Why I miss George W. Bush more and more with each passing day

David Seaton's News Links

The Obama administration has long been bumbling along in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to sacrificing Americans’ basic rights and liberties under the false flag of fighting terrorism. Now the Obama team seems ready to lurch even farther down that dismal road than George W. Bush did. Instead of tightening the relaxed rules for F.B.I. investigations — not just of terrorism suspects but of pretty much anyone — that were put in place in the Bush years, President Obama’s Justice Department is getting ready to push the proper bounds of privacy even further. Editorial - New York Times

A review of President Obama’s record suggests that he may have been for same-sex marriage before he was against it. New York Times

I miss George W. Bush more and more with each passing day.

What do I miss most about George W. Bush?

I miss "hope".

George W. Bush gave the American people hope.

When Bush was president I, and many like me, had the hope that the United State's fundamental problem was that the president of the United States was stupid.

Now that Bush has gone, and we have elected a president who is said to have a very high IQ and a suitable time has passed, and looking around, it is becoming clear that things are no better: Guantanamo is still there, the Patriot Act is still there, the people who caused the financial crisis are still there. The two wars that Obama inherited are still there, plus another one he has started on his own...

It is obvious that the problem we and the world are facing isn't as simple as presidential bandwidth and although Barack Obama is beginning to look a bit like William Faulkner's impression of Henry James, whom he described as, "one of the nicest old ladies I ever met"; whatever the problem is in American government, presidential stupidity is not at the heart of it.

It is beginning to look as if perhaps the American political system itself and perhaps even the country itself are stupid; that George W. Bush and the United States of America were a perfect fit.

And if that is true, then it is quite difficult not to lose hope. DS

Admirals, foxes, cabbages and kings

Admiral William Fallon

"A fateful debate is now taking place at the Pentagon that will determine the pace of U.S. military withdrawals for what remains of President Bush's term. Senior Pentagon officials -- including, we hear, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, Army Chief of Staff George Casey and Admiral Fallon -- have been urging deeper troop cuts in Iraq beyond the five "surge" combat brigades already scheduled for redeployment this summer.(...) their rationale for troop withdrawals seems to have less to do with conditions in Iraq and more with fear that the war is putting a strain on the military as an institution." Wall Street Journal

'You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,' Colin Powell told the president. 'You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.' Pottery Barn Rule

"In War, victory should be swift, if victory is slow, men tire, morale sags. Sieges exhaust strength; protracted campaigns strain the public treasury. If men are tired, moral low, strength exhausted, treasure spent; then the feudal lords will exploit the disarray and attack. This even the wisest will be powerless to mend.(...) No nation has ever benefited from a protracted war.(...) The skillful warrior never conscripts troops a second time " Sun Tzu, 500 BC

"It’s probably Fallon’s good sense that made it impossible for him to work for this administration." Cato Institute

David Seaton's News Links
Admiral Fallon's revelations in Esquire, nearly constitute what in 19th century Spain and Latin America was called a pronunciamiento. In a sense, so was the intelligence report that Iran had dropped its nuclear program. This is probably as close to a coup d'etat as you can get in the United States today. The military and intelligence establishments are defying the President. Fallon has taken early "retirement" in order to publicize his views and throw a monkey wrench into the neocon/Israeli juggernaut to have the United States attack Iran before there is a changing of the guard in the White House.

I have very little to add to the many articles and columns being written about the Fallon affair. I would only underline the concern that I detect among the professional soldiers for the deteriorating state of the armed forces as an institution. This concern goes back before Bush. The Clinton administration was very impatient with the Powell Doctrine, "What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?" asked Madeline Albright. And although Barack Obama wants to "change the mindset that got us into the war", his recently canned adviser, Samantha Power wants to send the US armed forces all over the world to prevent genocide and stabilize failed states and bring democracy to the benighted heathen. Über-neocon Robert Kagan has this to say about Obama's military philosophy:

Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism. He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face."

This endless patrolling of the world's sewers is something that the US armed forces desperately don't want to do. I think that it is forgotten that in many ways the armed forces are a community of families, deeply rooted in American life, with a continuity over generations. The recent film "In the Valley of Elah" gives some of the flavor of that.

Probably the only reason I am skeptical that John McCain is eager to follow the Bush/neocon/liberal-interventionist doctrine of endless tilting at windmills all over the globe is that his father and grandfather were US Navy admirals. The Republican candidate spent his entire life until entering politics in the US Navy: it is his home town, his youthful reality and dreams. Politics was a second choice career for him when he saw that his "lost" years as a prisoner of war were a detour from the chain of command that made it practically impossible for him to be an admiral like his father and grandfather.

I just can't imagine anyone with that background using up the lives and families of the men and women he grew up with in fool's errands, which may in fact not even be in America's greater interest. Not even Colin Powell himself could have such deep emotional ties to the military community that McCain must have. I can just imagine the hell he would catch from his Navy wife of a mother.

Nobody campaigning for the presidency is going to say a word that would trouble or concern AIPAC, so I discount all the words that all of them pronounce. I am only looking at their lives and trying to see their deepest motivations. It may be innocent on my part, but I feel that McCain's threats to bomb Iran follow the teachings of the timeless master of strategists, Sun Tzu:

"Strong words combined with an aggressive advance are a sign of impending retreat."

This is the context within which I see Admiral Fallon's "pronunciamiento". DS

Don't ever expect Russia to cut us an inch of slack

"At the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, historic or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred." Patrick J. Buchanan

David Seaton's News Links
One of the strangest things that has happened to me since September 11th, 2001, is finding myself agreeing so often with paleo-conservative, Pat Buchanan. I don't agree with him on one single domestic policy issue that I can think of, but on foreign policy I find him strangely sound... and the quote above, totally.

The way the United States treated Russia at the collapse of the Soviet Union will haunt America for decades. It is without a doubt the stupidest, most frivolous, mistake in our history. It even dwarfs the invasion of Iraq for destructive idiocy. The answer to the question as to why and to whose benefit all this was done is another one for "future Chinese historians" to settle.

We are beginning to harvest the bitter crop sown then. Vladimir Putin went to Tehran to be photographed with Ahmadinejad in the middle of a US diplomatic offensive to isolate Iran… in order to isolate the United States.

It is important to realize that most countries rich in natural resources were formerly ruled by a collection of ex-colonial masters that now calls itself the European Union. It was their natural wealth that caused them to lose their independence in the first place. So it is difficult for them to see that the plans America has for democratizing them are any other than a modern version of the “mission civilisatrice” or “white man’s burden” of former days. Most countries that are rich in natural resources are much more afraid of the USA than they are of Iran.

