|
The Voice of the
White House
Washington
,
D.C.
,
February 28, 2008
: “The New York Times is now full of all kinds of idiot stories
about the fictional Holocaust. This must be in advance of the new
legislation being proposed to have Bush declare a National Day of
Atonement wherein all Americans will have the chance to reflect on
the Great Sufferings of the Jewish People. We now see references to
Anne Frank Diaries which is pathetic since the German government
proclaimed these famous tear jerkers as stone fakes some years ago
and of course the new German comic book designed to “sensitize”
German school children to the evil ways of their fathers. I wonder
why no one ever talks about the Great Armenian Holocaust of 1916?
Many, many more Christian Armenians were butchered by the Muslim
Turks than Jews died during WW II but we never see any mention of
this well-proven slaughter. Why? Because
Israel
is friendly with the Turks who do not want anyone daring to mention
their nastiness and since the Jews own all the media in
America
today, we see nothing. Of course the newspapers are a dying
institution; everyone gets their news from the internet and no one
can control the internet, not even the evil CIA or the AIPIAC, so
the National Day of Atonement, coming up soon, may help fill the
coffers of Our Best Ally.
If
you study the psychology of mass actions, you will note that the
public always seems to back the winner. Obama has a very good
political action team, a good deal more money than anyone else and
has established a very powerful forward momentum. The public does
not like a loser and note that Hillary has been losing ground, and
important delegates at an increasing rate.. If you are perceived as
successful, you will be successful. They way the candidates for the
Democratic nomination are being civilized with each other indicates
that a ticket with both of them is not an impossibility. Obama's
best asset, outside of himself, is his wife. Hillary's worst asset,
outside of herself, is her husband. Neither one of the
Clintons
likes to lose
and they show it. No grace under pressure.
Frantic
right-wing commentators, used to eight years of Karl Rove-type
malice, lies and innuendo, are getting very close to calling Obama a
nigger and if and when they do, they will discover that the black
community has not forgotten the ugliness of Katrina or many years of
social repression. I have known many very many far right, rich
Republicans and the words "kike" and "nigger"
are often used in what we would like to think would be the best
company.
When
one of my rich east coast establishment friends said, "My God,
you can't vote for that uppity coon!" my response was that I
would vote for the white half. He was not amused, but I was. “
There
will be major elections in
Russia
coming up. It doesn’t take a Harvard graduate to detect great
official anger in the
United States
, directred against Vladimir Putin. Is predecessor, Boris Yeltsin,
was a drunk and in the pay of the U.S. Putin, a former colonel in
the KGB, took over from Boris and began methodically to either stop
the sale of
Russia
’s immense oil and gas fields or, if contracts had been let to
eager western oil companies, cancel them. The so-called
‘Oligarchs’ were a group of exclusively Jewish Russian gangsters
who were conniving with the aforesaid oil companies. Putin not only
stopped this looting of Russia but he persecuted the Oligarchs,
driving most of them to safety in Israel (who never extradites any
Jew, regardless of the alleged crime involved) Not only were the oil
companies livid at their huge losses (they had shipped hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of new equipment to the Russian fields,
equipment which Putin simply took over and put to good use…for
Russia, not western oil interests.) and the Jewish business
community took a decidedly negative view of Putin and his actions.
This led directly to official anger in the White House and the
media. In fact, Vladimir Putin has done an excellent job in bringing
order to a chaotic
Russia
and, on a more direct note, brought huge sums of money into his
country, raising the standard of living to a high level. Now,
Russia
has staked out drilling areas in the
Arctic
, areas American oil interests are frantic to obtain. If the oil
companies are frantic, Bush obediently upbraids Putin and tries to
find some way to annoy him, such as missile sites being located in
Poland
. (Two are already in place as I write) The world in general, and
the
United States
in particular, would be far better off if God in His wisdom called
George W. Bush to His bosom.”
Russia’s Last Hope
February 29, 2008
by
Victor Erofeyv
New
York Times
Moscow-
If I recover from a bout of stomach illness by Sunday, I will cast
my ballot in
Russia
’s presidential election.
But there’s no need to rush to get well, because my vote will make
no difference.
There
was a day when it did seem that my vote mattered. In 1996, I found
myself in
Ireland
on Election Day and made a
huge effort to go to the embassy in
Dublin
and vote for Boris N.
Yeltsin, because I feared that the Communists could return to power
under his opponent, Gennadi A. Zyuganov, and I would again have
serious problems. Mr. Zyuganov is running for president again this
year, but I no longer fear him. He will lose.
