This is from the Huffington Post. This article explains some of the reasons why it should have been expected that their would be trouble with Kurdistan. The Kurds will not even fly the Iraqi flag!
James Zogby|
Threats on Kurdish Front Should Have Been Expected
Posted October 26, 2007 | 05:03 PM (EST)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Saddam Hussein's brutal invasion and occupation of Kuwait was greeted by a joint U.S.-Soviet statement of opposition, and later by an international coalition determined to use force, if necessary, to free Kuwait, I was reminded of the cautionary maxim: "Never pick a fight you can't win."
Saddam apparently hadn't heard that piece of wisdom, or chose to ignore it, and in the end his country paid dearly for his foolishness.
When the U.S. was gearing up to invade Iraq in the Spring of 2003, I offered a slight variation of that same maxim, suggesting that it would be wise to "Never pick a fight you don't know how to win." But the Bush Administration threw caution to the wind, convinced that victory would be easy, defining it in terms that appeared delusional to anyone who knew Iraq.
Bull-headedly marching into a country whose history, culture and social composition were not understood, promised disastrous consequences unanticipated by the invaders. That has come to pass. With almost 4,000 American dead, tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, two million refugees and as many internally displaced persons, 600 billion U.S. dollars spent, and countless billions lost by Iraq itself, this war has been a disaster. But this war is far from over, and may soon get worse.
After successive and overlapping waves of internal violence, emanating from insurgents, criminal gangs, sectarian militias and terrorists, the conflict now threatens to spill out beyond Iraq's borders, into Turkey and possibly Iran.
What is so damned infuriating is that these consequences all should have been expected, and were, by those who warned against this foolish war. Those who knew of Iraq's fragility, and who worried about score-settling in the wake of Saddam's fall, warned of instability and political violence. And those who understood the deeply felt historical grievances of the Kurdish people, warned of the consequences of opening that file. It is now open, and won't close any time soon.
Over the past decade, Iraq's Kurds have prospered under a U.S.-protected umbrella. With the collapse of the regime in Baghdad, Kurdish hopes of expanding their autonomy grew, and with it, their ambition as well. The Kurdish Provisional Authority (KPA) has become, for all intents and purposes, a state within a failing state. With its own flag and military, and its own Washington representation, the KPA is moving inexorably toward independence.
To consolidate and to create greater economic viability for their putative state, the KPA covets and seeks to annex the oil-rich region of Kirkuk. To achieve this, they have scheduled a referendum of Kirkuk's residents - but not before completing a population transfer scheme, moving Kurds into Kirkuk while displacing Arabs who had been transferred into the area during Ba'ath rule. This has inflamed not only Arabs, Sunni and Shi'a alike, who fear Kurdish separatism; it has also caused concern in Turkey, whose Turkomen brethren in Kirkuk fear dispossession.
As controversial as this Kirkuk scheme has been, the KPA's recently signed oil concession with the U.S. based Hunt Oil company has been criticized even by the U.S. as a peremptory act that threatens Iraqi Constitutional reform on oil distribution, and deepens fissures within Iraq's governing coalition.
Nevertheless, despite growing regional concern, the KPA has moved forward, even advertising itself in the U.S. as "the other Iraq," boasting of their region's stability and security, inviting investment and even tourism.
One might have assumed that all was going well for the KPA as it moved quietly and steadily toward greater prosperity and autonomy. But, because the consequences of the "Kurdish question" are bigger than Iraq, external realities and internal pressures may soon catch up with the illusory "other Iraq."
Deep ties, including a shared sense of grievance, connect Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Historically, developments, either positive or negative, in one country have affected Kurdish citizens in the others. These governments all watch developments in the others' Kurdish areas, knowing of the possible spillover effects.
And so it should have been expected that increased autonomy for Kurds in Iraq would inspire Kurds in Iran and Turkey to press for greater rights or, as has been the case, for Kurdish insurgents based in the rugged mountain areas of the KPA to launch raids into Turkey and Iran.
While attacks of this sort are not new, growing threats by both Iran and Turkey to invade rebel strongholds in the KPA has created a set of serious problems. The KPA is now being challenged to use their militia/"national army" to attack and control the Turkish and Iranian Kurdish insurgents operating within their borders. This is something they have done before, but are hesitant to do at this point. With Turkey and Iran both bombing Kurdish positions within the KPA and threatening an even greater response if the insurgent groups are not controlled, the U.S. sees the possibility that its one Iraqi success story may give way to the opening of a new front in what will become an even more complicated war.
This all should have been understood before the war began, but was not. And that is why one of the principle recommendations of the Iraq Study Group is as valid today as when it was written. And that is the necessity of creating a regional security pact which brings together all the component groups inside Iraq, along with Iraq's neighbors, under the auspices of the United Nations, so that problems of this sort are not tackled piecemeal. Iraq's neighbors have a direct stake in the stability and unity of Iraq, and are better made partners toward that goal than a collection of allies and rivals.
There was no excuse to ignore the wisdom of "not picking a fight you don't know how to win," before this war began. There is even less excuse for ignoring it now when we see what the consequences have been, and what consequences may yet occur.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
52% Of Americans support military strike against Iran
I am quite surprised at those high figures. Americans must be among the most gullible citizens in the world. Many seem completely oblivious to the psy-ops embedded in much mainstream media reporting about Iran. An attack on Iran is likely to be an unmitigated disaster but the exact consequences are unpredictable. Certainly the situation in Iraq will become much worse as the Shia will probably react against the US occupation on a much heightened level. This is from this site.
52% of Americans support military strike against Iran
Takeo Miyazaki / Yomiuri Shimbun Correspondent
More than half of likely voters in the United States would support a U.S. military strike against Iran to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon, according to a poll released Monday.
The poll found 53 percent of Americans believe it is likely the United States will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the November 2008 presidential election.
The nationwide telephone survey, conducted by polling firm Zogby International, found 52 percent of U.S. adults interviewed would support such a strike.
In the months leading up to the United States' imposition of fresh sanctions against Iran on Oct. 25, top officials of the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney, have issued a series of harsh remarks. Cheney said last week Iran will face "serious consequences," if "it stays on its present course."
(Oct. 31, 2007)
52% of Americans support military strike against Iran
Takeo Miyazaki / Yomiuri Shimbun Correspondent
More than half of likely voters in the United States would support a U.S. military strike against Iran to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon, according to a poll released Monday.
The poll found 53 percent of Americans believe it is likely the United States will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the November 2008 presidential election.
The nationwide telephone survey, conducted by polling firm Zogby International, found 52 percent of U.S. adults interviewed would support such a strike.
In the months leading up to the United States' imposition of fresh sanctions against Iran on Oct. 25, top officials of the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney, have issued a series of harsh remarks. Cheney said last week Iran will face "serious consequences," if "it stays on its present course."
(Oct. 31, 2007)
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Immunity Jeopardizes Iraq Probe
So the Blackwater Guards are not only immune from prosecution in Iraq, it seems that they will be immune in the US because their testimony can not be used! The case of a guard who shot and killed an Iraqi vice-president's bodyguard last Xmas eve has still not be acted upon by the Justice Dept. Justice is not only blind, it seems to have top speed of a turtle.
Immunity Jeopardizes Iraq Probe
Guards' Statements Cannot Be Used in Blackwater Case
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 30, 2007; A01
Potential prosecution of Blackwater guards allegedly involved in the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians last month may have been compromised because the guards received immunity for statements they made to State Department officials investigating the incident, federal law enforcement officials said yesterday.
FBI agents called in to take over the State Department's investigation two weeks after the Sept. 16 shootings cannot use any information gleaned during questioning of the guards by the department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, which is charged with supervising security contractors.
Some of the Blackwater guards have subsequently refused to be interviewed by the FBI, citing promises of immunity from State, one law enforcement official said. The restrictions on the FBI's use of their initial statements do not preclude prosecution by the Justice Department using other evidence, the official said, but "they make things a lot more complicated and difficult."
Under State Department contractor rules, Diplomatic Security agents are charged with investigating and reporting on all "use of force" incidents. Although there have been previous Blackwater shootings over the past three years -- none of which resulted in prosecutions -- the Sept. 16 incident was by far the most serious. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security was under pressure to quickly determine what had happened in what soon became a major controversy in Baghdad and Washington.
It is unclear when or by whom the grant of immunity was explained to the guards. Under federal case law applying to government workers, only voluntary answers to questions posed by the employing agency can be used against them in a criminal prosecution. If an employee is ordered to answer under threat of disciplinary action, the resulting statements cannot be used.
"You can't use the fruits of that statement," another law enforcement official said. "It doesn't prevent them from talking [to the FBI], but . . . why run the risk? I think any lawyer would advise against it. "
Diplomatic Security spokesman Brian Leventhal declined to comment on the situation, first reported yesterday by the Associated Press. Anne Tyrrell, a spokeswoman for North Carolina-based Blackwater Worldwide, also declined to comment.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack referred all questions to the Justice Department. "But if anyone has broken the rules or applicable laws, they should be held to account," McCormack said.
Blackwater chief executive Erik Prince has said the personal security guards, contracted by the State Department from his company to protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq, came under fire in a Baghdad traffic circle and shot only in self-defense. But the Iraqi government, which has conducted its own investigation, concluded that the Blackwater guards fired the only shots in the incident and were completely at fault. A U.S. military investigation also concluded that the shootings were unprovoked.
Amid growing diplomatic tension and congressional criticism, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked the FBI to take over the case to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest between the department's Diplomatic Security agents in Baghdad and the Blackwater personnel they supervise.
Although the FBI maintains an office at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, a team of Washington-based agents was dispatched as additional insurance against what one administration official called a possible "taint" on the investigation's objectivity. To ensure a firewall, FBI investigators were barred from reading interviews and reports on the incident gathered by Diplomatic Security agents.
Several of the Blackwater personnel, however, asserted that they had already told their stories, under immunity grants from the State Department, and declined FBI interviews that could be used against them, law enforcement officials said.
The immunity claim rests on what are called "Garrity warnings" and "Kalkines warnings," both named after federal court cases from the 1960s and '70s that recognized the special circumstances of government employees in criminal cases involving their jobs. "The government wears two hats" when it launches internal criminal investigations, one law enforcement official said. The rulings were intended to protect the rights of government employees.
The FBI investigators sent to Baghdad are due to return to Washington early this week and will then turn the information they gathered over to the Justice Department, which will decide whether prosecution is warranted. An earlier case, involving the shooting of a bodyguard of an Iraqi vice president by a Blackwater contractor last Christmas Eve, was referred to Justice months ago, but there has been no prosecution.
Law enforcement officials have said it is unclear whether the contractors, who are immune from Iraqi law under an order promulgated by the U.S. occupation government in 2004, are liable under any U.S. law. The administration has said it opposes a bill passed by the House last month that would place State Department contractors under laws that currently apply only to Pentagon contractors.
Administration officials have said that the Christmas Eve case has languished because of the legal uncertainties.
But in congressional testimony last week, Rice said that the holdup was "not the absence of law . . . it's a question of evidence."
Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report.
Immunity Jeopardizes Iraq Probe
Guards' Statements Cannot Be Used in Blackwater Case
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 30, 2007; A01
Potential prosecution of Blackwater guards allegedly involved in the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians last month may have been compromised because the guards received immunity for statements they made to State Department officials investigating the incident, federal law enforcement officials said yesterday.
FBI agents called in to take over the State Department's investigation two weeks after the Sept. 16 shootings cannot use any information gleaned during questioning of the guards by the department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, which is charged with supervising security contractors.
Some of the Blackwater guards have subsequently refused to be interviewed by the FBI, citing promises of immunity from State, one law enforcement official said. The restrictions on the FBI's use of their initial statements do not preclude prosecution by the Justice Department using other evidence, the official said, but "they make things a lot more complicated and difficult."
Under State Department contractor rules, Diplomatic Security agents are charged with investigating and reporting on all "use of force" incidents. Although there have been previous Blackwater shootings over the past three years -- none of which resulted in prosecutions -- the Sept. 16 incident was by far the most serious. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security was under pressure to quickly determine what had happened in what soon became a major controversy in Baghdad and Washington.
It is unclear when or by whom the grant of immunity was explained to the guards. Under federal case law applying to government workers, only voluntary answers to questions posed by the employing agency can be used against them in a criminal prosecution. If an employee is ordered to answer under threat of disciplinary action, the resulting statements cannot be used.
"You can't use the fruits of that statement," another law enforcement official said. "It doesn't prevent them from talking [to the FBI], but . . . why run the risk? I think any lawyer would advise against it. "
Diplomatic Security spokesman Brian Leventhal declined to comment on the situation, first reported yesterday by the Associated Press. Anne Tyrrell, a spokeswoman for North Carolina-based Blackwater Worldwide, also declined to comment.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack referred all questions to the Justice Department. "But if anyone has broken the rules or applicable laws, they should be held to account," McCormack said.
Blackwater chief executive Erik Prince has said the personal security guards, contracted by the State Department from his company to protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq, came under fire in a Baghdad traffic circle and shot only in self-defense. But the Iraqi government, which has conducted its own investigation, concluded that the Blackwater guards fired the only shots in the incident and were completely at fault. A U.S. military investigation also concluded that the shootings were unprovoked.
Amid growing diplomatic tension and congressional criticism, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked the FBI to take over the case to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest between the department's Diplomatic Security agents in Baghdad and the Blackwater personnel they supervise.
Although the FBI maintains an office at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, a team of Washington-based agents was dispatched as additional insurance against what one administration official called a possible "taint" on the investigation's objectivity. To ensure a firewall, FBI investigators were barred from reading interviews and reports on the incident gathered by Diplomatic Security agents.
Several of the Blackwater personnel, however, asserted that they had already told their stories, under immunity grants from the State Department, and declined FBI interviews that could be used against them, law enforcement officials said.
The immunity claim rests on what are called "Garrity warnings" and "Kalkines warnings," both named after federal court cases from the 1960s and '70s that recognized the special circumstances of government employees in criminal cases involving their jobs. "The government wears two hats" when it launches internal criminal investigations, one law enforcement official said. The rulings were intended to protect the rights of government employees.
The FBI investigators sent to Baghdad are due to return to Washington early this week and will then turn the information they gathered over to the Justice Department, which will decide whether prosecution is warranted. An earlier case, involving the shooting of a bodyguard of an Iraqi vice president by a Blackwater contractor last Christmas Eve, was referred to Justice months ago, but there has been no prosecution.
Law enforcement officials have said it is unclear whether the contractors, who are immune from Iraqi law under an order promulgated by the U.S. occupation government in 2004, are liable under any U.S. law. The administration has said it opposes a bill passed by the House last month that would place State Department contractors under laws that currently apply only to Pentagon contractors.
Administration officials have said that the Christmas Eve case has languished because of the legal uncertainties.
But in congressional testimony last week, Rice said that the holdup was "not the absence of law . . . it's a question of evidence."
Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report.
US: Iran seeks nuclear weapons
Evidence shmevidence. The US has its hegemonic policy aims so evidence of Iran actually pursuing nuclear weapons' development is irrelevant. If evidence doesn't exist then manufacture it or suggest it. All that is needed is a supine media that listens more to psy-op puffery from US and other sources rather than a "technical" chap who knows about this stuff. Iraq did not teach the public anything it seems.
US: Iran seeks nuclear weapons Mon Oct 29, 1:38 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States on Monday brushed aside the UN nuclear watchdog agency chief's warning that there was no proof Iran seeks atomic weapons, and invited him to stay out of diplomacy with Tehran.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CNN Sunday that he had no evidence Iran was building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with their warlike rhetoric.
"He will say what he will. He is the head of a technical agency," US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. "I think we can handle diplomacy on this one."
"We appreciate the work that the IAEA is performing but it is the member states of the international community that are going to be responsible of the diplomacy with respect to Iran and its nuclear program," said McCormack.
At the White House, spokeswoman Dana Perino said there was no doubt about Iran's plans because "this is a country that is enriching and reprocessing uranium and the reason that one does that is to lead towards a nuclear weapon."
Uranium enrichment and reprocessing produces fuel for nuclear reactors, but can also be a key step to creating the core of an atomic bomb. Iran says it wants a civilian energy program, not an atomic arsenal.
Asked whether any country enriching uranium seeks nuclear weapons, US National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe clarified Perino's remarks.
"I would say that we're concerned about Iran doing this because they could have the capability to have a nuclear weapon. Each country is different, but obviously Dana was asked and was talking about Iran," he said.
Iran's leaders have repeatedly said they will never suspend enrichment, in flagrant defiance of repeated UN Security Council resolutions calling on Tehran to suspend the process.
"We have put on the table for Iran a path for them to get a civil nuclear program. And all they have to do to get there is to suspend its enrichment of reprocessing of uranium and they can come to the table and we can have a further discussion," said Perino.
"It's the Iranians who have decided not to be at that table," she said.
The United States has sharply escalated its rhetoric against the Islamic Republic, while slapping a new set of sanctions on its Revolutionary Guards, accused of spreading weapons of mass destruction, and its elite Quds Force, which was designated as a supporter of terrorism.
"Iran is the largest national security challenge we have in regards to nuclear weapons today," said Perino, who contrasted Tehran's approach to North Korea's agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.
"We are in discussions with North Korea, through the six-party talks, and that is because North Korea agreed to give up its weapons and make a full declaration of activities that they've been pursuing," she said.
She was referring to negotiations grouping China, Japan, Russia, North and South Korea and the United States, and a deal offering Pyongyang economic and diplomatic rewards if it gives up it nuclear weapons program.
"Iran could have the same option, but they've chosen not to," the spokeswoman said.
US: Iran seeks nuclear weapons Mon Oct 29, 1:38 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States on Monday brushed aside the UN nuclear watchdog agency chief's warning that there was no proof Iran seeks atomic weapons, and invited him to stay out of diplomacy with Tehran.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CNN Sunday that he had no evidence Iran was building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with their warlike rhetoric.
"He will say what he will. He is the head of a technical agency," US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. "I think we can handle diplomacy on this one."
"We appreciate the work that the IAEA is performing but it is the member states of the international community that are going to be responsible of the diplomacy with respect to Iran and its nuclear program," said McCormack.
At the White House, spokeswoman Dana Perino said there was no doubt about Iran's plans because "this is a country that is enriching and reprocessing uranium and the reason that one does that is to lead towards a nuclear weapon."
Uranium enrichment and reprocessing produces fuel for nuclear reactors, but can also be a key step to creating the core of an atomic bomb. Iran says it wants a civilian energy program, not an atomic arsenal.
Asked whether any country enriching uranium seeks nuclear weapons, US National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe clarified Perino's remarks.
"I would say that we're concerned about Iran doing this because they could have the capability to have a nuclear weapon. Each country is different, but obviously Dana was asked and was talking about Iran," he said.
Iran's leaders have repeatedly said they will never suspend enrichment, in flagrant defiance of repeated UN Security Council resolutions calling on Tehran to suspend the process.
"We have put on the table for Iran a path for them to get a civil nuclear program. And all they have to do to get there is to suspend its enrichment of reprocessing of uranium and they can come to the table and we can have a further discussion," said Perino.
"It's the Iranians who have decided not to be at that table," she said.
The United States has sharply escalated its rhetoric against the Islamic Republic, while slapping a new set of sanctions on its Revolutionary Guards, accused of spreading weapons of mass destruction, and its elite Quds Force, which was designated as a supporter of terrorism.
"Iran is the largest national security challenge we have in regards to nuclear weapons today," said Perino, who contrasted Tehran's approach to North Korea's agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.
"We are in discussions with North Korea, through the six-party talks, and that is because North Korea agreed to give up its weapons and make a full declaration of activities that they've been pursuing," she said.
She was referring to negotiations grouping China, Japan, Russia, North and South Korea and the United States, and a deal offering Pyongyang economic and diplomatic rewards if it gives up it nuclear weapons program.
"Iran could have the same option, but they've chosen not to," the spokeswoman said.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Bipartisan Consensus: Iraq, Many More Years of War
This analysis sounds reasonably accurate to me. Unless the public gets much more active and demanding things will probably transpire much as predicted by Smith. HOwever, an attack on Iran may alter the situation considerably much for the worse I expect.
Bipartisan Consensus: Iraq, Many More Years of War
by Jack A. Smith
Global Research, October 24, 2007
After a few skirmishes, congressional Democrats have fled the field of battle with the Republicans over the matter of withdrawing some U.S. troops from Iraq. Ending the war itself was never a serious part of the several-month debate, although many Americans thought it was.
A consensus seems to be building in Washington that views a long term U.S. military presence in Iraq as a valuable geostrategic asset in the quest for regional and global hegemony. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is now talking about an occupation of an unlimited number of years with a minimum of 40,000 U.S. troops. The Democratic Party and the majority of its politicians in Congress are expected to go along with this.
The Democratic leadership has declared it now seeks compromise with the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress, and isn¹t willing to force the issue of troop withdrawal. Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John Edwards ‹ leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination ‹ have all been quoted as suggesting that the war will not end for at least five-and-a-half more years (the end of the new presidential term). According to a Sept. 29 article in the Washington Post, the important question for these candidates "is no longer whether U.S. forces will remain in Iraq but what size, mission and length a post-buildup [post-surge], post-Bush force would take on."
It also appears that the centrist majority of the Democratic delegation in the House and Senate is committed to keeping a large contingent of American troops in Iraq at least as long as Clinton, Obama and Edwards predict. Public opinion polls in September showed that only 5% of the American people want the troops to remain that long, but they will be ignored unless a great deal more pressure is exerted by the American people and the U.S. peace movement.
Democratic leaders will make efforts to convince the voters throughout the year leading to the 2008 elections that they are doing their best to bring U.S. troops home. But it will be for show, in order to propel a Democrat into the White House on the basis of antiwar opinion.
Democratic House and Senate leaders, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid, claim that the threat of a Republican filibuster and a veto from President George W. Bush constitute a double whammy preventing the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress from passing legislation to withdraw the U.S. Army of Occupation from Iraq.
At best, this argument is disingenuous. All the Democrats in Congress need do is exercise their constitutional right to withhold funds to continue the war, allocating monies only for the swift withdrawal of all American troops. A majority can do it. In the Senate, if the Democrats can¹t accumulate 51 votes, all they¹d need is 41 to mount a filibuster which would prevent the funding bill from being called for a vote. The refusal to attempt such action is an indication that the Democrats have other plans in mind. The Democratic congressional leadership insists de-funding would be unpopular with the voters and may cost them the election. But that is misleading.
Once the March 2003 invasion began, the Democratic Party has been as committed as the Republicans to winning the Iraq war, despite the antiwar views of a small minority of legislators within its ranks. Democratic leaders think they can conduct the war better than the blundering Bush Administration. Winning in Iraq was their position in the 2004 election with John Kerry and it is their position now. The difference is that Democratic leaders said it openly then and conceal it now because public opinion has changed.
The "peace party," as the Dems have positioned themselves in the election, talks about withdrawal but the fact is that its most extreme proposal has been for a gradual and partial withdrawal that would keep up to 50,000 American troops in Iraq for many years. With them would be a huge number of mercenaries and tens of thousands of civilians now providing services that the military used to handle just a decade ago.
The U.S. will wind up spending some $2 trillion dollars on the Iraq project if it ends in a couple of years, and much more if it lasts a decade or so, as seems likely. Washington will not simply walk away from an investment of this size. There is too much at stake, including control over one of the largest reserves of petroleum under the Earth, and America¹s domination of the entire Middle East.
Here, in our view, is the Democratic leadership¹s simultaneous two-stage prescription for "victory" in Iraq:
1. After a Democrat becomes the next president, they will begin the process of partial withdrawal over several years. This will reduce popular opposition, even as hostilities continue. After a year or two, as Iraqi troops play more of a front-line role, the number of US. casualities will drop considerably, further eroding the demand for an end to the war.
2. During this time, the U.S. will fund, train, field and control the huge Iraqi army so that it does most of the fighting. The Pentagon will back it up with tens of thousands of U.S. Special Forces and other troops stationed in impregnable bases and supported by a vast expansion of American air power. Buy off as much of the opposition as possible. Promise to invest in rebuilding part of the infrastructure. Create an informal but effective separation of Iraq into three parts ‹ Kurd, Shia, Sunni ‹ to reduce communal strife. Maintain control over whatever Iraq government it is convenient to put in power and direct affairs, as now, from Washington. Bring in the UN as cover.
There are other aspects to Washington¹s triumph in an unjust war, but these are key. If it works, the U.S. military will remain in Iraq for many years. How many? How about 10 to 50 years?
The U.S. has stationed almost 40,000 troops, missiles, bombers and nuclear weapons in South Korea for over a half century, and they are not about to leave despite the so-called "shortage" of American troops in Iraq. "Protecting" South Korea is not the reason. The existence of substantial U.S. military power an hour or two away from China, Russia and Japan is a major forward thrust in the geostrategic drive for world hegemony.
Maintaining a powerful military force in the client state of Iraq for decades will be an even more important geostrategic maneuver, if it works out. One reason, as former Federal Reserve boss Alan Greenspan let slip in his new book, is that ³the Iraq war is largely about oil.² Of course it is, but there¹s more.
The U.S. seeks to become so powerfully entrenched in Iraq that it is given first grabs at the oil for a reasonable price, plus influence over who else gets the oil. This is why the Congress and the White House are demanding that Baghdad agree to the ³benchmark² about de-nationalizing the oil fields and allowing U.S. companies to earn super profits for extracting and delivering this strategic commodity. When the corporations get in and the oil starts flowing, naturally they will have to be protected by reliable American forces.
The geostrategic reason for Washington to remain a politically and militarily dominant force in Iraq is to facilitate the extension of U.S. hegemony throughout the Middle East, with Russia and China very much in mind.
The U.S. is engaged in am undeclared new cold war with both China and the revived, Putin-era Russia. The principal area of contention between Beijing and Moscow on the one hand, and Washington on the other, is that both China and Russia are aligned in opposing the concept of a unipolar world order wherein the United States operates as the dominating superpower and world cop, as it has done since the Soviet downfall.
The alternative is a multipolar system where several countries or regions operate as essentially equal powers, with the UN playing a larger role. Washington rejects, and suggests it will fight against, any erosion in its dominant unipolar position. This contradiction will be resolved in the next decades, one way or the other. In an important speech Oct. 15, Chinese President Hu Jintao declared that the ³trend toward a multipolar world is irreversible.²
The U.S. will be empowered significantly in this geostrategic struggle if it can sufficiently control the oil-rich states of the Middle East to the point of influencing which outside states can and cannot purchase or drill for the region¹s oil. With influence such as this, first in Iraq and then the region, the U.S. will guarantee itself abundant supplies of this vital but diminishing energy resource for many decades to come. In the process this will reduce its own dependence on certain politically problematic sources such as Venezuela.
Washington believes that its European allies are becoming too dependant on oil and natural gas from Russia. Should America¹s plans for the Middle East succeed, enough oil could be made available to the European Union/NATO countries at attractive prices to draw them away from Moscow. Naturally such a circumstance would make the Europeans more dependent on America in exchange.
China comes into the picture because of a desperate need for energy resources to continue its role as the world¹s manufacturing resource, as well as a requirement to satisfy the domestic needs of a population four times larger than the United States. With decisive influence over the disposition of the world¹s largest oil fields, Washington could threaten to prevent China¹s access to Middle East oil should push come to shove over Beijing¹s economic power and the unipolar issue. China seeks Russian oil, but would be reluctant to become principally dependent on Moscow¹s energy supplies. Each is a proud and important nation seeking an independent place in the sun, and wary of falling under the other¹s shadow.
A large, permanent garrison in Iraq will transport Washington closer to its geopolitical goals. A presence of this magnitude will allow the U.S. to militarily threaten Iran, Syria, and Lebanon whenever "necessary" It will further bolster Israel, and enhance U.S. control of the region while extending its reach closer to southern Russia.
These are the main reasons we believe Washington¹s intention is a long occupation in Iraq and why there will be little real opposition from the Democratic or Republican parties. The war has been bipartisan from the day it began and, aside from salvos of unpleasant rhetoric, probably will remain so under a somewhat different configuration with a Democratic president in the White House.
Washington may never attain its long range objectives, of course. The Pentagon¹s Army of Occupation and it¹s creation, the ³Iraqi² army, may never be able to ³stabilize² Iraq, and the situation will continue to worsen. The American people, already sick of the war, may see through the phased, partial withdrawal scheme, and recognize it for what it is: a mechanism for continuing the war for years to come.
The U.S. antiwar movement, in combination with pubic opinion, may be able to frustrate the plans for a long occupation. But its many components will have to be far more politically savvy, united in action, independent of the two ruling parties, and willing to escalate its confrontation with whoever the powers may be. At this stage it appears that a large sector of the peace forces, While still calling for withdrawal, will mainly spend next year seeking to elect Democrats in the 2008 elections.
The author is the editor of the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter. He is the former editor of the U.S. left weekly, the Guardian. He may be reached at jacdon@earthlink.net.
Bipartisan Consensus: Iraq, Many More Years of War
by Jack A. Smith
Global Research, October 24, 2007
After a few skirmishes, congressional Democrats have fled the field of battle with the Republicans over the matter of withdrawing some U.S. troops from Iraq. Ending the war itself was never a serious part of the several-month debate, although many Americans thought it was.
A consensus seems to be building in Washington that views a long term U.S. military presence in Iraq as a valuable geostrategic asset in the quest for regional and global hegemony. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is now talking about an occupation of an unlimited number of years with a minimum of 40,000 U.S. troops. The Democratic Party and the majority of its politicians in Congress are expected to go along with this.
The Democratic leadership has declared it now seeks compromise with the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress, and isn¹t willing to force the issue of troop withdrawal. Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John Edwards ‹ leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination ‹ have all been quoted as suggesting that the war will not end for at least five-and-a-half more years (the end of the new presidential term). According to a Sept. 29 article in the Washington Post, the important question for these candidates "is no longer whether U.S. forces will remain in Iraq but what size, mission and length a post-buildup [post-surge], post-Bush force would take on."
It also appears that the centrist majority of the Democratic delegation in the House and Senate is committed to keeping a large contingent of American troops in Iraq at least as long as Clinton, Obama and Edwards predict. Public opinion polls in September showed that only 5% of the American people want the troops to remain that long, but they will be ignored unless a great deal more pressure is exerted by the American people and the U.S. peace movement.
Democratic leaders will make efforts to convince the voters throughout the year leading to the 2008 elections that they are doing their best to bring U.S. troops home. But it will be for show, in order to propel a Democrat into the White House on the basis of antiwar opinion.
Democratic House and Senate leaders, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid, claim that the threat of a Republican filibuster and a veto from President George W. Bush constitute a double whammy preventing the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress from passing legislation to withdraw the U.S. Army of Occupation from Iraq.
At best, this argument is disingenuous. All the Democrats in Congress need do is exercise their constitutional right to withhold funds to continue the war, allocating monies only for the swift withdrawal of all American troops. A majority can do it. In the Senate, if the Democrats can¹t accumulate 51 votes, all they¹d need is 41 to mount a filibuster which would prevent the funding bill from being called for a vote. The refusal to attempt such action is an indication that the Democrats have other plans in mind. The Democratic congressional leadership insists de-funding would be unpopular with the voters and may cost them the election. But that is misleading.
Once the March 2003 invasion began, the Democratic Party has been as committed as the Republicans to winning the Iraq war, despite the antiwar views of a small minority of legislators within its ranks. Democratic leaders think they can conduct the war better than the blundering Bush Administration. Winning in Iraq was their position in the 2004 election with John Kerry and it is their position now. The difference is that Democratic leaders said it openly then and conceal it now because public opinion has changed.
The "peace party," as the Dems have positioned themselves in the election, talks about withdrawal but the fact is that its most extreme proposal has been for a gradual and partial withdrawal that would keep up to 50,000 American troops in Iraq for many years. With them would be a huge number of mercenaries and tens of thousands of civilians now providing services that the military used to handle just a decade ago.
The U.S. will wind up spending some $2 trillion dollars on the Iraq project if it ends in a couple of years, and much more if it lasts a decade or so, as seems likely. Washington will not simply walk away from an investment of this size. There is too much at stake, including control over one of the largest reserves of petroleum under the Earth, and America¹s domination of the entire Middle East.
Here, in our view, is the Democratic leadership¹s simultaneous two-stage prescription for "victory" in Iraq:
1. After a Democrat becomes the next president, they will begin the process of partial withdrawal over several years. This will reduce popular opposition, even as hostilities continue. After a year or two, as Iraqi troops play more of a front-line role, the number of US. casualities will drop considerably, further eroding the demand for an end to the war.
2. During this time, the U.S. will fund, train, field and control the huge Iraqi army so that it does most of the fighting. The Pentagon will back it up with tens of thousands of U.S. Special Forces and other troops stationed in impregnable bases and supported by a vast expansion of American air power. Buy off as much of the opposition as possible. Promise to invest in rebuilding part of the infrastructure. Create an informal but effective separation of Iraq into three parts ‹ Kurd, Shia, Sunni ‹ to reduce communal strife. Maintain control over whatever Iraq government it is convenient to put in power and direct affairs, as now, from Washington. Bring in the UN as cover.
There are other aspects to Washington¹s triumph in an unjust war, but these are key. If it works, the U.S. military will remain in Iraq for many years. How many? How about 10 to 50 years?
The U.S. has stationed almost 40,000 troops, missiles, bombers and nuclear weapons in South Korea for over a half century, and they are not about to leave despite the so-called "shortage" of American troops in Iraq. "Protecting" South Korea is not the reason. The existence of substantial U.S. military power an hour or two away from China, Russia and Japan is a major forward thrust in the geostrategic drive for world hegemony.
Maintaining a powerful military force in the client state of Iraq for decades will be an even more important geostrategic maneuver, if it works out. One reason, as former Federal Reserve boss Alan Greenspan let slip in his new book, is that ³the Iraq war is largely about oil.² Of course it is, but there¹s more.
The U.S. seeks to become so powerfully entrenched in Iraq that it is given first grabs at the oil for a reasonable price, plus influence over who else gets the oil. This is why the Congress and the White House are demanding that Baghdad agree to the ³benchmark² about de-nationalizing the oil fields and allowing U.S. companies to earn super profits for extracting and delivering this strategic commodity. When the corporations get in and the oil starts flowing, naturally they will have to be protected by reliable American forces.
The geostrategic reason for Washington to remain a politically and militarily dominant force in Iraq is to facilitate the extension of U.S. hegemony throughout the Middle East, with Russia and China very much in mind.
The U.S. is engaged in am undeclared new cold war with both China and the revived, Putin-era Russia. The principal area of contention between Beijing and Moscow on the one hand, and Washington on the other, is that both China and Russia are aligned in opposing the concept of a unipolar world order wherein the United States operates as the dominating superpower and world cop, as it has done since the Soviet downfall.
The alternative is a multipolar system where several countries or regions operate as essentially equal powers, with the UN playing a larger role. Washington rejects, and suggests it will fight against, any erosion in its dominant unipolar position. This contradiction will be resolved in the next decades, one way or the other. In an important speech Oct. 15, Chinese President Hu Jintao declared that the ³trend toward a multipolar world is irreversible.²
The U.S. will be empowered significantly in this geostrategic struggle if it can sufficiently control the oil-rich states of the Middle East to the point of influencing which outside states can and cannot purchase or drill for the region¹s oil. With influence such as this, first in Iraq and then the region, the U.S. will guarantee itself abundant supplies of this vital but diminishing energy resource for many decades to come. In the process this will reduce its own dependence on certain politically problematic sources such as Venezuela.
Washington believes that its European allies are becoming too dependant on oil and natural gas from Russia. Should America¹s plans for the Middle East succeed, enough oil could be made available to the European Union/NATO countries at attractive prices to draw them away from Moscow. Naturally such a circumstance would make the Europeans more dependent on America in exchange.
China comes into the picture because of a desperate need for energy resources to continue its role as the world¹s manufacturing resource, as well as a requirement to satisfy the domestic needs of a population four times larger than the United States. With decisive influence over the disposition of the world¹s largest oil fields, Washington could threaten to prevent China¹s access to Middle East oil should push come to shove over Beijing¹s economic power and the unipolar issue. China seeks Russian oil, but would be reluctant to become principally dependent on Moscow¹s energy supplies. Each is a proud and important nation seeking an independent place in the sun, and wary of falling under the other¹s shadow.
A large, permanent garrison in Iraq will transport Washington closer to its geopolitical goals. A presence of this magnitude will allow the U.S. to militarily threaten Iran, Syria, and Lebanon whenever "necessary" It will further bolster Israel, and enhance U.S. control of the region while extending its reach closer to southern Russia.
These are the main reasons we believe Washington¹s intention is a long occupation in Iraq and why there will be little real opposition from the Democratic or Republican parties. The war has been bipartisan from the day it began and, aside from salvos of unpleasant rhetoric, probably will remain so under a somewhat different configuration with a Democratic president in the White House.
Washington may never attain its long range objectives, of course. The Pentagon¹s Army of Occupation and it¹s creation, the ³Iraqi² army, may never be able to ³stabilize² Iraq, and the situation will continue to worsen. The American people, already sick of the war, may see through the phased, partial withdrawal scheme, and recognize it for what it is: a mechanism for continuing the war for years to come.
The U.S. antiwar movement, in combination with pubic opinion, may be able to frustrate the plans for a long occupation. But its many components will have to be far more politically savvy, united in action, independent of the two ruling parties, and willing to escalate its confrontation with whoever the powers may be. At this stage it appears that a large sector of the peace forces, While still calling for withdrawal, will mainly spend next year seeking to elect Democrats in the 2008 elections.
The author is the editor of the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter. He is the former editor of the U.S. left weekly, the Guardian. He may be reached at jacdon@earthlink.net.
The Evangelical Crackup
I don't really know how significant this is or what the situation is in the US in general but it is interesting to see what seems to be evangelistic Christians becoming perhaps less politically involved.
The Evangelical Crackup
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
NYT/October 28, 2007
The hundred-foot white cross atop the Immanuel Baptist Church in
downtown Wichita, Kan., casts a shadow over a neighborhood of payday
lenders, pawnbrokers and pornographic video stores. To its
parishioners, this has long been the front line of the culture war.
Immanuel has stood for Southern Baptist traditionalism for more than
half a century. Until recently, its pastor, Terry Fox, was the Jerry
Falwell of the Sunflower State — the public face of the conservative
Christian political movement in a place where that made him a very big
deal.
With flushed red cheeks and a pudgy, dimpled chin, Fox roared down
from Immanuel's pulpit about the wickedness of abortion, evolution and
homosexuality. He mobilized hundreds of Kansas pastors to push through
a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, helping to unseat a
handful of legislators in the process. His Sunday-morning services
reached tens of thousands of listeners on regional cable television,
and on Sunday nights he was a host of a talk-radio program, "Answering
the Call." Major national conservative Christian groups like Focus on
the Family lauded his work, and the Southern Baptist Convention named
him chairman of its North American Mission Board.
For years, Fox flaunted his allegiance to the Republican Party, urging
fellow pastors to make the same "confession" and calling them
"sissies" if they didn't. "We are the religious right," he liked to
say. "One, we are religious. Two, we are right."
His congregation, for the most part, applauded. Immanuel and Wichita's
other big churches were seedbeds of the conservative Christian
activism that burst forth three decades ago. In the 1980s, when
theological conservatives pushed the moderates out of the Southern
Baptist Convention, Immanuel and Fox were both at the forefront. In
1991, when Operation Rescue brought its "Summer of Mercy" abortion
protests to Wichita, Immanuel's parishioners leapt to the barricades,
helping to establish the city as the informal capital of the
anti-abortion movement. And Fox's confrontational style packed ever
more like-minded believers into the pews. He more than doubled
Immanuel's official membership to more than 6,000 and planted the
giant cross on its roof.
So when Fox announced to his flock one Sunday in August last year that
it was his final appearance in the pulpit, the news startled
evangelical activists from Atlanta to Grand Rapids. Fox told the
congregation that he was quitting so he could work full time on
"cultural issues." Within days, The Wichita Eagle reported that Fox
left under pressure. The board of deacons had told him that his
activism was getting in the way of the Gospel. "It just wasn't
pertinent," Associate Pastor Gayle Tenbrook later told me.
Fox, who is 47, said he saw some impatient shuffling in the pews, but
he was stunned that the church's lay leaders had turned on him. "They
said they were tired of hearing about abortion 52 weeks a year,
hearing about all this political stuff!" he told me on a recent Sunday
afternoon. "And these were deacons of the church!"
These days, Fox has taken his fire and brimstone in search of a new
pulpit. He rented space at the Johnny Western Theater at the Wild West
World amusement park until it folded. Now he preaches at a Best
Western hotel. "I don't mind telling you that I paid a price for the
political stands I took," Fox said. "The pendulum in the Christian
world has swung back to the moderate point of view. The real battle
now is among evangelicals."
Fox is not the only conservative Christian to feel the heat of those
battles, even in — of all places — Wichita. Within three months of
his
departure, the two other most influential conservative Christian
pastors in the city had left their pulpits as well. And in the silence
left by their voices, a new generation of pastors distinctly
suspicious of the Republican Party — some as likely to lean left as
right — is beginning to speak up.
Just three years ago, the leaders of the conservative Christian
political movement could almost see the Promised Land. White
evangelical Protestants looked like perhaps the most potent voting
bloc in America. They turned out for President George W. Bush in
record numbers, supporting him for re-election by a ratio of four to
one. Republican strategists predicted that religious traditionalists
would help bring about an era of dominance for their party. Spokesmen
for the Christian conservative movement warned of the wrath of "values
voters." James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, was
poised to play kingmaker in 2008, at least in the Republican primary.
And thanks to President Bush, the Supreme Court appeared just one vote
away from answering the prayers of evangelical activists by
overturning Roe v. Wade.
Today the movement shows signs of coming apart beneath its leaders. It
is not merely that none of the 2008 Republican front-runners come
close to measuring up to President Bush in the eyes of the evangelical
faithful, although it would be hard to find a cast of characters more
ill fit for those shoes: a lapsed-Catholic big-city mayor; a
Massachusetts Mormon; a church-skipping Hollywood character actor; and
a political renegade known for crossing swords with the Rev. Pat
Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Nor is the problem simply that
the Democratic presidential front-runners — Senator Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards — sound
like a bunch of tent-revival Bible thumpers compared with the
Republicans.
The 2008 election is just the latest stress on a system of fault lines
that go much deeper. The phenomenon of theologically conservative
Christians plunging into political activism on the right is,
historically speaking, something of an anomaly. Most evangelicals
shrugged off abortion as a Catholic issue until after the 1973 Roe v.
Wade decision. But in the wake of the ban on public-school prayer, the
sexual revolution and the exodus to the suburbs that filled the new
megachurches, protecting the unborn became the rallying cry of a new
movement to uphold the traditional family. Now another confluence of
factors is threatening to tear the movement apart. The extraordinary
evangelical love affair with Bush has ended, for many, in heartbreak
over the Iraq war and what they see as his meager domestic
accomplishments. That disappointment, in turn, has sharpened latent
divisions within the evangelical world — over the evangelical
alliance
with the Republican Party, among approaches to ministry and theology,
and between the generations.
The Evangelical Crackup
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
NYT/October 28, 2007
The hundred-foot white cross atop the Immanuel Baptist Church in
downtown Wichita, Kan., casts a shadow over a neighborhood of payday
lenders, pawnbrokers and pornographic video stores. To its
parishioners, this has long been the front line of the culture war.
Immanuel has stood for Southern Baptist traditionalism for more than
half a century. Until recently, its pastor, Terry Fox, was the Jerry
Falwell of the Sunflower State — the public face of the conservative
Christian political movement in a place where that made him a very big
deal.
With flushed red cheeks and a pudgy, dimpled chin, Fox roared down
from Immanuel's pulpit about the wickedness of abortion, evolution and
homosexuality. He mobilized hundreds of Kansas pastors to push through
a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, helping to unseat a
handful of legislators in the process. His Sunday-morning services
reached tens of thousands of listeners on regional cable television,
and on Sunday nights he was a host of a talk-radio program, "Answering
the Call." Major national conservative Christian groups like Focus on
the Family lauded his work, and the Southern Baptist Convention named
him chairman of its North American Mission Board.
For years, Fox flaunted his allegiance to the Republican Party, urging
fellow pastors to make the same "confession" and calling them
"sissies" if they didn't. "We are the religious right," he liked to
say. "One, we are religious. Two, we are right."
His congregation, for the most part, applauded. Immanuel and Wichita's
other big churches were seedbeds of the conservative Christian
activism that burst forth three decades ago. In the 1980s, when
theological conservatives pushed the moderates out of the Southern
Baptist Convention, Immanuel and Fox were both at the forefront. In
1991, when Operation Rescue brought its "Summer of Mercy" abortion
protests to Wichita, Immanuel's parishioners leapt to the barricades,
helping to establish the city as the informal capital of the
anti-abortion movement. And Fox's confrontational style packed ever
more like-minded believers into the pews. He more than doubled
Immanuel's official membership to more than 6,000 and planted the
giant cross on its roof.
So when Fox announced to his flock one Sunday in August last year that
it was his final appearance in the pulpit, the news startled
evangelical activists from Atlanta to Grand Rapids. Fox told the
congregation that he was quitting so he could work full time on
"cultural issues." Within days, The Wichita Eagle reported that Fox
left under pressure. The board of deacons had told him that his
activism was getting in the way of the Gospel. "It just wasn't
pertinent," Associate Pastor Gayle Tenbrook later told me.
Fox, who is 47, said he saw some impatient shuffling in the pews, but
he was stunned that the church's lay leaders had turned on him. "They
said they were tired of hearing about abortion 52 weeks a year,
hearing about all this political stuff!" he told me on a recent Sunday
afternoon. "And these were deacons of the church!"
These days, Fox has taken his fire and brimstone in search of a new
pulpit. He rented space at the Johnny Western Theater at the Wild West
World amusement park until it folded. Now he preaches at a Best
Western hotel. "I don't mind telling you that I paid a price for the
political stands I took," Fox said. "The pendulum in the Christian
world has swung back to the moderate point of view. The real battle
now is among evangelicals."
Fox is not the only conservative Christian to feel the heat of those
battles, even in — of all places — Wichita. Within three months of
his
departure, the two other most influential conservative Christian
pastors in the city had left their pulpits as well. And in the silence
left by their voices, a new generation of pastors distinctly
suspicious of the Republican Party — some as likely to lean left as
right — is beginning to speak up.
Just three years ago, the leaders of the conservative Christian
political movement could almost see the Promised Land. White
evangelical Protestants looked like perhaps the most potent voting
bloc in America. They turned out for President George W. Bush in
record numbers, supporting him for re-election by a ratio of four to
one. Republican strategists predicted that religious traditionalists
would help bring about an era of dominance for their party. Spokesmen
for the Christian conservative movement warned of the wrath of "values
voters." James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, was
poised to play kingmaker in 2008, at least in the Republican primary.
And thanks to President Bush, the Supreme Court appeared just one vote
away from answering the prayers of evangelical activists by
overturning Roe v. Wade.
Today the movement shows signs of coming apart beneath its leaders. It
is not merely that none of the 2008 Republican front-runners come
close to measuring up to President Bush in the eyes of the evangelical
faithful, although it would be hard to find a cast of characters more
ill fit for those shoes: a lapsed-Catholic big-city mayor; a
Massachusetts Mormon; a church-skipping Hollywood character actor; and
a political renegade known for crossing swords with the Rev. Pat
Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Nor is the problem simply that
the Democratic presidential front-runners — Senator Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards — sound
like a bunch of tent-revival Bible thumpers compared with the
Republicans.
The 2008 election is just the latest stress on a system of fault lines
that go much deeper. The phenomenon of theologically conservative
Christians plunging into political activism on the right is,
historically speaking, something of an anomaly. Most evangelicals
shrugged off abortion as a Catholic issue until after the 1973 Roe v.
Wade decision. But in the wake of the ban on public-school prayer, the
sexual revolution and the exodus to the suburbs that filled the new
megachurches, protecting the unborn became the rallying cry of a new
movement to uphold the traditional family. Now another confluence of
factors is threatening to tear the movement apart. The extraordinary
evangelical love affair with Bush has ended, for many, in heartbreak
over the Iraq war and what they see as his meager domestic
accomplishments. That disappointment, in turn, has sharpened latent
divisions within the evangelical world — over the evangelical
alliance
with the Republican Party, among approaches to ministry and theology,
and between the generations.
Kurdish leader defies Turkish invasion threat.
THis is from the Independent.
The Kurds are certainly showing they will not be puppets in fact will not even co-operate with the US or central government when it doesn't suit them. This can only lead to a Turkish incursion as I doubt the US or Iraqi govt. will do anything but wring their hands even though the US calls the PKK terrorists!
Iraqi Kurdish leader defies Turkish invasion threat
By Patrick Cockburn in Iraqi Kurdistan
Published: 29 October 2007
Masoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurds of northern Iraq, expressed defiance yesterday in the face of a threatened invasion by 100,00 Turkish troops, and was scornful of Turkey's claim that it wants only to pursue Turkish-Kurd rebels.
"We are not a threat to Turkey and I do not accept the language of threatening and blackmailing from the government of Turkey," he said from his mountain fortress of Salahudin 10 miles north of Arbil. "If they invade there will be war."
Mr Barzani is President of the Kurdistan Regional Government, the autonomous Kurdish area in northern Iraq which enjoys quasi-independence from Baghdad and has stronger military forces than half of the members of the UN.
He was in no mood to buckle under Turkish pressure to take military action against the guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) who have their hideouts in the mountain ranges along Iraqi Kurdistan's borders with Iran and Turkey. "My main mission would be not to allow a Kurdish-Kurdish fight to happen within the Kurdish liberation movement," he declared.
Mr Barzani said Turkey's attempt to solve its Kurdish problem by military means alone had not worked in the past 23 years and would not work now. It was in 1984 that the PKK took up arms, seeking independence or autonomy from theTurkish state that refused to admit that it had a Kurdish minority of 15 million.
Mr Barzani also said that he was increasingly convinced that the Turkish objective was not the PKK but Iraqi Kurdistan, which has achieved near-independence since 2003. He said he was convinced Turkey's claim that its target was the PKK "is only an excuse and the target is the Kurdistan region itself". When the KRG put its peshmerga (soldiers) on the border with Turkey to control the areas where the PKK has sought refuge, Turkish artillery had shelled them, he said.
Mr Barzani appears to believe there is no concession he could offer to Turkey which would defuse the crisis because he himself and the KRG are the true target of Ankara.
Turkish military action might be largely symbolic with ground troops not advancing very far, but even this would have a serious impact on the economy of the KRG. The Iraqi Kurds would also be badly hurt if Turkey closed the Habur Bridge, the crossing point near Zakho through which passes much of Kurdistan's trade. Some 825,000 trucks crossed the bridge in both directions last year. Asked what the impact of the closure of Habur Bridge would be on Iraqi Kurdistan, Mr Barzani said determinedly: "We would not starve."
Turkish artillery is already firing shells across the border in the high mountains around Kani Masi, a well-watered border village in western Kurdistan, famous for its apple orchards. The shelling is persistent and is evidently designed as warning to the Iraqi Kurds. "We are afraid but we have nowhere else to go," said Mohammed Mustafa, an elderly farmer.
For the moment, the villagers are staying put. Many of them in this area are Syriac Christians whose parents or grandparents emigrated to Baghdad but had returned recently because of fear of sectarian killing in the capital. Omar Mai, the local head of Mr Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party in Kani Masi, said that seven villages in the area had recently been shelled.
He said that there were no PKK in the villages and that they stayed permanently in the high mountains. Another reason for the PKK guerrillas making themselves scarce in this area is that there are Turkish outposts and garrisons already inside Iraq, set up during previous incursions. At one point near the village of Begova the snouts of Turkish tanks point menacingly down the road.
Driving to the top of a mountain where peshmerga were dug in, Mr Mai explained with some pride the intricate geography of the frontier. On one hilltop below us was the Turkish army, identifiable by the red Turkish flag, while a few hundred yards below the hill, separated by a flimsy fence, were Iraqi Kurdish frontier guards living in a long white barracks. In a grove of trees behind this building was a villa that was also occupied by Turkish troops.
Further north, hidden by folds in the mountains, are the Turkish guns that intermittently bombard this area. If the Turkish army does want to advance here there is not much to stop them, but it is unlikely that they would find any PKK, scanty in number and well-hidden in caves, in this vast range of mountains and valleys.
The Kurds are certainly showing they will not be puppets in fact will not even co-operate with the US or central government when it doesn't suit them. This can only lead to a Turkish incursion as I doubt the US or Iraqi govt. will do anything but wring their hands even though the US calls the PKK terrorists!
Iraqi Kurdish leader defies Turkish invasion threat
By Patrick Cockburn in Iraqi Kurdistan
Published: 29 October 2007
Masoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurds of northern Iraq, expressed defiance yesterday in the face of a threatened invasion by 100,00 Turkish troops, and was scornful of Turkey's claim that it wants only to pursue Turkish-Kurd rebels.
"We are not a threat to Turkey and I do not accept the language of threatening and blackmailing from the government of Turkey," he said from his mountain fortress of Salahudin 10 miles north of Arbil. "If they invade there will be war."
Mr Barzani is President of the Kurdistan Regional Government, the autonomous Kurdish area in northern Iraq which enjoys quasi-independence from Baghdad and has stronger military forces than half of the members of the UN.
He was in no mood to buckle under Turkish pressure to take military action against the guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) who have their hideouts in the mountain ranges along Iraqi Kurdistan's borders with Iran and Turkey. "My main mission would be not to allow a Kurdish-Kurdish fight to happen within the Kurdish liberation movement," he declared.
Mr Barzani said Turkey's attempt to solve its Kurdish problem by military means alone had not worked in the past 23 years and would not work now. It was in 1984 that the PKK took up arms, seeking independence or autonomy from theTurkish state that refused to admit that it had a Kurdish minority of 15 million.
Mr Barzani also said that he was increasingly convinced that the Turkish objective was not the PKK but Iraqi Kurdistan, which has achieved near-independence since 2003. He said he was convinced Turkey's claim that its target was the PKK "is only an excuse and the target is the Kurdistan region itself". When the KRG put its peshmerga (soldiers) on the border with Turkey to control the areas where the PKK has sought refuge, Turkish artillery had shelled them, he said.
Mr Barzani appears to believe there is no concession he could offer to Turkey which would defuse the crisis because he himself and the KRG are the true target of Ankara.
Turkish military action might be largely symbolic with ground troops not advancing very far, but even this would have a serious impact on the economy of the KRG. The Iraqi Kurds would also be badly hurt if Turkey closed the Habur Bridge, the crossing point near Zakho through which passes much of Kurdistan's trade. Some 825,000 trucks crossed the bridge in both directions last year. Asked what the impact of the closure of Habur Bridge would be on Iraqi Kurdistan, Mr Barzani said determinedly: "We would not starve."
Turkish artillery is already firing shells across the border in the high mountains around Kani Masi, a well-watered border village in western Kurdistan, famous for its apple orchards. The shelling is persistent and is evidently designed as warning to the Iraqi Kurds. "We are afraid but we have nowhere else to go," said Mohammed Mustafa, an elderly farmer.
For the moment, the villagers are staying put. Many of them in this area are Syriac Christians whose parents or grandparents emigrated to Baghdad but had returned recently because of fear of sectarian killing in the capital. Omar Mai, the local head of Mr Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party in Kani Masi, said that seven villages in the area had recently been shelled.
He said that there were no PKK in the villages and that they stayed permanently in the high mountains. Another reason for the PKK guerrillas making themselves scarce in this area is that there are Turkish outposts and garrisons already inside Iraq, set up during previous incursions. At one point near the village of Begova the snouts of Turkish tanks point menacingly down the road.
Driving to the top of a mountain where peshmerga were dug in, Mr Mai explained with some pride the intricate geography of the frontier. On one hilltop below us was the Turkish army, identifiable by the red Turkish flag, while a few hundred yards below the hill, separated by a flimsy fence, were Iraqi Kurdish frontier guards living in a long white barracks. In a grove of trees behind this building was a villa that was also occupied by Turkish troops.
Further north, hidden by folds in the mountains, are the Turkish guns that intermittently bombard this area. If the Turkish army does want to advance here there is not much to stop them, but it is unlikely that they would find any PKK, scanty in number and well-hidden in caves, in this vast range of mountains and valleys.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Guantamo military lawyer breaks ranks.
This is from the Independent. It is always heartening to see people who have the integrity, courage, and belief in the principles of their profession to stand up to the sort of bullying and violation of basic legal principles that is characteristic of the Bush administration. No doubt these people often face punishment and ruin of their careers.
Guantanamo military lawyer breaks ranks to condemn 'unconscionable' detention
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 27 October 2007
An American military lawyer and veteran of dozens of secret Guantanamo tribunals has made a devastating attack on the legal process for determining whether Guantanamo prisoners are "enemy combatants".
The whistleblower, an army major inside the military court system which the United States has established at Guantanamo Bay, has described the detention of one prisoner, a hospital administrator from Sudan, as "unconscionable".
His critique will be the centrepiece of a hearing on 5 December before the US Supreme Court when another attempt is made to shut the prison down. So nervous is the Bush administration of the latest attack – and another Supreme Court ruling against it – that it is preparing a whole new system of military courts to deal with those still imprisoned.
The whistleblower's testimony is the most serious attack to date on the military panels, which were meant to give a fig- leaf of legitimacy to the interrogation and detention policies at Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The major has taken part in 49 status review panels.
"It's a kangaroo court system and completely corrupt," said Michael Ratner, the president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which is co-ordinating investigations and appeals lawsuits against the government by some 1,000 lawyers. "Stalin had show trials, but at Guantanamo they are not even show trials because it all takes place in secret."
Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held for 558 detainees at the Guantanamo in 2004 and 2005. All but 38 detainees were determined to be "enemy combatants" who could be held indefinitely without charges. Detainees were not represented by a lawyer and had no access to evidence. The only witnesses they could call were other so-called "enemy combatants".
The army major has said that in the rare circumstances in which it was decided that the detainees were no longer enemy combatants, senior commanders ordered another panel to reverse the decision. The major also described "acrimony" during a "heated conference" call from Admiral McGarragh, who reports to the Secretary of the US Navy, when a the panel refused to describe several Uighur detainees as enemy combatants. Senior military commanders wanted to know why some panels considering the same evidence would come to different findings on the Uighurs, members of a Muslim minority in China.
When the whistleblower suggested over the phone that inconsistent results were "good for the system ... and would show that the system was working correctly", Admiral McGarragh, he said, had no response. The latest criticism emerged when lawyers investigating the case of a Sudanese hospital administrator, Adel Hamad, who has been held for five years, came across a "stunning" sworn statement from a member of the military panel. The officer they interviewed was so frightened of retaliation from the military that they would not allow their name to be used in the statement, nor to reveal whether the person was a man or woman.
Two other military lawyers have also gone public. In June, Army Lt-Col Stephen Abraham, a 26-year veteran in US military intelligence, became the first insider to publicly fault the proceedings. In May last year, Lt-Com Matthew Diaz was sentenced to six months in prison and dismissed from the military after he sent the names of all 551 men at the prison to a human rights group.
William Teesdale, a British-born lawyer investigating Mr Hadad's case, said he was certain of his client's innocence, having tracked down doctors who worked with him at an Afghan hospital. "Mr Hamad is an innocent man, and he is not the only one in Guantanamo."
Guantanamo military lawyer breaks ranks to condemn 'unconscionable' detention
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 27 October 2007
An American military lawyer and veteran of dozens of secret Guantanamo tribunals has made a devastating attack on the legal process for determining whether Guantanamo prisoners are "enemy combatants".
The whistleblower, an army major inside the military court system which the United States has established at Guantanamo Bay, has described the detention of one prisoner, a hospital administrator from Sudan, as "unconscionable".
His critique will be the centrepiece of a hearing on 5 December before the US Supreme Court when another attempt is made to shut the prison down. So nervous is the Bush administration of the latest attack – and another Supreme Court ruling against it – that it is preparing a whole new system of military courts to deal with those still imprisoned.
The whistleblower's testimony is the most serious attack to date on the military panels, which were meant to give a fig- leaf of legitimacy to the interrogation and detention policies at Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The major has taken part in 49 status review panels.
"It's a kangaroo court system and completely corrupt," said Michael Ratner, the president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which is co-ordinating investigations and appeals lawsuits against the government by some 1,000 lawyers. "Stalin had show trials, but at Guantanamo they are not even show trials because it all takes place in secret."
Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held for 558 detainees at the Guantanamo in 2004 and 2005. All but 38 detainees were determined to be "enemy combatants" who could be held indefinitely without charges. Detainees were not represented by a lawyer and had no access to evidence. The only witnesses they could call were other so-called "enemy combatants".
The army major has said that in the rare circumstances in which it was decided that the detainees were no longer enemy combatants, senior commanders ordered another panel to reverse the decision. The major also described "acrimony" during a "heated conference" call from Admiral McGarragh, who reports to the Secretary of the US Navy, when a the panel refused to describe several Uighur detainees as enemy combatants. Senior military commanders wanted to know why some panels considering the same evidence would come to different findings on the Uighurs, members of a Muslim minority in China.
When the whistleblower suggested over the phone that inconsistent results were "good for the system ... and would show that the system was working correctly", Admiral McGarragh, he said, had no response. The latest criticism emerged when lawyers investigating the case of a Sudanese hospital administrator, Adel Hamad, who has been held for five years, came across a "stunning" sworn statement from a member of the military panel. The officer they interviewed was so frightened of retaliation from the military that they would not allow their name to be used in the statement, nor to reveal whether the person was a man or woman.
Two other military lawyers have also gone public. In June, Army Lt-Col Stephen Abraham, a 26-year veteran in US military intelligence, became the first insider to publicly fault the proceedings. In May last year, Lt-Com Matthew Diaz was sentenced to six months in prison and dismissed from the military after he sent the names of all 551 men at the prison to a human rights group.
William Teesdale, a British-born lawyer investigating Mr Hadad's case, said he was certain of his client's innocence, having tracked down doctors who worked with him at an Afghan hospital. "Mr Hamad is an innocent man, and he is not the only one in Guantanamo."
British Commander: Basra fight pointless
The politicians need to assign handlers to top commanders so that utterances can be cleared before they get uttered. It seems that many military people seem blissfully unaware that their role is not to say what they believe but what they ought to believe according to their political masters.
Basra fight pointless, says British commander
Gethin Chamberlain in southern Iraq
Last Updated: 2:02am GMT 28/10/2007
One of the most senior British commanders in Iraq has claimed that there is no point in fighting on in Basra, likening British troops in the city to "Robocop" and admitting that innocent people were hurt as a result of their actions.
On the ground with British troops in southern Iraq
The officer, who spoke to The Sunday Telegraph on condition of anonymity, said commanders had concluded that a military solution was no longer viable.
"We are tired of firing at people," he said. "We would prefer to find a political accommodation."
The officer, who is responsible for thousands of troops, said the decision to pull soldiers out of the centre of Basra last month came after commanders concluded that using Iraqi forces would be more effective. "We would go down there [Basra], dressed as Robocop, shooting at people if they shot at us, and innocent people were getting hurt," he said. "We don't speak Arabic to explain and our translators were too scared to work for us any more. What benefit were we bringing to these people?"
British forces have struck a deal with Shia militias to withdraw to a single base at the international airport in return for assurances that they will no longer be attacked.
Yesterday, former military commanders and politicians expressed outrage at the officer's comments.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "A lot of those who have served in Iraq will be disappointed and angry at being portrayed in this manner."
The former SAS deputy commander Clive Fairweather said he was appalled by the message coming out of Basra. "One wonders whether the Union Jack or the white flag should be flying over Basra airfield," he said.
Have your say
Basra fight pointless, says British commander
Gethin Chamberlain in southern Iraq
Last Updated: 2:02am GMT 28/10/2007
One of the most senior British commanders in Iraq has claimed that there is no point in fighting on in Basra, likening British troops in the city to "Robocop" and admitting that innocent people were hurt as a result of their actions.
On the ground with British troops in southern Iraq
The officer, who spoke to The Sunday Telegraph on condition of anonymity, said commanders had concluded that a military solution was no longer viable.
"We are tired of firing at people," he said. "We would prefer to find a political accommodation."
The officer, who is responsible for thousands of troops, said the decision to pull soldiers out of the centre of Basra last month came after commanders concluded that using Iraqi forces would be more effective. "We would go down there [Basra], dressed as Robocop, shooting at people if they shot at us, and innocent people were getting hurt," he said. "We don't speak Arabic to explain and our translators were too scared to work for us any more. What benefit were we bringing to these people?"
British forces have struck a deal with Shia militias to withdraw to a single base at the international airport in return for assurances that they will no longer be attacked.
Yesterday, former military commanders and politicians expressed outrage at the officer's comments.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "A lot of those who have served in Iraq will be disappointed and angry at being portrayed in this manner."
The former SAS deputy commander Clive Fairweather said he was appalled by the message coming out of Basra. "One wonders whether the Union Jack or the white flag should be flying over Basra airfield," he said.
Have your say
Plans for Iraq's Future: Federalism, Separatism, and Partition
From this site.
This is an interestig analysis of the Senate bill to "divide" Iraq. The article does actually mention briefly that the suggestions are seen to conform to the traditional imperial divide and rule tactics.
Plans for Iraq’s Future: Federalism, Separatism, and Partition
Author: Greg Bruno, Staff Writer
October 22, 2007
Introduction
Don’t Call It “Partition”
Specific Concerns
Faithful to Federalism
Not the Only Option
Washington as Global Watchdog
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
A non-binding resolution that sailed through the U.S. Senate in September 2007 reignited debate over Iraq’s political future. Introduced by Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE) and Sam Brownback, (R-KS), the measure calls for a decentralized Iraqi government “based upon the principles of federalism” and advocates for a relatively weak central government with strong Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish regional administrations. The bill, based on a proposal first introduced by Biden and CFR President Emeritus Leslie H. Gelb, passed the Senate by a 75 to 23 margin. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Chris Dodd (D-CT), rivals in a crowded presidential field that includes Sen. Biden, both supported the amendment. Despite the bipartisan support in Washington, Iraqi politicians in Baghdad reacted furiously. Iraq’s divided central government has condemned the measure, calling it “an incorrect reading” of Iraq’s history. Even the U.S. embassy in Baghdad came out against the federalism measure. Some experts, meanwhile, favor other forms of governmental realignment, including outright “partition” of Iraq into three separate states.
Don’t Call It “Partition”
The Biden-Brownback plan was borne of a broader five-point strategy Biden and Gelb introduced in May 2006. Similar to views expressed (PDF) by the U.S. military, the two argue that ethnic tensions threaten Iraq’s long-term stability and are calling for the establishment of three (or more) semi-autonomous ethnic regions linked by a power-sharing agreement in Baghdad. “The idea is to maintain a unified Iraq by federalizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis control over their daily lives in their own regions,” Biden writes. The central government would maintain control over “truly common interests” such as border defense, foreign policy, and oil production and revenue sharing. Regional governors would then administer their own regional affairs. Biden argues that the plan—similar to the Dayton formula which calmed the Bosnian-Serb-Croat war in 1995—is in accordance with Iraq’s constitution (PDF), which defines the Republic of Iraq as consisting of “a decentralized capital, regions and governorates, and local administrations.”