When Americans defend their sovereignty, it is called "patriotism", when others do; it is called "nationalism". Around the world countries that have nothing more in common than the desire to maintain their sovereignty in the face of US destabilization are banding together: Witness the unlikely alliance of Iran and Venezuela. By standing up to America on the Iranian question, Russia shows resource rich, third world countries that it is protecting their sovereignty. In doing so Russia greatly enhances its own prestige in countries that own oil, natural gas and strategic minerals, commodities whose prices are rising steadily.

Putin’s Russia thus becomes the defender of nationalist sovereignty against internationalist subversion. This is a total role reversal of the cold war, where the Soviet Union tried to change other countries’ political systems by subversion or military action and the US was seen by nationalists as a barrier against Soviet subversion. It is noteworthy that the Latin American military officers that once vigorously persecuted “Marxist Internationalism” now have no problem supporting present day leftist governments that seek to maintain national sovereignty in the face of "Capitalist Internationalism". (read globalization)

I agree with my "guru", William Pfaff when he says, “the serious danger today to America is its pseudo-Marxist ideology of aggressive world security hegemony.” Putin, judoka that he is, is exploiting America's use of its power to rebuild Russia's own power and thus her sovereignty, a sovereignty that was itself seriously threatened by the United States during the Yeltsin period. DS

Patrick J. Buchanan: Who Restarted the Cold War?
Abstract: "Putin's Hostile Course," the lead editorial in The Washington Times of Oct. 18, began thus: "Russian President Vladimir Putin's invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Moscow is just the latest sign that, more than 16 years after the collapse of Soviet communism, Moscow is gravitating toward Cold War behavior.(...) "(A)t virtually every turn, Mr. Putin and the Russian leadership appear to be doing their best in ways large and small to marginalize and embarrass the United States and undercut U.S. foreign policy interests."(...) Missing from the prosecution's case, however, was the motive. Why has Putin's Russia turned hostile? Why is Putin mending fences with China, Iran and Syria? Why is Putin sending Bear bombers to the edge of American airspace? Why has Russia turned against America? For Putin's approval rating is three times that of George Bush. Who restarted the Cold War?(...) Russia let the Berlin Wall be torn down and its satellite states be voted or thrown out of power across Eastern Europe. Russia agreed to pull the Red Army all the way back inside its border. Russia agreed to let the Soviet Union dissolve into 15 nations. The Communist Party agreed to share power and let itself be voted out. Russia embraced freedom and American-style capitalism, and invited Americans in to show them how it was done. Russia did not use its veto in the Security Council to block the U.S. war to drive Saddam Hussein, an ally, out of Kuwait. When 9-11 struck, Putin gave his blessing to U.S. troops using former republics as bases for the U.S. invasion. What was Moscow's reward for its pro-America policy? The United States began moving NATO into Eastern Europe and then into former Soviet republics. Six ex-Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, as are three ex-republics of the Soviet Union. NATO expansionists have not given up on bringing Ukraine, united to Russia for centuries, or Georgia, Stalin's birthplace, into NATO.(...) While Moscow removed its military bases from Cuba and all over the Third World, we have sought permanent military bases in Russia's backyard of Central Asia.(...) Under presidents Clinton and Bush, the United States financed a pipeline for Caspian Sea oil to transit Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Black Sea and Turkey, cutting Russia out of the action. With the end of the Cold War, the KGB was abolished and the Comintern disappeared. But the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and other Cold War agencies, funded with tens of millions in tax-exempt and tax dollars, engineered the ouster of pro-Russian regimes in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia, and sought the ouster of the regime in Minsk. At the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, historic or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our "indispensable-nation" arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles. READ IT ALL

Is our children lost their mojo?

David Seaton's News Links
A major part of US charisma has always been its cheerful air of "can do" competence. With Iraq, this has gone with the wind.

Today's American narrative would have Neal Armstrong step out of the Apollo and fall flat on his face. Henry Ford would have to recall all the Model Ts. Cole Porter would write like Bush speaks... You catch my drift. I find this directly attacks my self-image as an American... I resent it like hell.

This is not only a loss for the United States, it is a loss for the world similar to a child losing its belief in Santa Claus. For the rest of your life there is what Sartre would call "a Santa Claus shaped hole" in your life. The world won't miss American imperialism, but it will sure miss the cheerful, confident and competent, "can do", American. I miss me already. DS

Applebaum: Would You Follow the Country That Bungled Iraq? - Washington Post
Abstract: Why don't they like us as much as they used to? "They" in this latter question are our very, very closest allies. By this I don't mean France, or even Canada,(...) No, the more interesting question is why support for American leadership has declined among our traditional friends: Britain, Poland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands. And it has declined -- drastically. Since 2002, according to the latest German Marshall Fund " transatlantic trends" survey, support for "U.S. leadership in world affairs" -- that's whether they want to follow our political lead, not whether they think we're nice -- has plunged by 30 percentage points in Germany, 26 points in Italy, 24 points in Poland, 23 points in the Netherlands and 22 points in Britain. More generally, support for U.S. leadership, which was at 64 percent across Europe in 2002, is now at 36 percent (though that figure includes the touchier countries).(...) Europeans worry about global warming than Americans, but the difference (85 percent vs. 70 percent) is not as great as one might think. And we all worry about everything else -- international terrorism, a nuclear Iran, global epidemics -- in almost equal measure. This last point strikes me as most interesting: For in fact, it indicates that what our closest friends really dislike is not our traditional pushiness, our violent movies or even our current president (though they don't like him much) but our incompetence. A full third blame the perceived decline of the transatlantic alliance on the "mismanagement of Iraq." Not the invasion of Iraq, the "mismanagement" of Iraq. Which makes sense: If you're really worried about Iran, do you want to put your faith in the United States, the country that bungled Iraq? If you really care about Islamic fundamentalism, do you want to be led by the country that, distracted by Iraq, failed to predict the return of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan?(...) Countries that would once have supported American foreign policy on principle, simply out of solidarity or friendship, will now have to be cajoled, or paid, to join us. Count that -- along with the lives of soldiers and civilians, the dollars and equipment -- as another cost of the war. No one wants to be on the losing team. READ IT ALL

Walt Disney's "Adolph Eichmann"

The toothpaste smile of the all-American, "girl next door"

David Seaton's News Links
This article by William Pfaff is a "must read". This subject has gotten me rereading Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem", whose subtitle, "A Report on the Banality of Evil", perfectly describes the system that has been created and which, for want of a better name, we call "Bush". DS

