Surge me, Bushman? The reviews pour in

"I have never seen him, in public or private, look less convincing, less sure of himself, less cocky. With his knitted brow and stricken features, he looked, well, scared." Howard Fineman - Newsweek

David Seaton's News Links

The President of the United States (that used to have a real ring about it, didn't it?) announced his plan for victory. He laid an egg. It's easy to gloat, but this is probably the most dangerous moment in international affairs since the Cuban Missile Crisis. As I said yesterday, this man is the most empowered instrument of death in history. Genghis Khan, for example, did it all with bows and arrows; Bush really has WMDs. Bush is looking at a degree of public failure, repudiation and even universal public ridicule that perhaps no other human being has ever had to endure before. His entire life's work (being somebody) is crumbling before the eyes of every human being with access to a TV or the Internet. His reaction may very well be like some George Raft gangster in an old late night movie, "come and get me copper, you'll never take me alive!). I truly doubt that he will let himself be led away quietly. DS

The Real Disaster - Editorial - New York Times

Abstract: President Bush told Americans last night that failure in Iraq would be a disaster. The disaster is Mr. Bush’s war, and he has already failed. Last night was his chance to stop offering more fog and be honest with the nation, and he did not take it. Americans needed to hear a clear plan to extricate United States troops from the disaster that Mr. Bush created. What they got was more gauzy talk of victory in the war on terrorism and of creating a “young democracy” in Iraq. In other words, a way for this president to run out the clock and leave his mess for the next one. READ IT ALL

Mr. Bush's Strategy - Editorial - Washington Post
Abstract: The new plan for the war Mr. Bush outlined last night is very risky. It envisions new missions and dangers for U.S. troops and counts on unprecedented military and political steps by the Iraqi government. The plan is likely to cause a spike in U.S. casualties, while the chances that it will stabilize Iraq are far lower. Moreover, Mr. Bush appears prepared to embrace this approach despite strong opposition from Congress and the public -- setting up a conflict that in itself could hurt the war effort. READ IT ALL

Defiance and delusion - Editorial - The Guardian
Abstract: George Bush's announcement last night that he is going to pour more troops into Iraq was the last throw of the dice in a misconceived enterprise that has dragged his country, this country and the Middle East into a nightmare. The package includes 17,500 more combat troops for Baghdad and 4,000 more marines for Anbar province, the cockpit of the Sunni insurgency. Over $1bn will be spent in economic aid. In return the Iraqis are to promise to crackdown on insurgents, regardless of sect or religion. In opting for a troop surge, Mr Bush has ignored the message of the mid-term elections, the Iraq Study Group, Congress, his own top generals and most world opinion. US generals have difficulty enough maintaining current levels of combat-ready troops and are not convinced that more troops will make any difference. Rather than listen to them, Mr Bush has turned to the right, to those who argue that honour and the America's national interests require fighting on. One senses that "honour" is the more important of the two. READ IT ALL

"Warning Americans that 2007 would be another year of continued violence, bloodshed and American casualties, President Bush unveiled his "new way forward" on Iraq Wednesday evening. But the speech was as much a testament of failure as it was a blueprint for what to do next." Michael Duffy - Time

Poll: Most Americans Opposed to Bush's Iraq Plan - Washington Post
Abstract: A majority of Americans oppose sending additional troops to Iraq as outlined by President Bush in his nationally televised address Wednesday night, and just one-in-three Americans said the plan for more troops and a stepped up combat efforts by Iraqi forces make victory there more likely, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The findings of the survey, conducted after Bush's primetime speech, represent an initial rebuke to the White House goal of generating additional public support for the mission in Iraq. The poll found that 61 percent of Americans oppose sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, with 52 percent saying they strongly oppose the plan. Just 36 percent said they back the president's new proposal.(...) Only two in five (40 percent) said the war was worth fighting. While that is slightly better than the 36 percent figure recorded in a poll a month ago, it is consistent with polls dating back almost two years. Similarly, just 34 percent said they approve of Bush's handling of the war, another slight tick up from last month but a measure of the broad disapproval of the president's leadership that has been evident since 2005. Americans are even more pessimistic than before about the state of the conflict. In the new poll, 57 percent said the United States is not winning war, the highest yet recorded. That comes after even Bush acknowledged setbacks and mistakes and after he and new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have said they United States is not winning at this point. In December 2005, 56 percent of Americans said the United States was winning the war.(...) Fifty-six percent of men oppose the president's plan while 66 percent of women oppose it. Women also are more likely to support efforts in Congress to cut off funding, with 57 percent saying they would back Democratic moves to do so compared to 48 percent of men. Sixty percent of Americans between ages 18 and 39 support cutting off funding, compared to 51 percent of those between 40 and 59 and 43 percent of Americans over age 60. READ IT ALL

President George W. Bush's plan to boost U.S. forces in Iraq drew fire from Republican senators and from Joseph Biden, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who called it ``a tragic mistake.'' The plan is ``the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam,'' Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a hearing of the committee today. Bloomberg

Surge towards debacle in Iraq and MidEast - Editorial - Financial Times
Abstract: George W. Bush’s new direction in Iraq is certainly not a strategy for victory, whatever that word, which is used ever more desperately by the US president, now means. It may be one last heave. It may be a cover for US withdrawal. But two things are quite clear. Right now, Mr Bush has the support of no more than one in four Americans for this so-called surge of an extra 20,000 or so troops. Very soon, as the already indecipherable ethnic and sectarian patchwork of Iraq is pulled further and even more bloodily to pieces, he will have none. Second, this policy will not succeed in fixing an Iraq traumatised by tyranny and war and then broken by invasion and occupation. But it may end with the US “surging” into Iran – and taking the Middle East to a new level of mayhem that will spill into nearby regions and western capitals. Mr Bush’s body language in the speech bespoke a chastened man. Yet, caught in a wilfully spun web of delusion and denial, he seems still unable to comprehend the depths of the debacle he has caused in Iraq.(...) like everything they have tried since, this is far too little, much too late.(...) It is hard, even for ardent democrats, to see this Iraq as a young democracy fighting for its life, as Mr Bush’s discourse of good guys against bad guys would have it. The invasion has solidified a system divided into sects and operating on the basis of patronage and intimidation. The composition of parliament is nearly two thirds Islamist. There are no institutions.(...) The only feasible way forward is the approach of the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission – which the new US Congress should embrace and insist on.(...) “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops” he said on Wednesday. “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria.” The Iraq surge is beginning to look like the Vietnam escalation, spilling over into Iran and Syria the way that one did into Cambodia and Laos. Mr Bush is right to argue that defeat in Iraq would be very serious. He is wrong in failing to recognise defeat is what he is staring at – and that this approach will help guarantee it. READ IT ALL

The speech reflects a profound misunderstanding of our era. America is acting like a colonial power in Iraq. But the age of colonialism is over. Waging a colonial war in the post-colonial age is self-defeating. That is the fatal flaw of Bush's policy.
Zbigniew Brzezinski - Washington Post
(To be continued)

Bush's blue surge birthday suit... waiting

David Seaton's News Links
At this moment, while we wait for him to announce his plans for "victory," a word that he says the American people "understand", all of us should be thinking about all the human beings that have died or have been mutilated and all the human beings that are about to die or to be mutilated because of what is behind, or missing behind, the eyes in this photograph. Finally that is the center of the question. This bumbling sociopath might literally be the most empowered instrument of death in history. He appears the closing chapter in the story of a great republic; what he leaves behind him, being neither great, nor even a republic any more. DS

Opening the gates of hell - Wall Street Journal

David Seaton's News Links

When "Bush41", James Baker and Brent Scowcroft decided not to go all the way to Baghdad at the end of the First Gulf War it was because they knew that the possibilities of exactly the sort of catastrophe facing "Bush43" today were high. This was not because these men were especially clairvoyant or were "speaking in tongues", but because that was the opinion of most people with deep knowledge of the region. The potential for disaster in Mesopotamia has been evident from the days of T.E. Lawrence and Gertrude Bell. In other words the idea that Iraq could fall apart and take with it the entire jerrybuilt construction that Sykes and Picot had cobbled together out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire was not exactly "rocket science", but in reality the opinion of most reputable experts at the time. Therefore, if only as hypothesis, I think we might begin to contemplate the idea that this disaster has been deliberately provoked. By whom?