Specific Concerns
The proposal draws sweeping criticisms. Many Iraqi political parties, including Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s United Iraqi Alliance, denounce the measure as a U.S. attempt to meddle in Iraqi sovereignty. The U.S. government, through its embassy in Baghdad, says the resolution “would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed.” Even Iraqi citizens appear unified in their opposition. A September 2007 opinion poll (BBC) found that only 9 percent of more than two thousand respondents favored “a country divided into separate states," while 62 percent said they favored a central government in Baghdad.
Anthony H. Cordesman, a Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, sees others reasons to question the type of federalism favored by the Biden-Brownback proposal. For one, Cordesman writes in a new report, that it’s unclear how Iraqi security forces would operate under a federal strategy. Creation of separate zones or enclaves could also expose some regions to external threats, including from Iran, and would likely fail to reduce sectarian tensions. Further, Cordesman writes, any “overt action to divide Iraq by the U.S. would almost certainly raise the already high level of Iraqi anger and hostility to the U.S. presence in Iraq.”
Other experts say support for the federal strategy by the Kurds in northern Iraq has escalated tensions between Turkey and the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), where fears of Kurdish separatism simmer. Hashim Taie of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the parliament’s principal Sunni bloc, told the Los Angeles Times the proposal amounts to “a dangerous partitioning.” Middle East expert Joost Hiltermann, of the International Crisis Group, says regardless of what the resolution aims to do, “It has been interpreted to say (in the region) that the Senate wants to carve up Iraq (in the worst imperial tradition).” Hiltermann adds that the U.S. should stop pushing top-down governmental restructuring. “They would be enormously difficult in logistical terms, as most people remain intermingled; it would take a major military effort with additional troops; and it would be enormously bloody,” he says.
Faithful to Federalism
Nonetheless, supporters remain committed to the language. Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd and a proponent of federalism, has praised the resolution. Falah Mustafa Bakir, director of the Foreign Relations Department for the KRG, explains the Kurdish position in this interview with CFR.org. ADD LINK TO INTERVIEW Biden and Gelb, too, have stood by their turn of phrase. In an October 2007 Washington Post op-ed, they argued federalism would benefit all Iraqis without partitioning the country. In an interview with CFR’s Bernard Gwertzman,Gelb goes further, suggesting a federal form of government may be the only way to correct the Bush administration’s failed top-down experiment in Iraq. The White House “thought that they could build a strong central government first by elections and then by them putting pressure on the different parties,” Gelb says. “It has not worked for four years and it still doesn’t work.”
Not the Only Option
“Federalism” is receiving the bulk of attention in Washington and Baghdad, but it is by no means the only restructuring buzzword swirling in foreign policy circles. Edward P. Joseph, a visiting scholar at the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, write in USA Today that they prefer less subtle terminology: “soft partition.” “Some critics argue that soft partition would make the United States vulnerable to the charge of having deliberately ‘weakened a strong Arab state,’” they write. “They overlook the fact that by toppling Saddam, the United States did weaken a militarily strong Arab state.”
Cordesman, on the other hand, notes that no “partition”—interpreted by many to mean the creation of separate states with complete autonomy—can be termed “soft.” “The term ‘Soft Partitioning’ has also been shown to be a cruel oxymoron,” he writes. “Virtually every aspect of sectarian and ethnic struggle to date has been brutal, and come at a high economic cost to those affected. The reality is that partitioning must be described as ‘hard’ by any practical political, economic, and humanitarian standard.”
Experts see other problems with the partition approach, including questions about where borders might be drawn, how oil revenues would be divided, and who would control the flood of newly created refugees. Reidar Visser, a research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs and editor of the Iraq website historiae.org, argues that no matter what it’s called—“federalism,” “partition,” or even “separatism”—divisions based on ethnicity are unlikely to gain popular support in Iraq. “Iraqis tend to believe that when federalism is implemented along sectarian lines it will be more divisive than other variants of federalism and will soon lead to partition,” he says. Iraq has never been neatly divided into sectarian units, Visser adds, and to advocate a plan that does so now would be “particularly risky.”
Washington as Global Watchdog
The biggest unanswered question may be one raised in the blogosphere: What makes U.S. lawmakers think they have the answers to Iraqi foreign policy spats? R.J. Eskow, writing at the Huffington Post, accuses Washington of revisionist history. “Is the government listening? The partitioning of nations has been a human tragedy in the past. Best estimates suggest that half a million people died during the partition of India.” Marc Lynch, a professor of political science at George Washington University, writes on his blog that the Biden-Brownback resolution succeeded in infuriating Iraqis while endorsing a plan that “would massively increase suffering” without solving Iraq’s problems. Ilan Goldenberg, executive director of the National Security Network, says the federalist strategy offers some promise but lacks specifics. “Clearly the Iraqis and their Sunni neighbors don’t like the Gelb-Biden plan, but there are many other types of decentralized approaches that might be more acceptable.”
This is an interestig analysis of the Senate bill to "divide" Iraq. The article does actually mention briefly that the suggestions are seen to conform to the traditional imperial divide and rule tactics.
Plans for Iraq’s Future: Federalism, Separatism, and Partition
Author: Greg Bruno, Staff Writer
October 22, 2007
Introduction
Don’t Call It “Partition”
Specific Concerns
Faithful to Federalism
Not the Only Option
Washington as Global Watchdog
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
A non-binding resolution that sailed through the U.S. Senate in September 2007 reignited debate over Iraq’s political future. Introduced by Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE) and Sam Brownback, (R-KS), the measure calls for a decentralized Iraqi government “based upon the principles of federalism” and advocates for a relatively weak central government with strong Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish regional administrations. The bill, based on a proposal first introduced by Biden and CFR President Emeritus Leslie H. Gelb, passed the Senate by a 75 to 23 margin. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Chris Dodd (D-CT), rivals in a crowded presidential field that includes Sen. Biden, both supported the amendment. Despite the bipartisan support in Washington, Iraqi politicians in Baghdad reacted furiously. Iraq’s divided central government has condemned the measure, calling it “an incorrect reading” of Iraq’s history. Even the U.S. embassy in Baghdad came out against the federalism measure. Some experts, meanwhile, favor other forms of governmental realignment, including outright “partition” of Iraq into three separate states.
Don’t Call It “Partition”
The Biden-Brownback plan was borne of a broader five-point strategy Biden and Gelb introduced in May 2006. Similar to views expressed (PDF) by the U.S. military, the two argue that ethnic tensions threaten Iraq’s long-term stability and are calling for the establishment of three (or more) semi-autonomous ethnic regions linked by a power-sharing agreement in Baghdad. “The idea is to maintain a unified Iraq by federalizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis control over their daily lives in their own regions,” Biden writes. The central government would maintain control over “truly common interests” such as border defense, foreign policy, and oil production and revenue sharing. Regional governors would then administer their own regional affairs. Biden argues that the plan—similar to the Dayton formula which calmed the Bosnian-Serb-Croat war in 1995—is in accordance with Iraq’s constitution (PDF), which defines the Republic of Iraq as consisting of “a decentralized capital, regions and governorates, and local administrations.”
Specific Concerns
The proposal draws sweeping criticisms. Many Iraqi political parties, including Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s United Iraqi Alliance, denounce the measure as a U.S. attempt to meddle in Iraqi sovereignty. The U.S. government, through its embassy in Baghdad, says the resolution “would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed.” Even Iraqi citizens appear unified in their opposition. A September 2007 opinion poll (BBC) found that only 9 percent of more than two thousand respondents favored “a country divided into separate states," while 62 percent said they favored a central government in Baghdad.
Anthony H. Cordesman, a Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, sees others reasons to question the type of federalism favored by the Biden-Brownback proposal. For one, Cordesman writes in a new report, that it’s unclear how Iraqi security forces would operate under a federal strategy. Creation of separate zones or enclaves could also expose some regions to external threats, including from Iran, and would likely fail to reduce sectarian tensions. Further, Cordesman writes, any “overt action to divide Iraq by the U.S. would almost certainly raise the already high level of Iraqi anger and hostility to the U.S. presence in Iraq.”
Other experts say support for the federal strategy by the Kurds in northern Iraq has escalated tensions between Turkey and the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), where fears of Kurdish separatism simmer. Hashim Taie of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the parliament’s principal Sunni bloc, told the Los Angeles Times the proposal amounts to “a dangerous partitioning.” Middle East expert Joost Hiltermann, of the International Crisis Group, says regardless of what the resolution aims to do, “It has been interpreted to say (in the region) that the Senate wants to carve up Iraq (in the worst imperial tradition).” Hiltermann adds that the U.S. should stop pushing top-down governmental restructuring. “They would be enormously difficult in logistical terms, as most people remain intermingled; it would take a major military effort with additional troops; and it would be enormously bloody,” he says.
Faithful to Federalism
Nonetheless, supporters remain committed to the language. Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd and a proponent of federalism, has praised the resolution. Falah Mustafa Bakir, director of the Foreign Relations Department for the KRG, explains the Kurdish position in this interview with CFR.org. ADD LINK TO INTERVIEW Biden and Gelb, too, have stood by their turn of phrase. In an October 2007 Washington Post op-ed, they argued federalism would benefit all Iraqis without partitioning the country. In an interview with CFR’s Bernard Gwertzman,Gelb goes further, suggesting a federal form of government may be the only way to correct the Bush administration’s failed top-down experiment in Iraq. The White House “thought that they could build a strong central government first by elections and then by them putting pressure on the different parties,” Gelb says. “It has not worked for four years and it still doesn’t work.”
Not the Only Option
“Federalism” is receiving the bulk of attention in Washington and Baghdad, but it is by no means the only restructuring buzzword swirling in foreign policy circles. Edward P. Joseph, a visiting scholar at the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, write in USA Today that they prefer less subtle terminology: “soft partition.” “Some critics argue that soft partition would make the United States vulnerable to the charge of having deliberately ‘weakened a strong Arab state,’” they write. “They overlook the fact that by toppling Saddam, the United States did weaken a militarily strong Arab state.”
Cordesman, on the other hand, notes that no “partition”—interpreted by many to mean the creation of separate states with complete autonomy—can be termed “soft.” “The term ‘Soft Partitioning’ has also been shown to be a cruel oxymoron,” he writes. “Virtually every aspect of sectarian and ethnic struggle to date has been brutal, and come at a high economic cost to those affected. The reality is that partitioning must be described as ‘hard’ by any practical political, economic, and humanitarian standard.”
Experts see other problems with the partition approach, including questions about where borders might be drawn, how oil revenues would be divided, and who would control the flood of newly created refugees. Reidar Visser, a research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs and editor of the Iraq website historiae.org, argues that no matter what it’s called—“federalism,” “partition,” or even “separatism”—divisions based on ethnicity are unlikely to gain popular support in Iraq. “Iraqis tend to believe that when federalism is implemented along sectarian lines it will be more divisive than other variants of federalism and will soon lead to partition,” he says. Iraq has never been neatly divided into sectarian units, Visser adds, and to advocate a plan that does so now would be “particularly risky.”
Washington as Global Watchdog
The biggest unanswered question may be one raised in the blogosphere: What makes U.S. lawmakers think they have the answers to Iraqi foreign policy spats? R.J. Eskow, writing at the Huffington Post, accuses Washington of revisionist history. “Is the government listening? The partitioning of nations has been a human tragedy in the past. Best estimates suggest that half a million people died during the partition of India.” Marc Lynch, a professor of political science at George Washington University, writes on his blog that the Biden-Brownback resolution succeeded in infuriating Iraqis while endorsing a plan that “would massively increase suffering” without solving Iraq’s problems. Ilan Goldenberg, executive director of the National Security Network, says the federalist strategy offers some promise but lacks specifics. “Clearly the Iraqis and their Sunni neighbors don’t like the Gelb-Biden plan, but there are many other types of decentralized approaches that might be more acceptable.”
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Turkey threatens incursion after Iraq talks fail
Unless the US comes up with some action rather than words it seems Turkey will be virtually forced to attack the PKK. The US is obviously very soft on certain groups it labels terrorists.
Turkey threatens incursion after Iraq talks fail
Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:07 PM EDT
By Thomas Grove
SIRNAK, Turkey (Reuters) - Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan threatened on Saturday to order an incursion into northern Iraq against Kurdish guerrillas after the failure of talks with Iraq aimed at averting a cross-border raid.
"The moment an operation is needed, we will take that step," Erdogan told a large flag-waving crowd in Izmit. "We don't need to ask anyone's permission."
The talks collapsed late on Friday after Ankara rejected proposals by Iraqi Defense Minister General Abdel Qader Jassim for tackling guerrillas based in northern Iraq as insufficient and because they would not yield results quickly enough.
Turkey has massed up to 100,000 troops, backed by fighter jets, helicopter gunships, tanks, and mortars, on the border for a possible offensive against about 3,000 rebels using Iraq as a base from which to carry out attacks in Turkey.
The United States, which was also represented at the talks, opposes a major incursion, fearing it could destabilize the relatively peaceful north of Iraq and the wider region.
The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) launched its separatist campaign in 1984, since when more than 30,000 people have died.
Erdogan took a swipe at western countries for not cracking down on the PKK and said calling it a terrorist group, as the United States and European Union do, was not enough.
"We want action, and if you can't show action, you fail the sincerity test," he said. "Those who overlook terrorism are in cooperation with terrorism," he told a conference earlier.
Army sources told Reuters on Saturday that military planes were making reconnaissance flights along the mountainous border to photograph PKK camps in northern Iraq. Helicopters were patrolling villages and soldiers sweeping roads for mines.
"DETERMINATION TO FIGHT"
Erdogan played down comments by Turkey's armed forces chief General Yasar Buyukanit that the Turkish army, NATO's second largest, was waiting for him to meet U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington on November 5 before a major incursion.
U.S.-Turkish ties have deteriorated sharply in recent weeks.
Senior Turkish diplomats say Erdogan has given Washington and Baghdad a limited time to show concrete results or steps to be taken against the PKK. The meeting in Washington will be the last chance, they told Reuters.
Any major offensive, expected to involve ground and air forces, would first have to be approved by the government.
"I don't know what will happen before the American trip," Erdogan said late on Friday.
On Saturday Buyukanit, in a speech to mark Monday's Republic Day, said the army would fight until it had destroyed the PKK.
"We feel the pain of our martyred heroes deeply. But that pain increases our determination to fight," the text of his speech read. "Those who make us suffer cannot even imagine the suffering we will inflict on them; on this we are determined."
Ankara has threatened sanctions against Iraq and Foreign Minister Ali Babacan raised the possibility again on Saturday. He said the government would use political, diplomatic, economic, cultural and military "instruments" to fight the PKK.
"Which of these instruments will be used, to what extent and when is being determined in a general strategy," he told reporters as he left for an official visit to Iran.
In the southeastern city of Sirnak, about 1,000 people demonstrated against the PKK, which has killed some 40 people in the last month and, after its latest major attack, said it took eight soldiers prisoner.
"For every 12 martyrs, 12,000 more Turkish martyrs are born," chanted protesters, who came from all over the province that has Iraq as its neighbor.
The military has carried out as many as 24 limited operations into northern Iraq against the PKK, Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek said on Friday. Helicopter gunships and F-16 jets have attacked rebel positions inside Iraq in recent days.
Turkey had asked Iraq to hand over PKK leaders but the central government has little control over semi-autonomous northern Iraq, run by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG).
The KRG, led by Masoud Barzani, says it has no control over the PKK and Barzani has vowed to fight any Turkish incursion.
(Additional reporting by Evren Mesci in Ankara and Emma Ross-Thomas in Istanbul)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2007.
Turkey threatens incursion after Iraq talks fail
Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:07 PM EDT
By Thomas Grove
SIRNAK, Turkey (Reuters) - Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan threatened on Saturday to order an incursion into northern Iraq against Kurdish guerrillas after the failure of talks with Iraq aimed at averting a cross-border raid.
"The moment an operation is needed, we will take that step," Erdogan told a large flag-waving crowd in Izmit. "We don't need to ask anyone's permission."
The talks collapsed late on Friday after Ankara rejected proposals by Iraqi Defense Minister General Abdel Qader Jassim for tackling guerrillas based in northern Iraq as insufficient and because they would not yield results quickly enough.
Turkey has massed up to 100,000 troops, backed by fighter jets, helicopter gunships, tanks, and mortars, on the border for a possible offensive against about 3,000 rebels using Iraq as a base from which to carry out attacks in Turkey.
The United States, which was also represented at the talks, opposes a major incursion, fearing it could destabilize the relatively peaceful north of Iraq and the wider region.
The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) launched its separatist campaign in 1984, since when more than 30,000 people have died.
Erdogan took a swipe at western countries for not cracking down on the PKK and said calling it a terrorist group, as the United States and European Union do, was not enough.
"We want action, and if you can't show action, you fail the sincerity test," he said. "Those who overlook terrorism are in cooperation with terrorism," he told a conference earlier.
Army sources told Reuters on Saturday that military planes were making reconnaissance flights along the mountainous border to photograph PKK camps in northern Iraq. Helicopters were patrolling villages and soldiers sweeping roads for mines.
"DETERMINATION TO FIGHT"
Erdogan played down comments by Turkey's armed forces chief General Yasar Buyukanit that the Turkish army, NATO's second largest, was waiting for him to meet U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington on November 5 before a major incursion.
U.S.-Turkish ties have deteriorated sharply in recent weeks.
Senior Turkish diplomats say Erdogan has given Washington and Baghdad a limited time to show concrete results or steps to be taken against the PKK. The meeting in Washington will be the last chance, they told Reuters.
Any major offensive, expected to involve ground and air forces, would first have to be approved by the government.
"I don't know what will happen before the American trip," Erdogan said late on Friday.
On Saturday Buyukanit, in a speech to mark Monday's Republic Day, said the army would fight until it had destroyed the PKK.
"We feel the pain of our martyred heroes deeply. But that pain increases our determination to fight," the text of his speech read. "Those who make us suffer cannot even imagine the suffering we will inflict on them; on this we are determined."
Ankara has threatened sanctions against Iraq and Foreign Minister Ali Babacan raised the possibility again on Saturday. He said the government would use political, diplomatic, economic, cultural and military "instruments" to fight the PKK.
"Which of these instruments will be used, to what extent and when is being determined in a general strategy," he told reporters as he left for an official visit to Iran.
In the southeastern city of Sirnak, about 1,000 people demonstrated against the PKK, which has killed some 40 people in the last month and, after its latest major attack, said it took eight soldiers prisoner.
"For every 12 martyrs, 12,000 more Turkish martyrs are born," chanted protesters, who came from all over the province that has Iraq as its neighbor.
The military has carried out as many as 24 limited operations into northern Iraq against the PKK, Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek said on Friday. Helicopter gunships and F-16 jets have attacked rebel positions inside Iraq in recent days.
Turkey had asked Iraq to hand over PKK leaders but the central government has little control over semi-autonomous northern Iraq, run by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG).
The KRG, led by Masoud Barzani, says it has no control over the PKK and Barzani has vowed to fight any Turkish incursion.
(Additional reporting by Evren Mesci in Ankara and Emma Ross-Thomas in Istanbul)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2007.
America's Self-defeating hegemony: Francis Fukuyama
Maybe history is not ending after all! I haven't heard anything about Fukuyama for some time. I find this article more impressive than his book! It is a clearly written well organised presentation of four important reasons why US hegemony is having difficulties maintaining itself. However, it is yet far from the point at which it has defeated itself!
I wonder if the real defeat of US hegemony will not come when the economy enters depression and the military Keynesianism bubble that props up the economy begins to collapse.
America’s self-defeating hegemony —Francis Fukuyama
When I wrote about the “end of history” almost twenty years ago, one thing that I did not anticipate was the degree to which American behaviour and misjudgements would make anti-Americanism one of the chief fault-lines of global politics. And yet, particularly since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that is precisely what has happened, owing to four key mistakes made by the Bush administration.
First, the doctrine of “pre-emption,” which was devised in response to the 2001 attacks, was inappropriately broadened to include Iraq and other so-called “rogue states” that threatened to develop weapons of mass destruction. To be sure, pre-emption is fully justified vis-Ã -vis stateless terrorists wielding such weapons. But it cannot be the core of a general non-proliferation policy, whereby the United States intervenes militarily everywhere to prevent the development of nuclear weapons.
The cost of executing such a policy simply would be too high (several hundred billion dollars and tens of thousands of casualties in Iraq and still counting). This is why the Bush administration has shied away from military confrontations with North Korea and Iran, despite its veneration of Israel’s air strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, which set back Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program by several years. After all, the very success of that attack meant that such limited intervention could never be repeated, because would-be proliferators learned to bury, hide, or duplicate their nascent weapons programs.
The second important miscalculation concerned the likely global reaction to America’s exercise of its hegemonic power. Many people within the Bush administration believed that even without approval by the UN Security Council or NATO, American power would be legitimised by its successful use. This had been the pattern for many US initiatives during the Cold War, and in the Balkans during the 1990’s; back then, it was known as “leadership” rather than “unilateralism.”
But, by the time of the Iraq war, conditions had changed: the US had grown so powerful relative to the rest of the world that the lack of reciprocity became an intense source of irritation even to America’s closest allies. The structural anti-Americanism arising from the global distribution of power was evident well before the Iraq war, in the opposition to American-led globalisation during the Clinton years. But it was exacerbated by the Bush administration’s “in-your-face” disregard for a variety of international institutions as soon it came into office — a pattern that continued through the onset of the Iraq war.
America’s third mistake was to overestimate how effective conventional military power would be in dealing with the weak states and networked transnational organisations that characterise international politics, at least in the broader Middle East. It is worth pondering why a country with more military power than any other in human history, and that spends as much on its military as virtually the rest of the world combined, cannot bring security to a small country of 24 million people after more than three years of occupation. At least part of the problem is that it is dealing with complex social forces that are not organised into centralised hierarchies that can enforce rules, and thus be deterred, coerced, or otherwise manipulated through conventional power.
Israel made a similar mistake in thinking that it could use its enormous margin of conventional military power to destroy Hezbollah in last summer’s Lebanon War. Both Israel and the US are nostalgic for a twentieth-century world of nation-states, which is understandable, since that is the world to which the kind of conventional power they possess is best suited.
But nostalgia has led both states to misinterpret the challenges they now face, whether by linking al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, or Hezbollah to Iran and Syria. This linkage does exist in the case of Hezbollah, but the networked actors have their own social roots and are not simply pawns used by regional powers. This is why the exercise of conventional power has become frustrating.
Finally, the Bush administration’s use of power has lacked not only a compelling strategy or doctrine, but also simple competence. In Iraq alone, the administration misestimated the threat of WMD, failed to plan adequately for the occupation, and then proved unable to adjust quickly when things went wrong. To this day, it has dropped the ball on very straightforward operational issues in Iraq, such as funding democracy promotion efforts.
Incompetence in implementation has strategic consequences. Many of the voices that called for, and then bungled, military intervention in Iraq are now calling for war with Iran. Why should the rest of the world think that conflict with a larger and more resolute enemy would be handled any more capably?
But the fundamental problem remains the lopsided distribution of power in the international system. Any country in the same position as the US, even a democracy, would be tempted to exercise its hegemonic power with less and less restraint. America’s founding fathers were motivated by a similar belief that unchecked power, even when democratically legitimated, could be dangerous, which is why they created a constitutional system of internally separated powers to limit the executive.
Such a system does not exist on a global scale today, which may explain how America got into such trouble. A smoother international distribution of power, even in a global system that is less than fully democratic, would pose fewer temptations to abandon the prudent exercise of power.
Francis Fukuyama is Dean of the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, and Chairman of The American Interest, www.the-american-interest.com
I wonder if the real defeat of US hegemony will not come when the economy enters depression and the military Keynesianism bubble that props up the economy begins to collapse.
America’s self-defeating hegemony —Francis Fukuyama
When I wrote about the “end of history” almost twenty years ago, one thing that I did not anticipate was the degree to which American behaviour and misjudgements would make anti-Americanism one of the chief fault-lines of global politics. And yet, particularly since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that is precisely what has happened, owing to four key mistakes made by the Bush administration.
First, the doctrine of “pre-emption,” which was devised in response to the 2001 attacks, was inappropriately broadened to include Iraq and other so-called “rogue states” that threatened to develop weapons of mass destruction. To be sure, pre-emption is fully justified vis-Ã -vis stateless terrorists wielding such weapons. But it cannot be the core of a general non-proliferation policy, whereby the United States intervenes militarily everywhere to prevent the development of nuclear weapons.
The cost of executing such a policy simply would be too high (several hundred billion dollars and tens of thousands of casualties in Iraq and still counting). This is why the Bush administration has shied away from military confrontations with North Korea and Iran, despite its veneration of Israel’s air strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, which set back Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program by several years. After all, the very success of that attack meant that such limited intervention could never be repeated, because would-be proliferators learned to bury, hide, or duplicate their nascent weapons programs.
The second important miscalculation concerned the likely global reaction to America’s exercise of its hegemonic power. Many people within the Bush administration believed that even without approval by the UN Security Council or NATO, American power would be legitimised by its successful use. This had been the pattern for many US initiatives during the Cold War, and in the Balkans during the 1990’s; back then, it was known as “leadership” rather than “unilateralism.”
But, by the time of the Iraq war, conditions had changed: the US had grown so powerful relative to the rest of the world that the lack of reciprocity became an intense source of irritation even to America’s closest allies. The structural anti-Americanism arising from the global distribution of power was evident well before the Iraq war, in the opposition to American-led globalisation during the Clinton years. But it was exacerbated by the Bush administration’s “in-your-face” disregard for a variety of international institutions as soon it came into office — a pattern that continued through the onset of the Iraq war.
America’s third mistake was to overestimate how effective conventional military power would be in dealing with the weak states and networked transnational organisations that characterise international politics, at least in the broader Middle East. It is worth pondering why a country with more military power than any other in human history, and that spends as much on its military as virtually the rest of the world combined, cannot bring security to a small country of 24 million people after more than three years of occupation. At least part of the problem is that it is dealing with complex social forces that are not organised into centralised hierarchies that can enforce rules, and thus be deterred, coerced, or otherwise manipulated through conventional power.
Israel made a similar mistake in thinking that it could use its enormous margin of conventional military power to destroy Hezbollah in last summer’s Lebanon War. Both Israel and the US are nostalgic for a twentieth-century world of nation-states, which is understandable, since that is the world to which the kind of conventional power they possess is best suited.
But nostalgia has led both states to misinterpret the challenges they now face, whether by linking al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, or Hezbollah to Iran and Syria. This linkage does exist in the case of Hezbollah, but the networked actors have their own social roots and are not simply pawns used by regional powers. This is why the exercise of conventional power has become frustrating.
Finally, the Bush administration’s use of power has lacked not only a compelling strategy or doctrine, but also simple competence. In Iraq alone, the administration misestimated the threat of WMD, failed to plan adequately for the occupation, and then proved unable to adjust quickly when things went wrong. To this day, it has dropped the ball on very straightforward operational issues in Iraq, such as funding democracy promotion efforts.
Incompetence in implementation has strategic consequences. Many of the voices that called for, and then bungled, military intervention in Iraq are now calling for war with Iran. Why should the rest of the world think that conflict with a larger and more resolute enemy would be handled any more capably?
But the fundamental problem remains the lopsided distribution of power in the international system. Any country in the same position as the US, even a democracy, would be tempted to exercise its hegemonic power with less and less restraint. America’s founding fathers were motivated by a similar belief that unchecked power, even when democratically legitimated, could be dangerous, which is why they created a constitutional system of internally separated powers to limit the executive.
Such a system does not exist on a global scale today, which may explain how America got into such trouble. A smoother international distribution of power, even in a global system that is less than fully democratic, would pose fewer temptations to abandon the prudent exercise of power.
Francis Fukuyama is Dean of the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, and Chairman of The American Interest, www.the-american-interest.com
Syrian "Nukes"? Not so fast.
This is from this site. I really don't think that one can be sure of any of these stories. There was an attack but what it was on we really haven't much of a clue.
We have all sorts of stories. Many of the stories are designed to advance an agenda on the part of the US and Israel. None of the stories will point out that the attack was a clear violation of international law. Can you imagine if Syria carried out such an attack on Israeli nuclear facilities!
Syrian "Nukes"? Not So Fast...
By Noah Shachtman October 26, 2007 | 10:29:19
So what did the Israelis really blow up in the Syrian desert last month? The conventional wisdom says it was a partially-built nuclear reactor, maybe constructed with North Korean help. Arms Control Wonk Jeffrey Lewis isn't so sure.
The New York Times' Mark Mazzetti and Bill Broad have two very good stories on the suspect site in Syria — one placing the leaks about the site in context of Administration internal debates over North Korea; the other reporting on new satellite imagery showing that North Korea has wiped clean the site.
I am sitting in an airport, but I thought a few points bear mentioning:
Syria has long expressed a desire to have a nuclear reactor; North Korea would probably sell a reactor if the price was right. On face, the story is not implausible.
The pictures showed a large building near a river. That’s about it. If the building was a reactor, it was very far from completion. Absent reliable human intelligence, I see nothing that conclusively demonstrates the building was a reactor although IAEA inspections would have been decisive on this point.
Assuming it was a reactor, it is much too early to make design determinations based on imagery. Overhead identifications of reactors can, and are, often wrong as they were in the cases of Baotou — a fuel fabrication facility in China mistaken for a plutonium production reactor — and the gigantic North Korean whole in the ground that is Kumchang-ri. Intelligence Community estimates of the size and type of the Yongbyon reactor, at a comparable stage, were incorrect.
The people leaking are those dissatisfied with US policy. “A sharp debate is under way in the Bush administration,” Mazetti and Helene Cooper reported, about “whether intelligence that Israel presented months ago to the White House … was conclusive enough to justify military action by Israel and a possible rethinking of American policy toward the two nations.” Obviously, that rethinking hasn’t happened yet. The people who lost that debate are leaking national security information, appealing to the press. That is precisely why Hoekstra (R-MI) and Ros-Lehtinen called for more information — this is about North Korea, not Syria.
We haven’t heard from the people who, as Mazetti and Cooper reported, were “cautious about fully endorsing Israeli warnings” or “remain unconvinced that a nascent Syrian nuclear program could pose an immediate threat.” They might have important information to add, were they willing to leak it.
Syria has wiped the site clean — a move that The Institute for Science and International Security's David Albright and Paul Brannan note “dramatically complicates any inspection of the facilities.” What ever Damascus may have been doing, we’re much less likely to know, now. One of the best reasons for pressing for inspections at the site, rather than bombing it, is to get answers to the questions about what the site was and how it got there. After Israeli bombed Osirak in 1981, Iraq simply continued its nuclear weapons program in secret. It was not the bombing of Osirak, but rather UN inspections, which eventually disarmed Saddam Hussein.
In short, we don’t know what the site was, what (or who) survived the strike, and where it is now.
-- Jeffrey Lewis, cross-posted at ArmsControlWonk.com
We have all sorts of stories. Many of the stories are designed to advance an agenda on the part of the US and Israel. None of the stories will point out that the attack was a clear violation of international law. Can you imagine if Syria carried out such an attack on Israeli nuclear facilities!
Syrian "Nukes"? Not So Fast...
By Noah Shachtman October 26, 2007 | 10:29:19
So what did the Israelis really blow up in the Syrian desert last month? The conventional wisdom says it was a partially-built nuclear reactor, maybe constructed with North Korean help. Arms Control Wonk Jeffrey Lewis isn't so sure.
The New York Times' Mark Mazzetti and Bill Broad have two very good stories on the suspect site in Syria — one placing the leaks about the site in context of Administration internal debates over North Korea; the other reporting on new satellite imagery showing that North Korea has wiped clean the site.
I am sitting in an airport, but I thought a few points bear mentioning:
Syria has long expressed a desire to have a nuclear reactor; North Korea would probably sell a reactor if the price was right. On face, the story is not implausible.
The pictures showed a large building near a river. That’s about it. If the building was a reactor, it was very far from completion. Absent reliable human intelligence, I see nothing that conclusively demonstrates the building was a reactor although IAEA inspections would have been decisive on this point.
Assuming it was a reactor, it is much too early to make design determinations based on imagery. Overhead identifications of reactors can, and are, often wrong as they were in the cases of Baotou — a fuel fabrication facility in China mistaken for a plutonium production reactor — and the gigantic North Korean whole in the ground that is Kumchang-ri. Intelligence Community estimates of the size and type of the Yongbyon reactor, at a comparable stage, were incorrect.
The people leaking are those dissatisfied with US policy. “A sharp debate is under way in the Bush administration,” Mazetti and Helene Cooper reported, about “whether intelligence that Israel presented months ago to the White House … was conclusive enough to justify military action by Israel and a possible rethinking of American policy toward the two nations.” Obviously, that rethinking hasn’t happened yet. The people who lost that debate are leaking national security information, appealing to the press. That is precisely why Hoekstra (R-MI) and Ros-Lehtinen called for more information — this is about North Korea, not Syria.
We haven’t heard from the people who, as Mazetti and Cooper reported, were “cautious about fully endorsing Israeli warnings” or “remain unconvinced that a nascent Syrian nuclear program could pose an immediate threat.” They might have important information to add, were they willing to leak it.
Syria has wiped the site clean — a move that The Institute for Science and International Security's David Albright and Paul Brannan note “dramatically complicates any inspection of the facilities.” What ever Damascus may have been doing, we’re much less likely to know, now. One of the best reasons for pressing for inspections at the site, rather than bombing it, is to get answers to the questions about what the site was and how it got there. After Israeli bombed Osirak in 1981, Iraq simply continued its nuclear weapons program in secret. It was not the bombing of Osirak, but rather UN inspections, which eventually disarmed Saddam Hussein.
In short, we don’t know what the site was, what (or who) survived the strike, and where it is now.
-- Jeffrey Lewis, cross-posted at ArmsControlWonk.com
Cause of Glorietta Mall explosion still uncertain
This is from the Manila Times. It seems likely that the blast was accidental. It always did to me but it certainly is taking a long time to be certain. At least this article explains why the police found traces of a military type explosive. However, there is also a sceptical account of the accident explanation. One wonders about the skills of investigators.
Police: Glorietta 2 mall
explosion ‘likely accidental’
MALACAÑANG officials said there is a “high” probability that last Friday’s blast at the Glorietta 2 mall in Makati City was an accident.
The Philippine National Police (PNP) on Tuesday presented to the National Security Council the results of its investigations at a meeting convened by President Gloria Arroyo, four days after the explosion.
Despite the Glorietta incident, the country’s economic growth is expected to remain strong, driven mainly by consumption growth this year. The peso also strengthened further while the stock market index climbed, apparently shaking off the initial woes caused by the bombing.
Mrs. Arroyo also ordered the strengthening of antiterror and security measures to ensure the public’s safety.
The Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno, concurrently presidential political adviser, said police report showed a “high certainty” that the blast was not planned. Investigators, however, have not dismissed the bombing angle, although their findings showed otherwise.
The investigators said they are waiting for the result of a separate probe by forensic experts before they can conclude that a bomb did not cause the explosion.
Police bomb experts over the weekend detected from the blast site the presence of RDX, a component used to produce C-4, or military plastic explosives.
Puno, however, said it is too early to conclude that the RDX came from a bomb, since that chemical is also an ingredient in items such as aerosol and cosmetics. Police are yet to recover other bomb components from the site.
Puno said a hole found in the mall’s diesel storage tank reinforces the theory that the explosion was not a deliberate act. Also, an explosion caused by a bomb should have left a large crater at the site.
Earlier, a police official said they had received information, which they are still verifying, that the air vent at the basement could have been accidentally closed, which caused the trapping of a volatile gas, such as methane, emanating from the septic tank or pipes.
Accident angle doubted
A chemical engineering professor from the University of the Philippines-Diliman said it is impossible that the explosion that rocked Glorietta 2 was caused by methane and diesel.
During an interview with the TV network ABS-CBN, Dr. Wilfredo Jose of the Chemical Engineering Department said diesel doesn’t explode easily, and will ignite only if it is subjected to heat measuring 200 degrees Celsius.
Jose also doubted that methane that leaked from the septic tank and pipes caused the “blast wave.”
Police: Glorietta 2 mall
explosion ‘likely accidental’
MALACAÑANG officials said there is a “high” probability that last Friday’s blast at the Glorietta 2 mall in Makati City was an accident.
The Philippine National Police (PNP) on Tuesday presented to the National Security Council the results of its investigations at a meeting convened by President Gloria Arroyo, four days after the explosion.
Despite the Glorietta incident, the country’s economic growth is expected to remain strong, driven mainly by consumption growth this year. The peso also strengthened further while the stock market index climbed, apparently shaking off the initial woes caused by the bombing.
Mrs. Arroyo also ordered the strengthening of antiterror and security measures to ensure the public’s safety.
The Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno, concurrently presidential political adviser, said police report showed a “high certainty” that the blast was not planned. Investigators, however, have not dismissed the bombing angle, although their findings showed otherwise.
The investigators said they are waiting for the result of a separate probe by forensic experts before they can conclude that a bomb did not cause the explosion.
Police bomb experts over the weekend detected from the blast site the presence of RDX, a component used to produce C-4, or military plastic explosives.
Puno, however, said it is too early to conclude that the RDX came from a bomb, since that chemical is also an ingredient in items such as aerosol and cosmetics. Police are yet to recover other bomb components from the site.
Puno said a hole found in the mall’s diesel storage tank reinforces the theory that the explosion was not a deliberate act. Also, an explosion caused by a bomb should have left a large crater at the site.
Earlier, a police official said they had received information, which they are still verifying, that the air vent at the basement could have been accidentally closed, which caused the trapping of a volatile gas, such as methane, emanating from the septic tank or pipes.
Accident angle doubted
A chemical engineering professor from the University of the Philippines-Diliman said it is impossible that the explosion that rocked Glorietta 2 was caused by methane and diesel.
During an interview with the TV network ABS-CBN, Dr. Wilfredo Jose of the Chemical Engineering Department said diesel doesn’t explode easily, and will ignite only if it is subjected to heat measuring 200 degrees Celsius.
Jose also doubted that methane that leaked from the septic tank and pipes caused the “blast wave.”
Friday, October 26, 2007
Turkey Demands PKK extradition
Imagine the US is in a war on terrorism and in territory occupied by it, it refuses to do attack a group it categorises as terrorists or even demand they leave! Does the US think that Turkey is going to sit on its hands forever! As Chomsky has shown there are different kinds of terrorists. These are the kind who are not applauded but are tolerated.
Turkey demands PKK extradition
By Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press Writer
Published: 27 October 2007
The US military commander in northern Iraq said yesterday he plans to do "absolutely nothing" to counter Kurdish rebels who are staging deadly cross-border attacks into neighboring Turkey.
It was the most blunt assertion yet by an American official in the last few weeks that US forces should not be involved in the fight. The Bush administration has said repeatedly that the border crisis should be resolved through diplomacy.
Turkey's top military commander said Friday that Turkish leaders will wait until its prime minister visits Washington before deciding whether to mount a cross-border offensive into northern Iraq.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan meets President George W. Bush in Washington on Nov. 5.
"The armed forces will carry out a cross-border offensive when assigned," private NTV quoted Gen. Yasar Buyukanit as saying. "Prime Minister Erdogan's visit to the United States is very important. We will wait for his return."
Turkey's deputy prime minister, Cemil Cicek, said the government had demanded the extradition of Kurdish rebel leaders based in Iraq's north. During talks with a visiting Iraqi delegation, Turkish war planes and helicopters reportedly bombed separatist hideouts within the country's borders.
Turkey's state-run Anatolia news agency reported Turkish airstrikes on suspected rebel positions Friday and Ankara has threatened a large-scale offensive into Iraq if US and Iraqi authorities don't stop the rebels. On Friday, Iraq and Turkish officials held the latest in a series of diplomatic meetings aimed at ending the standoff.
Asked what the US military was planning to do, Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon said: "Absolutely nothing."
Mixon said it is not his responsibility, that he has sent no additional US troops to the border area and he is not tracking hiding places or logistics activities of rebels from the Kurdistan Workers' Party, known by its Kurdish acronym PKK.
Turkey demands PKK extradition
By Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press Writer
Published: 27 October 2007
The US military commander in northern Iraq said yesterday he plans to do "absolutely nothing" to counter Kurdish rebels who are staging deadly cross-border attacks into neighboring Turkey.
It was the most blunt assertion yet by an American official in the last few weeks that US forces should not be involved in the fight. The Bush administration has said repeatedly that the border crisis should be resolved through diplomacy.
Turkey's top military commander said Friday that Turkish leaders will wait until its prime minister visits Washington before deciding whether to mount a cross-border offensive into northern Iraq.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan meets President George W. Bush in Washington on Nov. 5.
"The armed forces will carry out a cross-border offensive when assigned," private NTV quoted Gen. Yasar Buyukanit as saying. "Prime Minister Erdogan's visit to the United States is very important. We will wait for his return."
Turkey's deputy prime minister, Cemil Cicek, said the government had demanded the extradition of Kurdish rebel leaders based in Iraq's north. During talks with a visiting Iraqi delegation, Turkish war planes and helicopters reportedly bombed separatist hideouts within the country's borders.
Turkey's state-run Anatolia news agency reported Turkish airstrikes on suspected rebel positions Friday and Ankara has threatened a large-scale offensive into Iraq if US and Iraqi authorities don't stop the rebels. On Friday, Iraq and Turkish officials held the latest in a series of diplomatic meetings aimed at ending the standoff.
Asked what the US military was planning to do, Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon said: "Absolutely nothing."
Mixon said it is not his responsibility, that he has sent no additional US troops to the border area and he is not tracking hiding places or logistics activities of rebels from the Kurdistan Workers' Party, known by its Kurdish acronym PKK.
Pipeline Attack in Northern Iraq
This is from the NYtimes.
This shows that conflict in Iraq may be shifting to different locations including Kirkuk. If the Kurds don't act soon against the PKK they will face a Turkish incursion against PKK bases in northern Iraq.
Pipeline Attack in Northern Iraq
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and QAIS MIZHER
Published: October 20, 2007
BAGHDAD, Oct. 19 — In the latest bout of violence around the northern oil city of Kirkuk, insurgents blew up an oil pipeline, battled a convoy carrying bodyguards of a deputy prime minister and ambushed a police chief, Iraqi officials said on Friday.
Meanwhile, a top Kurdish leader issued a statement vowing to “defend” Iraqi Kurdistan from potential attacks by the Turkish Army.
The violence on Friday underscored the continued instability of the area surrounding Kirkuk, where some Sunni insurgents fled earlier this year from strongholds in Baghdad and Baquba after increased American troop deployments in central Iraq.
The deputy prime minister, Barham Salih, a Kurd, was not in the convoy, according to an Iraqi security official in Kirkuk. But the ambush and fighting, which took place 60 miles south of Kirkuk, left one member of the convoy dead and another wounded, according to an official from Mr. Salih’s office.
Farther north, one of Kurdistan’s two most powerful leaders warned Turkey that Kurds would defend themselves against an invasion. The statement, by Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, reiterated in stronger terms previous admonitions by Kurdish leaders that Turkish forces should not cross into Iraqi Kurdistan to drive out Kurdish guerrillas who use mountain bases as safe havens after attacks inside Turkey.
A spokesman for the Kurdish Regional Government quoted a statement by Mr. Barzani as saying, “If the Turkish Army attacks Kurdistan, we are ready to defend the Kurdistan Regional Government and protect the democracy that Kurdish people live under.”
While American officials continue to highlight recent gains against Sunni extremists in western and central Iraq, there are concerns that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and other homegrown jihadist groups may be in a position to gain power around Kirkuk by exploiting the city’s tense social and political situation. In one example of that influence, the police near Kirkuk recently discovered a couple carrying a marriage license issued by the Islamic State of Iraq, a militant group linked with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
The Kurds are intent on consolidating their control of Kirkuk, and many Sunni Arabs resettled there by Saddam Hussein now feel threatened, spawning fears that they will collaborate with extremists.
That is what happened in Baquba last year after government leaders in Baghdad appointed highly sectarian Shiites to command security forces in Diyala Province, a move that emboldened Sunni guerrillas to take control of the city.
In another attack 30 miles west of Kirkuk, gunmen ambushed the convoy carrying the Iraqi police commander of the town of Riyadh, Capt. Abdullah Jabouri, according to the police in nearby Hawija. Captain Jabouri escaped, the police said, but two guards were seriously wounded.
The pipeline was attacked near the village of Safra, about 40 miles west of Kirkuk. Initial reports suggested that insurgents used an improvised explosive device, said Col. Sadr Adeen Abdullah of the Iraqi Army. The explosion sent plumes of thick black smoke drifting all the way to Kirkuk, he said.
The United States military command in Baghdad reported the deaths of two American soldiers. One soldier died from a “noncombat-related illness” Wednesday after being flown to a military hospital in Germany. Another soldier was killed Thursday by an insurgent attack in southern Baghdad.
Also Friday, one of Iraq’s most influential Sunni politicians, Adnan al-Dulaimi, became the latest Iraqi leader to demand that the former defense minister, Sultan Hashem Ahmed, be given a stay of execution. Mr. Ahmed was convicted of war crimes and genocide for his role in Mr. Hussein’s 1988 attacks on the Kurds. But many Iraqi officials believe that he was an honorable military officer.
Mr. Ahmed and Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as Chemical Ali, are to be hanged once the American military turns them over to Iraqi officials. American officials say they are waiting for Iraq to resolve an internal legal dispute about the two men. Late Friday, an American spokesman said both men were in American custody “with no scheduled date for transfer.”
This shows that conflict in Iraq may be shifting to different locations including Kirkuk. If the Kurds don't act soon against the PKK they will face a Turkish incursion against PKK bases in northern Iraq.
Pipeline Attack in Northern Iraq
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and QAIS MIZHER
Published: October 20, 2007
BAGHDAD, Oct. 19 — In the latest bout of violence around the northern oil city of Kirkuk, insurgents blew up an oil pipeline, battled a convoy carrying bodyguards of a deputy prime minister and ambushed a police chief, Iraqi officials said on Friday.
Meanwhile, a top Kurdish leader issued a statement vowing to “defend” Iraqi Kurdistan from potential attacks by the Turkish Army.
The violence on Friday underscored the continued instability of the area surrounding Kirkuk, where some Sunni insurgents fled earlier this year from strongholds in Baghdad and Baquba after increased American troop deployments in central Iraq.
The deputy prime minister, Barham Salih, a Kurd, was not in the convoy, according to an Iraqi security official in Kirkuk. But the ambush and fighting, which took place 60 miles south of Kirkuk, left one member of the convoy dead and another wounded, according to an official from Mr. Salih’s office.
Farther north, one of Kurdistan’s two most powerful leaders warned Turkey that Kurds would defend themselves against an invasion. The statement, by Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, reiterated in stronger terms previous admonitions by Kurdish leaders that Turkish forces should not cross into Iraqi Kurdistan to drive out Kurdish guerrillas who use mountain bases as safe havens after attacks inside Turkey.
A spokesman for the Kurdish Regional Government quoted a statement by Mr. Barzani as saying, “If the Turkish Army attacks Kurdistan, we are ready to defend the Kurdistan Regional Government and protect the democracy that Kurdish people live under.”
While American officials continue to highlight recent gains against Sunni extremists in western and central Iraq, there are concerns that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and other homegrown jihadist groups may be in a position to gain power around Kirkuk by exploiting the city’s tense social and political situation. In one example of that influence, the police near Kirkuk recently discovered a couple carrying a marriage license issued by the Islamic State of Iraq, a militant group linked with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
The Kurds are intent on consolidating their control of Kirkuk, and many Sunni Arabs resettled there by Saddam Hussein now feel threatened, spawning fears that they will collaborate with extremists.
That is what happened in Baquba last year after government leaders in Baghdad appointed highly sectarian Shiites to command security forces in Diyala Province, a move that emboldened Sunni guerrillas to take control of the city.
In another attack 30 miles west of Kirkuk, gunmen ambushed the convoy carrying the Iraqi police commander of the town of Riyadh, Capt. Abdullah Jabouri, according to the police in nearby Hawija. Captain Jabouri escaped, the police said, but two guards were seriously wounded.
The pipeline was attacked near the village of Safra, about 40 miles west of Kirkuk. Initial reports suggested that insurgents used an improvised explosive device, said Col. Sadr Adeen Abdullah of the Iraqi Army. The explosion sent plumes of thick black smoke drifting all the way to Kirkuk, he said.
The United States military command in Baghdad reported the deaths of two American soldiers. One soldier died from a “noncombat-related illness” Wednesday after being flown to a military hospital in Germany. Another soldier was killed Thursday by an insurgent attack in southern Baghdad.
Also Friday, one of Iraq’s most influential Sunni politicians, Adnan al-Dulaimi, became the latest Iraqi leader to demand that the former defense minister, Sultan Hashem Ahmed, be given a stay of execution. Mr. Ahmed was convicted of war crimes and genocide for his role in Mr. Hussein’s 1988 attacks on the Kurds. But many Iraqi officials believe that he was an honorable military officer.
Mr. Ahmed and Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as Chemical Ali, are to be hanged once the American military turns them over to Iraqi officials. American officials say they are waiting for Iraq to resolve an internal legal dispute about the two men. Late Friday, an American spokesman said both men were in American custody “with no scheduled date for transfer.”
Wal-mart good at state tax avoidance
This shows how Wal-mart can hire high priced tax avoidance helpers to lower its tax burden. Of course small business will not be able to avail itself of such help. It means of course that states must find their funds elsewhere. Sometimes fortunately it seems the high risk strategies get them caught and they have to pay.
This Wall Street Journal article describes how Wal-Mart is able to pay
about half as
much state tax as a typical corporation.
Drucker, Jesse. 2007. "Inside Wal-Mart's Bid To Slash State Taxes."
Wall Street
Journal (23 October): p. A 1.
"In May 2001, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. issued an appeal to big accounting
firms: Find us
creative new ways to cut our state tax bills. Ernst & Young LLP swung
into action.
Senior tax experts at the big accounting firm swapped ideas via email
and in a series
of meetings. At least one gathering, according to an internal Ernst &
Young calendar,
took place in Wal-Mart's headquarters in the "Tax Shelter Room"."
"Big companies hardly ever discuss how outside accountants, lawyers and
investment
bankers help them cut their tax bills. But Ernst & Young's
contributions to
Wal-Mart's state-tax minimization project are outlined in a raft of
documents filed
in recent months in North Carolina state court, where the state's
attorney general is
challenging a Wal-Mart tax-cutting structure involving real-estate
investment trusts.
The material, which includes company emails and memos, provides a rare
window into
accountants' role in generating tax-reduction ideas at one major
company."
"Companies often assert that tax savings are simply happy byproducts of
transactions
pursued for other business reasons. But documents from the North
Carolina case
indicate that Wal-Mart, from the outset, had one primary purpose:
cutting its state
income taxes. Ernst & Young worked to fulfill that goal. In 2002, for
example, the
accounting firm delivered a 37-page proposal laying out a smorgasbord
of 27 potential
tax strategies, most tailored to a particular state's tax code. It
described one of
them as "a very aggressive strategy with considerable risk."
"Publicly traded companies reduced their federal income taxes by about
$12 billion in
2004 through potentially abusive tax transactions, according to
Internal Revenue
Service data. Some experts say companies save far more than that each
year through
elaborate tax-cutting maneuvers."
"Wal-Mart's 2001 letter to accounting firms got right to the point. It
began:
"Wal-Mart is requesting your proposal(s) for professional tax advice
and related
implementation services in connection with minimization of state income
taxes in the
following states: Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan,
Minnesota, and Pennsylvania"."
"State income-tax rates for corporations average about 6.9%, and come
on top of a
federal statutory rate of 35%. Tax rates vary from state to state, and
some states
have no corporate tax at all on certain income. That provides ample
opportunity for
so-called tax arbitrage, in which companies allocate expenses and
revenues between
states in order to minimize taxes owed."
"On average, Wal-Mart has paid taxes at a rate equal to about half of
the average
statutory state rate over the past decade, according to an analysis of
the company's
regulatory filings by Standard & Poor's Compustat."
"In the early 1990s, it employed an "intangibles holding company," a
unit operating
in tax-friendly Delaware into which it transferred ownership of its
brand names such
as Sam's Club. It then made payments to that unit for use of those
brands, deducting
them as expenses from its taxable income in other states, according to
court records.
That strategy fell out of favor after several states successfully
challenged Wal-Mart
and other companies in court over the maneuver."
"Wal-Mart set aside about $526 million for state and local income taxes
last year,
not including its substantial property-tax bills, according to the
company's
financial reports. But its various state tax-cutting strategies seem
to have had an
impact. On average, Wal-Mart has paid taxes at a rate equal to about
half of the
average statutory state rate over the past decade, according to an
analysis of the
company's regulatory filings by Standard & Poor's Compustat."
"After Wal-Mart hired the firm in 1996 ..., an Ernst & Young tax
executive urged his
team to be discreet, according to a staff memo included in North
Carolina court
records. "We don't think there is much the state taxing authorities can
do to
mitigate these savings to Wal-Mart, however some states might attempt
something if
they had advance notification," he wrote. "We think the best course of
action is to
keep the project relatively quiet .... there just seems to be too many
opportunities
for it to get out to the press or financial community and we all know
they are
difficult to control, particularly when we are dealing with a client as
well-known as
Wal-Mart"."
"David Bullington, Wal-Mart's vice president for tax policy, said in a
deposition
that he began feeling pressure to lower the company's effective tax
rate after the
current chief financial officer, Thomas Schoewe, was hired in 2000. Mr.
Schoewe was
familiar with "some very sophisticated and aggressive tax planning,"
Mr. Bullington
said, according to a transcript of the deposition, taken by the North
Carolina
attorney general's office in July. "And he ride herds [sic] on us all
the time that
we have the world's highest tax rate of any major company"."
"As Ernst & Young worked on its proposals, one high-ranking tax partner
sent an email
to a colleague addressing a concern often faced by companies: how to
describe a
tax-driven transaction in a way that won't create problems later on
with tax
authorities. "You asked if we have a document that details how the tax
savings will
work, how much they will save .... We really don't have anything like
that except
for the sales document, partly because we have avoided calling this a
'tax' project,
to show that we did not have a tax savings motivation, rather it is a
'domestic
restructuring' project," he wrote."
"As for Wal-Mart's "Tax Shelter Room," North Carolina officials asked
Mr. Bullington
about the odd name. In his deposition, the Wal-Mart vice president said
the moniker
was "a bit of a pun," stemming from the conference room's use by
tax-department
employees to conduct safety drills for natural disasters such as
tornadoes."
--
This Wall Street Journal article describes how Wal-Mart is able to pay
about half as
much state tax as a typical corporation.
Drucker, Jesse. 2007. "Inside Wal-Mart's Bid To Slash State Taxes."
Wall Street
Journal (23 October): p. A 1.
"In May 2001, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. issued an appeal to big accounting
firms: Find us
creative new ways to cut our state tax bills. Ernst & Young LLP swung
into action.
Senior tax experts at the big accounting firm swapped ideas via email
and in a series
of meetings. At least one gathering, according to an internal Ernst &
Young calendar,
took place in Wal-Mart's headquarters in the "Tax Shelter Room"."
"Big companies hardly ever discuss how outside accountants, lawyers and
investment
bankers help them cut their tax bills. But Ernst & Young's
contributions to
Wal-Mart's state-tax minimization project are outlined in a raft of
documents filed
in recent months in North Carolina state court, where the state's
attorney general is
challenging a Wal-Mart tax-cutting structure involving real-estate
investment trusts.
The material, which includes company emails and memos, provides a rare
window into
accountants' role in generating tax-reduction ideas at one major
company."
"Companies often assert that tax savings are simply happy byproducts of
transactions
pursued for other business reasons. But documents from the North
Carolina case
indicate that Wal-Mart, from the outset, had one primary purpose:
cutting its state
income taxes. Ernst & Young worked to fulfill that goal. In 2002, for
example, the
accounting firm delivered a 37-page proposal laying out a smorgasbord
of 27 potential
tax strategies, most tailored to a particular state's tax code. It
described one of
them as "a very aggressive strategy with considerable risk."
"Publicly traded companies reduced their federal income taxes by about
$12 billion in
2004 through potentially abusive tax transactions, according to
Internal Revenue
Service data. Some experts say companies save far more than that each
year through
elaborate tax-cutting maneuvers."
"Wal-Mart's 2001 letter to accounting firms got right to the point. It
began:
"Wal-Mart is requesting your proposal(s) for professional tax advice
and related
implementation services in connection with minimization of state income
taxes in the
following states: Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan,
Minnesota, and Pennsylvania"."
"State income-tax rates for corporations average about 6.9%, and come
on top of a
federal statutory rate of 35%. Tax rates vary from state to state, and
some states
have no corporate tax at all on certain income. That provides ample
opportunity for
so-called tax arbitrage, in which companies allocate expenses and
revenues between
states in order to minimize taxes owed."
"On average, Wal-Mart has paid taxes at a rate equal to about half of
the average
statutory state rate over the past decade, according to an analysis of
the company's
regulatory filings by Standard & Poor's Compustat."
"In the early 1990s, it employed an "intangibles holding company," a
unit operating
in tax-friendly Delaware into which it transferred ownership of its
brand names such
as Sam's Club. It then made payments to that unit for use of those
brands, deducting
them as expenses from its taxable income in other states, according to
court records.
That strategy fell out of favor after several states successfully
challenged Wal-Mart
and other companies in court over the maneuver."
"Wal-Mart set aside about $526 million for state and local income taxes
last year,
not including its substantial property-tax bills, according to the
company's
financial reports. But its various state tax-cutting strategies seem
to have had an
impact. On average, Wal-Mart has paid taxes at a rate equal to about
half of the
average statutory state rate over the past decade, according to an
analysis of the
company's regulatory filings by Standard & Poor's Compustat."
"After Wal-Mart hired the firm in 1996 ..., an Ernst & Young tax
executive urged his
team to be discreet, according to a staff memo included in North
Carolina court
records. "We don't think there is much the state taxing authorities can
do to
mitigate these savings to Wal-Mart, however some states might attempt
something if
they had advance notification," he wrote. "We think the best course of
action is to
keep the project relatively quiet .... there just seems to be too many
opportunities
for it to get out to the press or financial community and we all know
they are
difficult to control, particularly when we are dealing with a client as
well-known as
Wal-Mart"."
"David Bullington, Wal-Mart's vice president for tax policy, said in a
deposition
that he began feeling pressure to lower the company's effective tax
rate after the
current chief financial officer, Thomas Schoewe, was hired in 2000. Mr.
Schoewe was
familiar with "some very sophisticated and aggressive tax planning,"
Mr. Bullington
said, according to a transcript of the deposition, taken by the North
Carolina
attorney general's office in July. "And he ride herds [sic] on us all
the time that
we have the world's highest tax rate of any major company"."
"As Ernst & Young worked on its proposals, one high-ranking tax partner
sent an email
to a colleague addressing a concern often faced by companies: how to
describe a
tax-driven transaction in a way that won't create problems later on
with tax
authorities. "You asked if we have a document that details how the tax
savings will
work, how much they will save .... We really don't have anything like
that except
for the sales document, partly because we have avoided calling this a
'tax' project,
to show that we did not have a tax savings motivation, rather it is a
'domestic
restructuring' project," he wrote."
"As for Wal-Mart's "Tax Shelter Room," North Carolina officials asked
Mr. Bullington
about the odd name. In his deposition, the Wal-Mart vice president said
the moniker
was "a bit of a pun," stemming from the conference room's use by
tax-department
employees to conduct safety drills for natural disasters such as
tornadoes."
--
Iran condemns 'doomed' sanctions
The US seems determined to create a new cold war. Iran is being forced into the arms of Russia and China. Blocking financial dealings with the US and allies will force the development of stronger financial dealings with China and Russia and certainly Iran will no longer deal with the dollar in its oil sales. Other countries will balk at the control that the US is attempting to exert through its global influence on financial institutions..
This is from the Guardian.
Iran condemns 'doomed' sanctions
Ewen MacAskill in Washington, Fred Attewill and agencies
Friday October 26, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Iran has issued a defiant response to the harshest sanctions imposed on it by the United States since the 1979 Islamist revolution, saying the measures are "doomed to failure".
The head of the revolutionary guard, branded a "proliferator of weapons of mass destruction", said the sanctions would only drive the corps to defend the "ideals of the revolution more than ever before".
The US under-secretary of state, Nicholas Burns, conceded that past sanctions, in place since 1984, had done little to constrict the growth of Iran's trade with other countries, in particular China and Russia.
"They [China] are now the number one trade partner with Iran. It's very difficult for countries to say we're striking out on our own when they've got their own policies on the military side, aiding and abetting the Iranian government in strengthening its own military," he told the BBC.
Mr Burns said the US still hoped Russia and China would approve a third UN security council resolution imposing new sanctions next month.
Israel, a strong supporter of the US action, said today its foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, would travel to Beijing this weekend to lobby for harsher UN sanctions on Iran.
However, China warned today that "sanctions should not be lightly imposed in international relations".
"Dialogue and negotiations are the best approach to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue," the foreign ministry said.
"To impose new sanctions on Iran at a time when international society and the Iranian authorities are working hard to find a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue can only complicate the issue."
The response of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, was more scathing. He said sanctions made a negotiated settlement harder.
"Why worsen the situation by threatening sanctions and bring it to a dead end?" he said. "It's not the best way to resolve the situation, by running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand."
The US measures target the 125,000-strong Iranian revolutionary guard (IRG), one of the best-resourced parts of the country's military, with its own tanks and planes. It also owns hotels, oil companies and other businesses.
Many analysts believe it is highly unlikely China or Russia will allow further UN sanctions to be imposed on Iran.
The Bush administration went a step further with the IRG's elite Quds division, responsible for covert actions abroad, labelling it a terrorist organisation, the first time a country's military has been put on America's terrorist list. The US says the Quds division, numbering about 15,000, is involved with Lebanon's Hizbullah and groups elsewhere in the Middle East.
Making the announcement at a press conference, the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said the punitive moves were intended "to confront the threatening behaviour of the Iranians". The sanctions and other steps would "increase the costs to Iran of its irresponsible behaviour".
The administration also imposed sanctions on three Iranian state-owned banks: the banks Melli and Mellat, for alleged arms proliferation, and Bank Saderat, which was labelled "a terrorist financier".
In addition to the IRG and the banks, eight individuals and several other companies are covered by the sanctions. The measures have long been threatened and Tehran responded by saying they would have no more success than in the past.
Mohammad Ali Hosseini, a spokesman for the foreign ministry, said: "The hostile American policies towards the respectable people of Iran and the country's legal institutions are contrary to international law, without value and, as in the past, doomed to failure."
He called the Bush administration's accusation that Iran was arming Shia militants in Iraq "ridiculous".
The revolutionary guard, which has huge business interests in businesses including cars, oil and newspapers, is thought to control up to a third of the Iranian economy.
But some analysts believe the unilateral measures will have little effect in isolating Iran - and still less in changing its policy. Selig Harrison, of the Centre for International Policy, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I don't think these will be very effective. Arab traders in Dubai thumb their noses up when people say you shouldn't trade with Iran. A lot of Iran's foreign trade hasn't been affected."
There have also been claims that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be strengthened by the sanctions.
"Hardliners in Tehran were looking forward to the sanctions. It helps them hide their incompetence behind the embargo," said the political commentator Saeed Laylaz. However, other observers say the measures could weaken Mr Ahmadinejad, leaving him open to charges that his stance is pushing the US into punishing the country and damaging its already fragile economy.
The sanctions package, combined with the sending of a second US carrier group to the Gulf earlier this year, is aimed primarily at containing Iran, which has been expanding its influence in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It is also intended to force Tehran to stop its alleged attempts to develop a nuclear bomb and end its alleged supply of weapons to Iraqi militia groups.
Ms Rice, who has had to withstand pressure from within the Bush administration for military action, insisted she remained committed to the diplomatic route. But she said: "Unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon, building dangerous ballistic missiles, supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israel off the map."
The US president, George Bush, has said repeatedly that a military strike is an option.
As part of a multibillion-dollar request for more military spending earlier this week, the Pentagon asked for $88m (£43m) to develop the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a huge bunker-busting bomb, for its Stealth bombers. The Bush administration said the bomb was needed "in response to an urgent operational need for theatre commanders".
Democratic members of Congress questioned whether the weapon was intended for use against Iran, where nuclear facilities are largely hidden underground.
Jim Moran, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives defence spending committee, said: "My assumption is that it is Iran, because you wouldn't use them in Iraq, and I don't know where you would use them in Afghanistan. It doesn't have any weapons facilities underground that we know of."
The immediate impact of the sanctions announcement will be felt in the boardrooms of banks and companies in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. Any business continuing to trade with Iran risks US reprisals.
The sanctions make it illegal for any US citizen to knowingly provide material support or resources to the Quds division. As the US has had few links with Iran since 1979, this is mainly academic. The impact will be felt by non-American companies that have business interests in the US and Iran.
The US treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, who accompanied Ms Rice at the press conference, said: "It is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran, you are doing business [with the Iranian revolutionary guard corps]. It's simply not worth the risk."
European governments, including Britain, are discussing whether to also designate the Quds division a terrorist organisation, though the legal definition and the process of designating groups as terrorist is different to that in the US.
This is from the Guardian.
Iran condemns 'doomed' sanctions
Ewen MacAskill in Washington, Fred Attewill and agencies
Friday October 26, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Iran has issued a defiant response to the harshest sanctions imposed on it by the United States since the 1979 Islamist revolution, saying the measures are "doomed to failure".
The head of the revolutionary guard, branded a "proliferator of weapons of mass destruction", said the sanctions would only drive the corps to defend the "ideals of the revolution more than ever before".
The US under-secretary of state, Nicholas Burns, conceded that past sanctions, in place since 1984, had done little to constrict the growth of Iran's trade with other countries, in particular China and Russia.
"They [China] are now the number one trade partner with Iran. It's very difficult for countries to say we're striking out on our own when they've got their own policies on the military side, aiding and abetting the Iranian government in strengthening its own military," he told the BBC.
Mr Burns said the US still hoped Russia and China would approve a third UN security council resolution imposing new sanctions next month.
Israel, a strong supporter of the US action, said today its foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, would travel to Beijing this weekend to lobby for harsher UN sanctions on Iran.
However, China warned today that "sanctions should not be lightly imposed in international relations".
"Dialogue and negotiations are the best approach to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue," the foreign ministry said.
"To impose new sanctions on Iran at a time when international society and the Iranian authorities are working hard to find a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue can only complicate the issue."
The response of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, was more scathing. He said sanctions made a negotiated settlement harder.
"Why worsen the situation by threatening sanctions and bring it to a dead end?" he said. "It's not the best way to resolve the situation, by running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand."
The US measures target the 125,000-strong Iranian revolutionary guard (IRG), one of the best-resourced parts of the country's military, with its own tanks and planes. It also owns hotels, oil companies and other businesses.
Many analysts believe it is highly unlikely China or Russia will allow further UN sanctions to be imposed on Iran.