The American Enthusiasm for Torture - William Pfaff
Abstract: Probably the most disturbing – to an American – of the developments in the United States since 2001 has been the manner-of-fact way in which torture has been adopted by the United States as a normal aspect of its military and intelligence operations. At the beginning there was very little protest, and indeed very little discussion, in Congress and the mainstream media at the adoption by the United States of what a few years before had been Nazi wartime SS and Gestapo methods.(...) The first serious public protest followed the Abu Ghraib prison revelations, and the main objection articulated was that they made the United States look bad. They were passed over in military reports as merely the clumsy brutalities of untrained “hillbilly” National Guardsmen, and an NCO was sent to prison. In fact he and the others had been ordered to “soften up” the victims before the real torturers arrived. The same absence of protest was largely true throughout the American military services, supposedly committed to an ethic of “honor” (remember the West Point oath, to “duty, honor, country”?), and legally bound by international treaty, national law, and military regulations to eschew torture. Still more significant was the apparent indifference (or political intimidation) of the public and politicians, again reflected in the press. At the end of May of this year, the Bush administration was reportedly reviewing its methods of torture, in order to ban or limit some methods that, when revealed, had eventually stirred public expressions of disapproval, such as simulated drowning or “waterboarding,” while at the same time enlarging or intensifying the permitted use of other methods as yet secret. This review continues to be reported in the same manner-of-fact way as discussion of farm subsidies, trade talks, or tax legislation.(...) We are also encouraged to feel concern for America’s patriotic torturers and give them our support. An article in The Washington Post early in June wrote of the “tortured lives” of the torturers themselves.(...) Only amateurs think that ever-increasing pain produces accurate and useful information, although this seems from the beginning to have been the conviction of the President and his legal advisor, now America’s attorney general. Allied interrogators during world war II, who knew the language and culture of the peoples they were dealing with, used widely-known non-coercive techniques, including those employed with consistent success by intelligence and criminal police interrogators the world over (including the FBI men who visited Iraq and sent scandalized reports back to Washington, to be ignored). The president’s terminology concerning the still-secret “enhanced interrogation techniques” that he insists are “crucial” to American success, according to the conservative writer Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic magazine was originally Nazi. It was used to describe SS and Gestapo practices that in 1948 were determined to have been war crimes subject to the death penalty. Current discussion, such as it is, still mainly concerns the legality of these practices. Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 commission and a former advisor to Condoleezza Rice, stated the vital point when he recently said that a concern to established the legal frontier “obscures the core of the issue....My own view is that the cool, carefully considered, methodical, prolonged, and repeated subjection of captives to physical torment, and the accompanying psychological terror, is immoral. I offer no opinion as to whether such conduct is a federal crime, merely that it is immoral.” READ IT ALL

The war in waiting

David Seaton's News Links
We may have been too busy watching the French elections or the US congress and the president haggling over the bill for Iraq to pay much attention to the possibility of war with Iran... The AIPAC and the neocons like professor Beres of Purdue (writing in the most moderate of newspapers) haven't lost their focus however.

People who might think that Bush, Cheney, the neocons and the Israeli right are incapable of doing anything worse, much, much worse than Iraq are intellectually challenged. DS

The case for strikes against Iran - Christian Science Monitor Abstract: Iran's latest defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency says it all: Further diplomacy has no chance of stopping Iran's nuclear program. Neither will UN sanctions have any effect. Unless there is a timely defensive first strike at pertinent elements of Iran's expanding nuclear infrastructures, it will acquire nuclear weapons. The consequences would be intolerable and unprecedented.(...) Ideally, a diplomatic settlement with Iran could be taken seriously. But in the real world, we must compare the price of prompt preemptive action against Iran with the costs of both: (1) inaction; and (2) delayed military action. To be sure, all available options are apt to be injurious. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad maintains that his country's nuclear program is intended only to produce electricity, but there is no plausible argument or evidence to support this claim. Meanwhile, Mr. Ahmadinejad's genocidal intentions toward Israel are abundantly clear. Iran must be stopped immediately from acquiring atomic arms, and this can only be accomplished through "anticipatory self-defense." Precise defensive attacks against Iran's nuclear assets would be effective – and they would be entirely legal. They would be effective because the US has at its disposal the "McInerney Plan" (after Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, USAF/ret.). It calls, in part, for an immediate strike force to hit Iran's nuclear development facilities, command and control centers, integrated air defenses, selected Air Force and Navy units, and its Shahab-3 missiles, using more than 2,500 aim points. Operationally, the United States Air Force is best configured for such a complex task, but it would not necessarily be impossible for the Israeli Air Force to execute. It would be lawful because the US and/or Israel would be acting in appropriate self-defense. Both countries could act on behalf of the international community and could do so lawfully without wider approval. The right of self-defense by forestalling an attack has a long and authoritative history in international law. In the 1625 classic "On the Law of War and Peace," Hugo Grotius expresses the enduring principle: "It be lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill…." Today, some scholars say that Article 51 of the UN Charter overrides that right. But international law is not a suicide pact. READ IT ALL

DC Madam: putting the fox to watch the chickens

Mexican Prostitutes - Henri Cartier-Bresson

David Seaton's News Links

A call girl scandal was all that was missing in Bush's Washington. Most Europeans, (except for the British), won't know what all the fuss is about, as wherever men with money and power abound, prostitution flourishes and has flourished since money and power exist. To eliminate prostitution, first you would have to eliminate money and power... and men too, probably.

As such this is not very damaging to Bush, although it may lead to a lot of embarrassing revelations of all kinds that cross and recross party lines. This is because prostitution is never "political party-specific" and as one sharp Washington observer said, "nothing is more bi-partisan than a sex scandal".

However, what does give an unmistakable Bushie odor to the thing so far, is that the first victim of the scandal is the deputy secretary of state who ran Bush's program to crack down of prostitution all over the world and also was the coordinator of America's global Aids program which discourages the use of condoms and advocates sexual abstinence.... Now that does fit in with Haliburton's Iraq and with Wolfie and Shaha and with Katrina and with a host of other, similar situations, all defined by what we have come to know as the Bush signature or trademark, which is that: The fox has been set to watch the chickens. DS

'DC Madam' vows to name clients - BBC News
Abstract: A woman accused of running a high-class prostitution ring in Washington DC has said she plans to call her prominent customers to testify at her trial. Deborah Palfrey says among them will be Randall Tobias, who resigned as deputy secretary of state on Friday, shortly after confirming he had been a client.(...) Mr Tobias resigned last week shortly after US media told him Ms Palfrey had revealed he had made calls to her business. He told ABC News that he "had some gals come over to the condo for a massage", but denied having sex with any of them. Before he stepped down, Mr Tobias ran the Bush administration's programme to crack down on prostitution worldwide. He was also criticised in his role as US Global Aids co-ordinator when he advocated partner fidelity and abstinence, instead of condoms, to help limit the spread of the HIV virus. READ IT ALL

Where we stand... or are stood on

A much bigger story is unfolding: the epic collapse of the Bush Administration.(...) When Bush came to office--installed by the Supreme Court after receiving fewer votes than Al Gore--I speculated that the new President would have to govern in a bipartisan manner to be successful. He chose the opposite path, and his hyper-partisanship has proved to be a travesty of governance and a comprehensive failure. I've tried to be respectful of the man and the office, but the three defining sins of the Bush Administration--arrogance, incompetence, cynicism--are congenital: they're part of his personality. They're not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead. Joe Klein - Time Magazine

David Seaton's News Links
I was hunting around for an image to express the situation the United States finds itself in today, and I pulled up this surrealistic still from an ancient Laurel and Hardy masterwork. I think is speaks much more clearly than the Joe Klein clipping I've tacked underneath it.

