|
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
and adjacent
territories.
1812
Britain
:
War of 1812, includes naval and land operations.
1813
Marquesas
Island
: Forces seize
Nukahiva and establish first
US
naval base in
the Pacific.
1814
Spanish (
East
Florida
):
Troops seize
Pensacola
in Spanish
East
Florida
.
1814-1825
French, British and Spanish in
Caribbean
:
US
naval
squadron engages French, British and Spanish shipping in the
Caribbean
.
1815
Algiers
and
Tripoli
:
US
naval fleet
under Captain Stephen Decatur wages “Second Barbary War” in
North Africa
.
1816-1819
Spanish
East
Florida
: Troops
attack and seize Nicholls’ Fort,
Amelia
Island
and other
strategic locations.
Spain
eventually
cedes
East Florida
to the
US
.
1822-1825
Spanish
Cuba
and
Puerto Rico
:
Marines land in numerous cities in the Spanish
island
of
Cuba
and also in
Spanish Puerto Rico.
1827
Greece
: Marines
invade the Greek islands of Argentiere, Miconi and Andross.
1831
Falkland/Malvinas
Islands
:
US naval squadrons aggress the
Falkland
Islands
in the
South Atlantic
.
1832
Sumatra
,
Dutch East
Indies
:
US
naval
squadrons attack Qallah Battoo.
1833
Argentina
: Forces land
in
Buenos Aires
and engage
local combatants.
1835-1836
Peru
:
Troops dispatched twice for counter-insurgency operations.
1836
Mexico
:
Troops assist
Texas
war for
independence.
1837
Canada
:
Naval incident on the Canadian border leads to mobilization of a
large force to invade
Canada
. War is
narrowly averted.
1838
Sumatra
,
Dutch East
Indies
:
US
naval forces
sent to
Sumatra
for punitive
expedition.
1840-1841
Fiji
:
Naval forces deployed, marines land.
1841
Samoa
: Naval forces
deployed, marines land.
1842
Mexico
:
Naval forces temporarily seize cities of
Monterey
and
San Diego
.
1843
China
: Marines land
in
Canton
.
1843
Ivory Coast
:
Marines land.
1846-1848
Mexico
:
Full-scale war.
Mexico
cedes half of
its territory to the
US
by the Treaty
of
Guadeloupe
Hidalgo
.
1849
Ottoman
Empire
(
Turkey
):
Naval force dispatched to
Smyrna
.
1852-1853
Argentina
: Marines land
in
Buenos Aires
.
1854
Nicaragua
: Navy
bombards and largely destroys city of
San Juan
del
Norte.
Marines land and set fire to the city.
1854
Japan
: Commodore
Perry and his fleet deploy at
Yokohama
.
1855
Uruguay
:
Marines land in
Montevideo
.
1856
Colombia
(
Panama
Region)
Marines land for counter-insurgency campaign.
1856
China
: Marines
deployed in
Canton
.
1856
Hawaii
:
Naval forces seize small islands of Jarvis, Baker and Howland in the
Hawaiian
Islands
.
1857
Nicaragua
:
Marines land.
1858
Uruguay
:
Marines land in
Montevideo
.
1858
Fiji
:
Marines land.
1859
Paraguay
:
Large naval force deployed.
1859
China
:
Troops enter
Shanghai
.
1859
Mexico
:
Military force enters northern area.
1860
Portuguese
West Africa
:
Troops land at Kissembo.
1860
Colombia
(
Panama
Region):
Troops and naval forces deployed.
1863
Japan
:
Troops land at
Shimonoseki
.
1864
Japan
:
Troops landed in Yedo.
1865
Colombia
(
Panama
Region):
Marines landed.
1866
Colombia
(
Panama
Region):
Troops invade and seize
Matamoros
, later
withdraw.
1866
China
: Marines land
in Newchwang.
1867
Nicaragua
:
Marines land in
Managua
and
Leon
in
Nicaragua
.
1867
Formosa
Island
(
Taiwan
):
Marines land.
1867
Midway
Island
:
Naval forces seize this island in the Hawaiian Archipelago for a
naval base.
1868
Japan
:
Naval forces deployed at
Osaka
, Hiogo,
Nagasaki
,
Yokohama
and Negata.