The Bush administration went a step further with the IRG's elite Quds division, responsible for covert actions abroad, labelling it a terrorist organisation, the first time a country's military has been put on America's terrorist list. The US says the Quds division, numbering about 15,000, is involved with Lebanon's Hizbullah and groups elsewhere in the Middle East.
Making the announcement at a press conference, the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said the punitive moves were intended "to confront the threatening behaviour of the Iranians". The sanctions and other steps would "increase the costs to Iran of its irresponsible behaviour".
The administration also imposed sanctions on three Iranian state-owned banks: the banks Melli and Mellat, for alleged arms proliferation, and Bank Saderat, which was labelled "a terrorist financier".
In addition to the IRG and the banks, eight individuals and several other companies are covered by the sanctions. The measures have long been threatened and Tehran responded by saying they would have no more success than in the past.
Mohammad Ali Hosseini, a spokesman for the foreign ministry, said: "The hostile American policies towards the respectable people of Iran and the country's legal institutions are contrary to international law, without value and, as in the past, doomed to failure."
He called the Bush administration's accusation that Iran was arming Shia militants in Iraq "ridiculous".
The revolutionary guard, which has huge business interests in businesses including cars, oil and newspapers, is thought to control up to a third of the Iranian economy.
But some analysts believe the unilateral measures will have little effect in isolating Iran - and still less in changing its policy. Selig Harrison, of the Centre for International Policy, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I don't think these will be very effective. Arab traders in Dubai thumb their noses up when people say you shouldn't trade with Iran. A lot of Iran's foreign trade hasn't been affected."
There have also been claims that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be strengthened by the sanctions.
"Hardliners in Tehran were looking forward to the sanctions. It helps them hide their incompetence behind the embargo," said the political commentator Saeed Laylaz. However, other observers say the measures could weaken Mr Ahmadinejad, leaving him open to charges that his stance is pushing the US into punishing the country and damaging its already fragile economy.
The sanctions package, combined with the sending of a second US carrier group to the Gulf earlier this year, is aimed primarily at containing Iran, which has been expanding its influence in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It is also intended to force Tehran to stop its alleged attempts to develop a nuclear bomb and end its alleged supply of weapons to Iraqi militia groups.
Ms Rice, who has had to withstand pressure from within the Bush administration for military action, insisted she remained committed to the diplomatic route. But she said: "Unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon, building dangerous ballistic missiles, supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israel off the map."
The US president, George Bush, has said repeatedly that a military strike is an option.
As part of a multibillion-dollar request for more military spending earlier this week, the Pentagon asked for $88m (£43m) to develop the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a huge bunker-busting bomb, for its Stealth bombers. The Bush administration said the bomb was needed "in response to an urgent operational need for theatre commanders".
Democratic members of Congress questioned whether the weapon was intended for use against Iran, where nuclear facilities are largely hidden underground.
Jim Moran, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives defence spending committee, said: "My assumption is that it is Iran, because you wouldn't use them in Iraq, and I don't know where you would use them in Afghanistan. It doesn't have any weapons facilities underground that we know of."
The immediate impact of the sanctions announcement will be felt in the boardrooms of banks and companies in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. Any business continuing to trade with Iran risks US reprisals.
The sanctions make it illegal for any US citizen to knowingly provide material support or resources to the Quds division. As the US has had few links with Iran since 1979, this is mainly academic. The impact will be felt by non-American companies that have business interests in the US and Iran.
The US treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, who accompanied Ms Rice at the press conference, said: "It is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran, you are doing business [with the Iranian revolutionary guard corps]. It's simply not worth the risk."
European governments, including Britain, are discussing whether to also designate the Quds division a terrorist organisation, though the legal definition and the process of designating groups as terrorist is different to that in the US.
Lawmakers skewer Rice on Iraqi corruption.
The tenor of the discussion is interesting. There is not even the faintest hint that the US should maybe concentrate upon its own corruption problems rather than insisting in the harshest and belligerent tones that it has every right to correct corruption in Iraq. After all its our puppet must be the thought. We are paying for the strings and manufactured it from scratch at great expense. The Democrats are the best at this holy and arrogant outrage.
Of course this is not to deny that there is corruption in the Iraqi govt. but there is also corruption among private contractors and their relationships with US government officials and the Iraqis. Maybe only the corrupt will co-operate with the occupiers!
Lawmakers skewer Rice on Iraqi corruption by Stephen Collinson
Thu Oct 25, 6:45 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice fought off an inquisition by lawmakers Thursday over claims that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was shielding top ministers from corruption probes.
ADVERTISEMENT
Democratic lawmaker Henry Waxman, who has demanded answers from Rice on various aspects of the US operation in Iraq for months, got his chance at a hearing of a key House of Representatives committee.
He raised claims that Maliki had issued a decree requiring his approval before any minister or official in the presidential office was brought before a court on corruption charges.
Rice refused to respond directly but said US officials took all allegations of corruption in Iraq seriously and pledged to review the case.
"To assault the prime minister in Iraq, with to date heretofore unsubstantiated allegations or uncorroborated allegations in a setting that would simply fuel those allegations ... would be deeply wrong," Rice said.
"Not only is it potentially damaging to relationships that we are very dependent on ... it is wrong."
Rice argued that publicly talking about specific corruption cases risked exposing intelligence sources in Iraq, but said any official or document was available to the committee in closed session.
Democrats say such discussions must be in public, including documents which could damage the administration's claims of success in Iraq.
The hearing represented the latest sharp confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration, three days after the White House asked lawmakers for another 196 billion dollars in funding for the Iraq and Afghan wars.
On Wednesday, anger mounted after the Congressional Budget Office said the cost of the "war on terror" could hit 2.4 trillion dollars by 2017.
As tempers flared in the hearing of the House Oversight and Government reform committee, Waxman confronted Rice with a document purportedly from the Iraqi Prime Minister's office signed by its manager, Tariq Najim Abdullah.
The order said no official from the presidential office, council of ministers or current or previous ministers should be sent to court with Maliki's express approval.
The document, dated 04/01/2007, was handed to the committee Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, former head of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity who has fled to the United States.
"Is the prime minister one of the people that cares about fighting corruption in Iraq?" Waxman asked.
Rice replied that the United States did not accept "any policy that would make immune from investigation or prosecution any member of the Iraqi government, no matter how high."
"If there is corruption, the United States wants to root it out."
Earlier this month, the Iraqi government said it would take legal action against the judge, accusing him of smuggling official documents and defaming the prime minister.
Radhi and a group of colleagues headed to Washington in August to undergo training with the US Justice Department.
Maliki at the time accused him of fleeing the country to avoid being tried on graft charges and replaced him as head of the Commission.
Radhi denies the graft allegations and told Waxman's committee earlier this month corruption was affecting virtually every government ministry and that some of the most powerful officials in Iraq are implicated.
As tensions rose in the hearing, Democrats lined up to hammer the Bush administration on Iraq, and Republicans attempted to defend Rice, and argue that the current US troop "surge strategy" had improved security there.
"May I have an opportunity though to finish my answers?" Rice asked Waxman at one stage, while Republican member Dan Burton felt obliged to apologize for the harsh questioning of Democrats on the committee.
"You are not being prosecuted, and we are not prosecutors," Burton said.
But Democratic member Stephen Lynch warned Rice "our kids are on the ground now in that country fighting and dying. We can't wait a moment longer before we talk about this."
Waxman earlier warned Rice's personal reputation was on the line, as she faced questions about her department's oversight of the Blackwater private security firm, accused of killing as many as 17 Iraqi civilians on September 16.
Of course this is not to deny that there is corruption in the Iraqi govt. but there is also corruption among private contractors and their relationships with US government officials and the Iraqis. Maybe only the corrupt will co-operate with the occupiers!
Lawmakers skewer Rice on Iraqi corruption by Stephen Collinson
Thu Oct 25, 6:45 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice fought off an inquisition by lawmakers Thursday over claims that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was shielding top ministers from corruption probes.
ADVERTISEMENT
Democratic lawmaker Henry Waxman, who has demanded answers from Rice on various aspects of the US operation in Iraq for months, got his chance at a hearing of a key House of Representatives committee.
He raised claims that Maliki had issued a decree requiring his approval before any minister or official in the presidential office was brought before a court on corruption charges.
Rice refused to respond directly but said US officials took all allegations of corruption in Iraq seriously and pledged to review the case.
"To assault the prime minister in Iraq, with to date heretofore unsubstantiated allegations or uncorroborated allegations in a setting that would simply fuel those allegations ... would be deeply wrong," Rice said.
"Not only is it potentially damaging to relationships that we are very dependent on ... it is wrong."
Rice argued that publicly talking about specific corruption cases risked exposing intelligence sources in Iraq, but said any official or document was available to the committee in closed session.
Democrats say such discussions must be in public, including documents which could damage the administration's claims of success in Iraq.
The hearing represented the latest sharp confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration, three days after the White House asked lawmakers for another 196 billion dollars in funding for the Iraq and Afghan wars.
On Wednesday, anger mounted after the Congressional Budget Office said the cost of the "war on terror" could hit 2.4 trillion dollars by 2017.
As tempers flared in the hearing of the House Oversight and Government reform committee, Waxman confronted Rice with a document purportedly from the Iraqi Prime Minister's office signed by its manager, Tariq Najim Abdullah.
The order said no official from the presidential office, council of ministers or current or previous ministers should be sent to court with Maliki's express approval.
The document, dated 04/01/2007, was handed to the committee Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, former head of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity who has fled to the United States.
"Is the prime minister one of the people that cares about fighting corruption in Iraq?" Waxman asked.
Rice replied that the United States did not accept "any policy that would make immune from investigation or prosecution any member of the Iraqi government, no matter how high."
"If there is corruption, the United States wants to root it out."
Earlier this month, the Iraqi government said it would take legal action against the judge, accusing him of smuggling official documents and defaming the prime minister.
Radhi and a group of colleagues headed to Washington in August to undergo training with the US Justice Department.
Maliki at the time accused him of fleeing the country to avoid being tried on graft charges and replaced him as head of the Commission.
Radhi denies the graft allegations and told Waxman's committee earlier this month corruption was affecting virtually every government ministry and that some of the most powerful officials in Iraq are implicated.
As tensions rose in the hearing, Democrats lined up to hammer the Bush administration on Iraq, and Republicans attempted to defend Rice, and argue that the current US troop "surge strategy" had improved security there.
"May I have an opportunity though to finish my answers?" Rice asked Waxman at one stage, while Republican member Dan Burton felt obliged to apologize for the harsh questioning of Democrats on the committee.
"You are not being prosecuted, and we are not prosecutors," Burton said.
But Democratic member Stephen Lynch warned Rice "our kids are on the ground now in that country fighting and dying. We can't wait a moment longer before we talk about this."
Waxman earlier warned Rice's personal reputation was on the line, as she faced questions about her department's oversight of the Blackwater private security firm, accused of killing as many as 17 Iraqi civilians on September 16.
Karzai demands fewer air strikes.
Karzai has been demanding this for ages but Bomber McNeil is deaf. He no doubt likes the policy. It is being used in Iraq now as well it seems. Civilian deaths of Iraqis and Afghanis are less significant than the US and allied casualties. Those who give any support of protection to the insurgents in either country will not be immune from punishment and death along with the insurgents. As both Karzai and Maliki have pointed out such a strategy is probably counter-productive in that it creates opposition not only to the occupation but to the governments propped up by the occupations.
Karzai demands fewer airstrikes in Afghanistan-media
Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:06pm EDT
NEW YORK, Oct 25 (Reuters) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai wants the U.S. military to limit airstrikes against insurgents because they are killing too many civilians, the Afghan leader says in a U.S. television interview.
Civilian casualties in Afghanistan fuel resentment of foreign forces and Karzai's Western-backed government. He has repeatedly asked U.S. and NATO troops to do everything they can to minimize civilian deaths.
"The Afghan people understand that mistakes are made. But five years on, six years on, definitely, very clearly, they cannot comprehend as to why there is still a need for air power," Karzai told CBS program "60 Minutes," in an interview to be broadcast on Sunday, according to a partial text released by the network.
Asked if he wanted less use of air power, Karzai said, "Absolutely. Oh, yes, in clear words and I want to repeat that, [there are] alternatives to the use of air force and I will speak for it again through your media."
More than 370 civilians have been killed this year in NATO operations against militants, according to estimates by aid workers and Afghan officials.
NATO disputes this figure but acknowledges some civilians have been killed, mostly when Taliban insurgents attack from civilian houses.
Karzai faces growing criticism over rampant corruption, insecurity, booming drug cultivation and a failure to raise living standards in the country. He has warned that more civilian casualties would destabilize his government and threaten the continued presence of foreign troops.
© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.
Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
Karzai demands fewer airstrikes in Afghanistan-media
Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:06pm EDT
NEW YORK, Oct 25 (Reuters) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai wants the U.S. military to limit airstrikes against insurgents because they are killing too many civilians, the Afghan leader says in a U.S. television interview.
Civilian casualties in Afghanistan fuel resentment of foreign forces and Karzai's Western-backed government. He has repeatedly asked U.S. and NATO troops to do everything they can to minimize civilian deaths.
"The Afghan people understand that mistakes are made. But five years on, six years on, definitely, very clearly, they cannot comprehend as to why there is still a need for air power," Karzai told CBS program "60 Minutes," in an interview to be broadcast on Sunday, according to a partial text released by the network.
Asked if he wanted less use of air power, Karzai said, "Absolutely. Oh, yes, in clear words and I want to repeat that, [there are] alternatives to the use of air force and I will speak for it again through your media."
More than 370 civilians have been killed this year in NATO operations against militants, according to estimates by aid workers and Afghan officials.
NATO disputes this figure but acknowledges some civilians have been killed, mostly when Taliban insurgents attack from civilian houses.
Karzai faces growing criticism over rampant corruption, insecurity, booming drug cultivation and a failure to raise living standards in the country. He has warned that more civilian casualties would destabilize his government and threaten the continued presence of foreign troops.
© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.
Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
US to look into Arar's status: Rice
The US already looking into this matter once before. It will be interesting if they decide any differently. Last time they just kept the status quo in spite of all the evidence the O'Connor presented that showed Arar was not a terrorist. Arar was sent to Syria on an order issued by a high official in the Bush hierarchy on the basis of an immigration "hearing" where Arar's lawyer was not present. Arar was judged to be a member of Al Qaeda! Here is a short clip from the Washington Post.
Then-Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson, in his capacity as acting attorney general, signed the highly unusual order, citing national security and declaring that to send the man, Maher Arar, home to Canada would be "prejudicial to the interests of the United States," according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
U.S. to look into Arar's status: Rice
Last Updated: Thursday, December 21, 2006 | 2:26 PM ET
CBC News
U.S. security officials will review why Canadian Maher Arar is still on a U.S. terrorist watch list, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday following a meeting with Canada's foreign affairs minister.
"It will of course be looked at," Rice told reporters at a joint news conference with Peter MacKay in Washington.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, shown after an appearance in Stellarton, N.S., in September, discussed Maher Arar on Thursday. Rice said his case 'will be looked at.'
(Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press) Rice said she instructed Michael Chertoff, the Department of Homeland Security's secretary, and the Justice Department to look further into the matter.
"He said he would examine it and would get back to me."
But Rice reiterated that the U.S. makes its own security decisions based on independent information.
"We value accuracy in cases but we do have our own process," she said. "It needs to be understood that in the post-Sept. 11 circumstances, we are determined to protect our borders."
MacKay said he brought up Arar's status in the meeting with his U.S. counterpart and reiterated that Arar has been cleared by the Canadian government of any ties to terrorism.
"There's clarity in Canada's position with the findings of Mr. Arar," MacKay said. "I'm very pleased at the decision to revisit the restriction on his case."
Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, was seized at a New York airport in 2002 and sent to Syria, where he was tortured. A judicial inquiry into his case led by Justice Dennis O'Connor was set up after Arar returned to Canada more than a year later.
O'Connor concluded Arar had no terror links and the RCMP had given misleading information to U.S. authorities, which may have been the reason he was sent to Syria.
Parliament apologized to Arar and the government has been asking Washington to remove him from a watch list that prevents him from travelling to the U.S. and makes him a marked man, despite being cleared in Canada.
However, the U.S. has refused and has not explained why.
'Go our own way'
The meeting between MacKay and Rice came a day after an American security official bluntly stated the U.S. would follow its own path on Arar without informing Canadians on its reasons.
"With respect to some issues, we're going to have to respectfully but firmly go our own way and the Arar matter, at least for now, is one of those," Paul Rosenzweig, acting assistant secretary for international affairs for the Department of Homeland Security, told reporters in Washington.
"As for the sharing of information with the Canadian government, while I do recognize that in an idealized world we would share every bit of intelligence information with all of our partners, in the real world that is an idealization that isn't achievable."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Sun Media that "as near as I can see, we simply have a U.S. government that won't admit it's wrong."
He said he can't compel the U.S. to explain why it still views Arar with suspicion.
"I'm not aware of the U.S. violating any law by not sharing it with us, but I'm obviously disappointed that they don't seem at this point to have responded fully to the conclusions of our own inquiry, and I have no explanation for why they're taking the position that they are."
Arar's lawsuit against the U.S. has been cited as one reason American authorities won't talk about the case.
Then-Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson, in his capacity as acting attorney general, signed the highly unusual order, citing national security and declaring that to send the man, Maher Arar, home to Canada would be "prejudicial to the interests of the United States," according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
U.S. to look into Arar's status: Rice
Last Updated: Thursday, December 21, 2006 | 2:26 PM ET
CBC News
U.S. security officials will review why Canadian Maher Arar is still on a U.S. terrorist watch list, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday following a meeting with Canada's foreign affairs minister.
"It will of course be looked at," Rice told reporters at a joint news conference with Peter MacKay in Washington.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, shown after an appearance in Stellarton, N.S., in September, discussed Maher Arar on Thursday. Rice said his case 'will be looked at.'
(Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press) Rice said she instructed Michael Chertoff, the Department of Homeland Security's secretary, and the Justice Department to look further into the matter.
"He said he would examine it and would get back to me."
But Rice reiterated that the U.S. makes its own security decisions based on independent information.
"We value accuracy in cases but we do have our own process," she said. "It needs to be understood that in the post-Sept. 11 circumstances, we are determined to protect our borders."
MacKay said he brought up Arar's status in the meeting with his U.S. counterpart and reiterated that Arar has been cleared by the Canadian government of any ties to terrorism.
"There's clarity in Canada's position with the findings of Mr. Arar," MacKay said. "I'm very pleased at the decision to revisit the restriction on his case."
Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, was seized at a New York airport in 2002 and sent to Syria, where he was tortured. A judicial inquiry into his case led by Justice Dennis O'Connor was set up after Arar returned to Canada more than a year later.
O'Connor concluded Arar had no terror links and the RCMP had given misleading information to U.S. authorities, which may have been the reason he was sent to Syria.
Parliament apologized to Arar and the government has been asking Washington to remove him from a watch list that prevents him from travelling to the U.S. and makes him a marked man, despite being cleared in Canada.
However, the U.S. has refused and has not explained why.
'Go our own way'
The meeting between MacKay and Rice came a day after an American security official bluntly stated the U.S. would follow its own path on Arar without informing Canadians on its reasons.
"With respect to some issues, we're going to have to respectfully but firmly go our own way and the Arar matter, at least for now, is one of those," Paul Rosenzweig, acting assistant secretary for international affairs for the Department of Homeland Security, told reporters in Washington.
"As for the sharing of information with the Canadian government, while I do recognize that in an idealized world we would share every bit of intelligence information with all of our partners, in the real world that is an idealization that isn't achievable."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Sun Media that "as near as I can see, we simply have a U.S. government that won't admit it's wrong."
He said he can't compel the U.S. to explain why it still views Arar with suspicion.
"I'm not aware of the U.S. violating any law by not sharing it with us, but I'm obviously disappointed that they don't seem at this point to have responded fully to the conclusions of our own inquiry, and I have no explanation for why they're taking the position that they are."
Arar's lawsuit against the U.S. has been cited as one reason American authorities won't talk about the case.
US imposes new sanction on Iran
These actions are so drastic they are almost an invitation to war an invitation that Iran will decline of course. However, I just wonder if these types of sanctions are not going to result in the creation of new financial relations in China and Russia that will operate outside the grasp of US foreign policy. The US has more and more tried to US its financial clout and influence on global financial institutions for foreign policy aims. This is surely bound to create a reaction.
Analysis: US hopeful firms will cut ties with Iranian banks
Oct 25, 2007, 22:40 GMT
Washington - The US decision to slap new, broad sanctions on Iran reflects the growing frustration within the Bush administration about the lack of progress in the international effort to prevent the Islamic state from developing nuclear weapons.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the sanctions that target three of Iran's largest banks, hoping the move will prompt banks worldwide to cut ties with the Iranian institutions and further squeeze the regime's ability to finance nuclear activities or terrorism in the Middle East.
At the same time, Rice made it clear Washington remains committed to the diplomatic process through the United Nations Security Council to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, even though the United States has acted unilaterally by imposing the sanctions.
'The United States and our partners are fully committed to a diplomatic solution with Iran,' Rice said, reiterating her willingness to meet with her Iranian counterpart 'any time, anywhere' if Tehran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment - a condition Iran has repeatedly rejected. Iran insists its nuclear activities are solely for civilian energy use.
Some analysts, however, warn the US decision to act alone could send the wrong message to the five other countries - Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany - who are working closely with the United States to ensure Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.
'It makes it more difficult for the United States to make the argument that we need to maintain an international consensus and be in lock step ... if we have just imposed unilateral sanctions,' said Jon Wolfstahl of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
The sanctions target the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its commercial entities, and three of the largest state-owned banks suspected of helping finance the nuclear programme and terrorism. They are the most sweeping sanctions since the 1979 seizure of the US embassy in Tehran.
Going after the three banks - Bank Melli, Bank Mellat and Bank Saderat - serves as a 'powerful deterrent' to international banks carrying out business transactions with Iran, Rice said.
The United States hopes the effectiveness of the new sanctions lies in a desire of outside European and Asian banks to not do business with Iranian banks accused of financing illicit activities.
'We've seen a dramatic effect in the last several months with financial institutions and others deciding they don't want to be bankers for this regime,' said Stuart Levey, a US Treasury Department undersecretary.
The United States has no plans to sanction banks that continue relationships with Iranian banks, Levey said. The announcement of the new sanctions came as President George W Bush stepped up his rhetoric over the dispute with Iran, saying last week that a nuclear-armed Iran could provoke a conflict on the scale of World War III.
Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that the United States was 'prepared to impose serious consequences' if Iran did not comply with international demands to come clean on its nuclear ambitions.
Lee Wolosky, a former member of the White House's National Security Council under Bill Clinton and Bush, said the sanctions could have an effect comparable to steps taken against a bank in Macau for handling North Korean illicit funds. The Banco Delta Asia was crippled when banks cut ties after the United States imposed sanctions.
'When the US government declares a financial institution radioactive, we see a tremendous ripple effect throughout the financial community,' Wolosky said.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Analysis: US hopeful firms will cut ties with Iranian banks
Oct 25, 2007, 22:40 GMT
Washington - The US decision to slap new, broad sanctions on Iran reflects the growing frustration within the Bush administration about the lack of progress in the international effort to prevent the Islamic state from developing nuclear weapons.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the sanctions that target three of Iran's largest banks, hoping the move will prompt banks worldwide to cut ties with the Iranian institutions and further squeeze the regime's ability to finance nuclear activities or terrorism in the Middle East.
At the same time, Rice made it clear Washington remains committed to the diplomatic process through the United Nations Security Council to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, even though the United States has acted unilaterally by imposing the sanctions.
'The United States and our partners are fully committed to a diplomatic solution with Iran,' Rice said, reiterating her willingness to meet with her Iranian counterpart 'any time, anywhere' if Tehran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment - a condition Iran has repeatedly rejected. Iran insists its nuclear activities are solely for civilian energy use.
Some analysts, however, warn the US decision to act alone could send the wrong message to the five other countries - Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany - who are working closely with the United States to ensure Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.
'It makes it more difficult for the United States to make the argument that we need to maintain an international consensus and be in lock step ... if we have just imposed unilateral sanctions,' said Jon Wolfstahl of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
The sanctions target the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its commercial entities, and three of the largest state-owned banks suspected of helping finance the nuclear programme and terrorism. They are the most sweeping sanctions since the 1979 seizure of the US embassy in Tehran.
Going after the three banks - Bank Melli, Bank Mellat and Bank Saderat - serves as a 'powerful deterrent' to international banks carrying out business transactions with Iran, Rice said.
The United States hopes the effectiveness of the new sanctions lies in a desire of outside European and Asian banks to not do business with Iranian banks accused of financing illicit activities.
'We've seen a dramatic effect in the last several months with financial institutions and others deciding they don't want to be bankers for this regime,' said Stuart Levey, a US Treasury Department undersecretary.
The United States has no plans to sanction banks that continue relationships with Iranian banks, Levey said. The announcement of the new sanctions came as President George W Bush stepped up his rhetoric over the dispute with Iran, saying last week that a nuclear-armed Iran could provoke a conflict on the scale of World War III.
Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that the United States was 'prepared to impose serious consequences' if Iran did not comply with international demands to come clean on its nuclear ambitions.
Lee Wolosky, a former member of the White House's National Security Council under Bill Clinton and Bush, said the sanctions could have an effect comparable to steps taken against a bank in Macau for handling North Korean illicit funds. The Banco Delta Asia was crippled when banks cut ties after the United States imposed sanctions.
'When the US government declares a financial institution radioactive, we see a tremendous ripple effect throughout the financial community,' Wolosky said.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Former Philippine President Pardoned
THis is from the Manila Tribune.
Erap is the nickname for former president Joseph Estrada--his movie nickname. I can see why there would be a clause in which Estrada is supposed to agree not to run for office. The deposed president is far more popular than Gloria Arroyo the present president! Estrada was deposed by People Power which eventually brought Arroyo to power although she has been elected since. Arroyo constantly worries about People Power now and does all she can to repress it!
Erap now free, all rights restored
By Sherwin C. Olaes
10/26/2007
Deposed President Joseph Estrada is now a free man, following President Arroyo’s grant of his full pardon yesterday, restoring his full civil and political rights.
Estrada is expected to leave his detention today, no longer accompanied by his police guards.
Following the grant of executive clemency, Mrs. Arroyo ordered Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno to personally relay the order to Estrada at 9 a.m. today which will formalize his release from detention.
The order of Mrs. Arroyo which was read to the media by Acting Executive Secretary and concurrent Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye, used as basis the age of Estrada, who is now 70 years old and his six-and-a-half years in detention.
The order said all the political and civil rights of Estrada are now restored but the forfeitures imposed by the Sandiganbayan on his questioned properties “remain in full force and in full,” except for the bank account(s) he owned before his tenure as president.
Bunye read the statement of Mrs. Arroyo on the Estrada pardon.
“Whereas, this administration has a policy of releasing inmates who have reached the age of 70. Whereas, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has been under detention for six-and-a-half years; whereas, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective position or office; in view hereof, and pursuant to the authority conferred upon me by the Constitution, I hereby grant executive clemency to Joseph Ejercito Estrada, convicted by the Sandiganbayan of plunder and imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is hereby restored to his civil and political rights,” part of Mrs. Arroyo’s order said.
“Upon acceptance of this pardon by Joseph Ejercito Estrada, this pardon shall take effect,” the order added.
Bunye said they did not wait for the
written recommendation of the Department of Justice (DoJ) because its Acting Secretary Agnes Devanadera already verbally participated in the crafting of the order.
Bunye said the President merely exercised her presidential prerogative mandated by the Constitution.
A reliable Palace insider told the Tribune yesterday that Mrs. Arroyo added the “unenforceable” conditions, such as his not running for the presidency again as well as the bank accounts while he was president, were a “face-saving” act for Mrs. Arroyo, and meant also to “appease” some of her allies and anti-Estrada forces, who have been vocal against an Estrada pardon.
Contacted by the Tribune, sources from the Estrada camp said there was never any commitment made by Estrada of his not seeking the presidency, pointing out that when one’s political rights are restored, one can again vote and be voted upon.
They added that even that forfeiture proviso was questionable, since the Sandiganbayan decision was clear that only the so-called Boracay Mansion, along with the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation funds in the bank account were subject to forfeiture.
Estrada has consistently stated that neither properties are his and that the court could have them forfeited.
“Even the legitimacy of (Mrs. Arroyo) has not been established through that pardon,” they pointed out, saying that as she is sitting in Malacañang exercising the power and authority of a president, the grant of executive clemency must come from her. But this does not mean Erap’s recognition of her legitimacy. A de facto President can also grant such pardons.”
Senate President Manuel Villar, in a statement, welcomed the executive clemency extended to the Estrada by the Arroyo government. Despite the Sandiganbayan conviction, saying that “President Estrada remains in the heart of the masses.”
“The executive clemency extended to former President Joseph Estrada is a great step towards reconciliation, which is vital to our country’s unhindered passage to progress. This act emphasizes the value of humane consideration and compassionate justice,” the statement read.
Estrada’s son, Senate President Pro-Tempore, also welcomed the news of his father’s release, but also stressed that like his mother, former First Lady and Sen. Loi Estrada, he remains in the opposition.
Earlier, national leaders threw their support behind the move to grant executive pardon to the former leader in an effort to unite the country and help the government in realizing its dream for economic recovery.
In a letter dated Sept.16 - four days after the Sandiganbayan convicted Estrada of plunder – they pointed out to Mrs. Arroyo how the grant of absolute pardon to Estrada will heal the deep divisions in the country and help the government focus its efforts on pressing national problems.
The letter to Mrs. Arroyo was signed by Ricardo Cardinal Vidal, Villar and Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr.
The letter states in part: “For too long, since Edsa II which resulted in the relinquishment of the Presidency by former President Estrada, his indictment before the Sandiganbayan, detention without bail, have diverted the attention and efforts of our country from critical problems of poverty, development, terrorism, peace and order, and social tensions.
“The Sandiganbayan decision convicting former President Estrada, and sentencing him to “reclusion perpetua,” could lead to the deepening division among our people, and most disturbing perhaps, between those in the upper echelons of society and those beneath, among the masses of our people.
In their letter, Vidal, Villar and De Venecia noted that despite the humiliation Estrada suffered after his downfall and arrest, he remains as popular as ever.
“What is astounding, and which compounds the problem, is that he continues to enjoy the affection of a great number of people. Strange as it may seem, their belief in his innocence of the offenses he is accused of does not appear to have been diminished by the Sandganbayan’s decision. To add to his tragedy, his mother is critically ill.”
They added: “With the multitude of others of like minds, we appeal and ask the President to extend full, free and absolute pardon to former President Joseph Estrada and that he unconditionally accept this act of clemency from the President.”
There were others who disagreed with the pardon given Estrada.
Not surprisingly, former President Fidel Ramos, prior to the announced grant of pardon, warned Mrs. Arroyo not to be “hasty” with her pending decision to grant Estrada full pardon.
“I warn the president not to be hasty,” Ramos said, adding that Mrs. Arroyo should consider the sacrifices made by many people in pursuing the plunder charge against Estrada. He said this pardon could be her downfall since Estrada can call on his supporters and stage a people power revolt against her, the way they did in 2001.
“This thing is bigger than GMA (Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) or Erap. We are stakeholders here, the people of the Philippines,” Ramos said.
Estrada’s defense lawyer, Rene Saguisag, in a television interview, slammed Ramos’ sanctimonious position, bringing up the issue of the many scams under his regime, for which Ramos avoided trial and conviction by plotting, along with then Vice President Arroyo a year before the actual ouster of Estrada.
Saguisag said: “On Mr. Ramos statement that if Malacañang gives Estrada a pardon it would be a terrible calamity, we all have to look and start to investigate all the numerous scandals and corruption that had happened under his (Ramos) administration. Let’s start with Amari, the Centennial scam where billions of government funds were pocketed by corrupt government officials under his (Ramos) term. Let’s look at the corruption under this Arroyo regime, we have the $14 million bribery scandal that Mrs. Arroyo’s justice secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez was linked to (the approval of power contract of an Argentine Impsa), we have the P3 billion fertilizer funds scam of (Mrs. Arroyo’s) campaign fund raiser and former Agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn Jocjoc Bolante. It’s all graft and corruption in huge magnitude. Why do we always pin all on Erap, why it is always Erap? He had been detained for so many years and on charges of jueteng kickbacks (illegal number games) which do not even involve government funds,” he said.
Puno said the decision of Mrs. Arroyo to issue the pardon to Estrada underwent a grueling two months study.
Once freed from detention, Estrada plans on visiting his ailing 102-year-old mother at a hospital in San Juan Medical Center, with Ramos saying that Estrada had kept quiet about any political plans.
Estrada has said he is innocent of the corruption charges brought against him and that his prosecution was a conspiracy by the powerful elite, the church and President Arroyo.
With AFP and Tribune wires
Erap is the nickname for former president Joseph Estrada--his movie nickname. I can see why there would be a clause in which Estrada is supposed to agree not to run for office. The deposed president is far more popular than Gloria Arroyo the present president! Estrada was deposed by People Power which eventually brought Arroyo to power although she has been elected since. Arroyo constantly worries about People Power now and does all she can to repress it!
Erap now free, all rights restored
By Sherwin C. Olaes
10/26/2007
Deposed President Joseph Estrada is now a free man, following President Arroyo’s grant of his full pardon yesterday, restoring his full civil and political rights.
Estrada is expected to leave his detention today, no longer accompanied by his police guards.
Following the grant of executive clemency, Mrs. Arroyo ordered Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno to personally relay the order to Estrada at 9 a.m. today which will formalize his release from detention.
The order of Mrs. Arroyo which was read to the media by Acting Executive Secretary and concurrent Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye, used as basis the age of Estrada, who is now 70 years old and his six-and-a-half years in detention.
The order said all the political and civil rights of Estrada are now restored but the forfeitures imposed by the Sandiganbayan on his questioned properties “remain in full force and in full,” except for the bank account(s) he owned before his tenure as president.
Bunye read the statement of Mrs. Arroyo on the Estrada pardon.
“Whereas, this administration has a policy of releasing inmates who have reached the age of 70. Whereas, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has been under detention for six-and-a-half years; whereas, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective position or office; in view hereof, and pursuant to the authority conferred upon me by the Constitution, I hereby grant executive clemency to Joseph Ejercito Estrada, convicted by the Sandiganbayan of plunder and imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is hereby restored to his civil and political rights,” part of Mrs. Arroyo’s order said.
“Upon acceptance of this pardon by Joseph Ejercito Estrada, this pardon shall take effect,” the order added.
Bunye said they did not wait for the
written recommendation of the Department of Justice (DoJ) because its Acting Secretary Agnes Devanadera already verbally participated in the crafting of the order.
Bunye said the President merely exercised her presidential prerogative mandated by the Constitution.
A reliable Palace insider told the Tribune yesterday that Mrs. Arroyo added the “unenforceable” conditions, such as his not running for the presidency again as well as the bank accounts while he was president, were a “face-saving” act for Mrs. Arroyo, and meant also to “appease” some of her allies and anti-Estrada forces, who have been vocal against an Estrada pardon.
Contacted by the Tribune, sources from the Estrada camp said there was never any commitment made by Estrada of his not seeking the presidency, pointing out that when one’s political rights are restored, one can again vote and be voted upon.
They added that even that forfeiture proviso was questionable, since the Sandiganbayan decision was clear that only the so-called Boracay Mansion, along with the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation funds in the bank account were subject to forfeiture.
Estrada has consistently stated that neither properties are his and that the court could have them forfeited.
“Even the legitimacy of (Mrs. Arroyo) has not been established through that pardon,” they pointed out, saying that as she is sitting in Malacañang exercising the power and authority of a president, the grant of executive clemency must come from her. But this does not mean Erap’s recognition of her legitimacy. A de facto President can also grant such pardons.”
Senate President Manuel Villar, in a statement, welcomed the executive clemency extended to the Estrada by the Arroyo government. Despite the Sandiganbayan conviction, saying that “President Estrada remains in the heart of the masses.”
“The executive clemency extended to former President Joseph Estrada is a great step towards reconciliation, which is vital to our country’s unhindered passage to progress. This act emphasizes the value of humane consideration and compassionate justice,” the statement read.
Estrada’s son, Senate President Pro-Tempore, also welcomed the news of his father’s release, but also stressed that like his mother, former First Lady and Sen. Loi Estrada, he remains in the opposition.
Earlier, national leaders threw their support behind the move to grant executive pardon to the former leader in an effort to unite the country and help the government in realizing its dream for economic recovery.
In a letter dated Sept.16 - four days after the Sandiganbayan convicted Estrada of plunder – they pointed out to Mrs. Arroyo how the grant of absolute pardon to Estrada will heal the deep divisions in the country and help the government focus its efforts on pressing national problems.
The letter to Mrs. Arroyo was signed by Ricardo Cardinal Vidal, Villar and Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr.
The letter states in part: “For too long, since Edsa II which resulted in the relinquishment of the Presidency by former President Estrada, his indictment before the Sandiganbayan, detention without bail, have diverted the attention and efforts of our country from critical problems of poverty, development, terrorism, peace and order, and social tensions.
“The Sandiganbayan decision convicting former President Estrada, and sentencing him to “reclusion perpetua,” could lead to the deepening division among our people, and most disturbing perhaps, between those in the upper echelons of society and those beneath, among the masses of our people.
In their letter, Vidal, Villar and De Venecia noted that despite the humiliation Estrada suffered after his downfall and arrest, he remains as popular as ever.
“What is astounding, and which compounds the problem, is that he continues to enjoy the affection of a great number of people. Strange as it may seem, their belief in his innocence of the offenses he is accused of does not appear to have been diminished by the Sandganbayan’s decision. To add to his tragedy, his mother is critically ill.”
They added: “With the multitude of others of like minds, we appeal and ask the President to extend full, free and absolute pardon to former President Joseph Estrada and that he unconditionally accept this act of clemency from the President.”
There were others who disagreed with the pardon given Estrada.
Not surprisingly, former President Fidel Ramos, prior to the announced grant of pardon, warned Mrs. Arroyo not to be “hasty” with her pending decision to grant Estrada full pardon.
“I warn the president not to be hasty,” Ramos said, adding that Mrs. Arroyo should consider the sacrifices made by many people in pursuing the plunder charge against Estrada. He said this pardon could be her downfall since Estrada can call on his supporters and stage a people power revolt against her, the way they did in 2001.
“This thing is bigger than GMA (Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) or Erap. We are stakeholders here, the people of the Philippines,” Ramos said.
Estrada’s defense lawyer, Rene Saguisag, in a television interview, slammed Ramos’ sanctimonious position, bringing up the issue of the many scams under his regime, for which Ramos avoided trial and conviction by plotting, along with then Vice President Arroyo a year before the actual ouster of Estrada.
Saguisag said: “On Mr. Ramos statement that if Malacañang gives Estrada a pardon it would be a terrible calamity, we all have to look and start to investigate all the numerous scandals and corruption that had happened under his (Ramos) administration. Let’s start with Amari, the Centennial scam where billions of government funds were pocketed by corrupt government officials under his (Ramos) term. Let’s look at the corruption under this Arroyo regime, we have the $14 million bribery scandal that Mrs. Arroyo’s justice secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez was linked to (the approval of power contract of an Argentine Impsa), we have the P3 billion fertilizer funds scam of (Mrs. Arroyo’s) campaign fund raiser and former Agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn Jocjoc Bolante. It’s all graft and corruption in huge magnitude. Why do we always pin all on Erap, why it is always Erap? He had been detained for so many years and on charges of jueteng kickbacks (illegal number games) which do not even involve government funds,” he said.
Puno said the decision of Mrs. Arroyo to issue the pardon to Estrada underwent a grueling two months study.
Once freed from detention, Estrada plans on visiting his ailing 102-year-old mother at a hospital in San Juan Medical Center, with Ramos saying that Estrada had kept quiet about any political plans.
Estrada has said he is innocent of the corruption charges brought against him and that his prosecution was a conspiracy by the powerful elite, the church and President Arroyo.
With AFP and Tribune wires
Doris Lessing on 9/11 etc.
The over-reaction was actually very useful to Bush et al. The reaction is exactly what the Bush administration wanted to advance the agenda of the PNAC. (Lessing certainly didn't win the Nobel Prize for being overly diplomatic!) The fear of Americans is the foundation upon which the War on Terror and all its attendant foreign policy missions is built. The reaction was quite fortunate for policymakers and in particular the neo-cons. In fact the PNAC group said that something like Pearl Harbor was needed to galvanise the US public into action. The result was even better since the world reaction was to join the Americans. Canada, for example, joined the US in Afghanistan and is still there.
Lessing angers America by saying September 11 'was not that terrible'
By Emily Dugan
Published: 24 October 2007
Doris Lessing, the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Literature, has risked incurring the wrath of Americans by accusing them of overreacting to the 11 September attacks on the Twin Towers, which she said were really "not that terrible".
Comparing the al-Qa'ida attacks – which killed almost 3,000 people – to the IRA's late 20th-century campaign – in which an estimated 2,000 were killed over three decades – the outspoken British author said that Americans were "naive" in thinking that the tragedy was unique.
"11 September was terrible, but if one goes back over the history of the IRA, what happened to the Americans wasn't that terrible," she told the Spanish newspaper, El Pais. "Some Americans will think I'm crazy. Many people died, two prominent buildings fell, but it was neither as terrible nor as extraordinary as they think." Lessing, whose 57-year career was praised this month by Nobel judges for the "scepticism, fire and visionary power" of her work, also said of the Americans: "They're a very naive people, or they pretend to be."
The author, who celebrated her 88th birthday on Tuesday, recalled the seriousness of the Provisional IRA's Brighton bomb attack on Margaret Thatcher's government during the 1984 Conservative Party conference. It narrowly missed the Prime Minister, killed five others and injured 34.
"Do you know what people forget? That the IRA attacked with bombs against our government," said Lessing. "It killed several people while a Conservative conference was being held and which the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was [attending]. People forget."
The prize-winning author, who has always taken a strong stance against political injustice, also lashed out at the leaderships of Tony Blair and George Bush. "I always hated Tony Blair, from the beginning," she said. "Many of us hated Tony Blair. I think he has been a disaster for Britain and we have suffered him for many years. I said it when he was elected: 'This man is a little showman who is going to cause us problems.' And he did."
Lessing, whose book The Golden Notebook inspired a generation of feminists, did not have much kinder words for the present occupant of the White House.
"As for Bush, he's a world calamity," she said. "Everyone is tired of this man. Either he is stupid or he is very clever, although you have to remember he is a member of a social class which has profited from wars."
Her criticisms were not limited to the West. Born in 1919 in the city of Kermanshah, in what is now western Iran, she said of the current regime in Tehran: "I hate Iran. I hate the Iranian government. It's a cruel and evil government. Look what happened to its president in New York. They called him evil and cruel in Columbia University. Marvellous! They should have said more to him. Nobody criticises him, because of oil."
Lessing has always been highly political – she was an avowed communist after the Second World War. Among her 15 novels are The Golden Notebook and The Grass is Singing, which deal with political and sexual taboos, weaving them into complex narratives.
Speaking at the Hay Festival in June this year, she said that freedom to write and say what you thought was very important for an author. "We are free... I can say what I think. We are lucky, privileged, so why not make use of it?"
Lessing angers America by saying September 11 'was not that terrible'
By Emily Dugan
Published: 24 October 2007
Doris Lessing, the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Literature, has risked incurring the wrath of Americans by accusing them of overreacting to the 11 September attacks on the Twin Towers, which she said were really "not that terrible".
Comparing the al-Qa'ida attacks – which killed almost 3,000 people – to the IRA's late 20th-century campaign – in which an estimated 2,000 were killed over three decades – the outspoken British author said that Americans were "naive" in thinking that the tragedy was unique.
"11 September was terrible, but if one goes back over the history of the IRA, what happened to the Americans wasn't that terrible," she told the Spanish newspaper, El Pais. "Some Americans will think I'm crazy. Many people died, two prominent buildings fell, but it was neither as terrible nor as extraordinary as they think." Lessing, whose 57-year career was praised this month by Nobel judges for the "scepticism, fire and visionary power" of her work, also said of the Americans: "They're a very naive people, or they pretend to be."
The author, who celebrated her 88th birthday on Tuesday, recalled the seriousness of the Provisional IRA's Brighton bomb attack on Margaret Thatcher's government during the 1984 Conservative Party conference. It narrowly missed the Prime Minister, killed five others and injured 34.
"Do you know what people forget? That the IRA attacked with bombs against our government," said Lessing. "It killed several people while a Conservative conference was being held and which the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was [attending]. People forget."
The prize-winning author, who has always taken a strong stance against political injustice, also lashed out at the leaderships of Tony Blair and George Bush. "I always hated Tony Blair, from the beginning," she said. "Many of us hated Tony Blair. I think he has been a disaster for Britain and we have suffered him for many years. I said it when he was elected: 'This man is a little showman who is going to cause us problems.' And he did."
Lessing, whose book The Golden Notebook inspired a generation of feminists, did not have much kinder words for the present occupant of the White House.
"As for Bush, he's a world calamity," she said. "Everyone is tired of this man. Either he is stupid or he is very clever, although you have to remember he is a member of a social class which has profited from wars."
Her criticisms were not limited to the West. Born in 1919 in the city of Kermanshah, in what is now western Iran, she said of the current regime in Tehran: "I hate Iran. I hate the Iranian government. It's a cruel and evil government. Look what happened to its president in New York. They called him evil and cruel in Columbia University. Marvellous! They should have said more to him. Nobody criticises him, because of oil."
Lessing has always been highly political – she was an avowed communist after the Second World War. Among her 15 novels are The Golden Notebook and The Grass is Singing, which deal with political and sexual taboos, weaving them into complex narratives.
Speaking at the Hay Festival in June this year, she said that freedom to write and say what you thought was very important for an author. "We are free... I can say what I think. We are lucky, privileged, so why not make use of it?"
US claims photo shows Syrian nuclear reactor.
This is from the Independent. This must all be taken with a grain of salt. Most articles do not point out that these types of actions are a gross insult to the IAEA. In fact most reporters must be blissfully ignorant of this aspect of the matter as well as the issue of unprovoked aggression against a sovereign nation. You can imagine the response if Iran or Egypt should have attacked and destroyed Israeli nuclear facilities as they were building their bombs. However, in this case it is not even clear what if anything was there. We know the Israelis were building nuclear bombs--and of course denying it and supposedly successfully fooling the US.
Even the ISIS report says the photographs raise as many questions as they answer, including whether they even have the right sight!
Of course the US is simply going along with and trying to justify Israel's attack. Why Syria co-operates with the US on renditions and other matters is a mystery. The US attitude is that there is no reward for help or co-operation. Syria has also accepted hordes of Iraqi refugees.
US claims photos show Syrian nuclear reactor
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 25 October 2007
US security experts have published what they believe to be photographs of a secret nuclear facility in Syria, which was bombed by Israeli jets last month.
Their analysis of satellite images in an area near the river Euphrates reveals what they say are buildings similar to a North Korean nuclear reactor capable of producing fuel for a nuclear bomb. The experts, David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector, and Paul Brannan, from the Institute for Science and International Security (Isis), believe they have found the site that could have been the target of a night-time Israeli raid on 6 September. The Israelis imposed a news blackout on the raid, which prompted speculation that the attack may have been a dry run for a strike on Iran.
In a report released yesterday by Isis, the experts say that commercial satellite imagery of the area shows buildings under construction. The buildings have the same footprint as that of North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, which is capable of producing nuclear material for one bomb a year.
Syria admits co-operating with North Korea but says the two countries have no nuclear co-operation. The site is 100 miles from Syria's border with Iraq and close to an airstrip that would allow for easy transportation of personnel. "I'm pretty convinced that Syria was trying to build a nuclear reactor," Mr Albright told The Washington Post yesterday. However the Isis report said the images "raise as many questions as they answer". Isis is an independent research organisation that follows nuclear weapons production around the world.
A week ago ABC News reported that Israel had recruited a spy to take ground photographs of the reactor construction from inside the complex. Because the building was already covered with a roof, they say, a spy may have been necessary to take photographs from inside the reactor building. The Washington Post has reported that the North Korean-style reactor is built gradually on site and the roof would hide what was inside the building.
The Isis experts suspect that Syria was building a small gas-graphite reactor of about 20-25 megawatts, which is large enough to make about one nuclear weapon's worth of plutonium each year.
Israel, which has an estimated 100 nuclear weapons, has remained silent about the bombing raid. Nor has it provided any justification for its raid on a foreign country. Syria flatly denies having a nuclear programme. But secretly building a nuclear reactor would put Syria in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, in which all signatories must reveal such decisions.
Syria is reported to be to removing what remains of the site, while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is also analysing photographs in an attempt to establish what Syria was up to. The director of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, is angry at Syria, the Israelis and Western intelligence agencies for failing to pass on information about the alleged secret nuclear programme.
"We have said, 'If any of you has the slightest information showing that there was anything linked to nuclear, we would of course be happy to investigate it,'" Mr ElBaradei told Le Monde. "Frankly, I venture to hope that before people decide to bombard and use force, they will come and see us to convey their concerns." Mr ElBaradei also warned that efforts to contain nuclear proliferation were endangered by military action.
"The use of force can set things back, but it does not deal with the roots of the problem," he said.
Even the ISIS report says the photographs raise as many questions as they answer, including whether they even have the right sight!
Of course the US is simply going along with and trying to justify Israel's attack. Why Syria co-operates with the US on renditions and other matters is a mystery. The US attitude is that there is no reward for help or co-operation. Syria has also accepted hordes of Iraqi refugees.
US claims photos show Syrian nuclear reactor
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 25 October 2007
US security experts have published what they believe to be photographs of a secret nuclear facility in Syria, which was bombed by Israeli jets last month.
Their analysis of satellite images in an area near the river Euphrates reveals what they say are buildings similar to a North Korean nuclear reactor capable of producing fuel for a nuclear bomb. The experts, David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector, and Paul Brannan, from the Institute for Science and International Security (Isis), believe they have found the site that could have been the target of a night-time Israeli raid on 6 September. The Israelis imposed a news blackout on the raid, which prompted speculation that the attack may have been a dry run for a strike on Iran.
In a report released yesterday by Isis, the experts say that commercial satellite imagery of the area shows buildings under construction. The buildings have the same footprint as that of North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, which is capable of producing nuclear material for one bomb a year.
Syria admits co-operating with North Korea but says the two countries have no nuclear co-operation. The site is 100 miles from Syria's border with Iraq and close to an airstrip that would allow for easy transportation of personnel. "I'm pretty convinced that Syria was trying to build a nuclear reactor," Mr Albright told The Washington Post yesterday. However the Isis report said the images "raise as many questions as they answer". Isis is an independent research organisation that follows nuclear weapons production around the world.
A week ago ABC News reported that Israel had recruited a spy to take ground photographs of the reactor construction from inside the complex. Because the building was already covered with a roof, they say, a spy may have been necessary to take photographs from inside the reactor building. The Washington Post has reported that the North Korean-style reactor is built gradually on site and the roof would hide what was inside the building.
The Isis experts suspect that Syria was building a small gas-graphite reactor of about 20-25 megawatts, which is large enough to make about one nuclear weapon's worth of plutonium each year.
Israel, which has an estimated 100 nuclear weapons, has remained silent about the bombing raid. Nor has it provided any justification for its raid on a foreign country. Syria flatly denies having a nuclear programme. But secretly building a nuclear reactor would put Syria in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, in which all signatories must reveal such decisions.
Syria is reported to be to removing what remains of the site, while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is also analysing photographs in an attempt to establish what Syria was up to. The director of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, is angry at Syria, the Israelis and Western intelligence agencies for failing to pass on information about the alleged secret nuclear programme.
"We have said, 'If any of you has the slightest information showing that there was anything linked to nuclear, we would of course be happy to investigate it,'" Mr ElBaradei told Le Monde. "Frankly, I venture to hope that before people decide to bombard and use force, they will come and see us to convey their concerns." Mr ElBaradei also warned that efforts to contain nuclear proliferation were endangered by military action.
"The use of force can set things back, but it does not deal with the roots of the problem," he said.
US bunker-buster request prompts Iran attack fears
This is just another in the numerous signs of a buildup to attack Iran. It is hard to imagine they are for Afghanistan. The drumbeat for an attack on Iran is unrelenting.
U.S. bunker-buster request prompts Iran attack fears By Susan Cornwell
Wed Oct 24, 6:59 PM ET
Some Democratic lawmakers questioned on Wednesday whether a new Bush administration request for $88 million to fit "bunker-busting" bombs to B-2 stealth bombers was part of preparations for an attack on Iran.
The proposal was included as part of a nearly $200 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Bush administration sent to Capitol Hill on Monday.
The request included $87.8 million for further development of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, a conventional bomb designed to destroy hardened or deeply buried targets.
Many of Iran's nuclear development facilities are believed to be underground. The United States accuses Iran of trying to develop a nuclear bomb while Tehran insists its nuclear program is only for power generation.
A Bush administration summary said the request was needed for "development of a Massive Ordnance Penetrator for the B-2 aircraft in response to an urgent operational need from theater commanders," but gave no details.
"My assumption is that it is Iran, because you wouldn't use them in Iraq, and I don't know where you would use them in Afghanistan, it doesn't have any weapons facilities underground that we know of," said Rep. Jim Moran, a Virginia Democrat who is on the House defense spending committee and intends to argue against the request.
"I suppose you could try to bomb out a cave (in Afghanistan), but that seems like taking a sledgehammer to a tack. A little excessive," Moran said in a phone interview.
Another Democrat, Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, said the bunker-buster request worried him because of the rising tide of criticism of Iran coming from the Bush administration. Last week, Bush warned that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three.
"The drumbeats of war are beating again, this time against Iran and we have to step in while there is still time," McDermott said through a spokesman.
'BURIED TARGETS'
One congressional aide said, however, that the proposed program to fit the bombs to the B-2s might not be finished until 2009 or 2010 -- after the Bush administration has left office.
Asked what the bunker-buster had to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior defense official briefing reporters on the war funding request earlier this week said: "Look in terms of better capabilities of bringing better, quicker precision ordnance on the target."
"You have buried targets, for example particularly in Afghanistan, that you're concerned about and so, to me, I think there is in fact a direct link in terms of the kinds of possibilities that might be there in this sort of capability."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeated the administration's position on Wednesday that Bush prefers diplomacy to resolve problems with Iran, although she said all options are on the table.
The Democratic majority in Congress, which opposes prolonging the Iraq conflict, is in no hurry to give Bush more war money. House appropriators said earlier this month they would not even consider the new war funding request until early 2008, and they want to link it to a plan to bring troops home.
(Additional reporting by Andrew Gray)
Copyright © 2007 Reuters Limited.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
U.S. bunker-buster request prompts Iran attack fears By Susan Cornwell
Wed Oct 24, 6:59 PM ET
Some Democratic lawmakers questioned on Wednesday whether a new Bush administration request for $88 million to fit "bunker-busting" bombs to B-2 stealth bombers was part of preparations for an attack on Iran.
The proposal was included as part of a nearly $200 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Bush administration sent to Capitol Hill on Monday.
The request included $87.8 million for further development of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, a conventional bomb designed to destroy hardened or deeply buried targets.
Many of Iran's nuclear development facilities are believed to be underground. The United States accuses Iran of trying to develop a nuclear bomb while Tehran insists its nuclear program is only for power generation.
A Bush administration summary said the request was needed for "development of a Massive Ordnance Penetrator for the B-2 aircraft in response to an urgent operational need from theater commanders," but gave no details.
"My assumption is that it is Iran, because you wouldn't use them in Iraq, and I don't know where you would use them in Afghanistan, it doesn't have any weapons facilities underground that we know of," said Rep. Jim Moran, a Virginia Democrat who is on the House defense spending committee and intends to argue against the request.
"I suppose you could try to bomb out a cave (in Afghanistan), but that seems like taking a sledgehammer to a tack. A little excessive," Moran said in a phone interview.
Another Democrat, Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, said the bunker-buster request worried him because of the rising tide of criticism of Iran coming from the Bush administration. Last week, Bush warned that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three.
"The drumbeats of war are beating again, this time against Iran and we have to step in while there is still time," McDermott said through a spokesman.
'BURIED TARGETS'
One congressional aide said, however, that the proposed program to fit the bombs to the B-2s might not be finished until 2009 or 2010 -- after the Bush administration has left office.
Asked what the bunker-buster had to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior defense official briefing reporters on the war funding request earlier this week said: "Look in terms of better capabilities of bringing better, quicker precision ordnance on the target."
"You have buried targets, for example particularly in Afghanistan, that you're concerned about and so, to me, I think there is in fact a direct link in terms of the kinds of possibilities that might be there in this sort of capability."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeated the administration's position on Wednesday that Bush prefers diplomacy to resolve problems with Iran, although she said all options are on the table.
The Democratic majority in Congress, which opposes prolonging the Iraq conflict, is in no hurry to give Bush more war money. House appropriators said earlier this month they would not even consider the new war funding request until early 2008, and they want to link it to a plan to bring troops home.
(Additional reporting by Andrew Gray)
Copyright © 2007 Reuters Limited.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Endgame for Iraqi Oil?
This is from http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174853/jack_miles_baghdad_to_bush_you_have_14_months.
This is a long and fascinating analysis of the final episode of Iraq under the UN sanctioned occupation. The Iraqi govt. is starting to flex its sovereignty muscles such as they are. There are many agreements with Iran and China much to the chagrin of the US I am sure. However, the situation is very mixed. Iraq does not seem to have any influence at all on US military raids. The US kills civilians with virtual impunity. Blackwater may be brought to heel but not the US military that continues a practice of aerial bombardment in cities.
The oil bill is still stuck in parliament. No news about any breakthrough as yet.
Endgame for Iraqi Oil?
The Sovereignty Showdown in Iraq
By Jack Miles
The oil game in Iraq may be almost up. On September 29th, like a landlord serving notice, the government of Iraq announced that the next annual renewal of the United Nations Security Council mandate for a multinational force in Iraq -- the only legal basis for a continuation of the American occupation -- will be the last. That was, it seems, the first shoe to fall. The second may be an announcement terminating the little-noticed, but crucial companion Security Council mandate governing the disposition of Iraq's oil revenues.
By December 31, 2008, according to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, the government of Iraq intends to have replaced the existing mandate for a multinational security force with a conventional bilateral security agreement with the United States, an agreement of the sort that Washington has with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and several other countries in the Middle East. The Security Council has always paired the annual renewal of its mandate for the multinational force with the renewal of a second mandate for the management of Iraqi oil revenues. This happens through the "Development Fund for Iraq," a kind of escrow account set up by the occupying powers after the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime and recognized in 2003 by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483. The oil game will be up if and when Iraq announces that this mandate, too, will be terminated at a date certain in favor of resource-development agreements that -- like the envisioned security agreement -- match those of other states in the region.
The game will be up because, as Antonia Juhasz pointed out last March in a New York Times op-ed, "Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?":
"Iraq's neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia…. have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced."
By contrast, the oil legislation now pending in the Iraqi parliament awards foreign oil companies coveted, long-term, 20-35 year contracts of just the sort that neighboring oil-producers have rejected for decades. It also places the Iraqi oil industry under the control of an appointed body that would include representatives of international oil companies as full voting members.
The news that the duly elected government of Iraq is exercising its limited sovereignty to set a date for termination of the American occupation radically undercuts all discussion in Congress or by American presidential candidates of how soon the U.S. occupation of Iraq may "safely" end. Yet if, by the same route, Iraq were to resume full and independent control over the world's third-largest proven oil reserves -- 200 to 300 million barrels of light crude worth as much as $30 trillion at today's prices -- a politically incorrect question might break rudely out of the Internet universe and into the mainstream media world, into, that is, the open: Has the Iraq war been an oil war from the outset?
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan evidently thought so or so he indicated in a single sentence in his recent memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." When asked, Gen. John Abizaid, former CENTCOM commander who oversaw three and a half years of the American occupation of Iraq, agreed. "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," he said during a roundtable discussion at Stanford University. These confessions validated the suspicions of foreign observers too numerous to count. Veteran security analyst Thomas Powers observed in the New York Review of Books recently:
What it was only feared the Russians might do [by invading Afghanistan in the 1980s] the Americans have actually done -- they have planted themselves squarely astride the world's largest pool of oil, in a position potentially to control its movement and to coerce all the governments who depend on that oil. Americans naturally do not suspect their own motives but others do. The reaction of the Russians, the Germans, and the French in the months leading up to the war suggests that none of them wished to give Americans the power which [former National Security Adviser Zbigniew] Brzezinski had feared was the goal of the Soviets.
Apologists for the war point out lamely that the United States imports only a small fraction of its oil from Iraq, but what matters, rather obviously, is not Iraq's current exports but its reserves.
Before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, media mogul Rupert Murdoch said, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil." In the twenty-first century's version of the "Great Game" of nineteenth century imperialism, the Bush administration made a colossal gamble that Iraq could become a kind of West Germany or South Korea on the Persian Gulf -- a federal republic with a robust, oil-exporting economy, a rising standard of living, and a set of U.S. bases that would guarantee lasting American domination of the most resource-strategic region on the planet. The political half of that gamble has already been lost, but the Bush administration has proven adamantly unwilling to accept the loss of the economic half, the oil half, without a desperate fight. Perhaps the five super-bases that the U.S. has been constructing in Iraq for as many as 20,000 troops each, plus the ill-built super-embassy (the largest on the planet) it has been constructing inside the Green Zone, will suffice to maintain American control over the oil reserves, even in defiance of international law and the officially stated wishes of the Iraqi people -- but perhaps not.
Blackwater and the Sovereignty Showdown
In any case, a kind of slow-motion showdown may lie not so far ahead; and, during the past weeks, we may have been given a clue as to how it could unfold. Recall that after the gunning down of at least 17 Iraqis in a Baghdad square, Prime Minister al-Maliki demanded that the State Department dismiss and punish the trigger-happy private security firm, Blackwater USA, which was responsible for the safety of American diplomatic personnel in Iraq. He further demanded that the immunity former occupation head L. Paul Bremer III had granted, in 2004, to all such private security firms be revoked. Startled, the Bush administration briefly grounded its diplomatic operations, then defiantly resumed them -- with security still provided by Blackwater. Within days, though, Bush found himself face-to-face in New York with al-Maliki for discussions whose topic National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley revealingly named as "Iraqi sovereignty." Who would blink first?
We're still waiting to see, but in the wake of an Iraqi investigation ended with a demand for $8 million compensation for each of the 17 murdered Baghdadis, Blackwater is reportedly "on its way out" of security responsibility in Iraq, probably by the six-month deadline that al-Maliki has demanded. Despite its disgrace, the well-connected private security company continues to win lucrative State Department security contracts. Blackwater expert Jeremy Scahill told Bill Moyers that losing the Iraq gig would only slightly affect Blackwater's bottom line, but could grievously inconvenience U.S. diplomatic operations in Iraq. In forcing such a crisis on the State Department, the al-Maliki government, whose powerlessness has been an assumption unchallenged from left or right (in or out of Iraq), suddenly looks a good deal stronger.
But oil matters more to Washington than Blackwater does. In September, when the effort to enact U.S.-favored oil legislation -- a much-announced "benchmark" of both the White House and Congress -- collapsed in Iraq's legislature, the coup de grace seemed to be delivered by a wildcat agreement between the Kurdistan Regional Government and Hunt Oil of Dallas, Texas, headed by Ray L. Hunt, a longtime Bush ally and a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. This agreement, undertaken against the stated wishes of the central government, provides for the separate development of Kurdistan's oil resources and puts the Kurds in blatant, preemptive violation of the pending legislation. It makes, in fact, such a mockery of that legislation that the prospect of its passage before the Development Fund mandate expires is now vanishingly small.
Endgame for Iraqi Oil?
If the mandate expires and the law is not passed, then what? Then others in Iraq may well seek to follow the Kurdish example and cut comparable deals with whomever they wish. The central government, even if it has lost effective control of the Kurdish north and the Sunni west, could well ratify resource-separatism by contracting for the development of the oil resources in the territory generally remaining under its control. Thus, a new, Iran-allied, oil-rich, nine-province Shiite Iraq could match Kurdistan's deal with one of its own, perhaps even with ready-and-willing China. Will any combination of American military and diplomatic pressure suffice to stop such an untoward outcome?
Clearly, some in Washington still think so. Shortly before the collapse of the Iraqi oil legislation effort, Bush's Commerce Department began quietly advertising for an Arabic-speaking legal advisor to help it in "providing technical assistance to Iraq to create a legal and tax environment conducive to domestic and foreign investment in Iraq's key economic sectors, starting with the mineral resources sector." (Read: starting with oil.) As it happens, the job description overlaps heavily with that of the Development Fund for Iraq's existing International Advisory and Monitoring Board, whose responsibility, according to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483, has been to see to it "that all export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas from Iraq…. shall be made consistent with prevailing international marketing best practices." Is the Commerce Department already planning for the demise of this board? Like the super-embassy and the super-bases, this bit of Commerce Department staffing-up bespeaks the urge to continue an invasive American presence in Iraq, including Iraq's energy sector, long after December 31, 2008.
But if the occupation is shut down legally after that date and if Iraqi control over Iraqi oil reverts -- legally, at least -- to something close to pre-war status, that Commerce Department expert may find him or herself playing a less-than-major role in Baghdad. Instead, expect a new role for Iraq's hitherto excluded pool of domestic expertise. The Iraq National Oil Company began operations back in 1961; its legacy includes a skilled work force of trained oil workers. Notable, in fact, among those opposed to the failed oil legislation is the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions. Its members object to provisions in the legislation that permit the hiring of foreign oil workers rather than Iraqis and -- in classic Bush Administration fashion -- exclude the union from any participation in contract negotiations. The Federation's protests have attracted a letter of support signed by six Nobel Peace Prize laureates.
Even with Iraqi expertise duly factored in, oil remains a complicated business, and foreign expertise and capital will remain indispensable in Iraq. Still, for the Shiite-dominated central government, the most trusted foreign supplier of supplementary expertise, manpower, and even capital would seem to be Iran. For now, the United States is paying many of the salaries in Baghdad; but Iran's president, predicting an American withdrawal, has lately declared his readiness to "fill the [regional power] gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation." This invitation to regional collaboration will surely strike the less populous, militarily more vulnerable Saudis as disingenuous in the extreme, but Iran may be hard to stop. As former ambassador Peter Galbraith has explained: "Since 2005, Iraq's Shiite-led government has concluded numerous economic, political, and military agreements with Iran. The most important would link the two countries' strategic oil reserves by building a pipeline from southern Iraq to Iran, while another commits Iran to providing extensive military assistance to the Iraq government." On Oct. 17, the al-Maliki regime flexed its supposedly non-existent muscle yet again by awarding $1.1 billion in contracts to Iran and China to build enormous power plants in Baghdad's Shiite Sadr City and between the two Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.