The "usual suspects" in all the popular conspiracy theories surrounding the invasion of Iraq have always been "Oil and Israel". What could this "dynamic duo" possibly gain from such a hecatomb and horror? To begin with, if all the Muslims begin to fight with each other everywhere, the pressure on Israel to evacuate "Judea and Samaria" would lessen dramatically. What about the price of oil rocketing over $100 a barrel? Well, that would mean some huge profits for oil companies and remember that if Texas were an independent republic it would be a major member of OPEC... after all, Texas was the first "Saudi Arabia". Sound nutty? You bet it does! Nuttier than the great "democratic renaissance" of the Middle East? "May you live in interesting times," is a famous Chinese curse. DS

Allies See 'Nightmare' In Iraq - Wall Street Journal - pg A1

Abstract: As President Bush prepares to unveil his latest Iraq strategy, Arab allies are worried about what might happen if the plan fails: that worsening strife could engulf the entire region, sparking a wider war in the middle of the world's largest oil patch. The potential of a much larger regional conflict that pits Sunnis against Shiites is increasingly on the minds of both Arab leaders and U.S. military planners, according to regional diplomats and U.S. officials. Some are calling such a possible outcome the "nightmare scenario." A wider conflict appears more plausible now because, even as Iraq is separating along sectarian lines, regional dynamics are shoving neighboring nations into two rival camps. On one side is a Shiite-led arc running from Iran into central Iraq, through Syria and into Lebanon. On the other side lie American allies Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, along with Persian Gulf states such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. These Sunni regimes are horrified at the emerging, increasingly radicalized Shiite bloc, largely financed and inspired by Iran, Arab diplomats say.(...) The Saudis have warned the Bush administration that they are prepared to aid the Sunni militias in Iraq if the Sunni population there becomes imperiled, a Saudi diplomat said. Jordanian officials have told the Pentagon that they may move troops into Iraq's uninhabited western desert as a buffer if events there spiral out of control, according to U.S. military officials. Turkish officials, who are grappling with a separatist Kurdish movement in their country, say they would oppose the creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. They also say they are prepared to defend Iraq's Turkmen population, who share a common ethnicity with Turkey's majority population, should it come under attack. Even Syria, which the U.S. alleges has been abetting the conflict, is expressing alarm over the potential fracturing of Iraq.(...) The U.S. is also pushing a wide-ranging strategy to persuade its Sunni allies that it is serious about counteracting the rise of Iran -- in exchange for Arab help in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Key to the effort is the continued promise to keep U.S. forces in Iraq for as long as necessary. But the U.S. is also beefing up U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf and plans to deepen security cooperation with Gulf allies. The Pentagon has proposed sending a second carrier battle group to the Gulf region. There are also advanced plans under way to knit together the air-defense systems of the six smaller Gulf states, including Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, and to build a U.S.-administered missile-defense system. Similarly, the Air Force is laying plans to step up exercises with Arab allies in the region. One proposal calls for the U.S. to hold combined air exercises with Oman and the UAE.(...) Under one scenario, sketched by Mr. White of the Iraq Study Group, Iraq's Shiites would launch an extensive campaign to drive the Sunnis out of large areas of central Iraq. Fearing a rout of the Sunni population, Saudi Arabia would finance a large-scale counteroffensive, funneling aid to former Iraqi military officers through Jordan, which has longstanding ties to Iraq's Sunni military class. Egypt would do its part by providing guns, munitions, artillery and vehicles. "What people forget is that the Sunnis comprise nearly the entire top brass of the former Iraqi army and nearly all of the old Republican Guard," says Mr. White. "You give them the guns and proper equipment and they will become a formidable force against the Shiite militias." The possibility of a full-blown civil war in Iraq dissolving into a regional conflict "is a scenario that nearly everyone was rejecting just a few months ago," he says. "Not anymore." READ IT ALL (subscription)

Somalia: reopening the wound

David Seaton's News Links
The slowly healing wounds of Somalia are being torn open again. Obviously Al Qaeda is the excuse for America's intervening anywhere it likes. What is the connection between Al Qaeda and Somalia? Like an opportunistic infection in a weakened organism, Al Qaeda merely takes the opportunity that failed states present. What makes states fail? Many think that globalization, where even major states lose much of their sovereign control, plays an important role in the total destruction of marginal state's authority. The "Islamic Courts" movement of Somalia was a totally homegrown solution to its endless anarchy, much or all of that anarchy brought on by longstanding foreign intervention. The center of the question is making Somalia habitable. The Courts created sufficient order for international aid agencies to function. If engaged and supported in their efforts to organize Somalia into some sort of livable, workable reality, would the Courts have jeopardized that aid by collaborating with Al Qaeda? Were they even given the chance to make that decision? DS
Analysis: Somalia May Fall Back to Chaos - AP
Abstract: Militiamen haunt Somalia's streets again, warlords have moved back into their mansions and the internationally backed government doesn't have the police or troops to maintain the peace. The call has gone out for an African cavalry to ride into town and save the day. But will it arrive in time? Diplomats from around the world are scrambling.(...) Jendayi Frazer, America's top diplomat for Africa, set out for the region to see what could be done to shore up the government.(...) she knew two simple truths about Somalia. First, the people badly need help. Almost one in four Somalis require outside assistance to survive and the Islamic militants who imposed security, while demanding piety, are gone. The warlords are ascendant and aid workers are afraid to go back in. Second, the United States can do little by itself. (...) American boots on the ground is not an option. "An African peacekeeping force is a good start to bring about stability," said Frazer, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Africa. She took that message to the presidents of Somalia, Uganda, Djibouti and Yemen, as well as Ethiopia's prime minister and the African Union's deputy chairman.(...) Willpower, though, may not be enough. All of those countries already provide peacekeepers to operations around the world, and South Africa and Nigeria are especially spread thin at the moment. And no country will send peacekeepers into Somalia if there is fighting.(...) "I think it's important to talk to the Islamic courts, or whoever are the moderates within the group," Frazer said. "They did bring a certain degree of order to Mogadishu. They have experience."(...) Yemen has tried to broker numerous peace deals between dozens of factions in Somalia over the years. Over a seafood feast for Frazer on Saturday, Yemeni Foreign Minister Abubakr Al-Qirbi offered some advice. "We have many Somalis in Yemen and a long experience with them and there is one thing we have learned," he said. "If they have a fight, you don't get between them." READ IT ALL

Fatal American error in Somalia

"In the Cold War, "our son of a bitch" — the local anti-communist strongman — could be counted on to impose a brutal kind of order. Now, in the war on terror, the United States would rather see a country torn apart by multiple sons-of-bitches than ruled under Sharia law." Niall Ferguson

David Seaton's News Links

In their rush to demonize Islam, those who attack the world's second largest and fastest growing religion, neglect one of its greatest practical virtues: its ability, proven since the days of the Prophet, to create order out of barbarity, and chaos. The Sharia is particularly effective where there is little or no state structure or where it is hopelessly corrupt... certainly a fitting description of post colonial Africa, or where tribal loyalties mean that no "majority rule" will ever be seen as equitable. In Rwanda, for example, (quoting Wikipedia)

"Muslims in Rwanda during the genocide were composed of both Hutus and Tutsis but their common identity was religious, shaped by their shared faith in Islam, and not racial. This absence of racial identity is what led to Muslim Hutus not attacking their fellow Muslim Tutsis but also actively engaging in acts which saved the lives of Christian Tutsis."