America's situation, like the one Laurel and Hardy find themselves, is impossible. There is no way out. A gag writing genius came up with theirs, but one of the biggest jerks in the history of the United States has come up with ours. Truly a nightmare! Impeachment is out of the question... President Cheney? President Rice? President Pelosi? Who's on first? Like a mule in a hail storm we just have to stand here and take it till its over.

Perhaps the most painful part is that this wound is self inflicted. Knowing full well who they had as president the American people re-elected him.

I lived through the Spanish "transition" from Franco's dictatorial, fascist regime to a democracy. Most Spanish people were voting for the first time in their lives. It was beautiful... They were very careful with their votes. Franco had taken control by way of a coup d'etat followed by a bloody civil war. Franco was supported by a powerful minority: Church, army, landowners. A Spanish version of Bush's "base". The majority of Spaniards opposed Franco and fought him tooth and nail until they were overpowered. They gave it their best shot, lost and then they were put in front of firing squads, imprisoned, tortured, humiliated and oppressed for nearly forty years... But at least they had the satisfaction of knowing that they had never actually voted for Franco. DS

Hearing the message from Tehran

In dealing with Iran, support for possible military action is in the single digits (8 percent).
Public Agenda's Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index, conducted in association with Foreign Affairs Magazine

David Seaton's News Links
Depending on what they want to see, commentators are speculating on the possible meaning of the resolution of the captive British sailor crisis. Complex theories about conflict among the "hardliners" and "moderates" in Tehran abound.

People are reading the tea leaves on this too closely, I believe. It is all really very simple. What you see is what you get.

Iran has proved several things. They have proved that they could do something militarily and politically significant anytime they wanted to, they proved they could do it for as long as they wanted to and they could stop doing it at the moment of their choosing. With this simple expedient Iran dominated the world headlines and television news day after day. Plainly put, Iran changed the subject of the conversation. The question stopped being, "what will be done to Iran?" and became, "what will Iran do?". And all this was done very cheaply, if you compare it with passing UN resolutions (and enforcing them) and maintaining a huge naval force in the area. And of course:

"There's been a $5 or $6 premium that's been built into the price of oil over this," said Phil Flynn, vice president and energy analyst at Alaron Trading. "Even though this crisis has ended, the oil market is still on guard that the tensions in the Middle East are going to continue." ABC - NEWS

Another thing Iran did was to test the reaction of Western public opinion to possible armed conflict with Iran... It was extremely tepid. As we can see from the poll quoted at the top less than 10% of the American public is behind military action. Among the allies 0.0%. The only people still hot to trot are some right wing Israelis... who knows, that might be enough to get a war started, but not to finish it.

And as we can see we can see from the "Condi and Nancy Show", American diplomacy in the Middle East, like the US Army is a broken toy. Iran is playing with the disintegration of America's position in the Middle East. "Hard" is really not the same as "complicated". DS

The essential Iraq

David Seaton's News Links

The important things to keep in mind while following the political battle over Iraq in Washington is:

• The way the United States entered Iraq stinks

• The way the United States has acted in Iraq stinks

• The way the United States leaves Iraq, for sure, will... stink too. We've been through this before... The US always deserts its allies and leaves them holding the bag and then worries about its "syndrome". And Hollywood makes a lot of films about how we actually won... And people ask, "what would Jesus do?" as if Jesus would have ever gotten himself into such a mess.
  

The United States has destroyed its "brand" in Iraq. Nobody can take Americans seriously anymore except as shoppers.

What does that mean?

Imagine if Coca Cola had mysteriously poisoned several thousand people. "Great", you say, they go out of business.

Not so fast. What about all the jobs and the families that depend on them... Mortgages, health plans, pensions, children's education, etc, etc. As we saw with the Soviet Union, (and Enron) when a great structure collapses it is no joke. What would Coca Cola have to do to regain its lost prestige?

First, it would have to discover how the hypothetical poisoning happened, who and what was responsible. If there was criminal negligence or malice aforethought... people would have to go to jail, right up to the chairman and if the chairman's policies were responsible, especially the chairman. And then they would have to pay heavy reparations to all the victims and their families. Maybe then, only just maybe, people all over the world could hear again about how "things go better" or "the real thing" or about 'pauses that refresh' with out vomiting or running for the exits.

That is more or less where things are now. The world system ("really-existing-capitalism") depends to a great extent on America's credibility... even if we aren't in agreement with the system; like it or not we are all stakeholders and if it collapses we will suffer...

That credibility will not be restored by further martyrizing of the people of Iraq... There is no credibility to be gained in Iraq now if there ever was any to begin with. Credibility can only be restored by the USA, in the USA itself. How?

By holding public hearings, Nuremberg-type "show trials" if you will, publicly investigating how this war happened, punishing the offenders, especially Bush and Cheney... (Impeachment isn't good enough). And finally formal apologies to the people of Iraq and payments to the victims (not contracts for Halliburton to "reconstruct"). Cash they can spend any way they want, visas, scholarships, green cards, you name it. People everywhere would respect that and if they didn't respect it they could kiss our ass, because it would be the right thing to do. At least we could respect ourselves and that's a good place to start.

Is this possible? Well, America is a place where impossible things happen all the time and have been happening for hundreds of years... So, why not? The capacity to pleasantly surprise itself and others may be the only national characteristic that can save the USA now. DS

Waiting for the other shoe to drop: a slow day

Daubentonia madagascariensis

David Seaton's News Links

I'm glad I don't have to meet any deadlines today. I have been patrolling the net, making my daily tour d' horizon/fishing trip, looking for interesting articles and I have come up dry as a bone.

Everything, from global warming through a stock market crash to a war with Iran is about to happen... but hasn't happened just yet. And there isn't even a new thing just about to happen that hasn't happened yet... yet... Not even a juicy "think piece". Everybody seems to have done there thinking yesterday or are planning on thinking tomorrow.

You may be wondering why I have featured a photograph of this hideous little lemur called the "Aye-Aye", which like so many of us, is in danger of extinction, in order to illustrate this post. I can only answer your curiosity with the following story:

___________________________________

A non-denominational, whitebread, shit kicking, Christian Zionist, neocon, über-Goy, from way down home, was visiting Jerusalem, hoping that the world would come to an end, and he happened to wander into the ultra-orthodox, Mea Sharim neighborhood.