The prospect that, in the endgame for Iraqi oil, the victor might be Shiite Iran (and indirectly Communist China) may help explain recent American calls for the replacement of the devoutly Shiite Prime Minister al-Maliki. Yet, even if American pressure leads to al-Maliki's ouster, the Iraqi parliament cannot be ousted with him. The prime minister's announcement that the next renewal of the multi-force mandate would be the last came, in fact, in response to a binding resolution in parliament that the next renewal, unlike previous ones, may not be at the request of the prime minister alone, but only with the advice and consent of parliament. It has voted once already, in a non-binding resolution, to require the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal.
Fragile as it is, the government of Iraq enjoys international legal recognition, and the underestimated al-Maliki is evidently not without resources when it comes to asserting Iraqi sovereignty over American autonomy within Iraq's borders. In "Blackwatergate," he found a remarkable pressure point, declaring that no new law would be passed in Iraq until the Blackwater matter was resolved to his satisfaction. Nor was al-Maliki necessarily whistling in the dark when he warned his American critics, "We can find friends elsewhere."
The expiration date that Iraq has now set for the operation of a multinational force on its territory coincides almost exactly with the end of the Bush administration. As that date nears, the endgame question may become: How far can the administration go in repudiating its own erstwhile agenda and returning Iraq to its pre-war status -- that is, to U.S.-backed Sunni domination of Iraqi domestic politics. That would, of course, result in armed Iraqi hostility to the administration's enemy of enemies in the region, Iran, and a resigned return to collaboration with the Saudi-dominated Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in the management of the world oil market, all under a largely offshore U.S. military umbrella. Will the fallback dream now be the one the President's father entertained after Gulf War I -- the creation in Baghdad of a kinder, gentler Saddam Hussein with whom, to use the classic phrase, the U.S. can "do business"?
Time will tell, but not too much time. The eerie silence of the Bush administration about oil grows all the more deafening as the price of crude climbs toward $100 a barrel. Blood for oil may never have been a good deal, but so much blood for no oil at all may seem a far worse one.
Jack Miles is senior fellow for religious affairs with the Pacific Council on International Policy and professor of English and religious studies at the University of California, Irvine. He is the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning God: A Biography, among other works.
Copyright 2007 Jack Miles
This is a long and fascinating analysis of the final episode of Iraq under the UN sanctioned occupation. The Iraqi govt. is starting to flex its sovereignty muscles such as they are. There are many agreements with Iran and China much to the chagrin of the US I am sure. However, the situation is very mixed. Iraq does not seem to have any influence at all on US military raids. The US kills civilians with virtual impunity. Blackwater may be brought to heel but not the US military that continues a practice of aerial bombardment in cities.
The oil bill is still stuck in parliament. No news about any breakthrough as yet.
Endgame for Iraqi Oil?
The Sovereignty Showdown in Iraq
By Jack Miles
The oil game in Iraq may be almost up. On September 29th, like a landlord serving notice, the government of Iraq announced that the next annual renewal of the United Nations Security Council mandate for a multinational force in Iraq -- the only legal basis for a continuation of the American occupation -- will be the last. That was, it seems, the first shoe to fall. The second may be an announcement terminating the little-noticed, but crucial companion Security Council mandate governing the disposition of Iraq's oil revenues.
By December 31, 2008, according to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, the government of Iraq intends to have replaced the existing mandate for a multinational security force with a conventional bilateral security agreement with the United States, an agreement of the sort that Washington has with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and several other countries in the Middle East. The Security Council has always paired the annual renewal of its mandate for the multinational force with the renewal of a second mandate for the management of Iraqi oil revenues. This happens through the "Development Fund for Iraq," a kind of escrow account set up by the occupying powers after the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime and recognized in 2003 by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483. The oil game will be up if and when Iraq announces that this mandate, too, will be terminated at a date certain in favor of resource-development agreements that -- like the envisioned security agreement -- match those of other states in the region.
The game will be up because, as Antonia Juhasz pointed out last March in a New York Times op-ed, "Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?":
"Iraq's neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia…. have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced."
By contrast, the oil legislation now pending in the Iraqi parliament awards foreign oil companies coveted, long-term, 20-35 year contracts of just the sort that neighboring oil-producers have rejected for decades. It also places the Iraqi oil industry under the control of an appointed body that would include representatives of international oil companies as full voting members.
The news that the duly elected government of Iraq is exercising its limited sovereignty to set a date for termination of the American occupation radically undercuts all discussion in Congress or by American presidential candidates of how soon the U.S. occupation of Iraq may "safely" end. Yet if, by the same route, Iraq were to resume full and independent control over the world's third-largest proven oil reserves -- 200 to 300 million barrels of light crude worth as much as $30 trillion at today's prices -- a politically incorrect question might break rudely out of the Internet universe and into the mainstream media world, into, that is, the open: Has the Iraq war been an oil war from the outset?
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan evidently thought so or so he indicated in a single sentence in his recent memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." When asked, Gen. John Abizaid, former CENTCOM commander who oversaw three and a half years of the American occupation of Iraq, agreed. "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," he said during a roundtable discussion at Stanford University. These confessions validated the suspicions of foreign observers too numerous to count. Veteran security analyst Thomas Powers observed in the New York Review of Books recently:
What it was only feared the Russians might do [by invading Afghanistan in the 1980s] the Americans have actually done -- they have planted themselves squarely astride the world's largest pool of oil, in a position potentially to control its movement and to coerce all the governments who depend on that oil. Americans naturally do not suspect their own motives but others do. The reaction of the Russians, the Germans, and the French in the months leading up to the war suggests that none of them wished to give Americans the power which [former National Security Adviser Zbigniew] Brzezinski had feared was the goal of the Soviets.
Apologists for the war point out lamely that the United States imports only a small fraction of its oil from Iraq, but what matters, rather obviously, is not Iraq's current exports but its reserves.
Before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, media mogul Rupert Murdoch said, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil." In the twenty-first century's version of the "Great Game" of nineteenth century imperialism, the Bush administration made a colossal gamble that Iraq could become a kind of West Germany or South Korea on the Persian Gulf -- a federal republic with a robust, oil-exporting economy, a rising standard of living, and a set of U.S. bases that would guarantee lasting American domination of the most resource-strategic region on the planet. The political half of that gamble has already been lost, but the Bush administration has proven adamantly unwilling to accept the loss of the economic half, the oil half, without a desperate fight. Perhaps the five super-bases that the U.S. has been constructing in Iraq for as many as 20,000 troops each, plus the ill-built super-embassy (the largest on the planet) it has been constructing inside the Green Zone, will suffice to maintain American control over the oil reserves, even in defiance of international law and the officially stated wishes of the Iraqi people -- but perhaps not.
Blackwater and the Sovereignty Showdown
In any case, a kind of slow-motion showdown may lie not so far ahead; and, during the past weeks, we may have been given a clue as to how it could unfold. Recall that after the gunning down of at least 17 Iraqis in a Baghdad square, Prime Minister al-Maliki demanded that the State Department dismiss and punish the trigger-happy private security firm, Blackwater USA, which was responsible for the safety of American diplomatic personnel in Iraq. He further demanded that the immunity former occupation head L. Paul Bremer III had granted, in 2004, to all such private security firms be revoked. Startled, the Bush administration briefly grounded its diplomatic operations, then defiantly resumed them -- with security still provided by Blackwater. Within days, though, Bush found himself face-to-face in New York with al-Maliki for discussions whose topic National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley revealingly named as "Iraqi sovereignty." Who would blink first?
We're still waiting to see, but in the wake of an Iraqi investigation ended with a demand for $8 million compensation for each of the 17 murdered Baghdadis, Blackwater is reportedly "on its way out" of security responsibility in Iraq, probably by the six-month deadline that al-Maliki has demanded. Despite its disgrace, the well-connected private security company continues to win lucrative State Department security contracts. Blackwater expert Jeremy Scahill told Bill Moyers that losing the Iraq gig would only slightly affect Blackwater's bottom line, but could grievously inconvenience U.S. diplomatic operations in Iraq. In forcing such a crisis on the State Department, the al-Maliki government, whose powerlessness has been an assumption unchallenged from left or right (in or out of Iraq), suddenly looks a good deal stronger.
But oil matters more to Washington than Blackwater does. In September, when the effort to enact U.S.-favored oil legislation -- a much-announced "benchmark" of both the White House and Congress -- collapsed in Iraq's legislature, the coup de grace seemed to be delivered by a wildcat agreement between the Kurdistan Regional Government and Hunt Oil of Dallas, Texas, headed by Ray L. Hunt, a longtime Bush ally and a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. This agreement, undertaken against the stated wishes of the central government, provides for the separate development of Kurdistan's oil resources and puts the Kurds in blatant, preemptive violation of the pending legislation. It makes, in fact, such a mockery of that legislation that the prospect of its passage before the Development Fund mandate expires is now vanishingly small.
Endgame for Iraqi Oil?
If the mandate expires and the law is not passed, then what? Then others in Iraq may well seek to follow the Kurdish example and cut comparable deals with whomever they wish. The central government, even if it has lost effective control of the Kurdish north and the Sunni west, could well ratify resource-separatism by contracting for the development of the oil resources in the territory generally remaining under its control. Thus, a new, Iran-allied, oil-rich, nine-province Shiite Iraq could match Kurdistan's deal with one of its own, perhaps even with ready-and-willing China. Will any combination of American military and diplomatic pressure suffice to stop such an untoward outcome?
Clearly, some in Washington still think so. Shortly before the collapse of the Iraqi oil legislation effort, Bush's Commerce Department began quietly advertising for an Arabic-speaking legal advisor to help it in "providing technical assistance to Iraq to create a legal and tax environment conducive to domestic and foreign investment in Iraq's key economic sectors, starting with the mineral resources sector." (Read: starting with oil.) As it happens, the job description overlaps heavily with that of the Development Fund for Iraq's existing International Advisory and Monitoring Board, whose responsibility, according to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483, has been to see to it "that all export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas from Iraq…. shall be made consistent with prevailing international marketing best practices." Is the Commerce Department already planning for the demise of this board? Like the super-embassy and the super-bases, this bit of Commerce Department staffing-up bespeaks the urge to continue an invasive American presence in Iraq, including Iraq's energy sector, long after December 31, 2008.
But if the occupation is shut down legally after that date and if Iraqi control over Iraqi oil reverts -- legally, at least -- to something close to pre-war status, that Commerce Department expert may find him or herself playing a less-than-major role in Baghdad. Instead, expect a new role for Iraq's hitherto excluded pool of domestic expertise. The Iraq National Oil Company began operations back in 1961; its legacy includes a skilled work force of trained oil workers. Notable, in fact, among those opposed to the failed oil legislation is the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions. Its members object to provisions in the legislation that permit the hiring of foreign oil workers rather than Iraqis and -- in classic Bush Administration fashion -- exclude the union from any participation in contract negotiations. The Federation's protests have attracted a letter of support signed by six Nobel Peace Prize laureates.
Even with Iraqi expertise duly factored in, oil remains a complicated business, and foreign expertise and capital will remain indispensable in Iraq. Still, for the Shiite-dominated central government, the most trusted foreign supplier of supplementary expertise, manpower, and even capital would seem to be Iran. For now, the United States is paying many of the salaries in Baghdad; but Iran's president, predicting an American withdrawal, has lately declared his readiness to "fill the [regional power] gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation." This invitation to regional collaboration will surely strike the less populous, militarily more vulnerable Saudis as disingenuous in the extreme, but Iran may be hard to stop. As former ambassador Peter Galbraith has explained: "Since 2005, Iraq's Shiite-led government has concluded numerous economic, political, and military agreements with Iran. The most important would link the two countries' strategic oil reserves by building a pipeline from southern Iraq to Iran, while another commits Iran to providing extensive military assistance to the Iraq government." On Oct. 17, the al-Maliki regime flexed its supposedly non-existent muscle yet again by awarding $1.1 billion in contracts to Iran and China to build enormous power plants in Baghdad's Shiite Sadr City and between the two Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.
The prospect that, in the endgame for Iraqi oil, the victor might be Shiite Iran (and indirectly Communist China) may help explain recent American calls for the replacement of the devoutly Shiite Prime Minister al-Maliki. Yet, even if American pressure leads to al-Maliki's ouster, the Iraqi parliament cannot be ousted with him. The prime minister's announcement that the next renewal of the multi-force mandate would be the last came, in fact, in response to a binding resolution in parliament that the next renewal, unlike previous ones, may not be at the request of the prime minister alone, but only with the advice and consent of parliament. It has voted once already, in a non-binding resolution, to require the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal.
Fragile as it is, the government of Iraq enjoys international legal recognition, and the underestimated al-Maliki is evidently not without resources when it comes to asserting Iraqi sovereignty over American autonomy within Iraq's borders. In "Blackwatergate," he found a remarkable pressure point, declaring that no new law would be passed in Iraq until the Blackwater matter was resolved to his satisfaction. Nor was al-Maliki necessarily whistling in the dark when he warned his American critics, "We can find friends elsewhere."
The expiration date that Iraq has now set for the operation of a multinational force on its territory coincides almost exactly with the end of the Bush administration. As that date nears, the endgame question may become: How far can the administration go in repudiating its own erstwhile agenda and returning Iraq to its pre-war status -- that is, to U.S.-backed Sunni domination of Iraqi domestic politics. That would, of course, result in armed Iraqi hostility to the administration's enemy of enemies in the region, Iran, and a resigned return to collaboration with the Saudi-dominated Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in the management of the world oil market, all under a largely offshore U.S. military umbrella. Will the fallback dream now be the one the President's father entertained after Gulf War I -- the creation in Baghdad of a kinder, gentler Saddam Hussein with whom, to use the classic phrase, the U.S. can "do business"?
Time will tell, but not too much time. The eerie silence of the Bush administration about oil grows all the more deafening as the price of crude climbs toward $100 a barrel. Blood for oil may never have been a good deal, but so much blood for no oil at all may seem a far worse one.
Jack Miles is senior fellow for religious affairs with the Pacific Council on International Policy and professor of English and religious studies at the University of California, Irvine. He is the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning God: A Biography, among other works.
Copyright 2007 Jack Miles
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Most of 1.2 billion paid to DynCorp in Iraq unaccounted for.
Report: Most of $1.2 billion to train Iraqi police unaccounted for.
If this sort of thing happened within a government agency in mainland USA heads would probably roll. Maybe I am too optimistic about that. Anyway one would think that there would be more than a few useless bleats from a few politicians about something this big.
(CNN) -- The U.S. State Department is unable to account for most of $1.2 billion in funding that it gave to DynCorp International to train Iraqi police, a government report said Tuesday.
An International Police Liaison Officer hired by DynCorp stands near new Iraqi police recruits in Falluja, Iraq.
"The bottom line is that State can't account for where it went," said Glenn D. Furbish, who was involved in putting together the 20-page report for the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction (SIGIR).
The Department of State's Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) "did not have the information needed to identify what DynCorp provided under the contract or how funds were spent," the report said.
As a result, the audit agency announced it has suspended its oversight of the agency's project until INL gathers the information.
"Their records are just not detailed," Furbish said Monday in a telephone interview. "From an audit perspective, we've identified the problem; they're working to rectify the problem."
Though Iraqi police have indeed been trained and equipment has been provided under the contract, invoices and supporting paperwork submitted by DynCorp "were in disarray," the report said.
In addition, INL "had not validated the accuracy" of invoices received prior to last October, and "INL does not know specifically what it received for most of the $1.2 billion in expenditures under its DynCorp contract for the Iraqi Police Training Program."
The lack of controls "created an environment vulnerable to waste and fraud," the report said.
Furbish, an accountant by training who spent two years in Iraq, added, "It's like so much else that happened in Baghdad ... there was just a massive quantity of work and too few people in place to do it. They just essentially did not have the staff to monitor what was going on.
"Bills came in; they paid the bills, but they don't know what they paid for and they don't know what they've gotten."
Furbish, who has carried out audits for the Government Accountability Office for three decades, said the projected time line of three to five years to rectify the problem "is not atypical" for U.S. projects carried out in Iraq since the ouster of President Saddam Hussein.
"Baghdad is its own arena," he said. "Contract control has been a major shortcoming across the board."
In addition to having too few properly trained people, problems arose from the difficulties inherent in traveling within Iraq and from "the rush to get reconstruction activities under way before we actually had a full structure in place to manage them," he said.
Asked whether the full structure is currently in place more than four years after the U.S.-led invasion, he said. "It continues to be a problem."
In a letter to SIGIR, INL Acting Assistant Secretary Elizabeth Verville said her agency has made "significant progress in correcting past contract management problems" and "is dedicated to addressing our past contracting problems and systematically strengthening contract management and oversight."
She said invoice processing delays will be reduced as staffing is beefed up in Baghdad.
State Department spokeswoman Susan Pittman said a number of reforms have been made since January. "We are committed to continuous improvement," she said.
The Washington-based staff of four will soon be increased to 11, and the Baghdad-based staff of five will be augmented to seven "as soon as they all have their clearances," she said.
Still, she acknowledged, it will take years to get the paperwork current. "It isn't an easy process," she said.
"There is a huge need, a huge, urgent need and there were not enough people to be able to fill that void," she said. "That is something that we are in the process of doing."
Gregory Lagana, a spokesman for DynCorp, said the company's work in Iraq is a "really complex program. ... We buy weapons, body armor, vehicles, communications equipment -- that all belongs to the State Department."
Sometimes, he said, "it's coded wrong or double-billed. We actually find a lot of that ourselves in the normal auditing process."
Tuesday's report is the second in a series of financial reviews ordered by Congress and carried out by SIGIR looking into large Iraqi Relief and Reconstruction Fund projects.
The first report, issued three months ago, criticized officials with the U.S. Agency for International Development for lack of oversight of their contract with Bechtel. Bechtel is a privately held, U.S. conglomerate of engineering, construction, and project management companies.
The series of at least 10 reports will be finalized by spring, he said. E-ma
If this sort of thing happened within a government agency in mainland USA heads would probably roll. Maybe I am too optimistic about that. Anyway one would think that there would be more than a few useless bleats from a few politicians about something this big.
(CNN) -- The U.S. State Department is unable to account for most of $1.2 billion in funding that it gave to DynCorp International to train Iraqi police, a government report said Tuesday.
An International Police Liaison Officer hired by DynCorp stands near new Iraqi police recruits in Falluja, Iraq.
"The bottom line is that State can't account for where it went," said Glenn D. Furbish, who was involved in putting together the 20-page report for the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction (SIGIR).
The Department of State's Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) "did not have the information needed to identify what DynCorp provided under the contract or how funds were spent," the report said.
As a result, the audit agency announced it has suspended its oversight of the agency's project until INL gathers the information.
"Their records are just not detailed," Furbish said Monday in a telephone interview. "From an audit perspective, we've identified the problem; they're working to rectify the problem."
Though Iraqi police have indeed been trained and equipment has been provided under the contract, invoices and supporting paperwork submitted by DynCorp "were in disarray," the report said.
In addition, INL "had not validated the accuracy" of invoices received prior to last October, and "INL does not know specifically what it received for most of the $1.2 billion in expenditures under its DynCorp contract for the Iraqi Police Training Program."
The lack of controls "created an environment vulnerable to waste and fraud," the report said.
Furbish, an accountant by training who spent two years in Iraq, added, "It's like so much else that happened in Baghdad ... there was just a massive quantity of work and too few people in place to do it. They just essentially did not have the staff to monitor what was going on.
"Bills came in; they paid the bills, but they don't know what they paid for and they don't know what they've gotten."
Furbish, who has carried out audits for the Government Accountability Office for three decades, said the projected time line of three to five years to rectify the problem "is not atypical" for U.S. projects carried out in Iraq since the ouster of President Saddam Hussein.
"Baghdad is its own arena," he said. "Contract control has been a major shortcoming across the board."
In addition to having too few properly trained people, problems arose from the difficulties inherent in traveling within Iraq and from "the rush to get reconstruction activities under way before we actually had a full structure in place to manage them," he said.
Asked whether the full structure is currently in place more than four years after the U.S.-led invasion, he said. "It continues to be a problem."
In a letter to SIGIR, INL Acting Assistant Secretary Elizabeth Verville said her agency has made "significant progress in correcting past contract management problems" and "is dedicated to addressing our past contracting problems and systematically strengthening contract management and oversight."
She said invoice processing delays will be reduced as staffing is beefed up in Baghdad.
State Department spokeswoman Susan Pittman said a number of reforms have been made since January. "We are committed to continuous improvement," she said.
The Washington-based staff of four will soon be increased to 11, and the Baghdad-based staff of five will be augmented to seven "as soon as they all have their clearances," she said.
Still, she acknowledged, it will take years to get the paperwork current. "It isn't an easy process," she said.
"There is a huge need, a huge, urgent need and there were not enough people to be able to fill that void," she said. "That is something that we are in the process of doing."
Gregory Lagana, a spokesman for DynCorp, said the company's work in Iraq is a "really complex program. ... We buy weapons, body armor, vehicles, communications equipment -- that all belongs to the State Department."
Sometimes, he said, "it's coded wrong or double-billed. We actually find a lot of that ourselves in the normal auditing process."
Tuesday's report is the second in a series of financial reviews ordered by Congress and carried out by SIGIR looking into large Iraqi Relief and Reconstruction Fund projects.
The first report, issued three months ago, criticized officials with the U.S. Agency for International Development for lack of oversight of their contract with Bechtel. Bechtel is a privately held, U.S. conglomerate of engineering, construction, and project management companies.
The series of at least 10 reports will be finalized by spring, he said. E-ma
Aerial bombardments in cities violate human rights.
This is from Juan Cole's blog. No one can touch the US for violating international law having to do with obligations of occupiers. The UN may bleat and Maliki may bleat but that is about all. The US does not recognise the international court of justice in fact it "bribes" countries not to sign on so the US troops will not be subject to it.
A similar policy is followed in Afghanistan by bomber Mcneill. The policy not only saves US soldiers lives but it also teaches civilians that they should not harbor or support insurgents.
Obviously, for an Occupation military to bomb a densely-populated city that it already largely controls is a violation of human rights law. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq has just condemned the US for using this tactic, which inevitably kills children, women and other non-combatants. You can't drop a bomb on an urban apartment building without killing lots of people, not only inside the building but also all around it. The bomb turns bits of the building into deadly projectiles. I am told that the US Air Force takes no responsibility for these aerial strikes when they are called in by army troops on the ground, and makes no assessment as to whether proportional force was deployed or excessive civilian casualties were incurred. So you have a convoy of soldiers in humvees driving through deeply hostile Sadr City, and someone starts sniping at them from a building. Obviously, running into the building is dangerous; it could be booby-trapped, or snipers could have set up there. I wouldn't want to do it. So the tendency would obviously be to take out the snipers by taking out the building they are using. That makes military sense. It doesn't make sense in the international law of occupations.
The US military spokesmen are always going on about precision strikes and reducing civilian casualties. I know they are sincere in thinking they can do that, but they just aren't dealing with a simple reality. They are bombing apartment buildings in densely populated cities!
The US military, then, may be artificially keeping US military deaths down this fall by resorting to many more aerial bombings. These bombings have repeatedly drawn forth powerful condemnations from the elected Iraqi political authorities and are unlikely to be viable much longer.
A similar policy is followed in Afghanistan by bomber Mcneill. The policy not only saves US soldiers lives but it also teaches civilians that they should not harbor or support insurgents.
Obviously, for an Occupation military to bomb a densely-populated city that it already largely controls is a violation of human rights law. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq has just condemned the US for using this tactic, which inevitably kills children, women and other non-combatants. You can't drop a bomb on an urban apartment building without killing lots of people, not only inside the building but also all around it. The bomb turns bits of the building into deadly projectiles. I am told that the US Air Force takes no responsibility for these aerial strikes when they are called in by army troops on the ground, and makes no assessment as to whether proportional force was deployed or excessive civilian casualties were incurred. So you have a convoy of soldiers in humvees driving through deeply hostile Sadr City, and someone starts sniping at them from a building. Obviously, running into the building is dangerous; it could be booby-trapped, or snipers could have set up there. I wouldn't want to do it. So the tendency would obviously be to take out the snipers by taking out the building they are using. That makes military sense. It doesn't make sense in the international law of occupations.
The US military spokesmen are always going on about precision strikes and reducing civilian casualties. I know they are sincere in thinking they can do that, but they just aren't dealing with a simple reality. They are bombing apartment buildings in densely populated cities!
The US military, then, may be artificially keeping US military deaths down this fall by resorting to many more aerial bombings. These bombings have repeatedly drawn forth powerful condemnations from the elected Iraqi political authorities and are unlikely to be viable much longer.
Afghans think security is declining: poll
These polls are often suspect although it would not be surprising there is concern for security. Other polls and data show little support for the national army and police. One wonders if representatives of the police or army are present at the polling to protect the pollsters! This is from sfgate.
Afghan Residents Say Security Declining
By FISNIK ABRASHI, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
(10-23) 04:18 PDT KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) --
Afghans believe the security situation in their country has deteriorated, compared with last year, but they say life is better now than under Taliban rule, a U.S.-funded survey released Tuesday found.
About 46 percent of more than 6,200 adults surveyed nationwide feel security is the biggest problem afflicting the country, while 29 percent think it is unemployment, according to the survey, which was conducted by the Asia Foundation and paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development.
"In the 2006 survey, it was unemployment first, followed by security and corruption, and this time around it is security first followed by unemployment and poor economy. This further underlines the deterioration in security in the eyes of the common Afghans," the survey said.
Despite the rise in violence, about four in 10 of those responding said they feel the country is headed in the right direction. That's roughly the same as those who answered the 2006 survey. Half of those surveyed said they were more prosperous today than during Taliban rule in the late 1990s.
Afghanistan is experiencing its worst bout of violence since the Taliban were removed from power in a U.S.-led invasion in 2001. More than 5,200 people — mostly militants — have died in insurgency-related violence so far this year, according to an Associated Press count based on figures from Afghan and Western officials.
"Insecurity is the main reason for the people to believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction," the survey said.
While lack of security was the top-ranked national issue, those surveyed identified a lack of electricity and water, and unemployment as the main problems on a local level, the survey found.
The foundation said the survey was conducted in all 34 provinces and was the largest comprehensive opinion poll ever conducted in Afghanistan. Some 6,263 people 18 and older were interviewed in person by a team of 494 trained interviewers between June 11 and June 22. The margin of error was 2.4 percentage points, it said.
Almost half of the people of Afghanistan think that their families are more prosperous today than they were during the Taliban regime, the survey found. However, more than a fourth think they are less prosperous today.
More than 80 percent of the respondents said they have confidence in the Afghanistan's National Army and the country's troublesome police force, while more than half said they do not trust the formal justice system and would rather rely on traditional forms of justice — decisions by local councils — to settle their disputes.
About eight in 10 felt that cultivation of opium poppies was wrong, with half of these respondents citing religion as the reason, but only about one in 10 linked the trade to terrorism, insecurity and corruption in the country, it said.
Afghanistan accounts for more than 93 percent of the world's supply of opium, the main ingredient in heroin, a lucrative trade whose proceeds in part fund some of the Taliban-led insurgency. The drug trade also has a corrupting influence on local government officials.
___
Afghan Residents Say Security Declining
By FISNIK ABRASHI, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
(10-23) 04:18 PDT KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) --
Afghans believe the security situation in their country has deteriorated, compared with last year, but they say life is better now than under Taliban rule, a U.S.-funded survey released Tuesday found.
About 46 percent of more than 6,200 adults surveyed nationwide feel security is the biggest problem afflicting the country, while 29 percent think it is unemployment, according to the survey, which was conducted by the Asia Foundation and paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development.
"In the 2006 survey, it was unemployment first, followed by security and corruption, and this time around it is security first followed by unemployment and poor economy. This further underlines the deterioration in security in the eyes of the common Afghans," the survey said.
Despite the rise in violence, about four in 10 of those responding said they feel the country is headed in the right direction. That's roughly the same as those who answered the 2006 survey. Half of those surveyed said they were more prosperous today than during Taliban rule in the late 1990s.
Afghanistan is experiencing its worst bout of violence since the Taliban were removed from power in a U.S.-led invasion in 2001. More than 5,200 people — mostly militants — have died in insurgency-related violence so far this year, according to an Associated Press count based on figures from Afghan and Western officials.
"Insecurity is the main reason for the people to believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction," the survey said.
While lack of security was the top-ranked national issue, those surveyed identified a lack of electricity and water, and unemployment as the main problems on a local level, the survey found.
The foundation said the survey was conducted in all 34 provinces and was the largest comprehensive opinion poll ever conducted in Afghanistan. Some 6,263 people 18 and older were interviewed in person by a team of 494 trained interviewers between June 11 and June 22. The margin of error was 2.4 percentage points, it said.
Almost half of the people of Afghanistan think that their families are more prosperous today than they were during the Taliban regime, the survey found. However, more than a fourth think they are less prosperous today.
More than 80 percent of the respondents said they have confidence in the Afghanistan's National Army and the country's troublesome police force, while more than half said they do not trust the formal justice system and would rather rely on traditional forms of justice — decisions by local councils — to settle their disputes.
About eight in 10 felt that cultivation of opium poppies was wrong, with half of these respondents citing religion as the reason, but only about one in 10 linked the trade to terrorism, insecurity and corruption in the country, it said.
Afghanistan accounts for more than 93 percent of the world's supply of opium, the main ingredient in heroin, a lucrative trade whose proceeds in part fund some of the Taliban-led insurgency. The drug trade also has a corrupting influence on local government officials.
___
Turkey ready to face world criticism over Iraq
Strange that Turkey would face world criticism when it is just acting to prevent a group that much of the world classifies as terrorist, including the US, from attacking it. Iraq and its main occupier have so far done little or nothing to stop the PKK. Another article I will post suggests that US may actually act but I doubt that. It will stir up the Kurdish authorities too much.
N.Iraq-army sources
Wed Oct 24, 2007Turkey ready to face world criticism over Iraq
ANKARA, Oct 24 (Reuters) - Turkish warplanes and ground troops attacked Kurdish rebel positions just inside northern Iraq between Sunday and Tuesday evening, military sources told Reuters on Wednesday.
The warplanes flew as deep as 20 km (13 miles) into Iraqi territory and some 300 ground troops advanced about 10 km, killing 34 rebels of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the sources said.
They made clear these were small sorties of a kind that Turkish forces have been known to conduct in the past across the mountainous border, not a large-scale offensive that U.S. and Iraqi authorities are trying to avert.
"Further 'hot pursuit' raids into northern Iraq can be expected, though none have taken place so far today (Wednesday)," a military official said, adding that all Turkish troops involved in the operations were now back in Turkey.
N.Iraq-army sources
Wed Oct 24, 2007Turkey ready to face world criticism over Iraq
ANKARA, Oct 24 (Reuters) - Turkish warplanes and ground troops attacked Kurdish rebel positions just inside northern Iraq between Sunday and Tuesday evening, military sources told Reuters on Wednesday.
The warplanes flew as deep as 20 km (13 miles) into Iraqi territory and some 300 ground troops advanced about 10 km, killing 34 rebels of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the sources said.
They made clear these were small sorties of a kind that Turkish forces have been known to conduct in the past across the mountainous border, not a large-scale offensive that U.S. and Iraqi authorities are trying to avert.
"Further 'hot pursuit' raids into northern Iraq can be expected, though none have taken place so far today (Wednesday)," a military official said, adding that all Turkish troops involved in the operations were now back in Turkey.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Refugees and Puppets
Riverbend is an Iraqi woman whose blog Baghdad Burning is quite famous in the blogosphere. She blogged from Baghdad for years but finally the family decided it was just too dangerous in Baghdad and along with millions of others fled the country. Her family went to Syria. This is a great personalised picture of what the Iraqi occupation has meant to one family. It is rather ironic that Syria a country that is reviled by the US and condemned (in large part rightfully) for its human rights record nevertheless has opened its doors to masses of fleeing Iraqis whereas the US has done virtually nothing.
Refugees and Puppets
Riverbend - Iraqi Girl Blog
10/22/07 -- "Baghdad Burning" -- Syria is a beautiful country- at least I think it is. I say “I think” because while I perceive it to be beautiful, I sometimes wonder if I mistake safety, security and normalcy for ‘beauty’. In so many ways, Damascus is like Baghdad before the war- bustling streets, occasional traffic jams, markets seemingly always full of shoppers… And in so many ways it’s different. The buildings are higher, the streets are generally narrower and there’s a mountain, Qasiyoun, that looms in the distance.
The mountain distracts me, as it does many Iraqis- especially those from Baghdad. Northern Iraq is full of mountains, but the rest of Iraq is quite flat. At night, Qasiyoun blends into the black sky and the only indication of its presence is a multitude of little, glimmering spots of light- houses and restaurants built right up there on the mountain. Every time I take a picture, I try to work Qasiyoun into it- I try to position the person so that Qasiyoun is in the background.
The first weeks here were something of a cultural shock. It has taken me these last three months to work away certain habits I’d acquired in Iraq after the war. It’s funny how you learn to act a certain way and don’t even know you’re doing strange things- like avoiding people’s eyes in the street or crazily murmuring prayers to yourself when stuck in traffic. It took me at least three weeks to teach myself to walk properly again- with head lifted, not constantly looking behind me.
It is estimated that there are at least 1.5 million Iraqis in Syria today. I believe it. Walking down the streets of Damascus, you can hear the Iraqi accent everywhere. There are areas like Geramana and Qudsiya that are packed full of Iraqi refugees. Syrians are few and far between in these areas. Even the public schools in the areas are full of Iraqi children. A cousin of mine is now attending a school in Qudsiya and his class is composed of 26 Iraqi children, and 5 Syrian children. It’s beyond belief sometimes. Most of the families have nothing to live on beyond their savings which are quickly being depleted with rent and the costs of living.
Within a month of our being here, we began hearing talk about Syria requiring visas from Iraqis, like most other countries. Apparently, our esteemed puppets in power met with Syrian and Jordanian authorities and decided they wanted to take away the last two safe havens remaining for Iraqis- Damascus and Amman. The talk began in late August and was only talk until recently- early October. Iraqis entering Syria now need a visa from the Syrian consulate or embassy in the country they are currently in. In the case of Iraqis still in Iraq, it is said that an approval from the Ministry of Interior is also required (which kind of makes it difficult for people running away from militias OF the Ministry of Interior…). Today, there’s talk of a possible fifty dollar visa at the border.
Iraqis who entered Syria before the visa was implemented were getting a one month visitation visa at the border. As soon as that month was over, you could take your passport and visit the local immigration bureau. If you were lucky, they would give you an additional month or two. When talk about visas from the Syrian embassy began, they stopped giving an extension on the initial border visa. We, as a family, had a brilliant idea. Before the commotion of visas began, and before we started needing a renewal, we decided to go to one of the border crossings, cross into Iraq, and come back into Syria- everyone was doing it. It would buy us some time- at least 2 months.
We chose a hot day in early September and drove the six hours to Kameshli, a border town in northern Syria. My aunt and her son came with us- they also needed an extension on their visa. There is a border crossing in Kameshli called Yaarubiya. It’s one of the simpler crossings because the Iraqi and Syrian borders are only a matter of several meters. You walk out of Syrian territory and then walk into Iraqi territory- simple and safe.
When we got to the Yaarubiya border patrol, it hit us that thousands of Iraqis had had our brilliant idea simultaneously- the lines to the border patrol office were endless. Hundreds of Iraqis stood in a long line waiting to have their passports stamped with an exit visa. We joined the line of people and waited. And waited. And waited…
It took four hours to leave the Syrian border after which came the lines of the Iraqi border post. Those were even longer. We joined one of the lines of weary, impatient Iraqis. “It’s looking like a gasoline line…” My younger cousin joked. That was the beginning of another four hours of waiting under the sun, taking baby steps, moving forward ever so slowly. The line kept getting longer. At one point, we could see neither the beginning of the line, where passports were being stamped to enter Iraq, nor the end. Running up and down the line were little boys selling glasses of water, chewing gum and cigarettes. My aunt caught one of them by the arm as he zipped past us, “How many people are in front of us?” He whistled and took a few steps back to assess the situation, “A hundred! A thousand!”. He was almost gleeful as he ran off to make business.
I had such mixed feelings standing in that line. I was caught between a feeling of yearning, a certain homesickness that sometimes catches me at the oddest moments, and a heavy feeling of dread. What if they didn’t agree to let us out again? It wasn’t really possible, but what if it happened? What if this was the last time I’d see the Iraqi border? What if we were no longer allowed to enter Iraq for some reason? What if we were never allowed to leave?
We spent the four hours standing, crouching, sitting and leaning in the line. The sun beat down on everyone equally- Sunnis, Shia and Kurds alike. E. tried to convince the aunt to faint so it would speed the process up for the family, but she just gave us a withering look and stood straighter. People just stood there, chatting, cursing or silent. It was yet another gathering of Iraqis – the perfect opportunity to swap sad stories and ask about distant relations or acquaintances.
We met two families we knew while waiting for our turn. We greeted each other like long lost friends and exchanged phone numbers and addresses in Damascus, promising to visit. I noticed the 23-year-old son, K., from one of the families was missing. I beat down my curiosity and refused to ask where he was. The mother was looking older than I remembered and the father looked constantly lost in thought, or maybe it was grief. I didn’t want to know if K. was dead or alive. I’d just have to believe he was alive and thriving somewhere, not worrying about borders or visas. Ignorance really is bliss sometimes...
Back at the Syrian border, we waited in a large group, tired and hungry, having handed over our passports for a stamp. The Syrian immigration man sifting through dozens of passports called out names and looked at faces as he handed over the passports patiently, “Stand back please- stand back”. There was a general cry towards the back of the crowded hall where we were standing as someone collapsed- as they lifted him I recognized an old man who was there with his family being chaperoned by his sons, leaning on a walking stick.
By the time we had reentered the Syrian border and were headed back to the cab ready to take us into Kameshli, I had resigned myself to the fact that we were refugees. I read about refugees on the Internet daily… in the newspapers… hear about them on TV. I hear about the estimated 1.5 million plus Iraqi refugees in Syria and shake my head, never really considering myself or my family as one of them. After all, refugees are people who sleep in tents and have no potable water or plumbing, right? Refugees carry their belongings in bags instead of suitcases and they don’t have cell phones or Internet access, right? Grasping my passport in my hand like my life depended on it, with two extra months in Syria stamped inside, it hit me how wrong I was. We were all refugees. I was suddenly a number. No matter how wealthy or educated or comfortable, a refugee is a refugee. A refugee is someone who isn’t really welcome in any country- including their own... especially their own.
We live in an apartment building where two other Iraqis are renting. The people in the floor above us are a Christian family from northern Iraq who got chased out of their village by Peshmerga and the family on our floor is a Kurdish family who lost their home in Baghdad to militias and were waiting for immigration to Sweden or Switzerland or some such European refugee haven.
The first evening we arrived, exhausted, dragging suitcases behind us, morale a little bit bruised, the Kurdish family sent over their representative – a 9 year old boy missing two front teeth, holding a lopsided cake, “We’re Abu Mohammed’s house- across from you- mama says if you need anything, just ask- this is our number. Abu Dalia’s family live upstairs, this is their number. We’re all Iraqi too... Welcome to the building.”
I cried that night because for the first time in a long time, so far away from home, I felt the unity that had been stolen from us in 2003.
Please visit Baghdad Burning Blog http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
Refugees and Puppets
Riverbend - Iraqi Girl Blog
10/22/07 -- "Baghdad Burning" -- Syria is a beautiful country- at least I think it is. I say “I think” because while I perceive it to be beautiful, I sometimes wonder if I mistake safety, security and normalcy for ‘beauty’. In so many ways, Damascus is like Baghdad before the war- bustling streets, occasional traffic jams, markets seemingly always full of shoppers… And in so many ways it’s different. The buildings are higher, the streets are generally narrower and there’s a mountain, Qasiyoun, that looms in the distance.
The mountain distracts me, as it does many Iraqis- especially those from Baghdad. Northern Iraq is full of mountains, but the rest of Iraq is quite flat. At night, Qasiyoun blends into the black sky and the only indication of its presence is a multitude of little, glimmering spots of light- houses and restaurants built right up there on the mountain. Every time I take a picture, I try to work Qasiyoun into it- I try to position the person so that Qasiyoun is in the background.
The first weeks here were something of a cultural shock. It has taken me these last three months to work away certain habits I’d acquired in Iraq after the war. It’s funny how you learn to act a certain way and don’t even know you’re doing strange things- like avoiding people’s eyes in the street or crazily murmuring prayers to yourself when stuck in traffic. It took me at least three weeks to teach myself to walk properly again- with head lifted, not constantly looking behind me.
It is estimated that there are at least 1.5 million Iraqis in Syria today. I believe it. Walking down the streets of Damascus, you can hear the Iraqi accent everywhere. There are areas like Geramana and Qudsiya that are packed full of Iraqi refugees. Syrians are few and far between in these areas. Even the public schools in the areas are full of Iraqi children. A cousin of mine is now attending a school in Qudsiya and his class is composed of 26 Iraqi children, and 5 Syrian children. It’s beyond belief sometimes. Most of the families have nothing to live on beyond their savings which are quickly being depleted with rent and the costs of living.
Within a month of our being here, we began hearing talk about Syria requiring visas from Iraqis, like most other countries. Apparently, our esteemed puppets in power met with Syrian and Jordanian authorities and decided they wanted to take away the last two safe havens remaining for Iraqis- Damascus and Amman. The talk began in late August and was only talk until recently- early October. Iraqis entering Syria now need a visa from the Syrian consulate or embassy in the country they are currently in. In the case of Iraqis still in Iraq, it is said that an approval from the Ministry of Interior is also required (which kind of makes it difficult for people running away from militias OF the Ministry of Interior…). Today, there’s talk of a possible fifty dollar visa at the border.
Iraqis who entered Syria before the visa was implemented were getting a one month visitation visa at the border. As soon as that month was over, you could take your passport and visit the local immigration bureau. If you were lucky, they would give you an additional month or two. When talk about visas from the Syrian embassy began, they stopped giving an extension on the initial border visa. We, as a family, had a brilliant idea. Before the commotion of visas began, and before we started needing a renewal, we decided to go to one of the border crossings, cross into Iraq, and come back into Syria- everyone was doing it. It would buy us some time- at least 2 months.
We chose a hot day in early September and drove the six hours to Kameshli, a border town in northern Syria. My aunt and her son came with us- they also needed an extension on their visa. There is a border crossing in Kameshli called Yaarubiya. It’s one of the simpler crossings because the Iraqi and Syrian borders are only a matter of several meters. You walk out of Syrian territory and then walk into Iraqi territory- simple and safe.
When we got to the Yaarubiya border patrol, it hit us that thousands of Iraqis had had our brilliant idea simultaneously- the lines to the border patrol office were endless. Hundreds of Iraqis stood in a long line waiting to have their passports stamped with an exit visa. We joined the line of people and waited. And waited. And waited…
It took four hours to leave the Syrian border after which came the lines of the Iraqi border post. Those were even longer. We joined one of the lines of weary, impatient Iraqis. “It’s looking like a gasoline line…” My younger cousin joked. That was the beginning of another four hours of waiting under the sun, taking baby steps, moving forward ever so slowly. The line kept getting longer. At one point, we could see neither the beginning of the line, where passports were being stamped to enter Iraq, nor the end. Running up and down the line were little boys selling glasses of water, chewing gum and cigarettes. My aunt caught one of them by the arm as he zipped past us, “How many people are in front of us?” He whistled and took a few steps back to assess the situation, “A hundred! A thousand!”. He was almost gleeful as he ran off to make business.
I had such mixed feelings standing in that line. I was caught between a feeling of yearning, a certain homesickness that sometimes catches me at the oddest moments, and a heavy feeling of dread. What if they didn’t agree to let us out again? It wasn’t really possible, but what if it happened? What if this was the last time I’d see the Iraqi border? What if we were no longer allowed to enter Iraq for some reason? What if we were never allowed to leave?
We spent the four hours standing, crouching, sitting and leaning in the line. The sun beat down on everyone equally- Sunnis, Shia and Kurds alike. E. tried to convince the aunt to faint so it would speed the process up for the family, but she just gave us a withering look and stood straighter. People just stood there, chatting, cursing or silent. It was yet another gathering of Iraqis – the perfect opportunity to swap sad stories and ask about distant relations or acquaintances.
We met two families we knew while waiting for our turn. We greeted each other like long lost friends and exchanged phone numbers and addresses in Damascus, promising to visit. I noticed the 23-year-old son, K., from one of the families was missing. I beat down my curiosity and refused to ask where he was. The mother was looking older than I remembered and the father looked constantly lost in thought, or maybe it was grief. I didn’t want to know if K. was dead or alive. I’d just have to believe he was alive and thriving somewhere, not worrying about borders or visas. Ignorance really is bliss sometimes...
Back at the Syrian border, we waited in a large group, tired and hungry, having handed over our passports for a stamp. The Syrian immigration man sifting through dozens of passports called out names and looked at faces as he handed over the passports patiently, “Stand back please- stand back”. There was a general cry towards the back of the crowded hall where we were standing as someone collapsed- as they lifted him I recognized an old man who was there with his family being chaperoned by his sons, leaning on a walking stick.
By the time we had reentered the Syrian border and were headed back to the cab ready to take us into Kameshli, I had resigned myself to the fact that we were refugees. I read about refugees on the Internet daily… in the newspapers… hear about them on TV. I hear about the estimated 1.5 million plus Iraqi refugees in Syria and shake my head, never really considering myself or my family as one of them. After all, refugees are people who sleep in tents and have no potable water or plumbing, right? Refugees carry their belongings in bags instead of suitcases and they don’t have cell phones or Internet access, right? Grasping my passport in my hand like my life depended on it, with two extra months in Syria stamped inside, it hit me how wrong I was. We were all refugees. I was suddenly a number. No matter how wealthy or educated or comfortable, a refugee is a refugee. A refugee is someone who isn’t really welcome in any country- including their own... especially their own.
We live in an apartment building where two other Iraqis are renting. The people in the floor above us are a Christian family from northern Iraq who got chased out of their village by Peshmerga and the family on our floor is a Kurdish family who lost their home in Baghdad to militias and were waiting for immigration to Sweden or Switzerland or some such European refugee haven.
The first evening we arrived, exhausted, dragging suitcases behind us, morale a little bit bruised, the Kurdish family sent over their representative – a 9 year old boy missing two front teeth, holding a lopsided cake, “We’re Abu Mohammed’s house- across from you- mama says if you need anything, just ask- this is our number. Abu Dalia’s family live upstairs, this is their number. We’re all Iraqi too... Welcome to the building.”
I cried that night because for the first time in a long time, so far away from home, I felt the unity that had been stolen from us in 2003.
Please visit Baghdad Burning Blog http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
Bhutto: The Kleptocrat in an Hermes Headscarf.
This is not the picture of Bhutto you will get from the mainstream media. Khan actually does not mention the fact that Bhutto along with other members of the opposition swore not to make any deals with Musharraf. But this is exactly what she did and added to that it is a US brokered deal. Her pro-US stand and her promise to clear radical Islamists out of the border territories makes her a marked woman. She has numerous enemies of numerous kinds in Pakistan. This fellow is probably one of the milder types!
Return of Benazir Bhutto
The Kleptocrat in an Hermes Headscarf
By JEMIMA KHAN
She's back. Hurrah! She's a woman. She's brave. She's a moderate. She speaks good English. She's Oxford-educated, no less. And she's not bad looking either.
I admit I'm biased. I don't like Benazir Bhutto. She called me names during her election campaign in 1996 and it left a bitter taste. Petty personal grievances aside, I still find jubilant reports of her return to Pakistan depressing. Let's be clear about this before she's turned into a martyr.
This is no Aung San Suu Kyi, despite her repeated insistence that she's "fighting for democracy", or even more incredibly, "fighting for Pakistan's poor".
This is the woman who was twice dismissed on corruption charges. She went into self-imposed exile while investigations continued into millions she had allegedly stashed away into Swiss bank accounts ($1.5 billion by the reckoning of Musharraf's own "National Accountability Bureau").
She has only been able to return because Musharraf, that megalomaniac, knows that his future depends on the grassroots diehard supporters inherited from her father's party, the PPP.
As a result, Musharraf, who in his first months in power declared it his express intention to wipe out corruption, has dropped all charges against her and granted her immunity from prosecution. Forever.
Notably, he did not do the same for his other political rival, Nawaz Sharif, who was recently deported after attempting his own spectacular return to Pakistan.
But the difference is that Benazir is a pro at playing to the West. And that's what counts. She talks about women and extremism and the West applauds. And then conspires.
The Americans and the British are acutely aware that their strategy in the region is failing and that Musharraf's hold on power is ever more tenuous. They have pressed hard for Benazir and the General to cut a deal that would allow them to share power for the next five years in a "liberal forces government".
It's all totally bogus. Benazir may speak the language of liberalism and look good on Larry King's sofa, but both her terms in office were marked by incompetence, extra-judicial killings and brazen looting of the treasury, with the help of her husband--famously known in Pakistan as Mr 10 Per Cent.
In a country that tops the international corruption league, she was its most self-enriching leader.
Benazir has always cynically used her gender to manipulate: I loved her answer to David Frost when he asked her how many millions she had in her Swiss bank accounts. "David, I think that's a very sexist question."
A non sequitur (does loot have a gender?) but one that brought the uncomfortable line of questioning to a swift end.
Of all Pakistan's elected leaders she conspicuously did the least to help the cause of women. She never, for example, repealed the Hudood Ordinances, Pakistan's controversial laws that made no distinction between rape and adultery.
She preferred instead to kowtow to the mullahs in order to cling to power, forming an expedient alliance with Pakistan's Religious Coalition Party and leaving Pakistan's women as powerless as she found them.
The problem is that the West never seems to learn; playing favourites in a complicated nation's politics always backfires. Imposing Benazir on Pakistan is the opposite of democratic and doubtless will cause more chaos in an already unstable country.
Make no mistake, Benazir may look the part, but she's as ruthless and conniving as they come--a kleptocrat in a Hermes headscarf.
Jemima Khan is an ambassador to Unicef.
Return of Benazir Bhutto
The Kleptocrat in an Hermes Headscarf
By JEMIMA KHAN
She's back. Hurrah! She's a woman. She's brave. She's a moderate. She speaks good English. She's Oxford-educated, no less. And she's not bad looking either.
I admit I'm biased. I don't like Benazir Bhutto. She called me names during her election campaign in 1996 and it left a bitter taste. Petty personal grievances aside, I still find jubilant reports of her return to Pakistan depressing. Let's be clear about this before she's turned into a martyr.
This is no Aung San Suu Kyi, despite her repeated insistence that she's "fighting for democracy", or even more incredibly, "fighting for Pakistan's poor".
This is the woman who was twice dismissed on corruption charges. She went into self-imposed exile while investigations continued into millions she had allegedly stashed away into Swiss bank accounts ($1.5 billion by the reckoning of Musharraf's own "National Accountability Bureau").
She has only been able to return because Musharraf, that megalomaniac, knows that his future depends on the grassroots diehard supporters inherited from her father's party, the PPP.
As a result, Musharraf, who in his first months in power declared it his express intention to wipe out corruption, has dropped all charges against her and granted her immunity from prosecution. Forever.
Notably, he did not do the same for his other political rival, Nawaz Sharif, who was recently deported after attempting his own spectacular return to Pakistan.
But the difference is that Benazir is a pro at playing to the West. And that's what counts. She talks about women and extremism and the West applauds. And then conspires.
The Americans and the British are acutely aware that their strategy in the region is failing and that Musharraf's hold on power is ever more tenuous. They have pressed hard for Benazir and the General to cut a deal that would allow them to share power for the next five years in a "liberal forces government".
It's all totally bogus. Benazir may speak the language of liberalism and look good on Larry King's sofa, but both her terms in office were marked by incompetence, extra-judicial killings and brazen looting of the treasury, with the help of her husband--famously known in Pakistan as Mr 10 Per Cent.
In a country that tops the international corruption league, she was its most self-enriching leader.
Benazir has always cynically used her gender to manipulate: I loved her answer to David Frost when he asked her how many millions she had in her Swiss bank accounts. "David, I think that's a very sexist question."
A non sequitur (does loot have a gender?) but one that brought the uncomfortable line of questioning to a swift end.
Of all Pakistan's elected leaders she conspicuously did the least to help the cause of women. She never, for example, repealed the Hudood Ordinances, Pakistan's controversial laws that made no distinction between rape and adultery.
She preferred instead to kowtow to the mullahs in order to cling to power, forming an expedient alliance with Pakistan's Religious Coalition Party and leaving Pakistan's women as powerless as she found them.
The problem is that the West never seems to learn; playing favourites in a complicated nation's politics always backfires. Imposing Benazir on Pakistan is the opposite of democratic and doubtless will cause more chaos in an already unstable country.
Make no mistake, Benazir may look the part, but she's as ruthless and conniving as they come--a kleptocrat in a Hermes headscarf.
Jemima Khan is an ambassador to Unicef.
US steps up war-zone airstrikes
This is from USA today. This policy is clearly designed to minimise US casualties but is bound to increase Iraqi civilian casualties. Both Maliki and Karzai complain about the policy to absolutely no avail. In Afghanistan the policy is promoted by Bomber McNeil.
U.S. military steps up war-zone airstrikes
By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY
The U.S. military has increased airstrikes in Iraq four-fold this year, reflecting a steep escalation in combat operations aimed at al-Qaeda and other militants.
Coalition forces launched 1,140 airstrikes in the first nine months of this year compared with 229 in all of last year, according to military statistics.
Airstrikes are up in Afghanistan, too. Coalition planes have made 2,764 bombing runs this year, up from 1,770 last year. The figures don't include strikes by helicopter gunships.
The increasing use of air power also stems from improved accuracy and smaller munitions that allow commanders to launch airstrikes against insurgents who travel in small groups and sometimes hide among civilians.
In Iraq, the temporary increase of 30,000 U.S. troops ordered by President Bush in January has led to the increase in bombing missions. The U.S. command has moved forces off large bases and into neighborhoods and has launched several large offensives aimed at al-Qaeda.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Iraq | Baghdad | Afghanistan | Air Force
"You end up having that many more opportunities for close air support," said Air Force Brig. Gen. Stephen Mueller, director of the Combined Air Operations Center.
More precise targeting and smaller bombs have made it easier for the Air Force to support ground troops in counterinsurgencies, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"We're hitting within 15 feet of where we're aiming," Mueller said. A typical 500-pound bomb is 50% explosives, but newer versions carry about 100 pounds of explosives.
Some bombs are "designed to take one building and not the whole block," Mueller said.
Fighting in Baghdad has also pushed insurgents into the surrounding countryside, making it easier to spot and bomb them, he said.
Afghanistan's mountainous terrain lends itself to airstrikes, since attack planes can reach remote regions before troops can, and there are fewer ground forces in the country.
"We are using air power in lieu of putting extensive forces on the ground," said Air Force Maj. Gen. Allen Peck, commander of the Air Force Doctrine Development and Education Center.
However, increased use of air power raises the chances of killing innocent civilians, said Mark Clodfelter, a professor at the National War College. Winning over the population is key to defeating insurgents.
"You don't want bombing to be a recruiting method for the insurgents," Clodfelter said.
Airstrikes in Afghanistan this year allegedly killed dozens of civilians, angering the population and drawing criticism from Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai.
U.S. military steps up war-zone airstrikes
By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY
The U.S. military has increased airstrikes in Iraq four-fold this year, reflecting a steep escalation in combat operations aimed at al-Qaeda and other militants.
Coalition forces launched 1,140 airstrikes in the first nine months of this year compared with 229 in all of last year, according to military statistics.
Airstrikes are up in Afghanistan, too. Coalition planes have made 2,764 bombing runs this year, up from 1,770 last year. The figures don't include strikes by helicopter gunships.
The increasing use of air power also stems from improved accuracy and smaller munitions that allow commanders to launch airstrikes against insurgents who travel in small groups and sometimes hide among civilians.
In Iraq, the temporary increase of 30,000 U.S. troops ordered by President Bush in January has led to the increase in bombing missions. The U.S. command has moved forces off large bases and into neighborhoods and has launched several large offensives aimed at al-Qaeda.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Iraq | Baghdad | Afghanistan | Air Force
"You end up having that many more opportunities for close air support," said Air Force Brig. Gen. Stephen Mueller, director of the Combined Air Operations Center.
More precise targeting and smaller bombs have made it easier for the Air Force to support ground troops in counterinsurgencies, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"We're hitting within 15 feet of where we're aiming," Mueller said. A typical 500-pound bomb is 50% explosives, but newer versions carry about 100 pounds of explosives.
Some bombs are "designed to take one building and not the whole block," Mueller said.
Fighting in Baghdad has also pushed insurgents into the surrounding countryside, making it easier to spot and bomb them, he said.
Afghanistan's mountainous terrain lends itself to airstrikes, since attack planes can reach remote regions before troops can, and there are fewer ground forces in the country.
"We are using air power in lieu of putting extensive forces on the ground," said Air Force Maj. Gen. Allen Peck, commander of the Air Force Doctrine Development and Education Center.
However, increased use of air power raises the chances of killing innocent civilians, said Mark Clodfelter, a professor at the National War College. Winning over the population is key to defeating insurgents.
"You don't want bombing to be a recruiting method for the insurgents," Clodfelter said.
Airstrikes in Afghanistan this year allegedly killed dozens of civilians, angering the population and drawing criticism from Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai.
US pressures Turkey not to Attack PKK in Iraq
This is from Juan Cole's blog. As I understand it the US has already turned over security in the area to the Kurdish authorities so it is not willing to intervene. Of course the whole affair shows the US hypocrisy about terrorists. If the PKK were Al Qaeda in Iraq the response would certainly be different, but it is Turkish troops being killed not Americans so it doesnt matter.
US Pressures Turkey not to Attack
The Bush administration made a diplomatic 'full court press' with Turkish leaders to dissuade them from attacking the Kurdish Workers Party [PKK] guerrillas hiding out in Iraq after the killing of 17 Turkish troops and the capture of 8 others by the PKK on Sunday. Turkish Prime Minister Rejeb Tayyip Erdogan is alleged to have told US Secretary of State Condi Rice that the only way for the US to forestall a Turkish invasion is for its military to arrest the PKK leaders in Iraq themselves and to turn them over to Ankara.
Under all this American pressure, The PKK is said to be offering a conditional ceasefire with Ankara. The 'conditional' part doesn't seem very promising to me.
Although the US says it cannot control the PKK because it has few troops in the north of Iraq, this excuse neglects another reason that the US is essentially coddling a terrorist group that is killing fellow NATO troops. The fact is that the PKK is being coddled by Massoud Barzani and his Peshmerga, who could stop them hitting Turkey if they so desired. The other fact is that the US only has one really reliable ally in Iraq, which is the Kurds, and their paramilitary or the Peshmerga is the only element in the new Iraqi army that fights with any spunk or initiative. The US cannot afford to alienate Barzani or the Peshmerga; hence it is forced to try to wheedle Turkey into inaction in the face of a rather dramatic set of provocations.
US Pressures Turkey not to Attack
The Bush administration made a diplomatic 'full court press' with Turkish leaders to dissuade them from attacking the Kurdish Workers Party [PKK] guerrillas hiding out in Iraq after the killing of 17 Turkish troops and the capture of 8 others by the PKK on Sunday. Turkish Prime Minister Rejeb Tayyip Erdogan is alleged to have told US Secretary of State Condi Rice that the only way for the US to forestall a Turkish invasion is for its military to arrest the PKK leaders in Iraq themselves and to turn them over to Ankara.
Under all this American pressure, The PKK is said to be offering a conditional ceasefire with Ankara. The 'conditional' part doesn't seem very promising to me.
Although the US says it cannot control the PKK because it has few troops in the north of Iraq, this excuse neglects another reason that the US is essentially coddling a terrorist group that is killing fellow NATO troops. The fact is that the PKK is being coddled by Massoud Barzani and his Peshmerga, who could stop them hitting Turkey if they so desired. The other fact is that the US only has one really reliable ally in Iraq, which is the Kurds, and their paramilitary or the Peshmerga is the only element in the new Iraqi army that fights with any spunk or initiative. The US cannot afford to alienate Barzani or the Peshmerga; hence it is forced to try to wheedle Turkey into inaction in the face of a rather dramatic set of provocations.
Glorietta Mall blast: Philippines
Perhaps I was correct in my original guess that the blast could after all be purely an accident. It seems to take an inordinate length of time to determine the cause and the police have released so-called evidence that a military explosive was used. Interesting that the US FBI is involved. I suppose because of the terrorism angle. However, they have not found any evidence of explosives! Meanwhile speculation is still rife. The military suspecting terrorists, some politicians Arroyo, and a virtually unknown virtually dead terrorist organisation claiming responsibility!
No conclusive evidence on cause of blast – Razon
Roy C. Sinfuego, Leonard D. Postrado, and Rio Rose Ribaya
Philippine National Police Director General Avelino Razon said yesterday the multi-agency task force investigating last Friday’s explosion at the Glorietta mall in Makati City still have no conclusive evidence to show what caused the blast.
The explosion killed 11 persons, wounded more than 120 others, destroyed several vehicles and caused extensive damage to the mall’s buildings.
"We cannot conclude yet what happened in Glorietta 2. We are not yet at that stage in concluding what happened," Razon said.
Briefing media at Camp Crame, Razon said the task force composed of members from the PNP, the National Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Fire Protection is getting technical support from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Australian Federal Police and metallurgical and petrochemical experts from the private sector.
Razon compared the investigation to "looking for a needle in the haystack" as probers have to sift for evidence from the rubble left behind by the explosion.
Police are looking at several possible causes for the blast, including the accidental explosion of sewage gases leaking into basement of the mall and a bomb blast among others.
A source from the Philippine National Police said that the explosion might have emanated from oil leaking from 6,000-liter bunker oil tank near the basement.
Razon also criticized Sen. Antonio Trillanes for speculating that the administration of President Arroyo may have had something to do with the explosion.
"As a former military officer, he must act properly and substantiate his allegation because it is unfair to the millions of people who cast their votes for him and to the general public," Razon said.
At the same briefing, PNP National Capital Regional Office (NCRPO) Director Geary Barias said police probers have finally gained access to the lower basement of Glorietta 2 after it was drained of water, diesel, and other substances which have been siphoned off and stored in 19 tankers for analysis by petro-chemical experts.
"At this point, there is no basis to conclude that it was a terrorist attack or an industrial accident," Barias said.
He appealed to media and public to refrain from speculating on the cause of the explosion.
Barias said it will take a few days more for the police and other experts to arrive at conclusive findings.
"Up to this point, no bomb components -- including timing devices, power sources, initiators, switches, and containers -- have been recovered from the debris," Barias said.
Earlier, bomb experts said they have discovered traces of RDX, a component of a powerful chemical explosive such C-4 at the "seat" of the explosion.
However, FBI experts who conducted their own tests in the areas surrounding the explosion said they did not find traces of explosives.
Razon said local police are still not discounting the bombing angle because the variation in the findings could be explained by local police and FBI experts tested for traces of bombs in different areas.
"The [US] tests are negative because when the US experts arrived at the blast site, they swabbed the exterior portions or the portions that were not directly at the center, or at the seat, of the explosion. That’s why it tested negative," Razon said in Filipino.
Meanwhile, Makati City Police chief Supt. Gilbert Cruz denied police have been lax in securing the malls in the city.
He said Makati police maintain close coordination with private security agencies at shopping malls and other establishments in the country’s premier financial center.
In a related development, Makati’s financial district property developer Ayala Land Incorporated (ALI) yesterday denied it was guilty of a security breach.
ALI spokesman Alfonso Reyes said the basement at the Glorietta 2 is not secured by Ayala Land but is under the jurisdiction of Makati Supermarket, one of the tenants at the mall.
"The basement in question is not secured by Ayala Land. These are private premises of one of our tenants. We also have no knowledge of any construction because these are not our premises," Reyes said.
Reyes said it is too early to pin the blame on security breach but said they would conduct a probe on the matter.
"All of these issues including the alleged security breach will be under investigation so at present they are pure speculation," he said.
Reyes said security has been beefed up at the shopping malls.
"We will be complimenting our regular compliment of 120 security men by 20 percent to protect the public. We will have additional personnel and bomb sniffing dogs. This move is in addition to the metal detectors we installed last year," he said.
***
Police probers looking into angle of accidental explosion at Glorietta
Rose Rio Ribaya
A member of the task force investigating the Glorietta 2 blast said yesterday that the explosion could have been caused by methane gas.
Senior Supt. Fennimore Jaudian said that debris from Glorietta explosion showed signs of a possible methane gas explosion.
"Based on the physical effects of explosion, it points to gas explosion. And the possibility (that we’re considering) is methane," Jaudian told reporters.
He said the gas could have come from the sewage system at the basement of Glorietta 2 where a diesel tank is also located.
An arson expert whose team was responsible for solving the Superferry 14 bombing in February 2004, Jaudian said the "methane gas explosion" angle has figured consistently in investigation conducted by his team composed of investigators from the Bureau of Fire Protection and the National Bureau of Investigation.
Jaudian also said that the partly-ruptured cover of the diesel tank in the Glorietta 2 basement clearly indicates that the blast came from inside.
Meanwhile, Philippine National Police Director General Avelino Razon dismissed National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales’s claim that there was a failure of intelligence on the part of the authorities in anticipating an attack.
"This came out only in one newspaper report. I think there was no failure of intelligence because we’ve been reviewing our records and there was no specific intelligence report that pointed out there’ll be bombing in Glorietta, Makati," Razon told reporters.
The police chief said that while the PNP Intelligence Group had previously received reports that there were general threats of bombing in the metro, it was "very hard to pinpoint" where the terrorists would strike.
Razon noted that there were no reports that specifically identified Glorietta 2 as a bombing target.
***
PNP doubts RSM claim it caused Makati explosion
Rose Rio Ribaya
The Philippine National Police (PNP) yesterday said it doubted the claim of the Islamic extremist group Rajah Sulaiman Movement that it was responsible for last Friday’s bombing at Glorietta 2 in Makati City because the group has been "inactive" since 2005.
"We have not monitored any significant activity of group since 2005. Most of members of group arrested or killed in encounter with government," National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) Director Geary Barias said.
"With the respect to the RSM claim, the results of our investigation shows that RSM has been rendered inactive with the arrest of 12 core members including its leaders," Barias said.
Barias said only two RSM members, Khalil Pareja, and Sheik Omar Lavilla, are still at large.
Omar was reported to have called media companies, claiming responsibility for the explosion last Friday at the Glorietta 2, where at least 11 people were killed and 113 others injured.
Barias added that Pareja is reportedly hiding in Central Mindanao while Omar is allegedly somewhere in the Middle East.
Task Force Sanlahi head Senior Supt. Ager Ontog said that intelligence units of the government have cooperated to validate the report.
"We are confident at this point to state that members of RSM, which previously were involved in several bombings before 2007, were arrested and only two members remain unaccounted for by government," Ontog said.
However, Ontog stressed that the police is not discounting RSM’s involvement in the blast.
"We are not discounting that this group may be responsible for the incident. As we consider all the other possible suspects all the other possible groups a suspects in this investigation until after declared by district investigators that they are indeed not responsible," he said.