And as the Washington Post stated in an article about Rwanda,

"Islam has long been a religion of the downtrodden. In the Middle East and South Asia, the religion has had a strong focus on outreach to the poor and tackling social ills by banning alcohol and encouraging sexual modesty

The Sharia is like an "civil order kit" that can be quickly unpacked and installed and which immediately establishes an easily understood and practiced universal system of justice and best practice, one that does not depend on any distant authority for its force and prestige. Its advantages are obvious in a situation such as Somalia. Globalization is a powerful solvent of local customs and cultures and corrupter of third world elites. "Everything solid dissolves into air". As everything else in those areas is failing, the rise of Islam in many parts of the developing world is probably inevitable and seen from a human, if not a business perspective, not at all a bad thing. Certainly it should be supported and engaged by everyone that would like the "ungovernable" parts of the world to find some measure of stability. To harass Islamic law indiscriminately is to drive it irremediably into the arms of Al Qaeda. DS

Niall Ferguson: Promoting disorder in Somalia - Los Angeles Times

Abstract: Long before the arrival of European imperialism, Somalia was a country plagued by warfare. There were recurrent attempts by Ethiopia to subjugate the Somalis. There were also frequent feuds between the various Somali clans themselves, like the Hawiye clan, which has its base in Mogadishu. The new prime minister is in fact a Hawiye, but has forfeited much credibility by acting as an Ethiopian puppet. In the eyes of many Somalis, recent events are just the latest of many wars with Ethiopia. That is why the recent rout of the Islamists is unlikely to be the last act in the Somali tragedy. The Islamists offered Somalia order; not a Western order, to be sure, but order nonetheless. Under their rule, the price of an AK-47 in the Mogadishu markets slumped to $15, a sure sign that the warlords were being forced to downsize their militias. Young men no longer roared through the streets in the Mad Max-style vehicles known locally as "technicals" — trucks mounted with antiaircraft guns. Some were returning to school and university. Others were getting jobs with private electricity companies and airlines. Internet cafes were beginning to displace militia training camps. Kalashnikovs were being traded in for mobile phones. Now, with the Islamists gone, the most likely scenario is a return of the warlords. Worse, the Islamists may now revert to the tactic of suicide bombing to destabilize the new government. As has happened in Afghanistan, the overthrow of an Islamist government will be followed not by a new order but by the old disorder.(...) At least in the Cold War, "our son of a bitch" — the local anti-communist strongman — could be counted on to impose a brutal kind of order. Now, in the war on terror, the United States would rather see a country torn apart by multiple sons-of-bitches than ruled under Sharia law. But the more U.S. foreign policy promotes anarchy instead of order, the stronger the Islamists' appeal will be. And the darker the shade of mischief that will ensue. READ IT ALL

Bush: a cuckoo in America's nest

Department of Psychiatry - University of Illinois at Chicago

"What’s clear is the enormous price our nation is paying for President Bush’s character flaws."
Paul Krugman - New York Times

David Seaton's News Links

I've come to the tentative conclusion that George W. Bush is some sort of "Manchurian Candidate", a cuckoo egg laid in the American nest by some foreign power that wants to manipulate the United States. There are many dark passages
in his youth where relevant documents are said to have disappeared. What if the intelligence service of a country with an ax to grind in the USA (what country doesn't?) had obtained evidence that would destroy Bush, even today, if revealed and had been blackmailing him and simultaneously propitiating his career till this day. Far fetched? Yes, certainly, but could you say that it is more far fetched than his strange behavior? To check out this theory a little farther you'd have to see if any country with a competent intelligence service is especially benefited by Bush's bizarre performance. DS

Why Hawks Win - Foreign Policy Magazine

Abstract:

Option A: A sure loss of $890

Option B: A 90 percent chance to lose $1,000 and a 10 percent chance to lose nothing.

In this situation, a large majority of decision makers will prefer the gamble in Option B, even though the other choice is statistically superior. People prefer to avoid a certain loss in favor of a potential loss, even if they risk losing significantly more. When things are going badly in a conflict, the aversion to cutting one’s losses, often compounded by wishful thinking, is likely to dominate the calculus of the losing side. This brew of psychological factors tends to cause conflicts to endure long beyond the point where a reasonable observer would see the outcome as a near certainty. Many other factors pull in the same direction, notably the fact that for the leaders who have led their nation to the brink of defeat, the consequences of giving up will usually not be worse if the conflict is prolonged, even if they are worse for the citizens they lead. U.S. policymakers faced this dilemma at many points in Vietnam and today in Iraq. To withdraw now is to accept a sure loss, and that option is deeply unattractive. The option of hanging on will therefore be relatively attractive, even if the chances of success are small and the cost of delaying failure is high.

Daniel Kahneman is a Nobel laureate in economics and Eugene Higgins professor of psychology and professor of public affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Jonathan Renshon is a doctoral student in the Department of Government at Harvard University and author of Why Leaders Choose War: The Psychology of Prevention (Westport: Praeger Security International, 2006). READ IT ALL (hat to Paul Krugman)

Make big bucks in Iraqi oil

David Seaton's News Links

This article from the Independent reminds me of the famous recipe for rabbit stew that begins, "First catch your rabbit". DS

Future of Iraq: The spoils of war - Independent

Abstract: Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days. The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.(...) The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said. Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled. Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.(...) Several major oil companies are said to have sent teams into the country in recent months to lobby for deals ahead of the law, though the big names are considered unlikely to invest until the violence in Iraq abates. James Paul, executive director at the Global Policy Forum, the international government watchdog, said: "It is not an exaggeration to say that the overwhelming majority of the population would be opposed to this. To do it anyway, with minimal discussion within the [Iraqi] parliament is really just pouring more oil on the fire." READ IT ALL

Surge: learn nothing, forget nothing

The Nightmare, 1781, Henry Fuseli

"Two months after Americans spoke decisively on Election Day, the president is determined to overrule them. Our long national nightmare in Iraq, far from being over, is about to get a second wind."
Frank Rich - New York Times

“They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing”
Charles M. de Talleyrand, 1754-1838

“It is easier to stay out than get out.”
Mark Twain, 1835-1910

David Seaton's News Links

Israel to nuke Iran - Sunday Times

David Seaton's News Links

This is the front page of the Sunday Times of London. Israel denies it. Easy prediction: If it does happen, then Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and Senator McCain will endorse it and the United States government will veto any UN resolution condemning it. It probably would mean the political death of NATO and the relations with the people of the European Union... I wouldn't swear by the governments. The Times is owned by Murdoch, so this might all be part of the propaganda surrounding the "surge". What is clear is that the neocons have realized that it's double or nothing. So this could be bluff or reality or both. DS

Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran - Sunday Times

Abstract: Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.(...) The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb. Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout. “As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources. The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years. Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said. Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack. Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world.(...) Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay Iran’s nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to live in fear of a “second Holocaust”. The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map”.(...) The Israelis believe that Iran’s retaliation would be constrained by fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic missiles at Israel. However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West. Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world’s oil. Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: “The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.” READ IT ALL

Bush, the American Brezhnev

David Seaton's News Links

Bush and what has always been known as the "establishment", both Democrat and Republican, have finally realized that the United States is facing a major strategic defeat in the Middle East... A defeat such as the United States has never faced before. The fact that it has never happened before means that the analogies used, such as "Vietnam" are too feeble to carry the full meaning of it clearly. This defeat will not produce a "Iraq Syndrome"; a national navel contemplation and wound licking. A strategic defeat has strategic consequences. What will happen when (not if) the US is defeated in Iraq? A strategic defeat on the order of a US version of the "Invincible Spanish Armada" means a sharp, dramatic and drastic loss of American influence in the world. The knock-on effects are so complex and far reaching as to incalculable. (They should have thought of this before they started, now it's much too late, but what the heck). This in turn will affect the bottom line of America's major corporations... The Democrats form part of all of this too, so don't expect miracles from them.... And of course there is always Israel... The skinny is, if you are or are going to be of draft age anytime in the next five or ten years, this would be a good time to start sending your CV up north to Canada. Below is a marvelous analysis by my favorite pundit William Pfaff, which will certainly clear and concentrate your mind wonderfully, as it did mine. DS

"Surging" to Defeat - William Pfaff

Abstract: White House spokesman Tony Snow said last week that the theme of President George W. Bush’s new Iraq policy, to be announced shortly, is “victory, winning.” If so it will be nothing new, only more of the same.(...) This means reinforcing failure, a common and much-deplored military impulse. It is not accompanied by an explanation of why, despite more than three years’ evidence to the contrary, what the U.S. wants to do in Iraq is feasible.(...) The Baker-Hamilton Commission tried to provide the administration with the political “cover” to abandon this impossible effort. It failed to convince, despite the commission’s many sensible judgements, because of the near-impossibility of providing a way for the United States to leave Iraq that is not a clear admission of failure, and does not have very bad consequences in Iraq and elsewhere. The consequences of leaving later will probably be worse, but that does not move this White House, since its occupants will be gone at the end of next year.(...) The commission’s recommendations are being mostly ignored by Democrats as well as Republicans because both parties and their principal leaders, including nearly all of their possible presidential candidates, are deeply compromised by having from the start supported the Bush administration’s “global war against terror.”(...) Individually, politicians in Washington have reason to fear that if they back away from the war now, and Bush continues the Iraq conflict into the presidential election year of 2008, they may face the electoral accusation of betraying their own previous commitments, and be attacked by their opponents for lack of patriotism and “surrender” to terrorism. Worse yet, accepting defeat in Iraq seems a national capitulation in ways much wider than Iraq.(...) he obstacle to such a capitulation is that not only President Bush and those Republican legislators, but nearly all of the Democratic legislators as well, supported from the start the plan to invade Iraq and democratize the Middle East. They uncritically believed in the United States as sole superpower, militarily omnipotent, responsible for international security, and moral and political leader of a world in which history had recently come to an end in the triumph of American democracy over Communism. There remained only for Washington to install that democracy in a few unruly corners of the earth, and kill all the Islamic radicals who want to defy the inevitable. With this record of past commitment, how can defeat in Iraq be acceptable? To do so amounts to acknowledgement of the defeat of the moral and political stance of the United States since the end of the cold war. This may yet prove a longer war than anyone now thinks.
READ IT ALL

LA Times gets the goods on Gates

David Seaton's News Links

If you have spent the last ten years or more of your precious life struggling with Microsoft products, trying to earn your living despite their glitches, "blue screens of death" and their huge security holes. If you have been angered by the way you were manipulated and "driven" from version to version; upgrade to upgrade and pray for the day when Google and Linux finally free you from this monster, nothing in the LA Times' exposé of the Gates Foundation will surprise you all that very much. If however, you worship the wealthy on general principle as so many Americans are prone to do, you may be shocked and disappointed by what you find. Relax, nothing is more fun than the unmasking of a pharisee: enjoy. DS

Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation - Los Angeles Times
Abstract: An ink spot certified that he had been immunized against polio and measles, thanks to a vaccination drive supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. But polio is not the only threat Justice faces. Almost since birth, he has had respiratory trouble. His neighbors call it "the cough." People blame fumes and soot spewing from flames that tower 300 feet into the air over a nearby oil plant. It is owned by the Italian petroleum giant Eni, whose investors include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.(...) In Ebocha, where Justice lives, Dr. Elekwachi Okey, a local physician, says hundreds of flares at oil plants in the Niger Delta have caused an epidemic of bronchitis in adults, and asthma and blurred vision in children. (...) "We're all smokers here," Okey said, "but not with cigarettes."(...) The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations to protect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France — the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States or Europe. (...) At the end of 2005, the Gates Foundation endowment stood at $35 billion, making it the largest in the world. (...) Warren E. Buffett, the world's second-richest man after Bill Gates, pledged to add about $31 billion in installments from his personal fortune. (...) the total is higher than the gross domestic products of 70% of the world's nations. Like most philanthropies, the Gates Foundation gives away at least 5% of its worth every year, to avoid paying most taxes. In 2005, it granted nearly $1.4 billion. It awards grants mainly in support of global health initiatives(...) It invests the other 95% of its worth. This endowment is managed by Bill Gates Investments, which handles Gates' personal fortune.(...) By comparing these investments with information from for-profit services that analyze corporate behavior for mutual funds, pension managers, government agencies and other foundations, The Times found that the Gates Foundation has holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices.(...) Some critics say the foundation's failure to use its own investments "to promote ... public benefit in developing countries at reasonable cost" might trace back to the source of most of its money — Microsoft — which Bill Gates serves as chairman. Microsoft monopolies in computer operating systems and business software depend upon the same intellectual-property and trade-law approaches favored by drug companies. READ IT ALL

Saint Saddam?

