accepted version of the...

Secrecy Surrounds Death Penalty

At least 1,200 people were executed in 2007 and many more were killed by the state, in secret, in countries including China, Mongolia and...

Another failure for the U.S. in Iraq

NICOLE COLSON reports on the aftermath of the Iraqi government's offensive against Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Socialist Worker SECURITY FORCES of the U.S.-backed Iraqi government...

Top Bush Advisors Approved Torture

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how...

Secret US plan for military future in Iraq

Seumas Milne The Guardian A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made...

Breaking Through the News Filter

Peter Chamberlin  If it is true that the power belongs to the people in America, and Congress still answers to the people, then what force...

Putin rejects Bush’s missile plans

Russian President Vladimir Putin reaffirms his opposition to controversial US plans to install a missile defense shield in central Europe. "Our fundamental attitude toward...

Nato to back US missile defence

Nato countries have agreed to back US plans to site a missile defence system in Europe, at a summit in Romania. Member states will endorse...

Those who control oil and water will control the world

New superpowers are competing for diminishing resources as Britain becomes a bit-player. The outcome could be deadly. John Gray | The Observer History may not repeat...

A third American war crime in the making

The US Congress, the US media, the American people, and the United Nations, are looking the other way as Cheney prepares his attack on...

Put Impeachment Back on the Table

Chairman John Conyers House Judiciary Committee U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Congress Washington, DC 20510Dear Chairman Conyers: Prominent Constitutional law experts believe President Bush has engaged in at least,...

Iraq MPs plan emergency session

Iraq's parliament is due to hold an emergency session to try to end fighting between Shia militias and Iraqi security forces.It comes amid a...

Scientology Strikes Back – Anonymous Responds

For months, a group calling itself Anonymous has been running giggling circles around the Church of Scientology. At the same time, caution is always...

Ron Paul on the Anniversary of the War on Iraq

"The occupation of Iraq began five years ago today, but few realize that the march to war began ten years ago under Bill Clinton,...

Obama: US less safe since Iraq war

The Iraq war has left America less safe and has emboldened al Qaida, Iran, North Korea and the Taliban, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama...

The Iraq War as a War Crime

The Iraq War — now ending its fifth bloody year — represents not only a human tragedy of enormous consequence and possibly the greatest...

Reviving Vietnam War Tactics

The top counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq advocates practicing a "global Phoenix Program," alluding to the notorious Vietnam-era CIA operation that...

McCain the Warmonger?

If you've followed Senator John McCain at all, you've heard about his tendency to, well, explode. He's erupted at numerous Senate colleagues, including many...

Clinton Would Ban Private Military Contractors

Hillary Clinton, in a speech marking the five-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, said that if elected, she would pull armed...

Scores of civilians and US military staff feared dead

Scores of civilians and US military staff feared dead as huge Albanian arms dump explodes Scores of people, including US military staff, are feared to...

Anti-war demo draws thousands

Thousands of anti-war protesters rallied to demand Britain withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Activists urging an end to Britain's role in overseas' wars...

Top Commander Resigns

Admiral William Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, resigned on Tuesday, explaining that his reputation as an obstacle of President Bush’s military designs...

CIA Holocaust Claims Twenty Million Victims

The world's number one terrorist organization, the CIA has committed heinous acts of terrorism abroad, murdering critics of US foreign and domestic policies and...

Huge supply of steroids seized in Germany

About 1.3 tons of anabolic steroids and anti-impotence drugs were seized by German authorities in an investigation of illegal trade in doping substances.Kiel prosecutors...

Hypocrite Bush Talks About Double Standards

The US President condemns leaders who 'sit down at the table' with 'tyrants' and 'have pictures taken' for adopting double standards. "What's lost by...

Israeli War Minister Threatens Palestinian Holocaust

Paul Joseph Watson | Propaganda Matrix Israel's Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai has provoked outrage after threatening Palestinians with a "holocaust," but the same media...