Ontog said Pareja and Lavila, who are believed to be leaders of RSM, are subject to warrants of arrest.
"We have warrants of arrest to backup police investigation," he said.
Traditionally known for car bombing activities, RSM is a group of Muslim converts responsible for the Valentine’s Day bombing in 2004, where a bus was blasted along the Ayala Avenue in Makati City.
Some elements of RSM were also involved Super Ferry bombing in 2004, where a lot of people died when a bomb went off the ship in Manila Bay.
***
Leaders urge Muslims to exercise caution in wake of explosion
The leaders of the Office on Muslim Affairs (OMA) and Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao urged yesterday their fellow Muslims to exercise caution and sobriety and to refrain from speculating on what caused last Friday’s bombing at Glorietta 2 mall in Makati City.
OMA executive director Datu Ali b. Sangki and ARMM Gov. Datu Zaldy Uy Ampatuan made the call amid swirling speculations on what caused the bombing that killed 11 and injured more than 1119 persons.
"Whoever are behind the Glorieta bombing ... with their own personal sinister ulterior motives, the fact remains that the means used was terroristic and must be exposed, condemned and persecuted. Every nation can design or form its own system of government, but getting to form a government through terroristic means in the 21st millennium will always be unpopular that will only further promote retrogression, chaos, anarchy & destabilization," said Sangki.
Ampatuan, meantime, said: "Let us appeal to the Philippine National Police under Director General Avelino Razon Jr. to thoroughly investigate the incident and wait for the results. Speculations on what caused the blast and who did it will only add more anxiety and uncertainties."
***
Church leaders seek creation of indepent investigating body
Church leaders called for the creation of an independent body that would investigate the incident.
"The one who should investigate the Makati incident is an independent body, one that is really capable of investigating," according to Bishop Dan Balais, Philippines for Jesus Movement (PJM) National Director and General Secretary during yesterday’s gathering in Greenhills, San Juan City.
Balais said the creation of an independent body could prevent a possible cover-up on the Makati explosion.
‘It’s possible that there will be a cover-up. We hope and pray that it won’t be like that. So there has to be an impartial investigation done by experts," he said.
Caloocan Bishop Deogracais Iniguez and Public Affairs chief of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) is also supportive of the idea of creating a separate investigating body.
"I’m in favor of putting up such an inquiry body. For as long as it’s credible and would be believable to all," Iniguez said.
At the Senate, Minority Leader Aquilino "Nene" Q. Pimentel Jr. (PDP-Laban) also called for an independent and timpartial investigation of the Glorietta mall bombing by enlisting the services of probers of proven track record from other countries.
"People are demanding a true, credible, and full public report after a transparent probe by independent, expert investigators of the Makati blast that took away 10 innocent lives and injured scores of other persons," he said.
***
Trillanes says he stands by alllegation on Makati explosion
Detained Senator Antonio Trillanes IV said he will stand by his allegations that government officials and ranking military officials orchestrated the Makati explosion.
Lawyer Reynaldo Robles, Trillanes’ private counsel, said his client is ready with all the information and details about the tragedy.
"He is standing by his reaction and his announcement based on the information that he has received. We all know that Senator Trillanes is a former soldier; he has a wide network in the Armed Forces and in the community. That is why he was able to verify the reports," Robles said.
"He is ready to reveal all the information provided that this will be done before an independent, credible and impartial facti-finding body because we all know that the administration has the reputation of withholding the truth," Robles said.
***
Reward offered for information on blast increases to P5 M
Edd K. Usman, Leslie Ann G. Aquino, Hannah L. Torregoza and Rio Rose Ribaya
The reward offered to anyone who could give information to identify the perpetrators behind the explosion has reached P5 million after Negros Occidental Rep. Ignacio T. Arroyo offered another P1 million pesos from his own personal fund.
"I feel very bad in fact I have offered a reward from my own personal fund of P1 million to whoever could lead to the apprehension of the perpetrators of this crime," Arroyo said after attending the PNP flag ceremony at Camp Crame yesterday
Earlier, Malacañang offered P2 million for any information about the brains behind explosion.
This was on top of the P1million reward offered by Makati City and another P1 million from the Makati Business Club.
The Negros Occidental legislator also enjoined the general public to remain calm, united and steadfast.
"Let us remain calm and not use this occasion to incite fear among the people," he said.
No conclusive evidence on cause of blast – Razon
Roy C. Sinfuego, Leonard D. Postrado, and Rio Rose Ribaya
Philippine National Police Director General Avelino Razon said yesterday the multi-agency task force investigating last Friday’s explosion at the Glorietta mall in Makati City still have no conclusive evidence to show what caused the blast.
The explosion killed 11 persons, wounded more than 120 others, destroyed several vehicles and caused extensive damage to the mall’s buildings.
"We cannot conclude yet what happened in Glorietta 2. We are not yet at that stage in concluding what happened," Razon said.
Briefing media at Camp Crame, Razon said the task force composed of members from the PNP, the National Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Fire Protection is getting technical support from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Australian Federal Police and metallurgical and petrochemical experts from the private sector.
Razon compared the investigation to "looking for a needle in the haystack" as probers have to sift for evidence from the rubble left behind by the explosion.
Police are looking at several possible causes for the blast, including the accidental explosion of sewage gases leaking into basement of the mall and a bomb blast among others.
A source from the Philippine National Police said that the explosion might have emanated from oil leaking from 6,000-liter bunker oil tank near the basement.
Razon also criticized Sen. Antonio Trillanes for speculating that the administration of President Arroyo may have had something to do with the explosion.
"As a former military officer, he must act properly and substantiate his allegation because it is unfair to the millions of people who cast their votes for him and to the general public," Razon said.
At the same briefing, PNP National Capital Regional Office (NCRPO) Director Geary Barias said police probers have finally gained access to the lower basement of Glorietta 2 after it was drained of water, diesel, and other substances which have been siphoned off and stored in 19 tankers for analysis by petro-chemical experts.
"At this point, there is no basis to conclude that it was a terrorist attack or an industrial accident," Barias said.
He appealed to media and public to refrain from speculating on the cause of the explosion.
Barias said it will take a few days more for the police and other experts to arrive at conclusive findings.
"Up to this point, no bomb components -- including timing devices, power sources, initiators, switches, and containers -- have been recovered from the debris," Barias said.
Earlier, bomb experts said they have discovered traces of RDX, a component of a powerful chemical explosive such C-4 at the "seat" of the explosion.
However, FBI experts who conducted their own tests in the areas surrounding the explosion said they did not find traces of explosives.
Razon said local police are still not discounting the bombing angle because the variation in the findings could be explained by local police and FBI experts tested for traces of bombs in different areas.
"The [US] tests are negative because when the US experts arrived at the blast site, they swabbed the exterior portions or the portions that were not directly at the center, or at the seat, of the explosion. That’s why it tested negative," Razon said in Filipino.
Meanwhile, Makati City Police chief Supt. Gilbert Cruz denied police have been lax in securing the malls in the city.
He said Makati police maintain close coordination with private security agencies at shopping malls and other establishments in the country’s premier financial center.
In a related development, Makati’s financial district property developer Ayala Land Incorporated (ALI) yesterday denied it was guilty of a security breach.
ALI spokesman Alfonso Reyes said the basement at the Glorietta 2 is not secured by Ayala Land but is under the jurisdiction of Makati Supermarket, one of the tenants at the mall.
"The basement in question is not secured by Ayala Land. These are private premises of one of our tenants. We also have no knowledge of any construction because these are not our premises," Reyes said.
Reyes said it is too early to pin the blame on security breach but said they would conduct a probe on the matter.
"All of these issues including the alleged security breach will be under investigation so at present they are pure speculation," he said.
Reyes said security has been beefed up at the shopping malls.
"We will be complimenting our regular compliment of 120 security men by 20 percent to protect the public. We will have additional personnel and bomb sniffing dogs. This move is in addition to the metal detectors we installed last year," he said.
***
Police probers looking into angle of accidental explosion at Glorietta
Rose Rio Ribaya
A member of the task force investigating the Glorietta 2 blast said yesterday that the explosion could have been caused by methane gas.
Senior Supt. Fennimore Jaudian said that debris from Glorietta explosion showed signs of a possible methane gas explosion.
"Based on the physical effects of explosion, it points to gas explosion. And the possibility (that we’re considering) is methane," Jaudian told reporters.
He said the gas could have come from the sewage system at the basement of Glorietta 2 where a diesel tank is also located.
An arson expert whose team was responsible for solving the Superferry 14 bombing in February 2004, Jaudian said the "methane gas explosion" angle has figured consistently in investigation conducted by his team composed of investigators from the Bureau of Fire Protection and the National Bureau of Investigation.
Jaudian also said that the partly-ruptured cover of the diesel tank in the Glorietta 2 basement clearly indicates that the blast came from inside.
Meanwhile, Philippine National Police Director General Avelino Razon dismissed National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales’s claim that there was a failure of intelligence on the part of the authorities in anticipating an attack.
"This came out only in one newspaper report. I think there was no failure of intelligence because we’ve been reviewing our records and there was no specific intelligence report that pointed out there’ll be bombing in Glorietta, Makati," Razon told reporters.
The police chief said that while the PNP Intelligence Group had previously received reports that there were general threats of bombing in the metro, it was "very hard to pinpoint" where the terrorists would strike.
Razon noted that there were no reports that specifically identified Glorietta 2 as a bombing target.
***
PNP doubts RSM claim it caused Makati explosion
Rose Rio Ribaya
The Philippine National Police (PNP) yesterday said it doubted the claim of the Islamic extremist group Rajah Sulaiman Movement that it was responsible for last Friday’s bombing at Glorietta 2 in Makati City because the group has been "inactive" since 2005.
"We have not monitored any significant activity of group since 2005. Most of members of group arrested or killed in encounter with government," National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) Director Geary Barias said.
"With the respect to the RSM claim, the results of our investigation shows that RSM has been rendered inactive with the arrest of 12 core members including its leaders," Barias said.
Barias said only two RSM members, Khalil Pareja, and Sheik Omar Lavilla, are still at large.
Omar was reported to have called media companies, claiming responsibility for the explosion last Friday at the Glorietta 2, where at least 11 people were killed and 113 others injured.
Barias added that Pareja is reportedly hiding in Central Mindanao while Omar is allegedly somewhere in the Middle East.
Task Force Sanlahi head Senior Supt. Ager Ontog said that intelligence units of the government have cooperated to validate the report.
"We are confident at this point to state that members of RSM, which previously were involved in several bombings before 2007, were arrested and only two members remain unaccounted for by government," Ontog said.
However, Ontog stressed that the police is not discounting RSM’s involvement in the blast.
"We are not discounting that this group may be responsible for the incident. As we consider all the other possible suspects all the other possible groups a suspects in this investigation until after declared by district investigators that they are indeed not responsible," he said.
Ontog said Pareja and Lavila, who are believed to be leaders of RSM, are subject to warrants of arrest.
"We have warrants of arrest to backup police investigation," he said.
Traditionally known for car bombing activities, RSM is a group of Muslim converts responsible for the Valentine’s Day bombing in 2004, where a bus was blasted along the Ayala Avenue in Makati City.
Some elements of RSM were also involved Super Ferry bombing in 2004, where a lot of people died when a bomb went off the ship in Manila Bay.
***
Leaders urge Muslims to exercise caution in wake of explosion
The leaders of the Office on Muslim Affairs (OMA) and Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao urged yesterday their fellow Muslims to exercise caution and sobriety and to refrain from speculating on what caused last Friday’s bombing at Glorietta 2 mall in Makati City.
OMA executive director Datu Ali b. Sangki and ARMM Gov. Datu Zaldy Uy Ampatuan made the call amid swirling speculations on what caused the bombing that killed 11 and injured more than 1119 persons.
"Whoever are behind the Glorieta bombing ... with their own personal sinister ulterior motives, the fact remains that the means used was terroristic and must be exposed, condemned and persecuted. Every nation can design or form its own system of government, but getting to form a government through terroristic means in the 21st millennium will always be unpopular that will only further promote retrogression, chaos, anarchy & destabilization," said Sangki.
Ampatuan, meantime, said: "Let us appeal to the Philippine National Police under Director General Avelino Razon Jr. to thoroughly investigate the incident and wait for the results. Speculations on what caused the blast and who did it will only add more anxiety and uncertainties."
***
Church leaders seek creation of indepent investigating body
Church leaders called for the creation of an independent body that would investigate the incident.
"The one who should investigate the Makati incident is an independent body, one that is really capable of investigating," according to Bishop Dan Balais, Philippines for Jesus Movement (PJM) National Director and General Secretary during yesterday’s gathering in Greenhills, San Juan City.
Balais said the creation of an independent body could prevent a possible cover-up on the Makati explosion.
‘It’s possible that there will be a cover-up. We hope and pray that it won’t be like that. So there has to be an impartial investigation done by experts," he said.
Caloocan Bishop Deogracais Iniguez and Public Affairs chief of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) is also supportive of the idea of creating a separate investigating body.
"I’m in favor of putting up such an inquiry body. For as long as it’s credible and would be believable to all," Iniguez said.
At the Senate, Minority Leader Aquilino "Nene" Q. Pimentel Jr. (PDP-Laban) also called for an independent and timpartial investigation of the Glorietta mall bombing by enlisting the services of probers of proven track record from other countries.
"People are demanding a true, credible, and full public report after a transparent probe by independent, expert investigators of the Makati blast that took away 10 innocent lives and injured scores of other persons," he said.
***
Trillanes says he stands by alllegation on Makati explosion
Detained Senator Antonio Trillanes IV said he will stand by his allegations that government officials and ranking military officials orchestrated the Makati explosion.
Lawyer Reynaldo Robles, Trillanes’ private counsel, said his client is ready with all the information and details about the tragedy.
"He is standing by his reaction and his announcement based on the information that he has received. We all know that Senator Trillanes is a former soldier; he has a wide network in the Armed Forces and in the community. That is why he was able to verify the reports," Robles said.
"He is ready to reveal all the information provided that this will be done before an independent, credible and impartial facti-finding body because we all know that the administration has the reputation of withholding the truth," Robles said.
***
Reward offered for information on blast increases to P5 M
Edd K. Usman, Leslie Ann G. Aquino, Hannah L. Torregoza and Rio Rose Ribaya
The reward offered to anyone who could give information to identify the perpetrators behind the explosion has reached P5 million after Negros Occidental Rep. Ignacio T. Arroyo offered another P1 million pesos from his own personal fund.
"I feel very bad in fact I have offered a reward from my own personal fund of P1 million to whoever could lead to the apprehension of the perpetrators of this crime," Arroyo said after attending the PNP flag ceremony at Camp Crame yesterday
Earlier, Malacañang offered P2 million for any information about the brains behind explosion.
This was on top of the P1million reward offered by Makati City and another P1 million from the Makati Business Club.
The Negros Occidental legislator also enjoined the general public to remain calm, united and steadfast.
"Let us remain calm and not use this occasion to incite fear among the people," he said.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Australian Election Report
This is from AFP via Google. If the polls continue to reflect the gap between Howard and Labor, Bush will lose one of his most loyal running dogs. He will also find Australian troops being withdrawn from Iraq and another country signing on to Kyoto. Of course at the same time Bush already has a new soul mate in Harper, although Harper started off yelping as if hurt by Bush's treatment of Arar.
Australian PM debates Iraq, climate change with challenger Rudd
SYDNEY (AFP) — Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Sunday engaged in a testy debate with his Labor Party opponent Kevin Rudd on Iraq and climate change in their only face-off before the November 24 election.
After more than 11 years in office, Howard is fighting for political survival against the centre-left Rudd, who has taken a commanding lead against the conservative incumbent in opinion polls.
Howard and Rudd faced 90 minutes of questions from journalists and each other at Parliament House in Canberra in the only scheduled debate of the six-week election campaign.
The debate was expected to centre on the crucial issue of tax cuts, with Howard promising to deliver 34 billion dollars (30.4 billion US) in cuts against Rudd's offering of 31 billion dollars in sweeteners.
But the war in Iraq and the problem of climate change, two key points of divergence between the parties, were the most hotly contested issues of the wide-ranging debate.
Howard, a staunch ally of US President George W. Bush who committed troops from the start of the US-led invasion of Iraq, danced around a question on whether Australia's involvement in the war had increased the terror risk.
He said he believed the threat was "very real" and there was no escaping it anywhere in the world as terrorists have no respect for religion, nationality or anything else.
"That's why they will attack whether we are in or out of Iraq," Howard said.
Rudd, who has committed a future Labor government to a staged withdrawal of troops, said the case for going to war in the oil-rich country was never strong enough.
"On the issue of Iraq itself, it stands as the greatest single error of Australian national security and foreign policy decisionmaking since Vietnam," he said.
Rudd, a former diplomat who has accused the 68-year-old Howard of lagging behind on the issues of climate change and broadband technology, renewed his pledge to sign the Kyoto Protocol if elected.
"How could it be that we're one of the only two developed countries in the world to refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol?" he asked.
"I don't understand, I just don't get it."
Howard, a previous climate change sceptic whose government has refused to ratify Kyoto saying it would put Australia's economy at a disadvantage, said a new framework was needed to combat the global problem.
"At the moment, Kyoto doesn't effectively cover the United States and China -- that's a bit like having an international World Cup in cricket without Australia and India," Howard said.
The debate was initially polite but 35 minutes in, the contenders engaged in a slanging match over Australian education funding with Howard arguing that figures contained in a recent OECD report, and quoted by Rudd, were not up-to-date and terming one of Rudd's responses "pathetic".
After accusing Rudd of trying to mislead the public, Howard told the Labor leader: "You were wrong and you knew it and you shouldn't have said it."
Rudd, 50, had argued for a series of debates throughout the six-week campaign as new policies are revealed, but Howard insisted that only one televised debate be held.
The latest polls have Rudd, who needs to win some 16 seats to gain control of the government, ahead of Howard by 54 percent to 46 percent.
But the Labor leader maintains that winning the top job from the man who has won the past four elections would be akin to climbing Mount Everest.
"This will be a really tight race... it will go down to the wire," he said ahead of the debate.
Australian PM debates Iraq, climate change with challenger Rudd
SYDNEY (AFP) — Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Sunday engaged in a testy debate with his Labor Party opponent Kevin Rudd on Iraq and climate change in their only face-off before the November 24 election.
After more than 11 years in office, Howard is fighting for political survival against the centre-left Rudd, who has taken a commanding lead against the conservative incumbent in opinion polls.
Howard and Rudd faced 90 minutes of questions from journalists and each other at Parliament House in Canberra in the only scheduled debate of the six-week election campaign.
The debate was expected to centre on the crucial issue of tax cuts, with Howard promising to deliver 34 billion dollars (30.4 billion US) in cuts against Rudd's offering of 31 billion dollars in sweeteners.
But the war in Iraq and the problem of climate change, two key points of divergence between the parties, were the most hotly contested issues of the wide-ranging debate.
Howard, a staunch ally of US President George W. Bush who committed troops from the start of the US-led invasion of Iraq, danced around a question on whether Australia's involvement in the war had increased the terror risk.
He said he believed the threat was "very real" and there was no escaping it anywhere in the world as terrorists have no respect for religion, nationality or anything else.
"That's why they will attack whether we are in or out of Iraq," Howard said.
Rudd, who has committed a future Labor government to a staged withdrawal of troops, said the case for going to war in the oil-rich country was never strong enough.
"On the issue of Iraq itself, it stands as the greatest single error of Australian national security and foreign policy decisionmaking since Vietnam," he said.
Rudd, a former diplomat who has accused the 68-year-old Howard of lagging behind on the issues of climate change and broadband technology, renewed his pledge to sign the Kyoto Protocol if elected.
"How could it be that we're one of the only two developed countries in the world to refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol?" he asked.
"I don't understand, I just don't get it."
Howard, a previous climate change sceptic whose government has refused to ratify Kyoto saying it would put Australia's economy at a disadvantage, said a new framework was needed to combat the global problem.
"At the moment, Kyoto doesn't effectively cover the United States and China -- that's a bit like having an international World Cup in cricket without Australia and India," Howard said.
The debate was initially polite but 35 minutes in, the contenders engaged in a slanging match over Australian education funding with Howard arguing that figures contained in a recent OECD report, and quoted by Rudd, were not up-to-date and terming one of Rudd's responses "pathetic".
After accusing Rudd of trying to mislead the public, Howard told the Labor leader: "You were wrong and you knew it and you shouldn't have said it."
Rudd, 50, had argued for a series of debates throughout the six-week campaign as new policies are revealed, but Howard insisted that only one televised debate be held.
The latest polls have Rudd, who needs to win some 16 seats to gain control of the government, ahead of Howard by 54 percent to 46 percent.
But the Labor leader maintains that winning the top job from the man who has won the past four elections would be akin to climbing Mount Everest.
"This will be a really tight race... it will go down to the wire," he said ahead of the debate.
Putin and Iran
This is from Yglesias' website. I don't know where Yglesias has been lately but the justification for attacking Iran may not have anything to do with Iran building nuclear weapons but with Iran helping insurgents in Iraq through the revolutionary guards. Every day you will see more accusatory articles in a steady drumbeat to convince the US public that Iran is behind much of the insurgency--when in fact the Saudis probably provide just as much help but to Sunni insurgents.
Putin and Iran
16 Oct 2007 12:22 pm
Vladimir Putin's warnings against military action against Iran deserve to be taken very seriously. Since we're not contemplating actually conquering Iran and trying to occupy its territory, people need to understand that the post-strike diplomatic environment is going to be much more important to the future of the Iranian nuclear program than is any damage that bombing Iran with our on-the-table options might or might not do. If Russia decides to just send some scientists with schematics and materiel over to Iran and show them how to build a nuclear bomb, then -- bam -- nuclear bomb.
Conversely, at the moment not only is Iran under some diplomatic pressure to stop short of weaponizing, many countries around the world are taking direct measures to prevent the Iranians from just easily going and buying the stuff they need. Insofar as an unprovoked American military attack convinces other countries that the real dangerous lunatics live in DC rather than Teheran, countries around the world could cut back on their vigilance and make it much easier for an Iranian nuclear program to succeed.
The point is that when people talking about the Iranians being such-and-such time period away, or some bombing effort taking them back x number of years, they're talking as if progress toward a nuclear weapon proceeds at a constant pace. In practice, one of the factors that determines how quickly you can proceed is the international context. Right now, things are pretty tricky for Iranian nuclear scientists. Military action that doesn't reflect a firm, UN-backed consensus grounded in some reasonable interpretation of international law (military action that does reflect such a consensus seems very, very unlikely but in principle it could happen) could dramatically alter that.
Putin and Iran
16 Oct 2007 12:22 pm
Vladimir Putin's warnings against military action against Iran deserve to be taken very seriously. Since we're not contemplating actually conquering Iran and trying to occupy its territory, people need to understand that the post-strike diplomatic environment is going to be much more important to the future of the Iranian nuclear program than is any damage that bombing Iran with our on-the-table options might or might not do. If Russia decides to just send some scientists with schematics and materiel over to Iran and show them how to build a nuclear bomb, then -- bam -- nuclear bomb.
Conversely, at the moment not only is Iran under some diplomatic pressure to stop short of weaponizing, many countries around the world are taking direct measures to prevent the Iranians from just easily going and buying the stuff they need. Insofar as an unprovoked American military attack convinces other countries that the real dangerous lunatics live in DC rather than Teheran, countries around the world could cut back on their vigilance and make it much easier for an Iranian nuclear program to succeed.
The point is that when people talking about the Iranians being such-and-such time period away, or some bombing effort taking them back x number of years, they're talking as if progress toward a nuclear weapon proceeds at a constant pace. In practice, one of the factors that determines how quickly you can proceed is the international context. Right now, things are pretty tricky for Iranian nuclear scientists. Military action that doesn't reflect a firm, UN-backed consensus grounded in some reasonable interpretation of international law (military action that does reflect such a consensus seems very, very unlikely but in principle it could happen) could dramatically alter that.
Iraqi PM outraged over alleged civilian deaths in Sadr City raid
Note that CNN carefully puts in "alleged" although it is quite clear there were some civilian deaths. The military report about killing "criminals" is repeated but at least the term is in scare quotes not that many people will notice.
This sort of outrage is commonplace and is no doubt meant to show that the premier does not approve and was not part of the planning. He no doubt wasn't. Who expects a premier to be informed of attacks on his own subjects!
There is no report of what Sadr has to say on the attack. The target was probably part of the Mahdi army he does not control so he may not say much. However, he may begin to lose support in his own stomping ground if he keeps up his virtually pacifist stance. He seems to be much more of an opportunist than a principled radical. He may do well in time given the corruption and deal-making that is rife in Iraq.
Iraqi PM outraged over alleged civilian Iraq Interior Ministry source says 15 civilians killed
U.S. military says it killed 49 "criminals"
»
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met Sunday with the top U.S. military commander in Iraq to voice his outrage over the reported deaths of Iraqi civilians during a Sunday morning military raid in Baghdad's Sadr City, a government spokesman told CNN.
Iraqis grieve the death of a relative killed during fights between U.S. troops and militants.
1 of 2 Al-Maliki expressed his concerns to Gen. David Petraeus over Iraqi reports that 10 to 15 civilians were killed in the raid, spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told CNN's "Late Edition."
The U.S. military said its ground forces are "unaware" of civilian deaths in the early morning raid that it said left 49 "criminals" dead.
"There is a great tension in the Iraqi government" over the incident, al-Dabbagh said.
During Sunday's meeting, he said al-Maliki "clearly mentioned that this excessive force ... by the Multi-National Forces used against civilians [is] not creating a good atmosphere."
An Iraqi Interior Ministry source told CNN that 15 civilians were killed -- all men -- and 52 other civilians were wounded, including women and children.
Sadr City's mayor, Hassan Adhab, told Iraqi state TV there were 10 "martyrs" -- including a mother and her three children -- and 42 others were wounded.
Coalition forces were targeting a man they said was a leader in an Iranian-funded kidnapping operation. U.S. military spokeswoman Sgt. Nicole Dykstra told CNN the target was "neither apprehended nor killed."
Adhab described a bloody scene, saying dozens of sheep were killed in the melee, and military aircraft still hovered over the neighborhood hours after the raid.
He blamed American forces for targeting cars carrying people who were heading to work early Sunday.
"We call upon Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to stop such immoral acts in Sadr City," Adhab said.
When asked about the Sadr City raid, the spokesman for the Baghdad Security Plan said Iraqi forces take every measure to avoid civilian casualties.
"If there are innocent civilian casualties in Sadr City or anywhere else -- then that is unfortunate," Brig. Gen. Qassim Atta said. "We hope both the Multi-National Forces and the Iraqi Security Forces demonstrate military restraint and respect human rights."
U.S.-Iraq relations have been strained since a September 16 shooting incident in Baghdad that left 17 civilians dead. Some in Iraq have accused Blackwater USA security contractors, whose guards are assigned to State Department officials, for indiscriminately killing the civilians. The incident is still under investigation.
Sadr City raid
The U.S. military said the joint ground forces were fired upon as they were clearing several buildings in the "target area."
"Supporting aircraft was called in to suppress the enemy fire, killing an estimated six criminals," a military news release stated.
"The operation's objective was an individual reported to be a longtime Special Groups member specializing in kidnapping operations," the military said. "Intelligence indicates he is a well-known cell leader and has previously sought funding from Iran to carry out high profile kidnappings."
The military said its forces were hit by a roadside bomb as they left the area, but the blast did not cause any casualties among coalition forces.
The Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman said many cars and many homes were damaged in the battle.
The ministry spokesman said the firefight took place between 1:30 a.m. (6:30 p.m. ET) and 6 a.m. (11 p.m. ET) in Sadr City, a densely populated Shiite slum where there is much grass-roots support for Iran and anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
"Special Groups are Shiite extremist militant groups trained, funded and supplied primarily by Iran through the Islamic Revolutionary Guards -- Quds Force," said U.S. Army Lt. Justin Cole.
"Special Groups have evolved over the past three years into insurgent elements using a cellular structure and operating independently."
"Special Groups operate throughout Iraq," Cole said. "They plan and execute bombings, kidnappings, sectarian murders and more against Iraqi citizens, Iraqi forces and coalition personnel." E-mail to a friend
This sort of outrage is commonplace and is no doubt meant to show that the premier does not approve and was not part of the planning. He no doubt wasn't. Who expects a premier to be informed of attacks on his own subjects!
There is no report of what Sadr has to say on the attack. The target was probably part of the Mahdi army he does not control so he may not say much. However, he may begin to lose support in his own stomping ground if he keeps up his virtually pacifist stance. He seems to be much more of an opportunist than a principled radical. He may do well in time given the corruption and deal-making that is rife in Iraq.
Iraqi PM outraged over alleged civilian Iraq Interior Ministry source says 15 civilians killed
U.S. military says it killed 49 "criminals"
»
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met Sunday with the top U.S. military commander in Iraq to voice his outrage over the reported deaths of Iraqi civilians during a Sunday morning military raid in Baghdad's Sadr City, a government spokesman told CNN.
Iraqis grieve the death of a relative killed during fights between U.S. troops and militants.
1 of 2 Al-Maliki expressed his concerns to Gen. David Petraeus over Iraqi reports that 10 to 15 civilians were killed in the raid, spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told CNN's "Late Edition."
The U.S. military said its ground forces are "unaware" of civilian deaths in the early morning raid that it said left 49 "criminals" dead.
"There is a great tension in the Iraqi government" over the incident, al-Dabbagh said.
During Sunday's meeting, he said al-Maliki "clearly mentioned that this excessive force ... by the Multi-National Forces used against civilians [is] not creating a good atmosphere."
An Iraqi Interior Ministry source told CNN that 15 civilians were killed -- all men -- and 52 other civilians were wounded, including women and children.
Sadr City's mayor, Hassan Adhab, told Iraqi state TV there were 10 "martyrs" -- including a mother and her three children -- and 42 others were wounded.
Coalition forces were targeting a man they said was a leader in an Iranian-funded kidnapping operation. U.S. military spokeswoman Sgt. Nicole Dykstra told CNN the target was "neither apprehended nor killed."
Adhab described a bloody scene, saying dozens of sheep were killed in the melee, and military aircraft still hovered over the neighborhood hours after the raid.
He blamed American forces for targeting cars carrying people who were heading to work early Sunday.
"We call upon Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to stop such immoral acts in Sadr City," Adhab said.
When asked about the Sadr City raid, the spokesman for the Baghdad Security Plan said Iraqi forces take every measure to avoid civilian casualties.
"If there are innocent civilian casualties in Sadr City or anywhere else -- then that is unfortunate," Brig. Gen. Qassim Atta said. "We hope both the Multi-National Forces and the Iraqi Security Forces demonstrate military restraint and respect human rights."
U.S.-Iraq relations have been strained since a September 16 shooting incident in Baghdad that left 17 civilians dead. Some in Iraq have accused Blackwater USA security contractors, whose guards are assigned to State Department officials, for indiscriminately killing the civilians. The incident is still under investigation.
Sadr City raid
The U.S. military said the joint ground forces were fired upon as they were clearing several buildings in the "target area."
"Supporting aircraft was called in to suppress the enemy fire, killing an estimated six criminals," a military news release stated.
"The operation's objective was an individual reported to be a longtime Special Groups member specializing in kidnapping operations," the military said. "Intelligence indicates he is a well-known cell leader and has previously sought funding from Iran to carry out high profile kidnappings."
The military said its forces were hit by a roadside bomb as they left the area, but the blast did not cause any casualties among coalition forces.
The Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman said many cars and many homes were damaged in the battle.
The ministry spokesman said the firefight took place between 1:30 a.m. (6:30 p.m. ET) and 6 a.m. (11 p.m. ET) in Sadr City, a densely populated Shiite slum where there is much grass-roots support for Iran and anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
"Special Groups are Shiite extremist militant groups trained, funded and supplied primarily by Iran through the Islamic Revolutionary Guards -- Quds Force," said U.S. Army Lt. Justin Cole.
"Special Groups have evolved over the past three years into insurgent elements using a cellular structure and operating independently."
"Special Groups operate throughout Iraq," Cole said. "They plan and execute bombings, kidnappings, sectarian murders and more against Iraqi citizens, Iraqi forces and coalition personnel." E-mail to a friend
US forces kill 49 in Sadr City
Reporting is verging on farce although as psy-ops it might make sober sense. Those killed are "criminals". Now every incident seems to involve the ubiquitous Iranians.
Seems there are no moves to either try or release Iranian invited by the Iraq government but seized by the US. Hospitals report dead children and other civilians but the US just as a matter of routine denies any civilian casualties.
Sadr City was always a hotbed of revolt under Hussein. The US seems bound and determined that it will invoke the same violent hatred of the occupation that the inhabitants formerly held for Hussein.
US forces kill 49 in Baghdad Shiite stronghold by Jay Deshmukh
BAGHDAD (AFP) - US forces killed 49 "criminals" in fierce fighting with militants in Baghdad's Shiite stronghold of Sadr City on Sunday during a raid targeting an Iranian-linked insurgent, the military said.
Medics at four hospitals confirmed 17 dead, including a boy and a girl, but US military spokesman Major Winfield Danielson told AFP there were no civilian casualties and no reports of American losses.
The US military said troops were drawn into fighting after they launched a raid to seize their high-value target in Sadr City, a poor part of the capital dominated by militia loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
"The operation's objective was an individual reported to be a long-time Special Groups member specialising in kidnapping operations," a statement from the military said.
"Special Groups" is a US military term for what it says are secret Shiite cells which wage acts of "terrorism" in Iraq with the financial and military backing of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards units.
"Intelligence indicates he is a well-known cell leader and has previously sought funding from Iran to carry out high profile kidnappings," the statement said.
Danielson said the targeted individual had not been killed or captured during the clashes, which the military said erupted when troops were attacked by gunfire and rocket propelled grenades.
"Responding in self-defence, coalition forces engaged, killing an estimated 33 criminals," the statement said, adding that air support was then called in and killed another six. Ten more were killed as US forces withdrew, it said.
"I can say that we don't have any evidence of any civilians killed or wounded. Coalition forces only engage hostile threats and make every effort to protect innocent civilians," said Danielson.
Pictures taken by an AFP photographer as grieving relatives carried off the bodies of the dead for burial showed the body of a young boy in a coffin and several wounded people being treated by hospital emergency staff.
The US military has regularly targeted Sadr's Mahdi Army, which it accuses of being involved in sectarian killings of Sunnis.
Sadr declared a six-month freeze on the activities of his militia in August, including a halt to attacks on US-led coalition troops in Iraq.
US forces welcomed the freeze but continue to target fighters who it says have broken away from the main force of the Mahdi Army and formed special groups allegedly aided by Iran.
"We continue to support the government of Iraq in welcoming the commitment by Moqtada al-Sadr to stop attacks and we will continue to show restraint in dealing with those who honour his pledge," the military statement said.
"We will not show the same restraint against those criminals who dishonour this pledge by attacking security forces and Iraqi citizens," said Danielson.
Seems there are no moves to either try or release Iranian invited by the Iraq government but seized by the US. Hospitals report dead children and other civilians but the US just as a matter of routine denies any civilian casualties.
Sadr City was always a hotbed of revolt under Hussein. The US seems bound and determined that it will invoke the same violent hatred of the occupation that the inhabitants formerly held for Hussein.
US forces kill 49 in Baghdad Shiite stronghold by Jay Deshmukh
BAGHDAD (AFP) - US forces killed 49 "criminals" in fierce fighting with militants in Baghdad's Shiite stronghold of Sadr City on Sunday during a raid targeting an Iranian-linked insurgent, the military said.
Medics at four hospitals confirmed 17 dead, including a boy and a girl, but US military spokesman Major Winfield Danielson told AFP there were no civilian casualties and no reports of American losses.
The US military said troops were drawn into fighting after they launched a raid to seize their high-value target in Sadr City, a poor part of the capital dominated by militia loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
"The operation's objective was an individual reported to be a long-time Special Groups member specialising in kidnapping operations," a statement from the military said.
"Special Groups" is a US military term for what it says are secret Shiite cells which wage acts of "terrorism" in Iraq with the financial and military backing of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards units.
"Intelligence indicates he is a well-known cell leader and has previously sought funding from Iran to carry out high profile kidnappings," the statement said.
Danielson said the targeted individual had not been killed or captured during the clashes, which the military said erupted when troops were attacked by gunfire and rocket propelled grenades.
"Responding in self-defence, coalition forces engaged, killing an estimated 33 criminals," the statement said, adding that air support was then called in and killed another six. Ten more were killed as US forces withdrew, it said.
"I can say that we don't have any evidence of any civilians killed or wounded. Coalition forces only engage hostile threats and make every effort to protect innocent civilians," said Danielson.
Pictures taken by an AFP photographer as grieving relatives carried off the bodies of the dead for burial showed the body of a young boy in a coffin and several wounded people being treated by hospital emergency staff.
The US military has regularly targeted Sadr's Mahdi Army, which it accuses of being involved in sectarian killings of Sunnis.
Sadr declared a six-month freeze on the activities of his militia in August, including a halt to attacks on US-led coalition troops in Iraq.
US forces welcomed the freeze but continue to target fighters who it says have broken away from the main force of the Mahdi Army and formed special groups allegedly aided by Iran.
"We continue to support the government of Iraq in welcoming the commitment by Moqtada al-Sadr to stop attacks and we will continue to show restraint in dealing with those who honour his pledge," the military statement said.
"We will not show the same restraint against those criminals who dishonour this pledge by attacking security forces and Iraqi citizens," said Danielson.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Glorietta Mall bomb blast
This is from the Manila Times There follows a news report on the Glorietta bombing plus an editorial. The editorial is relatively conservative and is rather miffed by the speculative theories about the bombing. The newspaper on the other hand reports the speculation. This speculation is bound to be fueled by the circumstances; Arroyo is in deep trouble re bribes and there are rumours of troubles in the Armed Forces. Abu Sayyaf has actually denied being responsible. However, it is still a prime suspect. There is a long way to go yet in the investigation. No doubt many will be sceptical about the investigators themselves.
Glorietta explosives are ‘of military type’
By Anthony Vargas, Reporter
AMID allegations by Magdaló rebel-turned-senator Antonio Trillanes 4th that Malacañang is resurrecting its Oplan Greenbase that saw bombings in different parts of the country to create a panic situation and justify a state of national emergency, police forensics experts expressed belief that “military” type of explosives were used in the deadly explosions at the high-end Glorietta mall in Makati City Friday afternoon.
President Gloria Arroyo has already described the said incident at the Glorietta Mall in which nine people were killed, scores injured, and one missing as an act of “terrorism”.
A police post investigation report said that two explosions occurred inside the mall, causing heavy damage to it. One explosion occurred at the mall’s atrium at the ground, and the other one at the delivery dock of the mall.
The Philippine National Police (PNP) chief, Director General Avelino Razon Jr., said based on initial findings, traces of highly explosive materials were found at the blast site.
The explosion left an eight meter-wide (26 foot) crater on the ground floor and blew a hole through the roof on the second floor.
“Chemical analysts have identified the chemical RDX as present in the blast site,” Razon said in a press briefing in Camp Crame.
Said the PNP chief, RDX is the main base component of powerful explosives such as C4 and TNT, used by terrorists in past bombing attacks.
PNP Crime Lab Director, Chief Supt. Arturo Cacdac Jr., said initial post-blast investigation had revealed traces of high-explosives materials from the blast sites.
“RDX was possibly used. But, we are still conducting confirmatory test on this one,” Cacdac said in the same press conferences.
RDX is commercially available. It is a major component of C4, a type of explosive material which only the military establishment uses, but can be bought at the black market.
Supt. Albert Ignatius Ferro, chief of the PNP Bomb Data Center, said that they could not yet immediately ascertain any particular group responsible for the bombing.
“We could presume those are military ordnance components, based on 2006 and 2005 data,” Ferro said in the same press conference.
The police report on the bombing was delivered at a top-level security meeting between the president and her security advisers at police headquarters in Manila.
Mrs. Arroyo immediately ordered the country’s police chief General Avelino Razon to check its source and pinpoint the culprits.
“Is that already definitive. . .or is there going to be another more detailed finding of what kind of explosive was used?,” she said during the briefing. “We need regular information bulletins on the status of the investigation.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th released a statement expressing belief that the Glorietta 2 mall blast is “the handiwork of Malacañang Palace, particularly National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales and AFP Chief of Staff Hermogenes Esperon.”
“It very looks like a repeat of Oplan Greenbase, perpetrated by the administration in 2003 in Mindanao, where a series of bombings rocked the island, killing innocent people and destroying property,” explained Trillanes.
The bombings remain unexplained to this day, but Trillanes insisted that “this blast is most likely another tactic of the administration to divert public attention away from the controversies hounding GMA [Arroyo].”
“Like Oplan Greenbase, this blast is a pretext for assorted measures GMA may again concoct, like exercise of emergency powers, possibly even martial law, to justify repressive actions against the people to clamp down on peaceful protests and subdue the rising public clamor for her to resign,” Trillanes opined.
He added that “Malacañang has no compunction in doing this kind of dastardly act. Aside from the Mindanao bombings, this administration is also believed to be responsible for the extra-judicial killings. They have done it before. They will do it again, if not stopped from their tracks. They will do everything just to ensure that GMA stays in power.”
However, TrillanesÃs allegations were countered by Razon and Military chief, General Hermogenes Esperon Jr., who instead, hinted of possible involvement of TrillanesÃs Magdalo group who staged a short-lived mutiny on July 27, 2003.
“They have used C4 [before] and there are still some C4 that are still being accounted,” Esperon said in the same press briefing.
Security officials expect to narrow down the personalities behind or involved in the mall blast in the coming days.
Razon said the government was putting up a P2-million ($45,454) reward for any information leading to arrests.
No group has claimed responsibility for the blast, which came weeks after military intelligence foiled an alleged plot by al-Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf Islamic militants to bomb the southern port city of Zamboanga.
National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales said authorities were also looking at the Abu Sayyaf as possible suspects, noting that the group may have carried it out as part of their campaign to attract funding from international terrorist groups.
The 12,000-strong Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) said Saturday it is “prepared to gather intelligence for the Philippine authorities if asked to do so,” spokesman Eid Kabalu told AFP.
“We would like to help out if asked. This could help the military at least eliminate some groups from their list of suspects,” he said, adding that the offer was being made as a “sincere gesture” that could also help revive stalled peace talks.
Reports said officials from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are now helping Philippine police in the probe.
Throughout the night, bomb experts sifted through blast debris trying to find clues as to what sort of bomb was used.
The mall remained sealed Saturday, with a cordon of policemen guarding its perimeter.
Razon said the bomb was apparently left at a delivery bay near a popular Chinese restaurant at the mall shortly after lunch.
He said investigators were also reviewing closed circuit television cameras and interviewing survivors and witnesses.
Security in all malls, bus and train stations, as well as sea and airports have been intensified, Razon said, with elite police commandos patrolling streets.
The posh city of Makati, where Glorietta Mall is located, has weathered a bombing incident on Valentine’s Day in February 2005. Abu Sayyaf Islamic militants were blamed for the bombing of a bus near the mall that killed four people.
Militants also firebombed a ferry in Manila Bay the previous year, killing more than 100 people in the country’s worst terrorist attack.
--With AFP report
Manila Times Editorial
EDITORIAL
The blast
THE Makati bomb blast on Friday that killed nine and injured at least 129 others is a grim reminder that terrorism has grafted itself into the landscape and that we face a long ordeal taming it.
So strong was the blast that it tore off the ceiling on the first floor, knocked down walls, shattered windows and sent debris flying in all directions. Cars parked outside the mall did not escape damage.
The bomber took advantage of the huge crowd at the busy mall. The goal was to kill as many innocents and hurt scores of people, not unlike the bombings that have rocked public places in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If we are trying to link the tragedies in the Philippines and the Middle East, the reason is that international terrorists have found a haven in Southern Mindanao. The al-Qaeda organization and Jemaah Islamiah, its Asian claw, have joined forces with the Abu Sayyaf terrorists mainly in Sulu and Basilan to extend their reach to the Philippines and neighboring countries.
We do not expect the terrorists to claim authorship of the Makati blast, but they have a legacy of terrorism in the country, the latest being the Feb. 14, 2005, bombing of a passenger bus, also in Makati, and the firebombing of a ferry on Manila Bay a year earlier. Recent bombings in Southern Mindanao are being laid at the doorsteps of the Abu Sayyaf.
President Gloria Arroyo has ordered the police to solve the bombing and to identify and arrest the perpetrators. She has warned unfriendly sectors not to take advantage of the tragedy by fomenting more unrest or waging efforts to destabilize the government.
We are reassured by her pledge not to declare martial law. That would be an extreme move and will raise suspicions that the government desperately needs a diversion to draw public attention from a series of recent controversies it is mired in.
It is cynical and brazen of the politicians, bishops and businessmen to suggest that the government staged the bombing to create a sense of emergency that would replace the current obsessions with scandals that have prompted congressional investigations, media inquiries and public restiveness.
The bombing is a setback for the economy and a blot on law and order. The victims will need long-term care. Politicians will feast on the misfortune for publicity and partisan ends. It’s a sad day for the country.
The next step
WHILE the government attends to the needs of the victims and their families, it ought to consider weightier steps to improve public safety and to turn the table on terrorism and lawlessness.
We need more than battlefield training from the US soldiers taking part in the Balikatan war games or the ones who have stayed permanently in Mindanao. We need to upgrade our expertise in intelligence gathering and analysis to deal with terrorism in the long term.
The government could win a great part of the war by moving one step ahead of the enemy, by knowing his character, tactics and strength. Developing excellence in intelligence work and sharing information with other countries could help thwart the enemy. Friends like Israel, Japan and the United States can help.
Poor investigation, evidence gathering and a deficient crime laboratory have stymied much of police work. Police expertise in crime-scene investigation is very unsatisfactory. The national police and the National Bureau of Investigation need to upgrade their skills in CSI and arson investigation. This way they could solve more crimes, including those carried out by terrorists.
The media have not reported if the Makati shopping mall uses closed-circuit television. CCTV, as the London police have discovered, is a great aid in the identification of criminals and crime suspects, Private businesses, especially banks and those that attract shoppers, should be encouraged to install electronic eyes on their premises.
We support the police effort to install a network of closed-circuit TV in public places. There is no erosion of personal privacy on the street, the plazas and the transportation stops. But the campaign to take pictures of passengers before they board buses is intrusive. There should be a better way to identify thieves who victimize passengers.
Congress has passed the antiterrorism act; the government should enforce it with vigor. Objections to the law, coming from civil libertarians, should be considered by our legislators. The law is not meant to stop petty criminals but the terrorists and their accomplices.
The private security establishment plays an important role in public safety. The government, together with private business, should spend money on upgrading the skills of the “blue guards” and consider them an arm of the law. Professionalizing the security force will strengthen peace in the community.
Vigilance is all. Every citizen—the public—should keep his eyes and ears open to threats or signs of danger to public order. Reporting strange-looking packages or informing the police about persons behaving suspiciously could help prevent a crime and stop a perpetrator.
Glorietta explosives are ‘of military type’
By Anthony Vargas, Reporter
AMID allegations by Magdaló rebel-turned-senator Antonio Trillanes 4th that Malacañang is resurrecting its Oplan Greenbase that saw bombings in different parts of the country to create a panic situation and justify a state of national emergency, police forensics experts expressed belief that “military” type of explosives were used in the deadly explosions at the high-end Glorietta mall in Makati City Friday afternoon.
President Gloria Arroyo has already described the said incident at the Glorietta Mall in which nine people were killed, scores injured, and one missing as an act of “terrorism”.
A police post investigation report said that two explosions occurred inside the mall, causing heavy damage to it. One explosion occurred at the mall’s atrium at the ground, and the other one at the delivery dock of the mall.
The Philippine National Police (PNP) chief, Director General Avelino Razon Jr., said based on initial findings, traces of highly explosive materials were found at the blast site.
The explosion left an eight meter-wide (26 foot) crater on the ground floor and blew a hole through the roof on the second floor.
“Chemical analysts have identified the chemical RDX as present in the blast site,” Razon said in a press briefing in Camp Crame.
Said the PNP chief, RDX is the main base component of powerful explosives such as C4 and TNT, used by terrorists in past bombing attacks.
PNP Crime Lab Director, Chief Supt. Arturo Cacdac Jr., said initial post-blast investigation had revealed traces of high-explosives materials from the blast sites.
“RDX was possibly used. But, we are still conducting confirmatory test on this one,” Cacdac said in the same press conferences.
RDX is commercially available. It is a major component of C4, a type of explosive material which only the military establishment uses, but can be bought at the black market.
Supt. Albert Ignatius Ferro, chief of the PNP Bomb Data Center, said that they could not yet immediately ascertain any particular group responsible for the bombing.
“We could presume those are military ordnance components, based on 2006 and 2005 data,” Ferro said in the same press conference.
The police report on the bombing was delivered at a top-level security meeting between the president and her security advisers at police headquarters in Manila.
Mrs. Arroyo immediately ordered the country’s police chief General Avelino Razon to check its source and pinpoint the culprits.
“Is that already definitive. . .or is there going to be another more detailed finding of what kind of explosive was used?,” she said during the briefing. “We need regular information bulletins on the status of the investigation.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th released a statement expressing belief that the Glorietta 2 mall blast is “the handiwork of Malacañang Palace, particularly National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales and AFP Chief of Staff Hermogenes Esperon.”
“It very looks like a repeat of Oplan Greenbase, perpetrated by the administration in 2003 in Mindanao, where a series of bombings rocked the island, killing innocent people and destroying property,” explained Trillanes.
The bombings remain unexplained to this day, but Trillanes insisted that “this blast is most likely another tactic of the administration to divert public attention away from the controversies hounding GMA [Arroyo].”
“Like Oplan Greenbase, this blast is a pretext for assorted measures GMA may again concoct, like exercise of emergency powers, possibly even martial law, to justify repressive actions against the people to clamp down on peaceful protests and subdue the rising public clamor for her to resign,” Trillanes opined.
He added that “Malacañang has no compunction in doing this kind of dastardly act. Aside from the Mindanao bombings, this administration is also believed to be responsible for the extra-judicial killings. They have done it before. They will do it again, if not stopped from their tracks. They will do everything just to ensure that GMA stays in power.”
However, TrillanesÃs allegations were countered by Razon and Military chief, General Hermogenes Esperon Jr., who instead, hinted of possible involvement of TrillanesÃs Magdalo group who staged a short-lived mutiny on July 27, 2003.
“They have used C4 [before] and there are still some C4 that are still being accounted,” Esperon said in the same press briefing.
Security officials expect to narrow down the personalities behind or involved in the mall blast in the coming days.
Razon said the government was putting up a P2-million ($45,454) reward for any information leading to arrests.
No group has claimed responsibility for the blast, which came weeks after military intelligence foiled an alleged plot by al-Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf Islamic militants to bomb the southern port city of Zamboanga.
National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales said authorities were also looking at the Abu Sayyaf as possible suspects, noting that the group may have carried it out as part of their campaign to attract funding from international terrorist groups.
The 12,000-strong Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) said Saturday it is “prepared to gather intelligence for the Philippine authorities if asked to do so,” spokesman Eid Kabalu told AFP.
“We would like to help out if asked. This could help the military at least eliminate some groups from their list of suspects,” he said, adding that the offer was being made as a “sincere gesture” that could also help revive stalled peace talks.
Reports said officials from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are now helping Philippine police in the probe.
Throughout the night, bomb experts sifted through blast debris trying to find clues as to what sort of bomb was used.
The mall remained sealed Saturday, with a cordon of policemen guarding its perimeter.
Razon said the bomb was apparently left at a delivery bay near a popular Chinese restaurant at the mall shortly after lunch.
He said investigators were also reviewing closed circuit television cameras and interviewing survivors and witnesses.
Security in all malls, bus and train stations, as well as sea and airports have been intensified, Razon said, with elite police commandos patrolling streets.
The posh city of Makati, where Glorietta Mall is located, has weathered a bombing incident on Valentine’s Day in February 2005. Abu Sayyaf Islamic militants were blamed for the bombing of a bus near the mall that killed four people.
Militants also firebombed a ferry in Manila Bay the previous year, killing more than 100 people in the country’s worst terrorist attack.
--With AFP report
Manila Times Editorial
EDITORIAL
The blast
THE Makati bomb blast on Friday that killed nine and injured at least 129 others is a grim reminder that terrorism has grafted itself into the landscape and that we face a long ordeal taming it.
So strong was the blast that it tore off the ceiling on the first floor, knocked down walls, shattered windows and sent debris flying in all directions. Cars parked outside the mall did not escape damage.
The bomber took advantage of the huge crowd at the busy mall. The goal was to kill as many innocents and hurt scores of people, not unlike the bombings that have rocked public places in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If we are trying to link the tragedies in the Philippines and the Middle East, the reason is that international terrorists have found a haven in Southern Mindanao. The al-Qaeda organization and Jemaah Islamiah, its Asian claw, have joined forces with the Abu Sayyaf terrorists mainly in Sulu and Basilan to extend their reach to the Philippines and neighboring countries.
We do not expect the terrorists to claim authorship of the Makati blast, but they have a legacy of terrorism in the country, the latest being the Feb. 14, 2005, bombing of a passenger bus, also in Makati, and the firebombing of a ferry on Manila Bay a year earlier. Recent bombings in Southern Mindanao are being laid at the doorsteps of the Abu Sayyaf.
President Gloria Arroyo has ordered the police to solve the bombing and to identify and arrest the perpetrators. She has warned unfriendly sectors not to take advantage of the tragedy by fomenting more unrest or waging efforts to destabilize the government.
We are reassured by her pledge not to declare martial law. That would be an extreme move and will raise suspicions that the government desperately needs a diversion to draw public attention from a series of recent controversies it is mired in.
It is cynical and brazen of the politicians, bishops and businessmen to suggest that the government staged the bombing to create a sense of emergency that would replace the current obsessions with scandals that have prompted congressional investigations, media inquiries and public restiveness.
The bombing is a setback for the economy and a blot on law and order. The victims will need long-term care. Politicians will feast on the misfortune for publicity and partisan ends. It’s a sad day for the country.
The next step
WHILE the government attends to the needs of the victims and their families, it ought to consider weightier steps to improve public safety and to turn the table on terrorism and lawlessness.
We need more than battlefield training from the US soldiers taking part in the Balikatan war games or the ones who have stayed permanently in Mindanao. We need to upgrade our expertise in intelligence gathering and analysis to deal with terrorism in the long term.
The government could win a great part of the war by moving one step ahead of the enemy, by knowing his character, tactics and strength. Developing excellence in intelligence work and sharing information with other countries could help thwart the enemy. Friends like Israel, Japan and the United States can help.
Poor investigation, evidence gathering and a deficient crime laboratory have stymied much of police work. Police expertise in crime-scene investigation is very unsatisfactory. The national police and the National Bureau of Investigation need to upgrade their skills in CSI and arson investigation. This way they could solve more crimes, including those carried out by terrorists.
The media have not reported if the Makati shopping mall uses closed-circuit television. CCTV, as the London police have discovered, is a great aid in the identification of criminals and crime suspects, Private businesses, especially banks and those that attract shoppers, should be encouraged to install electronic eyes on their premises.
We support the police effort to install a network of closed-circuit TV in public places. There is no erosion of personal privacy on the street, the plazas and the transportation stops. But the campaign to take pictures of passengers before they board buses is intrusive. There should be a better way to identify thieves who victimize passengers.
Congress has passed the antiterrorism act; the government should enforce it with vigor. Objections to the law, coming from civil libertarians, should be considered by our legislators. The law is not meant to stop petty criminals but the terrorists and their accomplices.
The private security establishment plays an important role in public safety. The government, together with private business, should spend money on upgrading the skills of the “blue guards” and consider them an arm of the law. Professionalizing the security force will strengthen peace in the community.
Vigilance is all. Every citizen—the public—should keep his eyes and ears open to threats or signs of danger to public order. Reporting strange-looking packages or informing the police about persons behaving suspiciously could help prevent a crime and stop a perpetrator.
Living paycheck to paycheck gets harder
The rich are doing much better so no doubt they must spend quality time assessing what new and exciting toys to buy and where best to invest their savings. I suppose they can hire someone to do the investment job if they are not interested themselves.
Living paycheck to paycheck gets harder
By ANNE D'INNOCENZIO, AP Business Writer Sat Oct 20, 6:10 AM ET
NEW YORK - The calculus of living paycheck to paycheck in America is
getting harder. What used to last four days might last half that long
now. Pay the gas bill, but skip breakfast. Eat less for lunch so the
kids can have a healthy dinner.
Across the nation, Americans are increasingly unable to stretch their
dollars to the next payday as they juggle higher rent, food and
energy bills. It's starting to affect middle-income working families
as well as the poor, and has reached the point of affecting day-to-
day calculations of merchants like Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 7-Eleven
Inc. and Family Dollar Stores Inc.
Food pantries, which distribute foodstuffs to the needy, are
reporting severe shortages and reduced government funding at the very
time that they are seeing a surge of new people seeking their help.
While economists debate whether the country is headed for a
recession, some say the financial stress is already the worst since
the last downturn at the start of this decade.
From Family Dollar to Wal-Mart, merchants have adjusted their
product mix and pricing accordingly. Sales data show a marked and
more prolonged drop in spending in the days before shoppers get their
paychecks, when they buy only the barest essentials before splurging
around payday.
"It's pretty pronounced," said Kiley Rawlins, a spokeswoman at Family
Dollar. "It seems like to us, customers are running out of food
products, paper towels sooner in the month."
Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, said the imbalance in
spending before and after payday in July was the biggest it has ever
seen, though the drop-off wasn't as steep in August.
And 7-Eleven says its grocery sales have jumped 12-13 percent over
the past year, compared with only slight increases for non-
necessities like gloves and toys. Shoppers can't afford to load up at
the supermarket and are going to the most convenient places to buy
emergency food items like milk and eggs.
"It even costs more to get the basics like soap and laundry
detergent," said Michelle Grassia, who lives with her husband and
three teenage children in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn,
N.Y.
Her husband's check from his job at a grocery store used to last four
days. "Now, it lasts only two," she said.
To make up the difference, Grassia buys one gallon of milk a week
instead of three. She sometimes skips breakfast and lunch to make
sure there's enough food for her children. She cooks with a hot plate
because gas is too expensive. And she depends more than ever on the
bags of free vegetables and powdered milk from a local food pantry.
Grassia's story is neither new nor unique. With the fastest-rising
food and energy prices since the 1980s, low-income consumers are
stretching their budgets by eating cheap foods like peanut butter and
pasta.
Industry analysts and some economists fear the strain will get worse
as people are hit with higher home heating bills this winter and
mortgage rates go up.
It's bad enough already for 85-year-old Dominica Hoffman.
She gets $1,400 a month in pension and Social Security from her days
in the garment industry. After paying $500 in rent on an apartment in
Pennsauken, N.J., and shelling out money for food, gas and other
expenses, she's broke by the end of the month. She's had to cut
fruits and vegetables from her grocery order — and that's even with
financial help from her children.
"Everything is up," she said.
Many consumers, particularly those making less than $30,000 a year,
are cutting spending on nutritious food like milk and vegetables, and
analysts fear they're further skimping on basic medical care and
other critical services.
Coupon-clipping just isn't enough.
"The reality of hunger is right here," said the Rev. Melony Samuels,
director of The BedStuy Campaign against Hunger, a church-affiliated
food pantry in Brooklyn.
The pantry scrambled to feed 5,000 new families over the past 12
months, up almost 70 percent from 3,000 the year before.
"I am shocked to see such numbers," Samuels said, "and I am really
concerned that this is just the beginning of what we are going to see."
In the past three months, Samuels has seen more clients in higher-
paying jobs — the $35,000 range — line up for food.
The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York, which covers 23
counties in New York State, cited a 30 percent rise in visitors in
the first nine months of this year, compared with 2006.
Maureen Schnellmann, senior director of food and nutrition programs
at the American Red Cross Food Pantry in Boston, reported a 30
percent increase from January through August over last year.
Until a few months ago, Dellria Seales, a home care assistant, was
just getting by living with her daughter, a hairdresser, and two
grandchildren in a one-bedroom apartment for $750 a month. But a knee
injury in January forced her to quit her job, leaving her at the
mercy of Samuels' pantry because most of her daughter's $1,200 a
month income goes to rent, energy and food costs.
"I need it. Without it, we wouldn't survive," Seales said as she
picked up carrots and bananas.
John Vogel, a professor at Dartmouth College's Tuck School of
Business, worries that the squeeze will lead to a less nutritious
diet and inadequate medical or child care.
In the meantime, rising costs show no signs of abating.
Gas prices hit a record nationwide average of $3.23 per gallon in
late May before receding a little, though prices are expected to soar
again later this year. Food costs have increased 4.5 percent over the
past 12 months, partly because of higher fuel costs. Egg prices were
44 percent higher, while milk was up 21.3 percent over the past 12
months to nearly $4 a gallon, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
The average family of four is spending anywhere from $7 to $10 extra
a week — $40 more a month — on groceries alone, compared to a year
ago, according to retail consultant Burt Flickinger III.
And while overall wage growth is a solid 4.1 percent over the past 12
months, economists say the increases are mostly for the top earners.
Retailers started noticing the strain in late spring and early summer
as they were monitoring the spending around the paycheck cycle.
Wal-Mart and Family Dollar key on the first week of the month, when
government checks like Social Security and public assistance
generally hit consumers' mailboxes.
7-Eleven, whose customers are more diverse, looks at paycheck cycles
in specific markets dominated by a major employer, such as General
Motors in Detroit, to discern trends in shopping.
To economize, shoppers are going for less expensive food.
"They're buying more peanut butter and pasta. And they're going for
hamburger meat," Flickinger, the retail consultant, said. "They're
trying to outsmart the store by looking for deep discounts at the end
of the month."
He said the last time he saw this was 2000-2001, when the dot-com
bubble burst and the economy went into a recession after massive
layoffs.
For now, low-price retailers are readjusting their merchandising and
pricing.
Wal-Mart is becoming more aggressive on discounting. It announced
Thursday it is expanding price cuts to 15,000 items, ranging from
Motts apple juice and Progresso soups to women's fleece tops, heading
into the holidays.
Family Dollar, whose food offerings were limited to candy and snacks
until two years ago, has expanded its mix of groceries like fruit
cups, cereal and such refrigerated items as milk and ice cream while
cutting back on shoes. This summer the chain began accepting food
stamps.
Food pantries are also getting creative. Samuels said her church,
Full Gospel Tabernacle of Faith, just started offering free cooking
classes to teach clients who are diabetic or have other health
conditions how to prepare vegetables like squash. It's also offering
free exercise classes.
"We are trying to make them health conscious," Samuels said. "It's
not right to give them just anything. Our mantra is eat well and live
well."
___
Associated Press Writers Geoff Mulvihill in Mount Laurel, N.J., and
Terry Tang in Phoenix, Ariz
Living paycheck to paycheck gets harder
By ANNE D'INNOCENZIO, AP Business Writer Sat Oct 20, 6:10 AM ET
NEW YORK - The calculus of living paycheck to paycheck in America is
getting harder. What used to last four days might last half that long
now. Pay the gas bill, but skip breakfast. Eat less for lunch so the
kids can have a healthy dinner.
Across the nation, Americans are increasingly unable to stretch their
dollars to the next payday as they juggle higher rent, food and
energy bills. It's starting to affect middle-income working families
as well as the poor, and has reached the point of affecting day-to-
day calculations of merchants like Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 7-Eleven
Inc. and Family Dollar Stores Inc.
Food pantries, which distribute foodstuffs to the needy, are
reporting severe shortages and reduced government funding at the very
time that they are seeing a surge of new people seeking their help.
While economists debate whether the country is headed for a
recession, some say the financial stress is already the worst since
the last downturn at the start of this decade.
From Family Dollar to Wal-Mart, merchants have adjusted their
product mix and pricing accordingly. Sales data show a marked and
more prolonged drop in spending in the days before shoppers get their
paychecks, when they buy only the barest essentials before splurging
around payday.
"It's pretty pronounced," said Kiley Rawlins, a spokeswoman at Family
Dollar. "It seems like to us, customers are running out of food
products, paper towels sooner in the month."
Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, said the imbalance in
spending before and after payday in July was the biggest it has ever
seen, though the drop-off wasn't as steep in August.
And 7-Eleven says its grocery sales have jumped 12-13 percent over
the past year, compared with only slight increases for non-
necessities like gloves and toys. Shoppers can't afford to load up at
the supermarket and are going to the most convenient places to buy
emergency food items like milk and eggs.
"It even costs more to get the basics like soap and laundry
detergent," said Michelle Grassia, who lives with her husband and
three teenage children in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn,
N.Y.
Her husband's check from his job at a grocery store used to last four
days. "Now, it lasts only two," she said.
To make up the difference, Grassia buys one gallon of milk a week
instead of three. She sometimes skips breakfast and lunch to make
sure there's enough food for her children. She cooks with a hot plate
because gas is too expensive. And she depends more than ever on the
bags of free vegetables and powdered milk from a local food pantry.
Grassia's story is neither new nor unique. With the fastest-rising
food and energy prices since the 1980s, low-income consumers are
stretching their budgets by eating cheap foods like peanut butter and
pasta.
Industry analysts and some economists fear the strain will get worse
as people are hit with higher home heating bills this winter and
mortgage rates go up.
It's bad enough already for 85-year-old Dominica Hoffman.
She gets $1,400 a month in pension and Social Security from her days
in the garment industry. After paying $500 in rent on an apartment in
Pennsauken, N.J., and shelling out money for food, gas and other
expenses, she's broke by the end of the month. She's had to cut
fruits and vegetables from her grocery order — and that's even with
financial help from her children.
"Everything is up," she said.
Many consumers, particularly those making less than $30,000 a year,
are cutting spending on nutritious food like milk and vegetables, and
analysts fear they're further skimping on basic medical care and
other critical services.
Coupon-clipping just isn't enough.
"The reality of hunger is right here," said the Rev. Melony Samuels,
director of The BedStuy Campaign against Hunger, a church-affiliated
food pantry in Brooklyn.
The pantry scrambled to feed 5,000 new families over the past 12
months, up almost 70 percent from 3,000 the year before.
"I am shocked to see such numbers," Samuels said, "and I am really
concerned that this is just the beginning of what we are going to see."
In the past three months, Samuels has seen more clients in higher-
paying jobs — the $35,000 range — line up for food.
The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York, which covers 23
counties in New York State, cited a 30 percent rise in visitors in
the first nine months of this year, compared with 2006.
Maureen Schnellmann, senior director of food and nutrition programs
at the American Red Cross Food Pantry in Boston, reported a 30
percent increase from January through August over last year.
Until a few months ago, Dellria Seales, a home care assistant, was
just getting by living with her daughter, a hairdresser, and two
grandchildren in a one-bedroom apartment for $750 a month. But a knee
injury in January forced her to quit her job, leaving her at the
mercy of Samuels' pantry because most of her daughter's $1,200 a
month income goes to rent, energy and food costs.
"I need it. Without it, we wouldn't survive," Seales said as she
picked up carrots and bananas.