This
not only reassures me, but also leads me to think about how
President Vladimir V. Putin, in his eight years in power, managed to
destroy Communism. He finished it off so brutally that it’s silly
to even think about the possibility of its return. Yet some people
outside
Russia
believe that Mr. Putin did
away with only the democrats, the liberal parties and the
independent news media. No, he also threw out power-seeking
oligarchs, who are very unpopular with the Russian people, and he
rid the country of chaos and instability, which, he tells us, were
rampant in the 1990s.
No
matter how you look at it, President Putin also brought order to
Chechnya
: at least they’re no
longer flying young Russian soldiers back in body bags every day.
And if television is offering more humorous programs and songs from
around the world instead of political discussions, people only
welcome this. As for opposition parties, the real ones, they
quarreled among themselves and became so indistinguishable in their
radical demands that the people, with President Putin’s help,
stopped taking note of them.
For
the majority of Russians, Mr. Putin will enter history as a positive
figure. That during his rule he actively relied on his K.G.B.
colleagues doesn’t bother a lot of people. Whom else should he
lean on in his struggle to impose order? He worked with the human
material that came to him from the depth of Russian history, people
who to this day drink, steal and consider politics a source of
personal power and enrichment. If Mr. Putin preferred not to be
trusting, it was because he clearly sensed the rot in the national
gene pool.
That
he went too far in some things, that he irritated
Europe
, that he was sometimes
vindictive — these are separate matters. His friends in the K.G.B.
were raised on hatred for the West. Now, at least, they limit
themselves for the most part to negative rhetoric about the West. So
there is progress. Mr. Putin gave his people faith in tomorrow:
It’s no accident that
Russia
today is full of packed
restaurants, game parlors, casinos, discothčques, cars and books
about everything from Buddhism to homosexuality. Mr. Putin was lucky
all eight of his years in office: oil prices rose,
Russia
grew rich and life became
good. Private life remains remarkably free.
His
biggest mistake was his longing to make
Russia
the successor to the
Soviet Union
: this gave rise to the
imperial discourse that so frightened neighboring countries, his
defense of the
Soviet Union
’s aggressive foreign
policy and the damage to
Russia
’s image in the world.
What’s worse is that our next president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, whom
President Putin chose as his heir as if he were a czar, will have to
deal with the Russian weaknesses that were hidden from the
population under propaganda slogans. The failure to modernize
industry or agriculture, the growing corruption in government, the
ubiquitous drunkenness, the record numbers of murders and suicides,
the terrible state of Russian health care and the problems that come
with a shrinking population will fall on Mr. Medvedev’s young
shoulders.
Nobody,
probably not even President Putin, knows Mr. Medvedev’s real goals
and values. He was never a public politician — though the talk on
the street, not shared by dissidents, makes him out to be liberal,
cultured, moderate and even pro-Western. As a young man he fought
for democracy on the side of the future mayor of
St. Petersburg
, Anatoly Sobchak, and he
was never noted for professional connections to the secret services.
Yet his close ties to his current chief speak, at least, to
limitless patience and self-limitation.
Whether
Mr. Medvedev emerges as a new Khrushchev, ready for an ideological
thaw, or a new Gorbachev, who also came to office without his own
team, is impossible to say. Mr. Putin has not died, as Stalin and a
series of aged Communist leaders did when they gave up power. He is
there, smilingly holding Mr. Medvedev by the hand. The king is not
dead, and it is too early to shout: “Long live the new king!”
Once
again the future of
Russia
is wide open and
unpredictable. Will there be dual rule? Will there be confrontation
between two leaders or will they peacefully coexist? Might Dmitri
Medvedev disappear along the way, leaving power once again to
Vladimir Vladimirovich? I have no answers. But I will say this: For
better or for worse, Mr. Medvedev is the last hope for me and for
the
Russia
I love. If he proves to be
a false figure of history, then
Russia
, no matter how hard it
tries to look like a superpower, will sink to the depths like that
submarine
Kursk
. Dmitri Anatolevich, the
choice is yours.
Victor
Erofeyev is the author of the short-story collection “Life With an
Idiot.” This article was translated by The International Herald
Tribune from the Russian.
SECRECY
NEWS
from
the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume
2008, Issue No. 21
February 28,
2008
NBC
WEAPONS AND MISSILES, AND MORE FROM CRS
Noteworthy
new publications from the Congressional Research Service include the
following.
"Nuclear,
Biological, and Chemical Weapons and Missiles: Status and
Trends," updated
February 20,
2008
:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL30699.pdf
"Water
Infrastructure Needs and Investment: Review and Analysis of Key
Issues," updated
January 23,
2008
:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31116.pdf
"Russian
Energy Policy toward Neighboring Countries," updated
January 17,
2008
:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34261.pdf
"North
American Oil Sands: History of Development, Prospects for the
Future," updated
January 17,
2008
:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34258.pdf
PRESERVATION
OF
IRAQ
WAR RECORDS,
AND MORE DOD DOCTRINE
The
Joint Chiefs of Staff recently reaffirmed the requirement to
preserve historically valuable records pertaining to the Iraq
War.