David Seaton's News Links

There are things that beggar belief. Any apologist of the Iraq war, when driven into a corner by the weight of his opponent's arguments, would finally retreat behind, "well, anyway, the Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein, aren't they?" The image of Saddam as a sanguinary, subhuman beast was central to the entire narrative. By dying in a manner straight out some Arab legend told around a Bedouin campfire, a lion among jackals, defiantly praising the Palestinians, his last words the Shahadah, Saddam was allowed to utterly destroy the American raison de guerre. Total incompetence or a move to deepen the split between Sunnis and Shiites leading up to an attack on Iran? Certainly for the neocons the main objective has always been Shiite Iran. However, it's difficult to see the drama of Saddam's hanging as a Zionist conspiracy; how could they know he would die so bravely? Finally, then, who is the loser in this war? Not Saddam Hussein. If death is defeat we are all losers... everybody has to die sooner or later... to enter into Arab folklore, to be sung and honored for generations, after doing almost everything you have ever wanted to do for most of your long life could certainly be considered victory. DS

Images of Hanging Make Hussein a Martyr to Many - New York Times

Abstract: In the week since Saddam Hussein was hanged in an execution steeped in sectarian overtones, his public image in the Arab world, formerly that of a convicted dictator, has undergone a resurgence of admiration and awe. On the streets, in newspapers and over the Internet, Mr. Hussein has emerged as a Sunni Arab hero who stood calm and composed as his Shiite executioners tormented and abused him.(...) in Beirut, hundreds of members of the Lebanese Baath Party and Palestinian activists marched Friday in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood behind a symbolic coffin representing that of Mr. Hussein and later offered a funeral prayer. Photographs of Mr. Hussein standing up in court, against a backdrop of the Dome of the Rock shrine in Jerusalem, were pasted on city walls near Palestinian refugee camps, praising “Saddam the martyr.” “God damn America and its spies,” a banner across one major Beirut thoroughfare read. “Our condolences to the nation for the assassination of Saddam, and victory to the Iraqi resistance.” By standing up to the United States and its client government in Baghdad and dying with seeming dignity, Mr. Hussein appears to have been virtually cleansed of his past. “Suddenly we forgot that he was a dictator and that he killed thousands of people,” said Roula Haddad, 33, a Lebanese Christian. “All our hatred for him suddenly turned into sympathy, sympathy with someone who was treated unjustly by an occupation force and its collaborators.”(...) “The Arab world has been devoid of pride for a long time,” said Ahmad Mazin al-Shugairi, who hosts a television show at the Middle East Broadcasting Center that promotes a moderate version of Islam in Saudi Arabia. “The way Saddam acted in court and just before he was executed, with dignity and no fear, struck a chord with Arabs who are desperate for their own leaders to have pride too.” Ayman Safadi, editor in chief of the independent Jordanian daily Al Ghad, said, “The last image for many was of Saddam taken out of a hole. That has all changed now.”(...) “He stood as strong as a mountain while he was being hanged,” said Ahmed el-Ghamrawi, a former Egyptian ambassador to Iraq. “He died a strong president and lived as a strong president. This is the image people are left with.” Daoud Kuttab, a Palestinian media critic and director of the online radio station Ammannet.net, said: “If Saddam had media planners, he could not have planned it better than this. Nobody could ever have imagined that Saddam would have gone down with such dignity.” Writers and commentators have stopped short of eulogizing the dictator but have looked right past his bloody history as they compare Iraq’s present circumstances with Iraq under Mr. Hussein.(...) “Was it a coincidence that Israel, Iran and the United States all welcomed Saddam’s execution?” wrote Hamadeh Faraneh, a columnist for the daily Al Rai. “Was it also a coincidence when Saddam said bravely in front of his tormentors, ‘Long live the nation,’ and that Palestine is Arab, then uttered the declaration of faith? His last words expressed his depth and what he died for.”(...) Mr. Safadi, the Jordanian editor, said: “In the public’s perception Saddam was terrible, but those people were worse. That final act has really jeopardized the future of Iraq immensely. And we all know this is a blow to the moderate camp in the Arab world.” READ IT ALL

Bush's African "strategery"

The CIA Factbook lists Ethiopia's religious makeup as " Muslim 45%-50%, Ethiopian Orthodox 35%-40%, animist 12%, other 3%-8%".

David Seaton's News Links

While waiting for Bush to unveil his new "strategery for victory" in Iraq , it's easy to take one's eyes off Somalia, but that would be a mistake. The Horn of Africa is one of Brent Scowcroft's major "choke points" for the flow of oil to America and its allies (clients, satellites, whatever). Ethiopia, which is one of the poorest countries in the world has invaded and is currently occupying Somalia. Let's have a closer look at the situation:

"The stability that emerged in southern Somalia after sixteen years of utter lawlessness is gone, the defeat of the ruling Islamic Courts Union now ushering in looting, martial law and the prospect of another major anti-Western insurgency.(...)the Bush Administration, undeterred by the horrors and setbacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, has opened another battlefront in this volatile quarter of the Muslim world. As with Iraq, it casts this illegal war as a way to curtail terrorism, but its real goal appears to be to obtain a direct foothold in a highly strategic area of the world through a client regime. The results could destabilize the whole region. The Horn of Africa, at whose core Somalia lies, is newly oil-rich. It is also just miles across the Red Sea from Saudi Arabia and Yemen, overlooking the daily passage of large numbers of oil tankers and warships through that waterway. The United States has a huge military base in neighboring Djibouti that is being enlarged substantially and will become the headquarters of a new US military command being created specifically for Africa.(...)The Ethiopian military presence in Somalia is inflammatory and will destabilize this region and threaten Kenya, a US ally and the only island of stability in this corner of Africa. Ethiopia is at even greater risk, as a dictatorship with little popular support and beset by two large internal revolts by Ogadenis and Oromos. It is also mired in a military stalemate with Eritrea, which has denied it secure access to seaports. It now seeks such access in Somalia." Salim Lone - The Nation

And, hey, the majority of Ethiopia's population is Muslim! If anyone reading this post is of draft age or is the parent of someone who is of draft age or going to turn 18 in the next 10 years, I suggest watching the Horn of Africa very closely. If the US continues any farther down this path, it will need thousands of infantrymen/women to patrol. Don't expect the Democrats to be much help either, most of this is "bipartisan"... Bush is just incredibly clumsy executing this stuff (that is actually his greatest virtue). Clinton was a political magician like David Copperfield, but Bush is like some magician at a children's party: rented tux, cards falling out of his sleeves, who reaches into his top hat and comes up with a handful of rabbit shit. Don't knock it, this how us kiddies finally learn how to spot the tricks. DS

Invading Somalia is no recipe for stability - Editorial - Financial Times
Abstract: (...) If the Ethiopians stay they risk uniting much of Somalia against them. If they go, as they say they soon will, they will leave a political vacuum, with Somalia's well-armed clans scrabbling over the carcass of the country. Eventually, it will almost certainly be the more disciplined but now radicalised Islamists that end up holding the ring. We are, in short, looking at yet another geopolitical disaster, which could spread fighting across the Horn of Africa, a region at the crossroads of the Middle East and Africa that is already blighted by floods and drought, famine and desertification, with a long history of conflict. To the north, Ethiopia's arch-rival, Eritrea, is already sending arms to the Islamists, while, to the south, the fighting has reached the borders of north-east Kenya. Admittedly, Somalia has presented peculiar difficulties since it imploded as a state 15 years ago. Its people emerged shattered from colonialism. Although among the most homogeneous in Africa, with the same language and Muslim religion and largely from the same ethnic group, they have built their identities around six rival clans and tributaries of feuding sub-clans. One can see moreover, why Somalia presses so many American buttons. As a failed state in transition from warlords' rule to an Islamist emirate, it resembles Afghanistan. The humiliation of the failed US intervention in Mogadishu in 1993 - the Black Hawk Down episode - ranks with the headlong retreat of US marines from Beirut a decade earlier. A quick, ostensible victory must also have looked very tempting for a Bush administration responsible for the debacle in Iraq. Washington claims the Union of Islamic Courts is allied to al-Qaeda. That looks as doubtful as the recent record of US intelligence. Certainly, the Islamist alliance has its extremists. Their influence and audience is now set to grow exponentially. And Somalia could indeed become a new magnet for and incubator of jihadi terrorism - just as Iraq did after the US invasion. This invasion is not the answer to Somalia's problems. Whatever the intentions of Addis Ababa and the increasingly assertive government of Meles Zenawi, the Ethiopian leader, his country is too poor and, with very long borders, too porous to stay in Somalia. The transitional government, by itself, lacks all credibility. It was created in Nairobi and confined, until last month's invasion, to Baidoa, close to Ethiopia's border. It never asserted its authority; its prime minister, Ali Mohammed Gedi, does not even command the support of his sub-clan. The Islamist alliance was able to restore order in Mogadishu and even open the ports. Its methods are brutal but Sharia law is widely accepted and, in current conditions, welcomed in Somalia. The Islamists, moreover, are not going away. Their retreat looks like the tactical prelude to guerrilla war. READ IT ALL