1868
Uruguay
: Marines land
at
Montevideo
.
1870
Colombia
:
Marines landed.
1871
Korea
:
Forces landed.
1873
Colombia
(
Panama
Region):
Marines landed.
1874
Hawaii
:
Sailors and marines landed.
1876
Mexico
:
Army again occupies
Matamoros
.
1882
British
Egypt
:
Troops land.
1885
Colombia
: (Panama
Region) Troops land in
Colon
and
Panama City
.
1885
Samoa
:
Naval force deployed.
1887
Hawaii
: Navy gains
right to build permanent naval base at
Pearl Harbor
.
1888
Haiti
:
Troops landed.
1888
Samoa
: Marines
landed.
1889
Samoa
:
Clash with German naval forces.
1890
Argentina
:
US sailors land in
Buenos Aires
.
1891
Chile
:
US
sailors land
in the major port city of
Valparaiso
.
1891
Haiti
: Marines land
on
US-claimed
Navassa
Island
.
1893
Hawaii
: Marines and
other naval forces land and overthrow the monarchy. Read More
1894
Nicaragua
: Marines land
at Bluefields on the eastern coast.
1894-1895
China
: Marines are
stationed at
Tientsin
and
Beijing
. A naval ship
takes up position at Newchwang.
1894-1896
Korea
: Marines land
and remain in
Seoul
.
1895
Colombia
:
Marines are sent to the town Bocas del Toro.
1896
Nicaragua
:
Marines land in the
port
of
Corinto
.
1898
Nicaragua
:
Marines land at the port city of San Juan del Sur.
1898
Guam
: Naval forces
seize
Guam
Island
from
Spain
and the
US
holds the
island permanently.
1898
Cuba
:
Naval and land forces seize
Cuba
from
Spain
.
1898
Puerto Rico
:
Naval and land forces seize
Puerto Rico
from
Spain
and the
US
holds the
island permanently.
1898
Philippines
:
Naval forces defeat the Spanish fleet and the
US
takes control
of the country.
1899
Philippines
:
Military units are reinforced for extensive counter-insurgency
operations.
1899
Samoa
: Naval forces
land
1899
Nicaragua
:
Marines land at the port city of
Bluefields
.
1900
China
: US forces
intervene in several cities. Massive looting by
U.S.
troops.
1901
Colombia/Panama:
Marines land.
1902
Colombia/Panama:
US forces land in Bocas de Toro
1903
Colombia/Panama:
With US backing, a group in northern
Colombia
declares
independence as the state of
Panama
1903
Guam
:
Navy begins development in
Apra Harbor
of a
permanent base installation.
1903
Honduras
:Marines: go
ashore at Puerto Cortez.
1903
Dominican
Republic
:
Marines land in
Santo Domingo
.
1904-1905
Korea:
Marines land and stay in
Seoul
.
1906-1909
Cuba:
Marines land. The
US
builds a
major naval base at
Guantanamo
Bay
.
1907
Nicaragua
:
Troops seize major centers.
1907
Honduras
: Marines land
and take up garrison in cities of
Trujillo
, Ceiba,
Puerto Cortez, San Pedro, Laguna and Choloma.
1908
Panama
: Marines land
and carry out operations.
1910
Nicaragua
:
Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
1911
Honduras
:
Marines intervene.
1911-1941
China:
The
US
builds up its
military presence in the country to a force of 5000 troops and a
fleet of 44 vessels patrolling
China
's coast and
rivers.
1912
Cuba
:
US sends army troops into combat in
Havana
.
1912
Panama
: Army troops
intervene.
1912
Honduras
:
Marines land.
1912-1933
Nicaragua:
Marines intervene. A 20-year occupation of the country follows.
1913
Mexico
:
Marines land at Ciaris Estero.
1914
Dominican
Republic
:
Naval forces engage in battles in the city of
Santo Domingo
.
1914
Mexico
:
US
forces seize
and occupy
Mexico
's major port
city of
Veracrus
from April
through November.
1915-1916
Mexico:
An expeditionary force of the US Army under Gen. John J. Pershing
crosses the
Texas
border and
penetrates several hundred miles into Mexican territory. Eventually
reinforced to over 11,000 officers and men.