"Operations
ENDURING FREEDOM and NOBLE EAGLE and current operations pertaining
to
Iraq
are a
prominent part of American and world history. It is important that
we preserve the historical records of these continuing operations
and we obtain information and lessons that can be applied in
planning, shaping, and implementing our national defense in the
future."
See
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Notice 5760, Preservation of
Historical Records of Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle
and Pertaining to
Iraq
,
7 September
2006
, current as
of
31 January
2008
:
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/cjcsn5760.pdf
A
new Army Regulation defines policies and procedures governing
military civilians who are engaged in human intelligence and
counterintelligence activities. See Army Regulation 690-950-4,
"Military Intelligence Civilian Excepted Career Program,"
20 February
2008
:
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar690-950-4.pdf
A
revised new Army Field Manual 3-0 on "Operations" has not
yet been released. But the Defense Department has released revised
doctrine on Joint Operations. See Joint Publication 3-0, change 1,
13 February
2008
:
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_0.pdf
HOUSE
REPUBLICAN BLASTS BUSH ADMINISTRATION "STONEWALLING"
"The
disdain and uncooperative nature that this administration has shown
toward Congress... is so egregious that I can no longer assume that
it is simply bureaucratic incompetence or isolated mistakes.
Rather,
I have come to the sad conclusion that this administration has
intentionally obstructed Congress' rightful and constitutional
duties."
That
rather damning criticism comes not from a liberal opponent of the
Bush Administration, but from one of its most right-wing supporters
in Congress, California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher.
"This
administration is setting a terrible precedent. What people have to
understand... is when there is a liberal Democrat in the White
House, the President will have set [the precedent] that Members of
Congress
can simply be dismissed, and that when they are trying to do a
congressional investigation need not be cooperated with, in fact,
can be obstructed. Is that the type of President that we want? Is
that acceptable? It shouldn't be acceptable to Democrats and it
shouldn't be acceptable to Republicans," he said on the House
floor on February 26.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/rohr022608.html
Rep.
Rohrabacher described a series of incidents in which the Bush
Administration blocked congressional initiatives or failed to meet
his expectations. Some of the offenses described, like the failure
to administer a polygraph to former national security advisor Samuel
R. Berger concerning his theft of documents from the National
Archives, seem idiosyncratic or otherwise questionable. But the
Congressman's outrage appears genuine enough.
"It
is truly with a heavy heart, Madam Speaker, that I stand here
reciting example after example of the maliciousness and
condescending attitude exhibited by this administration. It is a
problem that's flowing from the top."
"When
I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle accusing this
administration of stonewalling, of coverups, or thwarting
investigations, I sadly must concur with them," Rep.
Rohrabacher concluded.
What
the Times
Didn’t Tell About McCain
February
27, 2008
by
Robert Scheer
TruthDig.com
As
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain twisted briefly
in the wind kicked up by that New York Times story suggesting he had
swapped political favors for the personal favors of an attractive
lobbyist for the telecommunications industry, I kept waiting for the
public policy punch line. Surely the Times would spell out just what
it was that McCain had delivered to big media beyond what the paper
originally reported: an all-too-typical congressional request that
the FCC speed up its review of a broadcast licensing dispute.
Vicki
Iseman, the lobbyist in question, is praised on her company’s Web
site for her “extensive experience in telecommunications,
representing corporations before the House and Senate Commerce
Committees,” and for “her work on the landmark 1992 and 1996
communications bills.” Now that’s a biggie, because the 1996
legislation, although you would never have learned this from the
mainstream media at the time, opened the floodgates for massive
media consolidation, thus rewarding media moguls for their many
millions in campaign contributions. McCain was a big player on that
Commerce Committee at the time, and I expected a Times revelation as
to just how Iseman got McCain to help gift the media barons with
their dream legislation.
The
revelation never came, because the annoying reality is that McCain
was one of the rare Senate opponents of the telecom bill that Iseman
was pushing-as opposed to The New York Times, which like every other
major media outlet pushed for the legislation (in the case of the
Times, without ever conceding its own corporation’s financial bias
in the matter). McCain was one of five senators (and the sole
Republican) who, along with Democrats Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy,
Paul Simon and the great Paul Wellstone, voted against the atrocious
legislation, which President Bill Clinton signed into law.