Bush an Iranian agent? - Slavoj Žižek - New York Times

David Seaton's News Links

One of the positive effects of the failure in Iraq is that many people have begun to ask questions. Once they begin to ask questions, it's hard to know where they'll stop. Probably without the Iraq fiasco, someone as original, fertile and playful as the Slovenian philosopher, Slavoj Žižek, wouldn't get space in the New York Times. In these dismal days we must take our pleasures where we can. If you haven't read anything by Žižek before, here is your chance to begin the adventure. DS

Denying the Facts, Finding the Truth - New York Times Abstract: One of the pop heroes of the Iraq war was undoubtedly Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf, the unfortunate Iraqi information minister who, in his daily press conferences during the invasion, heroically denied even the most evident facts and stuck to the Iraqi line.(...) Furthermore, sometimes, he even struck a strange truth — when confronted with claims that Americans were in control of parts of Baghdad, he snapped back: “They are not in control of anything — they don’t even control themselves!” What, exactly, do they not control? Back in 1979, in her essay “Dictatorship and Double Standards,” published in Commentary, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick elaborated the distinction between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” regimes. This concept served as the justification of the American policy of collaborating with right-wing dictators while treating Communist regimes much more harshly(...) Her point was that, while one can deal with authoritarian rulers who react rationally and predictably to material and military threats, totalitarian leaders are much more dangerous and have to be directly confronted. The irony is that this distinction encapsulates perfectly what went wrong with the United States occupation of Iraq: Saddam Hussein was a corrupt authoritarian dictator striving to keep his hold on power and guided by brutal pragmatic considerations (which led him to collaborate with the United States in the 1980s).(...) One outcome of the American invasion is that it has generated a much more uncompromising “fundamentalist” politico-ideological constellation in Iraq. This has led to a predominance of the pro-Iranian political forces there — the intervention basically delivered Iraq to Iranian influence. One can imagine how, if President Bush were to be court-martialed by a Stalinist judge, he would be instantly condemned as an “Iranian agent.” The violent outbursts of the recent Bush politics are thus not exercises in power, but rather exercises in panic.(...) The problem with today’s America is not that it is a new global empire, but that it is not one. That is, while pretending to be an empire, it continues to act like a nation-state, ruthlessly pursuing its interests. It is as if the guiding vision of recent American politics is a weird reversal of the well-known motto of the ecologists — act globally, think locally.(...) And now the United States is continuing, through other means, this greatest crime of Saddam Hussein: his never-ending attempt to topple the Iranian government. This is the price you have to pay when the struggle against the enemies is the struggle against the evil ghosts in your own closet: you don’t even control yourself. READ IT ALL

The Neocons can't please anybody it seems

David Seaton's News Links
In Spain there is a description of ultra-Catholics as "mas papista que el Papa", "more papist than the Pope". You could say that America's right wing Jews are "more Zionist than the Israelis". Israel has to be experienced to be understood: you'll never find so many nuances in such a small space, anywhere. Certainly nothing there, where the blood is daily on the floor, is as simple as it might appear to the Perles, Foxmans, Krauthammers and Krystols, busy working out their damp fantasies of violence in the banal suburbs of the USA. DS
Israeli Experts Say Middle East Was Safer With Saddam in Iraq - The Forward
Abstract: Although few tears were shed in Israel over Saddam Hussein’s death last week, a small but growing chorus — including government officials, academics and Iraqi émigrés — is warning that Israel could find itself in more danger with him gone, and that it might even regret having welcomed his toppling. “If I knew then what I know today, I would not have recommended going to war, because Saddam was far less dangerous than I thought,” said Haifa University political scientist Amatzia Baram, one of Israel’s leading Iraq experts.(...) “Retrospectively, justice has been done,” Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh told Israel Radio this week. Still, he cautioned, Israel must now be concerned “about what is liable to happen in the future.” Saddam’s death, Sneh warned, could lead to “a reinforcement of Iranian influence in Iraq.” He said that Iraq had turned into a “volcano of terror” following the war, with “destructive energies” that could spill over into Jordan and Israel. Such misgivings, though rarely aired publicly for fear of offending Washington, reach high into Israel’s security establishment. Yuval Diskin, director of the Shin Bet security service, told a group of students in a military preparatory program last May that Israel might come to regret its support for the American-led invasion in March 2003. “When you dismantle a system in which there is a despot who controls his people by force, you have chaos,” Diskin said, unaware that the meeting was secretly recorded. “I’m not sure we won’t miss Saddam.” The tape was later broadcast on Israeli television.(...) “Saddam’s regime was preferable — not only for us but for all the states in the region, except for maybe the Iranians,” Barak said. “Saddam held together a divided, tribal, hostile state of Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds. He was a single man who made all decisions, and he was a rational leader. The moment he was gone, everything fell apart.” READ IT ALL

Neocons trying for Little Big Horn

George Armstrong Custer

David Seaton's News Links

The Surge: At this point, Iraq having descended into total chaos, the neocons are advocating a classic, "boots on the ground - hearts and minds", counterinsurgency operation. With Iraqis now only in agreement on one thing, they hate Americans, having American soldiers intensively patrolling the streets of Iraq is an invitation to hundreds of tiny battles of the Little Big Horn. The "butcher's bill" (charming British army term) will be dreadful. "Force Protection" is the obsession of America's professional military. Any hint that US infantry is being used as cannon fodder would dry up recruiting totally. The neocons are famous as "chicken hawks", very generous with the lives of others... especially those of the young rednecks that make up the backbone of America's military caste and who provoke so much derision from Borat. The danger of American unity being openly split on ethnic, class, caste and tribal lines is real. DS

Neocon old guard back on Iraq policy - Los Angeles Times
Abstract: Ever since Iraq began spiraling toward chaos, the war's intellectual architects — the so-called neoconservatives — have found themselves under attack in Washington policy salons and, more important, within the Bush administration.(...) But now, a small but increasingly influential group of neocons are again helping steer Iraq policy. A key part of the new Iraq plan that President Bush is expected to announce next week — a surge in U.S. troops coupled with a more focused counterinsurgency effort — has been one of the chief recommendations of these neocons since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.(...) If Bush goes ahead with the surge idea, along with a shift to a more aggressive counterinsurgency, it would in many ways represent a wholesale repudiation of the outgoing Pentagon leadership. These leaders — particularly former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the departing Middle East commander — strongly resisted more U.S. troops and a larger push into troubled neighborhoods out of fear it would prevent Iraqis from taking over the job themselves and exacerbate the image of America as an occupying power.(...) The neoconservative group had been the driving force in Washington behind a move against Iraq, even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. They saw Hussein as a lingering threat to world security — a view bolstered within the administration following 9/11. And they argued that transforming Iraq into a democracy could serve as a model to remake the Middle East's political dynamics. The problems with the war gradually undermined the clout they had wielded. But perhaps the more important hurdle to their views being heeded — especially on military matters — was the White House's refusal to see its Iraq policy as a failure. READ IT ALL