1914-1934
Haiti:
Troops land, aerial bombardment leading to a 19-year military
occupation.
1916-1924
Dominican Republic:
Military intervention leading to 8-year occupation.
1917-1933
Cuba:
Landing of naval forces. Beginning of a 15-year occupation.
1918-1920
Panama:
Troops intervene, remain on "police duty" for over 2
years.
1918-1922
Russia:
Naval forces and army troops fight battles in several areas of the
country during a five- year period.
1919
Yugoslavia
:
Marines intervene in
Dalmatia
.
1919
Honduras
:
Marines land.
1920
Guatemala
Troops
intervene.
1922
Turkey
:
Marines engaged in operations in
Smyrna
(
Izmir
).
1922-1927
China:
Naval forces and troops deployed during 5-year period.
1924-1925
Honduras:
Troops land twice in two-year period.
1925
Panama
:
Marines land and engage in operations.
1927-1934
China:
Marines and naval forces stationed throughout the country.
1932
El Salvador
: Naval forces
intervene.
1933
Cuba
: Naval forces
deployed.
1934
China
Marines land
in
Foochow
.
1946
Iran
:
Troops deployed in
northern
province
.
1946-1949
China:
Major
US
army presence
of about 100,000 troops, fighting, training and advising local
combatants.
1947-1949
Greece:
US
forces wage a
3-year counterinsurgency campaign.
1948
Italy
:
Heavy CIA
involvement in national elections.
1948-1954
Philippines:
Commando operations, "secret" CIA
war.
1950-1953
Korea:
Major forces engaged in war in Korean peninsula.
1953
Iran
:
CIA
overthrows government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.
1954
Vietnam
: Financial
and materiel support for colonial French military operations, leads
eventually to direct
US
military
involvement.
1954
Guatemala
:
CIA
overthrows the government of President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman.
1958
Lebanon
:
US marines and army units totaling 14,000 land.
1958
Panama
:
Clashes between US forces in
Canal Zone
and local
citizens.
1959
Haiti
:
Marines land.
1960
Congo
:
CIA-backed
overthrow and CIA assassination of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba.
1960-1964
Vietnam: Gradual
introduction of military advisors and special forces.
1961
Cuba
:
CIA-backed
Bay
of Pigs
invasion.
1962
Cuba
:
Nuclear threat and naval blockade.
1962
Laos
:
CIA-backed
military coup.
1963
Ecuador
:
CIA
backs military overthrow of President Jose Maria Valesco Ibarra.
1964
Panama
:
Clashes between US forces in
Canal Zone
and local
citizens.
1964
Brazil
:
CIA-backed
military coup overthrows the government of Joao Goulart and Gen.
Castello Branco takes power.
1965-1975
Vietnam:
Large commitment of military forces, including air, naval and ground
units numbering up to 500,000+ troops. Full-scale war, lasting for
ten years.
1965
Indonesia
:
CIA-backed
army coup overthrows President Sukarno and brings Gen. Suharto to
power.
1965
Congo
:
CIA
backed military coup overthrows President Joseph Kasavubu and brings
Joseph Mobutu to power.
1965
Dominican
Republic
: 23,000
troops land. CIA
assassinated
Trujillo
, Chief of
State
1965-1973
Laos
:
Bombing campaign begin, lasting eight years.
1966
Ghana
: CIA-backed
military coup ousts President Kwame Nkrumah.
1966-1967
Guatemala:
Extensive counter-insurgency operation.
1969-1975
Cambodia:
CIA
supports military coup against Prince Sihanouk, bringing Lon Nol to
power. Intensive bombing for seven years along border with
Vietnam
.
1970
Oman
:
Counter-insurgency operation, including coordination with Iranian
marine invasion.
1971-1973
Laos:
Invasion by US and
South
Vietnames
forces.
1973
Chile
:
CIA-backed
military coup ousts government of President Salvador Allende. Gen.
Augusto Pinochet comes to power.
1975
Cambodia
: Marines
land, engage in combat with government forces.
1976-1992
Angola:
Military and CIA
operations.
1980
Iran
: Special
operations units land in Iranian desert. Helicopter malfunction
leads to aborting of planned raid.