The
Times, which now has the temerity to question McCain’s integrity
on telecommunications policy, ran a shameful editorial back then,
under the headline “A Victory for Viewers,” insisting after the
passage of the legislation that “there was one clear winner-the
consumer.” Seven years later, the paper’s “Editorial
Observer,” Brent Staples, bemoaned one direct consequence of the
passage of the Telecom Act, under the title “The Trouble with
Corporate Radio: The Day the Protest Music Died.” Noting that
“corporate ownership has changed what gets played-and who plays
it,” Staples observed that the top two radio owners went from
having a total of 115 stations before the act was passed to 1,400
between them afterward.
This
concentration of ownership in all media was the inevitable result of
the legislation that the media moguls sought. That far-reaching
impact was obvious only one year after the act’s passage, as Neil
Hickey noted at the time in the Columbia Journalism Review: ” …
far and away the splashiest effect of the new law during the last
year has been the historic, unprecedented torrent of mergers,
consolidations, buyouts, partnerships, and joint ventures that has
changed the face of Big Media in America.” He then offers a
staggering list of massive multibillion-dollar mergers consummated
during that first year.
One
of the early winners was Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., which
quickly became the biggest owner oftelevision stations, bolstering
its lineup of media properties such as TV Guide, HarperCollins and
Twentieth Century Fox; quite a gift from legislation signed by
President Clinton, which perhaps explains the warm relationship that
subsequently developed between Murdoch and Hillary Clinton. Murdoch
sponsored a fundraiser for
Clinton
’s senatorial re-election
campaign in 2006, but when asked during the
Iowa
primary about Murdoch’s
vast media holdings, including Fox News, the New York Post and The
Wall Street Journal, Clinton ducked the question. Avoiding any
reference to Murdoch, she conceded that “… there have been a lot
of media consolidations in the last several years, and it is quite
troubling.”
It’s
not easy to maintain an evenhanded appraisal of McCain as he
appropriates the Bush mantle. Of course, I wouldn’t vote for him;
he is willing to let the Iraq war go on for a hundred years, and at
the rate of at least $200 billion a year, that makes a mockery of
his efforts to defeat earmarks and other wasteful government
spending-beginning with the massive waste in the Pentagon budget
that he has done so much to expose. His capitulation on President
Bush’s use of torture is even more appalling. But it is absurd to
attempt to pigeonhole McCain as a patsy for corporate lobbyists when
he has been in the forefront of key efforts to challenge their
power.
Robert
Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com
and a regular columnist for The
San
Francisco
Chronicle.
Army:
Service must cut combat tours
February
26, 2008
by Anne Flaherty
Associated Press
WASHINGTON
- Top Army officials told a Senate panel
on Tuesday that the Army is under serious strain and must reduce the
length of combat tours as soon as possible.
"The
cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our
Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do
the things we know we need to do to properly sustain our
all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain
future," said Gen. George Casey, chief of staff of the Army.
Casey told the Senate
Armed Services Committee that cutting the time soldiers spend
in combat is an integral part of reducing the stress on the force.
He said he
anticipates the service can cut combat tours from 15 months to 12
months this year, so long as the president reduces the number of
active-duty Army brigades in
Iraq
and
Afghanistan
to 15 units by July as planned.
However, the
number of soldiers retained under the service's "stop
loss" policy — which forces some soldiers to stay on beyond
their retirement or re-enlistment dates — is unlikely to be
reduced substantially.
"We are
consuming readiness now, as quickly as we're building it," said
Army Secretary Pete Geren, who also testified.
Geren also urged
Congress to pass a $100 billion war spending bill this spring,
contending that the Army will run out of money by July.
According to the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the Army could probably
last until August or September by transferring money from less
urgent accounts. Army officials counter that this approach is
inefficient and can cause major program disruptions.
The hearing came
as the Senate headed toward a vote on whether to cut off money for
the
Iraq
war within 120 days. The measure, by Sen.
Russ Feingold, D-Wis., was widely expected to fall short of
the 60 votes needed to pass.
Senate
Republican Leader Mitch
McConnell said the bill is a good chance for the Senate to go
on record again as refusing to cut off money for the war.
"All the
more so will we oppose it when the fight in
Iraq
, by all accounts, is showing clear-cut
tactical progress, and now, at last, some important political
progress is also being made," McConnell, R-Ky., said.
In recent
months, violence in
Iraq
has declined and the
Baghdad
government has made small steps toward
political reconciliation, including plans to hold provincial
elections on Oct. 1. While Democratic voters remain largely against
the war, the security improvement has helped to cool anxiety among
Republicans and stave off legislation demanding that troops start
coming home.