Scowcroft puts the fox among the chickens

David Seaton's News Links

If you peel off all the national security rhetoric from Brent Scowcroft's Op-Ed in today's New York Times, the message is: America's support of Israel is endangering America's hegemony in the Middle East, which in turn endangers America's control of the world's energy supplies. To save what is left of America's power and prestige, a face saving solution is needed for Iraq. No solution can be found for Iraq without the cooperation of its neighbors. Because of America's support of Israel the population of those countries would not tolerate cooperation with the USA and that support would not be forthcoming. Therefore the Palestinians must be satisfied in order to extract the USA from Iraq. Very neat. Really what General Scowcroft's analysis shows is how desperate the situation and with it America's position in the world have become. If the United States had imposed a Pax Americana on Israel and Palestine at the zenith of American power at the end the First Gulf War, this would have been seen as America's acting from strength: power imposing justice. Very Roman. At this point the message that is being sent is that the armed resistance of irregular Arab fighter is forcing the United States to abandon Israel. Certainly this will encourage others to resist American power everywhere in the world. It also means importing the same tribal politics that poison the Middle East directly into the heart of America's political discourse. Can you imagine AIPAC's reaction to Scowcroft's proposals? Jimmy Carter with Mearsheimer and Walt are a Hadassah kaffee klatch compared to Brent Scowcroft. The Israeli, defense and energy lobbies will be at each others throats and we may see the rise in "deep America" of a Borat-like isolationist populism tinged with antisemitism. However unfortunate it may be though, General Scowcroft's analysis is the correct one: this is the only way out. It is also an epitaph for America's empire and the beginning of a "Baghdad-like" political climate in Washington. DS

Getting the Middle East Back on Our Side - Brent Scowcroft - New York Times
Abstract: An American withdrawal before Iraq can, in the words of the president, “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself” would be a strategic defeat for American interests, with potentially catastrophic consequences both in the region and beyond. Our opponents would be hugely emboldened, our friends deeply demoralized. Iran, heady with the withdrawal of its principal adversary, would expand its influence through Hezbollah and Hamas more deeply into Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Jordan. Our Arab friends would rightly feel we had abandoned them to face alone a radicalism that has been greatly inflamed by American actions in the region and which could pose a serious threat to their own governments. The effects would not be confined to Iraq and the Middle East. Energy resources and transit choke points vital to the global economy would be subjected to greatly increased risk. Terrorists and extremists elsewhere would be emboldened. And the perception, worldwide, would be that the American colossus had stumbled, was losing its resolve and could no longer be considered a reliable ally or friend — or the guarantor of peace and stability in this critical region. To avoid these dire consequences, we need to secure the support of the countries of the region themselves. It is greatly in their self-interest to give that support, just as they did in the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict. Unfortunately, in recent years they have come to see it as dangerous to identify with the United States, and so they have largely stood on the sidelines. A vigorously renewed effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict could fundamentally change both the dynamics in the region and the strategic calculus of key leaders. Real progress would push Iran into a more defensive posture. Hezbollah and Hamas would lose their rallying principle. American allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states would be liberated to assist in stabilizing Iraq. And Iraq would finally be seen by all as a key country that had to be set right in the pursuit of regional security. Arab leaders are now keen to resolve the 50-year-old dispute. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel may be as well. His nation’s long-term security can only be assured by resolving this issue once and for all. However, only the American president can bring them to the same table.(...) What is at stake is not only Iraq and the stability of the Middle East, but the global perception of the reliability of the United States as a partner in a deeply troubled world. We cannot afford to fail that test. READ IT ALL

Homes for the Homeless: Vive la France!

David Seaton's News Links

Political action is possible, things can be changed, activists can make a difference... In short another world is possible... at least in Scotland and France. DS
France adopts Scottish policy of legal right to housing - Financial Times
Abstract: The law would allow homeless people to sue public authorities and force them to provide accommodation. It follows an assertive campaign by homeless associations that has pushed a growing public concern up the political agenda four months before France’s presidential elections. France’s interest in Scottish housing policies has surprised some campaigners who, in spite of long-standing close Franco-Scottish relations, are more accustomed to seeing the UK as a bastion of heartless capitalism. In a nod to this apparent paradox, Mr de Villepin said: “For our Anglo-Saxon friends, this is proof of France’s pragmatism, drawing on what works best elsewhere, while taking account of France’s specific needs.” He said action would be taken to reduce the shortfall of 600,000 social dwellings. Campaigners claim the real figure is closer to 1m. Jacques Chirac, France’s president, promised a right to housing in his new year’s speech last weekend, winning some praise but raising questions over why he waited until his twelfth year as president to take action. Concern for the homeless is a recurring theme in France’s media whenever temperatures drop over Christmas. But this year the issue has attracted more attention because of daring publicity tactics by campaigners. Homeless people in central Paris were given khaki tents last year, making them more visible. Since then, hundreds more tents, pink this time, have been set up for the homeless and their middle class sympathisers beside the Canal St Martin in a fashionable area of the French capital. Similar tents have also sprung up in Nice, Lyons and Toulouse. The latest coup was last week’s “requisitioning” of a vacant bank branch by campaign groups to house 80 people. The six-floor building, owned by mutual bank CIC, has been dubbed the “ministry for the housing crisis” by its squatters. This lobbying has forced presidential candidates – including Nicolas Sarkozy on the right and Ségolène Royal on the left – to take a stance on the homeless. Media attention has added to the impression that social issues, such as crime, immigration and the cost of living, are dominating the election campaign. Mr Sarkozy, the campaign’s only self-proclaimed economic liberal, has been peppering recent speeches with more socially conscious policy ideas. At his latest rally he promised to house anyone who did not want to be homeless within two years. By shifting to the centre-ground Mr Sarkozy seems to be reacting to the meteoric rise of Ms Royal as the Socialist party candidate. Ms Royal has made the fight against poverty the centrepiece of her campaign. “That poverty still exists in a country like ours, this is the real scandal,” she recently told the Journal du Dimanche. READ IT ALL