In case the "end of days" didn't come first, the rustic Republican was looking at his watch, just to make sure he'd be back at his hotel in time for lunch, when he discovered that the battery of his watch had gone dead. Naturally he looked around for somewhere to get a new battery, but since all of the signs were in Yiddish written in Hebrew letters he was at a loss as to what to do. Then he saw a dusty, old shop window with many different clocks and watches of all sizes and shapes hanging in it, so he went in.

There was an old man with a long, white, beard sitting behind the counter reading a newspaper from right to left. He was decked out in full Hassidic regalia, complete with fur Shtreimel and full-length, black caftan. Our tourist cleared his throat and asked him, "Could y'all fix my watch for me, please?" Without looking up from his newspaper, the ancient Hassid replied "I don't fix watches. I'm a moile; I perform circumcisions." So the rube asked him, "Then why do y'all have all those clocks and watches hanging in your window?" The moile finally looked up from his newspaper, sighed and asked in turn, "So what you want I should hang in my window?" DS

Strolling down memory lane with Dr George Friedman

David Seaton's News Links

While doing some research on the origins of the war in Iraq for a column I'm hacking away at, I stumbled on this treasure in my files. It is the summary of a conference call that Dr. George Frieman of Strategic Forecasting (Stratfor) made with Schroder Salomon. Smith Barney, shortly before the war. The summary below gives a perfect Polaroid of the neocon mentality and the garbage they used to take America to war.
Part of the enjoyment of reading the transcript and its amazing analysis, is the humid-handed prose of Dr. Friedman. They say that the true sexual organ of our species is the mind. That being true, my late grandmother would have hastened to warn Dr. Friedman that if he continued to analyze is this fashion he would be bound to go blind. DS

Iraq, The War, and the next 5 years - Strafor

An Analysis

This is a summary of a SSSB-organised Conference Call with Dr George Friedman, Chief Intelligence Office of a Geo-Milito-Political Consultancy firm in the US, called Stratfor. The call is from earlier this week. The following analysis should not be taken to be the opinion of the summariser, nor the view of SSSB.

Executive Summary

• This is a war which is definitively going to happen
• It will most likely commence between 27th February and March 2nd
• It will be over by mid-April
• Regime change is the objective
• The US is committed to a major military presence in the area for the foreseeable future
• The purpose of the war is to position the US in the heart of the region, so as to be able to bring to bear overwhelming pressure on surrounding States, so that they ruthlessly ‘deal with’ the Al Quaeda network in their countries … or else face the US
• Ultimately, Pakistan is on the US agenda
• India, as a consequence, is going to become a major US ally
• China will acquiesce, as will Russia, in return for US recognition of their respective rights to ‘deal with’ ‘insurgency’ as they see fit
• Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia are the biggest losers …. and Iraq
• The current international landscape is about to fundamentally change … war will become a permanent feature of the next 5-10 years

Prospects for war: Converging with the 20 century mean

The backdrop of Stratfor’s analysis:

1. We are re-entering ‘normality’, and that the 1990s were a period of abnormality

2. That stock markets have gone up and down during conflicts [Korea, Vietnam] and that war is neither extraordinary in terms of the 20 th century, nor is it inherently bad for market.

3. The Iraqi invasion itself is not about Al Quaeda being in Iraq

4. Nor is it about oil

5. The US is committed to a long-term presence in the region

• It is about Iraq being the single-most strategically placed country in the Middle-East … having at its borders Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Kuwait.

The US rationale
To date, the US has always been an outsider when it has come to dealing with issues in the Middle East, and as direct consequence it has always needed alliances ….. this will change, definitively, when it becomes the dominant and overwhelming military power in the region. The whole dynamic of the Middle East will shift as a consequence.

What is the purpose of the war?

• The purpose is to redefine the geopolitics of the region, in order to be able to bring direct and unavoidable pressure upon countries who are intentionally, or by default, are allowing Al Quaeda to operate
• The driving logic is to create a new reality: that it is far worse not to co-operate with the US than it is to ignore Al Quaeda within their own countries, for fear of internal problems.

Nevertheless it is a scenario which these countries have recognised is increasingly likely to come to take place.

The opposition from Iran and Saudi Arabia has little to with Iraq, and everything to do with the wider implications of a long-term US presence in the Middle East.

Is it likely to take place?

War is a certainty [according to Stratfor]

• The US administration is absolutely committed to going to war.
• It does not want a UN ‘government’ in place

The immediate upshot of war:

• Syria will be surrounded by hostile countries [Turkey, US/Iraq, Israel]
• US naval dominance will provide overwhelming reach
• Saudi Arabia will be surrounded by Yemen, Oman, Kuwait, US/Iraq, Qatar
• Iran will be flanked by US-supporting Afghanistan on its East, and in the West by the US/Iraq, Kuwait

Fighting the war:

There are currently two opposing perceptions of the forthcoming war:

1. The US perception/assumption: The Iraqi army is incapable of fighting. As the US command views the situation, the predominant supposition is that the regular Iraqi army collapsed when the US took it on in Kuwait. The assumption in 1991 was that US casualties would be high: the US establishment feels that they over-estimated the Iraqi army. As a result, the theme now is that the Iraqi regular army cannot fight. Stratfor states that this shows a strange schizophrenia , in that the public are encouraged to believe that great sophistication is being shown by the Iraqi subterfuge and deceptions regarding the mobile chemical bio-chemical weapons which are being moved about the country at the moment, whilst little competence is accorded/transferred to the army.

2. The Iraqi perception/assumption: Saddam Hussein believes that he will win. This is based on the premise that the US does not want to suffer high casualties, as evidenced in the 1990s by Somalia, Beirut, and the1991 war. Far from being a massive defeat for Iraq, Hussein/Iraq views the Gulf War as, at best, a draw, and at worst as being defeat for the US. Why? Because the perception is that, beside being ejected form Kuwait, when the US met the Iraqi Republican Guard, the US gave up and gave in. Thus, now Iraq believes that just so long as they can inflict high casualties upon the US early on, and then have an urban battle in Baghdad, that the US will revert to type, and that a UN-based ceasefire will come into acceptance…..and that Saddam Hussein and his regime will continue to survive

So, we have two very different perceptions of the past, upon which the present is now predicated

When will War begin?

• Between February 27th and March 2nd

Why then?

• Because that, for the US, is the optimal period of the phases of the moon
• The US wishes to commence the attack in darkness. Night darkness favours the US, because Stealth bombers can only be picked up opticially, and not by radar. Also, darkness will aid special forces going in under cover.

By when will it end?