With Feingold's
bill almost assured to fail and lacking a veto-proof majority in
Congress even if such a proposal passed, Democrats are talking about
whether to shift their strategy. Instead of repeating losing votes
on legislation tying money to troop withdrawals, many party members
want to focus more on the policy issues surrounding
Iraq
, including the preparedness of
U.S.
troops and reining in private
contractors.
Another desire
by many Democrats is to tie the ailing economy to the war. A
coalition of anti-war groups said this week that it plans to spend
more than $20 million this year to convince voters that the
Republican party's support for the war is bad for their wallets.
Still, other
Democrats, including Feingold, D-Wis., say they want to pursue more
votes to end funding for the war.
According to
aides, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,
D-Nev., who co-sponsored Feingold's proposal, agreed to stage
Tuesday's vote in exchange for Feingold's earlier support of a
defense policy bill.
Anti-war
activists say they believe Americans are increasingly aware of the
economic burden that the
Iraq
war has caused. This election season,
they say, voters will blame Republicans for supporting the war at a
time of rising health care and college costs and in the midst of a
mortgage foreclosure crisis.
"Leaders
who do not recognize this connection will be at a disadvantage come
election day," said Jeff Blum, director of USAction, which
plans to spend $10 million this year on organizing a grass-roots
effort against Republican candidates.
MoveOn.org,
another anti-war group, says it will spend at least $5 million
targeting congressional seats, including Republican Sens. Susan
Collins of
Maine
, John Sununu
of
New Hampshire
, Norm Coleman
of
Minnesota
and McConnell of Kentucky.
Brad Woodhouse,
head of Americans United for Change, estimates his group will spend
about $8.5 million, focusing primarily on political advertisements.
"What Can
He Change?"
March 1, 2008
by
Immanuel Wallerstein
It
now seems highly probable, although not yet certain, that Barack
Obama will be the Democratic candidate for president. And it seems
highly probable that he would win a contest with John McCain. It
also seems almost certain that the Democratic majorities in both the
Senate and the House of Representatives will be enlarged. Thus, it
seems that Obama would enter office with a relatively strong mandate
from the voters.
If
one asks how Obama, who entered the race some six months ago as a
young and unlikely victor, has been able to achieve this, the answer
seems clear. He has emphasized the theme of "change" and
this theme seems to have resonated with the voters, including many
who have not voted before. Of course, change is an ambiguous term,
and its meaning varies according to those who embrace it. But it
seems that the theme of "change" responds to a high degree
of discomfort in the
United States
with the
present overall situation in the country and the world. The two
zones of maximum discomfort are the war in
Iraq
and the
state of the economy.
What
a majority of voters seems to be saying is that they think the war
in
Iraq
is a
quagmire, and that it was a mistake to have invaded the country. As
for the economy, the voters seem to be saying that their actual
standard of living has been going down and they are very afraid that
it will go down still further. So, basically, they are rejecting the
main lines of argument of the Bush regime, and are blaming it in
large part for their discomforts. What specific changes the voters
want seems less clear, but they want something.
Obama
has a second appeal beyond embracing the theme of change. It is a
question of style. He says he is willing to talk with anyone - with
presumed unfriendly forces internationally, with presumed allies
internationally, and with persons from all political factions
internally. This contrasts with Bush's repeated insistence that
there are all kinds of groups with whom the
United States
should never
"negotiate."
There
is a second kind of stylistic appeal of Obama. He says, over and
over, "Yes, we can!" This is a theme borrowed from the
legendary leader of Hispanic farm workers, Cesar Chavez, whose
slogan was "!Sí, se puede!" This theme appeals
particularly to all those who have felt marginalized in the
U.S.
political
system, and who find this theme one that empowers them.
So,
now that Obama seems so near to becoming president, there has begun
to be considerable discussion in the press, on the internet, and in
public debate about what kinds of changes Obama actually intends to
undertake. This seems to me the wrong question. The real question is
what kind of changes Obama can make, a quite different question.
Obama's
record is that of a liberal Democrat who opposed the
Iraq
war and
whose mode of action has always been left-of-center, sometimes
forcefully, sometimes very prudently. He certainly intends to bring
a different style to the White House. How radically different a
policy he intends to implement is far less clear. But even supposing
that he is more politically radical than he seems to be on the
surface, the question still remains, what can he do? Presidents of
the
United States
can
undoubtedly affect policy in important ways - George W. Bush has
proved that - but they are also prisoners of their office. It is
therefore worth reviewing what are the options in foreign policy, in
economic policy, and in that looser arena we might call cultural
policy.