1981
Libya
:
Naval jets shoot down two Libyan jets in maneuvers over the
Mediterranean
.
1981-1992
El Salvador:
CIA
and special forces begin a long counterinsurgency campaign.
1981-1990
Nicaragua:
CIA
directs exile "Contra" operations.
US
air units
drop sea mines in harbors.
1982-1984
Lebanon
Marines land and naval forces fire on local combatants.
1983
Grenada
: Military
forces invade
Grenada
.
1983-1989
Honduras:
Large program of military assistance aimed at conflict in
Nicaragua
.
1984
Iran
:
Two Iranian jets shot down over the
Persian Gulf
.
1986
Libya
:
US
aircraft bomb
the cities of
Tripoli
and
Benghazi
, including
direct strikes at the official residence of President Muamar al
Qadaffi.
1986
Bolivia
:
Special Forces units engage in counter-insurgency.
1987-1988
Iran:
Naval forces block Iranian shipping. Civilian airliner shot down by
missile cruiser.
1989
Libya
:
Naval aircraft shoot down two Libyan jets over
Gulf of Sidra
.
1989
Philippines
:
CIA
and Special Forces involved in counterinsurgency.
1989-1990
Panama:
27,000 troops as well as naval and air power used to overthrow
government of President Noriega.
1990
Liberia
:
Troops deployed.
1990-1991
Iraq:
Major military operation, including naval blockade, air strikes;
large number of troops attack Iraqi forces in occupied
Kuwait
.
1991-2003
Iraq:
Control of Iraqi airspace in north and south of the country with
periodic attacks on air and ground targets.
1991
Haiti
:
CIA-backed
military coup ousts President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
1992-1994
Somalia:
Special operations forces intervene.
1992-1994
Yugoslavia:
Major role in NATO blockade of
Serbia
and
Montenegro
.
1993-1995
Bosnia:
Active military involvement with air and ground forces.
1994-1996
Haiti:
Troops depose military rulers and restore President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide to office.
1995
Croatia
:
Krajina Serb airfields attacked.
1996-1997
Zaire (
Congo
):
Marines involved in operations in eastern region of the country.
1997
Liberia
: Troops
deployed.
1998
Sudan
: Air strikes
destroy country's major pharmaceutical plant.
1998
Afghanistan
:
Attack on targets in the country.
1998
Iraq
:
Four days of intensive air and missile strikes.
1999
Yugoslavia
:
Major involvement in NATO air strikes.
2001
Macedonia
:
NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.
2001
Afghanistan
:
Air attacks and ground operations oust Taliban government and
install a new regime.
2003
Iraq
: Invasion
with large ground, air and naval forces ousts government of Saddam
Hussein and establishes new government.
2003-present
Iraq
: Occupation
force of 150,000 troops in protracted counter-insurgency war
2004
Haiti
Marines land.
CIA-backed
forces overthrow President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Note:
This list does not pretend to be definitive or absolutely complete.
Nor does it seek to explain or interpret the interventions.
Information and interpretation on selected interventions will be
later included as links. Note that US operations in World Wars I and
II have been excluded.
The
Wailing Wall
Sharon
's son begins Israeli
jail term
February
27, 2008
AFP
-
TEL
AVIV (AFP) - - The son of former Israeli premier Ariel Sharon began
a seven-month prison sentence on Wednesday for corruption and fraud
in connection with his father's Likud party leadership bid.
Omri Sharon, a
43-year-old former MP, was taken from Tel Aviv district court in a
prison van to a minimum-security jail in the centre of the country,
just a day after his coma-stricken father turned 80.
Sharon
was sentenced to jail and fined 300,000
shekels (81,000 dollars) in February 2006 after he was found guilty
of fraud during his father's 1999 campaign for the leadership of the
right-wing Likud.
However, his
sentence was delayed to allow him to spend time with his father, who
had suffered a debilitating stroke in January 2006.
Last month, the
Supreme Court ruled that
Sharon
must begin his jail term.
Ariel Sharon
quit Likud to form the Kadima party in November 2005, just months
after withdrawing Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip after 38 years
of occupation and only weeks before he suffered the stroke that
ended his career.
Omri Sharon, who
was a key backroom ally, attracted an outpouring of national
sympathy following the stroke because of his devotion, spending much
of his time at his father's bedside.