John Vogel, a professor at Dartmouth College's Tuck School of
Business, worries that the squeeze will lead to a less nutritious
diet and inadequate medical or child care.
In the meantime, rising costs show no signs of abating.
Gas prices hit a record nationwide average of $3.23 per gallon in
late May before receding a little, though prices are expected to soar
again later this year. Food costs have increased 4.5 percent over the
past 12 months, partly because of higher fuel costs. Egg prices were
44 percent higher, while milk was up 21.3 percent over the past 12
months to nearly $4 a gallon, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
The average family of four is spending anywhere from $7 to $10 extra
a week — $40 more a month — on groceries alone, compared to a year
ago, according to retail consultant Burt Flickinger III.
And while overall wage growth is a solid 4.1 percent over the past 12
months, economists say the increases are mostly for the top earners.
Retailers started noticing the strain in late spring and early summer
as they were monitoring the spending around the paycheck cycle.
Wal-Mart and Family Dollar key on the first week of the month, when
government checks like Social Security and public assistance
generally hit consumers' mailboxes.
7-Eleven, whose customers are more diverse, looks at paycheck cycles
in specific markets dominated by a major employer, such as General
Motors in Detroit, to discern trends in shopping.
To economize, shoppers are going for less expensive food.
"They're buying more peanut butter and pasta. And they're going for
hamburger meat," Flickinger, the retail consultant, said. "They're
trying to outsmart the store by looking for deep discounts at the end
of the month."
He said the last time he saw this was 2000-2001, when the dot-com
bubble burst and the economy went into a recession after massive
layoffs.
For now, low-price retailers are readjusting their merchandising and
pricing.
Wal-Mart is becoming more aggressive on discounting. It announced
Thursday it is expanding price cuts to 15,000 items, ranging from
Motts apple juice and Progresso soups to women's fleece tops, heading
into the holidays.
Family Dollar, whose food offerings were limited to candy and snacks
until two years ago, has expanded its mix of groceries like fruit
cups, cereal and such refrigerated items as milk and ice cream while
cutting back on shoes. This summer the chain began accepting food
stamps.
Food pantries are also getting creative. Samuels said her church,
Full Gospel Tabernacle of Faith, just started offering free cooking
classes to teach clients who are diabetic or have other health
conditions how to prepare vegetables like squash. It's also offering
free exercise classes.
"We are trying to make them health conscious," Samuels said. "It's
not right to give them just anything. Our mantra is eat well and live
well."
___
Associated Press Writers Geoff Mulvihill in Mount Laurel, N.J., and
Terry Tang in Phoenix, Ariz
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Evironics site on Afghan Poll
THis is from the Environics Website. THe site has lots of useful information on how the poll was conducted plus an easy to read summary of the results just as good if not better than the CBC site.
One wonders how it was decided who to poll. There must surely be districts where it is difficult to poll. The polling company has actually had a pollster shot and killed. I would venture to guess that the area is now not polled at all! It would seem natural to pick people that one knows would probably co-operate and that may give you representation in terms of gender, age, location, etc. but could provide unrepresentative answers. Anyway I am surprised that there is not even any curiousity about these issues in the media. The polling responses as mentioned at 85 per cent if far above what you would get in the west. Why?
Methodology
The research was designed by Environics, in consultation with its media and academic partners.
The survey was conducted for Environics by D3 Systems Inc. and its subsidiary, the Afghan Centre for Social and Opinion Research (ACSOR-Surveys), based in Kabul. D3 Systems/ACSOR established the capability to conduct country-wide public opinion surveys across Afghanistan following the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, and includes among its clients the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), ABC News, the Asia Foundation, and the United Nations Industrial Development
The Environics survey was conducted by ACSOR between September 17 and 24, 2007 with a representative sample of 1,578 adult Afghans (18 years and older) across all 34 of the country's provinces. The surveys were conducted in-person in people's homes in either Dari or Pashto, the two dominant languages. Female interviewers interviewed women and male interviewers interviewed Afghan men, and the sample was stratified to ensure a 50-50 distribution on gender.
The survey sample consisted of 1,278 interviews conducted across the country, plus an additional 300 interviews to provide over-samples of 270 interviews in Kabul (the country's capital) and 260 in the province of Kandahar, where the Canadian mission is based. The margins of sampling error for these samples are plus or minus 3.8%, 7.3% and 7.3%, respectively (at the 95% confidence level). The response rate for this survey was 85 percent, a rate almost unheard of today for research conducted in the western world. Further details on the methodology used to conduct this survey are available from Environics
One wonders how it was decided who to poll. There must surely be districts where it is difficult to poll. The polling company has actually had a pollster shot and killed. I would venture to guess that the area is now not polled at all! It would seem natural to pick people that one knows would probably co-operate and that may give you representation in terms of gender, age, location, etc. but could provide unrepresentative answers. Anyway I am surprised that there is not even any curiousity about these issues in the media. The polling responses as mentioned at 85 per cent if far above what you would get in the west. Why?
Methodology
The research was designed by Environics, in consultation with its media and academic partners.
The survey was conducted for Environics by D3 Systems Inc. and its subsidiary, the Afghan Centre for Social and Opinion Research (ACSOR-Surveys), based in Kabul. D3 Systems/ACSOR established the capability to conduct country-wide public opinion surveys across Afghanistan following the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, and includes among its clients the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), ABC News, the Asia Foundation, and the United Nations Industrial Development
The Environics survey was conducted by ACSOR between September 17 and 24, 2007 with a representative sample of 1,578 adult Afghans (18 years and older) across all 34 of the country's provinces. The surveys were conducted in-person in people's homes in either Dari or Pashto, the two dominant languages. Female interviewers interviewed women and male interviewers interviewed Afghan men, and the sample was stratified to ensure a 50-50 distribution on gender.
The survey sample consisted of 1,278 interviews conducted across the country, plus an additional 300 interviews to provide over-samples of 270 interviews in Kabul (the country's capital) and 260 in the province of Kandahar, where the Canadian mission is based. The margins of sampling error for these samples are plus or minus 3.8%, 7.3% and 7.3%, respectively (at the 95% confidence level). The response rate for this survey was 85 percent, a rate almost unheard of today for research conducted in the western world. Further details on the methodology used to conduct this survey are available from Environics
Afghan Poll
Actually the polling was done by a Kabul firm under the supervision of Environics. I will post more on this. The poll results are quite interesting but in many cases are exactly what Karzai would like to hear. There are obvious difficulties with polling in Afghanistan. The pollsters have certainly tried to get a representative sammpling in terms of location gender etc. but even so I wonder about some of the results. For example what was the tribal composition of the Kandahar samples? There is very strong support for Karzai's government but that would hardly be surprising if you are polling his tribal group. It was probably impossible to poll in areas where the Taliban are quite strong. I am surprised that no commentator so far has even suggested that their might be any problem about the poll! The CBC does not even mention that Environics and the CBB did not themselves do the poll but a third party.
In spite of the fact the Canadian government does not believe in negotiating with terrorists 72 per cent in Kandahar believe that a coalition government with the Taliban would be fine and 85 per cent favor negotiations with them! This of course supports Karzai very strongly and that is what makes me wonder how representative the Kandahar poll might be.
There is much interesting detail on the results at the CBC.
Afghanistan
Poll: What Afghans think
Environics poll in partnership with the CBC
Last Updated October 2007
CBC News
In September 2007 Canadian polling company Environics teamed with partners including the CBC to ask Afghan citizens living in Afghanistan what they thought about the state of affairs in their country.
VIDEO
David Common talks to pollsters who went door-to-door in Kandahar. (Runs 2:05)
Questions ranged from personal security, the role and comfort level with foreign troops, views on terrorist tactics, to their outlook for the future.
Because Canadian troops are stationed in Kandahar province, special questions about Canada's role were asked to people living in that region of Afghanistan.
The complete poll results show that the Afghan people are generally supportive of their national government, generally supportive of the role foreign troops are playing and generally optimistic about the future of their country. Nationally, 79 per cent (81 per cent in Kandahar) think things generally are going in the right direction.
In Kandahar:
One in three people believes that the Taliban would return if foreign troops pulled out before the army and police were better trained.
85 per cent believe the government should negotiate with the Taliban to reduce conflict, and 72 per cent believe a coalition government with the Taliban would be acceptible.
One in three people believes suicide bombing is sometimes justified.
In spite of the fact the Canadian government does not believe in negotiating with terrorists 72 per cent in Kandahar believe that a coalition government with the Taliban would be fine and 85 per cent favor negotiations with them! This of course supports Karzai very strongly and that is what makes me wonder how representative the Kandahar poll might be.
There is much interesting detail on the results at the CBC.
Afghanistan
Poll: What Afghans think
Environics poll in partnership with the CBC
Last Updated October 2007
CBC News
In September 2007 Canadian polling company Environics teamed with partners including the CBC to ask Afghan citizens living in Afghanistan what they thought about the state of affairs in their country.
VIDEO
David Common talks to pollsters who went door-to-door in Kandahar. (Runs 2:05)
Questions ranged from personal security, the role and comfort level with foreign troops, views on terrorist tactics, to their outlook for the future.
Because Canadian troops are stationed in Kandahar province, special questions about Canada's role were asked to people living in that region of Afghanistan.
The complete poll results show that the Afghan people are generally supportive of their national government, generally supportive of the role foreign troops are playing and generally optimistic about the future of their country. Nationally, 79 per cent (81 per cent in Kandahar) think things generally are going in the right direction.
In Kandahar:
One in three people believes that the Taliban would return if foreign troops pulled out before the army and police were better trained.
85 per cent believe the government should negotiate with the Taliban to reduce conflict, and 72 per cent believe a coalition government with the Taliban would be acceptible.
One in three people believes suicide bombing is sometimes justified.
Philippine mall bomb toll at 9
I am quite surprised: i) that somehow a bomb of such size got by security ii) that the explosives are military grade since that indicates a military or police source for the material. I guess that the Tribune article I posted the other day was accurate enough.
This could be Abu Sayyaf because their bombing is indiscriminate for the most part but I understand they do not use this type of explosives for the obvious reason that they would have a hard time getting them. The type of explosives will just generate all sorts of speculation about who was involved in the Philippines as evident in the Tribune article.
This is from Reuters.
Philippine mall bomb toll at 9, police review footage
By Manny Mogato
MANILA, Oct 20 (Reuters) - Philippine police confirmed on Saturday that military-grade explosives caused a powerful blast in an upscale Manila shopping mall and that they were reviewing security camera footage to look for suspects.
The Glorietta mall blast at lunchtime on Friday killed nine people and wounded 120, although many of those wounded have been discharged after treatment, police and hospital sources said.
Explosives experts said the bomb was apparently set off in the basement of Glorietta, a sprawling three-storey complex of department stores, high-end fashion boutiques, restaurants, other shops and cinemas in the heart of the Makati business district.
Several luxury hotels and serviced apartment blocks surround the complex.
"No fragments of the bomb were found on the ground or upper floors," said Major Reynold Rosero, a military bomb expert. "So it must have come from the basement."
The basement, a delivery area for goods, is now under knee-deep water because the explosion caused some water pipes to burst, he said. Investigations would therefore take some time.
The bomb ripped all the way through to the roof of the structure, devastating shops and restaurants. Police had earlier believed the bomb was near a cellphone repair shop directly above the delivery bay.
Eight people were confirmed dead on Friday and the body of a man was found early on Saturday in the debris, a police official said. Four people have been reported missing.
A police official told President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo at a conference at national police headquarters that traces of RDX, a component of plastic explosives, were found at the bomb site.
"It was military-grade explosives," the expert said at the conference, which was open to the press.
Manila police chief Geary Barias said police have also started reviewing closed-circuit TV (CCTV) footage of the mall.
No one has claimed responsibility and no suspects have been named although some officials said Islamic Abu Sayyaf militants could be involved.
Norberto Gonzales, the president's security adviser, said they received an intelligence report the Abu Sayyaf was trying to raise funds abroad using the Internet site YouTube and the blast could be used as part of its fund-raising campaign.
Abu Sayyaf is said to be linked to the regional Jemaah Islamiah group, which has been blamed for similar explosions in the past, including the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people on the Indonesian resort isle.
A general alert has been issued for the rest of Manila and for the international airport.
Manila has largely been spared a spate of bomb attacks by Abu Sayyaf and other Muslim rebel groups that have plagued the southern Mindanao region. But it has been hit in the past.
A series of bomb blasts in 2000, blamed on a rogue faction of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, killed at least 22 people.
In February 2004, more than 100 people were killed when a bomb planted by Abu Sayyaf rebels sank a ferry near Manila Bay, the country's worst terror attack.
This could be Abu Sayyaf because their bombing is indiscriminate for the most part but I understand they do not use this type of explosives for the obvious reason that they would have a hard time getting them. The type of explosives will just generate all sorts of speculation about who was involved in the Philippines as evident in the Tribune article.
This is from Reuters.
Philippine mall bomb toll at 9, police review footage
By Manny Mogato
MANILA, Oct 20 (Reuters) - Philippine police confirmed on Saturday that military-grade explosives caused a powerful blast in an upscale Manila shopping mall and that they were reviewing security camera footage to look for suspects.
The Glorietta mall blast at lunchtime on Friday killed nine people and wounded 120, although many of those wounded have been discharged after treatment, police and hospital sources said.
Explosives experts said the bomb was apparently set off in the basement of Glorietta, a sprawling three-storey complex of department stores, high-end fashion boutiques, restaurants, other shops and cinemas in the heart of the Makati business district.
Several luxury hotels and serviced apartment blocks surround the complex.
"No fragments of the bomb were found on the ground or upper floors," said Major Reynold Rosero, a military bomb expert. "So it must have come from the basement."
The basement, a delivery area for goods, is now under knee-deep water because the explosion caused some water pipes to burst, he said. Investigations would therefore take some time.
The bomb ripped all the way through to the roof of the structure, devastating shops and restaurants. Police had earlier believed the bomb was near a cellphone repair shop directly above the delivery bay.
Eight people were confirmed dead on Friday and the body of a man was found early on Saturday in the debris, a police official said. Four people have been reported missing.
A police official told President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo at a conference at national police headquarters that traces of RDX, a component of plastic explosives, were found at the bomb site.
"It was military-grade explosives," the expert said at the conference, which was open to the press.
Manila police chief Geary Barias said police have also started reviewing closed-circuit TV (CCTV) footage of the mall.
No one has claimed responsibility and no suspects have been named although some officials said Islamic Abu Sayyaf militants could be involved.
Norberto Gonzales, the president's security adviser, said they received an intelligence report the Abu Sayyaf was trying to raise funds abroad using the Internet site YouTube and the blast could be used as part of its fund-raising campaign.
Abu Sayyaf is said to be linked to the regional Jemaah Islamiah group, which has been blamed for similar explosions in the past, including the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people on the Indonesian resort isle.
A general alert has been issued for the rest of Manila and for the international airport.
Manila has largely been spared a spate of bomb attacks by Abu Sayyaf and other Muslim rebel groups that have plagued the southern Mindanao region. But it has been hit in the past.
A series of bomb blasts in 2000, blamed on a rogue faction of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, killed at least 22 people.
In February 2004, more than 100 people were killed when a bomb planted by Abu Sayyaf rebels sank a ferry near Manila Bay, the country's worst terror attack.
Iraqi oil spoils
This is from the NYTimes. This article shows the problems facing US Iraq oil policy and also the fact that not only Kurdistan but some oil companies including Hunt oil in the US are making an end run around the central government. No word yet on when the federal oil bill will pass.
Iraqi Oil Spoils
Published: October 15, 2007
The quickening pace of oil deals between Kurdish regional leaders and foreign companies is another sign that Iraq is spinning out of control and the Bush administration has no idea how to stop it.
President Bush set enactment of a national oil law that centralizes development and ensures an equitable division of the profits as a key benchmark of progress. Iraq’s leaders, who have little interest in equity or reconciliation, have blithely ignored it. So the Kurds have taken matters into their own hands, signing nine legally questionable exploration deals with foreign companies.
The administration has complained that the deals “needlessly elevated tensions” between the Kurds and the central government. But it apparently hasn’t leaned very hard on the one American oil company involved, Hunt Oil of Dallas, which has close ties to the White House. Iraq’s oil ministry, meanwhile, has warned that the contracts will be either ignored or considered illegal.
We cannot blame the Kurds for wanting to get on with exploiting their region’s lucrative oil deposits for energy and for profit. While the rest of Iraq is convulsed in violence and politically paralyzed, the Kurdish-administered northeast is the one relatively peaceful region, with functioning schools and government, a separate army and booming business.
The oil contracts, however, are a dangerous attempt to establish facts on the ground, fanning even more distrust and resentment. The Sunnis, many of whom live in areas without any oil resources, fear they will get shut out completely from the country’s oil wealth. The Shiite-dominated government suspects that the Kurds are looking for the resources to secede from Iraq. Any sign that Iraq is about to break up will encourage even more dangerous meddling by neighboring Turkey and Iran.
The Kurds agreed to a carefully constructed compromise national draft oil law last February and insist they remain committed to sharing oil revenues with the rest of the country. But as The Times’s James Glanz reported last month, the compromise appears to have collapsed in an ever more bitter struggle among the Shiite-led government in Baghdad and the Sunnis — who both insist on a strong central government role in letting contracts and running the oil fields — and the Kurds, who demand more regional control.
Foreign oil companies are so eager for profits that they don’t seem worried about whether the deals are legally binding or how they may contribute to Iraq’s chaos.
The White House needs to send a clearer warning to these companies — American and foreign — about the dangers of their course. It should also urge the companies to bring their own pressure on Iraqi officials to adopt a law that ensures that whatever system emerges is transparent, accountable and profitable for all Iraqis. Ignoring that is a recipe for continued chaos.
Iraqi Oil Spoils
Published: October 15, 2007
The quickening pace of oil deals between Kurdish regional leaders and foreign companies is another sign that Iraq is spinning out of control and the Bush administration has no idea how to stop it.
President Bush set enactment of a national oil law that centralizes development and ensures an equitable division of the profits as a key benchmark of progress. Iraq’s leaders, who have little interest in equity or reconciliation, have blithely ignored it. So the Kurds have taken matters into their own hands, signing nine legally questionable exploration deals with foreign companies.
The administration has complained that the deals “needlessly elevated tensions” between the Kurds and the central government. But it apparently hasn’t leaned very hard on the one American oil company involved, Hunt Oil of Dallas, which has close ties to the White House. Iraq’s oil ministry, meanwhile, has warned that the contracts will be either ignored or considered illegal.
We cannot blame the Kurds for wanting to get on with exploiting their region’s lucrative oil deposits for energy and for profit. While the rest of Iraq is convulsed in violence and politically paralyzed, the Kurdish-administered northeast is the one relatively peaceful region, with functioning schools and government, a separate army and booming business.
The oil contracts, however, are a dangerous attempt to establish facts on the ground, fanning even more distrust and resentment. The Sunnis, many of whom live in areas without any oil resources, fear they will get shut out completely from the country’s oil wealth. The Shiite-dominated government suspects that the Kurds are looking for the resources to secede from Iraq. Any sign that Iraq is about to break up will encourage even more dangerous meddling by neighboring Turkey and Iran.
The Kurds agreed to a carefully constructed compromise national draft oil law last February and insist they remain committed to sharing oil revenues with the rest of the country. But as The Times’s James Glanz reported last month, the compromise appears to have collapsed in an ever more bitter struggle among the Shiite-led government in Baghdad and the Sunnis — who both insist on a strong central government role in letting contracts and running the oil fields — and the Kurds, who demand more regional control.
Foreign oil companies are so eager for profits that they don’t seem worried about whether the deals are legally binding or how they may contribute to Iraq’s chaos.
The White House needs to send a clearer warning to these companies — American and foreign — about the dangers of their course. It should also urge the companies to bring their own pressure on Iraqi officials to adopt a law that ensures that whatever system emerges is transparent, accountable and profitable for all Iraqis. Ignoring that is a recipe for continued chaos.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Friedman , Free Market and Freedom
This is a Berkeley Economist's critique of Friedman on the relationship between the free market and freedom. It shows that empirically evidence does not always support Friedman's position.
Friedman, Free Market & Freedom
The free market is the only mechanism that has ever been discovered for
achieving participatory democracy. So spake Milton Friedman. But
political
freedoms may not flow naturally from economic freedoms...
PRANAB BARDHAN
BERKELEY
The lives of two recently deceased nonagenarians, one a brutal military
dictator, Augusto Pinochet, and the other a brilliant and influential
economist, Milton Friedman, came into brief contact three decades back
–
and it landed the economist in political controversy.
Friedman met Pinochet in 1975 during a lecture tour to Chile, and
critics
of Friedman, unfairly charged him, a champion of freedom, with
endorsing
the military regime. What did soften him somewhat toward that regime
was
its eagerness to listen to the economic advice of the "Chicago boys" on
the value of free markets. Beyond the ephemeral oddities of personal
behavior, there is a substantive issue worth pondering, particularly on
the occasion of "Milton Friedman Day," celebrated on January 29, 2007.
Friedman openly gave primacy to economic freedom over political
freedom.
In his 1994 introduction to the 50th anniversary edition of Hayek’s
Road
to Serfdom, he categorically stated: "The free market is the only
mechanism that has ever been discovered for achieving participatory
democracy."
In this, he seems to have gone beyond his line of thought expressed in
the
classic 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom, where he stated: "History
suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political
freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition."
His 1994 statement implies that economic freedom is a necessary and
sufficient condition for political freedom. This important systemic
issue
in the transition paths of many developing countries today has not been
adequately discussed.
Take the two largest countries in the world, China and India. The last
quarter century of history in China suggests that while there has been
dramatic progress in economic freedom in the sense of expansion of
market
reform, it has not been sufficient to bring about a substantial
expansion
of political freedom. The first four decades of India after
independence
in 1947 show that a considerable amount of political freedom was quite
compatible with what Friedman would consider large restrictions on
economic freedom in the form of heavy bureaucratic regulations and
control
over the economy. (Many years back in a conference when Friedman
attributed the widely-acclaimed postwar advance of the Japanese
economy,
in contrast to the relative stagnation of the Indian economy, to the
regulations and controls in the latter, I pointed out to him that the
Japanese state was not particularly a paragon of non-interference. His
answer, unfalsifiable as it happened to be, was that the Japanese
economy
would have done even better without the state interference!)
It is possible that a quarter century is not long enough for the
effects
of economic freedom in China to work out in political liberalization,
and
people point to other East Asian countries – South Korea, Taiwan –
where
capitalism, which thrived under initial decades of authoritarianism,
may
have paved the way for the eventual ushering in of democracy. But the
police state in China shows no signs of loosening its grip soon,
despite
the dramatic progress in the opening of the economy. While there has
been
some relaxation in individual expressions of thought, the state never
fails to clamp down on political activities that have even a remote
chance
of challenging the monopoly of power of the central authority. Some
observers have even claimed that the large numbers of reported local
disturbances in recent years in different parts of China – mainly
around
economic issues like land acquisitions, toxic pollution or mass
lay-offs
from state-owned enterprises – have allowed the central government to
scapegoat and punish local officials, localize and diffuse unrest,
identify discontented groups before they can coordinate across regions,
and retain its tight control over the citizenry as a whole.Elsewhere in
Asia, leaders in Singapore, poster boys of economic freedom in the eyes
of
many, have continued for decades to repress political freedom. Lee Kuan
Yew’s famed "Asian values" were market-friendly, but not very
hospitable
to political dissent.
In the Heritage Foundation ranking of countries in terms of their
Economic
Freedom Index for 2006, India’s rank, even after a decade and half of
market reform, is much below that of Hong Kong, Singapore, Saudi
Arabia,
Kuwait, Cambodia, Kenya, Uganda and most of Latin America. Yet over
several decades India has proved itself a vibrant, though unwieldy,
democracy. Friedman sometimes made a distinction between political
freedom
and "human freedom." In terms of both, whether you take the well-known
scores for political rights and civil liberties assigned by Freedom
House,
or the overall democracy scores given out by the Economist Intelligence
Unit, India performs much better than those countries ranked far
superior
in economic freedom. Economic freedom does not seem to be a necessary
condition for political freedom.
A look at the history of Western Europe does not clearly show that
economic freedom, or "Manchester liberalism," brought about the
victories
of democracy. Theorists of democracy have often pointed to many other
political or structural factors. For example, some ascribe the
extensions
of franchise and other democratic rights for the working class in the
19th
century in Britain to the rivalry and conflicts between traditional
aristocracy and the rising industrial bourgeoisie. Others suggest that
democracy in Europe came as part of the political elite’s strategy to
prevent widespread social unrest. In mid-19th century France, Louis
Napoleon shrewdly used the restoration of universal male suffrage to
play
the landed classes against the urban; he even reportedly advised the
Prussian government in 1861 to extend universal suffrage, because "in
this
system the conservative rural population can vote down the liberals in
cities."
In India it is arguable that the survival of political and human
freedom,
against all odds and at a time when government control over the economy
was pervasive, had something to do with the fact that the elite was
heterogeneous and fractured. No individual group could overpower
others,
and competitive politics provided a procedural device to keep the
contending partners at the bargaining table within some moderate
bounds.
Democracy served as a resilient mechanism for conflict management in a
highly divisive society.
Friedman in recent years had been quick to point out that intensive
economic liberalization in Pinochet’s Chile eventually evolved into
political liberalization. But anyone familiar with the transition in
Chile
knows that the path was by no means smooth, and Pinochet tried his best
to
obstruct it. In any case other countries have been far less successful
in
this evolution.
One mechanism for this evolution is supposed to work through the rise
of
the middle class. While economic liberalization may strengthen the
middle
classes, these classes have not always been pro-democratic: Latin
American
or South European history has been replete with many instances of
middle
classes hailing a supreme caudillo. It is often the case that market
reform tends to sharpen inequality. The resultant structures of
political
power, buttressed by corporate plutocrats and all-powerful lobbies, may
hijack or corrupt the democratic political process, sometimes
undermining
the expansion of mass democratic rights, including the freedom of
association of organized workers, and raise barriers to entry into the
political arena for common people. Thus economic freedom may be
important
by itself, but neither necessary nor sufficient for political freedom.
Pranab Bardhan is professor of economics at the University of
California,
Berkeley, and co-chair of the Network on the Effects of Inequality on
Economic Performance, funded by the MacArthur Foundation. He was the
editor of the Journal of Development Economics for many years. Rights:
©
2007 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. YaleGlobal Online
Friedman, Free Market & Freedom
The free market is the only mechanism that has ever been discovered for
achieving participatory democracy. So spake Milton Friedman. But
political
freedoms may not flow naturally from economic freedoms...
PRANAB BARDHAN
BERKELEY
The lives of two recently deceased nonagenarians, one a brutal military
dictator, Augusto Pinochet, and the other a brilliant and influential
economist, Milton Friedman, came into brief contact three decades back
–
and it landed the economist in political controversy.
Friedman met Pinochet in 1975 during a lecture tour to Chile, and
critics
of Friedman, unfairly charged him, a champion of freedom, with
endorsing
the military regime. What did soften him somewhat toward that regime
was
its eagerness to listen to the economic advice of the "Chicago boys" on
the value of free markets. Beyond the ephemeral oddities of personal
behavior, there is a substantive issue worth pondering, particularly on
the occasion of "Milton Friedman Day," celebrated on January 29, 2007.
Friedman openly gave primacy to economic freedom over political
freedom.
In his 1994 introduction to the 50th anniversary edition of Hayek’s
Road
to Serfdom, he categorically stated: "The free market is the only
mechanism that has ever been discovered for achieving participatory
democracy."
In this, he seems to have gone beyond his line of thought expressed in
the
classic 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom, where he stated: "History
suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political
freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition."
His 1994 statement implies that economic freedom is a necessary and
sufficient condition for political freedom. This important systemic
issue
in the transition paths of many developing countries today has not been
adequately discussed.
Take the two largest countries in the world, China and India. The last
quarter century of history in China suggests that while there has been
dramatic progress in economic freedom in the sense of expansion of
market
reform, it has not been sufficient to bring about a substantial
expansion
of political freedom. The first four decades of India after
independence
in 1947 show that a considerable amount of political freedom was quite
compatible with what Friedman would consider large restrictions on
economic freedom in the form of heavy bureaucratic regulations and
control
over the economy. (Many years back in a conference when Friedman
attributed the widely-acclaimed postwar advance of the Japanese
economy,
in contrast to the relative stagnation of the Indian economy, to the
regulations and controls in the latter, I pointed out to him that the
Japanese state was not particularly a paragon of non-interference. His
answer, unfalsifiable as it happened to be, was that the Japanese
economy
would have done even better without the state interference!)
It is possible that a quarter century is not long enough for the
effects
of economic freedom in China to work out in political liberalization,
and
people point to other East Asian countries – South Korea, Taiwan –
where
capitalism, which thrived under initial decades of authoritarianism,
may
have paved the way for the eventual ushering in of democracy. But the
police state in China shows no signs of loosening its grip soon,
despite
the dramatic progress in the opening of the economy. While there has
been
some relaxation in individual expressions of thought, the state never
fails to clamp down on political activities that have even a remote
chance
of challenging the monopoly of power of the central authority. Some
observers have even claimed that the large numbers of reported local
disturbances in recent years in different parts of China – mainly
around
economic issues like land acquisitions, toxic pollution or mass
lay-offs
from state-owned enterprises – have allowed the central government to
scapegoat and punish local officials, localize and diffuse unrest,
identify discontented groups before they can coordinate across regions,
and retain its tight control over the citizenry as a whole.Elsewhere in
Asia, leaders in Singapore, poster boys of economic freedom in the eyes
of
many, have continued for decades to repress political freedom. Lee Kuan
Yew’s famed "Asian values" were market-friendly, but not very
hospitable
to political dissent.
In the Heritage Foundation ranking of countries in terms of their
Economic
Freedom Index for 2006, India’s rank, even after a decade and half of
market reform, is much below that of Hong Kong, Singapore, Saudi
Arabia,
Kuwait, Cambodia, Kenya, Uganda and most of Latin America. Yet over
several decades India has proved itself a vibrant, though unwieldy,
democracy. Friedman sometimes made a distinction between political
freedom
and "human freedom." In terms of both, whether you take the well-known
scores for political rights and civil liberties assigned by Freedom
House,
or the overall democracy scores given out by the Economist Intelligence
Unit, India performs much better than those countries ranked far
superior
in economic freedom. Economic freedom does not seem to be a necessary
condition for political freedom.
A look at the history of Western Europe does not clearly show that
economic freedom, or "Manchester liberalism," brought about the
victories
of democracy. Theorists of democracy have often pointed to many other
political or structural factors. For example, some ascribe the
extensions
of franchise and other democratic rights for the working class in the
19th
century in Britain to the rivalry and conflicts between traditional
aristocracy and the rising industrial bourgeoisie. Others suggest that
democracy in Europe came as part of the political elite’s strategy to
prevent widespread social unrest. In mid-19th century France, Louis
Napoleon shrewdly used the restoration of universal male suffrage to
play
the landed classes against the urban; he even reportedly advised the
Prussian government in 1861 to extend universal suffrage, because "in
this
system the conservative rural population can vote down the liberals in
cities."
In India it is arguable that the survival of political and human
freedom,
against all odds and at a time when government control over the economy
was pervasive, had something to do with the fact that the elite was
heterogeneous and fractured. No individual group could overpower
others,
and competitive politics provided a procedural device to keep the
contending partners at the bargaining table within some moderate
bounds.
Democracy served as a resilient mechanism for conflict management in a
highly divisive society.
Friedman in recent years had been quick to point out that intensive
economic liberalization in Pinochet’s Chile eventually evolved into
political liberalization. But anyone familiar with the transition in
Chile
knows that the path was by no means smooth, and Pinochet tried his best
to
obstruct it. In any case other countries have been far less successful
in
this evolution.
One mechanism for this evolution is supposed to work through the rise
of
the middle class. While economic liberalization may strengthen the
middle
classes, these classes have not always been pro-democratic: Latin
American
or South European history has been replete with many instances of
middle
classes hailing a supreme caudillo. It is often the case that market
reform tends to sharpen inequality. The resultant structures of
political
power, buttressed by corporate plutocrats and all-powerful lobbies, may
hijack or corrupt the democratic political process, sometimes
undermining
the expansion of mass democratic rights, including the freedom of
association of organized workers, and raise barriers to entry into the
political arena for common people. Thus economic freedom may be
important
by itself, but neither necessary nor sufficient for political freedom.
Pranab Bardhan is professor of economics at the University of
California,
Berkeley, and co-chair of the Network on the Effects of Inequality on
Economic Performance, funded by the MacArthur Foundation. He was the
editor of the Journal of Development Economics for many years. Rights:
©
2007 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. YaleGlobal Online
Pakistan plans all-out war on militants
South Asia
Oct 19, 2007
The US by furthering a deal between Bhutto and Musharaff has created a situation where it was certain Pakistan would engage in this campaign. The results are just starting with the many casualties already for both sides in the tribal areas and in Karachi bomb blasts that narrowly missed killing Bhutto.
The Islamists are already being blamed but Bhutto's husband claims it is the Pakistan intelligence services. Actually in spite of the West's vision of her as a symbol of democratic change she is hated by many in the opposition. For one thing the opposition partie's agreed that there would be no deals with the military and Musharaff but this is exactly what Bhutto has done! She is regarded as a sell-out both to Musharaff and the West. This precisely what she is, albeit a very brave woman who thinks the deal is best for her and Pakistan. The result will be bloody and probably undending civil conflict in Pakistan and quite possibly her own death.
Pakistan plans all-out war on militants
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
An all-out battle for control of Pakistan's restive North and South Waziristan is about to commence between the Pakistani military and the Taliban and al-Qaeda adherents who have made these tribal areas their own.
According to a top Pakistani security official who spoke to Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity, the goal this time is to pacify the Waziristans once and for all. All previous military operations - usually spurred by intelligence provided by the Western coalition - have had limited objectives, aimed at specific
bases or sanctuaries or blocking the cross-border movement of guerrillas. Now the military is going for broke to break the back of the Taliban and a-Qaeda in Pakistan and reclaim the entire area.
The fighting that erupted two weeks ago, and that has continued with bombing raids against guerrilla bases in North Waziristan - turning thousands of families into refugees and killing more people than any India-Pakistan war in the past 60 years - is but a precursor of the bloodiest battle that is coming.
Lining up against the Pakistani Army will be the Shura (council) of Mujahideen comprising senior al-Qaeda and Taliban commanders, local clerics, and leaders of the fighting clans Wazir and Mehsud (known as the Pakistani Taliban). The shura has long been calling the shots in the Waziristans, imposing sharia law and turning the area into a strategic command and control hub of global Muslim resistance movements, including those operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"All previous operations had a different perspective," the security official told ATol. "In the past Pakistan commenced an operation when the Western coalition informed Pakistan about any particular hide-out or a sanctuary, or Pakistan traced any armed infiltration from or into Pakistan.
"However, the present battle aims to pacify Waziristan once and for all. The Pakistani Army has sent a clear message to the militants that Pakistan would deploy its forces in the towns of Mir Ali, Miranshah, Dand-i-Darpa Kheil, Shawal, Razmak, Magaroti, Kalosha, Angor Ada. The Pakistani Army is aiming to establish permanent bases which would be manned by thousands of military and paramilitary troops."
According to the security official, an ultimatum had been delivered to the militants recently during a temporary ceasefire. The army would set a deadline and give safe passage into Afghanistan to all al-Qaeda members and Taliban commanders who had gathered in Waziristan to launch a large-scale post-Ramadan operation in Afghanistan. They, along with wanted tribal warrior leaders, would all leave Pakistan, and never return.
After their departure, under the direct command and surveillance of newly appointed Vice Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani (who will replace President-elect Pervez Musharraf as Chief of Army Staff), fresh troops and paramilitary forces would be sent in to establish bases at all strategic points and disarm the local tribes. The Durand Line (the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan), would be fenced and border controls would be tightened.
The militants rejected the ultimatum.
What's at stake
A qualified estimate by intelligence officials is that Pakistani military pacification of the Waziristans would slash the capability of the Afghan resistance by 85% as well as deliver a serious setback to the Iraqi resistance.
The militants have little option but to stand and fight, rather than slip across the border or melt into the local population. Aside from the sanctuary and succor afforded them in the Waziristans, most of the fighters there are either Waziris, or from other parts of Pakistan, or foreigners. They would be unable to support themselves in Afghanistan, especially as most of the non-Waziris do not speak Pashtu - a fact that also prevents them from disappearing into the Waziristan populace.
Their presence in the Waziristans also has a direct bearing on their funding: money can be transferred through bank and non-bank channels, including the informal fund transfer system known as "hawala".
Western intelligence that has been shared with Pakistan has determined that the two Waziristans alone provide the life blood - a steady stream of fighters, supplies and funds - for the resistance in all of southeast Afghanistan, including the provinces of Ghazni, Kunar, Gardez, Paktia and Paktika, as well as for attacks on Kabul. In addition, the Waziristans supply trainers to guerrillas in the Taliban heartland of Zabul, Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan provinces.
According to intelligence sources, during Ramadan, the Taliban's entire top command, including Moulvi Abdul Kabeer, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Sirajuddin Haqqani, Nasiruddin Haqqani, and Mullah Mansoor Dadullah were in North Waziristan to launch a post-Ramadan offensive in southeast Afghanistan. The Pakistani military engaged the militants well in advance to block their offensive plan, but the same militant command is believed to still be in North Waziristan.
In addition, the town of Shawal hosts the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan’s command. The Uzbeks are trying to reorganize themselves to stage an armed revolt against the government of Uzbekistan.
There is also a Kurd presence in the area, which has a direct bearing on the US's Iraqi occupation. A small number of fresh Kurd recruits come through Iran into Waziristan, get few months' training, and then return to Iran before infiltrating Iraq to fuel insurgency in Iraqi Kurdistan against this important US ally.
"If the planned battle is successful and Waziristan is pacified, the global Islamic resistance would be back where it was in 2003, when it had fighters but no centralized command or bases to carry out organized operations, said a Pakistani security official. "As a result, the guerrilla operations were sporadic and largely ineffective."
The safety of Taliban and al-Qaeda assets in Waziristan is a matter of life and death and, therefore, the militants have devised a forward strategy to target the Pakistani cities of Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad, hoping to break the will of the Pakistani armed forces. The Pakistani military, meanwhile, is trying to break the will of the militants with ongoing bombing raids.
Underscoring the seriousness with which the military is planning for the coming battle, it is reported that Shi'ite soldiers from northern Pakistan are being sent to the Waziristans. In the past, the Pakistani Army has been plagued by desertions of Pashtun and Sunni troops who refuse to fight fellow Pashtuns or Sunnis.
Syed Saleem Shahzad is Pakistan Bureau Chief, Asia Times Online. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com
Oct 19, 2007
The US by furthering a deal between Bhutto and Musharaff has created a situation where it was certain Pakistan would engage in this campaign. The results are just starting with the many casualties already for both sides in the tribal areas and in Karachi bomb blasts that narrowly missed killing Bhutto.
The Islamists are already being blamed but Bhutto's husband claims it is the Pakistan intelligence services. Actually in spite of the West's vision of her as a symbol of democratic change she is hated by many in the opposition. For one thing the opposition partie's agreed that there would be no deals with the military and Musharaff but this is exactly what Bhutto has done! She is regarded as a sell-out both to Musharaff and the West. This precisely what she is, albeit a very brave woman who thinks the deal is best for her and Pakistan. The result will be bloody and probably undending civil conflict in Pakistan and quite possibly her own death.
Pakistan plans all-out war on militants
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
An all-out battle for control of Pakistan's restive North and South Waziristan is about to commence between the Pakistani military and the Taliban and al-Qaeda adherents who have made these tribal areas their own.
According to a top Pakistani security official who spoke to Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity, the goal this time is to pacify the Waziristans once and for all. All previous military operations - usually spurred by intelligence provided by the Western coalition - have had limited objectives, aimed at specific
bases or sanctuaries or blocking the cross-border movement of guerrillas. Now the military is going for broke to break the back of the Taliban and a-Qaeda in Pakistan and reclaim the entire area.
The fighting that erupted two weeks ago, and that has continued with bombing raids against guerrilla bases in North Waziristan - turning thousands of families into refugees and killing more people than any India-Pakistan war in the past 60 years - is but a precursor of the bloodiest battle that is coming.
Lining up against the Pakistani Army will be the Shura (council) of Mujahideen comprising senior al-Qaeda and Taliban commanders, local clerics, and leaders of the fighting clans Wazir and Mehsud (known as the Pakistani Taliban). The shura has long been calling the shots in the Waziristans, imposing sharia law and turning the area into a strategic command and control hub of global Muslim resistance movements, including those operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"All previous operations had a different perspective," the security official told ATol. "In the past Pakistan commenced an operation when the Western coalition informed Pakistan about any particular hide-out or a sanctuary, or Pakistan traced any armed infiltration from or into Pakistan.
"However, the present battle aims to pacify Waziristan once and for all. The Pakistani Army has sent a clear message to the militants that Pakistan would deploy its forces in the towns of Mir Ali, Miranshah, Dand-i-Darpa Kheil, Shawal, Razmak, Magaroti, Kalosha, Angor Ada. The Pakistani Army is aiming to establish permanent bases which would be manned by thousands of military and paramilitary troops."
According to the security official, an ultimatum had been delivered to the militants recently during a temporary ceasefire. The army would set a deadline and give safe passage into Afghanistan to all al-Qaeda members and Taliban commanders who had gathered in Waziristan to launch a large-scale post-Ramadan operation in Afghanistan. They, along with wanted tribal warrior leaders, would all leave Pakistan, and never return.
After their departure, under the direct command and surveillance of newly appointed Vice Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani (who will replace President-elect Pervez Musharraf as Chief of Army Staff), fresh troops and paramilitary forces would be sent in to establish bases at all strategic points and disarm the local tribes. The Durand Line (the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan), would be fenced and border controls would be tightened.
The militants rejected the ultimatum.
What's at stake
A qualified estimate by intelligence officials is that Pakistani military pacification of the Waziristans would slash the capability of the Afghan resistance by 85% as well as deliver a serious setback to the Iraqi resistance.
The militants have little option but to stand and fight, rather than slip across the border or melt into the local population. Aside from the sanctuary and succor afforded them in the Waziristans, most of the fighters there are either Waziris, or from other parts of Pakistan, or foreigners. They would be unable to support themselves in Afghanistan, especially as most of the non-Waziris do not speak Pashtu - a fact that also prevents them from disappearing into the Waziristan populace.
Their presence in the Waziristans also has a direct bearing on their funding: money can be transferred through bank and non-bank channels, including the informal fund transfer system known as "hawala".
Western intelligence that has been shared with Pakistan has determined that the two Waziristans alone provide the life blood - a steady stream of fighters, supplies and funds - for the resistance in all of southeast Afghanistan, including the provinces of Ghazni, Kunar, Gardez, Paktia and Paktika, as well as for attacks on Kabul. In addition, the Waziristans supply trainers to guerrillas in the Taliban heartland of Zabul, Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan provinces.
According to intelligence sources, during Ramadan, the Taliban's entire top command, including Moulvi Abdul Kabeer, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Sirajuddin Haqqani, Nasiruddin Haqqani, and Mullah Mansoor Dadullah were in North Waziristan to launch a post-Ramadan offensive in southeast Afghanistan. The Pakistani military engaged the militants well in advance to block their offensive plan, but the same militant command is believed to still be in North Waziristan.
In addition, the town of Shawal hosts the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan’s command. The Uzbeks are trying to reorganize themselves to stage an armed revolt against the government of Uzbekistan.
There is also a Kurd presence in the area, which has a direct bearing on the US's Iraqi occupation. A small number of fresh Kurd recruits come through Iran into Waziristan, get few months' training, and then return to Iran before infiltrating Iraq to fuel insurgency in Iraqi Kurdistan against this important US ally.
"If the planned battle is successful and Waziristan is pacified, the global Islamic resistance would be back where it was in 2003, when it had fighters but no centralized command or bases to carry out organized operations, said a Pakistani security official. "As a result, the guerrilla operations were sporadic and largely ineffective."
The safety of Taliban and al-Qaeda assets in Waziristan is a matter of life and death and, therefore, the militants have devised a forward strategy to target the Pakistani cities of Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad, hoping to break the will of the Pakistani armed forces. The Pakistani military, meanwhile, is trying to break the will of the militants with ongoing bombing raids.
Underscoring the seriousness with which the military is planning for the coming battle, it is reported that Shi'ite soldiers from northern Pakistan are being sent to the Waziristans. In the past, the Pakistani Army has been plagued by desertions of Pashtun and Sunni troops who refuse to fight fellow Pashtuns or Sunnis.
Syed Saleem Shahzad is Pakistan Bureau Chief, Asia Times Online. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com
C-4 bombs mark Makati mall blast
I think it will take a while before the dust clears and what exactly happened is known. I find it extraordinary that a bomb of such magnitude could have been smuggled into the Mall. The situation in the Philippines is unlike North American Malls. In the Philippines there are security guards all over who man entrances and search bags. The article is typical of wild speculation after such an advent but it gives a good idea of the range of suppositions that go far beyond what would be listed in a mainstream western source. Right away the west would expect Islamic extremists. They are of course one possibility but as this article shows there are a wide range of possible culprits. At least the NPA is not even mentioned!
At this stage I just wonder if it was really a bomb at all.
This is from the Manila Tribune.
C-4 bombs mark Makati mall blast
10/20/2007
Even as the police were still sifting through the rubble created by one of the biggest bomb blasts in the country ever for clues and “signature” in the bombing of Glorietta 2 Mall in Makati City, Malacañang yesterday quickly disclosed that the blast which, at press time, killed eight persons and injured over 86 was the work of the terrorists.
No group was, however, identified even as traces of C-4 explosives of which only the military can have possession were reportedly found, police sources told media.
A Tribune source from the military whom the paper contacted yesterday said the C-4 must have consisted of at least 80 bars or 100 pounds of explosives, minimum, to bring about such an explosion. One bar, it was explained, weighs 1.25 pounds.
The source also said that from the look of things, it could not have been the handiwork of the Jemaah Islamiyah since the JI uses TNT and mortar for its bombing operations.
“That was C-4, and this is being used by the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ SWAG
teams and the Philippine National Police SAF,” he said, adding: “As yourself this: ‘where else can you get 100 pounds of C4 to blow up a mall?’ Also, the source added, “the Intel claim is that (it) has been monitoring the JI, then if it was the JI behind this blast, how come they (Intel) didn’t know about this?”
Another military source, however, said the C4 was the “mining” type, not the military type,” but couldn’t be sure, as the evidence was not yet in.
There was strong talk and suspicion yesterday from various sectors that the bombing of the Ayala Glorietta 2, was the handiwork of the Palace, as a move to divert attention from the bribery scandal involving the President which has been hogging the headlines for days.
Others pointed to National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales as being involved in the bombing.
Speaking on television, Gonzales was clearly irked, but appealed to all not to inject politics into the bomb blast incident, and also said this is not the time to accuse Malacañang.
There was also speculation that this blast was the handiwork of the Palace and its military group, to justify the imposition of emergency rule, and this was again rejected outright by the Palace that the explosion was a handiwork of the government itself.
“I am involved where? You know this (incident) is an opportunity to make a campaign against the government, for our enemies to take advantage of and blame the incident on the government, but this is a tragic case, it would be better if our society would help each others instead. Let’s put aside speculations. We are looking into a possible terrorist attack, we don’t have conclusions yet,” he said.
In 2000, during on Rizal Day, and while the impeachment trial of then sitting President Joseph Estrada was on recess, bombs went off in five different places, which blasts were dubbed FIDEL, so called because the bombs went off at Ferguson Plaza, international airport, Dusit Hotel, Edsa Transit and the LRT.
The opposition then, composed of then Vice President Gloria Arroyo, former President Fidel Ramos, along with the left and Gonzales’ PDSP, quickly placed the blame on the Estrada government, minutes after the blasts. But the NBI then, months after Estrada was ousted, came up with a report that the bombings were a political move against Estrada to destabilize his government. Involved were the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, which had a tactical alliance with the Arroyo forces, along with the Left and political opposition. The report was quickly lost.
Earlier, a huge bomb ripped through a shopping mall in the capital’s financial district Friday.
Panicked shoppers ran out of the Glorietta mall in Makati as smoke billowed out of the building shortly after noon.
Police chief Geary Barias said the blast killed eight people and wounded dozens more. “There may be more people inside,” he told reporters.
Bomb debris carpeted a 200 square meter (2,100 square foot) area, he said, adding that “the ceilings are damaged and may collapse.”
National police chief Avelino Razon said: “This was a bomb. But beyond that we can’t say anything else yet because we are still investigating.”
Makati City councilor JunJun Binay said the explosion left a 26-foot wide crater on the ground floor and blew a hole through the roof on the second floor.
“From what I have seen it was a significant explosion and that most of the dead and injured were all employees,” he said.
Witnesses said part of a ceiling collapsed while a concrete wall was blown out.
Two cars and two delivery vans were buried under wooden planks and concrete debris outside the mall.
“It was so powerful,” clothing store clerk Jeric Balendes told AFP on the scene, as rescuers treated his cuts and bruises.
“The roof just collapsed on us. I could hear my three co-workers screaming. I got out through a small hole. I don’t know if they got out.”
Police stepped up security across the Manila area, a sprawling city of 12 million people.
President Arroyo “is deeply saddened by this incident and extends her sympathies to the families of the casualties,” her spokesman Ignacio Bunye told reporters.
Mrs. Arroyo had ordered the police “to get to the bottom of things and to leave no stone unturned,” Bunye added.
The United States and Australia both offered technical help in investigating the blast, and Australian experts were understood to be helping Philippine police on the scene.
Bomb squad teams sifted through the debris looking for clues, while extra police were drafted in to divert traffic and seal off the surrounding area — one of the busiest shopping districts of Manila.
The bodies of three of the victims lay covered in blankets on the floor of the adjacent car park, being used as an emergency medical assessment area.
“There was a sudden explosion,” said Christine Calope, one of the injured. “I don’t know if it was inside or outside the mall.”
Witnesses said the blast occurred in a section of the mall with clusters of shops selling baby clothes and toys.
Barias said police had not received any threats about an attack.
Police did not immediately name likely suspects for the attack, but Islamic militants were blamed for a bomb on a bus near the Glorietta mall that killed four people in February 2005.
Militants also firebombed a ferry on Manila Bay the previous year, killing more than 100 people in the country’s worst terrorist attack.
Members of the PNP Scene of the Crime operation identified three of the four fatalities as Lester Peregrina, Jose Allen de Jesus, Lisa Enriquez.
Barias, chief of the National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO), immediately declared a red alert in Metro Manila.
“We cannot say if it is a bomb or what type of a bomb used. That will be determined as soon as we finish this investigation,” Barias said.
“We are not discounting the possibility of a terror attack,” Barias said, adding that no group has owned responsibility to the explosion as of press time.
As of 3:30 p.m. Dr. Ernesto Santos of the MMC confirmed that four persons were declared dead on arrival at the MMC. There were also 51 patients treated for various types of injuries.
Santos said they are in the process of informing the families before they release the identities of the victims, sustained blast injuries to the body and head.
Two of the victims were in critical condition and remained at the intensive care unit. One pregnant lady also admitted for injury.
Barias said the PNP would also send more policemen in other malls around Metro Manila and set up checkpoints to avert more untoward incidents.
The Makati Medical Center (MMC) has admitted as many as 42 people to the emergency room from the Glorietta 2 shopping mall explosion. There were also patients brought to the Ospital ng Makati.
MMC nurses could not say what the extent of their injuries were except to say that four people of the fatalities were declared dead upon arrival at the MMC.
Alfie Reyes, corporate spokesman of mall owner Ayala Land, said they would extend assistance to all of the victims if any of their families wish to reach out to them.
“We will do so and help them,” Reyes said.
He added the mall area has been “evacuated” and that all of the victims have been taken out of the area.
Razon also yesterday appealed to the residents of Metro Manila not to panic and just continue living normal lives after the bomb explosion. “There’s no cause for alarm. They should continue on with their normal lives since the PNP is working to ensure that there is no repeat of this incident”, Razon said.
Razon said police experts are doing all they can “to get to the bottom” of the blast that ripped through the Glorietta 2 ground level around 1:30 p.m.
Barias said: “We will send policemen to other malls to restore order especially here in Makati and to prevent any untoward incident,” Barias told reporters. With Ben Gines Jr., Gina Peralta-Elorde, Sherwin C. Olaes and AFP
Back to top
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
The Daily Tribune © 2006
At this stage I just wonder if it was really a bomb at all.
This is from the Manila Tribune.
C-4 bombs mark Makati mall blast
10/20/2007
Even as the police were still sifting through the rubble created by one of the biggest bomb blasts in the country ever for clues and “signature” in the bombing of Glorietta 2 Mall in Makati City, Malacañang yesterday quickly disclosed that the blast which, at press time, killed eight persons and injured over 86 was the work of the terrorists.
No group was, however, identified even as traces of C-4 explosives of which only the military can have possession were reportedly found, police sources told media.
A Tribune source from the military whom the paper contacted yesterday said the C-4 must have consisted of at least 80 bars or 100 pounds of explosives, minimum, to bring about such an explosion. One bar, it was explained, weighs 1.25 pounds.
The source also said that from the look of things, it could not have been the handiwork of the Jemaah Islamiyah since the JI uses TNT and mortar for its bombing operations.
“That was C-4, and this is being used by the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ SWAG
teams and the Philippine National Police SAF,” he said, adding: “As yourself this: ‘where else can you get 100 pounds of C4 to blow up a mall?’ Also, the source added, “the Intel claim is that (it) has been monitoring the JI, then if it was the JI behind this blast, how come they (Intel) didn’t know about this?”
Another military source, however, said the C4 was the “mining” type, not the military type,” but couldn’t be sure, as the evidence was not yet in.
There was strong talk and suspicion yesterday from various sectors that the bombing of the Ayala Glorietta 2, was the handiwork of the Palace, as a move to divert attention from the bribery scandal involving the President which has been hogging the headlines for days.
Others pointed to National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales as being involved in the bombing.
Speaking on television, Gonzales was clearly irked, but appealed to all not to inject politics into the bomb blast incident, and also said this is not the time to accuse Malacañang.
There was also speculation that this blast was the handiwork of the Palace and its military group, to justify the imposition of emergency rule, and this was again rejected outright by the Palace that the explosion was a handiwork of the government itself.
“I am involved where? You know this (incident) is an opportunity to make a campaign against the government, for our enemies to take advantage of and blame the incident on the government, but this is a tragic case, it would be better if our society would help each others instead. Let’s put aside speculations. We are looking into a possible terrorist attack, we don’t have conclusions yet,” he said.
In 2000, during on Rizal Day, and while the impeachment trial of then sitting President Joseph Estrada was on recess, bombs went off in five different places, which blasts were dubbed FIDEL, so called because the bombs went off at Ferguson Plaza, international airport, Dusit Hotel, Edsa Transit and the LRT.
The opposition then, composed of then Vice President Gloria Arroyo, former President Fidel Ramos, along with the left and Gonzales’ PDSP, quickly placed the blame on the Estrada government, minutes after the blasts. But the NBI then, months after Estrada was ousted, came up with a report that the bombings were a political move against Estrada to destabilize his government. Involved were the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, which had a tactical alliance with the Arroyo forces, along with the Left and political opposition. The report was quickly lost.
Earlier, a huge bomb ripped through a shopping mall in the capital’s financial district Friday.
Panicked shoppers ran out of the Glorietta mall in Makati as smoke billowed out of the building shortly after noon.
Police chief Geary Barias said the blast killed eight people and wounded dozens more. “There may be more people inside,” he told reporters.
Bomb debris carpeted a 200 square meter (2,100 square foot) area, he said, adding that “the ceilings are damaged and may collapse.”
National police chief Avelino Razon said: “This was a bomb. But beyond that we can’t say anything else yet because we are still investigating.”
Makati City councilor JunJun Binay said the explosion left a 26-foot wide crater on the ground floor and blew a hole through the roof on the second floor.
“From what I have seen it was a significant explosion and that most of the dead and injured were all employees,” he said.
Witnesses said part of a ceiling collapsed while a concrete wall was blown out.
Two cars and two delivery vans were buried under wooden planks and concrete debris outside the mall.
“It was so powerful,” clothing store clerk Jeric Balendes told AFP on the scene, as rescuers treated his cuts and bruises.
“The roof just collapsed on us. I could hear my three co-workers screaming. I got out through a small hole. I don’t know if they got out.”
Police stepped up security across the Manila area, a sprawling city of 12 million people.
President Arroyo “is deeply saddened by this incident and extends her sympathies to the families of the casualties,” her spokesman Ignacio Bunye told reporters.
Mrs. Arroyo had ordered the police “to get to the bottom of things and to leave no stone unturned,” Bunye added.
The United States and Australia both offered technical help in investigating the blast, and Australian experts were understood to be helping Philippine police on the scene.
Bomb squad teams sifted through the debris looking for clues, while extra police were drafted in to divert traffic and seal off the surrounding area — one of the busiest shopping districts of Manila.
The bodies of three of the victims lay covered in blankets on the floor of the adjacent car park, being used as an emergency medical assessment area.
“There was a sudden explosion,” said Christine Calope, one of the injured. “I don’t know if it was inside or outside the mall.”
Witnesses said the blast occurred in a section of the mall with clusters of shops selling baby clothes and toys.
Barias said police had not received any threats about an attack.
Police did not immediately name likely suspects for the attack, but Islamic militants were blamed for a bomb on a bus near the Glorietta mall that killed four people in February 2005.
Militants also firebombed a ferry on Manila Bay the previous year, killing more than 100 people in the country’s worst terrorist attack.
Members of the PNP Scene of the Crime operation identified three of the four fatalities as Lester Peregrina, Jose Allen de Jesus, Lisa Enriquez.
Barias, chief of the National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO), immediately declared a red alert in Metro Manila.
“We cannot say if it is a bomb or what type of a bomb used. That will be determined as soon as we finish this investigation,” Barias said.
“We are not discounting the possibility of a terror attack,” Barias said, adding that no group has owned responsibility to the explosion as of press time.
As of 3:30 p.m. Dr. Ernesto Santos of the MMC confirmed that four persons were declared dead on arrival at the MMC. There were also 51 patients treated for various types of injuries.
Santos said they are in the process of informing the families before they release the identities of the victims, sustained blast injuries to the body and head.
Two of the victims were in critical condition and remained at the intensive care unit. One pregnant lady also admitted for injury.
Barias said the PNP would also send more policemen in other malls around Metro Manila and set up checkpoints to avert more untoward incidents.
The Makati Medical Center (MMC) has admitted as many as 42 people to the emergency room from the Glorietta 2 shopping mall explosion. There were also patients brought to the Ospital ng Makati.
MMC nurses could not say what the extent of their injuries were except to say that four people of the fatalities were declared dead upon arrival at the MMC.
Alfie Reyes, corporate spokesman of mall owner Ayala Land, said they would extend assistance to all of the victims if any of their families wish to reach out to them.
“We will do so and help them,” Reyes said.
He added the mall area has been “evacuated” and that all of the victims have been taken out of the area.
Razon also yesterday appealed to the residents of Metro Manila not to panic and just continue living normal lives after the bomb explosion. “There’s no cause for alarm. They should continue on with their normal lives since the PNP is working to ensure that there is no repeat of this incident”, Razon said.
Razon said police experts are doing all they can “to get to the bottom” of the blast that ripped through the Glorietta 2 ground level around 1:30 p.m.
Barias said: “We will send policemen to other malls to restore order especially here in Makati and to prevent any untoward incident,” Barias told reporters. With Ben Gines Jr., Gina Peralta-Elorde, Sherwin C. Olaes and AFP
Back to top
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
The Daily Tribune © 2006
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Editorial on Graft and Corruption in the Philippines
This is from an editorial in the Manila Times. Actually my own experience with public officials in the Philippines was always quite positive and I was never requested for a bribe or anything of the sort and I lived there for well over a year. However, I have no doubt from what I heard from Filipinos themselves that the editorial is correct. I also had lots of stories from my wife's relatives. Her sister for example is stuck out teaching in the boondocks. To move to a better location nearer the city where she lives, she claims she would need to pay bribes, something she is just unwilling to do. In spite of the tradition of bribes there are still many people who don't take them and as this editorial mentions public officials who retire poor and unbribed.
Friday, October 19, 2007
EDITORIAL
Rot
IT’s very, very sad when a public office responsible for the education of young Filipinos is described as corrupt by the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Department of Education, according to Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, is one of the top five graft-prone government agencies, together with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs, Department of Public Works and Highways and the Land Transportation Office.
She made her observations at a meeting with the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry Wednesday in Binondo.
It is interesting that the DepEd should be lumped together with offices that collect money.
This is not the first time that DepEd made it to the dubious list. Starting with the DECS (Department of Education, Culture and Sports), the department has been charged with anomalies related to the allocation and distribution of textbooks, purchase of luxury vehicles, teachers’ salaries and poorly written textbooks.
Perhaps it is not surprising that the department would get enmeshed with graft. Corruption is written on the bureaucracy. Historically, rot has gnawed into the vitals of Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary.
Surveys and findings by overseas think tanks and financial institutions agree that we are a very corrupt country.
Speaker Jose de Venecia’s call for a “moral revolution” is timely. But it should begin with a moral renewal in Congress—in the House and the Senate.
Congress has turned deaf to persistent calls for the abolition of pork barrel, known these days as the priority development assistance fund, which has encouraged corruption and substandard public-works projects.
Congress being on recess (one of many in a legislative year), representatives and senators have again embarked on traditional unnecessary foreign travels, the junkets that are funded by taxpayers’ money and that do not improve lawmaking.
Incessant investigations have not produced useful bills or launched prosecution of wrongdoers. It is said that the mere prospect of a congressional inquiry could produce and deliver lobby money to quash the threat.
Chronic absenteeism and tardiness are a waste of public money. Have you heard of the “Furusato” lunches and other expensive meetings? The congressional workweek is only four session days.
We need longer space for rot in the Cabinet and the subcabinet hierarchies—beginning with red tape to bribe solicitation, from case fixing to big-time deals like the fertilizer fund scam.
Chief Justice Reynato Puno has dismissed and disciplined justices and judges for nepotism, corruption and fraud. The criminal justice system—meaning the police, prosecution, prisons and the courts—has been mired in criminal, civil and administrative cases partly for abetting crime and partly for delaying justice.
In mature democracies, exposes about naked bribery would send angry citizens to the streets, prompt them to flood telephone lines with angry calls, fax letters to the editors and keep TV talk shows busy with angry complaints.
Filipinos take graft for granted. But they get ruffled over a poor joke (or insult) from an American TV drama about marital infidelities.
The culture
IT is difficult for an honest man to escape the culture of graft. If you head an office and you play it straight, your subordinates would pull off their tricks anyway. They would make a pile and tell the victim or the other party that the deal was on your orders or you knew about it.
If you’re a newcomer to an agency and you discover graft going on, you either play along or you are sent to Coventry.
If you had been honest and retired poor, there would be comments like, “Tanga siya. Nasa-puwesto na, hindi pa gumawa. [He’s stupid. He was in government but did not make a pile].”
We heard that in some revenue-collecting offices, the bosses accept and tolerate corruption as long as their collectors meet their quota or are reasonably productive.
Many Filipinos are hesitant about accepting an appointment or joining public service because they do not want to compromise their principles. Those who are making good money in private life are not ready to make a financial sacrifice.
They also know that a public official is vulnerable to numerous harassments and charges, from the petty to the ridiculous.
Those who have had enough have resigned or retired from the service for the good of their family and children.
And many technocrats have retired poor. Public service has its own rewards, after all, besides money on the side. Those who retired in poverty considered themselves literally servants of the people. Their lives inspire.
President Ramon Magsaysay died poor. Energy Secretary Raphael Lotilla had to return to private life to make money for a change. If he resigns tomorrow, we have reason to believe that CHED acting chairman Romulo Neri, whatever his critics say about him, may have to ride public transport.
And Rene Saguisag, a former senator and graft-buster who would have been a Supreme Court justice, continues to live in his wife’s property in Palanan, Makati. He was the only senator to return his unspent travel money to the Senate finance office.
Friday, October 19, 2007
EDITORIAL
Rot
IT’s very, very sad when a public office responsible for the education of young Filipinos is described as corrupt by the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Department of Education, according to Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, is one of the top five graft-prone government agencies, together with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs, Department of Public Works and Highways and the Land Transportation Office.
She made her observations at a meeting with the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry Wednesday in Binondo.
It is interesting that the DepEd should be lumped together with offices that collect money.
This is not the first time that DepEd made it to the dubious list. Starting with the DECS (Department of Education, Culture and Sports), the department has been charged with anomalies related to the allocation and distribution of textbooks, purchase of luxury vehicles, teachers’ salaries and poorly written textbooks.
Perhaps it is not surprising that the department would get enmeshed with graft. Corruption is written on the bureaucracy. Historically, rot has gnawed into the vitals of Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary.
Surveys and findings by overseas think tanks and financial institutions agree that we are a very corrupt country.
Speaker Jose de Venecia’s call for a “moral revolution” is timely. But it should begin with a moral renewal in Congress—in the House and the Senate.
Congress has turned deaf to persistent calls for the abolition of pork barrel, known these days as the priority development assistance fund, which has encouraged corruption and substandard public-works projects.
Congress being on recess (one of many in a legislative year), representatives and senators have again embarked on traditional unnecessary foreign travels, the junkets that are funded by taxpayers’ money and that do not improve lawmaking.
Incessant investigations have not produced useful bills or launched prosecution of wrongdoers. It is said that the mere prospect of a congressional inquiry could produce and deliver lobby money to quash the threat.
Chronic absenteeism and tardiness are a waste of public money. Have you heard of the “Furusato” lunches and other expensive meetings? The congressional workweek is only four session days.
We need longer space for rot in the Cabinet and the subcabinet hierarchies—beginning with red tape to bribe solicitation, from case fixing to big-time deals like the fertilizer fund scam.
Chief Justice Reynato Puno has dismissed and disciplined justices and judges for nepotism, corruption and fraud. The criminal justice system—meaning the police, prosecution, prisons and the courts—has been mired in criminal, civil and administrative cases partly for abetting crime and partly for delaying justice.
In mature democracies, exposes about naked bribery would send angry citizens to the streets, prompt them to flood telephone lines with angry calls, fax letters to the editors and keep TV talk shows busy with angry complaints.
Filipinos take graft for granted. But they get ruffled over a poor joke (or insult) from an American TV drama about marital infidelities.
The culture
IT is difficult for an honest man to escape the culture of graft. If you head an office and you play it straight, your subordinates would pull off their tricks anyway. They would make a pile and tell the victim or the other party that the deal was on your orders or you knew about it.
If you’re a newcomer to an agency and you discover graft going on, you either play along or you are sent to Coventry.
If you had been honest and retired poor, there would be comments like, “Tanga siya. Nasa-puwesto na, hindi pa gumawa. [He’s stupid. He was in government but did not make a pile].”