• The most likely deadline for the resolution of the war, from the perspective of the US, is mid-April. This is because should Iraq decide to use Chemical weapons against the US, the above-85 degree temperature will render the anti-chemical suits virtually inoperable, with US fighting basically ineffective.
• It cannot wait until mid-autumn because the US currently has six army divisions around Iraq ….the ‘family jewels’ have now been committed. A force with overwhelming battle-strike potential is now in place. There is no way it will be held there indefinitely. This war will, and has to be, fought to conclusion.

Is there a possible earlier start date?

• Yes: If Iraqi troops in the North and South, near the oilfields, and around Baghdad, were suddenly to be moved, then it is very possible that bombardment would begin

How will it be fought?

• First: Complete surpression of Iraqi air-defences, using cruise missiles, Stealth bombers, and heavy strikes against all Iraqi command centres

• Simultaneously, ground operations would begin early on
• From the South the US would advance into the oilfields rapidly, in order to prevent their destruction. The purpose of this is two-fold: to secure the oilfields, for future usage; and to secure the road infrastructure leading up to the region, which will be critical for the successful follow-up of troops and armour.
• Also of paramount importance: of the six bridges which cross the Euphrates river, three must be taken intact by the US, or else critical time will be lost in rebridgin

The First Military Objective:

• The primary initial objective of the US forces is to seize the afore-mentioned bridges. Special forces will enter first, followed up by heavy armour.
• Stratfor states that at this success is expected, due to the absolute excellence the US has at this sort of operation.

The Ultimate Military Objective:

• To take Baghdad and effect ‘regime change’
• Easier said than done…
• Taking a major capital is a scale of task hitherto unattempted in US military history, and indeed only attempted successfully on a few occasions worldwide [Berlin by the Soviet Union was successful, but Stalingrad and Leningrad both were too much for Germany].

If Iraq can fight effectively from the outset [contrary to the US assumption, in Stratfor’s view] then there is a serious problem.

This will be a key point in the success of the overall campaign.

There are currently four brigades of the Republican Guard in Baghdad. The US has never yet encountered them in battle.

• The key question is: Will the Replublican Guard fight?
• The importance of morale on this point, within Iraq, is crucial.
• If the Republican Guard can fight the US to a standstill/standoff, then it will have achieved its aim.
• The reality here is that no-one, not the US, and not even Saddam Hussein, knows the answer to this question for sure.

In purely military terms, there is no question that the US can take Baghdad: the question is, however, at what price?

The US cannot afford to be seen to be targeting civilians – something which was not an issue in either Berlin or Stalingrad in WW2.

Thus the US hope that there may be one of three outcomes in Baghdad:

1. That the Special Republican Guard decides not to fight
2. That there is a coup within the Iraqi military high command and immediate surrender to the US. This is not something which should be dismissed as a possibility – certainly their loyalty has in the past by no means been assured: viz. the periodic purges of the military elite during the 1990s.
3. The US manages to win the city without excessive civilian casualties

What does this a successful US outcome do for geopolitical alliances in Europe?

• That both Germany and France have made a major miscalculation.
• The assumption that a united European response was not the natural corollary to the US position was wrong.
• Too many European countries do not want a dominant Paris-Berlin coalition, according to Stratfor, for fear of ‘generational domination’. Hence the support of the Iberian Peninsula, most of Eastern Europe, Italy, and the Netherlands.

Of greater consequence is: What will happen to other states?

• Saudia Arabia will be in difficulties
• Syria will be under immense pressure in the future
• Iran will be faced with a far more immediate challenge to its internal structure
• India will benefit considerably both in terms of business and political relationships.
• Why? Because, ultimately, after Iraq, dealing with Pakistan will the next overriding objective for the US.

The Oil Effect?

• Stratfor assert that this is not about oil…
• There will be a minimal effect on oil prices from the war
• The Venezuelan effect will have had a bigger impact
• There are already US contingency plans in play. The worst case situation is already in the price.
• At worst, 1.5mm bbpd will be off the market, but not permanently.

Wider implications of the Iraqi war

• War is going to be a permanent backdrop for the next 5-10 years
• There will be a de facto ‘extension of an informal US empire’
• Markets, will have to learn to live it, and they will do so
• The Structural impact on the US economy will range between neutral to positive
• There will be ‘considerably more friction between the US and other countries

Q & A Session in Conference Call

In 2003/4, post-Iraq, what priorities does the Bush administration have vis-à-vis the wider region?

• The US view is that it cannot do anything about anti-Americanism.
• It will not attempt to win the hearts and minds of people locally
• It will attempt to ‘create a sense of fear and impotence’ within the region.
• It will ensure that nation states are more afraid of not cooperating with the US than simply ignoring terrorism within their own countries.
• This is where the Al Quaeda aspect will enter: the US will exert extremely heavy pressure on suspected countries, forcing them to deal with Al Quaeda effectively
• … should cooperation be found wanting, the US will not baulk at launching covert operations and extreme pressure onto non-cooperating countries.

Why take this strategy?

• Because the thinking is that Al Quaeda cannot afford to become a larger organisation, because - the theory asserts - the larger it becomes, the less secure it becomes.
• Structurally highly-secure growth of Al Quaeda is of greater concern to the US

Impact/Implications for other countries

North Korea

• North Korea, according to Stratfor, is little more than a side issue. It is merely playing the latest round in a decade-long game where it seeks to gain economic concessions from the US/Japan/South Korea in return for ratcheting down military rhetoric.
• There is a ‘qualitative difference’ to the Korean threat; it is not likely that the US will get involved.

Russia

• There have already been quiet talks between Washington and Moscow over Chechnya. There will be a change in US policy towards Chechnya, which will be the price of Russian co-operation.
• The Russian administration will be ‘very happy’ with the new paradigm
• They do not care excessively about Iraq: they will settle for an increased market share in Oil.

Iran

• Iran will choose to close down internal debate as it steps up its security levels
• Long-term, it knows it is in danger: the US-Iran issue will be a serious issue for the future.
• There may well be considerable internal change further down the line.

France/Germany

• France is not posturing for commercial reason, as some commentators are suggesting.
• On the contrary, they have made a serious strategic miscalculation, and are now staring at an‘abyss’ in which they have alienated the US, and have caused considerable resentment within Europe for their current stance.
• The German-French response to the US has as its overall purpose the creation of a European counterweight to US power.

Israel

• The US, whilst ‘absolutely committed to the survival of Israel’, does not want to involved itself in the resolution of what it regards as an essentially, if not exclusively, internal issue.
• The US would prefer to see a timely and equitable resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict; but the pressure it is likely to exert upon the Israeli administration will more probably focus on encouraging the Israeli administration to coming to an ‘accommodation’ with Hamas, with Arafat side-lined.