Wal-Mart strikes again

David Seaton's News Links
Wal-Mart is America's largest retailer and that is because of its amazing efficiency. It is retailing in its purest expression. Its only values are cost and consumer satisfaction. The fact that its employees instead of being called employees are called "associates," is in itself a profound ideological statement. Wal-Mart is at the center of today's deepest question of political philosophy: are we all merely just "consumers" or are we citizens with any responsibilities for each other's welfare as fellow citizens? A person in disagreement with the direction the world is moving, a person who wanted to engage in political activism, could find nothing more rewarding in its long range effects, nowhere where he or she could make more of a "difference", than to join the struggle to unionize Wal-Mart. DS
Wal-Mart Seeks New Flexibility In Worker Shifts - Wall Street Journal - Page A1
Abstract: The nation's biggest private employer is about to revamp the way it schedules its work force, in a move that could shake up many employees' lives. Early this year, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., using a new computerized scheduling system, will start moving many of its 1.3 million workers from predictable shifts to a system based on the number of customers in stores at any given time. The move promises greater productivity and customer satisfaction for the huge retailer but could be a major headache for employees. The change is made possible by a software system that can crunch an array of data, part of a shift toward computerized management tools that can help pare costs and boost companies' bottom lines. But it also could demand greater flexibility and availability from workers in place of reliable work shifts -- and predictable paychecks.(...) while the new systems are expected to benefit both retailers and customers, some experts say they can saddle workers with unpredictable schedules. In some cases, they may be asked to be "on call" to meet customer surges, or sent home because of a lull, resulting in less pay. The new systems also alert managers when a worker is approaching full-time status or overtime, which would require higher wages and benefits, so they can scale back that person's schedule. That means workers may not know when or if they will need a babysitter or whether they will work enough hours to pay that month's bills. Rather than work three eight-hour days, someone might now be plugged into six four-hour days, mornings one week and evenings the next. Some analysts say the new systems will result in more irregular part-time work. "The whole point is workers were a fixed cost, now they're a variable cost. Is it good for workers? Probably not," says Kenneth Dalto, a management consultant in Farmington Hills, Mich.(...) Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com1, funded by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, says the new scheduling system has "devastating implications" for employees. "What the computer is trying to optimize is the most number of part-time and least number of full-time workers at the lowest labor costs, with no regard for the effect that it has on workers' lives," he says.(...) all full-time cashiers and customer-service workers are encouraged to consider including "if at all possible" a weekend shift every week. "Limiting your personal availability may restrict the number of hours you are scheduled,"(...) Tami Orth, a full-time cashier in Ludington, Mich., says she used to work a regular schedule of nearly 35 hours a week, with Mondays and Wednesdays off. In May, managers began to assign her as few as 12 hours a week, and her shifts began to fluctuate. "You can't budget anything," says Ms. Orth, who earns $9.32 an hour.(...) Ms. Clark denied managers use the system to pressure people to change their availability or force out seasoned workers. She also said the new system makes schedules more consistent. READ IT ALL (subscription)

Iraq: hard questions

David Seaton's News Links
Is the descent into civil war and anarchy in Iraq, and the Sunni/Shiite split that is developing there, really what was planned in the first place? Is this conflict, which may soon engulf the world's entire Islamic community, the real objective of the invasion of Iraq? As the disaster unfolds, we can see that Iraq with its mixture of oil and ethnic tensions, which was artificially cobbled together at the end of WWI, is a center of gravity of the Middle East and by extension much of the Muslim universe. By destroying the Iraqi state apparatus, have the props been knocked out from underneath the entire jerry-built edifice that the British and French constructed from the remains of the Ottoman empire? Were the doubts that kept George H.W. Bush, James Baker and Brent Snowcroft from pushing on to Baghdad in the First Gulf War, precisely the germ of the strategy for the present conflict? In other words: is what, up till now, has appeared to be only the effects of colossal ignorance, stupidity and poor organization, in fact a deliberate strategy of breathtaking cruelty and malice? Have the neocons, with their links to the Israeli ultra-right, maneuvered the United States into provoking a worldwide civil war among Muslims? DS

Iraqi refugees... yet more shame

David Seaton's News Links

Don't you wish you could read some news from Iraq that didn't make you feel deeply ashamed? DS

US criticized for limiting Iraqi refugee intake to 500 - Guardian

Abstract: Humanitarian groups have criticised the United States administration for failing to pull its weight in providing for up to 3 million Iraqis displaced from their homes, with the official quota for the number of Iraqi refugees to be allowed into the US this year standing at just 500. Aid organisations report a rapidly mounting crisis of refugees inside Iraq and in neighbouring countries as thousands flee sectarian violence every day. The United Nations estimates that more than 1.5 million Iraqis are displaced within the country and a similar number are living as refugees in Jordan, Syria and elsewhere. The US administration laid down the quota of 500 Iraqi refugees for 2007 last September. It has a further 20,000 refugee places that are unspecified and could be allocated to Iraqis, but the administration has failed to provide funds even to meet its identified programme of 50,000 refugees from specific regions in 2007. So far, only 41,000 places have been funded. Robert Carey, head of resettlement at the New York-based International Rescue Committee, said a long-term refugee crisis was being created, with many of those fleeing so traumatised that they had vowed never to return to Iraq. "The need is extraordinary. From what we have heard and seen, the situation in Iraq and neighbouring countries is rapidly degrading and could destabilise the entire region. The need goes far beyond what is being offered, and only real leadership and commitment within the administration will change that," Mr Carey said. READ IT ALL

Bush, the anti-Midas

David Seaton's News Links

Midas, mythical king of Phrygia was known for turning everything he touched into gold. George W. Bush seems to have the opposite faculty of turning everything he touches into "excrément" (that's French for shit). Bush and his Straussian friends, with their curious celebration of "manliness" have taken America's image of its own masculinity (think: Gary Cooper, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart) and trashed it beyond recognition. For his latest trick Bush has managed to convert a genocidal dictator, Saddam Hussein, into the hero of a Hemingway short story; a lion surrounded by jackals. "Grace under pressure" was the Hemingway obsession. In the presence of death, pretense evaporates and what remains is truth. The truth is that Saddam died very well. Bush, poor fool, gave him that opportunity and Saddam had the chops to make the most of it. Are we permitted to doubt that Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney... and yes, even the boy emperor himself, would ever go to the gallows with such stoic dignity, would ever die so bravely and so well as Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti? DS
Hijacking Eid and Hanging Saddam - IraqSlogger
Abstract: Saddam's hanging at the hands of chubby Iraqi men wearing ski masks is likely to be perceived by many as an American execution and as part of a trend of American missteps contributing to sectarian tensions in Iraq and the region. The trial of Saddam was viewed by detractors as an event stage-managed by the Americans. According to Human Rights Watch, the Iraqi judges and lawyers involved in prosecuting Saddam were ill prepared and relied on their American advisers. American minders shut off the microphones and ordered the translators to halt whenever they disapproved of what was being said by the defendants. The important Muslim holiday of Eid al Adha was due to begin over the weekend. For Sunnis it began on Saturday the 30th of December. For Shias it begins on Sunday the 31st. According to tradition in Mecca, battles are suspended during the Hajj period so that pilgrims can safely march to Mecca. This practice even predated Islam and Muslims preserved this tradition, calling this period 'Al Ashur al Hurm,' or the months of truce. By hanging Saddam on the Sunni Eid the Americans and the Iraqi government were in effect saying that only the Shia Eid had legitimacy. Sunnis were irate that Shia traditions were given primacy (as they are more and more in Iraq these days) and that Shias disrespected the tradition and killed Saddam on this day. Because the Iraqi constitution itself prohibits executions from being carried out on Eid, the Iraqi government had to officially declare that Eid did not begin until Sunday the 31st. It was a striking decision, virtually declaring that Iraq is now a Shia state. Eid al Adha is the festival of the sacrifice of the sheep. Some may perceive it as the day Saddam was sacrificed.(...) One thing that is clear, is that the death of Saddam did not bring closure or peace to Iraq. Sunnis are now gathering at Saddam's grave, demonstrators are now showing his iconic image and revenge has been threatened. President George Bush declared his nemesis' death "a milestone" and it may just be the clearest message that is there will be no mercy for Sunnis in a Shia and Kurdish dominated Iraq. READ IT ALL (hat to Juan Cole)