We heard that in some revenue-collecting offices, the bosses accept and tolerate corruption as long as their collectors meet their quota or are reasonably productive.
Many Filipinos are hesitant about accepting an appointment or joining public service because they do not want to compromise their principles. Those who are making good money in private life are not ready to make a financial sacrifice.
They also know that a public official is vulnerable to numerous harassments and charges, from the petty to the ridiculous.
Those who have had enough have resigned or retired from the service for the good of their family and children.
And many technocrats have retired poor. Public service has its own rewards, after all, besides money on the side. Those who retired in poverty considered themselves literally servants of the people. Their lives inspire.
President Ramon Magsaysay died poor. Energy Secretary Raphael Lotilla had to return to private life to make money for a change. If he resigns tomorrow, we have reason to believe that CHED acting chairman Romulo Neri, whatever his critics say about him, may have to ride public transport.
And Rene Saguisag, a former senator and graft-buster who would have been a Supreme Court justice, continues to live in his wife’s property in Palanan, Makati. He was the only senator to return his unspent travel money to the Senate finance office.
Arroyo under fire for bribery!
Accusations of bribery are hardly new or even news in the Philippines but the charges against President Arroyo seem to be getting stronger and louder. This will be an excellent opportunity for the Catholic Bishop's Conference of the Philippines to add to their Christmas Cheer Funds. This is from the Tribune.
Pimentel: Gloria beyond redemption, must resign
Temperature extreme of CBCP quit call
By Sherwin C. Olaes and Angie M. Rosales
10/19/2007
Amid strong talk that the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) will be preparing a strong statement that will call on President Arroyo to “take a leave of absence” or call on her to resign the presidency, or at the least, give its blessings for people power, along with encouraging a louder public clamor for her to resign, Mrs. Arroyo is now working on getting a dialog going with the Catholic bishops to explain her side of the bribery scandal.
The CBCP, in a statement released Monday, denounced the Palace bribery of 190 congressmen and some 50 local executives, some of whom have already admitted that they were handed the paper bags containing cash in the amount of P500,000 in Malacañang.
The bishops branded the Arroyo administration as “morally bankrupt.”
Despite the admissions from at least two governors and one congressman-preacher that they had received “cash gifts” in Malacañang which the bishops termed a bribe, the Palace insisted on Mrs. Arroyo’s innocence in the alleged
bribery of elected officials, but said there is a need for Mrs. Arroyo to sit down and dialog with the Catholic bishops to explain her side of the controversy.
Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said a dialog between the Palace and the CBCP was “called for,” but added that no definite schedule has been set as yet.
Mrs. Arroyo also did the same routine with the bishops in 2005 and 2006, when her government was in crisis over the Hello Garci wiretap tapes scandal and the second serious impeachment complaint filed by the opposition forces in Congress.
There were reports of bishops having been handed envelopes containing cash, where some of the bishops admitted to having taken it, claiming that there was no bribery involved, as the cash was for projects for the poor.
Not surprisingly, the pastoral statement then issued the CBCP was a watered down version of what the public expected. Instead of calling for her resignation, the bishops said this was not going to be called by the CBCP and warned the public against staging a people power type revolt. The next year, the same thing occurred, where Mrs. Arroyo wined, dined and wooed the bishops. The pastoral letter that was issued again favored Mrs. Arroyo, with the bishops saying that impeachment was a “useless move” and again warned the public not to participate in a people power demonstraiton against Mrs. Arroyo.
Wednesday, Bunye confirmed that the President met with some bishops while she was in Mindanao. “So I believe this is part of the process, to explain what’s going on,” he told reporters.
The President is known to personally drop by the residences of Catholic bishops in provinces, coinciding these with her governance visits to local government units. It is also known that she “gatecrashes” birthday celebrations of certain Catholic bishops she wants to visit.
Tribune sources inside Malacañang earlier told the Tribune that they maintain a list of birthday celebrants among the 100 members CBCP, with Mrs. Arroyo usually making a surprise visit and providing gifts to bishops on their birthday.
An opposition critic, who requested not to be identified said this is one of the reasons Mrs. Arroyo has been able to establish and maintain a good relationship with the church leaders.
“Thus whenever a bishop makes a critical stand on controversies surrounding her, a demand for her resignation is not included as one of the solutions,” he said referring to 2005 and 2006 controversies that hounded her, where the bishops protected her.
Calls for Mrs. Arroyo’s resignation mounted, with Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. yesterday saying she must go as she is beyond redemption.
“It’s beyond repair, as far as damage to President Arroyo’s leadership or continued stay in power,” he said yesterday, in the light of the rising tension to Malacañang stirred by the alleged payoffs after Mrs. Arroyo met with a number of congressmen, governors, municipal and city mayors last Oct. 11 for a supposed dialog but where cash bribes were handed to each.
Regardless of whether or not an impeachment case stemming from this incident would take off from the House of Representatives, the opposition leader told a news forum at the Senate that the Chief Executive and other Palace officials being implicated in the alleged payoff cannot escape any liability from the laws.
“Either way, whether it’s private or public funds (distributed as cash gifts), that would be bribery. This is an open and shut case,” he stressed during the weekly Kapihan sa Senado.
“If you talk about evidence, then you have to involve (Pampanga) Gov. (Fr. Ed) Panlilio because he admitted that he received the money, plus the statement of (Anakpawis Rep. Crispin) Beltran and one or two other members of the House, (Bulacan) Gov. (Joselito) Mendoza and now Rep. (Protestant Bishop Bienvenido) Abante (6th district, Manila). So if you talk about evidence, I think there is sufficient basis to cause the investigation and the subsequent impeachment of Mrs. Arroyo because the money used came from public funds. Of course this is in addition to the anti-graft provisions of the law. If these came from private funds, the first question that arises – where did this come from, which means there were bribes being given to public officers from the private sector.”
Furthermore, claims by those who have come out in the open and admitted of receiving the alleged cash gifts, already “more or less makes certain now that she had a hand in it,” he added.
The lawmaker said the President’s order to the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) would only end up in a whitewash, considering that the suspected principal culprit happens to be the “superior” of officials in the said agency.
“But this is exactly where the problem begins because if what she does is only to give the impression that she’s investigating without necessarily meaning it, then she digs a deeper hole for herself,” Pimentel stressed.
Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. was also not spared the tirades of the opposition senator as he ridiculed the former’s call on the President to initiate a “moral revolution.”
“It’s like the pot calling the kettle black. You turn white or use botox to shine yourself up. That’s difficult to believe. But I admire the son of De Venecia.”
He said he believes the call of the Speaker to Mrs. Arroyo to stop corruption is “an impossible dream. She is beyond redemption. She cannot be redeemed anymore. That’s why I am calling for her resignation and to turn over the government to (Vice President) Noli de Castro in a caretaker manner,” he said.
As to the impeachment complaint in the lower house, its leaders can validly give due course to the case that the United Opposition (UNO) will file even if the first complaint made by lawyer Ruel Pulido has already been referred to the House committee on justice.
But Malacañang yesterday rejected the opposition’s call for Mrs. Arroyo to resign because of the bribery controversy surroun-ding her administration.
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita urged the opposition to leave Mrs. Arroyo alone and let her do her job effectively.
“ Let us give the President the chance to work and do her job.. You can expect them ( opposition) to say that because they want their presence felt but it does not mean that what they’re saying is true,” Ermita said.
Presidential Management Staff (PMS) chief, Secretary Cerge Remonde for his part, urged the opposition to just wait for the 2010 presidential elections rather than push Mrs. Arroyo’s resignation. “The call of some senators for the President to resign is unwarranted . May we respectfully request them to wait for 2010,” Remonde said in a text message.
Pimentel: Gloria beyond redemption, must resign
Temperature extreme of CBCP quit call
By Sherwin C. Olaes and Angie M. Rosales
10/19/2007
Amid strong talk that the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) will be preparing a strong statement that will call on President Arroyo to “take a leave of absence” or call on her to resign the presidency, or at the least, give its blessings for people power, along with encouraging a louder public clamor for her to resign, Mrs. Arroyo is now working on getting a dialog going with the Catholic bishops to explain her side of the bribery scandal.
The CBCP, in a statement released Monday, denounced the Palace bribery of 190 congressmen and some 50 local executives, some of whom have already admitted that they were handed the paper bags containing cash in the amount of P500,000 in Malacañang.
The bishops branded the Arroyo administration as “morally bankrupt.”
Despite the admissions from at least two governors and one congressman-preacher that they had received “cash gifts” in Malacañang which the bishops termed a bribe, the Palace insisted on Mrs. Arroyo’s innocence in the alleged
bribery of elected officials, but said there is a need for Mrs. Arroyo to sit down and dialog with the Catholic bishops to explain her side of the controversy.
Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said a dialog between the Palace and the CBCP was “called for,” but added that no definite schedule has been set as yet.
Mrs. Arroyo also did the same routine with the bishops in 2005 and 2006, when her government was in crisis over the Hello Garci wiretap tapes scandal and the second serious impeachment complaint filed by the opposition forces in Congress.
There were reports of bishops having been handed envelopes containing cash, where some of the bishops admitted to having taken it, claiming that there was no bribery involved, as the cash was for projects for the poor.
Not surprisingly, the pastoral statement then issued the CBCP was a watered down version of what the public expected. Instead of calling for her resignation, the bishops said this was not going to be called by the CBCP and warned the public against staging a people power type revolt. The next year, the same thing occurred, where Mrs. Arroyo wined, dined and wooed the bishops. The pastoral letter that was issued again favored Mrs. Arroyo, with the bishops saying that impeachment was a “useless move” and again warned the public not to participate in a people power demonstraiton against Mrs. Arroyo.
Wednesday, Bunye confirmed that the President met with some bishops while she was in Mindanao. “So I believe this is part of the process, to explain what’s going on,” he told reporters.
The President is known to personally drop by the residences of Catholic bishops in provinces, coinciding these with her governance visits to local government units. It is also known that she “gatecrashes” birthday celebrations of certain Catholic bishops she wants to visit.
Tribune sources inside Malacañang earlier told the Tribune that they maintain a list of birthday celebrants among the 100 members CBCP, with Mrs. Arroyo usually making a surprise visit and providing gifts to bishops on their birthday.
An opposition critic, who requested not to be identified said this is one of the reasons Mrs. Arroyo has been able to establish and maintain a good relationship with the church leaders.
“Thus whenever a bishop makes a critical stand on controversies surrounding her, a demand for her resignation is not included as one of the solutions,” he said referring to 2005 and 2006 controversies that hounded her, where the bishops protected her.
Calls for Mrs. Arroyo’s resignation mounted, with Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. yesterday saying she must go as she is beyond redemption.
“It’s beyond repair, as far as damage to President Arroyo’s leadership or continued stay in power,” he said yesterday, in the light of the rising tension to Malacañang stirred by the alleged payoffs after Mrs. Arroyo met with a number of congressmen, governors, municipal and city mayors last Oct. 11 for a supposed dialog but where cash bribes were handed to each.
Regardless of whether or not an impeachment case stemming from this incident would take off from the House of Representatives, the opposition leader told a news forum at the Senate that the Chief Executive and other Palace officials being implicated in the alleged payoff cannot escape any liability from the laws.
“Either way, whether it’s private or public funds (distributed as cash gifts), that would be bribery. This is an open and shut case,” he stressed during the weekly Kapihan sa Senado.
“If you talk about evidence, then you have to involve (Pampanga) Gov. (Fr. Ed) Panlilio because he admitted that he received the money, plus the statement of (Anakpawis Rep. Crispin) Beltran and one or two other members of the House, (Bulacan) Gov. (Joselito) Mendoza and now Rep. (Protestant Bishop Bienvenido) Abante (6th district, Manila). So if you talk about evidence, I think there is sufficient basis to cause the investigation and the subsequent impeachment of Mrs. Arroyo because the money used came from public funds. Of course this is in addition to the anti-graft provisions of the law. If these came from private funds, the first question that arises – where did this come from, which means there were bribes being given to public officers from the private sector.”
Furthermore, claims by those who have come out in the open and admitted of receiving the alleged cash gifts, already “more or less makes certain now that she had a hand in it,” he added.
The lawmaker said the President’s order to the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) would only end up in a whitewash, considering that the suspected principal culprit happens to be the “superior” of officials in the said agency.
“But this is exactly where the problem begins because if what she does is only to give the impression that she’s investigating without necessarily meaning it, then she digs a deeper hole for herself,” Pimentel stressed.
Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. was also not spared the tirades of the opposition senator as he ridiculed the former’s call on the President to initiate a “moral revolution.”
“It’s like the pot calling the kettle black. You turn white or use botox to shine yourself up. That’s difficult to believe. But I admire the son of De Venecia.”
He said he believes the call of the Speaker to Mrs. Arroyo to stop corruption is “an impossible dream. She is beyond redemption. She cannot be redeemed anymore. That’s why I am calling for her resignation and to turn over the government to (Vice President) Noli de Castro in a caretaker manner,” he said.
As to the impeachment complaint in the lower house, its leaders can validly give due course to the case that the United Opposition (UNO) will file even if the first complaint made by lawyer Ruel Pulido has already been referred to the House committee on justice.
But Malacañang yesterday rejected the opposition’s call for Mrs. Arroyo to resign because of the bribery controversy surroun-ding her administration.
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita urged the opposition to leave Mrs. Arroyo alone and let her do her job effectively.
“ Let us give the President the chance to work and do her job.. You can expect them ( opposition) to say that because they want their presence felt but it does not mean that what they’re saying is true,” Ermita said.
Presidential Management Staff (PMS) chief, Secretary Cerge Remonde for his part, urged the opposition to just wait for the 2010 presidential elections rather than push Mrs. Arroyo’s resignation. “The call of some senators for the President to resign is unwarranted . May we respectfully request them to wait for 2010,” Remonde said in a text message.
Mukasey mum on torture techniques
The entire article is at Yahoo. So here is a guy that doesn't know whether waterboarding is torture! Even retired Navy lawyers know it is torture:
Other than perhaps the rack and thumbscrews, waterboarding is the most iconic example of torture in history," said retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, a former Navy lawyer and dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H. "It has been repudiated for centuries. It's a little bit disconcerting to hear now that we're not quite sure where waterboarding fits in the scheme of things."
Mukasey actually may make a good substitute for Gonazales in Bush's scheme of things.
Mukasey mum on torture techniques By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey refused to say Thursday whether he considers waterboarding a form of torture, frustrating Democrats and potentially slowing his confirmation to head the Justice Department.
In an increasingly testy second day of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mukasey also said he is reluctant to support legislation protecting reporters from being forced by courts to reveal their sources. The Democratic-led panel has approved those protections, which President Bush has threatened to veto.
Mukasey, a retired federal judge who has ruled in some of the nation's highest-profile terror trials, repeatedly avoided discussing the legality of specific interrogation techniques — including forced nudity, mock executions and simulated drowning known as waterboarding.
To comment would be irresponsible "when there are people who are using coercive techniques and who are being authorized to use coercive techniques," Mukasey said.
"And for me to say something that is going to put their careers or freedom at risk simply because I want to be congenial — I don't think it would be responsible of me to do that," Mukasey said.
Instead, Mukasey stuck to his earlier definition of torture
Other than perhaps the rack and thumbscrews, waterboarding is the most iconic example of torture in history," said retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, a former Navy lawyer and dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H. "It has been repudiated for centuries. It's a little bit disconcerting to hear now that we're not quite sure where waterboarding fits in the scheme of things."
Mukasey actually may make a good substitute for Gonazales in Bush's scheme of things.
Mukasey mum on torture techniques By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey refused to say Thursday whether he considers waterboarding a form of torture, frustrating Democrats and potentially slowing his confirmation to head the Justice Department.
In an increasingly testy second day of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mukasey also said he is reluctant to support legislation protecting reporters from being forced by courts to reveal their sources. The Democratic-led panel has approved those protections, which President Bush has threatened to veto.
Mukasey, a retired federal judge who has ruled in some of the nation's highest-profile terror trials, repeatedly avoided discussing the legality of specific interrogation techniques — including forced nudity, mock executions and simulated drowning known as waterboarding.
To comment would be irresponsible "when there are people who are using coercive techniques and who are being authorized to use coercive techniques," Mukasey said.
"And for me to say something that is going to put their careers or freedom at risk simply because I want to be congenial — I don't think it would be responsible of me to do that," Mukasey said.
Instead, Mukasey stuck to his earlier definition of torture
On no! No mercenaries in Iraq!
Note that the US has not signed a treaty that bans use of mercenaries:
Although the use of mercenaries is discouraged in international rules of conduct of war, the hiring of foreign soldiers by one country for use in a third is specifically illegal only for the 30 countries that ratified a 1989 treaty. The U.S. and Iraq are among the many countries that never signed the accord.
In effect not only the private contractors are playing a quasi-mercenary role, many of the countries that are part of the coalition of the willing are in effect getting quid pro quos from the US that amount to their being equivalent to mercenaries.
US rejects UN mercenary report By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS, Associated Press Writer
Wed Oct 17, 4:29 PM ET
The U.S. government on Wednesday rejected a U.N. report that said the use of private security guards like those involved in the shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians amounted to a new form of mercenary activity.
The report by a five-member panel of independent U.N. human rights experts said the contractors were performing military duties even though they were hired to be security guards. The killing of 17 civilians in Baghdad last month by Blackwater USA guards underscores the risks of using such contractors, said panel chairman, Jose Luis Gomez del Prado of Spain.
A spokesman for the U.S. Mission to U.N. offices in Geneva released a statement Wednesday denying the security guards were mercenaries.
"Accusations that U.S. government-contracted security guards, of whatever nationality, are mercenaries is inaccurate and demeaning to men and women who put their lives on the line to protect people and facilities every day," the statement said.
"The security guards working for U.S. government contractors in Iraq and elsewhere protect clearly defined United States government areas, and their work is defensive in nature," it said.
Although the use of mercenaries is discouraged in international rules of conduct of war, the hiring of foreign soldiers by one country for use in a third is specifically illegal only for the 30 countries that ratified a 1989 treaty. The U.S. and Iraq are among the many countries that never signed the accord.
"The trend toward outsourcing and privatizing various military functions by a number of member states in the past 10 years has resulted in the mushrooming of private military and security companies," the U.N. panel's report said.
The "tremendous increase" in the number of such companies — including those working for the U.S. State and Defense departments — has occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq, said the report, which will be presented to the U.N. General Assembly next month.
A joint U.S.-Iraqi panel has been created to review the practices of security companies, and Congress has opened inquiries into the role of the contractors. Multiple U.S. investigations into the Baghdad shooting are under way.
Gomez del Prado said the panel has been studying the use of contractors for two years and found that they were being hired from all over the world.
Experts from the panel visited Honduras, Ecuador, Peru, Chile and Fiji to look into recruiting and training practices by the private contractors.
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo
Although the use of mercenaries is discouraged in international rules of conduct of war, the hiring of foreign soldiers by one country for use in a third is specifically illegal only for the 30 countries that ratified a 1989 treaty. The U.S. and Iraq are among the many countries that never signed the accord.
In effect not only the private contractors are playing a quasi-mercenary role, many of the countries that are part of the coalition of the willing are in effect getting quid pro quos from the US that amount to their being equivalent to mercenaries.
US rejects UN mercenary report By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS, Associated Press Writer
Wed Oct 17, 4:29 PM ET
The U.S. government on Wednesday rejected a U.N. report that said the use of private security guards like those involved in the shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians amounted to a new form of mercenary activity.
The report by a five-member panel of independent U.N. human rights experts said the contractors were performing military duties even though they were hired to be security guards. The killing of 17 civilians in Baghdad last month by Blackwater USA guards underscores the risks of using such contractors, said panel chairman, Jose Luis Gomez del Prado of Spain.
A spokesman for the U.S. Mission to U.N. offices in Geneva released a statement Wednesday denying the security guards were mercenaries.
"Accusations that U.S. government-contracted security guards, of whatever nationality, are mercenaries is inaccurate and demeaning to men and women who put their lives on the line to protect people and facilities every day," the statement said.
"The security guards working for U.S. government contractors in Iraq and elsewhere protect clearly defined United States government areas, and their work is defensive in nature," it said.
Although the use of mercenaries is discouraged in international rules of conduct of war, the hiring of foreign soldiers by one country for use in a third is specifically illegal only for the 30 countries that ratified a 1989 treaty. The U.S. and Iraq are among the many countries that never signed the accord.
"The trend toward outsourcing and privatizing various military functions by a number of member states in the past 10 years has resulted in the mushrooming of private military and security companies," the U.N. panel's report said.
The "tremendous increase" in the number of such companies — including those working for the U.S. State and Defense departments — has occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq, said the report, which will be presented to the U.N. General Assembly next month.
A joint U.S.-Iraqi panel has been created to review the practices of security companies, and Congress has opened inquiries into the role of the contractors. Multiple U.S. investigations into the Baghdad shooting are under way.
Gomez del Prado said the panel has been studying the use of contractors for two years and found that they were being hired from all over the world.
Experts from the panel visited Honduras, Ecuador, Peru, Chile and Fiji to look into recruiting and training practices by the private contractors.
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo
Blackwater won't allow arrests of its guards.
This is a printer friendly version of an article from the Washington Times. Now that would be a nice confrontation. Iraqi police come to arrest Blackwater guards and Blackwater engages them in battle! Of course it won't happen as Maliki knows he can't so brazenly go against the wishes of his backers.
Prince insults the Iraqi government by insisting that there is no functional court system where Westerners could get a free trial. Apparently it is fair enough though that Saddam Hussein and some of his henchmen could be turned over to the system for trial and execution! Also, Westerners not protected by being immune are no doubt regularly subjected to that system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article published Oct 17, 2007
Blackwater won't allow arrests
October 17, 2007
By Sharon Behn - A defiant Blackwater Chairman Erik Prince said yesterday he will not allow Iraqi authorities to arrest his contractors and try them in Iraq's faulty justice system.
"We will not let our people be taken by the Iraqis," Mr. Prince told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. At least 17 of 20 Blackwater guards being investigated for their roles in a Sept. 16 shooting incident are still in a secure compound in Baghdad's Green Zone and carrying out limited duties.
Two or three others have been allowed by the State Department to leave the country as part of their scheduled rotation out of Iraq and are expected to return.
"In an ideal sense, if there was wrongdoing, there could be a trial brought in the Iraqi court system. But that would imply that there is a valid Iraqi court system where Westerners could get a fair trial. That is not the case right now," said Mr. Prince.
Mr. Prince also expressed his disappointment that the State Department has not come to the company's defense, even though it has never lost a State Department client in years of protecting them.
"For the last week and a half, we have heard nothing from the State Department," said Mr. Prince. "From their senior levels, their PR folks, we've heard nothing — radio silence.
"It is disappointing for us. We have performed to the line, letter and verse of their 1,000-page contract," he said. "Our guys take significant risk for them. They've taken a pounding these last three years."
A number of Blackwater contractors, most of whom come from military and law-enforcement backgrounds, have been killed in action or grievously wounded in Iraq while running more than 16,500 security missions in the past three years.
Iraq's government, outraged by the Sept. 16 incident in which up to 17 Iraqis were killed as Blackwater staff tried to clear a crowded traffic circle, has accused the U.S. firm of unprovoked and random killings. Blackwater says its men were defending themselves after coming under fire.
The State Department has since ordered that cameras be placed in Blackwater security vehicles and that Diplomatic Security agents accompany Blackwater staff on missions. Mr. Prince said his company had recommended both those steps in 2005 and that the proposals were "buried" by the department.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demanded yesterday that Blackwater leave Iraq and pay $8 million to the family of each of the 17 victims. Iraqi Human Rights Minister Wijdan Salim said the American guards responsible should stand trial in Iraq, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported.
Mr. Prince, a 38-year-old former Navy SEAL, said if there was any evidence of wrongdoing, his employees could be tried in the United States by a jury of their peers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
He said the hostility toward Blackwater was partly driven by partisan politics from the Democrat-led Congress and the news media.
"The far left was unsuccessful in attacking [Army Gen. David H.] Petraeus and defunding the war, forcing a pullback of the U.S. troops," he said. "I think part of the strategy might be to undermine some other part of the support infrastructure, and that would be contractors that are an important part of the supporting package there in Iraq."
He said the scrutiny by Congress, which Democrats say is aimed at better oversight, may have backfired.
"What has happened in the last six to nine months is we've seen the U.S. government, [Department of Defense] in particular, awarding a lot more work to non-U.S. companies ... because it is harder to drag those guys before Congress," Mr. Prince said.
"And there is less oversight, there is less accountability, there is less visibility into those operations."
Mr. Prince has been caught in a partisan crossfire since shortly after last year's election, when a trial lawyer targeting Blackwater lobbied then-House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, for hearings on the "extremely Republican" company.
Mr. Prince emphasized that his guards are proven professionals, recruited on the basis of their prior military, special operations and law-enforcement experiences.
"They go through extensive vetting, training, 160 plus hours of security training, psychological evaluations, security clearances, background checks" and cultural training, he said.
Iraqis and other expatriate security companies on the ground in Iraq have complained that Blackwater guards have been overly and unnecessarily aggressive in their attitudes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prince insults the Iraqi government by insisting that there is no functional court system where Westerners could get a free trial. Apparently it is fair enough though that Saddam Hussein and some of his henchmen could be turned over to the system for trial and execution! Also, Westerners not protected by being immune are no doubt regularly subjected to that system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article published Oct 17, 2007
Blackwater won't allow arrests
October 17, 2007
By Sharon Behn - A defiant Blackwater Chairman Erik Prince said yesterday he will not allow Iraqi authorities to arrest his contractors and try them in Iraq's faulty justice system.
"We will not let our people be taken by the Iraqis," Mr. Prince told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. At least 17 of 20 Blackwater guards being investigated for their roles in a Sept. 16 shooting incident are still in a secure compound in Baghdad's Green Zone and carrying out limited duties.
Two or three others have been allowed by the State Department to leave the country as part of their scheduled rotation out of Iraq and are expected to return.
"In an ideal sense, if there was wrongdoing, there could be a trial brought in the Iraqi court system. But that would imply that there is a valid Iraqi court system where Westerners could get a fair trial. That is not the case right now," said Mr. Prince.
Mr. Prince also expressed his disappointment that the State Department has not come to the company's defense, even though it has never lost a State Department client in years of protecting them.
"For the last week and a half, we have heard nothing from the State Department," said Mr. Prince. "From their senior levels, their PR folks, we've heard nothing — radio silence.
"It is disappointing for us. We have performed to the line, letter and verse of their 1,000-page contract," he said. "Our guys take significant risk for them. They've taken a pounding these last three years."
A number of Blackwater contractors, most of whom come from military and law-enforcement backgrounds, have been killed in action or grievously wounded in Iraq while running more than 16,500 security missions in the past three years.
Iraq's government, outraged by the Sept. 16 incident in which up to 17 Iraqis were killed as Blackwater staff tried to clear a crowded traffic circle, has accused the U.S. firm of unprovoked and random killings. Blackwater says its men were defending themselves after coming under fire.
The State Department has since ordered that cameras be placed in Blackwater security vehicles and that Diplomatic Security agents accompany Blackwater staff on missions. Mr. Prince said his company had recommended both those steps in 2005 and that the proposals were "buried" by the department.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demanded yesterday that Blackwater leave Iraq and pay $8 million to the family of each of the 17 victims. Iraqi Human Rights Minister Wijdan Salim said the American guards responsible should stand trial in Iraq, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported.
Mr. Prince, a 38-year-old former Navy SEAL, said if there was any evidence of wrongdoing, his employees could be tried in the United States by a jury of their peers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
He said the hostility toward Blackwater was partly driven by partisan politics from the Democrat-led Congress and the news media.
"The far left was unsuccessful in attacking [Army Gen. David H.] Petraeus and defunding the war, forcing a pullback of the U.S. troops," he said. "I think part of the strategy might be to undermine some other part of the support infrastructure, and that would be contractors that are an important part of the supporting package there in Iraq."
He said the scrutiny by Congress, which Democrats say is aimed at better oversight, may have backfired.
"What has happened in the last six to nine months is we've seen the U.S. government, [Department of Defense] in particular, awarding a lot more work to non-U.S. companies ... because it is harder to drag those guys before Congress," Mr. Prince said.
"And there is less oversight, there is less accountability, there is less visibility into those operations."
Mr. Prince has been caught in a partisan crossfire since shortly after last year's election, when a trial lawyer targeting Blackwater lobbied then-House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, for hearings on the "extremely Republican" company.
Mr. Prince emphasized that his guards are proven professionals, recruited on the basis of their prior military, special operations and law-enforcement experiences.
"They go through extensive vetting, training, 160 plus hours of security training, psychological evaluations, security clearances, background checks" and cultural training, he said.
Iraqis and other expatriate security companies on the ground in Iraq have complained that Blackwater guards have been overly and unnecessarily aggressive in their attitudes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Academic Freedom at Risk on Campus
The article claims:
they have severely disrupted academic processes, the free
function of which once made American universities the envy of the
world.
During the McCarthy Cold-War era many profs. were blacklisted because of real or imagined connections to communism. My own university (Brandon University) in Manitoba was able to hire an economic prof. graduate of Oxford to teach economics. He was blacklisted in the US and had gone back to farming. He was an expert on Soviet agriculture. In his case he had actually been a member of the US Communist Party. US campuses were anything but free during the cold war and were not the envy of anyone in terms of freedom. They were the butt of many jokes worldwide.
Academic freedom at risk on campus
By SAREE MAKDISI
GUEST COLUMNIST
"Academic colleagues, get used to it," warned the pro-Israel activist
Martin Kramer in March 2004. "Yes, you are being watched. Those
obscure articles in campus newspapers are now available on the
Internet, and they will be harvested. Your syllabi, which you've also
posted, will be scrutinized. Your Web sites will be visited late at
night."
Kramer's warning inaugurated an attack on intellectual freedom in the
U.S. that has grown more aggressive in recent months.
This attack, intended to shield Israel from criticism, not only
threatens academic privileges on college campuses, it jeopardizes our
capacity to evaluate our foreign policy. With a potentially
catastrophic clash with Iran on the horizon and the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict spiraling out of control, Americans urgently
need to be able to think clearly about our commitments and intentions
in the Middle East. And yet we are being prevented from doing so by a
longstanding campaign of intimidation that has terminated careers,
stymied debate and shut down dialogue.
Over the past few years, Israel's U.S. defenders have stepped up
their campaign by establishing a network of institutions (such as
Campus Watch, Stand With Us, the David Project, the Israel on Campus
Coalition, and the disingenuously named Scholars for Peace in the
Middle East) dedicated to the task of monitoring our campuses and
bringing pressure to bear on those critical of Israeli policies. By
orchestrating letter-writing and petitioning campaigns, falsely
raising fears of anti-Semitism, mobilizing often grossly distorted
media coverage and recruiting local and national politicians to their
cause, they have severely disrupted academic processes, the free
function of which once made American universities the envy of the
world.
Outside interference by Israel's supporters has plunged one U.S.
campus after another into crisis. They have introduced crudely
political -- rather than strictly academic or scholarly -- criteria
into hiring, promotion and other decisions at a number of
universities, including Columbia, Yale, Wayne State, Barnard and
DePaul, which recently denied tenure to the Jewish American scholar
Norman Finkelstein following an especially ugly campaign spearheaded
by Alan Dershowitz, one of Israel's most ardent American defenders.
Our campuses are being poisoned by an atmosphere of surveillance and
harassment. However, the disruption of academic freedom has grave
implications beyond campus walls.
When professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer drafted an essay
critical of the effect of Israel's lobbying organizations on U.S.
foreign policy, they had to publish it in the London Review of Books
because their original American publisher declined to take it on.
With the original article expanded into a book that has now been
released, their invitation to speak at the Chicago Council on Global
Affairs was retracted because of outside pressure. "This one is so
hot," they were told. So although Michael Oren, an officer in the
Israeli army, was recently allowed to lecture the council about U.S.
policy in the Middle East, two distinguished American academics were
denied the same privilege.
When President Carter published "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid" last
year, he was attacked for having dared to use the word "apartheid" to
describe Israel's manifestly discriminatory policies in the West Bank.
As that case made especially clear, the point of most of these
attacks is to personally discredit anyone who would criticize Israel
-- and to taint them with the smear of "controversy" -- rather than
to engage them in a genuine debate. None of Carter's critics provided
a convincing refutation of his main argument based on facts and
evidence. Presumably that's because, for all the venom directed
against the former president, he was right. For example, Israel
maintains two different road networks, and even two entirely
different legal systems, in the West Bank, one for Jewish settlers
and the other for indigenous Palestinians. Those basic facts were
studiously ignored by those who denounced Carter and angrily accused
him of a "blood libel" against the Jewish people.
That Israel's American supporters so often resort to angry outbursts
rather than principled arguments -- and seem to find emotional
blackmail more effective than genuine debate -- is ultimately a sign
of their weakness rather than their strength. For all the damage it
can do in the short term, in the long run such a position is
untenable, too dependent on emotion and cliché rather than hard
facts. The phenomenal success of Carter's book suggests that more and
more Americans are learning to ignore the scare tactics that are the
only tools available to Israel's supporters.
But we need to be able to have an open debate about our Middle East
policy now -- before we needlessly shed more blood and further erode
our reputation among people who used to regard us as the champions of
freedom, and now worry that we have come to stand for its very
opposite.
---
Saree Makdisi is a professor of English and Comparative Literature at
UCLA and a frequent commentator on the Middle East.
they have severely disrupted academic processes, the free
function of which once made American universities the envy of the
world.
During the McCarthy Cold-War era many profs. were blacklisted because of real or imagined connections to communism. My own university (Brandon University) in Manitoba was able to hire an economic prof. graduate of Oxford to teach economics. He was blacklisted in the US and had gone back to farming. He was an expert on Soviet agriculture. In his case he had actually been a member of the US Communist Party. US campuses were anything but free during the cold war and were not the envy of anyone in terms of freedom. They were the butt of many jokes worldwide.
Academic freedom at risk on campus
By SAREE MAKDISI
GUEST COLUMNIST
"Academic colleagues, get used to it," warned the pro-Israel activist
Martin Kramer in March 2004. "Yes, you are being watched. Those
obscure articles in campus newspapers are now available on the
Internet, and they will be harvested. Your syllabi, which you've also
posted, will be scrutinized. Your Web sites will be visited late at
night."
Kramer's warning inaugurated an attack on intellectual freedom in the
U.S. that has grown more aggressive in recent months.
This attack, intended to shield Israel from criticism, not only
threatens academic privileges on college campuses, it jeopardizes our
capacity to evaluate our foreign policy. With a potentially
catastrophic clash with Iran on the horizon and the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict spiraling out of control, Americans urgently
need to be able to think clearly about our commitments and intentions
in the Middle East. And yet we are being prevented from doing so by a
longstanding campaign of intimidation that has terminated careers,
stymied debate and shut down dialogue.
Over the past few years, Israel's U.S. defenders have stepped up
their campaign by establishing a network of institutions (such as
Campus Watch, Stand With Us, the David Project, the Israel on Campus
Coalition, and the disingenuously named Scholars for Peace in the
Middle East) dedicated to the task of monitoring our campuses and
bringing pressure to bear on those critical of Israeli policies. By
orchestrating letter-writing and petitioning campaigns, falsely
raising fears of anti-Semitism, mobilizing often grossly distorted
media coverage and recruiting local and national politicians to their
cause, they have severely disrupted academic processes, the free
function of which once made American universities the envy of the
world.
Outside interference by Israel's supporters has plunged one U.S.
campus after another into crisis. They have introduced crudely
political -- rather than strictly academic or scholarly -- criteria
into hiring, promotion and other decisions at a number of
universities, including Columbia, Yale, Wayne State, Barnard and
DePaul, which recently denied tenure to the Jewish American scholar
Norman Finkelstein following an especially ugly campaign spearheaded
by Alan Dershowitz, one of Israel's most ardent American defenders.
Our campuses are being poisoned by an atmosphere of surveillance and
harassment. However, the disruption of academic freedom has grave
implications beyond campus walls.
When professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer drafted an essay
critical of the effect of Israel's lobbying organizations on U.S.
foreign policy, they had to publish it in the London Review of Books
because their original American publisher declined to take it on.
With the original article expanded into a book that has now been
released, their invitation to speak at the Chicago Council on Global
Affairs was retracted because of outside pressure. "This one is so
hot," they were told. So although Michael Oren, an officer in the
Israeli army, was recently allowed to lecture the council about U.S.
policy in the Middle East, two distinguished American academics were
denied the same privilege.
When President Carter published "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid" last
year, he was attacked for having dared to use the word "apartheid" to
describe Israel's manifestly discriminatory policies in the West Bank.
As that case made especially clear, the point of most of these
attacks is to personally discredit anyone who would criticize Israel
-- and to taint them with the smear of "controversy" -- rather than
to engage them in a genuine debate. None of Carter's critics provided
a convincing refutation of his main argument based on facts and
evidence. Presumably that's because, for all the venom directed
against the former president, he was right. For example, Israel
maintains two different road networks, and even two entirely
different legal systems, in the West Bank, one for Jewish settlers
and the other for indigenous Palestinians. Those basic facts were
studiously ignored by those who denounced Carter and angrily accused
him of a "blood libel" against the Jewish people.
That Israel's American supporters so often resort to angry outbursts
rather than principled arguments -- and seem to find emotional
blackmail more effective than genuine debate -- is ultimately a sign
of their weakness rather than their strength. For all the damage it
can do in the short term, in the long run such a position is
untenable, too dependent on emotion and cliché rather than hard
facts. The phenomenal success of Carter's book suggests that more and
more Americans are learning to ignore the scare tactics that are the
only tools available to Israel's supporters.
But we need to be able to have an open debate about our Middle East
policy now -- before we needlessly shed more blood and further erode
our reputation among people who used to regard us as the champions of
freedom, and now worry that we have come to stand for its very
opposite.
---
Saree Makdisi is a professor of English and Comparative Literature at
UCLA and a frequent commentator on the Middle East.
US Opinion on Iraq troop withdrawal etc.
Probably a year from now Rasmussen can ask the same question about withdrawing within a year!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/
iraq_troop_withdrawal>
Iraq Troop Withdrawal
64% Want Troops Home From Iraq
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
For the second straight week, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone
survey found that 64% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops
brought home from Iraq within a year. Prior to this week's results,
support for bringing the troops home had increased in three
consecutive weeks.
Twenty-eight percent (28%) who want the troops brought home
immediately. That's unchanged from a week ago but up from 20% five
weeks ago.
Seventy-one percent (71%) of women want troops out of Iraq within a
year. Fifty-five percent (55%) of men share that view.
Looking at the other end of the spectrum, 31% now want troops to
remain in Iraq until the mission is complete. That's down three
points from a week ago and the lowest level measured since Rasmussen
Reports began tracking this question in August.
All questions concerning Iraq reveal stark partisan differences.
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Democrats want the troops to come home
within a year. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Republicans believe the
troops should remain until the mission is complete. That latter
figure is down from 63% a week ago and 71% two weeks before that.
As for those not affiliated with either major party, 59% want the
troops home within a year. Only 30% take the opposite view and say
they should remain.
Support for bringing troops home has remained remarkably consistent
over the past year. Last December, 64% supported the Iraq Study Group
recommendation to remove "almost all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by
early 2008.
Rasmussen Reports has been tracking this question weekly since late
August. The survey was conducted in partnership with Fox Television
Stations, Inc.
Another survey found that 39% of Americans now believe the U.S. and
its allies are winning the War on Terror. Twenty-eight percent (28%)
believe the terrorists are winning.
The country is also evenly divided on the question of whether the
situation in Iraq is like Vietnam.
Twenty-eight percent (28%) of American voters say that the economy is
the top issue for Election 2008. Eighteen percent (18%) say the War
on Terror is most important while 13% believe the War in Iraq is
tops. Democrats are trusted more than Republicans on nine of ten key
issues t
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/
iraq_troop_withdrawal>
Iraq Troop Withdrawal
64% Want Troops Home From Iraq
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
For the second straight week, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone
survey found that 64% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops
brought home from Iraq within a year. Prior to this week's results,
support for bringing the troops home had increased in three
consecutive weeks.
Twenty-eight percent (28%) who want the troops brought home
immediately. That's unchanged from a week ago but up from 20% five
weeks ago.
Seventy-one percent (71%) of women want troops out of Iraq within a
year. Fifty-five percent (55%) of men share that view.
Looking at the other end of the spectrum, 31% now want troops to
remain in Iraq until the mission is complete. That's down three
points from a week ago and the lowest level measured since Rasmussen
Reports began tracking this question in August.
All questions concerning Iraq reveal stark partisan differences.
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Democrats want the troops to come home
within a year. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Republicans believe the
troops should remain until the mission is complete. That latter
figure is down from 63% a week ago and 71% two weeks before that.
As for those not affiliated with either major party, 59% want the
troops home within a year. Only 30% take the opposite view and say
they should remain.
Support for bringing troops home has remained remarkably consistent
over the past year. Last December, 64% supported the Iraq Study Group
recommendation to remove "almost all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by
early 2008.
Rasmussen Reports has been tracking this question weekly since late
August. The survey was conducted in partnership with Fox Television
Stations, Inc.
Another survey found that 39% of Americans now believe the U.S. and
its allies are winning the War on Terror. Twenty-eight percent (28%)
believe the terrorists are winning.
The country is also evenly divided on the question of whether the
situation in Iraq is like Vietnam.
Twenty-eight percent (28%) of American voters say that the economy is
the top issue for Election 2008. Eighteen percent (18%) say the War
on Terror is most important while 13% believe the War in Iraq is
tops. Democrats are trusted more than Republicans on nine of ten key
issues t
Blaming Globalisation
This is an interesting analysis of the complex factors that are leading to increasing inequality throughout the world. A factor that should be clear but is not much discussed is the decreased power of labor internationally. Because of decreased power labor is unable to wrest much of the economic pie from its capitalist or quasi-capitalist masters.
Web| Oct 15, 2007
Opinion
Blaming Globalisation
A report from the Asian Development Bank states
that economic inequality in Asia now nears the
levels of Latin America. Many analysts point
their fingers at Globalisation. Are they right?
PRANAB BARDHAN
BERKELEY
Economic inequality is on the rise around the
world, and many analysts point their fingers at
Globalisation. Are they right?
Economic inequality has even hit Asia, a region
long characterized by relatively low inequality.
A report from the Asian Development Bank states
that economic inequality now nears the levels of
Latin America, a region long characterized by
high inequality.
In particular, China, which two decades back was
one of the most equal countries in the world, is
now among the most unequal countries. Its Gini
coefficient - a standard measure of inequality,
with zero indicating no inequality and one
extreme inequality - for income inequality has
now surpassed that of the US. If current trends
continue, China may soon reach that of
high-inequality countries like Brazil, Mexico and
Chile. Bear in mind, such measurements are based
on household survey data - therefore most surely
underestimate true inequality as there is often
large and increasing non-response to surveys from
richer households.
The standard reaction in many circles to this
phenomenon is that all this must be due to
Globalisation, as Asian countries in general and
China in particular have had major global
integration during the last two decades. Yes, it
is true that when new opportunities open up, the
already better-endowed may often be in a better
position to utilize them, as well as
better-equipped to cope with the cold blasts of
increased market competition.
But it is not always clear that Globalisation is
the main force responsible for increased
inequality. In fact, expansion of labor-intensive
industrialization, as has happened in China as
the economy opened up, may have helped large
numbers of workers. Also, the usual process of
economic development involves a major
restructuring of the economy, with people moving
from agriculture, a sector with low inequality,
to other sectors. It is also the case that
inequality increased more rapidly in the interior
provinces in China than in the more globally
exposed coastal provinces. In any case it is
often statistically difficult to disentangle the
effects of Globalisation from those of the
ongoing forces of skill-biased technical
progress, as with computers; structural and
demographic changes; and macroeconomic policies.
The other reaction, usually on the opposite side,
puts aside the issue of inequality and points to
the wonders that Globalisation has done to
eliminate extreme poverty, once massive in the
two Asian giants, China and India. With global
integration of these two economies, it is pointed
out that poverty has declined substantially in
India and dramatically in China over the last
quarter century.
This reaction is also not well-founded. While
expansion of exports of labor-intensive
manufacturing lifted many people out of poverty
in China during the last decade (but not in
India, where exports are still mainly skill- and
capital-intensive), the more important reason for
the dramatic decline of poverty over the last
three decades may actually lie elsewhere.
Estimates made at the World Bank suggest that
two-thirds of the total decline in the numbers of
poor people - below the admittedly crude poverty
line of $1 a day per capita - in China between
1981 and 2004 already happened by the mid-1980s,
before the big strides in foreign trade and
investment in China during the 1990s and
later.Much of the extreme poverty was
concentrated in rural areas, and its large
decline in the first half of the 1980s is perhaps
mainly a result of the spurt in agricultural
growth following de-collectivization, egalitarian
land reform and readjustment of farm procurement
prices - mostly internal factors that had little
to do with global integration.
In India the latest survey data suggest that the
rate of decline in poverty somewhat slowed for
1993-2005, the period of intensive opening of the
economy, compared to the 1970s and 1980s, and
that some child-health indicators, already
dismal, have hardly improved in recent years. For
example, the percentage of underweight children
in India is much larger than in sub-Saharan
Africa and has not changed much in the last
decade or so. The growth in the agricultural
sector, where much of the poverty is
concentrated, has declined somewhat in the last
decade, largely on account of the decline of
public investment in areas like irrigation, which
has little to do with Globalisation.
The Indian pace of poverty reduction has been
slower than China's, not just because growth has
been much faster in China, but also because the
same 1 percent growth rate reduces poverty in
India by much less, largely on account of
inequalities in wealth - particularly, land and
education. Contrary to common perception, these
inequalities are much higher in India than in
China: The Gini coefficient of land distribution
in rural India was 0.74 in 2003; the
corresponding figure in China was 0.49 in 2002.
India's educational inequality is one of the
worst in the world: According to the World
Development Report 2006, published by the World
Bank, the Gini coefficient of the distribution of
adult schooling years in the population around
2000 was 0.56 in India, which is not just higher
than 0.37 in China , but higher than that of
almost all Latin American countries.
Another part of the conventional wisdom in the
media as well as in academia is how the rising
inequality and the inequality-induced grievances,
particularly in the left-behind rural areas,
cloud the horizon for the future of the Chinese
polity and hence economic stability.
Frequently cited evidence of instability comes
from Chinese police records, which suggest that
incidents of social unrest have multiplied nearly
nine-fold between 1994 and 2005. While the
Chinese leadership is right to be concerned about
the inequalities, the conventional wisdom in this
matter is somewhat askew, as Harvard sociologist
Martin Whyte has pointed out. Data from a 2004
national representative survey in China by his
team show that the presumably disadvantaged
people in the rural or remote areas are not
particularly upset by the rising inequality. This
may be because of the familiar "tunnel effect" in
the inequality literature: Those who see other
people prospering remain hopeful that their
chance will come soon, much like drivers in a
tunnel, whose hopes rise when blocked traffic in
the next lane starts moving. This is particularly
so with the relaxation of restrictions on
mobility from villages and improvement in roads
and transportation.
More than inequality, farmers are incensed by
forcible land acquisitions or toxic pollution,
but these disturbances are as yet localized. The
Chinese leaders have succeeded in deflecting the
wrath towards corrupt local officials and in
localizing and containing the rural unrest.
Opinion surveys suggest that the central
leadership is still quite popular, while local
officials are not.
Paradoxically, the potential for unrest may be
greater in the currently-booming urban areas,
where the real-estate bubble could break. Global
recession could ripple through the
excess-capacity industries and financially-shaky
public banks.With more internet-connected and
vocal middle classes, a history of massive worker
layoffs and a large underclass of migrants, urban
unrest may be more difficult to contain.
Issues like Globalisation, inequality, poverty
and social discontent are thus much more
complicated than are allowed in the standard
accounts about China and India.
Pranab Bardhan is professor of economics at the
University of California, Berkeley, and co-chair
of the Network on the Effects of Inequality on
Economic Performance, funded by the MacArthur
Foundation. He was the editor of the Journal of
Development Economics for many years. Rights: ©
2007 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization.
YaleGlobal Online
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo
Web| Oct 15, 2007
Opinion
Blaming Globalisation
A report from the Asian Development Bank states
that economic inequality in Asia now nears the
levels of Latin America. Many analysts point
their fingers at Globalisation. Are they right?
PRANAB BARDHAN
BERKELEY
Economic inequality is on the rise around the
world, and many analysts point their fingers at
Globalisation. Are they right?
Economic inequality has even hit Asia, a region
long characterized by relatively low inequality.
A report from the Asian Development Bank states
that economic inequality now nears the levels of
Latin America, a region long characterized by
high inequality.
In particular, China, which two decades back was
one of the most equal countries in the world, is
now among the most unequal countries. Its Gini
coefficient - a standard measure of inequality,
with zero indicating no inequality and one
extreme inequality - for income inequality has
now surpassed that of the US. If current trends
continue, China may soon reach that of
high-inequality countries like Brazil, Mexico and
Chile. Bear in mind, such measurements are based
on household survey data - therefore most surely
underestimate true inequality as there is often
large and increasing non-response to surveys from
richer households.
The standard reaction in many circles to this
phenomenon is that all this must be due to
Globalisation, as Asian countries in general and
China in particular have had major global
integration during the last two decades. Yes, it
is true that when new opportunities open up, the
already better-endowed may often be in a better
position to utilize them, as well as
better-equipped to cope with the cold blasts of
increased market competition.
But it is not always clear that Globalisation is
the main force responsible for increased
inequality. In fact, expansion of labor-intensive
industrialization, as has happened in China as
the economy opened up, may have helped large
numbers of workers. Also, the usual process of
economic development involves a major
restructuring of the economy, with people moving
from agriculture, a sector with low inequality,
to other sectors. It is also the case that
inequality increased more rapidly in the interior
provinces in China than in the more globally
exposed coastal provinces. In any case it is
often statistically difficult to disentangle the
effects of Globalisation from those of the
ongoing forces of skill-biased technical
progress, as with computers; structural and
demographic changes; and macroeconomic policies.
The other reaction, usually on the opposite side,
puts aside the issue of inequality and points to
the wonders that Globalisation has done to
eliminate extreme poverty, once massive in the
two Asian giants, China and India. With global
integration of these two economies, it is pointed
out that poverty has declined substantially in
India and dramatically in China over the last
quarter century.
This reaction is also not well-founded. While
expansion of exports of labor-intensive
manufacturing lifted many people out of poverty
in China during the last decade (but not in
India, where exports are still mainly skill- and
capital-intensive), the more important reason for
the dramatic decline of poverty over the last
three decades may actually lie elsewhere.
Estimates made at the World Bank suggest that
two-thirds of the total decline in the numbers of
poor people - below the admittedly crude poverty
line of $1 a day per capita - in China between
1981 and 2004 already happened by the mid-1980s,
before the big strides in foreign trade and
investment in China during the 1990s and
later.Much of the extreme poverty was
concentrated in rural areas, and its large
decline in the first half of the 1980s is perhaps
mainly a result of the spurt in agricultural
growth following de-collectivization, egalitarian
land reform and readjustment of farm procurement
prices - mostly internal factors that had little
to do with global integration.
In India the latest survey data suggest that the
rate of decline in poverty somewhat slowed for
1993-2005, the period of intensive opening of the
economy, compared to the 1970s and 1980s, and
that some child-health indicators, already
dismal, have hardly improved in recent years. For
example, the percentage of underweight children
in India is much larger than in sub-Saharan
Africa and has not changed much in the last
decade or so. The growth in the agricultural
sector, where much of the poverty is
concentrated, has declined somewhat in the last
decade, largely on account of the decline of
public investment in areas like irrigation, which
has little to do with Globalisation.
The Indian pace of poverty reduction has been
slower than China's, not just because growth has
been much faster in China, but also because the
same 1 percent growth rate reduces poverty in
India by much less, largely on account of
inequalities in wealth - particularly, land and
education. Contrary to common perception, these
inequalities are much higher in India than in
China: The Gini coefficient of land distribution
in rural India was 0.74 in 2003; the
corresponding figure in China was 0.49 in 2002.
India's educational inequality is one of the
worst in the world: According to the World
Development Report 2006, published by the World
Bank, the Gini coefficient of the distribution of
adult schooling years in the population around
2000 was 0.56 in India, which is not just higher
than 0.37 in China , but higher than that of
almost all Latin American countries.
Another part of the conventional wisdom in the
media as well as in academia is how the rising
inequality and the inequality-induced grievances,
particularly in the left-behind rural areas,
cloud the horizon for the future of the Chinese
polity and hence economic stability.
Frequently cited evidence of instability comes
from Chinese police records, which suggest that
incidents of social unrest have multiplied nearly
nine-fold between 1994 and 2005. While the
Chinese leadership is right to be concerned about
the inequalities, the conventional wisdom in this
matter is somewhat askew, as Harvard sociologist
Martin Whyte has pointed out. Data from a 2004
national representative survey in China by his
team show that the presumably disadvantaged
people in the rural or remote areas are not
particularly upset by the rising inequality. This
may be because of the familiar "tunnel effect" in
the inequality literature: Those who see other
people prospering remain hopeful that their
chance will come soon, much like drivers in a
tunnel, whose hopes rise when blocked traffic in
the next lane starts moving. This is particularly
so with the relaxation of restrictions on
mobility from villages and improvement in roads
and transportation.
More than inequality, farmers are incensed by
forcible land acquisitions or toxic pollution,
but these disturbances are as yet localized. The
Chinese leaders have succeeded in deflecting the
wrath towards corrupt local officials and in
localizing and containing the rural unrest.
Opinion surveys suggest that the central
leadership is still quite popular, while local
officials are not.
Paradoxically, the potential for unrest may be
greater in the currently-booming urban areas,
where the real-estate bubble could break. Global
recession could ripple through the
excess-capacity industries and financially-shaky
public banks.With more internet-connected and
vocal middle classes, a history of massive worker
layoffs and a large underclass of migrants, urban
unrest may be more difficult to contain.
Issues like Globalisation, inequality, poverty
and social discontent are thus much more
complicated than are allowed in the standard
accounts about China and India.
Pranab Bardhan is professor of economics at the
University of California, Berkeley, and co-chair
of the Network on the Effects of Inequality on
Economic Performance, funded by the MacArthur
Foundation. He was the editor of the Journal of
Development Economics for many years. Rights: ©
2007 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization.
YaleGlobal Online
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Dismantling the Postwar Health Care System
This is a long and detailed historical analysis of worker health care benefits in the US. As a Canadian I find it quite interesting since the situation is quite different here. With the recent agreement by the CAW with GM for the union to takeover funding health benefits this seems like a fitting end to the long decline in worker's power to force corporations to fund health care plans.
*Dismantling the Postwar Health Care System
Tracing the decline in worker health benefits
*By Jack Rasmus
Z Magazine Online
October 2007 Volume 20 Number 10
The current system for financing health care, which
originated in the immediate post-World War II period,
is today approaching collapse. Its decline began in the
1980s and 1990s under Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill
Clinton. The dismantling of that system is now
accelerating under George W. Bush.
Prior to 1947, with a few exceptions, the position of
U.S. Labor was to advocate the adoption of single payer
universal health care financed and administered through
the Social Security system. That approach recognized
that health care was not only a personal right but a
public good that benefited all society and was
therefore a justified public investment.
However, that strategic focus was sidetracked in the
late 1940s and replaced with a quite different
post-World War II arrangement and new rules of the game
for financing and delivering health benefits.
Immediately following World War II several of the most
strategically powerful unions broke ranks with Labor's
historic position demanding single payer universal
health care as part of the Social Security system.
During the period 1946-1949 the Mineworkers,
Steelworkers, Autoworkers and other major unions
shifted from advocating single payer health care as
their primary policy focus to providing health benefits
by directly negotiating health benefit plans with
employers. The goal of single payer health care was not
rejected outright. It was still there. But it now
became a secondary objective at best.
Despite Labor's strategic shift and willingness circa
1946-49 to press for health benefits for no more than
one-third the national workforce (organized Labor's
membership at that time being about one-third of that
workforce)--employer resistance to the idea of
negotiating health benefit plans was strong at first.
The idea of a system of health benefits based on
union-employer negotiated health plans, with the
insurance industry as broker, was not immediately
embraced by corporate America. After all, business had
just successfully convinced Congress to pass the
Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 which essentially de-fanged
the trade union movement, depriving it of the use of
those solidarity tactics (i.e. sympathy strikes, plant
occupations, closed shop-hiring halls, the secondary
boycott, the right to strike for union recognition,
etc.) that were the basis of much of Labor's success in
the preceding decade. Why should employers concede and
agree to negotiate health benefit plans that would only
raise costs and cut into profits?
But corporate resistance was significantly softened by
the close of the decade as a result of direct U.S.
government-provided incentives and various new rules
encouraging employers to negotiate such plans.
Among the various new rules of the game introduced at
the time, corporations were now allowed to deduct all
their health care costs from their annual tax
liability, thereby boosting company profits, stock
prices, and senior management bonuses. There was a
beneficial secondary effect to this as well: employer
health benefit contributions reduced hourly wage
increases and direct labor costs. Unlike health benefit
contributions, wages could not be deducted from
corporate taxes. But by substituting health benefit
contributions for wage raises, the cost of those wage
raises diverted into health benefit plan contributions
were also in effect tax deductible and thus amortized
across the general taxpayer base.
Another set of incentives allowed businesses to boost
corporate balance sheets as well as corporate income
statements. Health benefit contributions often went
into a health care fund. As the fund grew, it became an
ever-growing asset on the corporate balance sheet as
well as a positive entry on the company annual income
statement. The company could thus appear even more
profitable than it was, providing a further boost to
its stock price. With a relatively young and healthy
workforce at the time, the costs of health care were
not likely to exceed the revenues in the form of
workers' deferred wages and company contributions
reflecting those deferred wages. The funds themselves
would therefore provide an alternative source of
investment revenue. Later, additional new rules would
allow corporations to divert surpluses earned from
their pension funds to their health care benefit funds.
For the rapidly expanding insurance industry circa
1947-52 the potential benefits were even more direct
and lucrative. The relatively youthful average age of
the U.S. workforce at the time made certain that
insurance costs would not exceed insurance revenues for
decades to come.
For the above material reasons employer resistance
evaporated quickly around 1950, led by the insurance
industry, banks, and the large
manufacturing-mining-transport based companies. Medium
and smaller businesses soon followed, as
employer-provided health care plans became a standard
benefit offering to employees to avoid unionization.
Tens of thousands of union-negotiated and employer-only
insured health benefit plans were quickly established
during the period 1949-1952, and spread rapidly
thereafter. Employer provided health plans and
contributions became widespread throughout the U.S.
economy. The postwar system of employer-provided health
benefit plans became the accepted rules of the game and
the norm.
By the early 1980s, more than 80 percent of all health
care coverage was provided through employer-provided
health plans. (The remainder by the Medicare and Medi-
caid programs, the former for the retired and the
latter for the most impoverished.) There was as yet
virtually no personal-private health insurance or plans
at that time.
Not all the rules of the game associated with the
postwar employer-provided benefit plan system were
advantageous to employers. In exchange for the
incentives and advantages to corporate profit/loss and
balance sheets, companies were still responsible and
liable for providing and financing health care
benefits. Union negotiated and employer-only provided
plans spelled out a certain level of benefits the
company was required to provide employees and
dependents. If funds were insufficient for any reason,
the increase in cost had to be diverted from corporate
net income.
That responsibility was tolerable for employers so long
as government rules still subsidized corporate
contributions to health benefit plans, so long as
unions were willing to forego wage increases to help
fund health benefits and so long as insurance companies
and others did not seek to dramatically increase their
relative share of profits in the industry.
But once insurance companies got overly greedy, once
corporate America and its government allies envisioned
a health care benefits alternative offering the same
corporate subsidies, but in an even more profitable
alternative arrangement, the liability inherent in the
old rules became increasingly unacceptable. That
alternative began to take shape in the 1980s and 1990s.
It emerged full blown under George W. Bush.
Reagan Establishes the Pre-Conditions
Two developments in particular during the Reagan years
pointed to the eventual breakdown of the old system and
the development of new rules and a new arrangement for
financing health benefits. The first was the widespread
de-unionization that occurred during the Reagan years
and the break up of collective bargaining that
accompanied that de-unionization. The second was the
new model for privatizing employee benefits through the
creation of 401k personal pension plans.
Both the de-unionization and the balkanization of
bargaining reflected the intent of business and
government, after 1980, to discontinue the broader
agreements, tacit understandings, and compromises with
Labor that had been established in the late 1940s. The
postwar social compact between
business-government-labor was finished. Corporations
knew it. The Reagan administration knew it. Only the
junior partner, Labor, would not believe or accept the
fact it was no longer welcome at the table. And if
Labor was no longer needed, a health benefits financing
system was also unneeded.
This cleared the way for the emergence, later, of
two-tiered negotiated benefits that provided
significantly less health benefits coverage for newly
hired employees. It thus created great dissatisfaction
among a significant percentage of younger workers with
the old rules that provided far less for them and often
at an additional cost.
The second critical development during the Reagan
period was the emergence of 401K pension plans, first
introduced in 1983 and then expanded rapidly. 401Ks
provided a new model of how corporations and employers
could extricate themselves from liability for, and
contributions to, traditional defined benefit pension
plans.
Like the current health care benefits system, the
defined benefit pension plan system also originated in
the immediate post World War II period. It, too,
expanded in the late 1940s through 1950s and grew to
become the dominant pension delivery system in the
1960s-1970s. By 1980 more than 80 percent of private
sector employees were covered under defined benefit
plans. After the introduction of 401Ks in the 1980s,
however, defined benefit plans have been progressively
dismantled and replaced with personal 401K private
pension plans. Today no more than 20 percent of private
sector workers are covered by traditional defined
benefit pension plans, and that number is about to drop
dramatically in the next two years. The result has been
less cost to companies--a continuation of the subsidies
for companies originally provided by Defined Benefit
plans, but without corporate liability and
responsibility for financing employee retirement. Thus
401Ks reflect a new set of rules that in essence allow
corporations to effectively exit the pension benefits
system. The analog to pension 401ks in health care is
Bush's proposed Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which
are currently expanding rapidly throughout corporate
America.
The Clinton Shift
In the 1990s under Clinton the idea of
individual-personal health care received a further push
with the introduction of managed health care, which
essentially maintains that the consumer is the cause of
rising health care costs, not insurance companies,
private hospital chains, and drug companies. If
consumers are the source of the problem, it follows
that the solution must be to reduce their access to
health benefits and services and/or to raise the cost
of such services to consumers in order to ration the
delivery of health benefit services. Moreover, once the
consumer is thus tagged as both the cause and solution
to the problem, it is a short step to shift liability
to the consumer for financing the provision of those
health benefits, which is exactly what consumer driven
health care would later do.
The Clinton shift to targeting and blaming the consumer
was not the only contribution of the Clinton period.
Clinton's managed health care solution set in motion
the historic run-up in health care benefits costs over
the last decade, 1997-2007, which has fundamentally
undermined the old rules for financing health benefits.
By diverting health care cost containment away from the
true origins of cost increases--which lay in health
insurance, pharmaceutical companies, and private
hospital chains' mergers, industry concentration, and
monopoly-like pricing behavior--Clinton effectively gave
a green light to the acceleration of health care costs
that began in his second term, 1996-2000, and that
continues today.
As health care costs began to rise precipitously in
Clinton's second term, his solution was to add new
rules which would allow companies to divert funds from
their defined benefit pension plans to continue to
subsidize their health benefit plan cost increases. But
all that did was undermine traditional pension plans
further, which were already in the process of a rapid
decline and many of which would approach near collapse
after 2000 because of the allowed diversions.
Health Care At the Crossroads
In 1992-93 roughly 75 percent of employers offered a
traditional employer (or union-employer) provided
health benefits plan to their workers. By 2003 this
percent had declined to only 60 percent. That's more
than 500,000 companies exiting the postwar system.
About 10-12 million are now enrolled under HSA-type
personal health plans. Both corporations and the
government are today engaged in a major PR-push to
expand HSA-type health benefit plans as rapidly as
possible.
But with typical HSA plan deductibles of $1,500 to
$3,000 per year, and with their much higher co-pays as
well, many workers will simply continue to opt out of
health care coverage altogether due to increasing lack
of affordability. It is therefore quite possible that
over the next decade at least 10-20 million more will
be added to today's 47 million workers and their
dependents who lack any health benefits coverage
whatsoever.
Only two paths lead from the dead-end solution of
consumer driven health care and personal health
plans/HSAs. One way leads backward, to try to restore
some semblance of the post-World War II system and
resurrect employer-provided health care benefit plans.
That essentially hybrid post-war arrangement, however,
was a unique result of a specific set of conditions
which no longer exist and can no longer be
restored--despite a longing to do so by some in the
trade union movement. Neither corporations nor their
government-political allies will support it. Labor may
be willing to throw more and more workers' wage raises
into it to try to maintain it. But that effort over the
past decade has proved a dismal failure. It results in
a transfer of potential wage raises into the pockets of
insurance companies and private hospital chains, as
health care costs continue to rise, as employers
continue to shift those costs to workers, and as
benefits coverage levels continue to decline despite
the additional contributions by workers.
The remaining choice is twofold: either the further
expansion and entrenchment of personal-HSA plans, in
which workers-consumers pay a greater share of total
costs and corporations exit in stages from any
liability for health care financing, or a return to the
idea of a true single payer universal health care
system delivered through the Social Security system.
Z
Jack Rasmus is the author of The War At Home: The
Corporate Offensive From Ronald Reagan To George W.
Bush, Kyklos Productions, 2006; and the forthcoming
From Us To Them: The Trillion Dollar Income Shift:
Essays on the Origins of Income Inequality in America,
www.kyklosproductions.com
*Dismantling the Postwar Health Care System
Tracing the decline in worker health benefits
*By Jack Rasmus
Z Magazine Online
October 2007 Volume 20 Number 10
The current system for financing health care, which
originated in the immediate post-World War II period,
is today approaching collapse. Its decline began in the
1980s and 1990s under Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill
Clinton. The dismantling of that system is now
accelerating under George W. Bush.
Prior to 1947, with a few exceptions, the position of
U.S. Labor was to advocate the adoption of single payer
universal health care financed and administered through
the Social Security system. That approach recognized
that health care was not only a personal right but a
public good that benefited all society and was
therefore a justified public investment.
However, that strategic focus was sidetracked in the
late 1940s and replaced with a quite different
post-World War II arrangement and new rules of the game
for financing and delivering health benefits.
Immediately following World War II several of the most
strategically powerful unions broke ranks with Labor's
historic position demanding single payer universal
health care as part of the Social Security system.
During the period 1946-1949 the Mineworkers,
Steelworkers, Autoworkers and other major unions
shifted from advocating single payer health care as
their primary policy focus to providing health benefits
by directly negotiating health benefit plans with
employers. The goal of single payer health care was not
rejected outright. It was still there. But it now
became a secondary objective at best.