In
foreign policy, the most immediate and overwhelming issue is the
Middle East - not only vis-ŕ-vis Iraq, but also vis-ŕ-vis
Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Israel/Palestine. Bush has worked
hard to bind the hands of his successor. But Bush has made the error
of thinking that
U.S.
policy in
the
Middle East
is primarily
in the hands of the
U.S.
government.
I do not think this is true any longer. There is a whirlwind of
forces in this region that are far beyond the limited power of the
United States
government
to channel their directions.
Anti-American
nationalism is slowly but surely gathering enormous steam in
Iraq
. The Taliban
are creeping back into de facto power in
Afghanistan
, and
threatening as a by-product to disrupt the functioning of NATO as an
international force. In
Pakistan
, it seems
that the
United States
is reduced
to praying quietly that its ever less popular friend, Pervez
Musharraf, can weather the storm. The Iranians have decided that
they can simply defy the
United States
without
incurring any real danger. And both
Israel
and the
Palestinian Authority are on ever-shakier ground, internally and
internationally. Condoleezza Rice is largely being ignored by
everyone. Will Obama's Secretary of State be treated differently?
If
the whirlwind undoes
U.S.
policies in
the region, then even if
U.S.
forces are
withdrawn from
Iraq
, will it
follow that western Europe,
Russia
,
China
, and
Latin America
will
actually move closer to the
United States
, even if
they will appreciate Obama's friendlier and more intelligent style?
The underlying geopolitical trends are against the
United States
. Obama can
do better than Bush, but how much better?
The
story is not too different when we look at the state of the
U.S.
economy. No
doubt, a Democratic administration will have a different policy on
taxation, on health care, on the environment. And probably the
poorer 80% of the population will be better off. But the
manufacturing jobs are not going to return, even if the
United States
scuttles its
neoliberal trade pacts. In this arena, too, there is a whirlwind,
one that is perhaps even more powerful than the geopolitical
whirlwind in the
Middle East
, and the
United States
does not
control its unfolding.
That
leaves one arena in which Obama may have some leeway, what I called
loosely the cultural arena. His campaign has been mobilizing a
popular force that is both gaining strength and autonomy. It is that
of people saying "yes, we can." Obama may have been of
help in igniting the force, but it is becoming a self-driven force
that will now have much impact on what he does as president. In a
broad sense, it is a force that will be pushing him, as president,
to the left, both directly and via its impact on members of
Congress.
It
is very difficult to say exactly where this force would push Obama.
But its impact may turn out to be comparable to that of the
so-called religious right on Republican party policies in the last
thirty years. Martin Luther King, Jr. said "I have a
dream." The dream was of a different
United States
with
different priorities and far more egalitarian mores. If this next
period leads to even a partial realization of such a dream, it will
of course have a long-term impact on the role the
United States
plays, and
wishes to play, in the world-system. It will have a long-term impact
on the kind of economic structures the
United States
maintains
for itself and the world maintains for itself.
Change
is indeed possible, and potentially a very positive change. It all
depends far less on Obama than on the rest of us. But Obama might,
only might, give us the space in which the "we" of
"yes, we can" can push him and the
United States
.
Iraq
drains resources from U.S. Pacific Command
February 28,
2008
by
Bryan Bender
The
Boston
Globe
From
his headquarters at the U.S. Pacific Command here, Admiral Timothy
Keating is responsible for the largest geographic region in the
country's military.
But
Keating, the four-star admiral who oversees a territory encompassing
more than half the earth's surface and five of the world's largest
standing armies, has steadily fewer forces at the ready in the event
of a crisis.
The
war in
Iraq
is depriving
Keating and other commanders of their ability to respond to a
military crisis, draining away thousands of personnel and critical
equipment, as well as hamstringing their ability to conduct
exercises and forge alliances with foreign nations that one day
could prove instrumental, according to interviews with senior
military leaders and specialists.
"The
readiness of our forces is affected by combat operations in
Afghanistan
and
Iraq
,"
Keating said in an interview last week in his office, where photos
of World War II's storied commanders like Admiral Chester Nimitz
hang on the walls. "We are at a higher risk state."
An
estimated 30,000 marines and soldiers usually under Keating's
command are fighting in the greater
Middle East
, including
large elements of the U.S. Army's 25th Infantry Division on duty in
Iraq
since 2006.
McCain
and Obama trade jabs on Iraq Louisiana governor pierces business as
usualMcCain's birthplace prompts queries about whether that rules
him outOne of the division's brigades is currently in Iraq, while
another recently returned and expects to head back by the end of the
year. Eight army formations based in the Pacific, including military
police and other support troops, are also deployed there.