China

• China is ‘delighted’ with the new situation. Why?
• Pre-9/11 the focus of US strategy had decisively shifted towards worsening US-china relations. Now, the entire focus has shifted away from Asia.
• US needs china diplomatically
• … but China is also worried by improved and strengthened [in the medium-term] US-India relations
• China also has its own internal issues – the price of cooperation with the US will be that the US does not interfere with its internal ‘security issues’
• With poor US-China relations out of the way, there will be a new ‘lease of life’ towards improved commercial and political relations with the US.

India

• India is going to be one of the main longer term beneficiaries of the new situation
• Why? Because the US has decided that it has to deal with Pakistan’s linkages to Al Quaeda, and its non-cooperation, hitherto, in dealing with terror cells which the US allege are being given the official ‘blind eye’
• The US will be keen to develop commercial links to solidify this relationship

Will Nato survive?

• Difficult to say: whilst it is not the remit of this discussion …
• Nato no longer has its raison d’etre [the Soviet Union]
• The US does not want to involve itself with such a consensus-oriented institution
• Where consensus is so evidently lacking, the US does not want to reveal military plans and secrets to an essentially un-trusted organisation

So what will emerge?

• Whilst Nato may continue to exist in name, in effect a series of informal and formal alliances will [and indeed have] emerge in its place
• For example: at the moment the Netherlands is supplying Kuwait with Patriot Missiles. Germany is supplying the Netherlands with these. This sort of accommodation will become the norm, as will a lack of formalisation of such alliances.

What are the key initial lead indicators of the possibility of military success 7-10 days in?

• Are the six bridges over the Euphrates blown effectively by the Iraqi army?
• If they are intact, then it will be assumed that the regular Iraqi army are ineffective.
• Chemical weapons are most likely to be used in this area of the conflict.
• Within the 1st 96 hrs as there should be a good picture emerging of Iraqi morale.

What does Iraq/Hussein want? Simply to survive through to mid-April?

• Yes: Iraq wants to reach mid-April having inflicted thousands of casualties on the US, in the hope that this will erode US public opinion, forcing Bush to seek a UN ceasefire.
• Iraq wants to make a big impact on the periphery of its borders early on, in order to shore up morale and support in the centre if Iraq, ie in Baghdad.

Is there going to be a major terrorist attack in the US during the next 6 weeks?

• There will ‘certainly be attempts’.
• But … Al Qaeda attacks when least expected: we know too little of their overall reach and capabilities to say anything else definitively.

What about the dangers posed by chemical weapons?

• This is a key issue: one of the main reasons that the public is not being told of the whereabouts of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons is because what the US fears most is that Iraq learns how much is known about them, and that as a consequence they move and hide the weapons before the US can react.
• The US will already have covert troops targeting the sites they know of, and will hope to take them out early on
• It is possible they might be used against Kuwait – it is likely against Turkey, and it is possible against Israel.

The Bigger Picture post-Iraq

• Stratfor assert that the current Iraqi situation should be seen as a ‘campaign as part of a protracted wider war’ which will last for 5-10 years, and which will, by default, overwhelmingly dominate the international scene

Who will gain most?

• The high-tech sectors
• China
• Russia
• India

Murdoch appears to pull up his poodle(s) short

David Seaton's News Links

This is a very special and dangerous moment. Many very powerful people are afraid that Bush is about to execute what Professor Immanuel Wallerstein calls a "fuite en avant", in Iran, which could be translated as a desperate action, a mixture of a "hail Mary pass" and Samson in the temple. A disastrous attack that could set off a chain of unforeseeable consequences comparable to Gavrilo Pricip's fine adventure on June 28, 1914, in Sarajevo. The article I'm including from The Times of London, illustrates this consensus.

The Times, where the article quoted below appears, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, of whom Tony Blair is said to be in awe. I don't think Tony Blair would have dared to draw down British troops from Iraq without running it in front of Murdoch first. BTW, Murdoch also owns the neocon bible, "The Weekly Standard". Some observers have been wondering why the neocon commentators who led the charge into Iraq are so quiet about Iran at this very moment. Murdoch also owns Fox, which I don't receive over here (¡gracias a Díos!) so I would be grateful if my American readers would compare the tone of Fox with the Standard and The Times. Nobody I've read yet seems to draw any connection between the silence of the Standard and the criticism of the Times. But it appears that Murdoch is not really "on board" for "The End of Days". However, as the mentor of my youth, Neddy Seagoon used to say, "if only I knew how little I know, I'd know a little." DS

Fears grow over Iran - The Times

Abstract: Tony Blair has declared himself at odds with hawks in the US Administration by saying publicly for the first time that it would be wrong to take military action against Iran. The Prime Minister’s comments came hours before the UN’s nuclear watchdog raised the stakes in the West’s showdown with Tehran.(...) Senior British government sources have told The Times that they fear President Bush will seek to “settle the Iranian question through military means” next year, before the end of his second term if he concludes that diplomacy has failed. “He will not want to leave it unresolved for his successor,” said one. But there are deep fissures within the US Administration. Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who has previously called for direct talks with Tehran, is said to be totally opposed to military action.(...) One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.(...) Mr Blair, in a BBC interview yesterday, said: “I can’t think that it would be right to take military action against Iran"(...) It was notable that Mr Blair’s remarks yesterday closely resembled those of Jack Straw last year, who said that an attack on Iran was “inconceivable”, angering Washington and perhaps contributing to his removal as Foreign Secretary. The Prime Minister’s comments reflect what British officials have been saying privately for some time, but also show a growing streak of independence from Mr Bush. The White House was unhappy with the timing of Mr Blair’s announcement this week on withdrawing 1,600 British troops, concerned that it undercut Mr Bush’s efforts to shore up support for his troop surge on Capitol Hill while sending out “mixed messages” to the Iranians. READ IT ALL

The Manchurian candidate and the silicon dis-aliyah

David Seaton's News Links
It is very tempting to think that there is ideology or some doctrine involved in Bush's approach to Iran... Or even insanity.

H.D.S. Greenway in the article below thinks Bush has "renounced reality". I only agree partially. I think Bush long ago renounced a lot of people's versions of reality, but has never renounced for a minute his own.

Here is an idea that fits what facts we know and also fulfills the conditions of Ockham's Razor, (basically, keep it simple). What if the Israeli right wing though their legendary intelligence resources simply "had the goods" on Bush? I don't mean drunken driving or sniffing coke, I mean something that would affect the family's business interests or land some of them (Poppy?) in jail... some real skeleton in the closet. Something a lot worse than having a lot of absurd poor people think you were a lousy president.