Despite Labor's strategic shift and willingness circa
1946-49 to press for health benefits for no more than
one-third the national workforce (organized Labor's
membership at that time being about one-third of that
workforce)--employer resistance to the idea of
negotiating health benefit plans was strong at first.
The idea of a system of health benefits based on
union-employer negotiated health plans, with the
insurance industry as broker, was not immediately
embraced by corporate America. After all, business had
just successfully convinced Congress to pass the
Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 which essentially de-fanged
the trade union movement, depriving it of the use of
those solidarity tactics (i.e. sympathy strikes, plant
occupations, closed shop-hiring halls, the secondary
boycott, the right to strike for union recognition,
etc.) that were the basis of much of Labor's success in
the preceding decade. Why should employers concede and
agree to negotiate health benefit plans that would only
raise costs and cut into profits?
But corporate resistance was significantly softened by
the close of the decade as a result of direct U.S.
government-provided incentives and various new rules
encouraging employers to negotiate such plans.
Among the various new rules of the game introduced at
the time, corporations were now allowed to deduct all
their health care costs from their annual tax
liability, thereby boosting company profits, stock
prices, and senior management bonuses. There was a
beneficial secondary effect to this as well: employer
health benefit contributions reduced hourly wage
increases and direct labor costs. Unlike health benefit
contributions, wages could not be deducted from
corporate taxes. But by substituting health benefit
contributions for wage raises, the cost of those wage
raises diverted into health benefit plan contributions
were also in effect tax deductible and thus amortized
across the general taxpayer base.
Another set of incentives allowed businesses to boost
corporate balance sheets as well as corporate income
statements. Health benefit contributions often went
into a health care fund. As the fund grew, it became an
ever-growing asset on the corporate balance sheet as
well as a positive entry on the company annual income
statement. The company could thus appear even more
profitable than it was, providing a further boost to
its stock price. With a relatively young and healthy
workforce at the time, the costs of health care were
not likely to exceed the revenues in the form of
workers' deferred wages and company contributions
reflecting those deferred wages. The funds themselves
would therefore provide an alternative source of
investment revenue. Later, additional new rules would
allow corporations to divert surpluses earned from
their pension funds to their health care benefit funds.
For the rapidly expanding insurance industry circa
1947-52 the potential benefits were even more direct
and lucrative. The relatively youthful average age of
the U.S. workforce at the time made certain that
insurance costs would not exceed insurance revenues for
decades to come.
For the above material reasons employer resistance
evaporated quickly around 1950, led by the insurance
industry, banks, and the large
manufacturing-mining-transport based companies. Medium
and smaller businesses soon followed, as
employer-provided health care plans became a standard
benefit offering to employees to avoid unionization.
Tens of thousands of union-negotiated and employer-only
insured health benefit plans were quickly established
during the period 1949-1952, and spread rapidly
thereafter. Employer provided health plans and
contributions became widespread throughout the U.S.
economy. The postwar system of employer-provided health
benefit plans became the accepted rules of the game and
the norm.
By the early 1980s, more than 80 percent of all health
care coverage was provided through employer-provided
health plans. (The remainder by the Medicare and Medi-
caid programs, the former for the retired and the
latter for the most impoverished.) There was as yet
virtually no personal-private health insurance or plans
at that time.
Not all the rules of the game associated with the
postwar employer-provided benefit plan system were
advantageous to employers. In exchange for the
incentives and advantages to corporate profit/loss and
balance sheets, companies were still responsible and
liable for providing and financing health care
benefits. Union negotiated and employer-only provided
plans spelled out a certain level of benefits the
company was required to provide employees and
dependents. If funds were insufficient for any reason,
the increase in cost had to be diverted from corporate
net income.
That responsibility was tolerable for employers so long
as government rules still subsidized corporate
contributions to health benefit plans, so long as
unions were willing to forego wage increases to help
fund health benefits and so long as insurance companies
and others did not seek to dramatically increase their
relative share of profits in the industry.
But once insurance companies got overly greedy, once
corporate America and its government allies envisioned
a health care benefits alternative offering the same
corporate subsidies, but in an even more profitable
alternative arrangement, the liability inherent in the
old rules became increasingly unacceptable. That
alternative began to take shape in the 1980s and 1990s.
It emerged full blown under George W. Bush.
Reagan Establishes the Pre-Conditions
Two developments in particular during the Reagan years
pointed to the eventual breakdown of the old system and
the development of new rules and a new arrangement for
financing health benefits. The first was the widespread
de-unionization that occurred during the Reagan years
and the break up of collective bargaining that
accompanied that de-unionization. The second was the
new model for privatizing employee benefits through the
creation of 401k personal pension plans.
Both the de-unionization and the balkanization of
bargaining reflected the intent of business and
government, after 1980, to discontinue the broader
agreements, tacit understandings, and compromises with
Labor that had been established in the late 1940s. The
postwar social compact between
business-government-labor was finished. Corporations
knew it. The Reagan administration knew it. Only the
junior partner, Labor, would not believe or accept the
fact it was no longer welcome at the table. And if
Labor was no longer needed, a health benefits financing
system was also unneeded.
This cleared the way for the emergence, later, of
two-tiered negotiated benefits that provided
significantly less health benefits coverage for newly
hired employees. It thus created great dissatisfaction
among a significant percentage of younger workers with
the old rules that provided far less for them and often
at an additional cost.
The second critical development during the Reagan
period was the emergence of 401K pension plans, first
introduced in 1983 and then expanded rapidly. 401Ks
provided a new model of how corporations and employers
could extricate themselves from liability for, and
contributions to, traditional defined benefit pension
plans.
Like the current health care benefits system, the
defined benefit pension plan system also originated in
the immediate post World War II period. It, too,
expanded in the late 1940s through 1950s and grew to
become the dominant pension delivery system in the
1960s-1970s. By 1980 more than 80 percent of private
sector employees were covered under defined benefit
plans. After the introduction of 401Ks in the 1980s,
however, defined benefit plans have been progressively
dismantled and replaced with personal 401K private
pension plans. Today no more than 20 percent of private
sector workers are covered by traditional defined
benefit pension plans, and that number is about to drop
dramatically in the next two years. The result has been
less cost to companies--a continuation of the subsidies
for companies originally provided by Defined Benefit
plans, but without corporate liability and
responsibility for financing employee retirement. Thus
401Ks reflect a new set of rules that in essence allow
corporations to effectively exit the pension benefits
system. The analog to pension 401ks in health care is
Bush's proposed Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which
are currently expanding rapidly throughout corporate
America.
The Clinton Shift
In the 1990s under Clinton the idea of
individual-personal health care received a further push
with the introduction of managed health care, which
essentially maintains that the consumer is the cause of
rising health care costs, not insurance companies,
private hospital chains, and drug companies. If
consumers are the source of the problem, it follows
that the solution must be to reduce their access to
health benefits and services and/or to raise the cost
of such services to consumers in order to ration the
delivery of health benefit services. Moreover, once the
consumer is thus tagged as both the cause and solution
to the problem, it is a short step to shift liability
to the consumer for financing the provision of those
health benefits, which is exactly what consumer driven
health care would later do.
The Clinton shift to targeting and blaming the consumer
was not the only contribution of the Clinton period.
Clinton's managed health care solution set in motion
the historic run-up in health care benefits costs over
the last decade, 1997-2007, which has fundamentally
undermined the old rules for financing health benefits.
By diverting health care cost containment away from the
true origins of cost increases--which lay in health
insurance, pharmaceutical companies, and private
hospital chains' mergers, industry concentration, and
monopoly-like pricing behavior--Clinton effectively gave
a green light to the acceleration of health care costs
that began in his second term, 1996-2000, and that
continues today.
As health care costs began to rise precipitously in
Clinton's second term, his solution was to add new
rules which would allow companies to divert funds from
their defined benefit pension plans to continue to
subsidize their health benefit plan cost increases. But
all that did was undermine traditional pension plans
further, which were already in the process of a rapid
decline and many of which would approach near collapse
after 2000 because of the allowed diversions.
Health Care At the Crossroads
In 1992-93 roughly 75 percent of employers offered a
traditional employer (or union-employer) provided
health benefits plan to their workers. By 2003 this
percent had declined to only 60 percent. That's more
than 500,000 companies exiting the postwar system.
About 10-12 million are now enrolled under HSA-type
personal health plans. Both corporations and the
government are today engaged in a major PR-push to
expand HSA-type health benefit plans as rapidly as
possible.
But with typical HSA plan deductibles of $1,500 to
$3,000 per year, and with their much higher co-pays as
well, many workers will simply continue to opt out of
health care coverage altogether due to increasing lack
of affordability. It is therefore quite possible that
over the next decade at least 10-20 million more will
be added to today's 47 million workers and their
dependents who lack any health benefits coverage
whatsoever.
Only two paths lead from the dead-end solution of
consumer driven health care and personal health
plans/HSAs. One way leads backward, to try to restore
some semblance of the post-World War II system and
resurrect employer-provided health care benefit plans.
That essentially hybrid post-war arrangement, however,
was a unique result of a specific set of conditions
which no longer exist and can no longer be
restored--despite a longing to do so by some in the
trade union movement. Neither corporations nor their
government-political allies will support it. Labor may
be willing to throw more and more workers' wage raises
into it to try to maintain it. But that effort over the
past decade has proved a dismal failure. It results in
a transfer of potential wage raises into the pockets of
insurance companies and private hospital chains, as
health care costs continue to rise, as employers
continue to shift those costs to workers, and as
benefits coverage levels continue to decline despite
the additional contributions by workers.
The remaining choice is twofold: either the further
expansion and entrenchment of personal-HSA plans, in
which workers-consumers pay a greater share of total
costs and corporations exit in stages from any
liability for health care financing, or a return to the
idea of a true single payer universal health care
system delivered through the Social Security system.
Z
Jack Rasmus is the author of The War At Home: The
Corporate Offensive From Ronald Reagan To George W.
Bush, Kyklos Productions, 2006; and the forthcoming
From Us To Them: The Trillion Dollar Income Shift:
Essays on the Origins of Income Inequality in America,
www.kyklosproductions.com
Divide and Rule
This is from this site.It seems impossible for most Americans to imagine themselves as successors to the colonialists who used the tactic of divide and rule to control unruly colonies! The notion though is quite common among Arabs and others. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then probably it is a duck or at least a related species!
In Focus:
Divide and rule
US plans to partition Iraq have been on the back burner for almost two decades. Now the future of the Arab world for generations to come hangs on whether or not they succeed, writes Galal Nassar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fig leaf has fallen. US claims that the occupation of Iraq would be a prelude to the modernisation of the region and the spread of democracy now ring hollow even to the most fervent one-time believers. The US Senate has at long last stated its intentions in no uncertain terms. They are intentions that confirm our worst nightmare.
Two weeks ago, the Senate voted 75-23 for a plan recommending the partitioning of Iraq. The plan was championed by Joseph Biden, a democratic presidential hopeful and head of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee. It calls for Iraq to be partitioned into Kurdish, Shia, and Sunni regions. The partitioning, we are told, would end the violence, reduce chaos, and make it easier for US forces to redeploy and confront "terror" more effectively. Republican congressmen claim that such a move would do for Iraq what the Dayton Accords (that divided Bosnia into Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian enclaves) did for Bosnia.
The recent carnage at Nusur Square in Baghdad, and ongoing mayhem in other parts of the country, cannot be viewed in isolation from the partition plan. Not that there is anything particularly new in the idea: Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski (both former national security advisers) have been mooting the creation of mini-states in the region since the 1960s. The plan to partition Iraq has also diverted attention from the Nusur Square carnage committed by Blackwater contractors two weeks ago.
Since Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990 attempts have been made to weaken the state through international blockades as well as through the revival of ethnic and factional alliances.
There is a surreal aspect to the tragedy unfolding in Iraq today. First, the Iraqi state had become synonymous with the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was argued that removal of the "dictatorial" central state -- through partitioning -- was the best way of governing the country and eliminating terrorists. Sweeping aside all the factors that had made Iraq what it was -- a mosaic of minority communities -- partitioning was offered as the only way ahead. It was helped by the country's structural weakness and the failure of Iraq's first democratic attempt to defend the rights of the Kurds. Since the creation of the Iraqi state nationality laws have left much to be desired and the army's interference in politics worked to reinforce the regime's propensity for despotism.
The Senate's partitioning plan should come as no surprise. The desire to split the Arab world into mini- states surfaced immediately after the 1973 War, when it became clear that the Arabs were capable of standing up for themselves and challenging the Zionist project. The Arabs then used their wealth to promote national and regional interests. The use of oil as a means of pressure -- regardless of the motives that emerged later -- proved that the Arabs were capable of acting in unison if left alone. The then secretary of state Henry Kissinger responded by arguing that the US should do everything within its means to ensure that Israel remained the strongest force in the region. His remarks didn't attract much comment in an Arab world used to Washington's unquestioning backing of Israel.
Following the 1973 War, US experts concluded that the partition of Arab states would have spin-off benefits. It would not only preclude the formation of an Arab military force capable of confronting the Zionist scheme but provide opportunities to foment disputes over land and interests, making it easier for outsiders to control the region's oil fields. Playing on sectarian and ethnic sentiments would act to weaken the social fabric and ensuing inter-Arab rivalries could prompt locals to seek the help and protection of major powers, including the US. Last but not least, the division of the Arab world would ensure the Middle East remained a docile market, and petrodollars could be recycled back into the coffers of oil-consuming nations.
Jimmy Carter's administration did the sums and decided to form a rapid deployment force. News started coming in about military manoeuvres in Arizona and Nevada, in terrain similar to that of oil-producing Arab countries. Later joint US-Arab manoeuvres were conducted on Arab soil. Journals close to US decision makers began to speak of Iraq as a soft target: its occupation, US writers argued, could serve as a prelude to guaranteeing control of its oil resources.
In January 1990 The Nation predicted a war by the end of that year over Gulf oil resources. Following the Gulf war, and during preparations for the Madrid peace conference, US secretary of state James Baker predicted the political map of the region would change more dramatically than it had after World War I -- i.e. after the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Balfour Declaration. Again the remarks went largely unnoticed, as did a paper leaked by US intelligence services, "Succession in Saudi Arabia," which outlined plans to split the kingdom.
The first practical step the US administration took towards partitioning Iraq came in the early 1990s, with the imposition of no-fly zones. Soon afterwards president Bill Clinton expanded the no-fly zones in the south and the north on the pretext of protecting the Kurds and Shias. These zones provided the blueprint for a future political map of Iraq. At a single stroke Kurdish areas had been moved out of the reach of Baghdad's central government.
Following 9/11, US officials started promoting creative chaos as a tool in their war on terror, hinting at possible strikes against up to 15 Arab and Muslim countries. Simultaneously, a strategic research institute affiliated with the Rand Corporation published a report, Major Strategy, which discussed in detail plans to divide the Arab world. The report viewed the occupation of Iraq as a step towards subjugating all Arab countries. It even mentioned the possibility of US strikes against Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Iraq, occupied amid promises of a democratic dawn, has been thrown into a backwardness it hasn't known for centuries. Sectarianism and ethnic loyalties have been revived. The first transitional council was formed along ethnic and sectarian lines. Senior posts were divided according to quotas designed to erase the country's Arab and Islamic identity, and the US-inspired constitution's interpretation of federalism bordered on an endorsement of partition.
Over the past few months US researchers have concluded that partitioning Iraq is the only way for the Bush administration to escape its current fix. What matters for the US administration, it now transpires, is not the future of Iraq or the interests of its people but the safety of the occupiers. In its July 2006 edition, the US armed forces magazine spoke of a "blood map" dividing the Arab world along ethnic and sectarian lines. The scheme was already in action in Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, and Somalia. Iraq is unlikely to be the last venue for its implementation.
The partition of Iraq represents one more rung on the ladder to creative chaos. It is a criminal act that surpasses, in its insidiousness, any crimes the US administration has so far committed in Iraq. And it opens the way for the implementation of other suspect schemes mentioned in the Major Strategy report.
To oppose such plans is an act of self-defence. Not to do so places the safety, security, stability, and future of Arab states at risk. The Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 paved the way for the partition of the Arab world after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The Balfour Declaration spelled the demise of Palestine. In 1992 Rand scholar Graham Fuller asked, "Will Iraqi remain united?"
The answer to his question holds the key to the future of the Middle East.
In Focus:
Divide and rule
US plans to partition Iraq have been on the back burner for almost two decades. Now the future of the Arab world for generations to come hangs on whether or not they succeed, writes Galal Nassar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fig leaf has fallen. US claims that the occupation of Iraq would be a prelude to the modernisation of the region and the spread of democracy now ring hollow even to the most fervent one-time believers. The US Senate has at long last stated its intentions in no uncertain terms. They are intentions that confirm our worst nightmare.
Two weeks ago, the Senate voted 75-23 for a plan recommending the partitioning of Iraq. The plan was championed by Joseph Biden, a democratic presidential hopeful and head of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee. It calls for Iraq to be partitioned into Kurdish, Shia, and Sunni regions. The partitioning, we are told, would end the violence, reduce chaos, and make it easier for US forces to redeploy and confront "terror" more effectively. Republican congressmen claim that such a move would do for Iraq what the Dayton Accords (that divided Bosnia into Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian enclaves) did for Bosnia.
The recent carnage at Nusur Square in Baghdad, and ongoing mayhem in other parts of the country, cannot be viewed in isolation from the partition plan. Not that there is anything particularly new in the idea: Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski (both former national security advisers) have been mooting the creation of mini-states in the region since the 1960s. The plan to partition Iraq has also diverted attention from the Nusur Square carnage committed by Blackwater contractors two weeks ago.
Since Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990 attempts have been made to weaken the state through international blockades as well as through the revival of ethnic and factional alliances.
There is a surreal aspect to the tragedy unfolding in Iraq today. First, the Iraqi state had become synonymous with the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was argued that removal of the "dictatorial" central state -- through partitioning -- was the best way of governing the country and eliminating terrorists. Sweeping aside all the factors that had made Iraq what it was -- a mosaic of minority communities -- partitioning was offered as the only way ahead. It was helped by the country's structural weakness and the failure of Iraq's first democratic attempt to defend the rights of the Kurds. Since the creation of the Iraqi state nationality laws have left much to be desired and the army's interference in politics worked to reinforce the regime's propensity for despotism.
The Senate's partitioning plan should come as no surprise. The desire to split the Arab world into mini- states surfaced immediately after the 1973 War, when it became clear that the Arabs were capable of standing up for themselves and challenging the Zionist project. The Arabs then used their wealth to promote national and regional interests. The use of oil as a means of pressure -- regardless of the motives that emerged later -- proved that the Arabs were capable of acting in unison if left alone. The then secretary of state Henry Kissinger responded by arguing that the US should do everything within its means to ensure that Israel remained the strongest force in the region. His remarks didn't attract much comment in an Arab world used to Washington's unquestioning backing of Israel.
Following the 1973 War, US experts concluded that the partition of Arab states would have spin-off benefits. It would not only preclude the formation of an Arab military force capable of confronting the Zionist scheme but provide opportunities to foment disputes over land and interests, making it easier for outsiders to control the region's oil fields. Playing on sectarian and ethnic sentiments would act to weaken the social fabric and ensuing inter-Arab rivalries could prompt locals to seek the help and protection of major powers, including the US. Last but not least, the division of the Arab world would ensure the Middle East remained a docile market, and petrodollars could be recycled back into the coffers of oil-consuming nations.
Jimmy Carter's administration did the sums and decided to form a rapid deployment force. News started coming in about military manoeuvres in Arizona and Nevada, in terrain similar to that of oil-producing Arab countries. Later joint US-Arab manoeuvres were conducted on Arab soil. Journals close to US decision makers began to speak of Iraq as a soft target: its occupation, US writers argued, could serve as a prelude to guaranteeing control of its oil resources.
In January 1990 The Nation predicted a war by the end of that year over Gulf oil resources. Following the Gulf war, and during preparations for the Madrid peace conference, US secretary of state James Baker predicted the political map of the region would change more dramatically than it had after World War I -- i.e. after the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Balfour Declaration. Again the remarks went largely unnoticed, as did a paper leaked by US intelligence services, "Succession in Saudi Arabia," which outlined plans to split the kingdom.
The first practical step the US administration took towards partitioning Iraq came in the early 1990s, with the imposition of no-fly zones. Soon afterwards president Bill Clinton expanded the no-fly zones in the south and the north on the pretext of protecting the Kurds and Shias. These zones provided the blueprint for a future political map of Iraq. At a single stroke Kurdish areas had been moved out of the reach of Baghdad's central government.
Following 9/11, US officials started promoting creative chaos as a tool in their war on terror, hinting at possible strikes against up to 15 Arab and Muslim countries. Simultaneously, a strategic research institute affiliated with the Rand Corporation published a report, Major Strategy, which discussed in detail plans to divide the Arab world. The report viewed the occupation of Iraq as a step towards subjugating all Arab countries. It even mentioned the possibility of US strikes against Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Iraq, occupied amid promises of a democratic dawn, has been thrown into a backwardness it hasn't known for centuries. Sectarianism and ethnic loyalties have been revived. The first transitional council was formed along ethnic and sectarian lines. Senior posts were divided according to quotas designed to erase the country's Arab and Islamic identity, and the US-inspired constitution's interpretation of federalism bordered on an endorsement of partition.
Over the past few months US researchers have concluded that partitioning Iraq is the only way for the Bush administration to escape its current fix. What matters for the US administration, it now transpires, is not the future of Iraq or the interests of its people but the safety of the occupiers. In its July 2006 edition, the US armed forces magazine spoke of a "blood map" dividing the Arab world along ethnic and sectarian lines. The scheme was already in action in Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, and Somalia. Iraq is unlikely to be the last venue for its implementation.
The partition of Iraq represents one more rung on the ladder to creative chaos. It is a criminal act that surpasses, in its insidiousness, any crimes the US administration has so far committed in Iraq. And it opens the way for the implementation of other suspect schemes mentioned in the Major Strategy report.
To oppose such plans is an act of self-defence. Not to do so places the safety, security, stability, and future of Arab states at risk. The Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 paved the way for the partition of the Arab world after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The Balfour Declaration spelled the demise of Palestine. In 1992 Rand scholar Graham Fuller asked, "Will Iraqi remain united?"
The answer to his question holds the key to the future of the Middle East.
Turkey to approve troops to Iraq in defiance of U.S.
The US seems to think nothing of snubbing and irritating Turkey even though it is a key ally in the Middle East and provides significant logistic support for its operations. It has done less than nothing about the PKK. In effect it turned over security to the Kurd authorities who are loathe to do anything against the PKK.
Although the Turks will probably not attack the PKK in Iraq right away, their patience must be wearing very thin and most of the public is demanding more action.
Turkey to approve troops to Iraq in defiance of U.S.
Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:42pm EDT Iraq seeks talks on Turkey threat
- Turkey will defy international pressure on Wednesday and grant its troops permission to enter northern Iraq to crush Kurdish rebels based there, though it has played down expectations of any imminent attack.
Washington, Ankara's NATO ally, says it understands Turkey's desire to tackle rebels of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), but fears a major incursion would wreck stability in the most peaceful part of Iraq and potentially in the wider region.
Turkey's stance has helped drive global oil prices to $88 a barrel, a new record, and has hit its lira currency as investors weigh the economic risks of any major military operation.
Parliamentary approval would create the legal basis for military action, essentially giving the army a free hand to act as and when it sees fit.
By law, Turkey's parliament must approve the deployment of Turkish troops abroad. Parliament is expected to approve the request from Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's cabinet by a large majority following an open debate.
"Passage of this motion does not mean an immediate incursion will follow, but we will act at the right time and under the right conditions," Erdogan told his ruling AK Party on Tuesday.
"This is about self-defense," he said in televised remarks.
Iraqi Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi lobbied Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul in Ankara on Tuesday to refrain from military action and to seek a diplomatic solution.
Erdogan is under heavy public pressure to hit the PKK camps in northern Iraq after a series of deadly rebel attacks on Turkish troops.
APPEALS UNHEEDED
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, asked about possible Turkish action in northern Iraq, made a veiled appeal for restraint. "Any measures by any country should not create any concerns," he told reporters in New York.
"We are going through a very difficult and sensitive period in Iraq. We need full cooperation and support from the countries in the region," he said, noting that Turkey would host an international conference on Iraq in early November.
Washington and Baghdad have so far failed to take action against the estimated 3,000 PKK guerrillas hiding in northern Iraq, despite repeated Turkish appeals over a number of years.
Ankara knows Baghdad has little clout in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish north, whose leaders have consistently refused to take up arms against their ethnic kin in the PKK. Washington's own forces are sorely stretched in central and southern Iraq.
Brent Scowcroft, a former U.S. National Security Council adviser visiting Ankara on Tuesday, said Washington should have done more to address Turkish concerns about the PKK.
"We have taken some steps but they have been very inadequate and we are trying to improve cooperation between Iraq and Turkey on dealing with that," he told Reuters.
He said that any Turkish incursion into northern Iraq was likely to destabilize the area and complicate an already complex situation there.
"But also the Turks are an ally and they are suffering from PKK activities across the border, so it's a balancing act," he added.
Turkish opposition parties strongly back the plan for military action, with only the small pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) expressing concern about the implications.
"Military methods alone cannot bring a solution," DTP leader Ahmet Turk said.
Many Turks regard the DTP as a mouthpiece for the PKK, which Ankara blames for the deaths of more than 30,000 people since the group launched its armed struggle for an ethnic homeland in southeast Turkey in 1984.
Turkey conducted large military operations in northern Iraq against the PKK in the 1990s but failed to wipe out the rebels.
Some analysts say that despite its tough rhetoric Turkey may limit itself to aerial bombardment of rebel targets and small forays across the border while avoiding a major incursion.
(Additional reporting by Paul de Bendern and Patrick Worsnip)
© Reuters2007All rights reserved
Although the Turks will probably not attack the PKK in Iraq right away, their patience must be wearing very thin and most of the public is demanding more action.
Turkey to approve troops to Iraq in defiance of U.S.
Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:42pm EDT Iraq seeks talks on Turkey threat
- Turkey will defy international pressure on Wednesday and grant its troops permission to enter northern Iraq to crush Kurdish rebels based there, though it has played down expectations of any imminent attack.
Washington, Ankara's NATO ally, says it understands Turkey's desire to tackle rebels of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), but fears a major incursion would wreck stability in the most peaceful part of Iraq and potentially in the wider region.
Turkey's stance has helped drive global oil prices to $88 a barrel, a new record, and has hit its lira currency as investors weigh the economic risks of any major military operation.
Parliamentary approval would create the legal basis for military action, essentially giving the army a free hand to act as and when it sees fit.
By law, Turkey's parliament must approve the deployment of Turkish troops abroad. Parliament is expected to approve the request from Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's cabinet by a large majority following an open debate.
"Passage of this motion does not mean an immediate incursion will follow, but we will act at the right time and under the right conditions," Erdogan told his ruling AK Party on Tuesday.
"This is about self-defense," he said in televised remarks.
Iraqi Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi lobbied Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul in Ankara on Tuesday to refrain from military action and to seek a diplomatic solution.
Erdogan is under heavy public pressure to hit the PKK camps in northern Iraq after a series of deadly rebel attacks on Turkish troops.
APPEALS UNHEEDED
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, asked about possible Turkish action in northern Iraq, made a veiled appeal for restraint. "Any measures by any country should not create any concerns," he told reporters in New York.
"We are going through a very difficult and sensitive period in Iraq. We need full cooperation and support from the countries in the region," he said, noting that Turkey would host an international conference on Iraq in early November.
Washington and Baghdad have so far failed to take action against the estimated 3,000 PKK guerrillas hiding in northern Iraq, despite repeated Turkish appeals over a number of years.
Ankara knows Baghdad has little clout in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish north, whose leaders have consistently refused to take up arms against their ethnic kin in the PKK. Washington's own forces are sorely stretched in central and southern Iraq.
Brent Scowcroft, a former U.S. National Security Council adviser visiting Ankara on Tuesday, said Washington should have done more to address Turkish concerns about the PKK.
"We have taken some steps but they have been very inadequate and we are trying to improve cooperation between Iraq and Turkey on dealing with that," he told Reuters.
He said that any Turkish incursion into northern Iraq was likely to destabilize the area and complicate an already complex situation there.
"But also the Turks are an ally and they are suffering from PKK activities across the border, so it's a balancing act," he added.
Turkish opposition parties strongly back the plan for military action, with only the small pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) expressing concern about the implications.
"Military methods alone cannot bring a solution," DTP leader Ahmet Turk said.
Many Turks regard the DTP as a mouthpiece for the PKK, which Ankara blames for the deaths of more than 30,000 people since the group launched its armed struggle for an ethnic homeland in southeast Turkey in 1984.
Turkey conducted large military operations in northern Iraq against the PKK in the 1990s but failed to wipe out the rebels.
Some analysts say that despite its tough rhetoric Turkey may limit itself to aerial bombardment of rebel targets and small forays across the border while avoiding a major incursion.
(Additional reporting by Paul de Bendern and Patrick Worsnip)
© Reuters2007All rights reserved
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Clinton would use violence against Tehran
Maybe Clinton should adopt Cheney as her vice-presidential running mate. The more I hear about Hillary the less I like her, that she should be the front runner in the Democratic race is puke provoking at the least. She is fuzzy enough and unprincipled enough that she might get along with Stephen Harper our present prime minister.
Clinton would use violence against Tehran
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Monday October 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Hillary Clinton today moved to secure her position as the most hawkish Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, saying she would consider the use of force to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear programme.
In an article for Foreign Affairs magazine intended as a blueprint for the foreign policy of a future Clinton White House, the Democratic frontrunner argues that Iran poses a long term strategic challenge to American and its allies, and that it must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons.
"If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table," Ms Clinton said.
Elsewhere, Ms Clinton took the edge off her steely posture by saying she would abandon the Bush administration's policy of isolating its enemies, and would deploy diplomacy.
"True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims."
She says she would even consider offering incentives to Iran in return for a pledge to disarm. However, she sets out a series of stringent conditions that are virtually identical to current White House policy.
"If Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons programme, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilising Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives," Ms Clinton wrote.
The article, the latest in a series of position papers from the leading Democratic and Republican contenders for the White House, offers a glimpse at Ms Clinton's efforts to appeal to Democrats seeking a repudiation of the current regime's world view when they begin voting in primaries next January, as well as to the broader electorate that will vote in November 2008.
It arrives only days after Ms Clinton was severely criticised by her Democratic rivals for backing a Senate resolution calling on the US government to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the elite division of Tehran's military, a terrorist entity.
The measure has been argued strenuously by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and other neocons, but such a sweeping designation does not appear to have the support of the state department.
Ms Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to support the resolution, and her rivals said her vote could help the Bush administration make a future case for war against Iran.
Unlike the five other candidates to sketch out their vision of foreign policy to date, Ms Clinton gave little indication of her comprehensive world view.
However, she pledged to avoid the "ideologically blinkered" policies of the current presidency. "Avoid false choices driven by ideology," she wrote.
On Iraq, Ms Clinton offered a small variation on her promises on the campaign trail, saying she would instruct her Pentagon chief and other military leaders to draw up a withdrawal plan within 60 days of her inauguration. However, she would consider leaving behind a residual force in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq.
Clinton would use violence against Tehran
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Monday October 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Hillary Clinton today moved to secure her position as the most hawkish Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, saying she would consider the use of force to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear programme.
In an article for Foreign Affairs magazine intended as a blueprint for the foreign policy of a future Clinton White House, the Democratic frontrunner argues that Iran poses a long term strategic challenge to American and its allies, and that it must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons.
"If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table," Ms Clinton said.
Elsewhere, Ms Clinton took the edge off her steely posture by saying she would abandon the Bush administration's policy of isolating its enemies, and would deploy diplomacy.
"True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims."
She says she would even consider offering incentives to Iran in return for a pledge to disarm. However, she sets out a series of stringent conditions that are virtually identical to current White House policy.
"If Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons programme, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilising Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives," Ms Clinton wrote.
The article, the latest in a series of position papers from the leading Democratic and Republican contenders for the White House, offers a glimpse at Ms Clinton's efforts to appeal to Democrats seeking a repudiation of the current regime's world view when they begin voting in primaries next January, as well as to the broader electorate that will vote in November 2008.
It arrives only days after Ms Clinton was severely criticised by her Democratic rivals for backing a Senate resolution calling on the US government to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the elite division of Tehran's military, a terrorist entity.
The measure has been argued strenuously by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and other neocons, but such a sweeping designation does not appear to have the support of the state department.
Ms Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to support the resolution, and her rivals said her vote could help the Bush administration make a future case for war against Iran.
Unlike the five other candidates to sketch out their vision of foreign policy to date, Ms Clinton gave little indication of her comprehensive world view.
However, she pledged to avoid the "ideologically blinkered" policies of the current presidency. "Avoid false choices driven by ideology," she wrote.
On Iraq, Ms Clinton offered a small variation on her promises on the campaign trail, saying she would instruct her Pentagon chief and other military leaders to draw up a withdrawal plan within 60 days of her inauguration. However, she would consider leaving behind a residual force in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Stifling times at college campuses
Strange that Smith never mentions the Israel Lobby in all of this!
Grant F. Smith: These are stifling times at college campuses
During my years at Minnesota universities, we argued -- and listened -- and we were better for it. Now, inhibition rules the day.
Grant F. Smith
Published: October 12, 2007
Mark B. Rotenberg: What we can learn from the Tutu fray affair
The other morning I removed my Masters in International Management degree from the office wall and carefully pulled it out of the frame. I held it in my hands and considered a chaotic journey of discovery during a campus era that has now come to an abrupt end.
Born in the Minneapolis suburbs, I did not have to travel far for an exciting education. The University of Minnesota was a thrilling place to learn in the mid-1980s.
Most stimulating for me were the perpetual classroom and campus debates. My first day in a philosophy class titled "Life of the Mind" opened with a pitched verbal battle between a proud semisocialistic professor and a rabidly free-market freshman. Their verbal sparring over the course's reading list benefited me greatly and set the tone for what was in store for me on campus.
At the time, I had no idea what the term "political correctness" meant, or what the possible tradeoffs were between the quest for individual wealth and social welfare. It was all new, heady and contentious stuff.
When the Central Intelligence Agency came to the campus job fair, I initially sided with my outraged roommates. Surely passing through their booth was an endorsement of the Reagan administration's contra war against Nicaragua and every covert CIA action from the toppling of Mossadegh in Iran to the attempted assassinations of Castro.
However, rather than join the cacophony of protesters, I went and spoke with the analyst and agent recruiters. Their congeniality was disarming. Yes, the "company" had implemented ham-handed policies, they allowed. Learning from mistakes was now part of the organizational structure. And wouldn't I like to help fill their desperate need for Arab linguists and regional intelligence analysts?
No, thanks. But I learned more about real-world professions and opportunities from government, NGO and corporate recruiters than I ever could have by simply shouting them all down.
As I approached the end of my core curriculum, I had the pleasure of sitting at the elbow of a mild-mannered professor who actually flew up from Chicago to give chilling insights about his Cold War expertise: conventional deterrence. It was horrifying to listen to him spin scenarios of European tank warfare under the shadow of nuclear holocaust. Few, certainly not I, agreed with or wanted to face up to the bloody implications of his research. But we listened, and argued, and graduated.
In the early 1990s the University of St. Thomas offered the irresistible lure of a master's degree in International Management. Hundreds of graduates now working in the United States and abroad will remember the stern financial protocols of director Herb Leshinsky contrasted against the flamboyant intercultural-communications teachings of Jon Giordano.
Giordano would spontaneously bring in interviewees as diverse as recalcitrant Soviets and a delegation of mild Canadian businessmen looking for market insights. Hushed student whispers in the corridors confirmed that Giordano and Leshinsky had nothing in common and were in constant conflict about everything. What they lacked in complementary worldviews, both educators made up for in competition to serve students. In my case, Leshinsky recommended me for a job in Bogota that would create an unprecedented opportunity personally and professionally. Giordano also remained in touch, flew in to give seminars to the local executives club and even invited me back to address students and to dine in his home. These professors continued teaching me long after my final tuition payments.
More than a decade later, I stand in awe over how intolerant of diverse views higher education and research institutions have become. The educational ferment is being purposefully watered down as cowardly administrators prioritize endowment over education.
John Mearsheimer, a professor of political science in Chicago, is now something of a pariah for his recent work on the Israel lobby, unwelcome and disinvited from numerous relevant venues. I now agree with much of what he says, but also value the opportunity to consider opposing views.
I have frequently gone to the American Enterprise Institute to hear and even confront controversial thinkers like Michael Ledeen and Richard Perle. I don't agree with anything they say or have done, but wouldn't deny anyone a venue for presenting their case. That would be deeply un-American.
Columbia University resisted pressure and grudgingly honored its commitment to hear out Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. DePaul University recently bent to the same pressures when it denied tenure to the controversial but brilliant Prof. Norman Finkelstein.
When President Dennis Dease denied Archbishop Desmond Tutu an opportunity to speak on the University of St. Thomas campus, he was quietly responding to the opaque pressures of a dangerous national trend. None of the names of the many great and sometimes controversial speakers and professors who grappled with and educated me appears on my diploma. However, the name "Dennis Dease" does.
I believe that the reputation and comportment of a university follow degree recipients long after they've graduated. This is why I mailed my diploma back to Dease, stamped "return to sender."
That Dease has now changed his mind in the face of public protest matters not. The pressure to deny relevant venue to controversial thinkers is spreading across American campuses, and both students and graduates need to be vigilant. Dease can keep the diploma.
Grant F. Smith is the director of research at IRmep, a Washington-based nonprofit that studies U.S. policy formulation toward the Middle East.
Grant F. Smith: These are stifling times at college campuses
During my years at Minnesota universities, we argued -- and listened -- and we were better for it. Now, inhibition rules the day.
Grant F. Smith
Published: October 12, 2007
Mark B. Rotenberg: What we can learn from the Tutu fray affair
The other morning I removed my Masters in International Management degree from the office wall and carefully pulled it out of the frame. I held it in my hands and considered a chaotic journey of discovery during a campus era that has now come to an abrupt end.
Born in the Minneapolis suburbs, I did not have to travel far for an exciting education. The University of Minnesota was a thrilling place to learn in the mid-1980s.
Most stimulating for me were the perpetual classroom and campus debates. My first day in a philosophy class titled "Life of the Mind" opened with a pitched verbal battle between a proud semisocialistic professor and a rabidly free-market freshman. Their verbal sparring over the course's reading list benefited me greatly and set the tone for what was in store for me on campus.
At the time, I had no idea what the term "political correctness" meant, or what the possible tradeoffs were between the quest for individual wealth and social welfare. It was all new, heady and contentious stuff.
When the Central Intelligence Agency came to the campus job fair, I initially sided with my outraged roommates. Surely passing through their booth was an endorsement of the Reagan administration's contra war against Nicaragua and every covert CIA action from the toppling of Mossadegh in Iran to the attempted assassinations of Castro.
However, rather than join the cacophony of protesters, I went and spoke with the analyst and agent recruiters. Their congeniality was disarming. Yes, the "company" had implemented ham-handed policies, they allowed. Learning from mistakes was now part of the organizational structure. And wouldn't I like to help fill their desperate need for Arab linguists and regional intelligence analysts?
No, thanks. But I learned more about real-world professions and opportunities from government, NGO and corporate recruiters than I ever could have by simply shouting them all down.
As I approached the end of my core curriculum, I had the pleasure of sitting at the elbow of a mild-mannered professor who actually flew up from Chicago to give chilling insights about his Cold War expertise: conventional deterrence. It was horrifying to listen to him spin scenarios of European tank warfare under the shadow of nuclear holocaust. Few, certainly not I, agreed with or wanted to face up to the bloody implications of his research. But we listened, and argued, and graduated.
In the early 1990s the University of St. Thomas offered the irresistible lure of a master's degree in International Management. Hundreds of graduates now working in the United States and abroad will remember the stern financial protocols of director Herb Leshinsky contrasted against the flamboyant intercultural-communications teachings of Jon Giordano.
Giordano would spontaneously bring in interviewees as diverse as recalcitrant Soviets and a delegation of mild Canadian businessmen looking for market insights. Hushed student whispers in the corridors confirmed that Giordano and Leshinsky had nothing in common and were in constant conflict about everything. What they lacked in complementary worldviews, both educators made up for in competition to serve students. In my case, Leshinsky recommended me for a job in Bogota that would create an unprecedented opportunity personally and professionally. Giordano also remained in touch, flew in to give seminars to the local executives club and even invited me back to address students and to dine in his home. These professors continued teaching me long after my final tuition payments.
More than a decade later, I stand in awe over how intolerant of diverse views higher education and research institutions have become. The educational ferment is being purposefully watered down as cowardly administrators prioritize endowment over education.
John Mearsheimer, a professor of political science in Chicago, is now something of a pariah for his recent work on the Israel lobby, unwelcome and disinvited from numerous relevant venues. I now agree with much of what he says, but also value the opportunity to consider opposing views.
I have frequently gone to the American Enterprise Institute to hear and even confront controversial thinkers like Michael Ledeen and Richard Perle. I don't agree with anything they say or have done, but wouldn't deny anyone a venue for presenting their case. That would be deeply un-American.
Columbia University resisted pressure and grudgingly honored its commitment to hear out Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. DePaul University recently bent to the same pressures when it denied tenure to the controversial but brilliant Prof. Norman Finkelstein.
When President Dennis Dease denied Archbishop Desmond Tutu an opportunity to speak on the University of St. Thomas campus, he was quietly responding to the opaque pressures of a dangerous national trend. None of the names of the many great and sometimes controversial speakers and professors who grappled with and educated me appears on my diploma. However, the name "Dennis Dease" does.
I believe that the reputation and comportment of a university follow degree recipients long after they've graduated. This is why I mailed my diploma back to Dease, stamped "return to sender."
That Dease has now changed his mind in the face of public protest matters not. The pressure to deny relevant venue to controversial thinkers is spreading across American campuses, and both students and graduates need to be vigilant. Dease can keep the diploma.
Grant F. Smith is the director of research at IRmep, a Washington-based nonprofit that studies U.S. policy formulation toward the Middle East.
US, Iraq negotiate Blackwater expulsion.
This is from USAdaily.
I am rather surprised that the US seems to be giving in partly to the Iraqi government although it will take six months to get Blackwater out; also, it seems that Blackwater is just being taken over within Iraq by another private contractor Dyncorp including the staff of Blackwater. Maybe Blackwater can just let a sub-contract to Dyncorp!
US, Iraq Negotiate Blackwater Explusion Published 10/14/2007 - 1:57 p.m. EDT
(AP) By STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
Associated Press Writers
U.S. and Iraqi officials are negotiating Baghdad's demand that security company Blackwater USA be expelled from the country within six months, and American diplomats appear to be working on how to fill the security gap if the company is phased out.
The talks about Blackwater's future in Iraq flow from recommendations in an Iraqi government report on the incident Sept. 16 when, Iraqi officials determined, Blackwater guards opened fire without provocation in Baghdad's Nisoor Square and killed 17 Iraqi citizens.
The Iraqi investigators issued five recommendations to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which has since sent them to the U.S. Embassy as demands for action.
Point No. 2 in the report says:
"The Iraqi government should demand that the United States stops using the services of Blackwater in Iraqi within six months and replace it with a new, more disciplined organization that would be answerable to Iraqi laws."
Sami al-Askari, a top aide to al-Maliki, said that point in the Iraqi list of demands was nonnegotiable.
"I believe the government has been clear. There have been attacks on the lives of Iraqi citizens on the part of that company (Blackwater). It must be expelled. The government has given six months for its expulsion and it's left to the U.S. Embassy to determine with Blackwater when to terminate the contract. The American administration must find another company," he told AP.
In talks between American diplomats and the al-Maliki government, al-Askari said, the U.S. side was not "insisting on Blackwater staying." He was the only Iraqi or American official who would allow use of his name, others said information they gave was too sensitive.
Al-Askari said the Americans have been told that another demand, Blackwater payment of $8 million compensation for each victim, was negotiable.
"With the investigations and reviews ongoing, it would be clearly premature to say that any definitive determinations have been made about the future of the Blackwater contract," a senior U.S. official in Baghdad said.
Another diplomat, speaking privately, said he did not see how the State Department could insist on keeping Blackwater in place given how "tainted" it had become after the Sept. 16 incident and several others.
In an interview to be broadcast Monday on PBS, Charlie Rose asked Blackwater chief Erik Prince about the issue.
"We'll do what we're told and, you know, make the transition as smooth as possible," Prince said.
A Shiite lawmaker who sits on parliament's security and defense committee said al-Maliki has complained that the United States embassy had not briefed the Iraqis on what was learned when Blackwater guards were questioned.
He said two Iraqi security officials were briefly allowed to sit in as observers on two questioning sessions of the Blackwater guards.
One American diplomat said he did not see how the State Department could insist on keeping Blackwater in place given how "tainted" it had become after the Sept. 16 incident and several others.
The Iraqi government investigative report said Blackwater guards had killed 21 other Iraqi citizens and wounded 27 in a total of seven previous incidents, including a shooting by a drunk Blackwater employee after a 2006 Christmas party. Congress is investigating where the government is relies too heavily on private contractors who fall outside the military courts martial system.
While the Blackwater name may be removed from security operations surrounding U.S. diplomats in Iraq, American officials and members of the security community in Baghdad said the company's men and other assets in Iraq would likely be taken over by one of the many security companies currently working in Iraq.
They said DynCorp, which already has security contracts with the State Deparment to guard officials working outside Baghdad, appeared poised to take over the Blackwater role.
Under the terms of the department's Worldwide Personal Protective Security contract, which covers privately contracted guards for diplomats in Iraq, Blackwater, Dyncorp and Triple Canopy are the only three companies eligible to bid on specific task orders there. Dyncorp and Triple Canopy are both based in Washington's northern Virginia suburbs. Blackwater works from a huge complex in Moyock, N.C.
While DynCorp and Triple Canopy already work in Iraq, neither company is believed to have the infrastructure in place to take over Blackwater's responsibilities in the six-month period demanded by the al-Maliki government.
The FBI has taken over an investigation of the Sept. 16 shooting and questioned Iraqi witnesses to the shooting Saturday at the Iraqi National Police headquarters about 500 yards from Nisoor Square.
Prince says reports he has indicated one of the four Blackwater gun trucks involved in the shooting came under fire. He said the company reports say the truck had bullet pockmarks and damaged badly enough that it had to be towed. No other witness, those interviewed by AP or Iraqi government investigators, told of gunfire on the Blackwater vehicles or of one being towed.
Other witnesses said Blackwater helicopters arrived over the square during the shooting and opened fire.
One of them was 20-year-old Ahmed Abdul-Timan, who works as a guard at the tunnel that runs under the square. He told AP that the initial U.S. investigative team tried to intimidate him into changing his story about the helicopters firing. He said the interrogation lasted three hours.
"Four or five days after the incident," Abdul-Timan said, "there was a second investigation but the questioning was done by a U.S. Army major. It was much easier. They videotaped what I said, took my phone number and address. The major tried to comfort us, saying he and his men love the Iraqi people and want to help them."
Abdul-Timan's account squares with others that indicated the first investigation by State Department personnel appeared to be an attempt to vindicate the Blackwater guards. The U.S. military conducted the second investigation and was more sympathetic.
Estimates of the number of private security workers in Iraq have fluctuated greatly. In June 2006 the U.S. Government Accountability Office said there were 181 security companies with 48,000 employees in Iraq. The more recent Congressional Research Service report said there were as many as 30,000 security workers
I am rather surprised that the US seems to be giving in partly to the Iraqi government although it will take six months to get Blackwater out; also, it seems that Blackwater is just being taken over within Iraq by another private contractor Dyncorp including the staff of Blackwater. Maybe Blackwater can just let a sub-contract to Dyncorp!
US, Iraq Negotiate Blackwater Explusion Published 10/14/2007 - 1:57 p.m. EDT
(AP) By STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
Associated Press Writers
U.S. and Iraqi officials are negotiating Baghdad's demand that security company Blackwater USA be expelled from the country within six months, and American diplomats appear to be working on how to fill the security gap if the company is phased out.
The talks about Blackwater's future in Iraq flow from recommendations in an Iraqi government report on the incident Sept. 16 when, Iraqi officials determined, Blackwater guards opened fire without provocation in Baghdad's Nisoor Square and killed 17 Iraqi citizens.
The Iraqi investigators issued five recommendations to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which has since sent them to the U.S. Embassy as demands for action.
Point No. 2 in the report says:
"The Iraqi government should demand that the United States stops using the services of Blackwater in Iraqi within six months and replace it with a new, more disciplined organization that would be answerable to Iraqi laws."
Sami al-Askari, a top aide to al-Maliki, said that point in the Iraqi list of demands was nonnegotiable.
"I believe the government has been clear. There have been attacks on the lives of Iraqi citizens on the part of that company (Blackwater). It must be expelled. The government has given six months for its expulsion and it's left to the U.S. Embassy to determine with Blackwater when to terminate the contract. The American administration must find another company," he told AP.
In talks between American diplomats and the al-Maliki government, al-Askari said, the U.S. side was not "insisting on Blackwater staying." He was the only Iraqi or American official who would allow use of his name, others said information they gave was too sensitive.
Al-Askari said the Americans have been told that another demand, Blackwater payment of $8 million compensation for each victim, was negotiable.
"With the investigations and reviews ongoing, it would be clearly premature to say that any definitive determinations have been made about the future of the Blackwater contract," a senior U.S. official in Baghdad said.
Another diplomat, speaking privately, said he did not see how the State Department could insist on keeping Blackwater in place given how "tainted" it had become after the Sept. 16 incident and several others.
In an interview to be broadcast Monday on PBS, Charlie Rose asked Blackwater chief Erik Prince about the issue.
"We'll do what we're told and, you know, make the transition as smooth as possible," Prince said.
A Shiite lawmaker who sits on parliament's security and defense committee said al-Maliki has complained that the United States embassy had not briefed the Iraqis on what was learned when Blackwater guards were questioned.
He said two Iraqi security officials were briefly allowed to sit in as observers on two questioning sessions of the Blackwater guards.
One American diplomat said he did not see how the State Department could insist on keeping Blackwater in place given how "tainted" it had become after the Sept. 16 incident and several others.
The Iraqi government investigative report said Blackwater guards had killed 21 other Iraqi citizens and wounded 27 in a total of seven previous incidents, including a shooting by a drunk Blackwater employee after a 2006 Christmas party. Congress is investigating where the government is relies too heavily on private contractors who fall outside the military courts martial system.
While the Blackwater name may be removed from security operations surrounding U.S. diplomats in Iraq, American officials and members of the security community in Baghdad said the company's men and other assets in Iraq would likely be taken over by one of the many security companies currently working in Iraq.
They said DynCorp, which already has security contracts with the State Deparment to guard officials working outside Baghdad, appeared poised to take over the Blackwater role.
Under the terms of the department's Worldwide Personal Protective Security contract, which covers privately contracted guards for diplomats in Iraq, Blackwater, Dyncorp and Triple Canopy are the only three companies eligible to bid on specific task orders there. Dyncorp and Triple Canopy are both based in Washington's northern Virginia suburbs. Blackwater works from a huge complex in Moyock, N.C.
While DynCorp and Triple Canopy already work in Iraq, neither company is believed to have the infrastructure in place to take over Blackwater's responsibilities in the six-month period demanded by the al-Maliki government.
The FBI has taken over an investigation of the Sept. 16 shooting and questioned Iraqi witnesses to the shooting Saturday at the Iraqi National Police headquarters about 500 yards from Nisoor Square.
Prince says reports he has indicated one of the four Blackwater gun trucks involved in the shooting came under fire. He said the company reports say the truck had bullet pockmarks and damaged badly enough that it had to be towed. No other witness, those interviewed by AP or Iraqi government investigators, told of gunfire on the Blackwater vehicles or of one being towed.
Other witnesses said Blackwater helicopters arrived over the square during the shooting and opened fire.
One of them was 20-year-old Ahmed Abdul-Timan, who works as a guard at the tunnel that runs under the square. He told AP that the initial U.S. investigative team tried to intimidate him into changing his story about the helicopters firing. He said the interrogation lasted three hours.
"Four or five days after the incident," Abdul-Timan said, "there was a second investigation but the questioning was done by a U.S. Army major. It was much easier. They videotaped what I said, took my phone number and address. The major tried to comfort us, saying he and his men love the Iraqi people and want to help them."
Abdul-Timan's account squares with others that indicated the first investigation by State Department personnel appeared to be an attempt to vindicate the Blackwater guards. The U.S. military conducted the second investigation and was more sympathetic.
Estimates of the number of private security workers in Iraq have fluctuated greatly. In June 2006 the U.S. Government Accountability Office said there were 181 security companies with 48,000 employees in Iraq. The more recent Congressional Research Service report said there were as many as 30,000 security workers
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Robotic Dragonflies
Given that there were several independent descriptions that are consistent it does seem possible or even probable that the sightings were of some experimental insect spy. Anyway it seems that in time the bugs will be there to be seen unless they can make them invisible somehow!
Dragonfly or Insect Spy? Scientists at Work on Robobugs.
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 9, 2007; A03
Vanessa Alarcon saw them while working at an antiwar rally in Lafayette Square last month.
"I heard someone say, 'Oh my god, look at those,' " the college senior from New York recalled. "I look up and I'm like, 'What the hell is that?' They looked kind of like dragonflies or little helicopters. But I mean, those are not insects."
Out in the crowd, Bernard Crane saw them, too.
"I'd never seen anything like it in my life," the Washington lawyer said. "They were large for dragonflies. I thought, 'Is that mechanical, or is that alive?' "
That is just one of the questions hovering over a handful of similar sightings at political events in Washington and New York. Some suspect the insectlike drones are high-tech surveillance tools, perhaps deployed by the Department of Homeland Security.
Others think they are, well, dragonflies -- an ancient order of insects that even biologists concede look about as robotic as a living creature can look.
No agency admits to having deployed insect-size spy drones. But a number of U.S. government and private entities acknowledge they are trying. Some federally funded teams are even growing live insects with computer chips in them, with the goal of mounting spyware on their bodies and controlling their flight muscles remotely.
The robobugs could follow suspects, guide missiles to targets or navigate the crannies of collapsed buildings to find survivors.
The technical challenges of creating robotic insects are daunting, and most experts doubt that fully working models exist yet.
"If you find something, let me know," said Gary Anderson of the Defense Department's Rapid Reaction Technology Office.
But the CIA secretly developed a simple dragonfly snooper as long ago as the 1970s. And given recent advances, even skeptics say there is always a chance that some agency has quietly managed to make something operational.
"America can be pretty sneaky," said Tom Ehrhard, a retired Air Force colonel and expert in unmanned aerial vehicles who is now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonprofit Washington-based research institute.
Robotic fliers have been used by the military since World War II, but in the past decade their numbers and level of sophistication have increased enormously. Defense Department documents describe nearly 100 different models in use today, some as tiny as birds, and some the size of small planes.
All told, the nation's fleet of flying robots logged more than 160,000 flight hours last year -- a more than fourfold increase since 2003. A recent report by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College warned that if traffic rules are not clarified soon, the glut of unmanned vehicles "could render military airspace chaotic and potentially dangerous."
But getting from bird size to bug size is not a simple matter of making everything smaller.
"You can't make a conventional robot of metal and ball bearings and just shrink the design down," said Ronald Fearing, a roboticist at the University of California at Berkeley. For one thing, the rules of aerodynamics change at very tiny scales and require wings that flap in precise ways -- a huge engineering challenge.
Only recently have scientists come to understand how insects fly -- a biomechanical feat that, despite the evidence before scientists' eyes, was for decades deemed "theoretically impossible." Just last month, researchers at Cornell University published a physics paper clarifying how dragonflies adjust the relative motions of their front and rear wings to save energy while hovering.
That kind of finding is important to roboticists because flapping fliers tend to be energy hogs, and batteries are heavy.
The CIA was among the earliest to tackle the problem. The "insectothopter," developed by the agency's Office of Research and Development 30 years ago, looked just like a dragonfly and contained a tiny gasoline engine to make the four wings flap. It flew but was ultimately declared a failure because it could not handle crosswinds.
Agency spokesman George Little said he could not talk about what the CIA may have done since then. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security and the Secret Service also declined to discuss the topic.
Only the FBI offered a declarative denial. "We don't have anything like that," a spokesman said.
The Defense Department is trying, though.
In one approach, researchers funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) are inserting computer chips into moth pupae -- the intermediate stage between a caterpillar and a flying adult -- and hatching them into healthy "cyborg moths."
The Hybrid Insect Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems project aims to create literal shutterbugs -- camera-toting insects whose nerves have grown into their internal silicon chip so that wranglers can control their activities. DARPA researchers are also raising cyborg beetles with power for various instruments to be generated by their muscles.
"You might recall that Gandalf the friendly wizard in the recent classic 'Lord of the Rings' used a moth to call in air support," DARPA program manager Amit Lal said at a symposium in August. Today, he said, "this science fiction vision is within the realm of reality."
A DARPA spokeswoman denied a reporter's request to interview Lal or others on the project.
The cyborg insect project has its share of doubters.
"I'll be seriously dead before that program deploys," said vice admiral Joe Dyer, former commander of the Naval Air Systems Command, now at iRobot in Burlington, Mass., which makes household and military robots.
By contrast, fully mechanical micro-fliers are advancing quickly.
Researchers at the California Institute of Technology have made a "microbat ornithopter" that flies freely and fits in the palm of one's hand. A Vanderbilt University team has made a similar device.
With their sail-like wings, neither of those would be mistaken for insects. In July, however, a Harvard University team got a truly fly-like robot airborne, its synthetic wings buzzing at 120 beats per second.
"It showed that we can manufacture the articulated, high-speed structures that you need to re-create the complex wing motions that insects produce," said team leader Robert Wood.
The fly's vanishingly thin materials were machined with lasers, then folded into three-dimensional form "like a micro-origami," he said. Alternating electric fields make the wings flap. The whole thing weighs just 65 milligrams, or a little more than the plastic head of a push pin.
Still, it can fly only while attached to a threadlike tether that supplies power, evidence that significant hurdles remain.
In August, at the International Symposium on Flying Insects and Robots, held in Switzerland, Japanese researchers introduced radio-controlled fliers with four-inch wingspans that resemble hawk moths. Those who watch them fly, its creator wrote in the program, "feel something of 'living souls.' "
Others, taking a tip from the CIA, are making fliers that run on chemical fuels instead of batteries. The "entomopter," in early stages of development at the Georgia Institute of Technology and resembling a toy plane more than a bug, converts liquid fuel into a hot gas, which powers four flapping wings and ancillary equipment.
"You can get more energy out of a drop of gasoline than out of a battery the size of a drop of gasoline," said team leader Robert Michelson.
Even if the technical hurdles are overcome, insect-size fliers will always be risky investments.
"They can get eaten by a bird, they can get caught in a spider web," said Fearing of Berkeley. "No matter how smart you are -- you can put a Pentium in there -- if a bird comes at you at 30 miles per hour there's nothing you can do about it."
Protesters might even nab one with a net -- one of many reasons why Ehrhard, the former Air Force colonel, and other experts said they doubted that the hovering bugs spotted in Washington were spies.
So what was seen by Crane, Alarcon and a handful of others at the D.C. march -- and as far back as 2004, during the Republican National Convention in New York, when one observant but perhaps paranoid peace-march participant described on the Web "a jet-black dragonfly hovering about 10 feet off the ground, precisely in the middle of 7th avenue . . . watching us"?
They probably saw dragonflies, said Jerry Louton, an entomologist at the National Museum of Natural History. Washington is home to some large, spectacularly adorned dragonflies that "can knock your socks off," he said.
At the same time, he added, some details do not make sense. Three people at the D.C. event independently described a row of spheres, the size of small berries, attached along the tails of the big dragonflies -- an accoutrement that Louton could not explain. And all reported seeing at least three maneuvering in unison.
"Dragonflies never fly in a pack," he said.
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice said her group is investigating witness reports and has filed Freedom of Information Act requests with several federal agencies. If such devices are being used to spy on political activists, she said, "it would be a significant violation of people's c
Dragonfly or Insect Spy? Scientists at Work on Robobugs.
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 9, 2007; A03
Vanessa Alarcon saw them while working at an antiwar rally in Lafayette Square last month.
"I heard someone say, 'Oh my god, look at those,' " the college senior from New York recalled. "I look up and I'm like, 'What the hell is that?' They looked kind of like dragonflies or little helicopters. But I mean, those are not insects."
Out in the crowd, Bernard Crane saw them, too.
"I'd never seen anything like it in my life," the Washington lawyer said. "They were large for dragonflies. I thought, 'Is that mechanical, or is that alive?' "
That is just one of the questions hovering over a handful of similar sightings at political events in Washington and New York. Some suspect the insectlike drones are high-tech surveillance tools, perhaps deployed by the Department of Homeland Security.
Others think they are, well, dragonflies -- an ancient order of insects that even biologists concede look about as robotic as a living creature can look.
No agency admits to having deployed insect-size spy drones. But a number of U.S. government and private entities acknowledge they are trying. Some federally funded teams are even growing live insects with computer chips in them, with the goal of mounting spyware on their bodies and controlling their flight muscles remotely.
The robobugs could follow suspects, guide missiles to targets or navigate the crannies of collapsed buildings to find survivors.
The technical challenges of creating robotic insects are daunting, and most experts doubt that fully working models exist yet.
"If you find something, let me know," said Gary Anderson of the Defense Department's Rapid Reaction Technology Office.
But the CIA secretly developed a simple dragonfly snooper as long ago as the 1970s. And given recent advances, even skeptics say there is always a chance that some agency has quietly managed to make something operational.
"America can be pretty sneaky," said Tom Ehrhard, a retired Air Force colonel and expert in unmanned aerial vehicles who is now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonprofit Washington-based research institute.
Robotic fliers have been used by the military since World War II, but in the past decade their numbers and level of sophistication have increased enormously. Defense Department documents describe nearly 100 different models in use today, some as tiny as birds, and some the size of small planes.
All told, the nation's fleet of flying robots logged more than 160,000 flight hours last year -- a more than fourfold increase since 2003. A recent report by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College warned that if traffic rules are not clarified soon, the glut of unmanned vehicles "could render military airspace chaotic and potentially dangerous."
But getting from bird size to bug size is not a simple matter of making everything smaller.
"You can't make a conventional robot of metal and ball bearings and just shrink the design down," said Ronald Fearing, a roboticist at the University of California at Berkeley. For one thing, the rules of aerodynamics change at very tiny scales and require wings that flap in precise ways -- a huge engineering challenge.
Only recently have scientists come to understand how insects fly -- a biomechanical feat that, despite the evidence before scientists' eyes, was for decades deemed "theoretically impossible." Just last month, researchers at Cornell University published a physics paper clarifying how dragonflies adjust the relative motions of their front and rear wings to save energy while hovering.
That kind of finding is important to roboticists because flapping fliers tend to be energy hogs, and batteries are heavy.
The CIA was among the earliest to tackle the problem. The "insectothopter," developed by the agency's Office of Research and Development 30 years ago, looked just like a dragonfly and contained a tiny gasoline engine to make the four wings flap. It flew but was ultimately declared a failure because it could not handle crosswinds.
Agency spokesman George Little said he could not talk about what the CIA may have done since then. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security and the Secret Service also declined to discuss the topic.
Only the FBI offered a declarative denial. "We don't have anything like that," a spokesman said.
The Defense Department is trying, though.
In one approach, researchers funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) are inserting computer chips into moth pupae -- the intermediate stage between a caterpillar and a flying adult -- and hatching them into healthy "cyborg moths."
The Hybrid Insect Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems project aims to create literal shutterbugs -- camera-toting insects whose nerves have grown into their internal silicon chip so that wranglers can control their activities. DARPA researchers are also raising cyborg beetles with power for various instruments to be generated by their muscles.
"You might recall that Gandalf the friendly wizard in the recent classic 'Lord of the Rings' used a moth to call in air support," DARPA program manager Amit Lal said at a symposium in August. Today, he said, "this science fiction vision is within the realm of reality."
A DARPA spokeswoman denied a reporter's request to interview Lal or others on the project.
The cyborg insect project has its share of doubters.
"I'll be seriously dead before that program deploys," said vice admiral Joe Dyer, former commander of the Naval Air Systems Command, now at iRobot in Burlington, Mass., which makes household and military robots.
By contrast, fully mechanical micro-fliers are advancing quickly.
Researchers at the California Institute of Technology have made a "microbat ornithopter" that flies freely and fits in the palm of one's hand. A Vanderbilt University team has made a similar device.
With their sail-like wings, neither of those would be mistaken for insects. In July, however, a Harvard University team got a truly fly-like robot airborne, its synthetic wings buzzing at 120 beats per second.
"It showed that we can manufacture the articulated, high-speed structures that you need to re-create the complex wing motions that insects produce," said team leader Robert Wood.
The fly's vanishingly thin materials were machined with lasers, then folded into three-dimensional form "like a micro-origami," he said. Alternating electric fields make the wings flap. The whole thing weighs just 65 milligrams, or a little more than the plastic head of a push pin.
Still, it can fly only while attached to a threadlike tether that supplies power, evidence that significant hurdles remain.
In August, at the International Symposium on Flying Insects and Robots, held in Switzerland, Japanese researchers introduced radio-controlled fliers with four-inch wingspans that resemble hawk moths. Those who watch them fly, its creator wrote in the program, "feel something of 'living souls.' "
Others, taking a tip from the CIA, are making fliers that run on chemical fuels instead of batteries. The "entomopter," in early stages of development at the Georgia Institute of Technology and resembling a toy plane more than a bug, converts liquid fuel into a hot gas, which powers four flapping wings and ancillary equipment.
"You can get more energy out of a drop of gasoline than out of a battery the size of a drop of gasoline," said team leader Robert Michelson.
Even if the technical hurdles are overcome, insect-size fliers will always be risky investments.
"They can get eaten by a bird, they can get caught in a spider web," said Fearing of Berkeley. "No matter how smart you are -- you can put a Pentium in there -- if a bird comes at you at 30 miles per hour there's nothing you can do about it."
Protesters might even nab one with a net -- one of many reasons why Ehrhard, the former Air Force colonel, and other experts said they doubted that the hovering bugs spotted in Washington were spies.
So what was seen by Crane, Alarcon and a handful of others at the D.C. march -- and as far back as 2004, during the Republican National Convention in New York, when one observant but perhaps paranoid peace-march participant described on the Web "a jet-black dragonfly hovering about 10 feet off the ground, precisely in the middle of 7th avenue . . . watching us"?
They probably saw dragonflies, said Jerry Louton, an entomologist at the National Museum of Natural History. Washington is home to some large, spectacularly adorned dragonflies that "can knock your socks off," he said.
At the same time, he added, some details do not make sense. Three people at the D.C. event independently described a row of spheres, the size of small berries, attached along the tails of the big dragonflies -- an accoutrement that Louton could not explain. And all reported seeing at least three maneuvering in unison.
"Dragonflies never fly in a pack," he said.
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice said her group is investigating witness reports and has filed Freedom of Information Act requests with several federal agencies. If such devices are being used to spy on political activists, she said, "it would be a significant violation of people's c