At
the same time, thousands of U.S. Air Force personnel from bases in
Hawaii, Alaska, Guam and Japan have served in Iraq each year since
the U.S.-led invasion began in 2003, while other specialized units
from the navy's Pacific Fleet - including Seals units and
construction battalions - are also supporting ground operations in
the Middle East, which is in the area covered by the Central
Command, not Keating's Pacific Command.
The
cumulative effect the deployments to the
Middle East
are having on
military readiness across the globe has set off alarms at the
Pentagon's highest levels.
"Because
we've got 80 percent of our special forces in Central Command,
there's a lot of special forces work that they've been doing for
years in other parts of the world that just isn't getting
done," including training and counterterrorism missions,
Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said
in an interview last week. "That builds risk over time, and we
have to assess that."
Mullen,
who became the top military officer in late 2007, said he was
assessing "what we're ready for" and the likelihood of a
new crisis that would require a significant U.S. military response:
a humanitarian disaster like the tsunami of 2004, a major terrorist
attack or an outbreak of international hostilities.
In
the Pacific, Keating said he did not foresee a major conflict on the
horizon, but he said trouble spots remained, including areas where
anti-American terrorist groups were operating and areas where
tensions lingered between large military forces.
"There
is a significant threat stream for terrorism in the southern
Philippines
,"
Keating said, pointing out that an estimated 8,000
U.S.
military
personnel were "providing medical and engineering assistance
throughout southern
Philippines
."
Other
"sources of greater concern," he added, are the
India-Pakistan border, North and
South Korea
and tensions
with
China
across the
Strait
of
Taiwan
.
"Overarching
all of them" is "the movement of violent extremists, their
supporters, and their financial backers" throughout the region,
he said.
For
now, Keating said, he is confident that his command - stretching
east to
Alaska
and west to
Madagascar
, and
encompassing the Pacific and Indian oceans,
Australia
,
South Asia
and
East Asia
- can
maintain "military pre-eminence." Still, he said, "We
have had to adjust" strategic plans "a little bit because
of the 30-some thousand marines and soldiers who are ordinarily in
our" area "but are not."
At
Schofield Barracks,
Hawaii
, the lead
article in Hawaii Army Weekly on Feb. 15 reported that four soldiers
from the 25th Infantry Division's Second Brigade were killed by an
improvised explosive device this month in
Taji
,
Iraq
. The division
has served as the main deterrent force in the Pacific region.
"We
are and must remain responsible to the commander as his army
component to deploy where directed as needed within the Pacific area
of responsibility," Brigadier General Mick Bednarek, the
division commander, said in an interview last week, referring to
Keating.
But
Bednarek acknowledged that the fact of multiple deployments to
Iraq
"has
taken a toll" on the "Tropic Lightning" division.
The
division's 3rd Brigade returned from
Iraq
last fall
without vital gear, including communications and surveillance
systems. Bednarek expects it to be difficult "getting my
equipment reset and returned to us prior to deploying" back to
Iraq
later this
year.
Meanwhile,
the division's ability to train with foreign forces in countries
like
Thailand
and the
Philippines
has already
suffered, a critical piece of what Keating calls "strategic
engagement."
Keating
believes that those types of activities are critical for maintaining
long-term
U.S.
security in
the region.
But
with no end in sight to the deployments to Iraq - where the United
States has 160,000 troops - other U.S. military responsibilities
will suffer, according to Michčle Flournoy, a former U.S. assistant
secretary of defense for strategy.
"Right
now we do not have what we should have as a global power with global
interests," Flournoy told the House Armed Services Committee on
Feb. 14. By remaining in
Iraq
, she said,
"we should acknowledge that we are accepting a significant
level of risk."
Turkey
declines to pledge quick Iraq exit, US mounts pressure
February
29, 2008
AFP
-
ANKARA
(AFP) - - Turkey insisted Thursday that its offensive against
Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq will continue "as long as
necessary," while US President George Bush mounted pressure on
Ankara to wrap up its incursion quickly
As US Defence
Secretary Robert Gates held talks in
Ankara
, Turkish warplanes bombed separatist
Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) positions in northern
Iraq
and intensive fighting was reported on
the ground near a major rebel base.
Seven Kurdish
rebels were killed during clashes Wednesday, bringing to 237 the
number of separatist fighters killed in a week of fighting, the
Turkish army reported Thursday.
In
Washington
, Bush said the incursion, launched on
February 21, should be "limited and... temporary in
nature."
He urged the
Turkish military "to move quickly, achieve their objective and
then get out... as quickly as possible."
Speaking after
meeting with Gates earlier, Turkish Defence Minister Vecdi Gonul
refused to give a timetable for a pull-out.
"
Turkey
will remain in northern
Iraq
as long as necessary" and the
troops will return home once PKK hideouts are destroyed, he told
reporters.