As I pointed out in a previous post, the Israeli high tech economy depends on people who could get a job anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. Even if Iran had only one or two atomic bombs to Israel's one or two hundred it might make a third of Israel's scientists and engineers nervous enough to leave for San Francisco in the event of a rise in tensions in the Middle East. If Saudi Arabia and Egypt decide they need the bomb too, there could be a rush for the door... a silicon dis-aliyah and economic collapse.

In this scenario, Bush would have as little choice in the matter as Laurence Harvey did in "The Manchurian Candidate": they pull his string and watch him do his thing.

If he does trash Iran he will have guaranteed the undying support of the neocons and their publicists for all time. He lost the rest of us, irretrievably, long ago. This way he will keep his "legacy" safe and his linen won't get washed. An easy decision.

I have no idea at all if this is really the case, but following Ockham I find it easier to believe this little theory of mine than thinking that Bush is getting messages from God or of imagining him actually having any belief system at all, outside of selfishness. DS

H.D.S. Greenway: Renunciation of reality - Boston Globe

Abstract: With carrier battle groups crowding the Persian Gulf, and with the Bush administration beating the battle drum to a degree not heard since the buildup to the Iraq war, one can only conclude that either this is a demonstration of coercive diplomacy par excellence, or that the United States is going to attack Iran.(...) Optimists argue that Bush will not bomb Iran's nuclear facilities because they are so spread out that an air strike would only temporarily delay an Iranian bomb, and that we do not have the troops to contemplate a ground invasion. Still others point out that although Iran's theocracy is becoming increasingly unpopular -- especially among the young -- military strike would instantly harden public opinion against the United States and delay the day when mullah influence begins to dissipate. Realists who know the Middle East argue that an attack on Iran would have untold consequences that would damage the United States even more than the occupation of Iraq has done. I heard one of America's foremost experts on Iran, Columbia's Gary Sick, say on National Public Radio that he didn't think war was on the way because he didn't believe that the White House had completely "renounced reality." And there you have the nub of the question. Pessimists argue that the hallmark of the Bush presidency is the renunciation of reality.(...) Pessimists will also remember that when the Iranians offered the administration an olive branch, saying they would curtail their activities with Hezbollah and Hamas and cooperate in Iraq, the White House was unprepared even to discuss it. Colin Powell told Newsweek that he favored restarting talks with Iran, which had been very helpful to the US in Afghanistan, but that "there was reluctance on the part of the president to do that." Powell thought Bush wasn't prepared to talk to a regime he didn't think should be in power. The administration's position has been: We don't talk to evil, and to do so would be a betrayal of the Iran's huddled masses longing to be free. Perhaps the Bush administration still thinks regime change is the answer, that a military strike would topple the rotten Tehran regime like the proverbial house of cards. Pessimists can just hear Cheney arguing that he and Bush have only two years left to do the Lord's work before they are followed by weaklings and cowards, whether they be Republican or Democrat. READ IT ALL

Persian conundrum

At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. A grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers, Soroush said, "Mr. President, I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

"I know," President Bush answered.

"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.

The president chuckled and walked away.
Arnaud De Borchgrave - UPI

David Seaton's News Links
Bush's interchange with the grandson of one of the former Shah of Iran's ministers, quoted above, is one of the weirdest little historical, "slices of life" I have ever read. If the disaster finally is consummated, someday historians, will read much into it.

I roll it around and around in my head, but I don't know what to make of it. My first reaction is that Bush is just practicing frat-boy flippancy on Soroush, but the "I know" doesn't really ring like that. There is something mysterious about it. Tom Engelhardt thinks Bush and Cheney are suicidal, like Thelma and Louise. I respectfully disagree, I don't think they much want to die or much care who does have to die in order to save their bacon. But that "I know", just doesn't ring right.

Anyway, keep it filed away in your mind, just in case. DS

Bush: the most public failure in the history of the world

David Seaton's News Links
To fail utterly at the presidency of the United States because one is totally lacking in all the qualities or the knowledge to do the job is to fail big time. It is almost impossible for anyone to fail so miserably. To be in such a job and with no idea of how to go about it is the stuff of nightmares: in deadly danger and unable to move. Men have failed at the job because of bad luck, like LBJ or Carter. Others have done a workmanlike job, but miscalculated politically like Bush senior did. Nixon, who was perhaps the most intelligent man to sit in the White House in the 20th century, failed because of his damaged personality. But not one of the above was an incompetent, ne'r do well and all had solid achievements to point to in seeking the job. Wisdom or even common sense would warn against taking on such a challenge; many men and women, and not by any means the worst, would shrink from it. We are looking at literally the most public failure in the history of the world. We can only hope Bush is too dumb or too deluded to realize how bad it is. He has the atomic bomb... missiles... chemical weapons, biological weapons... people are laughing at him... soon they will be laughing in his face. May God have mercy on us all. DS

Somalia: in a hole and digging faster

David Seaton's News Links

If you thought Bush was going to "go quietly" you are in for another think. Perhaps Bush's only chance to avoid his own personal humiliation is to widen and deepen the crisis. He is looking at a level of failure, exposure to ridicule and universal repudiation that few human beings will ever have to face. Although he makes much of his Christianity he doesn't seem to cultivate the Christian virtues of meekness, humility, repentance and truthfulness. The failure of conspicuously Christian, Jimmy Carter's presidency is nothing beside Bush's and if I can't imagine Bush resigning himself to a lifetime of redemption through good works... is this a failure of my imagination? So be prepared for universal collapse, catastrophe and war. Bush is his own little apocalypse. DS

In Somalia, a reckless U.S. proxy war - International Herald Tribune
Abstract: Undeterred by the horrors and setbacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, the Bush administration has opened another battlefront in the Muslim world. With full U.S. backing and military training, at least 15,000 Ethiopian troops have entered Somalia in an illegal war of aggression against the Union of Islamic Courts, which controls almost the entire south of the country. As with Iraq in 2003, the United States has cast this as a war to curtail terrorism, but its real goal is to obtain a direct foothold in a highly strategic region by establishing a client regime there. The Horn of Africa is newly oil-rich, and lies just miles from Saudi Arabia, overlooking the daily passage of large numbers of oil tankers and warships through the Red Sea. General John Abizaid, the current U.S. military chief of the Iraq war, was in Ethiopia this month, and President Hu Jintao of China visited Kenya, Sudan and Ethiopia earlier this year to pursue oil and trade agreements. The U.S. instigation of war between Ethiopia and Somalia, two of world's poorest countries already struggling with massive humanitarian disasters, is reckless in the extreme. Unlike in the run-up to Iraq, independent experts, including from the European Union, were united in warning that this war could destabilize the whole region even if America succeeds in its goal of toppling the Islamic Courts. An insurgency by Somalis, millions of whom live in Kenya and Ethiopia, will surely ensue, and attract thousands of new anti-U.S. militants and terrorists. READ IT ALL