Bush Calls Surveillance Bill an ‘Urgent Priority’

By DAVID STOUT and BRIAN KNOWLTON Using some of his toughest language in weeks, President Bush prodded Congress on Thursday to pass his preferred version...

PNP chief orders probe on ‘spy cam’ in Senate

Director General Avelino Razon Jr., Philippine National Police (PNP) head, Sunday said he ordered a probe into the reported plans of the PNP to...

The new invasion of Iraq

Up to 10,000 Turkish troops launch an incursion which threatens to destabilise the country's only peaceful region By Patrick Cockburn A new crisis has exploded in...

Stop The War – Mass Demo 15 March

Stop the War: a mass movement to celebrate and defend Socialist Worker The 15 February 2003 demonstration reminds us of the strength of the anti-war movement...

How the C.I.A. Played Dirty Tricks With Culture

By LAURENCE ZUCKERMAN New York Times Many people remember reading George Orwell's ''Animal Farm'' in high school or college, with its chilling finale in which the...

The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA

WRH  "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month." - CIA operative discussing with Philip...

Your doctor, your dealer

Once it was cocaine, speed or heroin, but now the fashion is for legal pills, washed down by spirits. Last week's news that actor...

‘A Century of War’ Part I

By Stephen Lendman RINF Alternative News F. William Engdahl is a leading researcher, economist and analyst of the New World Order who's written on issues of...

Some Of The Outrageous Lies About 9/11

By Joseph A. Lopisi It is hard to pick a place to start in terms of talking about the most outrageous lies that the Bush...

CIA Veteran Calls for Bush’s Impeachment

Ray McGovern says there is enough evidence to impeach Bush, Cheney over torture, Iraq and Iran Chris Gelken After 27 years as an analyst with the...

FBI whistleblower spills secrets

Philip Giraldi Most Americans have never heard of Sibel Edmonds, and if the U.S. government has its way, they never will. The former FBI translator...

Hillary Clinton: A Bilderberg Presidency

European elite back Democratic frontrunner By Daniel Taylor "...Hillary will be good for America... we'll be very pleased that she's president." -- Lynn Forester de Rothschild,...

Germany rejects US demand to increase troops

By Tony Paterson in Berlin A bitter diplomatic row between Germany and the United States deepened yesterday after Berlin flatly rejected demands from Washington that...

Chomsky: US acts like Nazi Germany

Prominent linguist Noam Chomsky bashes the 'imperialistic' foreign policies of the US, likening Washington to the Nazis in Germany. Chomsky compared US foreign policies...

9/11 – Was the Bush administration complicit?

by Citizen Sage The unanswered questions about 9-11 can no longer be ignored. A new, more comprehensive investigation by the US Congress is required, given...

Insights of a Lawyer: Was 9/11 an Inside Job?

by Hal. C. Sisson, QC In mid January 2008 united 9/11 Truth Movements across Canada, spearheaded by Victoria and Vancouver branches, sent a petition letter...

British Government Censoring The Web

Frank Fisher When asked to name countries that impose extensive internet censorship, you might think of China, Iran, or North Korea; I doubt you'd think...

Bush and Bin Laden continue to benefit each other

By Robert Parry Just as Sylvester and Tweety Bird achieved lasting Hollywood fame from their comical cartoon chases, the less amusing duo of George W....

TURNING A BLIND EYE TO TORTURE

Both images ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff Canada to rewrite ‘torture’ manual   Amnesty International has criticised a decision by Canada to rewrite a training manual that put...

Canada Manual: US Prisoners Face Torture

AP A training manual for Canadian diplomats lists the United States as a country where prisoners risk torture and abuse, citing interrogation techniques such as...

‘Bush message one of confrontation’

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blasts US President George W. Bush's recent remarks on Iran in a live interview with Qatar's Al-Jazeera TV. "President Bush's message...

How the Pentagon Planted a False Story

by Gareth Porter Senior Pentagon officials, evidently reflecting a broader administration policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon briefing to turn the Jan. 6 U.S.-Iranian incident...