"There is
no need for us to stay there after we finish (off) the terrorist
infrastructure... We have no intention to interfere in (Iraqi)
domestic politics, no intention to occupy any area," he said.
Gates had said
Tuesday the offensive should last no longer than "a week or
two" but Turkish army chief Yasar Buyukanit made it clear that
Ankara
would not be constrained by deadlines.
"A short
time is a relative term. Sometimes this can mean one day and
sometimes one year," he said after talks with Gates, adding
that the
United States
has been fighting the Taliban in
Afghanistan
"for years."
Ankara
says an estimated 4,000 rebels use
northern
Iraq
as a base in their campaign for
self-rule in
Turkey
's mainly Kurdish southeast; the conflict
has claimed more than 37,000 lives since the PKK took up arms in
1984.
The
United States
, along with the European Union, lists
the PKK as a terrorist group and has supported NATO ally
Turkey
by providing intelligence on PKK
movements.
Gates played
down suggestions the
United States
could cut off the intelligence supply if
Turkey
refuses to withdraw quickly.
"We have
shared interests and I think those interests are probably not
advanced by making threats or by threatening to cut
intelligence," he said.
But
Washington
is concerned that the incursion could
broaden into a wider conflict between Turkish forces and the Iraqi
Kurds, who run the autonomous administration of northern
Iraq
and are staunch
US
supporters.
Turkey
has long accused Iraqi Kurds of
providing the PKK with safe haven and weapons, and warned them this
week not to shelter rebels fleeing the fighting.
As Gates flew
back to
Washington
, he told reporters on his plane he
discussed no date for withdrawal in
Ankara
but "I think they got our
message."
Pentagon press
secretary Geoff Morrell added: "They made it clear they believe
it is in their interest to accomplish this operation quickly. But
they also wish to accomplish the objectives they set out to."
Gates, who also
met with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah
Gul, urged
Ankara
to back up military action with
political and economic gestures to the sizeable Kurdish community.
"That's the
only way to isolate terrorism from the population and provide a
long-term solution," he said.
Erdogan's
government is already under pressure at home to improve Kurdish
rights, tackle rampant poverty in the southeast and pardon PKK
rebels to encourage them to lay down arms.
In northern
Iraq
, Turkish fighter jets and artillery
pounded several locations near a key rebel base in Zap, close to the
Turkish border, and intensive clashes erupted on the ground, local
Iraqi security sources said Wednesday.
Turkish forces
were also dropping leaflets over the snow-bound mountains calling on
the militants to surrender.
The army says it
has destroyed dozens of rebel hideouts, camps and ammunition depots,
while losing 27 men.
The PKK claims
to have killed around 100 soldiers, lost five and to have downed a
Turkish attack helicopter.
Comment:
George W. Bush and his partners in crime have no influence anymore,
anywhere.. The Turks got
annoyed and then very angry because Kurdish commandos kept crossing
from northern
Iraq
, under American military control and
killing Turks. Bush could do nothing to stop this and the Turks
warned him several time that if he couldn’t establish order, they
would take it upon themselves to protect their citizens. Now the
useless Bush wants to stop endangering the Kurdish oil that
Israel
has its eyes on.
Everyone but the Democrats realizes that the
United States
has become a paper tiger and Bush is
nothing more than a shabby hand puppet for the Neocons. George is
now worried about his legacy. Don’t worry, George, you won’t
have any. BH
Bush’s
Successful Surge: Official photograph Nr. 3.
Officially, this
is no longer happening, according to the obedient Department of
Defense and the even more obedient American media. Obviously,
therefore, this must not be a real picture. Of course the hundred
such pictures we got from a member of the U.S. Army must be
concocted by alQueda. After all, the CIA makes up the silly binLaden
tapes so why can’t alQueda make up Medical Corps pictures? Our
beloved President ought to post these in the White House dining room
when he is drinking his dinner. BH
US
Military and Clandestine Operations in Foreign Countries -
1798-Present
February 25,
2008
by
Global Policy Forum
1798-1800
France
: Undeclared
naval war against
France
, marines land
in Puerto Plata.
1801-1805
Tripoli
: War with
Tripoli
(
Libya
), called
“First Barbary War”.
1806
Spanish
Mexico
: Military
force enters Spanish territory in headwaters of the
Rio Grande
.
1806-1810
Spanish and French in
Caribbean
:
US
naval vessels
attack French and Spanish shipping in the
Caribbean
.
1810
Spanish
West
Florida
: Troops
invade and seize
Western
Florida
, a Spanish
possession.
1812
Spanish
East
Florida
: Troops seize
Amelia
Island |