The
Progress of the Royal Turnip
February
28, 2008
by
Brian Harring
In
January of 2006, Aerial Sharon, Prime Minster of Israael, had a
major brain hemorrhage and stroke and ended up paralyzed.
Sharon
was 77 years old and grossly overweight at the time of his stroke.
He became comatose and had a 7-hour operation. He went in for a
minor operation and had a stroke on the way. It is even more serious
as he is only 5’ 7” and over 260 pounds; the over weight being a
real hindrance.
On
28
May 2006,
Sharon was transferred from the hospital in Jerusalem to a long-term
care unit of the Sheba
Medical Center in Tel
HaShomer, a large civilian and military hospital. Ha'aretz
reported that this move was an indication that Sharon's doctors did
not expect him to emerge from his coma in the foreseeable future.
Dr. Yuli Krieger, a physician not involved in Sharon's case, told Israel
Radio that the chances of waking up after such a lengthy
coma were small. "Every day that passes after this kind of
event with the patient still unconscious the chances that he will
gain consciousness get smaller," said Krieger, Deputy Head of
Levinstein House, another long-term care facility.
On
23
July 2006,
CNN reported that Sharon's condition was deteriorating and his
kidney function was worsening.On July
26, 2006
doctors moved him to intensive
care and began hemofiltration.
On 14
August 2006
doctors reported that Sharon's condition worsened significantly and
that he was suffering from pneumonia
in both lungs. On August 29, doctors reported that he had been
successfully treated for his pneumonia and moved out of intensive
care back to the long-term care unit.
On
3
November 2006,
it was reported that Sharon had been admitted to intensive care
after contracting an infection, though doctors insisted that his
condition was 'stable'.He was moved out of the intensive care unit
on November 6, 2006 after treatment for a heart infection. Doctors
stated that "his heart function has improved after being
treated for an infection and his overall condition has stabilised".
Sharon
has remained in a long-term care centre
since 6
November 2006.
Medical experts have indicated that Sharon's cognitive abilities
were destroyed by the massive stroke, and that he is in a persistent
vegetative state with extremely slim chances of regaining
consciousness.Due to ciriculation problsms, doctors have had to
amputate both of Sharon’s legs at the knes. The amputated legs
have been placed in cold storage to be reunited with the remainder
of Sharon upon his death.
On
13
April 2007,
it was reported that Sharon's condition has slightly improved and
according to his son, Omri, was marginally responsive.
Beloved by far right Israelis, Sharon will forever be associated with
the brutal military assaults and the Sabra and Shatila massacres in
Lebanon
in 1982.
And, to add insult to injury, the irrational American televangelist, Pat
Robertson put on his clown suit and spoke to his 700 Club about
Sharon
:
'Ladies
and Gentlemen I said last year that
Israel
was
entering into the most dangerous periods of its entire existence as
a nation. That is intensifying this year with the loss of
Sharon
. Sharon
was personally a very likeable person and I am sad to see him in
this condition, but I think we need to look at the Bible and the
Book of Joel. The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has
enmity against those who “divide my land.” God considers this
land to be His. You read the Bible and He says “this is my land”
and for any Prime Minister of
Israel
who
decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says “no,
this is mine.” I had a wonderful meeting with Yitzhak Rabin in
1974. He was tragically assassinated, it was a terrible thing that
happened but nevertheless he was dead. And now Ariel Sharon who
again was a very likeable person, a delightful person to be with, I
prayed with him personally, but here he’s at the point of death.
He was dividing God’s land and I would say woe unto any Prime
Minister of
Israel
who takes
a similar course to appease the EU, the United Nations, or the
United
States of America
. God says
“this land belongs to me. You’d better leave it alone.”'
As well as being a
chief poster boy for dignity pants, Brother Pat is as nutty as a
fruitcake (most televangelists are, but not as crazy as the loonies
who send them money) and is a firm believer that if the Jews take
over all of Jerusalem, Jesus will come waltzing down the highway,
singing to himself and bring about the New Jerusalem, the Rapture,
the Battle of Armageddon and other bizarre and fictive. happenings
Way to go Pat, and take your Prozac! BH |